Kits versus 3E...

[Desdichado]

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

Right, but isn't that the point of the thread -- the concept isn't flawed, just the implementation of it? Really, though, I don't think occupations make much sense without the generic classes of d20 Modern, but at least there's a mechanic in place for it already.

 

[Impeesa]

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.

You're not. Unless you thought of it before yesterday. I was reading the original thread that spawned this discussion, said to myself "Hey, 3E still has kits.... who said templates had to be racial?"... then I realized I couldn't post from the computers at school.

Don't mind me though.

edit: *reads rest of thread* ....I guess we're not the only ones, either.

--Impeesa--

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Looks like I showed up too late for the par-tay, and nobody wants to dance with me

 

[Creeping Death]

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."

Didn't WotC do this with the Heroe Builder Guide book? It took each race and class combo and said if you want a swashbuckler do this, an archer do that... all with skills and feats from the 3 core books.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Didn't WotC do this with the Heroe Builder Guide book? It took each race and class combo and said if you want a swashbuckler do this, an archer do that... all with skills and feats from the 3 core books.

Yeah, to a limited extent. I think it would be interesting to see something along the lines of that, coupled with the approach of James Wyatt's multiclassing articles in Dragon early on after the release of 3e.

 

[Creeping Death]

Yeah, to a limited extent. I think it would be interesting to see something along the lines of that, coupled with the approach of James Wyatt's multiclassing articles in Dragon early on after the release of 3e.

I too enjoyed those articles. I would like to see more of those done. Especially with some of the newer prestige classes that have come out since then.

Another good thing would be to add what Ryan Dancy was talking about, When he talked about a modifying or customizing classes. For example (warning, this may be a bad example): instead of an illiterate Barbarian we could easily modify it so that it was literate from first level, and since we gave it a perk, we would have to give it a penalty or take away somthing. Possibly change its class skills too. It would make more sense for someone to multiclass into an "urban barbarian" instead of the standard barbarian, especially if all they want to do is be able to rage once in a while.

But you could just as easily create a battle rager prestige class, so maybe it's not the great idea I thought it would be.

 

[Desdichado]

I can think of several battle rager/berzerker prestige classes that are already in print, actually. Not that there needs to be: the barbarian class is rather needlessly saddled with cultural baggage. Get rid of the illiteracy, and you've got just any street-fighting tough that has lots of natural talent but little formal training.

 

[Creeping Death]

I can think of several battle rager/berzerker prestige classes that are already in print, actually. Not that there needs to be: the barbarian class is rather needlessly saddled with cultural baggage. Get rid of the illiteracy, and you've got just any street-fighting tough that has lots of natural talent but little formal training.

Yeah, I knew the barbarian would be a bad example, but there's got to be a way to take a class, remove some of its skills, add some other skills, change its feat selection or class abilities and still have a class class that is similar but different and balanced with an unmodified class. That is the key there, a modified class must be able to co-exist with the original class without over-shadowing it all the time. Think bard vs bard with the blade kit or elf fighter vs the elf fighter with the bladesinger kit.

I believe if you take the PHB, OA, Rokugan, the Power Class series by Mongoose, and the Master class series from- darn can't remember, I think you would have most of your bases covered.

 

[Larcen]

...If you somehow were able to get a 1st level cleric 18/00 strength in previous editions, and if your cleric was somehow able to use a two-handed sword, he'd be doing 7-16 damage (avg 11.5). Not all that different...

That's a lot of IF's. Fact is, clerics couldn't have 18/00 STR, only fighters. And they also coudn't use two-handed swords. So I fail to see why you even brought all that up. My 3E cleric didn't have to break any rules to do that much damage.

...You want to talk power escalations, look at Gygax's Unearthed Arcana, a 1E book by one of the game's principal creatores (the cavalier/paladin is a fine example of power uppance, although the book is filled with similar ones)...

Please don't compare UA to all the shenanigans that are now possible with 3E. I refer you to the various Smack-Down threads so you can understand the current state of things. UA never allowed a Cavalier, or anyone else, to do 200+ points of damage in 1 round. Ever.

And while we are talking about EGG, as long as he is available in another thread, why not ask him if he thinks 1E is as overpowered as 3E? And tell him you think a cavalier is on par, power-wise, with what can be created with the current rules.

Better yet, ask WOTC. See if they will tell you who the market for 3E is and how they hope to attract new players.

...Started back in '80 or so myself...

Ah the good old days. Those truly were magical times when we trembled at the thought of 3 orcs rushing the party.

And what was his wisdom, seeing as he had an 18 in strength? I'm assuming you weren't using point-buy.

His WIS was 16. Right, no point buy. The plan was to use he bonus points over time to keep his WIS in line with the spells he could cast.

 

[Larcen]

Yeah, I knew the barbarian would be a bad example, but there's got to be a way to take a class, remove some of its skills, add some other skills, change its feat selection or class abilities and still have a class class that is similar but different and balanced with an unmodified class. ...

I think Everquest has the right idea here. They made barbarians a sub-race of humans. Like wood elves are to elves for instance. Why should elves be the only race with variations?

Then you can easily rename the current barbarian class to Berserker or something along those lines.

Makes more sense to me to make barbarians a tough breed of humans. This would also prevent the silliness of multiclassing into the barbarian class later in a character's career.