| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Arivia |
Posted - 25 Aug 2004 : 02:10:05
First of all, an explanatory quote.
quote:
The Complete Guide to Priests(2e)
A kit is a collection of skills, proficiencies, restrictions, benefits and hindrances which give the priest more background and personality, further define his role in the campaign and in the campaign's cultures, and give him advantages and disadvantages to make him more colorful.
Now, for those of you who don't remember, a kit was a sort of specialty for a class-a sort of precursor to prestige classes(although their true precursors are the 1e bard and druid, I believe). Kits filled many of the same roles, with one important difference-they were not separate classes, rather variants of existing classes.
When 3e rolled around, we didn't need them anymore(Or so we thought-I'll handle that in a bit). The new multiclassing system, feats and skills, and especially prestige classes, would easily fill their place.
Now, a fundamental part of the new design philosophy was that the basic classes could now handle anything. With the proper combinations, you could build everything you wanted to using the basic classes and the new rules.
Fast forward to all of a month later-the 3.0 DMG. Here's where the first hole in this system was shown-the witch, in the creating spell lists example. The witch, as classically established, could be not be created using the class structure, as it needed to pull from the mages and the druid.(Now, why couldn't you just make a high-level spellcaster to do that? What about lower-level characters who needed to interact with one?) It also talked about making changes to the core classes to reflect cultural and background differences-wasn't that the point of kits in the first place?
Fast forward yet again, to 3e Oriental Adventures. Now, major cultural shift-you could expect some changes to the core classes. The expected changes were there-no paladins and so forth. But, we ended up with more core classes-ones that were essentially ability twists on the core classes reflecting different eastern roles, including a few that might have made good prestige classes. So, more kit-style changes.
The Miniatures Handbook was next, I believe. It contained new classes-ranging from completely new ones(marshal) to ones that could have been prestige classes or kits(warmage) to flat-out feature swaps(compare the favored soul to the cleric) with a few extra features added in-something very reminiscent of old specialty priests.
Move forward to Complete Warrior. A few new classes, also reminiscent of kits-but it contained something new. Flat-out variants on classes(namely, the paladin and the ranger), aimed at specific types of character and playing around with their abilities to fit that idea-in short, a kit in all but name.
Now, we find the Pandora's Box of this sort of thing-Unearthed Arcana. We're interested in Chapter 2 here, not much of the rest of it applies here. Chapter 2 is about Class variants. It begins with more of what we saw in Complete Warrior-kits in all but name class variants. And then there's the generic characters-mix and match sort of stuff, opening up D&D's class roles a bit more. Again, the sort of stuff that would have been covered under the kit umbrella.
One last product to look at: the Player's Guide to Faerun, specifically the initiate feats, which dealt with one of the problems of the new class framework-the problem that there's no way to tie low-level character's game abilities to their affiliations. None. Up until the initiate feats, you couldn't have spells just for a specific priesthood.
Now, what does all this add up to? That D&D would benefit greatly by a return of the kit system to its rules, allowing lower-level characters to identify their affiliations and the powers they gain from those affiliations in game terms. I think that the current way of doing things damages the core class kernel that D&D currently possesses, breaking apart this core. Now, how would adding a new system aid that? Well, if the new system is replacing three, and is one already tested, then I see no problem with it. I think Wizards has identified this problem themselves and is looking to fix it-but all they can do is piecemeal work.
I think a concentrated, carefully done framework for kits in 3rd edition would be a good thing, and is needed greatly.
*steps off podium*
Thoughts? Comments? Flowers? |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Lysander |
Posted - 31 Aug 2004 : 15:41:18
quote:
Originally posted by Lysander
Though, Sometime before Monday, I'll set up a first-level battle-mage (either an Invoker or Force Mage... we'll have to see.) that'll definitly have magic missile - with chain mail and a longsword (subject to change  I dont have the books in front of me at work).
