Kits versus 3E...

[rounser]

You mean some prestige classes are poorly designed?

No.

I mean there should be more that can kick in at first level, but that defeats the purpose of the prestige class paradigm, so I say come up with something better.

My fellows? Who, exactly, are my fellows? What, do you think everyone who disagrees with you is allied in some secret conspiracy to discredit you? Look out guys, he's found us out!

Please. If you disagree with me, disagree with ME, not some non-existent fellowship.

Save the nitpicking rhetoric for the argument. Consider yourself disagreed with, and some other people too, such as Victim - thus the "fellows".

So again, your problem is that you don't get to have the words "Bounty Hunter" to write in the "Class" box on your character sheet. Otherwise, you can accomplish the same thing using the mechanics.

No and no.

You do have a point, but you're over-extending it. The existence of non-feat special abilities and prestige classes themselves suggest that no, there are some things you can't do with feats, or are impractical to do with feats and are better done by some other mechanism. There's also the "class identity" thing which is one of D&D's subtle selling points which you continue to trivialise as if it utterly doesn't matter, which I think is overstating your position unnecessarily for sake of refuting my position. I say that it would be nice that if a prestige class/kit did match your character, you could take it, when you wanted to and not when the metagame wanted to. The metagame should be structured such that such add-ons can be balanced at any level. Should, ideally. Notice the "would be nice" and "an annoyance" thing before replying.

And of course, you can always create a "Bounty Hunter" class, can't you? Or find one somewhere and use it. Now, I never played 2E so I don't really know what a "kit" is but I assume that it's basically an alternative class. Maybe if you can tell me what the unique features of a "kit" are we can get to what 3E actually fails to provide.

This is probably why you're continuing to fail to see where I'm coming from. A 2E kit was a sort of overlay for a character class. It had a name, a selection of flavoured special abilities and some disadvantages to compensate. You could only select one at first level. For example, you could take the Fighter class, and the Cavalier kit. You'd basically be a fighter, but the kit would provide some flavour and abilities in the Cavalier vein.

Kits were badly implemented by different authors, and got a bad reputation for game balance abuses. Some folks confused bad implementation with complete bankruptcy of concept, and as I've observed, kits were made something of a scapegoat for everything people disliked about 2E.

I'd like to see prestige class/kit type stuff changed such that they can be taken when the campaign and/or the character are ready, not at some arbitrary stage when prerequisites are met - even if this means from first level. Forget the game balance issues, there's multiple ways to iron out the details on them, but prestige classes cannot be taken from first level, whereas kits could. That's something 2E does better than 3E, with an equivalent mechanic. I could customise a character a bit with proficiencies under 2E as well, but I don't agree that the customisations available under 3E make the need for prestige class/kit analogues irrelevant, as you seem to be trying to argue.

My best proof of this? Their mere existence.

 

[rounser]

Flame me if you like, but I was disappointed when it turned out that the Paladin was going to be a core class in 3e. Personaly, I thought it should have been a PrC.

You're not alone, but apparently the playtesters tried that out and reported that it "didn't feel D&D enough" that way. I think that observation is directly relevant to the line of argument I'm taking, by the way. Prestige classes weren't good enough for the paladin, because people wanted to be one from level one, perhaps? A "virtual paladin" made by selecting appropriate feats and skills and going LG Fighter/Cleric didn't cut the mustard flavour-wise?

 

[jasamcarl]

Yes, feats and class abilities are keyed to levels in 3e. It is one of the sacrafices the new edition made in diversity in order to maintain balance. It is probably easier to balance prcs over ten levels and with built-in requirements than a new core class over 20. Small variants are possible, but they are small. 3e instead emphasizes diversity over the long term while maintaining balance. Simple? That might be rambling.

 

[barsoomcore]

I mean there should be more that can kick in at first level, but that defeats the purpose of the prestige class paradigm, so I say come up with something better.

Aren't we just talking about prestige classes that have requirements that can be fulfilled by 1st-level characters? And aren't those just new classes?

Save the nitpicking rhetoric for the argument.

Save the melodrama for the opera.

You do have a point, but you're over-extending it. The existence of non-feat special abilities and prestige classes themselves suggest that no, there are some things you can't do with feats, or are impractical to do with feats and are better done by some other mechanism.

I didn't know I'd disagreed with this point. I've been saying all along that if what you want to do is make up new classes you should do so. Why not?

