POLL: Worthiness of Kits

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

It is my opinion that some kit choices are really good, while others are really bad. And not just individual kits but your options of kits for a given class. Sometimes all the options are pretty good, and sometimes they are quite poor. For example, with the paladin class, you really can't go wrong in picking a kit. All of the kits are IMO superior to the base class, and all of them are pretty good, albeit in different ways. I think the same goes for clerics and thieves. On the other end of the spectrum you have the ranger class, in which your options are quite poor. The stalker offers some interesting options, but that's really the only one I've ever played or considered playing. Then you have thing like bards and mages (for mages schools instead of kits) that have a combination of some really good choices (like blade and conjuror) and some not so great choices (like jester and diviner).

With that in mind the poll should be self explanatory, one question for the best sets of kits, one for the worst sets, and one for the middle ground. To be nice, I'll allow you to pick up to two groups for each question.

Poll Information
This poll contains 3 question(s). 39 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Worthiness of Kits (39 votes.)

Best Classes for Kits (Choose 2)
* Fighter - 26% (10)
* Paladin - 64% (25)
* Ranger - 3% (1)
* Cleric - 26% (10)
* Druid - 0% (0)
* Bard - 18% (7)
* Thief - 28% (11)
* Mage - 5% (2)

Worst Classes for Kits (Choose 2)
* Fighter - 13% (5)
* Paladin - 0% (0)
* Ranger - 33% (13)
* Cleric - 0% (0)
* Druid - 74% (29)
* Bard - 5% (2)
* Thief - 3% (1)
* Mage - 28% (11)

Classes that have some really good and really bad options (Choose 2)
* Fighter - 31% (12)
* Paladin - 5% (2)
* Ranger - 36% (14)
* Cleric - 5% (2)
* Druid - 10% (4)
* Bard - 41% (16)
* Thief - 5% (2)
* Mage - 28% (11)

[Iku-Turso]

Although ranger kits aren't all that good, archer is quite interesting and powerful and stalker's better than fine.

Druid kits aren't worth it.

Wild mage is so powerful it's not even funny, but wild surges are. Makes up for the most of other mage kit options.

Only bard kit woth mentioning IMHO is the blade.

[Death Rabbit]

I agree with you about Paladins and Clerics - all the kits seem to have no downside whatsoever. Or at least in the case of the Paladins, the benefit far outways the downside (like the Inquisitor getting two of the argueably best spells in the game in exchange for losing the ability to cast a few of the far less useful 1-4 priest spells). But I'd disagree about Rangers, and I'd definitely put them in the "good and bad" category. The Archer is a great class, kind of the long-ranged Kensai. Tons of damage, and I occasionally like a specialised character. While the stalker is so-so for me, the Beast Master is IMO downright aweful. Hence my 50/50 split on Rangers. My favorite class in the game is the vanilla Ranger, so, maybe that does mean the Ranger kits suck after all.

I've always wished Mages had kits in addition to schools. That would make them a little more interesting. Even though he's a generalist, the Wild Mage is a great example of this, though he was too little too late (I'll explain that in a minute). But I'm not familiar enough with the 2nd Ed kitbook to suggest how that would work. I was never much interested in any of the kits Druids had to offer, either - mainly because the downside seemed too steep when I personally consider Druids far too weak to begin with. Like the Shapeshifter's armor restriction or the Avenger's ability score hits (despite the cool spells she gets).

What I really, REALLY wish Bioware had done with the expansion (and in fact, I wish every developer would focus on this aspect with expansions) is develop content with the intent of making the product you've already bought more playable, in addition to adding new chapters. In my estimation, the best way to do this would have been if they'd added 2-3 new kits per class in the expansion. Think of the hours upon hours we all would have gleefully wasted test-driving the new class options throughout the OC. HUGE missed opportunity there, especially when the character-creation interface just screams "hey, there's room for more kits here, folks." The Wild Mage was a step in the right direction, but it was only a single step and didn't really add anything to the expansion.

Of course there have been plenty of homegrown kits made by fans, but most are overpowered, imbalanced, poorly thought out or based on some fantasy character (in some cases all four of those). I really wish that had been a consideration, but you know what they say - wish in one hand, crap in the other and see which one gets filled up first.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

I'd disagree about Rangers, and I'd definitely put them in the "good and bad" category.

Yeah, I know a lot of people really like archers, but they never did it for me. To me, if you make a fighter and give him 5 proficiency points in a missile weapon, he's ALMOST as good as an archer (if you made him right, both classes will be hitting with nearly every shot, with the one primary difference being the fighter won't have the "called shot" ability). On top of that, you don't have the armor restrictions, nor the inability to go past proficiency with melee weapons.