I know my schedule's going to mess with me.... anyways, the "subject to change" was that I didn't get much time to play wiht this. So, for what I've gotten, 'ere I go:
(4d6 Method)
Elf Mage
Str-14
Dex-14 (13+1) or, 14/15
Con-12 (13-1)
Int-17 (17+0) or, 17/18
Wis-12
Cha-09
Elf Abilities: Aim Subability +1(+1 to Dex for purposes of ranged weapons), Bow Bonus (+1), Infrasion 60', Less Sleep (4 hrs needed), Reason subability +1 (Affects Max Spell Level and Spells per level), Sword bonus +1 (short or long sword)
(45 points for elves, 40 pts spent, 5 points carry)
Mage Abilities: Only 3 Schools known: Abjuration, Alteration, Invocation/evocation (there's the magic missle ), Armored Wizard (wizard can cast spells while wearing the armor of his choice), Casting Reduction (Casting time reduced by one; if 1, not reduced), HP Bonus (d6 instead of d4)
Optional Restriction: Will not use magic armor or weapons.
(40 points for wizards, 5 points carry from race, 5 points gained for restriction, 45 points spent, 5 point carry)
Nonweapon Proficiencies: OK, this I didn't do.  Based on Int(Knowledge) of 17, 6 bonus CP for NWP only. Wizards gain 8 CP at this stage. The S&P NWP List, with CP Costs . I also didn't look at any Traits or Disadvantages, also usually done at this point (traits cost CP, disadvantages gain CP)
Weapon Profs... Assumeing you "Save" 6 CP of the 8 (since you technically can't carry the bonus CP from the NWP stage, but no restriction on carrying any of the NWP allotment....) Wizards gain 3 CP. We have a carry of 11 (5 from race and class, 6 from NWP), so that's 14. To be proficient with the longsword, 5 need to be spent (9 total now). To gain Weapon of Choice and Weapon Expertise (since I didn't chose to allow this mage to specialize in a weapon), the sum total for those two is 8 CP. Since Weapon Expertise won't kick in until a higher level, I'm not going to "pre-buy it now.
There's 5 CP left. Since CP can be used to buy a dice re-roll, I might not want to spend them all right now, but wait until second level, when I gain 4 CP (per level), and then spend 5 to gain proficiency with the bow.
At first level, the character is unskilled with the bow despite a +2 with the bow (cancelling out the unproficiency, if I recall) and is +2 with the longsword (Elven sword bonus, and W.o.C.). I have't compliled a spell list past Magic Missle, but with an 18 intellegence(reason), he gets one spell at first level anyways (Unless spell points from Spells & Magic is ues, but not going there now) In all, it took me about 20 minutes this morning, including time to get coffee 
LOL, now that I built the bloody thing, I'll probably have to hold it in reserve as an NPC or something for a 2E campaign. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 30 Aug 2004 : 15:42:48
I sure did Arivia  .
I'll post some comments on what you've sent me, tomorrow .
|
| Arivia |
Posted - 30 Aug 2004 : 14:49:59
Sage, did you ever get my email? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Aug 2004 : 17:51:50
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Elton
I hate the Quintessiential series. The Quintessiential Psychic Warrior completely put me off on them. 
However, the Complete Ranger from 2e was probably my favorite of the "complete books" since all the others were useless except for the Complete Priest.
Personally, I thought the Priest book was the worst of the bunch... The Ranger one was good, but I never got it. The Figher and Thief books were the ones I used the most.
Back on topic, I've been pondering this since the topic came out. With all the prestige classes and options for customizing characters, I just don't see a need for kits... I didn't use a lot of them in 2E (similarly, I don't use a lot of the 3E prestige classes), and I really can't see throwing kits and prestige classes onto a character. |
| Sir Elton |
Posted - 28 Aug 2004 : 14:46:30
I hate the Quintessiential series. The Quintessiential Psychic Warrior completely put me off on them.
However, the Complete Ranger from 2e was probably my favorite of the "complete books" since all the others were useless except for the Complete Priest.
As for moving towards kits, kits are basically a way to give design options. I don't see a problem with that. But also, I don't use kits either since Feats in 3e offer lots of customization options already. |
| Lysander |
Posted - 26 Aug 2004 : 19:47:38
Brother Bookwyrm, I think we agree more than we disagree. 
