Kits versus 3E...

[El Ravager]

I don't think that kits would add anything to 3e DnD. Judging form the discussion in the last thread that lead to this topic, I think that the problem is with some people's mind set and some aspects of PrCs.

I think part of what makes 3e DnD so much better than its predecessors is that it is so customizable. You have enough ability to customize to create more concepts with the basic classes, particularly the fighter with their bonus feats and the rogue with their massive amounts of skill points. There are few concepts that I have come across that can't be created with good feat, skill, and multi-classing. I think the ability to customize eliminates the need for kits. In 2e, classes were ridged and kits were a rule tacked on to the system to allow players to customize their characters.

I think the issue of this debate points out the biggest failures of PrCs. I do not think the role of the PrC should be to fill out the role of a generic concept. No PrC should have a generic name like 'assassin or swashbuckler' because it leads to the problem rounser describes - people believing that they are not truly playing the concept unless they have the special class. I think this shows high levels of metagaming and not a lot of imagination but I see it happen, even with otherwise excellent players. When PrCs duplicate a concept that the core classes can cover, they rob the 3e system of doing one of the things it does best.

PrCs should have stuck to classes for specific organizations or for things that the are unique to the rules and that a 1st level character should not be able to do - something that would require a little bit of prestige to obtain. Prestige classes should be things that would carry some prestige with them, not just be enhanced versions of concepts that the rules can already do.

Does any of this mean that publishers will change the way they create PrCs? No. But players should recognize that the other features of the system such as the flexibility in character creation, and not get so caught up in the metagame aspects of the names of rules and classes.

Would it help if DnD added an entry to the character sheets that was labeled 'concept'? Use imagination, don't get so caught up in the rules.

 

[barsoomcore]

Well said, El Ravioli. Just what I think about PrCs myself.

 

[Arnwyn]

Wait a minute, wait a minute, I am just about to be brilliant!

CLASS TEMPLATES

Holy crap, I can't be the first person to think this one up. Class Templates. Templates you apply to qualifying classes.

Been done (not to take anything away from your post, of course). The 3e Arabian Adventures conversion did just that thing to emulate the very specific 2e kits to that setting. Did it pretty good, too.

And, I'm surprised rounser and others didn't mention it here until now - yes, 2e kits are much like 3e templates. Pretty much the same thing.

Now, not to speak for rounser, but there *is* something to be said for a "character concept" to be further validated by specific rules, that are unique. Yes, unique. Not just Dodge/Expertise/I'm a swashbuckler. Sure, you can call yourself that - but many groups (and I'm willing to submit *most*, the rather non-relevant sample that the ENWorld community is notwithstanding) will not accept that. The other party fighters, looking at their character sheets, shouting out "I am too!" or "I could be that easily", or simply laughing and saying "uh, no - you're not - I have the same feats as you". There *are* pretty much only 4 feat chains in the entire PHB... (Power Attack chain, Archery chain, Expertise chain, and Dodge chain.)

Generally, gamers want *mechanics* to back up their roleplaying concepts (whether other posters want to admit this or not). If your group is comprised of wonderful roleplayers and/or amateur ac-TORS (vague Kids in the Hall reference), that's great. However, I'm suggesting that most would like to see mechanics to back up their claims. (The whole "Path" series of books and sick proliferation of PrC's being eaten up by the d20 masses lends credence to this suggestion.)

Can these kits/templates be added to 3e? Of course they can. However, what I'm thinking is that rounser is suggesting that they be made part of the game (ie. done for players) as opposed to all the effort required of adding them in on ones own [please correct me if I'm way out to lunch, rounser]. This is not an unreasonable suggestion (though, of course, there is the whole "nothing-is-wrong-with-3e-don't-change-a-thing" brigade [I love that!] that rounser mentioned). Gotta watch out for them!

I would agree that "character templates" might be the best way to achieve this. (It's what I've done when re-engineering the 2e kits for my campaign - made it much like skill swaps, etc.)

 

[shadow]

Uggghhh....
I hated kits in 2e. The problem with kits were that they were either a weaker brother of the original class, or so different they might as well have been a seperate class. For example, many of the kits in the Thieves Handbook really emasculated the thieve. The bandit kit got an extra weapon proficiency (which had to be a bludgeoning weapon because bandits "liked weapons that caused pain"), but recieved penalties to all thieving skills. Whereas the blade kit in the Bards Handbook got all kinds of extra menuevers (I daresay slightly overpowered) and morphed the bard into a quasi-assassin, severely stretching the definition of the bard. With a plethora of new special abilities and a radically different function, I really wonder why the blade was still considered a kit, not a new core class.

 

[Olive]

i've done stuff a bit like this in 3e... i've swapped cleric feats (use heavy armour for martial weapon prof(ss)) for example. i don't see any reason you couldn't do similar.