There's also the "class identity" thing which is one of D&D's subtle selling points which you continue to trivialise as if it utterly doesn't matter, which I think is overstating your position unnecessarily for sake of refuting my position.

Or perhaps it utterly doesn't matter to me. Which in fact it doesn't. Why do you assume I'm lying about that? Interesting. Pretty much my whole point has been that you are choosing to make "class identity" matter to you. And you're perfectly within your rights to do so. I don't see anything wrong with that.

But you're complaining because the game doesn't support your self-created requirement. And the weird thing is, it DOES. I mean, maybe I'm missing something about the whole "kit" thing but they just sound like new classes to me. Maybe it made more sense in 2E where you had a limited set of tables that had to be referred to (you had to be one of a limited set of classes in order to even exist on the saving throw table, if it was anything like AD&D).

Notice the "would be nice" and "an annoyance" thing before replying.

Gosh, thanks, I might have missed those.

For example, you could take the Fighter class, and the Cavalier kit. You'd basically be a fighter, but the kit would provide some flavour and abilities in the Cavalier vein.

You'd "basically" be a Fighter? What exactly made you a Fighter? What made you not a Fighter?

I mean, if we create a Cavalier class that has the same attack bonus and save progressions as a Fighter, the same hit dice, maybe an expanded skill set and a different set of feats, some different abilities at various levels, how is that different from one of these "kits"?

Some folks confused bad implementation with complete bankruptcy of concept

Yeah, that happens a lot. As someone who tends to care more about principle than implementation, it always bugs me when I see that.

I'd like to see prestige class/kit type stuff changed such that they can be taken when the campaign and/or the character are ready, not at some arbitrary stage when prerequisites are met - even if this means from first level.

I don't think anything new need be introduced to accomplish this -- why couldn't a prestige class have requirements that a character could fulfill at 1st level?

I don't agree that the customisations available under 3E make the need for prestige class/kit analogues irrelevant, as you seem to be trying to argue.

How do you get that conclusion? Honestly. I've never said that "the need for prestige class/kit analogues is irrelevant." I'm not even sure what that means. All I have said, and I'll repeat it again since I clearly haven't made myself very clear so far, is that the notion that a character can only be defined by what's written in their "Class" box is a requirement that you yourself have decided is important. You could very easily decide otherwise. I have. Ergo, your argument that this is a problem with 3E doesn't carry much weight with me because for me, defining my character by the "official" class they carry is utterly unimportant. My campaign has rogues who are better swordsmen than the fighters, Experts who cast spells, monks who are spies and assassins and psychic warriors who are holy avengers against demons. None of these people have prestige classes or even non-standard classes.

I'm still curious as to how a kit differs from a class. I'm sorry but I don't get that yet. It seems to me that a kit is just a class that's very similar to another class.

 

[Spatula]

barsoomcore, a kit is something that is added on top of a class. Ideally it gives you some little bonuses here, and some little penalties there. You'd have fighter kits like barbarian (not a class in 2E), swashbuckler, cavalier, samurai; thief kits like assassain (also not a class), fence, cutpurse; wizard kits like battle mage, witch, and so on. The 2E classbooks were full of them, the same way the 3E classbooks are full of prestige classes.

For a lot of kits, the penalties were meaningless, which meant that it was basically a free power-up. In 3E terms a kit would probably look like the urban ranger - take a class and give it different class skills, maybe some alterations to some class abilities, etc. The DMG talks about making such alterations to the base classes to suit different types of characters, it just doesn't call them kits. And, no "official" examples are provided, aside from the urban ranger in MOTW.

 

[Spatula]

7) No +34/+34/+29/+24 per round for a total damage potential of 200 points of damage...or more. My current 3E PC was consistently doing close to 20 points of damage per hit. At first level. With zero XPs. Without magic. As a cleric. Of a non-battle god.

That's a neat trick. I'd like to hear how you managed that.

9) No errata upon errata for the playtested (?) core books.

This isn't a benefit. Just because errata wasn't made publicly available doesn't mean that the books were mistake free - there are always mistakes. WOTC is providing a service by releasing the errata; typically companies keep it to themselves and just correct the text in subsequent printings. Although the original Dark Sun boxed set came with errata for the Complete Psionics Handbook as I recall (guess you didn't get the errata unless you played Dark Sun, although I had a 2nd printing of the CPsiHB and so didn't need it), and back in the 1E days the Unearthed Arcana had so many mistakes that they published corrected blocks of text in Dragon; you cut the new text out of the magazine and taped/glued it over the incorrect text in the book.

