I'm starting an AD&D 2E campaign, and I'm wondering whether I should allow class kits or not. This is going to be me and my group's first experience with 2E.
They seem like they unnecessarily expand the rules to me and I read that some of the kits break the game's balance. What's the general opinion on them? What's your opinion on them?
>>45733643
>They seem like they unnecessarily expand the rules to me and I read that some of the kits break the game's balance.
got it in one
stick to core since you are still learning the system
>>45733643
Don't allow kits. 2E's core books have some issues, but the "crunch" expansions generally made the game worse.
>>45733680
>>45733695
Okay, thank you. I was leaning towards not using them.
>>45733643
AD&D predates any functioning understanding of how game balance works in tabletop RPGs, so each extra component you add increases the range of possible imbalances.
But it's not really balanced in the first place, so it's best to admit you're playing this system for a reason other than balance. At which point: if you like kits, use them.
>>45733643
It's flavor. So the decision depends on the setting and flavor you are going for.
For straight fantasy the core classes are great. And you can tone them a bit in different ways while leaving the mechanics untouched. But for ninjas or pirates, the splats can be useful.
Also, it's dangerous to go alone! Take this:
http://rpg.monkeymansion.com/Adventures%20and%20Books/Forgotten%20Realms/Forgotten%20Realms%20Modules%20Miscellaneous/TSR%209358%20-%20Aurora's%20Whole%20Realms%20Catalogue.pdf
>>45733643
>>>45733886 Also, it's dangerous to go alone! Take this:
>>45688366 While you're at it, raid the trove.
>>45688366 TSR -> 04 AD&D 2nd Edition
>>45688366 It's got almost all the 2E books.
I'm weighing in on the side of not using kits.
Balance issues aside, part of the fun of old school D&D is that you pick a class and go, you don't have to dress up Bob the Fighter like a barbie doll.
>>45733643
Your observations are correct in the main, OP. There is very little a class kit really ads that the imagination can't already fully imbue onto a character.
In my experience, the kits just made players think they couldn't be duelists, bounty hunters, or gladiators unless they were officially kitted as them. This kind of thing is reductive to the imagination and hinders the game.
>>45733643
see >>45733695
Except the complete book of elves.
All the kits there are well balanced.
>>45734520
>In my experience, the kits just made players think they couldn't be duelists, bounty hunters, or gladiators unless they were officially kitted as them.
p. much this
if they're absolutely insistent on the kits simply disallow the racial ones, and if anyone picks up the complete book of elves burn them at the stake
>>45734544
>and if anyone picks up the complete book of elves burn them at the stake
Bladesingers did nothing wrong!
No, but in all seriousness the only book with good kits was the Complete Sha'ir's Handbook (from the Al-Qadim setting).
All of the kits there make pretty substantial changes to how Magic-Users play, and only the Spellweaver is unbalanced.
>>45734520
Excellent point--that's my primary gripe with systems that try to have a rule for everything
>I want to swing from that chandelier and kick two guards on the way down!
>do you have the advanced chandelier swinging feat?
>If you don't, Johnny will be assmad that you're stealing thunder from his Halfling Chandelier Swinger prestige class that he had to focus all his skills and feats on til level 8.
>>45734520
That's something I've always disliked about (A)D&D. It's hard for a lot of its core players to get away from that mindset.
>>45733643
>I'm wondering whether I should allow class kits or not.
Only on a case-by-case basis, and feel free to fix them for balance at-will. Kits were wildly unbalanced in every direction.
>This is going to be me and my group's first experience with 2E.
Probably just a flat no until you have at least ten or twelve sessions in AD&D.
>>45735099
Any idea what it is about AD&D specifically that seems to foster that attitude?
I've definitely noticed the correlation.
>>45734544
>and if anyone picks up the complete book of elves burn them at the stake
To be fair, the fluff was fine, if you take it to be in-character. Treat that book as an example of something an elf would write about their race and don't implement any of its crunch, and it's actually a useful tool.
>>45735099
It's less of an issue in AD&D because of the fact that 'builds' had yet to become a thing. So you could be the character you imagined pretty much right off instead of having to 'build' into it. My favorite example of this is the ranger. In 2e they can fight with two weapons, no penalties, no questions asked. In later versions of the game you have to take the options that eventually let you fight with two weapons with reduced penalties.
The kits and stuff were also sequestered off in optional books which is much better than the way prestige classes are very much a 'core' concept. With those and the lop-sided way feats operate in the core manuals we see that the very same classes present over multiple versions have somehow become diminished. In 2e, the core classes are very strong, classic concepts be the basis for all sorts of imaginative variation (except, perhaps, the paladin whose gimmick is that it requires conformity and rigidity). Later editions see them realized with the concepts more or less the same but forming a much weaker foundation for imaginative characters. I have often seen characters come up with a concept (say, a character who is known for throwing knives) only to abandon it after checking if the accumulated feats/talents/whatever result in an under-powered character at level 6 or 9 or whenever your concept finally comes to life. It is especially tragic in the case of new players who don't know to check in the first place.