I admittedly had a "bad" first brush with 3E when it came out, and that colored my view of the whole edition for a while - and then later joining a group that had the same view didn't make things any easier. I know my starting point, and I know that despite the volume of 1/2E materials I have now (my original collection being lost to actions beyond my control), nothing new for that ruleset will be published, short an Act of God, or E. Gary Gygax (which, while close, aren't the same entity ).
So, I'm learning, slowly, the 3.xE system, even if I'm much more comfortable with the terminology of the former. Given I've houseruled certain things (positive AC, for one) that have made the transition easier, what I've seen thus far as the glaringly biggest change is character creation. I haven't been able to intuit it yet, not nearly the way I have the 2E rules.
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
Well, first, I should point out that that example is pretty threadbare. I don't think that anyone really would take five nonconsecutive levels. In fact, I doubt that there would be many serious characters who managed to take levels in five classes, including prestige classes. I think four would be pushing it for a nonepic character. Of course, I'm not very experienced in that; it's just my opinion.
Yea, that is a bad example, because while it could be done (and I remember somewhere a comparason of a 20th level single-class vs a Mage5/Ftr5/Priest5/Thief5, don't remember the issue) it doesn't mean it would be done. Despite the example, I was thinking of someone along a Thief track, that would slip in a level or two of Ranger for some of those abilities, or even trying to create a presitge class to get the abilities that way.
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
As well, I still think that 3e is far superior to 2e. There's less memorization, for one. There's a pattern for just about everything, which helps to judge one thing against another. (And yes, I've read through 2e rules. Just the Player's Handbook makes me dizzy in a way the 3e version didn't -- and I know much more about D&D now than a year and a half ago when I bought my 3e PHB.)
Odd - I have exactly the same reaction - in reverse. It doesn't help reading the Barbarian class, and thinking hmm, lets see what advantages/disadvantages and tweaks S&P used to make this or looking at the Sorceror class and thinking that someone misread Spells & Magic. (they can be done, though. Not sure of the Monk, but it's possible to get a rather close copy of the Barbarian and Sorceror under 2E char creation rules.)
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
[brAll that aside, I think kits would help in a way that can't be achieved through multiclassing alone. No matter what, a first-level wizard is much like another first-level wizard. There are certainly differences in spells (though what wizard would be without magic missile?), feats, some skills (Knowledge (arcana) and Spellcraft are maximized, of course), and maybe even ability scores (I prefer to put some points in Dexterity, but perhaps you want to focus on some touch spells and put your points into Strength -- as well as giving you some more capacity for all those spellbooks later on).
...
As well, 2e kits shouldn't be too hard, at least for some. Many can be gained by simply multiclassing -- for instance, the Swashbuckler kit could be effectively gained by a level of the Swashbuckler class, now. I'm sure there are plenty others, though, and I plan on taking a look for them.
Not so much for the base/core classes, but the prestige classes strike me as an unmentioned (uncredited? ) repackaging of S&P. S&P allows the customization at first level, where 3E makes you wait until you get the right prerequisites.
Though, Sometime before Monday, I'll set up a first-level battle-mage (either an Invoker or Force Mage... we'll have to see.) that'll definitly have magic missile - with chain mail and a longsword (subject to change I dont have the books in front of me at work). |
| Talwyn |
Posted - 26 Aug 2004 : 08:53:16
Lysander, you are a man whose vision I share in regards to 2ndEd D&D.
I like your signature as well!
Anyway, back to kits: I played AD&D and was at first skeptical when 2nEd came out in 1989, with all the kit books etc that followed.
However, when I purchased the Fighters Handbook, I was pleasantly surprised. Basicaly the handbooks gave an instant "character" to play, ie; Barabarian, spy, War Wizard, Medicant Paladin and so on.
These kits gave depth qand colour to the PC with their advantages & disadvantages but the important thing was you got to play a PC that was a character, not some stock standard warrior/thief/wizard/cleric that was from the players handbook (fairly bland).
So I'd be in favour in seeing the kits return. Sure you have prestige clasess for 3rdEd and can mutli-class your PC into whatever you liked (something I still have a problem with, but it's my issue and I'm dealing with it ) but still you're a basic off the shelf PC type, no depth, no rationale for your PC unless you come up with it yourself.
