Quote from: jibbajibba;525150Actually I stopped getting the Kits afte that daft 3 armed tree thing in the complete ranger

I can totally see how Kits would progress in the hands of designers looking to add mechanical benefit.
To me that moves away from what Kits were about in the first place.

I think the way they need to proceed is stick to the original intent and approach of kits, which were flavor heavy and mehanics light. Once they start going in the direction of turning kits into a vehicle for game expansion, then it will be an issue. I really wasn't enjoying myself deep into 3E when the game seemed to become about churning out new ad-ons for optimization. The solution is more emphasis on flavor.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;525163I think the way they need to proceed is stick to the original intent and approach of kits, which were flavor heavy and mehanics light. Once they start going in the direction of turning kits into a vehicle for game expansion, then it will be an issue. I really wasn't enjoying myself deep into 3E when the game seemed to become about churning out new ad-ons for optimization. The solution is more emphasis on flavor.

Totally agree

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;525163I think the way they need to proceed is stick to the original intent and approach of kits, which were flavor heavy and mehanics light. Once they start going in the direction of turning kits into a vehicle for game expansion, then it will be an issue. I really wasn't enjoying myself deep into 3E when the game seemed to become about churning out new ad-ons for optimization. The solution is more emphasis on flavor.

To me that fits the purpose of themes more.  But I get what what you're trying to say.  Then again if they make themes mechanically robust like Fantasy Craft this direction is exactly how they should go. It allow for prestige classes, if they use them to fulfill their intended purpose.  Of modeling specific roles and organizations of specific settings like Fantasy Craft master classes.

Quote from: Marleycat;525171To me that fits the purpose of themes more.  But I get what what you're trying to say.  Then again if they make themes mechanically robust like Fantasy Craft this direction is exactly how they should go.

I am less familiar with themes, but kits basically offered what i wanted in the way of options for fine tuning a character concept.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;525174I am less familiar with themes, but kits basically offered what i wanted in the way of options for fine tuning a character concept.

Definitely, basically they are exactly like Fantasy Craft themes/backgrounds.  4e themes are much less robust than either 2e kits or FC themes/backgrounds.

Are FC themes like a Paragon Path or Epic Destiny, but at lower levels?

EDIT:  Googling hasn't turned up much about Fantasy Craft themes.

Quote from: ggroy;525177Are FC themes like a Paragon Path or Epic Destiny, but at lower levels?

EDIT:  Googling hasn't turned up much about Fantasy Craft themes.

No not nearly that robust it will usually give you 1 feat maybe a skill or two maybe a weapon proficiency and a knack or two. It's not cut and dried but I think it's very similar to 2e kits rather than a prestige class or a PP or ED.

For example Wizard gives you the feat called Spell Library, 2 additional studies, a knack called Encouragement, a knack called Practiced spellcasting, and a small starting advantage called Thrifty.

They are basically a themed package of abilities etc. taken at character creation.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;525174I am less familiar with themes, but kits basically offered what i wanted in the way of options for fine tuning a character concept.

never played 2e, but for some reason 3.x's prestige classes clicked for me, like when i read a 2e book and noticed a certain focus for skills, etc.

Quote from: beeber;525194never played 2e, but for some reason 3.x's prestige classes clicked for me, like when i read a 2e book and noticed a certain focus for skills, etc.

The idea of prestige classes was great but the implementation gave less than desired results, especially for spellcasting classes IMO.

I really liked alot of the Bard kits though.

Quote from: jibbajibba;525113Can't agree with that Kits were in no way about optimisation. They were about roleplay.
Optimisation comes when you add the 3e multiclassing and ability to increase stats and skill trees and all that malarky

In what sense were they about roleplay? That seems like a really weird defence of the concept.

My objection to the kits was that they led us down the path to the Special Snowflake School of Character Generation, from which sprang "2.5 edition" (with the Skills & Powers books) and, after that 3rd edition's awful multiclassing approach.

D&D has only ever needed a handful of archetypes for its classes. If you want to be an assassin or a burglar or a samurai or an amazon or a desert druid, then fine, but all of those things are just facets of one of the core classes that don't need to have any mechanical benefit associated with them. Once you start associating mechanical benefits with them you start to get optimization creeping in, and ultimately the Book of Nine Swords, Pun-Pun, and all the rest.

EDIT: And, I might add, you also then start getting sourcebook bloat which intimidates newcomers and acts as a barrier to entry.

Quote from: noisms;525252In what sense were they about roleplay? That seems like a really weird defence of the concept.

My objection to the kits was that they led us down the path to the Special Snowflake School of Character Generation, from which sprang "2.5 edition" (with the Skills & Powers books) and, after that 3rd edition's awful multiclassing approach.

D&D has only ever needed a handful of archetypes for its classes. If you want to be an assassin or a burglar or a samurai or an amazon or a desert druid, then fine, but all of those things are just facets of one of the core classes that don't need to have any mechanical benefit associated with them. Once you start associating mechanical benefits with them you start to get optimization creeping in, and ultimately the Book of Nine Swords, Pun-Pun, and all the rest.

EDIT: And, I might add, you also then start getting sourcebook bloat which intimidates newcomers and acts as a barrier to entry.

i think there is a big gulf between kits and 3e multiclassing/prestige classes. Kits were very light on the mechanics. They gave you enough to create a cool (but not bizarre or hodgepodge) character with some vague mechanical support (again usually a small proficiency bonus under the right conditions), but mostly just offered interesting character concepts. Certainly you didn't need kits. In my group about a third of the players actually used kits, while the others didn't. I thought they added to the game without breaking it.

