Remember Kits?

[Desdichado]

I'm not pining after the concept of Kits from the player perspective, but from the DM/world designer perspective.

Chosing Kits precisely to fullfil the flavor the DM desires for the setting, and at that, keeping a finite limit on Kit choices was a very nice thing to be able to do for a DM who wants to focus the game play into a genre.

There was a great deal of "setting flavor" built in to Kits which, sometimes, is highly difficult to duplicate with 3.0/3.5 rules. Where I admire the implementation of Kits are worlds where characters were required to take one, in these settings, the Kits focused immediately at 1st-level into the proper theme. In 3.0/3.5, what I have seen that comes closest are concepts where PrCs have been created which lure players into advancing the character into the class.

This just leaves me, as a world builder/story teller, a little unsettled. First, I don't want to have to design whole new classes, and all the balancing acts that entails... I'm not a rules grognard. Second, attaining a PrC means advancing through numerous levels, taking feats and spending skill points all before getting the PrC... What bothers me is this, what if the PC has a change of heart in his "career" and decides to follow another path, say a swashbuckler decides to become a knight. Easy(er) to do with Kits, a major pain in the ass with PrCs/Feats.

I don't want to ditch PrCs entirely. They have their place, I agree! I love the basic structure of the D20 system! I'd just love to see an example of someone who has implemented a Kit-like system on top of a D20 rules base.

IMO, there is a definite place for it.

I disagree that there's a need for them (but then again, I never played 2e.) I can certainly understand that from a DM perspective, the inherent flavor of the classes as presently constituted isn't always what you want. However, there are so many options out there it isn't even funny.

For instance, there were three issues of Dragon magazine in a row, just recently, that had multiple alternate versions of most of the classes, essentially providing the same role, IMO. In my d20 collection, I've got literally dozens and dozens of core classes in print. In my campaign setting I use very few of the base classes because the flavor doesn't work for me. But I don't need kits to solve that, and I think kits added onto what we have already is an inelegant solution.

 

[Arnwyn]

Templates. The concept of these can work wonders with some of the settings that really needed 2e kits (notably: Al-Qadim).

Most of the kits from Al-Qadim can be emulated by applying a template (or, at least, the concept of a template) on to the base class. (Something like the Sha'ir is best done as a new base class, though - and it was, in a recent Dragon Magazine.)

The template is best applied by swapping out class skills (eg. the AQ corsair is particularly well done by using this method).

That way, you still get the 3e mantra of "balance balance balance", while keeping the feel of the original kit/class intact.

 

[eryndel]

The Players Guides series from S&SS handle this to a certain extent. They go through regional areas or political subgroups, describe them, and then go into what skills and feats are common to people from that area.
IIRC, Kits filled two niches. It helped to define a role for a character and make that character become part of the setting. It also gave ways of making two characters in a class seem rather different. The latter I don't think is necessary anymore with the wide range of feats and skills and multiclassing to give customizability. The former I think is handled real well with a brief description based on area of feats and skills that are often used by similar people. To take a page from PG: Wizards, Bards, and Sorcerers...
Let's see, I'm a wizard and want to be part of a weird, eclectic wizard school (flip, flip, flip). Great, I'll be from the Phylacteric Vault. It gives me a nice 500-word description, location, membership dues, arcane motifs, favored feats, favored skills, and favored spells.
The other class sections are similar. Is this like something you are looking for?

Werner

 

[TheAuldGrump]

And I believe Mongoose has gathered its character concepts, and a few more, into Ultimate Character Concepts, which comes out soon.

The Auld Grump

 

[Pagan priest]

Why would you have to do it? The only clerics you need to apply changes to are the PC clerics (surely not more than a couple). You can wait for other deities' clerics until some NPC comes up.

I know, I know, I am DM too and I have the same tendency to try exhausting things out, like planning the whole campaign pantheon beforehand... but until you actually use a thing, it doesn't really matter if it exists or not.