Anyway, the swashbuckler can be a fighter or rogue, take dodge and twf, and start from there... it's not hard to do, and not ahvign a spify name is easy to live with IMO.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I'm gonna cut and paste what I posted on the other thread, since it fits here:

I've gone through a lot of kits from 2e, to see how they translate to 3e, and many of them can be handled with judicious use of skills, feats, and multiclassing. Now, before it seems like I'm simply dismissing what you're saying, rounser, (I'm not), let me say that I'd love to see "official" treatment of the concept of characters being called swashbucklers or the like from the beginning of their careers. I think that presenting starting packages of feats, skills, and equipment, and mapping out how a character could progress if it was to continue following the path the player chose (swashbuckler, etc.), would not only bridge the gap between 2e kits and 3e flexibility, but also help illustrate how prestige classes can further refine such character concepts. Some will say: "I can do that myself! I don't need an official way to do it!", but I say: "It couldn't hurt to do it."

 

[barsoomcore]

Been done (not to take anything away from your post, of course).

Does that mean I don't get money or hot chicks? Dagnabit.

Sure, you can call yourself that - but many groups ... (snip) ... Generally, gamers want *mechanics* to back up their roleplaying concepts ... (snip) ... I'm suggesting that most would like to see mechanics to back up their claims.

I hope I don't sound like I'm picking on you, in fact I'm more picking on myself because I'm sure I do this, too, but I want to say that appeals to generality are ineffective. To say that something or other is important or true or whatever because MOST people think so or want so or whatever adds very little to an argument.

I guess I feel that the fact that any number of people think A is better than B makes NO DIFFERENCE to me. I hope. Now of course it does because I want to seem as cool as the next guy (given that I work in a software company, the next guy isn't necessarily all that cool), but LOGICALLY, what matters to me is what makes sense or what doesn't. Failing that, what matters to me is what I think is cool or not.

I believe that the argument between rounser and myself (for example) was born from the fact that he thinks character concepts expressed in class names is cool and I don't.

How many other people think that or don't makes no difference. I'm not going to suddenly say, "What's that? MOST gamers want class names for their character concepts? Hm, I must be wrong. Alrightie then." It's a preference, and one preference is every bit as valid as another.

It's interesting to hear about people's differing preferences, but let's not pretend we can convince each that one is better than another. So appeals to the general attitude in cases of preference, aren't interesting to me, because actually, I'd rather just talk about YOUR preference. What do YOU prefer, and why? That's an interesting conversation.

Like I said, I'm as bad a culprit at this as anyone. It just occured to me as a good guideline for online discussion this very minute so I dumped it on your head. Please don't be offended.

What I'm thinking is that rounser is suggesting that they be made part of the game (ie. done for players) as opposed to all the effort required of adding them in on ones own [please correct me if I'm way out to lunch, rounser].

What, exactly, are the two options here and how do they differ? It sounds like what you're asking is that some undetermined game publisher should create some class templates for us all to use.

I think that's a great idea. Not sure how that goes against anything else that's been said. I guess I've been working on the assumption that SOMEBODY has to design these.

It sure won't be me, since I went to all the trouble of having the brilliant idea in the first place. Other people can do the hard work!

I would agree that "character templates" might be the best way to achieve this. (It's what I've done when re-engineering the 2e kits for my campaign - made it much like skill swaps, etc.)

I'm going to go all nitpicky on you for a second and say that these are CLASS templates, not CHARACTER templates.

Ain't I awful?

 

[Ranger REG]

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.

So you say that prestige class is poorly designed. I say character kit is poorly designed, too. Yet, in theory, prestige class is better because you sacrifice something to get it.

Not so with character kits, which is now being used in the form of templates in 3e (the mechanics, not the concept).

I never did like character kits, because it either forces everyone to take one, or everyone does not. You can't mix PCs that have kits with PCs that do not. It is unfair to the kit-less PC. I'm sure the kits were made in good intention, but honestly, the kit does not balance well between its Special Benefits and Special Hindrances.

You want to lower the requirements of prestige classes (a la d20 Modern advanced classes) so they can be taken earlier, the by all means go ahead. I don't mind getting the Cavalier at level 4 and decided to become the Knight Illustrious of Golden Lion at level 6 or 7.

 

[Desdichado]

Aren't the occupations of d20 Modern essentially the same concept as kits? Except that you have choose one -- I like the concept quite a bit, especially with the really generic classes. I see no point to it for D&D though; just modify the core classes as desired to get the effect you want. Or, do multiclassing. Dragon Mag used to publish all those "class combo" articles that told you essentially how to achieve certain character concepts using multiclassing of basic classes. I thought it was a waste of space, as I could easily figure out how to do it myself, but apparently lots of folks liked it.

Like barsoomscore, I have no use for kits as they've been described to me (I skipped over 2e entirely, though, so I may not understand them entirely correctly, I'll admit) but that's a personal preference. In fact, I prefer more generality, so my character concept can be realized even easier without having to have a specific class tell me how to do it: I'd really prefer to adapt d20 Modern to fantasy, frankly. But that's clearly an "out there" personal preference.

 

[Ranger REG]

The occupation is a bit more toned down or low-key than the character kits we know of.

In a way, it bears resemblance to the kits found in the Player's Option series, sans the Special Benefits & Hindrances.

Occupation I can handle, despite that everyone should choose one at the start. But when you look at the list of class skills they start with, occupation opens up more a little bit more options for them.

If anything it should bear their background occupation similar to the 1st edition "professions." (remember those?)