Each handbook had kits in and we found that there were some that had to be carefully handled, the Elven Archer was one of them. Yet in the end I say along with Lysander & MuadDib, that the 2ndEd kit's were a high point of the game.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 26 Aug 2004 : 08:46:41
Well, first, I should point out that that example is pretty threadbare. I don't think that anyone really would take five nonconsecutive levels. In fact, I doubt that there would be many serious characters who managed to take levels in five classes, including prestige classes. I think four would be pushing it for a nonepic character. Of course, I'm not very experienced in that; it's just my opinion.
As well, I still think that 3e is far superior to 2e. There's less memorization, for one. There's a pattern for just about everything, which helps to judge one thing against another. (And yes, I've read through 2e rules. Just the Player's Handbook makes me dizzy in a way the 3e version didn't -- and I know much more about D&D now than a year and a half ago when I bought my 3e PHB.)
All that aside, I think kits would help in a way that can't be achieved through multiclassing alone. No matter what, a first-level wizard is much like another first-level wizard. There are certainly differences in spells (though what wizard would be without magic missile?), feats, some skills (Knowledge (arcana) and Spellcraft are maximized, of course), and maybe even ability scores (I prefer to put some points in Dexterity, but perhaps you want to focus on some touch spells and put your points into Strength -- as well as giving you some more capacity for all those spellbooks later on).
When I recently read through The Quintessential Wizard, I immediately recognized the "Character Concepts" as kits. The fact that I dislike 2e rules didn't keep me from reading them over carefully, though -- kits are one of the things about 2e that I genuinely like. The QW kits were a good try, though some needed work. The Academic was seriously broken because of its wording; since Knowledge skills are virtually limitless, the academic wizard might as well be treated as having maximum ranks in any skill. (For those of you who have never read QW, I'm sorry if that confuses you, but I'm not going to repeat the kit here.) The Investigator is an interesting kit, but also has a mistake: the description doesn't prevent a player with a specialized wizard from chosing an opposed school for the penalized school. (Both kits are easily fixed, but I'm sure they turned some DMs off of the idea.)
One less easy to fix is the Theoretician. At first glance, considering how much I like skills, it seems overbalanced. But then you have to wonder how it affects a character multiclassing into this kit after first taking a level in another class. In effect, it ends up being underbalanced.
On the other hand, the Alchemist was intriguing. While the Expert Potion Brewer feat available to characters with this kit had a mistake in it (it didn't say what the cost multiplication for the non-wizard potions was), I'd long thought that some players might want to substitute another feat for Scribe Scroll.
The Entertainer was interesting, and reminded me of Danlio Thann. Not the real one, though -- just the image that he projects. The Arcane Craftsman makes a good NPC -- or a PC, if one campaigns only in a particular area. (I can imagine an Arcane Craftsman PC in a place like Waterdeep or Calimport.) It's also a good choice for a dwarf, considering that the typical dwarven society avoids arcane "bookish" magic. The Geomancer is even more perfect for a dwarf, as well.
The Hedge Wizard is a good kit for a wizard looking for some druid-like aspects. The Knight of the Staff may actually be overbalanced. The Pyromancer is just about perfect (and it might be a kit that could be adapted to sorcerers -- I know that a fire-sorcerer varient was being discussed recently).
The Sea Mage idea isn't new to me, but this is the best I've seen. Same with the Summoner. The Theologian is excellent, as is the War Wizard. The Wizard Hunter is great -- especially for a DM wanting to keep spellcaster PCs on their toes.
Now that I've rambled off on a review of this chapter of QW, let me continue on. I don't have any other Quintessential books, so someone else will have to look into that. But I'm sure there are other potential kits in them.
As well, 2e kits shouldn't be too hard, at least for some. Many can be gained by simply multiclassing -- for instance, the Swashbuckler kit could be effectively gained by a level of the Swashbuckler class, now. I'm sure there are plenty others, though, and I plan on taking a look for them. |
| Lysander |
Posted - 26 Aug 2004 : 02:05:45
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
I'd say that someone's been peeking at my notes, but that one wasn't yet written down.