Right, I am currently reading some quantum physics this month...

The party is interacting with a lot of clerics from different Gods.

Oh, and the other part of speicalty priests was the unique access to the spheres of divine spells. As in, each cleric or druid spell fell into one or more spheres. Any given cleric would have access to certain shperes, but not others. For example, the druid got access to Plant and Animal (among others). Now, in many ways, this is what domains do. However, in 2nd ed, if you did not have a sphere with a particular spell, there was nothing you could do to cast that spell... no generic list for all clerics. Since imp-limenting that bit would require writing new lists of spells for the clerics of each and every Deity in my game (and there are a lot) I suspect that that will fall by the wayside... mourned, not forgotten, but left behind none the less.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Feats, skills, and the 3e multiclassing rules have all but eliminated the need for class kits.

In 2nd edition, all members of the fighter class were basically the same, seperated only by how they'd spent their proficency points and ability scores.

In 3e, members of the fighter class can be radically different depending on which feats they'd invested in. A fighter could be a lightly-armored fencer, a spiked chain "tripper", a specialist in mounted warfare, a dedicated archer, a plate-mail wearing heavy footman who carries a greataxe, etc.

And prestige classes only further customizability options. With all these features, I don't really see a need to return to the days of class kits.

 

[Impeesa]

Templates. The concept of these can work wonders with some of the settings that really needed 2e kits (notably: Al-Qadim).

Most of the kits from Al-Qadim can be emulated by applying a template (or, at least, the concept of a template) on to the base class. (Something like the Sha'ir is best done as a new base class, though - and it was, in a recent Dragon Magazine.)

The template is best applied by swapping out class skills (eg. the AQ corsair is particularly well done by using this method).

That way, you still get the 3e mantra of "balance balance balance", while keeping the feel of the original kit/class intact.

Indeed. I've pointed out before, here and elsewhere.. nobody said templates had to be racial. Come up with some interesting LA +0 or +1 templates for your specialty priesthoods, to be taken around 1st level - hell, they can even be prereqs for the appropriate PrC if you want to go that far.

--Impeesa--

 

[Gaiden]

The quintessential books seem exactly what you are looking for - IIRC, they are even the same color as the 2nd Ed. class books were.

You could also peruse through Rokugan and some of AEG's material for that setting. Each clan has specifications to their samurai and clan specific feats. It is not the same mechanic that I think you are looking for but it accomplishes the same thing, and it does so within the rules system of 3.x.

 

[Pagan priest]

Feats, skills, and the 3e multiclassing rules have all but eliminated the need for class kits.

In 2nd edition, all members of the fighter class were basically the same, seperated only by how they'd spent their proficency points and ability scores.

In 3e, members of the fighter class can be radically different depending on which feats they'd invested in. A fighter could be a lightly-armored fencer, a spiked chain "tripper", a specialist in mounted warfare, a dedicated archer, a plate-mail wearing heavy footman who carries a greataxe, etc.

And prestige classes only further customizability options. With all these features, I don't really see a need to return to the days of class kits.

Mostly correct. The availability of feats and the selection of skills does end the need for most of the old kits. However, PrC's do nothing WRT kits, because kits were applied at 1st level and defined the character from there on, whereas PrC's are something you must work up to.

I like the idea of kits as LA +0 templates, that is most likely how I would describe them if I brought them back.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Published kits would be great because it would satisfy the Rules Lawyers when your PC Class deviates from the established norm for your character. See my "The Misunderstood Paladin" discussion for an example. From the responses to the post it seems like the majority of people see the Paladin as a Knight Templar and they stick the code of chivalry on them. I think that is one interpretation of the class but several people have started quoting various dictionaries to back up that the class MUST be a crusading knight type of character. I've also got quotes from the PHB to the same effect. A kit published by WOTC would most likely be recognized as an "Official" ruling and thus allow more playability to classes that get stereotyped into a single role.