D&D 5E Pros and Cons of Kits, Prestige classes and Paragon paths. How 5e should handle it?

[GreyICE]

I love kits. They answer so many questions about a class.

"How do you make a fighter into an archer?"

Archer kit

"How do you make a fighter into a tank?"

Tank kit

"How do you make a druid into a summoner?"

Summoner kit

"How do you make a bard into an inspiring swordsman?"

Skald kit


Do kits narrow the focus of classes? Sure. But the point of classes is to narrow a focus. And really, D&D distinguishes itself as a classed game, might as well embrace it.

I'd like to see a lot of kits.

 

[BobTheNob]

Im a fan of kits. I like the idea of a mechanical clarification that accompanies you from the start (i.e. not having to work cryptic pre-req or hit level 11).

Thing is, I also like themes for giving the character color and RP significance.

For instance
Class : Fighter
Kit : Bezerker (i.e. a refinement of class)
Theme : Mercenary

Some Kits could conceivably be tied to a theme. For instance "Knight of the Order of the Half Eaten Cabbage" brings a whole slew of mechanical advantages as well as dictating your belief structure, and therefore being closely tied to you theme. Would have a problem of saying certain kits could only mingle with certain themes.

So, For My Vote : Kits and Themes

 

[billd91]

I liked kits for the most part. I thought there was some really uneven design, though. The cavalier kit in the Fighter's Handbook was pretty chock full of benefits compared to, say, the amazon. There needed to be more balance of scope.

I also liked prestige classes, but I feel that too many players misused them simply as an attempt to get more power rather than really wed disparate character classes into a unified concept or allow advanced but focused options.

 

[Mengu]

Paragon Paths were also pretty robust and fairly well balanced, something Prestige Classes were nowhere even close to.

I don't really think either one of those are all that balanced. Picking a paragon path is hard work. Paragon Path grades vary between mildly useful and wildly powerful, and that's after pulling out all the weeds that flat out don't work for you and stuff everyone wrinkles their nose at. What's worse, paragon paths also have prerequisites, making it so some classes (or even builds within a class) simply have better choices than others. If you're a Valor Bard, when you hit level 11, you get a PP that makes other bard builds jealous.

I don't particularly expect any system to be perfect, different options will have different value in different situations. But I think duds and no brainers can be avoided. PP concepts can still work, though level 11 seems rather arbitrary, and I'd prefer a system where the DM can arrange for a more organic "power up" cycle within the story, instead of trying to aim for that level 11.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I prefer the idea of simply having more classes rather than a system of kits, prestige classes, or paragon paths. See the What 5E needs is a hundred classes thread for what I'd like to see. If you want to use a kit or prestige class to turn a class into what you want to play, wouldn't it just be easier to have an actual class that embodies the idea of that kit or prestige class?

I don't think themes should have anything to do with class stuff, either. Themes are a great chance to expand the breadth of D&D characters beyond just race and class. Using themes to fix the limitations of race or class just squanders that potential. It is better to make classes work with class systems, rather than themes.

I'll also disagree with some posters above who say that themes (and races) should have no (or only minor) mechanics. Both themes and races should be have mechanics. A character's mechanics should reflect the full identity of the character, not just their class, and the game can be much more interesting if a human wizard and a genasi wizard are very different characters mechanically. If themes and races don't have important mechanics, then there is no point in even putting rules for them and having them take up a page count in a book. Reskinning one thing as something else or giving a character some personalty don't need rules.

 

[hafrogman]

I think the themes from Dark Sun 4e (and possibly elsewhere?) were possibly my favorite handling of this mechanic. They were there from level 1, representing something that is true about the character, rather than a goal, or the idea that the character isn't "complete" until they get to level 6 or 7 or 11 or whatever.

I also liked how they weren't tied to any single class. Some may fit better than others, but I like the idea that a band of pirates would all have the same theme, even if the captain is a fighter and the mate is a mage and the crewmen are rogues and rangers and whatever else.

But as for the more mechanical aspects offered by kits, I'd rather have base classes that were more open to being played in a bunch of different ways.

"How do you make a fighter into an archer?"

Give him high dex, a bow and the right feats.

"How do you make a fighter into a tank?"

Give him a high con, a shield and the right feats.

etc. etc. etc.

 

[GreyICE]

I think the themes from Dark Sun 4e (and possibly elsewhere?) were possibly my favorite handling of this mechanic. They were there from level 1, representing something that is true about the character, rather than a goal, or the idea that the character isn't "complete" until they get to level 6 or 7 or 11 or whatever.

I also liked how they weren't tied to any single class. Some may fit better than others, but I like the idea that a band of pirates would all have the same theme, even if the captain is a fighter and the mate is a mage and the crewmen are rogues and rangers and whatever else.

But as for the more mechanical aspects offered by kits, I'd rather have base classes that were more open to being played in a bunch of different ways.

Give him high dex, a bow and the right feats.Give him a high con, a shield and the right feats.

etc. etc. etc.

The problem with that approach is twofold. The first is that your class doesn't feel unique at level 1. You're not an archer, you're a guy with a bow. MAYBE you have one bow related feat. Woo.

The second is that if you do this EVERY SINGLE fighter-archer will look identical. EVERY SINGLE fighter-tank will look identical. There will be no variations, because the feat chains will become virtually mandatory.

Use kits. You get the feeling of what you're aiming for right from level 1, and all the fun feats everyone else gets.

 

[GreyICE]

I prefer the idea of simply having more classes rather than a system of kits, prestige classes, or paragon paths. See the What 5E needs is a hundred classes thread for what I'd like to see. If you want to use a kit or prestige class to turn a class into what you want to play, wouldn't it just be easier to have an actual class that embodies the idea of that kit or prestige class?

Not really. A new class means you have to redo everything. A swashbuckler needs a whole new set of abilities, powers, etc. If the swashbuckler is a rogue kit, then all he needs is a few specific abilities that let him act as a swashbuckler (better weapon damage, etc.) and limitations (no taking sneak attack damage dice) and you're done.

It also makes it easier to add things. Want to add a feat that's cool and interesting for rogues? Now you don't have to worry if you'll release an Assassin class later. A Swashbuckler class later. A Spy class later. They're all rogue kits, add the prerequisite "Rogue" and you're good.

 

[Stormonu]

I like kits better than prestige classes, especially if you allow folks or the DM can attach a kit at a level past first. As others have said, some were good, some were overpowered and most were "blah". If they could be fixed so they are flavorful, with some supportive mechanics, but not be unbalancing, that'd definitely be what I want.

Prestige classes, Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies fed the CharOps boards, and I for one, would like to see those boards burned to the ground. Get character advancement back to being organic, instead of being "builds".

 

[BobTheNob]

Prestige classes, Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies fed the CharOps boards, and I for one, would like to see those boards burned to the ground. Get character advancement back to being organic, instead of being "builds".

Here Here (couldnt XP ya soz).

Its an unfortunate consequence. 4e was the most superbly balanced RPG there ever was, yet still the char opp boards were cramped (Is that self contradictory?). However much you fine tooth comb a system for balance, the more choice you get for mechanical definition, the more certain builds end up floating to the top.

I wont pretend I know for a second I know how to avoid that trap. I dont. I dont think anyone knows, otherwise it would be fixed already and not an issue. What I do know its the nature of RPG's, be they Computer or tabletop, that the more choice exists, the more broken builds come along with them.

Im so much more comfortable that choice in character design comes from thematic definition, not mechanical.