2e, though? You want your character to be big on knife throwing? Sure, no problem. Just take the proficiency. Specialize if you are a fighter, at your own option. Both are choices made at level one. That's all there is to it. Level one. Can throw two knives per round. Still good at everything else the class can do, nothing was sacrificed, no building required.
>>45735342
It's probably stems from the development of 0D&D with new classes cropping up everywhere. Almost from the start, Gygax was signalling that if your character didn't quite fit into the most obvious interpretation of a published class - make up your own class.
>>45733643
They're all written by different people so you can't just allow them all without running into some surprises later.
Read them all first. Dwarves is good, Fighters is good, they work together. Gnomes & Halflings is lazy. Avoid Priest's, it's useless and instead you want the F&A trilogy. The format is used in other books like last Greyhawk rules.
Psionics is the best one. Will and the Way must accompany.
>>45733643
>use the Witch kit as a mage
>get a free magic item
>pick Ring of Regeneration
>be nigh-invincible
>>45737112
>pick
Back to /pfg/ with you.
>>45733643
OP got his answer, but his image reminded me of this "Complete" book, so I'm gonna bump a dead thread just to shill it.
If that makes me a faggot, so be it.
This is the single greatest resource I have ever found for rpgs.
It's fantastic for creating characters and works with any system, really.
Find it.
Read it.
Just do it.
I'd post my pdf, but it's too big.
>>45735483
>My favorite example of this is the ranger.
Mine is the fighter. In 2E, you roll up a fighter, then choose weapon proficiencies. You want to be a knight, pick lance, longsword, mace and put the fourth prof into specialisation in either lance or sword. A gladiator? Short sword, trident, whatever. You want to Robin Hood it up? Longbow, specialisation in longbow, quarterstaff.
You're fully set for your career from level one, without needing a feat chain to be useful on a horse, or archery, or swinging a sword.
Plus you never go out of style, because even 1hp of damage on a casting wizard means bye bye spell, so you can lock down enemy wizards and/or beat non-spellcasting enemies when your party wizard took a nick from some goblin's short bow and his fireball fizzled.
>>45738705
>You want to Robin Hood it up? Longbow, specialisation in longbow, quarterstaff.
If you want to Robin Hood in 2e you should maybe go ranger instead of fighter (or even ranger/thief, if you have that option for your race). You don't have to; you can definitely do it with fighter, but I think ranger works better for that.
>>45735483
Thanks for the info.
Out of curiosity, how is 5e about this? I know that it's a huge problem with 3.PF, but what about 5e?
>>45738749
I think I've actually seen Robin statted both ways, but they took different approaches to it. One was the fighter with long bow spec and some forest-related NWP for the ex-crusader, leader of men and splitter of arrows approach, the other was the "knows Sherwood like the back of his hand" style ranger. Both work, I think.
>>45739052
You can pick from several fighting styles (duelist, archery, BFS, dual wielding etc.), then when you reach 3rd level you choose whether you want to hunt for criticals and get more fighting styles later on, or whether you want to use cunning stunts (trips, pushes, etc.) to really piss off your enemy. Also, you can choose to not take a level-up ability score raise and take a feat instead for even more variety, like mastering dual wielding or the BFS, or sharpshooting.
>>45739199
>You can pick from several fighting styles (duelist, archery, BFS, dual wielding etc.), then when you reach 3rd level you choose whether you want to hunt for criticals and get more fighting styles later on, or whether you want to use cunning stunts (trips, pushes, etc.) to really piss off your enemy. Also, you can choose to not take a level-up ability score raise and take a feat instead for even more variety, like mastering dual wielding or the BFS, or sharpshooting.
I know what the rules are; I'm just not sure how they work in practice. Do they give you the same kind of freedom that 2E did? Do all classes have that same level of freedom?
>>45739225
In my experience, there's plenty of freedom and I say this as a diehard 2E fan. In my current 5E campaign, we have two fighters (mine's the burly battlemaster with a guan dao/glaive, another's a champion with dao/scimitar) and I've never felt being "underpowered" or limited. Based on the PHB alone, you can go for nearly every fightin' man archetype from knight on horseback in shining armour to scimitar-wielding desert warrior.
>>45739344
You've sold me on 5e right there.
Some kits have really good flavor, like Maztica's Eagle/Jaguar Warriors or Book of Humanoids' Saurial Paladins.
>>45733643
The kits had solid ideas on customizing characters, and were used as the basis for some of 5e's character creation system, but in their original incarnation they were wildly imbalanced. Some offered no mechanical benefit in exchange for mechanical penalties, others offered great benefits in exchange for a nearly-non-existent roleplaying consideration that never comes up. If you're worried about balance, or you're just learning the system, leave them out.
