Eric Anondson said:
Whether a player can accomplish the theme he, or she, wants is not what I am asking about. I'm looking at Kits from a DM/world builder perspective.
Okay, check this out... And this
is coming from a GM...
What a player can accomplish in theme with Multiclassing and Feats and Prestige Classes
a Game Master is doubly able to accomplish.
Especially with Prestige Classes.
And, I repeat, I'm especially referring to how Kits were done with the settings of Red Steel and Al-Qadim. For those who have not seen a campaign that is closed to a finite amount of Kits, and where Kits are required, you are probably missing what I am touching upon.
Oh, I agree. At least about Al'Qadim; Red Steel never interested me so I never bought/read the material. However, I still don't see why you would want to..?
The problem with Kits (even as you describe them in Red Steel) is that they have two draw backs: You are either locked on a path or penalized for drifting from that path.
Consider these two examples:
A character is raised as a Squire under a Knight of Silver Hill, learning exactly what the Knight instructs him in until he, at last, becomes a Knight of the Silver Hill itself.
This is a 2E character with a specified Kit that offers by-level abilities, with the character gaining the benefits of full knight-hood at 9th Level or so (1E/2E's "name level").
A character is raised as a Squire under a Knight of Silver Hill, learning exactly what the Knight instructs him in until he, at last, becomes a Knight of the Silver Hill itself.
This is a 3E character that has taken specific Feats and applied ranks into certain skills in order to qualify for the Knight of Silver Hill Prestige Class at 9th Level or so (yes, it's a little higher level than the typical Prestige Class, but it's how
I like 'em, so deal with it folks).
As you can see, from a story-based stand point (i.e., both Player and GM), there is no real difference even though the mechanics/build involved is radically different. Another difference is that the character has a choice to deviate (ex: learn 1-3 levels of magic use and qualify as a Knight at 12th Level instead); 2E's Kits were limiting in that regard.
Instead of wishing you had Kits, consider some groups or cultures to have something along the lines of a "set of standards"; The Knights of Silver Hill are
expected to be good at mounted combat (all the Feats), including the treatment and care of their horses (Heal: Veteranarian and Handle Animal). With Kits, this would be a bonus provided by the Kit because the ability to gain these abilities (at least until Skills & Powers) was
severely limited. In 3E, the ability to gain them is present and capable of doing the job (Skill Points, Feat Slots). Upon becoming a fully ranked Knight (9th Level or so in 2E, upon gaining the Prestige Class in 3E), the character is able to make his mount stronger, faster, smarter and an over-all better mount.
See, I do understand what you're saying. I just don't think you realize that what you want *is* there already. You can simply select the Skills, Feats, and perhaps even Multiclassing choices ahead of time and declare it the "standard" for the organization, city, culture, whatever... Now the Kit is there, but instead of being a rigid thing that the character puts on and (possibly) changes from time to time, its a series of choices that a character
may or may not make.
For those who said that the D20 system's implementation of Feats, Skills, and PrC's make Kits obsolete... well, I'm confused because you must have missed when I said that there are times when D20's Feats, Skills and PrCs are not suitable, despite all the things that a player can accomplish with them. The D20 rules require a character to gain a level to make use of any of these things. To me, as a DM who wants an easy method of conveying the flavor of the campaign genre, this is quite clunky compared to an example of Kits-done-right (to which I refer people to the examples of the Red Steel and Al-Qadim settings).
If you're saying that you want PCs to trade-and-swap abilities, effectively becoming different characters from time to time instead of evolving over time, than I'd have to agree with you: d20 isn't that kind of system.
And please don't take offense, but I'm thankful for it.
Aside from things that are intentionally story-hooked (Paladin's Code of Conduct, for instance), the idea that a character forgets what he
could do is far more klunkier than a level-gain system where the PC gains abilities on top or alongside of the abilities he already has (I dare say, the standard system is fairly "realistic" in that regard even if the over-all mechanics takes it to uber-powerful extremes). I even changed the way Level Drain/Loss works to avoid such occurances.
But to get back on topic: My own setting contains a region that was (originally) based on Dark Sun, while I have another region that was based on Al'Qadim, and another that was based on Kara-Tur. I've had absolutely no problems bringing the elements of these settings that I wanted to retain into my d20 game, and I've never found myself missing Kits at all.
To get the D20 system's various rules features properly coordinated to convey a DM's world's flavor takes an amount of rules mastery that I find a tremendous barrier to overcome. I'm a not a rules junky, but I am a "flavor" junky.
Well, you've just read a post by written from a
GM's perspective written by a fellow flavor junkie. Hope I have helped at all.
