Kits vs Prestige Classes

[Gothmog]

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?

Yeah, in concept it would be somewhat like PrCs, but without the entry requirements. I guess its the entry requirements that bug me so much about PrCs, and the amount of metagame planning that utilizing PrCs require. Some of the 2e kits were well done (Druid, Thief, Bard), and were basically trading one existing class ability in order to be better at another. I'd say kits should be themed packages that substitue new abilities for existing character classes abilities at a given level. For example, if someone wanted to play an Assassin kit under 3e, start with the rogue base class. Start at 1st level by giving them +1d8 for sneak attack rather than +1d6, but remove trapfinding. At 3rd level, give assassins death attack instead of the rogue's trap sense. At 6th level, give assassins +1 poison save rather than trap sense +2, and so on. Obviously this would need to be balanced out, but makes more sense that saying EVERY Assassin casts spells, or every Assassin has exactly the same background and training. If an assassin wants to learn magic, they can multiclass into wizard, or sorcerer, or something rather than have it be so closely tied with the class.

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.

The idea I outlined above about swapping out class abilities is one way this could be implemented without going to the messiness of point buy. The method I also described would prevent the front loading of 2e kits, while still providing diversity of class abilities and progression of those abilities over the course of the character's career. In concept I think this would work out MUCH better than PrCs, and would prevent such silliness as Rogue 2/Assassin 4/Shadowdancer 3/Duelist 3 characters (and yes, I've seen PrCs that abused before, with each PrC chosen specifically for the class abilities it provides, not for any RP aspect). A character could only ever take 1 kit- any additional abilities they wanted could be taken by multiclassing into other base classes, and by feat selection.

 

[loki44]

I voted kits, and I'm a bit puzzled by the criticism that they are inconsistent, screwy and unbalanced. Who ever said all PC's should be of equal power? The Warhammer careers (similar to kits) also vary wildly but I've almost never heard a peep of criticism about them being unbalanced. If one PC is simply less talented or gifted than another, so be it. Let the differences become a tool for roleplaying rather than a squabble over whether or not one kit is more powerful than another. I thought the 2e kit books offered up a bunch of excellent roleplaying ideas.....and sometimes it can be more fun to roleplay a character with deficiencies than one with all the bells and whistles.

 

[Gothmog]

This is just plain hooey. In order to qualify at the minimum level for a prestige class, this is sometimes true. But it is not true about joining one in a natural progression of story. Then you have something to work toward, God forbid.

Yeah, you could potentially pick up PrC during the course of play without having planned for it, but how often have you seen that? And PrCs vary MUCH more in power than kits do- taking the munchkin combination of PrCs can result in characters that make any 2e kit look like an incompetent toddler. On these boards, the WotC ones, and with some of the people I've played with they have their precious "builds" where they plan character progression out from 1st to 20th level. And from experience playing with them, a lot of these folks get VERY upset if they have to deviate or are tempted to deviate from their build. Having PrCs set up they way they are doesn't mean everyone who uses them is like that, but it definitely encourages such thinking- and what fun is it to go into a movie or book knowing exactly the path the character's career will take, but just not knowing the circumstances of how it will happen? And as far as having things to work toward, how about things have have to do with the plot of the campaign, NPC interactions, and in-character motivations of the PC? You don't have to tie a bonus or ability to a PC to constitute progress, advancement, or something to work towards.

 

[arscott]

I don't have to beleive that all PCs should be of equal power in order to dislike inconsistent, screwy and unbalanced rules.

If some characters are supposed to be more powerful than others, the game rules should be built around that. It shouldn't be an artifact of bad design. And even in circumstances where some characters are vastly superior to others in terms of raw power, they should still have equal footing in terms of play time and ability to affect the outcome of an adventure.

Ars Magica is a perfect example of this. The Mages are more powerful than the companions and grogs, and are designed that way on purpose. But it's the companions and the grogs that have to deal with the mages needs, interact with the real world, and in general do everything useful while the mages are busy making lightning storms, barganing with the Faerie folk, or just off reading dusty old books.

 

[Pants]

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

I agree. I like both conceptually, though it's pretty easy to mess up a kit, PrC, or Substitution level and make it unbalanced. Doesn't mean the ideas aren't good though.

 

[Pants]

I don't have to beleive that all PCs should be of equal power in order to dislike inconsistent, screwy and unbalanced rules.

If some characters are supposed to be more powerful than others, the game rules should be built around that. It shouldn't be an artifact of bad design. And even in circumstances where some characters are vastly superior to others in terms of raw power, they should still have equal footing in terms of play time and ability to affect the outcome of an adventure.

Ars Magica is a perfect example of this. The Mages are more powerful than the companions and grogs, and are designed that way on purpose. But it's the companions and the grogs that have to deal with the mages needs, interact with the real world, and in general do everything useful while the mages are busy making lightning storms, barganing with the Faerie folk, or just off reading dusty old books.

Which is all fine and dandy, unfortunately, I'm playing a game and if my or my player's enjoyment of said game would be increased by giving logic a kick to the arse, then by golly, I'll give logic a kick to the arse.

No one wants to be consistently second-string (or last-string) in a party based game just because internal logic dictates that they should be.

 

[Shadowslayer]

Prestige classes are as prestigious as the GM wants them to be. Personally, I think 'prestige' was the wrong word to use. I like 'advanced', as in D20M.

Well, from what I've read here and there, "prestige" was the right word at the time they came up with the idea. But it sounds like the "prestige class" morphed into something quite a lot more generic than originally intended at first...once they figured out PRCs were huge selling points for books. I guess they'd think that now that the term is part of the lingo...why change it? (I have no insights into the industry...its just how it looks to me)

In thinking about it, I don't know that kits are necessary, unless you're writing an alternate game. Would you really need kits and PRCs? I liked kits, but I don't think 3e as it stands realy needs them.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yeah, you could potentially pick up PrC during the course of play without having planned for it, but how often have you seen that?

In my currently-on-hiatus Eberron campaign, I'm playing a Fighter / Rogue multiclass as a pirate.

Several months after I started playing him, Complete Adventurer came out. In CV, there's a PrC called the Thief-Acrobat, which more or less perfectly supplemented the way I'd been playing that character.

Without substantial deviations from my "character build," I could have picked it up in two levels.

Had I been planning to get into it from the start, I could have picked it up next level.

So, yes, it does happen.

And PrCs vary MUCH more in power than kits do-

I disbelieve. Will save of ... 22.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

Ok - who's the wise guy that likes kits?

Me for one. PrC have started getting annoying, as I don't play long enough to qualify usually.

 

[Shemeska]

I never played 2e, so I've never had to deal with the crunch behind kits. Though from what I heard about them in play, compared to my own experience with 3e PrCs, they both have their own little drawbacks.

I like that PrCs aren't something that you're locked into and start from level 1, but they also act as kerosene soaked logs and a free book of matches for the unwashed masses of powergamers looking to minmax. There's no longer the RP restrictions on the classes like 2e kits had, as I understand it.

Neither is perfect, but since I have quality control over who I let play in my games, PrCs work best for me since my players won't mix and match them like a hand of poker.