I've read several kits, and found that many would be fun to play. The only problem would be the fact that they aren't 3.Xe. The thought had crossed my mind to look around a bit for more things to spread about over the classes, but I hadn't gone any farther.
Owning as I do a copy of the first Quintessential Wizard, I know that kits are out there for 3e classes. Some of them were in need of work, like much in the actual third edition. (The Academic was a nice try, but really needs rewording or it's a munchkin's delight.)
Now that this has been brought up, I'll have to look at things a bit more closely, to see if there's anything I can contribute.
This is part of the crux of why I've resisted the change to the new edition(s). Even a staunch defender of the system like myself knows - and admits - that 2E was far from perfect (which is why there were so many houserules ) However, the kits - and the flow-on effects of them - were what made the previously monolithic structure of 2E characters changeable. First, no late multiclassing meant everything had to happen at creation, unless your house rule left the "dual class" in place. (And, as an aside... if anyone has worked out how to have both "true early" multiclassing AND late multiclassing work in the same system, I'm more than interested!) If you wanted the druidic wizard (or wizardly druid, to use the example floating around here ), you had to find a kit to allow it.
I saw S&P as an extension of the kit system. To be fair, the "kits" in the S&P book blew more chunks than a hack golfer at the beginning of the season (that's a LOT of flying turf, for the non-golfers ). But, that's because the kits were the "core" of the S&P system. "Balance" was the watch-word and the curse of trying to create a new system; how to value X ability compared to Y trait and Z skill. Is the loss of this particular Class trait in favor of gaining that other ability - or even the ability of another class - "fair" in the trade off, and does it make sense (e.g. a lock-picking ranger might not make much sense outside of the urban ranger concept, but a thief that can track like a ranger makes a formidable scout).
This is where the Player's Option (Skills and Powers, Spells and Magic, and Combat and Tactics) came into being. They formallized the trade-offs, valuing each skill and ability, and presenting it in a way that no two characters of the same class were truly identical in abilities the moment they were generated. Not even fighters. Sure, proficiencies (skills) were different, but the class abilities, the stuff that said "this is a ranger, that is a thief" could vary within the class itself.
When Third Edition first appeared, I asked around (offline) if a S&P-like suppliment would be in in the works, or well-received. Admittedly, I didn't have a good opinion of what I saw as (ok, this might hurt...) "Magic, the Hardback Edition" (Ack! Be gentle! It's improved! I swear! ) What I saw as the consensus boiled down to "We can now multiclass whenever we want, why would we bother with that? AND, we get prestige classes!" Want to track like a ranger, take a level of ranger. Heal? Well, a level of priest... and eventually you have all the core classes in one character - a jack of all trades created expressly to get one or two abilities. Meanwhile, you're a 5th (or so) level character, but first level all around. (and speaking of all-around, did I get on that soap-box or what?  )
To wrap up what became a over-long airing, I'll say anything that kits would be good, and a S&P-like book would be met with thanks. |
| Capn Charlie |
Posted - 26 Aug 2004 : 00:48:14
well, for some time now, as any who have read my Wolf Shaman Class can attest to, I have been moving towards twenty level prestige classes for a while now. I basically use the classes and prestige class levels as building blocks, and assemble a twenty level class from them.
In my game, yo ustart out as, say, a Red Wizard of Thay. THing is, you have no levels in the class. But over the next twenty levels you pick up 5 of wizard, 10 of red wizard, and finally 5 of, say, archmage, or another 5 of wizard.
But, the 20 level path has been lined out in advance. it gets more complicated when the path has 5 or more classes in it, but in the end it ends relatively balanced. |
| MuadDib |
Posted - 25 Aug 2004 : 12:45:22
I also really miss the kits, although there have been few games where you could choose them (since games are the only time I really play)
I will say though that the bard and thief kits were excellent in 2e because for example, the difference between a Jester and a Skald (in a real world sense as much as a rule sense) was huge.
I do miss them and think especially for newer players to the DnD concept, kits are a good idea. They give people the chance to focus their playing on the first try without being bombarded with the ability to upgrade 'anything' or any of a million feats. Maybe that's just me though. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 25 Aug 2004 : 08:59:08
In that case, send it over to the Lady K's account at ladyofthemists01@dragonlance.zzn.com I'm sure she won't mind... 
