very neat. Just seems to me missing the kits from Diablo 2 : The awakening.( it is an AD&D 2e product).
cheers

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 18 Sep 2022 23:54:22 -0700 (PDT), midnight shadowz <[email protected]> wrote:

very neat. Just seems to me missing the kits from Diablo 2 : The awakening.( it is an AD&D 2e product).

I always liked the concept of kits in 2nd Ed. Having four main classes
with everything else being a 'kit' (a.k.a. 'subclass') just appealed
to my sense of order and neatness.

In practice, it got very messy very quickly, not helped by the lack of play-testing and balancing caused by TSR's internal problems at the
time. But as an idea, I appreciated the hierarchal division. Modern
D&D, with its 12 (14, with expansions) character classes, seems messy
in comparison.

That said, we almost never used kits, partly for the balance issues
but mostly because a lot of what they offered could be fudged with
some good role-playing and a bit of DM initiative. That seemed to be
common for a lot of the groups I played with at the time; almost
everyone owned the red-covered PHBR books, but nobody made use of
their content except, perhaps, as inspiration. If you wanted to play a swashbuckler-type character, odds were you'd play him as a standard
Fighter or Thief with a customized proficiency loadout and a lot of
flair.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 10:44:56 AM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Sun, 18 Sep 2022 23:54:22 -0700 (PDT), midnight shadowz <[email protected]> wrote:

very neat. Just seems to me missing the kits from Diablo 2 : The awakening.( it is an AD&D 2e product).

I always liked the concept of kits in 2nd Ed. Having four main classes
with everything else being a 'kit' (a.k.a. 'subclass') just appealed
to my sense of order and neatness.

In practice, it got very messy very quickly, not helped by the lack of play-testing and balancing caused by TSR's internal problems at the
time. But as an idea, I appreciated the hierarchal division. Modern
D&D, with its 12 (14, with expansions) character classes, seems messy
in comparison.

That said, we almost never used kits, partly for the balance issues
but mostly because a lot of what they offered could be fudged with
some good role-playing and a bit of DM initiative. That seemed to be
common for a lot of the groups I played with at the time; almost
everyone owned the red-covered PHBR books, but nobody made use of
their content except, perhaps, as inspiration. If you wanted to play a swashbuckler-type character, odds were you'd play him as a standard
Fighter or Thief with a customized proficiency loadout and a lot of
flair.

We used kits, they seemed more a balance fix for fighters when the
first one for fighters came out. I allowed pretty much any of them,
but mostly fighters took them. The only book I didn't allow was the
elf handbook, mainly as the Bladesinger was rediculous op. There
were a few other things I didn't care for.

2e PHB had a whole ton of classes anyway - 6 additional wizard
specialists on top of all the 1e PHB classes minus monk & assassin
anyway.

- Justisaur

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)