I will agree with you on skills and powers. By that point 2e went too far (but skills and powers came a lot later than the complete books). Never liked skills and powers (not only was it broken, but it didn't fit the flavor of the game for me). I dont consider it 2.5 (hardly anyone I knew used skills and powers).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;525256i think there is a big gulf between kits and 3e multiclassing/prestige classes. Kits were very light on the mechanics. They gave you enough to create a cool (but not bizarre or hodgepodge) character with some vague mechanical support (again usually a small proficiency bonus under the right conditions), but mostly just offered interesting character concepts. Certainly you didn't need kits. In my group about a third of the players actually used kits, while the others didn't. I thought they added to the game without breaking it.

I will agree with you on skills and powers. By that point 2e went too far (but skills and powers came a lot later than the complete books). Never liked skills and powers (not only was it broken, but it didn't fit the flavor of the game for me). I dont consider it 2.5 (hardly anyone I knew used skills and powers).

I think kits led the way to all the egregiousness that came after. They were pretty harmless on their own right, and could be fun, but they were unnecessary and once they'd got their foot in the door, it didn't take much for 2.5 and 3rd edition to come and kick it down.

I also think they had damaging side effects. It's true that sourcebook bloat makes the game harder to sell to newcomers. I also think that kits were a bit restrictive. If you just have a "fighting man" you work hard to make him interesting. If you have a kit to do that for you it becomes a bit of a crutch.

Quote from: noisms;525258I think kits led the way to all the egregiousness that came after. They were pretty harmless on their own right, and could be fun, but they were unnecessary and once they'd got their foot in the door, it didn't take much for 2.5 and 3rd edition to come and kick it down.

I also think they had damaging side effects. It's true that sourcebook bloat makes the game harder to sell to newcomers. I also think that kits were a bit restrictive. If you just have a "fighting man" you work hard to make him interesting. If you have a kit to do that for you it becomes a bit of a crutch.

I dont think kits can be blamed for what came after. WoTC took the complete books and modified them to fit their splat model. Back during 2e, you didn't feel compelled to buy the completes (they were 95% fluff and 5% mechanics). You only bought them if you wanted them. Moslty people bought them for the flavor (i.e. to get ideas for characters or campaigns).

Never saw them as a crutch. Most of my characters didn't use kits. I only used them when I wanted inspiration for a character concept or felt the mechanical support added to the game.

I do agree the 3e lines were intimidating, but that was partly because every book resembled the PhB and came loaded with mechanic. The 2E books (for all their other faults) were clearly differentiated (blue books, brown books, green books, core books, etc) and the supplements were primarily flavor (for example the whole reason to get the bard wasn't the mechanical bonuss of the kits but because it had a lot of information on stuff you might want to know if running a bard (instruments, types of songs and music, etc). Personally I think the blue, brown and green books were great.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;525259I dont think kits can be blamed for what came after. WoTC took the complete books and modified them to fit their splat model. Back during 2e, you didn't feel compelled to buy the completes (they were 95% fluff and 5% mechanics). You only bought them if you wanted them. Moslty people bought them for the flavor (i.e. to get ideas for characters or campaigns).

Never saw them as a crutch. Most of my characters didn't use kits. I only used them when I wanted inspiration for a character concept or felt the mechanical support added to the game.

I do agree the 3e lines were intimidating, but that was partly because every book resembled the PhB and came loaded with mechanic. The 2E books (for all their other faults) were clearly differentiated (blue books, brown books, green books, core books, etc) and the supplements were primarily flavor (for example the whole reason to get the bard wasn't the mechanical bonuss of the kits but because it had a lot of information on stuff you might want to know if running a bard (instruments, types of songs and music, etc). Personally I think the blue, brown and green books were great.

I agree. I didn't buy them to powergame. I bought them to learn about cool things like wizard labs, thieves guilds and equipment, paladin codes, and roleplaying ideas (e.g. dwarven society, Dark Sun gladiator stuff).

First thing I did when I got my Complete Thieves Handbook was design a thieves guild. First thing I did when I got the Complete Wizard's Handbook was design a laboratory and an Academician (hardly a powergame type of thing).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;525259I dont think kits can be blamed for what came after. WoTC took the complete books and modified them to fit their splat model. Back during 2e, you didn't feel compelled to buy the completes (they were 95% fluff and 5% mechanics). You only bought them if you wanted them. Moslty people bought them for the flavor (i.e. to get ideas for characters or campaigns).

Never saw them as a crutch. Most of my characters didn't use kits. I only used them when I wanted inspiration for a character concept or felt the mechanical support added to the game.

I do agree the 3e lines were intimidating, but that was partly because every book resembled the PhB and came loaded with mechanic. The 2E books (for all their other faults) were clearly differentiated (blue books, brown books, green books, core books, etc) and the supplements were primarily flavor (for example the whole reason to get the bard wasn't the mechanical bonuss of the kits but because it had a lot of information on stuff you might want to know if running a bard (instruments, types of songs and music, etc). Personally I think the blue, brown and green books were great.

I mustn't be doing a very good job of explaining myself.

I'm not saying the kits ruined things as they stood. I'm saying they were the first step on the road towards optimization and option over-load, which ultimately ruined D&D for me.

Quote from: 1989;525282I agree. I didn't buy them to powergame. I bought them to learn about cool things like wizard labs, thieves guilds and equipment, paladin codes, and roleplaying ideas (e.g. dwarven society, Dark Sun gladiator stuff).

First thing I did when I got my Complete Thieves Handbook was design a thieves guild. First thing I did when I got the Complete Wizard's Handbook was design a laboratory and an Academician (hardly a powergame type of thing).

The Completes were fine. I wasn't criticising them as books; my remarks were just about the kits. For what it's worth I loved the thieves' guild generator in the Complete Thieves Handbook.