Troll Lord Games

Dr. R-Wang, feel the power of the Sombrero!

As for kits, we have converted some on the fly recently. We are using the Thug, and the Knight kits from the Players Guide to Greyhawk era of 2E in our C&C games. For us, it is more easily facilitated due to the fact that we already use skills (NWPs), and Advantages. We are converting these on the fly and there have been no significant imbalancing problems yet.

~O

Back in about 1997, kits killed my 2E game deader than dead. Because I was nice and wanted to let people use their shiny new splatbook.

So I think it's obvious where I come down on this.

And get off my lawn, whippersnapper.

Fiffergrund wrote:Back in about 1997, kits killed my 2E game deader than dead. Because I was nice and wanted to let people use their shiny new splatbook.

So I think it's obvious where I come down on this.

I never allowed anything but the most innocuous stuff from those. They were designed to sell to players after all. And in order to do that they had to be designed by Munchkin Studios...

CKDad wrote:You forgot option 3, for those of us who never played 2e - "WTH is a kit?"

A kit is basically a collection of small benefits and hindrances meant to give more variety to a particular class. For example, in the Complete Fighter's Handbook, there'd be a kit for a Gladiator, Knight, Samurai, and dozens of others. The Complete Thief's Handbook included kits like Assassin, Beggar, Fence, etc.

The benefits were usually quite subtle- a +1 with a weapon or skill or the like. Often the benefits were entirely social in nature- almost guidelines as to how to roleplay that particular role. In theory, a kit would not require you to be a particular class, though some certainly worked better with certain combinations. They were usually tweaks that could be used to justify your unique role, but subtle enough to not require a new class.

As the game moved on, some "kits" became increasingly complicated. The Sha'ir Kit for Al-Qadim was probably the worst offender, because it changed the entire spellcasting paradigm and had benefits at almost every level. It was actually a great class that was improperly labelled a "kit".


-Fizz

Frost wrote:It's my humble opinion that Prestige Classes were meant to be "fixed" kits. The term "prestige" was used to mean that they were special and not everyone had them. I also thought it was noteworthy they were in the DMG (at first), as if to say, "you might get one of these if the DM works it into the campaign." When they started showing up in player books, that drove the system back to the 2e kit mess and they were "prestige" class no longer.

I disagree. Kits were meant to be subtle tweaks that did not justify an entirely new class. You started with a kit and it gave you some minor benefits (and hindrances) that stayed with you always.

Prestige classes are much more involved. They are full classes that had prerequisites, so you had to grow into it. A prestige class could change your hit die, combat progression, spells, and benefits at every level.

-Fizz

I have no problems with kits in C&C. In fact, i think kits work and play with C&C very well together. C&C may not have non-weapon proficiencies, but that's nothing a rudimentary skill system wouldn't fix.

-Fizz

Is the forthcoming C&C Adventurer's Backpack have something along the lines of Kits? I know an abbreviated AB will be in the Blackbox, but anyone in know, have some insight?

The one thing I really loved about the kits was that it brought back the Assassin, Thief-Acrobat, Monk (as a type of cleric), Cavalier, and Barbarian.

I always wanted to play the beggar kit, though. Maybe one day I’ll get to make a beggar. I could base him on Sir Digby Chicken Caesar.

I had a love/hate relationship with the kits from back in the day. I loved the options they opened up (swashbucklers specifically both fighter and thief versions, but you all knowing me shouldn't be surprised by that ... ) plus I liked the historic books/kits. However, as you all have said earlier in the posts, they got out of control and had way tooooooo many options. Of course, there was always someone in the group wanting to play something just to odd to be playable. Then he would get mad when I wouldn't allow the kit ...

Jyrdan Fairblade wrote:The one thing I really loved about the kits was that it brought back the Assassin, Thief-Acrobat, Monk (as a type of cleric), Cavalier, and Barbarian.

I always wanted to play the beggar kit, though. Maybe one day I’ll get to make a beggar. I could base him on Sir Digby Chicken Caesar.

Rgr that, except for the beggar part

I agree about the increased options presented by kits, especially since I don't recall them adding the degrees of complexity that the later addition of the prestige classes did. However, the sheer number of "Complete" sourcebooks made lugging gaming materials require some sort of physical training regimen a requirement.

I always thought kits should be completely independent of class. Why not a swashbuckling mage or a beggar fighter ("will fight monsters for food")? Sure some kits might have a synergy with certain classes, but all combinations should be allowed. That would greatly reduce bloat and excessive books. But that's not the route they chose- people kept buying them so they kept printing more.

-Fizz

Fizz wrote:I always thought kits should be completely independent of class. Why not a swashbuckling mage or a beggar fighter ("will fight monsters for food")? Sure some kits might have a synergy with certain classes, but all combinations should be allowed. That would greatly reduce bloat and excessive books. But that's not the route they chose- people kept buying them so they kept printing more.

-Fizz

Actually, they did wind up going that route--halfway through the game's lifespan. It's often overlooked, but Skills & Powers included a set of kits that were much more class independent. Some later supplements, such as Ravenloft's Champions of the Mists, followed the same pattern to a greater or lesser extent.

Shouldn't be that big of a issue to convert AD&D 2e kits. I use all of my AD&D books in my C&C campaigns with no issues at all more or less.

The problem with kits was that they varied so much in scope and quality. Some simply mildly changed the focus of the class (such as giving a extra proficiency slot in return for role-play restriction). Others gave several special abilities and powers that completely changed the class into something else. (I remember the 'Blade' kit that changed the bard into a knife throwing whirlwind of death!)

One main problem with converting kits to Castles & Crusades is that many kits refer to rules that aren't relevant to the game. For example, many kits would give extra weapon proficiency slots, which doesn't apply to Castle & Crusades since characters are assumed to be proficient in all the weapons on their class list. Also, many of the ranger kits give bonuses for restricted spellcasting, which doesn't apply to the C&C ranger.

My advice would be to pick a few kits that you find interesting and think of ways to make them into full-fledged C&C classes.