Kits versus 3E...

[rounser]

Can you give me a kit which didn't do one or more of the following:
1) Utterly changed the class such that it probably should have been an entire new class (the blade)

2) Give a nonsensical bonus/penalty based on the target of the ability happening to know the exact kit the character had (ie the various amazon kits, peasant hero etc)

3) Was nothing more than a suggestion as to which proficiencies to take. (some 80% of the kits)

4) Gave something for no penalty (usually bonus proficiencies - again, some 80% of the kits)

5) Isn't duplicable by playing 3rd ed and picking appropriate skills and feats.

No, I can't. But then again, I haven't played 2nd ed in years, and I always took the broken kits to keep up with the Joneses to an extent, so I can't remember the balanced ones.

Again, just because you think they were badly implemented proves bugger-all. Implement them well already! And I've already argued about the duplication by skills and feats thing earlier in this thread - the short version is that prestige classes wouldn't exist if everything they do could be duplicated by feats and skills.

You've got a limited number of skill points and feat slots - 3E is not a pure skill based system, it's a hybrid between a class-based one and a skill-based one, and you're pretending that it's as flexible as a purely skill-based one. Any player who finds themselves with not enough skill points to implement a character concept knows that the system is somewhat flexible, but not that flexible, otherwise classes and class abilities would become obsolete or redundant. What 3E is in this department is a compromise between two different roleplaying game design models, and compromises require workarounds for the weak points, the workaround in this case being prestige class/kit type things.