I'll take a look and see what I can come up with.
|
| Arivia |
Posted - 25 Aug 2004 : 08:54:35
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Well then, does UA have anything we can use.
I think that's the best tome to start with first, since you're the only one of us with access to it. Have a flick through it and get back to me.
When can then work out which tome to focus onto next for a basis for start from, or possible ideas to include.
In short, yes.
In long-well, got an email address(as I'm not sure if you're currently accepting items through your Hotmail one-and it has a nasty tendency to swallow mail from an address @gmail.com) so I can send you the druidic avenger and another section as a document of the type of your part(with the proper OGL baggage attached)? I'd post it here, but I don't think Alaundo would appreciate a page of a licence... |
| The Sage |
Posted - 25 Aug 2004 : 08:49:29
Well then, does UA have any rules we can use for this? I only ask since you're the one between the two of us who has access to this tome. It might be a good place to start looking for ideas about which way to proceed.
Or, are you hoping to create something purely from scratch, and purely from the efforts and brains of those scribes here at Candlekeep?
|
| Arivia |
Posted - 25 Aug 2004 : 08:43:44
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I don't have Unearthed Arcana, so I'll have to take your word for it.
Your suggestion about the older "Priest" kits is interesting though. I'm not so sure about the adventurer or scout kits. The 3e ruleset is already well tailored for the advancement of scouts and classes of a similar profession -- one need only look at all the feats, skills, and PrCs that have been published to that effect.
I think we should concentrate on the lesser used character kits; those that weren't incorporated into 3e PrCs.
I'm not focusing so much on what we should update just yet-I'm more interested right now in how this can be developed to fit 3e-in short, making the rules before we go making examples. Not that we won't get around to kit porting-but that we should make sure the core system works before applying it. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 25 Aug 2004 : 08:40:11
I don't have Unearthed Arcana, so I'll have to take your word for it.
Your suggestion about the older "Priest" kits is interesting though. I'm not so sure about the adventurer or scout kits. The 3e ruleset is already well tailored for the advancement of scouts and classes of a similar profession -- one need only look at all the feats, skills, and PrCs that have been published to that effect.
I think we should concentrate on the lesser used character kits; those that weren't incorporated into 3e PrCs.
|
| Arivia |
Posted - 25 Aug 2004 : 03:25:59
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I want to think about this a little more, but let me leave you with one question. Which, if any kits, would you like to see recreated in our present rules format should a system for their design be implemented?
Well, off the top of my head, the following:
Peasant Hero, some of the older Priest kits, Adventurer, Fence, and Scout-I'm sure there's more, but those just popped right out.
Of interest is that we do have some already ported examples to think of-the Druidic Avenger coming to mind, from Unearthed Arcana. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 25 Aug 2004 : 03:03:46
You present a very interesting idea, Arivia. I've always been a fan of the 2e class kits (well, most of them), and the notion of bringing them into the 3e environment is not something that can just be dismissed as an off-hand fancy derived from the brain of a scribe whose just experienced a period of sleeplessness.
I want to think about this a little more, but let me leave you with one question. Which, if any kits, would you like to see recreated in our present rules format should a system for their design be implemented?
|
| Arivia |
Posted - 25 Aug 2004 : 02:41:57
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
I'd say that someone's been peeking at my notes, but that one wasn't yet written down.
Nope-I've been thinking about this for awhile myself. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 25 Aug 2004 : 02:35:49
I'd say that someone's been peeking at my notes, but that one wasn't yet written down.
I've read several kits, and found that many would be fun to play. The only problem would be the fact that they aren't 3.Xe. The thought had crossed my mind to look around a bit for more things to spread about over the classes, but I hadn't gone any farther.
Owning as I do a copy of the first Quintessential Wizard, I know that kits are out there for 3e classes. Some of them were in need of work, like much in the actual third edition. (The Academic was a nice try, but really needs rewording or it's a munchkin's delight.)
Now that this has been brought up, I'll have to look at things a bit more closely, to see if there's anything I can contribute. |
|
|