 

[Voneth]

back in the 1E days the Unearthed Arcana had so many mistakes that they published corrected blocks of text in Dragon; you cut the new text out of the magazine and taped/glued it over the incorrect text in the book.

:O

Thank God for the Internet!

 

[Voneth]

8) Levels actually had to be earned....over time. A LONG period of time. Yes, that is a plus IMHO. I am still trying to understand how my current 8th level PC is still a 19 year old, not having aged a single year since he career started a mere few months ago. Back in the day, he would be middle-aged by now and looking like the the proper "lord", or "high priest", or what have you, should look. No acne.

12) Racial level limits. You heard me right. There is a whole world out there that has a history before the PCs arrived on it. Explain to me why a race that lives hundreds or even thousands of years doesn't have members walking around that are 90th level or more? At least the 1E/2E exponential XP charts and level limits helped to explain this somewhat.

So let me just close by saying it weren't for 2E's mistakes, we wouldn't have 3E.

The whole level thing is relative, I played in a AD&D game where the whole party was 14th or 16th level within on or two years of real time and about the same amount of game time.

My phanton PC cleric (remember those flying monkies?) was being worshipped as a demigod and we had defeated a "crystal" demi-lich that had been a world-wide tyrant for centuries -- despite all the elves tried to do to stop them.

The same game had a GM who was nuts about elves, the whole world owed it's existance to elves and all the races were elven offshoots of one type or another. Elves had no racial limits and had oodles of multiclass levels. Heck even as a cleric of the Monkey God, even I did as the Elven Gods commanded.

Now here is the difference between 2e and 3e, not saying that it is a postive or negative thing.

This GM had tons of house rules to pull off his vision in 2e. Heck, I think he actualy liked making up all those new rules for his Tolkein/Elfquest world.

Now for those who didn't like making up all those house rules to wrestle their own vision out of AD&D's and G.G.'s concept of a Tolkein/Jack Vance world, 3e helps alot.

Besides, I don't mind saying "yes" AND "no" to my players. I liked what one DM on this board did. He saw that the "class" books for 3e were going to take a year to publish. He immeaditely said, "No PrCs for a year" everyone multiclassed their concepts and no one really complained, he said.

 

[Uller]

I don't understand why it is a bad thing to have to qualify for a prestige class...Take the swashbuckler example. You know all the Three Musketeers stories where there is a fourth guy hanging out with them who is young and wants to be a musketeer? That guy hasn't qualified for the swashbuckler prestige class.

I also think that it is not necessary for the rules to support every possible character concept at 1st level. Not all character concepts are appropriate for 1st level characters. Swashbuckler is the perfect example. You've got to learn how to properly where a hat with a big feather in it, trim your mustache and beard just right, do your hair and speak with a french accent first. That's gotta take at least 5 experience levels...

 

[WizarDru]

So, what exactly was the grand benefit of kits, then, that 3E is unable to replicate? I'm afraid I'm simply not grasping it. If I'm understanding the idea correctly, a kit is essentially a template I overlay my character; I can only select one, and only at first level, and once so selected, I'm stuck with that non-evoloving concept.

So under 2e, to be an archer, I take Fighter, and then get the archer kit (and realize that I've never played 2e, and I'm making this up as I go...I have no idea if there actually is an archer kit). Said kit gives me, say, +2 with using any kind of bow, +2 to my charisma based checks when dealing with squirrels and fletchers, and -2 when wielding a melee weapon or wearing heavy armor. If I were a cleric, I could take the 'priest of Tharizdun' kit, giving me a madness 'random action' disadvantage, and 2 extra spell slots usable only for crazy 'Tharizdun' spells.

[scratches head]


And why can't this be done in 3E, again? I can see at least three different ways to do it, all within the existing framework of the game.

• You can create a new core class (such as Oriental Adventures, for example) mixing and matching abilities. I mean, let's be honest: the Ranger and the Paladin are exactly this way: essentially fighters with 3E's version of a 'kit' already applied.
• Add lots of new feats with specific requirements or only on certain feat lists, such as bonus metamagic, fighter or general feats with prerequisites like 'turning'.
• Create a prestige class that you can qualify for by second level, and force the player to follow it all the way through the progression

To me, the advantage of 3E is its flexibility. A character can develop as he or she wishes, and the system can support it. Kits seem terribly inflexible, based on what I've heard, and very imprecise. I'm not giving a wholesale dismissal to the concept...I'm just not seeing why a similar effect is no duplicatable under 3E.