Kits vs Prestige Classes

[Bront]

Interesting. But didn't 2nd ed have skills called (I love this description), "Non-Weapon Proficiencies"?

Admidedly, you didn't get a lot of them but you could customize your character though those as well.

Non-weapon Proficiencies were barely functional. A somewhat normal character could be so bad with an NWP that he would fail 50% of the time or more since they were often based on a stat, and they had little use inside the game apart from flavor, or a few that functioned in combat (Blind fighting). And of course, the cost of getting an entirely new one was the same as the cost for raising your score in one by 1...

Skills have more more variety, and more flexability. My only complaint about PrCs is that many are fairly specific and require planing from 1st level to enter, and therefore sort of diverge from the more open flow of a character. Of course, idealy, the feats and skills needed should fit the concept anyway, but still...

 

[trancejeremy]

Kits basically exist in 3e, only they are more unofficial than anything else. But they are simply variant core classes, like the Urban Stalker (or whatever it's called, the urban version of the Ranger) or the Witch (the sorcerer with a different spell list) in the DMG.

IMHO, what was much worse in 2e was Speciality Priests. I know some gave the character basically the abilities of a rogue or wizard of half their priest level, but with no real downsides. Pretty good deal

 

[trancejeremy]

Well, from what I've read here and there, "prestige" was the right word at the time they came up with the idea.

The idea of prestige classes has existed in computer and console games for quite a while. Wizardry had them darn near 30 years ago (25 at least).

And heck, even D&D had them. In the Companion rules. A Fighter could become a Paladin, Avenger, or Knight, depending if a character's alignment was Lawful, Chaotic, or Neutral. And a Cleric could become a druid. I don't remember if a Magic User could do anything.

I think they just picked "prestige" because it hadn't been used by anyone else for a similar concept.

 

[Psion]

The idea of prestige classes has existed in computer and console games for quite a while. Wizardry had them darn near 30 years ago (25 at least).

And heck, even D&D had them. In the Companion rules. A Fighter could become a Paladin, Avenger, or Knight, depending if a character's alignment was Lawful, Chaotic, or Neutral. And a Cleric could become a druid. I don't remember if a Magic User could do anything.

1e had them. See the bard in the 1e PHB and the Thief-acrobat in the 1e Unearthed Arcana.

 

[diaglo]

None of the above.

I don't like prestige classes. I didn't like kits. I also would prefer that we get rid of 7 of the 11 base classes, and go with warrior, rogue, priest and mage. Want a druid? It's a priest with a nature deity. Want a paladin? Play a warrior-priest. Etc.

you need to play OD&D (1974)

 

[diaglo]

1e had them. See the bard in the 1e PHB and the Thief-acrobat in the 1e Unearthed Arcana.

yep. PrCs have been around since Supplement I Greyhawk.

the monk, paladin, ranger... anything that had a stat prereq was a PrC.

bard was the most obvious one.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I voted for kits, but I think that kits and prestige classes both have their flaws.

PrCs often require a player to start planning for a PrC from day one. So, from conception, the character must be locked into that path, thus taking away the customization options that are inherent in the skill/ feat system. Many PrCs also encourage the creation of ranger/sorcerer/monk/+PrC characters, abominations I just can't stand.

On the other hand, kits could be pretty unbalanced, and mostly just provided a bunch of front-loaded abilities. But in my experience, they provided more character depth than PrCs do. Yes, it was a little unfair on people just playing Joe Fighter. But it also rewarded those players that put a little more thought into their characters.

As opposed to 2e, where you could not change your class at all unless you were human?

The Auld Grump - Kits are more like Feats than PrCs, and more like the Mongoose Character Concepts in their Quintessential series than either.

 

[was]

Kits are more like Feats than PrCs

Yeah, I'm on board with that. My players were asking for something like kits to help flesh out their character backgrounds. I created what I call 'Heritage Feats'. They basically describe what the characters did in their youth (i.e. +2 skill ranks in craft for those who apprenticed in a trade...etc..). The feats are pretty low-powered, but the players seem to like them. I allow them to take one, and only one, during character creation. I created about 22, but then ran into a creative block. If anyone has any suggestions on more, I'm open to ideas.

 

[Ranger REG]

I prefer kits, but I think kits, substitution levels, and prestige classes are all equally useful and have thier place.

IMHO, substitution level -- as presented -- is a bit too class-dependent or -specific. For example, for those racial substitution levels like elf, you have one created for ranger, paladin, wizard, etc. Personally, they should have only one set to plug into any classes.

I'm just using racial substitution levels as examples, as I don't know if that is truly necessary. I prefer archetype-oriented substitution levels (an Archer archetype substitution levels I can plug into a fighter, ranger, paladin, etc., for example).

 

[Imret]

Kits were so badly executed IMO they leave a bad taste in my mouth to this day, and it's a bad taste matched only by that of Skills & Powers/Spells & Magic (1st level cleric in any armor with a bastard sword and permanent monstrous regeneration...mmmm, broken).

Prestige classes need DM control over access to them, but a little meta-gaming is to be expected. Ultimately it's not drama class, it's a game with rules and it's good to know those rules well enough to make them whimper a little. I've never had it reach a problem level, but that was likely my players. YMMV, naturally.