Kits vs Prestige Classes

[Gothmog]

I've got to say I prefer kits too. They give a character a focus from the start, but the character can still branch out and gain new feats or multiclass if he broadens his areas of expertise. I didn't like how 2e kits were implemented because they were so front-heavy but kits could be done such that they are not front heavy, and provide a character with a lot of customization. Mongoose had some good ideas with their Career Paths, but not fully implemented in the best way.

I LOATHE PRCs. In order to use one out of the book, as is, they require extreme metagame planning, and leave little room for character growth or customization as the campaign progresses, because "in order to qualify for X PRC, I have to take Power Attack at 1st level, Sunder at 4th, etc". Its too much planned ahead, and takes the fun out of development of a character to me- unless your fun comes from just numerically and mechanically increasing the character's power and effectiveness in a narrow role. IME, people who focus on a "build" don't see the PC as a character, but more as an amalgamation of abilities and numbers than a fictional character. Thats a perfectly valid play style, but not at my table. I used PRCs in 2 campaigns, and after wacky and horrible results in both due to lifeless dull metagamey play, I'll never use PRCs again.

 

[harmyn]

I voted Kits too, but lemme 'splain why.

There is nothing wrong with Prestige Classes in theory or certain implementation issues. I hate the munchkinny take 3 oddball classes to max it out and get into one quicker, I also strongly dislike the fact that most Prestige Classes aren't really effectively entered until almost 10th level (takes awhile when you like to start new groups out at 1st level) and if you have to start planning for a prestige class you might want from day 1/level 1 which really curtails the much vaunted flexibility of skills/feats (except maybe for fighters who can make up for bad feat choices as relates to a desired prestige class pretty quick).

Kits gave it to you all at once and they got pretty broken and screwed up, but if done properly they worked well. In 3.x terms I would view the kits as the class variants suggested in some of the Dragon issues when 3.5 first came out (Issues 310-313 I think or somewhere around there). I really liked them as they gave more individuality but were effective from day one.

My thoughts on it.

 

[Warbringer]

I voted for PRC as kits were unbalanced, in general -> bladesinger!

However, I agree with several posters that "kits" in 3e would be very interesting, and probably a better "role-play" feel.

Then again, I persianlly believe that PRC should be at most 5 levels, and a player has to complete all levels to exit, unless they are expelled. I believe that a PRC should have been like a "special" club that was entered, with consequences for leaving before completion of "training".

 

[Psion]

Prestige classes, all the way.

Initially, I liked them, because they gave you a tool to craft your character that AD&D lacked.

But as time went on, I grew less and less fond of them.

As some of you may know, I am not to fond of GURPS style disads (to incluade UA flaws). At first it seemed neat, but as time went on, the notion of balancing a benefit with a negative proved more and more problematic. Kits gave additional abilities that it tried to balance with a disadvantage. Sometimes a meaningless disadvange. (And then, it would ignore efforts to balance as it piled on the proficiencies. In essence, a character with a kit was clearly more powerful than one without.)

Kits were very inconsistent with their implementation. They were made by freelancers who didn't use consistent methodologies. (Not that the same doesn't apply to some third party product PrCs, but even those seem more consistent in their implementation. Perhaps that's due to the internet era where no PrC escapes scrutiny and criticism, but I think that the quality and consistency of PrCs has improved markedly since the first takes.)

Many of those who profess to like kits and would refute my statement about disadvantages often point to later kits like those in the Bards and Paladins book, that trade out abilities of the existing character class. I can't fault those folks too much as I consider these later kits to be a portent of what was to come with prestige classes. Trading out levels of one class for levels of another is trading benefit for benefit. That matches those later kits. Too bad that not all kits were made like that.

Finally, this relates to my dislike for a flurry of core classes: if a class or kit is going to have a special or unique feel, I really prefer the feel of "growing into it". One does not start out a master of unique weapons, or of strange arcane arts. That you can't start out as a prestige class helps convey this feel.

Edit:
One more thing: You can mix and match PrCs and your character can take a PrC that wasn't published before you started the character. (Yes, Gothmog. Most PrCs these days have backed off on the "power for difficult entry requirements" philosophy, which gives us both more balanced PrCs and makes it possible to enter a PrC you didn't specifically design your character to enter.)

 

[jdrakeh]

I voted for PrCs - they cover essentially the same ground in 3e as Class Kits did in 2e, but manage to adhere to the core rules. PrCs (3e) are designed to work with the core rules, where Class Kits (2e) were often designed to override them (i.e., a lot of Class Kits ignored core rules and/or re-wrote them to favor the character who took the Kit). Kits were a neat idea, but ultimately one of the two big things that drove me away from 2e AD&D due to their extremely poor implementation (the other big thing was the 'Options' supplement line).

 

[JoeGKushner]

I've got to say I prefer kits too. They give a character a focus from the start, but the character can still branch out and gain new feats or multiclass if he broadens his areas of expertise. I didn't like how 2e kits were implemented because they were so front-heavy but kits could be done such that they are not front heavy, and provide a character with a lot of customization. Mongoose had some good ideas with their Career Paths, but not fully implemented in the best way.

But if you modified the kits so that they didn't provide all the front heavy bonuses at first, wouldn't that be a bit of a PrC in and of itelf? This is especially true if you talk about multiclassing, where you need to know what you want your character to do ahead of time. But 2nd ed had no feats right?

I LOATHE PRCs. In order to use one out of the book, as is, they require extreme metagame planning, and leave little room for character growth or customization as the campaign progresses, because "in order to qualify for X PRC, I have to take Power Attack at 1st level, Sunder at 4th, etc". Its too much planned ahead, and takes the fun out of development of a character to me- unless your fun comes from just numerically and mechanically increasing the character's power and effectiveness in a narrow role. IME, people who focus on a "build" don't see the PC as a character, but more as an amalgamation of abilities and numbers than a fictional character. Thats a perfectly valid play style, but not at my table. I used PRCs in 2 campaigns, and after wacky and horrible results in both due to lifeless dull metagamey play, I'll never use PRCs again.

I can agree with the geist of this arguement that you have to plan ahead a lot and that it is a weakness of D&D. As it's not a point buy system though, I don't know how else you could get around reqruieements outside of test based requirements from the book Unearthed Arcana.

 

[KB9JMQ]

I like prc's better but mostly because I think they are easier than kits were.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.

1. That's specifically not true. It may require such planning if, for some reason, the player has decided that it is extremely important to take the first level of that PrC as early as possible. This is by no means a requirement of any PrC, however.

2. It's funny that this is often brought up as a critique of PrCs, given that kits (and earlier edition's character creation schemes in general) required that "the character must be locked into that path" [EDIT: from the get-go, unless you were human with high scores.]

 

[was]

Both?

 

[ThirdWizard]

I find it interesting that most of the criticisms of PrCs are tripley true for kits, yet the pro-kit people don't see that as true. I disliked kits in 2E, and only allowed them twice. Both times I regretted allowing them.