D&D 3E/3.5 3e/3.5E "Kits" (Alternate Class Features)

[Arkhandus]

Hm. The 'kits' aren't very well balanced against each other or against the standard fighter, some are outright worse than a standard fighter from a playability standpoint (why bother as a Brawler, for example, when you're better off with the full armor and shield proficiencies? why bother as a Samurai when you're better off as a standard fighter or an Archer? etc.).

Some of them also make extremely great 1-level fighter dips for rangers, rogues, or similar.

Also, the class level chart is missing 19th and 20th level.

Just pointing out the obvious, I know, but sometimes it's worth pointing out.

 

[Bladesong]

I would be interested in seeing more of your ideas...but I was wondering...any chance you could just attach a document file that you could continually edit rather than extending the thread and having to scroll to read everything? Just a thought.
Have a great day!

 

[Dagredhel]

Hm. The 'kits' aren't very well balanced against each other or against the standard fighter, some are outright worse than a standard fighter from a playability standpoint (why bother as a Brawler, for example, when you're better off with the full armor and shield proficiencies? why bother as a Samurai when you're better off as a standard fighter or an Archer? etc.).

Some of them also make extremely great 1-level fighter dips for rangers, rogues, or similar.

Also, the class level chart is missing 19th and 20th level.

Just pointing out the obvious, I know, but sometimes it's worth pointing out.

Hi Arkhandus, thanks for the feedback.

I should have noted that I wrote these up back in the early 3e days. Power creep due to splatbooks was at a minimum. And my intention wasn't to "power up" the fighter (who wasn't generally recognized as being too weak at the time) but only to provide more options.

Min/maxing wasn't the standard I used to judge balance. Rather, I assumed that if someone wanted to play a particular type of fighter to suit a character concept, they wouldn't really miss options that they'd never take advantage of anyways. So, a two-fisted pugilist who'd never wear plate or haul around a shield (because it didn't suit the character concept) *wouldn't* be better off with proficiencies that would never be used. At the same time, I did want to add something for anything taken away, so that choices that were suboptimal from a mechanical standpoint but that fit some pretty obvious archetypes wouldn't be entirely unplayable. I thought that I'd done pretty well in that regard.

If you could point out some specific examples of where I went astray balancing the additions and subtractions from the base fighter, I'd greatly appreciate the constructive criticism.

Thanks again!

P.S. You'll also notice that I intentionally limited the swaps to feats and skills. For the sake of simplicity, I chose not to add new abilities instead.

If I were to rework them now, I think I would add some alternate class features instead, using the plentiful examples now available. Something nice but relativly minor at 1st level, followed by a solid alternate class feature at 2nd, and maybe some additional choices again at 4th and 6th would do nicely, I'd think.

P.S.S. Added the missing levels from the class table. (The table I copied went to a second page, and I didn't notice. )

 

[Dagredhel]

I would be interested in seeing more of your ideas...but I was wondering...any chance you could just attach a document file that you could continually edit rather than extending the thread and having to scroll to read everything? Just a thought.
Have a great day!

Hi Bladesong. Thanks for the interest! I was suprised by your suggestion. Usually, I see people post documents, and then replies requesting that the text be posted instead, rather than vice versa. I do have each "kit" (or whatever they should be called ) in a seperate Word doc. I can attach them all, or consolidate them into one doc, if you'd like. If it'd be worth it to you, let me know.

I'd be personally interesting to me to revisit and rework them in light of comments, suggestions, and feedback, if there is any interest.

(To be honest, I'm proud of the "fluff" descriptions as much as anything, since writing doesn't come easily to me. So I'd love to attach some better "crunch" to make them more interesting to everybody else.)

 

[Li Shenron]

Hm. The 'kits' aren't very well balanced against each other or against the standard fighter, some are outright worse than a standard fighter from a playability standpoint (why bother as a Brawler, for example, when you're better off with the full armor and shield proficiencies? why bother as a Samurai when you're better off as a standard fighter or an Archer? etc.).

Some of them also make extremely great 1-level fighter dips for rangers, rogues, or similar.

Uhm, I thought they are very well balanced.

Basically you give up some proficiency in exchange for a couple of specific feats for free (beyond your normal amount of feats).

I think that, and changing the skill list, is a safe and balanced way to create class variants. The only important thing is to make sure that these are KITS/VARIANTS and not separate classes, which means that it's not possible to multiclass into more kits (like wizard specializations).

The dipping problem should always be considered in the proper perspective: if the gaming group uses the core multiclassing rules, then the benefits of dipping are limited, and humans and half-elves have a certain advantage. I find that most gaming groups that have problems with dipping are those who ignore multiclassing penalties.

 

[Nellisir]

Reminds me of True20 and its Heroic Paths.