Kits vs Prestige Classes

[Akrasia]

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.

Check out True20 -- it reduces classes down to three broad ones (warrior, expert, adept), and lets players customize them through their choice of feats (1/level).

Alternatively, the three 'generic classes' in Unearthed Arcana (warrior, expert, spellcaster) do pretty much the same thing (but not quite as well IMO).

 

[Li Shenron]

I voted kits but I may be thinking about something else that what you mean.

IMO comparing 2e kits with 3e prcls is hopeless... First because 3e is today's edition. Then AFAIK (having only briefly played 2e and not using kits) 2e kits are blamed for having caused lots of serious problems. PrCl are also one of the most love/hate things in 3e, but at least they have a stronger sense of "DM's permission" attached.

Anyway... maybe the 3e equivalent thing to kits could be variants to classes as a whole, such as those proposed in UA or the Quintessential books, or custom (milder) variants. If I can mean these, then I prefer them over prestige classes.

Now I don't have anything against PrCls (except maybe the amount of published ones). But they best thing of kits is that they don't stack. PrCl usually suck when players stack one upon the other.

 

[genshou]

Prestige classes. They give PCs something to work toward in their progression. Having problems with the stringent requirements? Just stick with a base class. PrCs that aren't utterly broken will specialize the character at the expense of general usability.

 

[jdrakeh]

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).

My sentiments exactly! These two supplement lines were what initially drove me away from AD&D and pushed me to invest heavily in other games.

 

[Greg K]

Prestige classes. They give PCs something to work toward in their progression. QUOTE]

However, if you have fleshed out cultures, not everything makes sense having to work towards in the progression. It makes sense that there will be variants on the archetypes due to culture, occupation or economic background that should be reflected at first level. In such cases 2e kits and 3.x variant classes make more sense then waiting for a PrC (which is not to suggest that there would then be no place for PrCs).

 

[Plane Sailing]

I voted kits. But I don't mean 2e kits. I mean 3e kits as they could have been.

In my perfect little world (tm), the original splat books would have had no prestige classes at all (and wouldn't have started that particular rot). Instead it would have had kits in the sense of reciepes - "dread pirates learn swim, jump and intimidate, specialise in scimitars and take every third level as rogue"; "dark avengers normally even multiclass ranger and fighter, with a particular emphasis on hiding and spotting, they lose their divine spells and gain xyz instead".

i.e. I think 3e kits *done right* would have been example recipes to illustrate how multiclassing, skill and feat choice could be used to create all kinds of fantasy archetypes, and this would be supplemented by more example class modifications to build upon the dozen or so that are already mentioned in the PHB and DMG (that fighter/rogue hybrid, the ranger/paladin hybrid etc)

That is the 'kits' that I'd have liked to see. Ah well.

Cheers

 

[Greg K]

The variant classes are my version of 3.x kits. One of my biggest disappointments with 3.x is that the designers have not done much with them other than in UA.

 

[Ranger REG]

The variant classes are my version of 3.x kits. One of my biggest disappointments with 3.x is that the designers have not done much with them other than in UA.

Actually, I was surprised they didn't offer much in Unearthed Arcana the way class variants were offered in a 3-part Dragon magazine series (#310-312).

 

[Arnwyn]

Poor poll. Where's the "both" option?

I'm fine with either, generally, as I believe kits are equivalent to templates. (Though I do note that many of the 2e kits [*cough*templates*cough*] where poorly designed and ignored the concept of 'balance'.)

 

[Shadowslayer]

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).

Just wanted to clarify: Are kits bad because they were done poorly by a different design team 2 editions ago? Or is it just that they're a bad idea in general?