Why no kits?

Remove all ads!

are these sub-classes inexistant in 3e or did balck isle decide not to implement them ingame ?

because to be honest, where having a plain paladin sucks, an inquisitor rocks, same goes for a plain fighter, berserkers are way more interesting to play with, assassin beats vanilla rogue and so on... i mean its kind of a step back in rpg rules, dont you think ?

 

3e has prestige classes instead which aren't dependant on main class but instead on what skills, feats and such you have. Some are race or class specific but generally not as a rule.

 

I think the much more extensive multi classing options make up for the lack of kits.

 

back in the old days i wasnt fan of the multiclassing thing, especially dual-classing, and i see no reason why to change my mind with the 3e system, it prevents your char from improving in what he does best since the begining of his journey... i dont like leveling up into another class, thats why kits were so unique in my view

 

it is a huge step back - lack of kits makes most classes utterly worthless outside of a 1-2 level mix-in.

almost all my builds will consist of main caster+several mix in from classes like paladin(2), monk(1), fighter(1-4), rogue(2).

 

Has anyone tried to create a mod with kits? Unlike Baldurs Gate 2, IWD2 seems to be a hassle to mod. Documentation for doing so is a hand-me-down from BG2.
Kits could be given via a dialog, like the BG2 kit of Geomantic Sorceror.

 

I think it has some support for it - eg Paladins, Monks, Clerics and Wizards technically all have kits, I think. But a lot of it is hardcoded - it takes a DLL hack to allow Paladins of Mystra to advance as Sorcerers and still be allowed to advance again as Paladins.

I do remember seeing a mod that added many different cleric kits, I think it might have been light of Selune. However I'm not sure you could add a kit to a class that doesnt already have them, like fighters. It would take some experimentation but it might be possible.

Personally... I'm not bothered by the loss. What we get instead are characters that are far more customizable by way of feats and multiclassing. I happen to like the multiclassing system of adding one or two mix in classes to completely change a character, like one level of ranger and monk can make a fighter able to dual wield well, and also add his wisdom bonus (if any) to his armor modifier, while unarmed. Whereas, a Berserker is a Berserker, the only difference is the weapons he uses.

I do wish IWD2 had a much greater selection of feats like NWN does though.

 

the only problem is that it now becomes pointless to ever get more than 2 of any melee classe(paladin,fighter,rogue,ranger,barbarian,monk) because it can be better spent as caster levels. spell casters outperform melee classes in every possible department except hp and BAB which can be somewhat supplemented by an array of damage mitagation and damage/combat buffs.

im not sure if the creators ever intended for players to uitilize melee classes above level 2 but i would certainly think so. the vast majority of classes are useless past level 2 and it just seems so un-rpgish.

 

Yeah that is an unfortunate side effect I suppose.

I think if they had the old grand mastery system, there would be better reasons to use melee classes. Say if Fighters could attain grand mastery, and rangers, paladins and barbarians could attain high mastery or regular mastery (whatever its called). That would give them a huge damage advantage over casting classes.

In fact, I think part of the problem is that any class with a high enough BAB, no matter how long it takes to get there, has the same number of attacks. Thats what makes melee classes in BG2 so desirable - they get the highest number of attacks and do the most damage, and buffs arent enough to make up for that.

 

Kits were way better than the new multiclassing system + prestige classes. Most of the recuirements for prestigue classing makes no sense anyway.

 

I am a fan of both 2nd and 3rd editions. They just have a different approach. Feats and Mix-in-levels in 3rd edition are what seperates Fighter A from Fighter B. Adding a level of Barbarian to a 6th level fighter is easily justifiable. So is adding a Monk or Bard level to a Druid.

Pertaining to IWD2, I think the developers create the game with the vanilla run in mindonly or at least at first. In the vanilla game, I believe all classes are on even par. It's when you add mods and play HoF that the spellcasters start to outshine the Melee only combatants. (Except for LoS, it juices up the Rangers obviously)Hence the game is Soloable with any class. Or a party of 6 Rogues is doable. It's after they complete the game, they make tweaks for the HoF/Insane mode players. Just my opinion of course...

 

Actually, I think that in the very initial design of IWD2, it was intended to be a 2e game with kits, similar to BG2, though with different kits. But at some point, Black Isle decided to convert IWD2 to 3e, probably due to pressure from WOTC(?), which IIRC had already released 3e and wanted any new D&D computer games to be 3e compliant.

If you were to look into the game's 2DA files, you can see the artifacts of those unused kits, including their names.