Stalkers also never did much for me either, as they kind of wind up mid-way between a fighter and a thief, at which point I think you're better off going with a fighter-thief multi or dual class. Beastmasters are just confusing to me, and I don't see how an "animal companion" makes up for their restrictions.

The more I think about it, a very solid arguement can be made for thieves, although I'm still inclined to say that paladins and clerics are the best two sets. All three thief kits offer some unique opportunities, and all three of them can be quite fun to play. The only reason I'm inclined to place cleric over them is because the cleric kits don't have any penalties associated with them at all beyond those that a vanilla cleric has. So they are all upside and no downside.

With theives though, the kits are really tailored towards specialization. Assassins are geared towards causing surprise damage (through either poison, backstabs, or both), swashbucklers are geared towards fighting in melee, while bounty hunters specialize in traps. Those are arguably the three major functions thieves do (other than disarming traps and picking locks which all of them can do), and they have a kit that specializes in each one.

[kuemper]

Best kits - Paladin and Cleric. None of the kits restrict the base class (comparative to the other kits of other classes).

Worst kits - Bard and Ranger. I don't use bards as the kits imply, though Jester is close.

Okay kits - Druid and Thief. Typically, I use a vanilla version coupled with a dual or multiclassed fighter.

[Dengo]

I also put rangers in the "good and bad" category. Clerics are best because they have advantages and no disadvantages. Mage kits are worst because they always miss some good spells from opposite schools (except wild mage which is the funniest class of this game IMHO).

[Decados]

Best - Paladins and Clerics without any doubt, after all, other than RP reasons, there is absolutely no reason not to take a cleric kit.

Worst - Druid as they suck IMO. Badly.

Okay - Rangers and Mages. As has been said, Archers can be very powerful (more so in SOA than TOB) while the Beastmaster is pretty dire. Some mage kits are very good (eg the Wild Mage) whilest some of the others lose very useful spells- the Evocation or Abjuration schools for example.

[T2Bruno]

The kits are simply unbalanced. For every positive there should be and equal negative. The balance just wasn't hit right on most kits. I thought the best job was done with the Archer, Kensai, Stalker and Assassin. The negatives were significant enough to warrent the additional power. All the Paladin kits are overpowered. I think the cleric kits are appropriate, but there is no equitable benefit given to the druids (the druid kits have too many negatives).

Most of the classes are enjoyable to play, but the lack of equity in the kits is somewhat disappointing. Even more disappointing is the obvious lack of equivalent artifacts/magic items for the different classes (druids really take it up the shaft here).

[The Magpie]

Best Kits - Bard and Paladin (think I might've voted for Cleric by mistake, though )

The kits for both these classes expand the abilities of the base class enormously, although you could argue that they make their base class obsolete (not good, from a game balance perspective). The Cleric's definitely do, as their only restriction is Alignment, but that's hardly relevant (after all, they can't even "fall"). The Paladin kits are very useful and powerful; whichever one you choose, you can scarcely go wrong. Of the bard's I prefer the Blade, but all three have their uses. Yes, even the Jester, which I consider to be a highly underrated class.

Worst Kits - Druid and Mage.

Only the Avenger of the Druid kits interests me. The Totemic is really dull, and the Shapeshifter is just stupid. The Mage kits aren't really different enough to excite me, and I've never been a fan of pure Arcane casters anyway. The Sorcerer is perhaps the most interesting, as the class is a welcome change from the tedious and clunky memorisation system of conventional spellcasters.

Mixed bag - Fighter and Ranger.

Both have 2 good (or even excellent) kits, and one crap-tacular. The Berserker and Kensai are very good, kits which have some superb dual-classing options. The less said about the Wizard Slayer the better (imo), as even a WS/Thief build with UAI doesn't hold any attraction to me. Oh, and I almost forgot the Barbarian which is a fighter kit really. A cut-price Berserker, but with some very interesting class features.

And the Ranger...? Well, I'm here to mount a defence of the Stalker, dagnammit! I love these; they fit my play style almost exactly, and finally make full use of the Ranger's awesome Stealth stat. I definitely prefer them to Archers, anyway. The "ranged Kensai" they may be, but I don't find them very interesting to play at all. I make no attempt to defend the Beastmaster, however. I feel that it was bodged together at the last minute when the other Ranger kits were already done and they'd exhausted the obvious options, so they cross-bred Rangers and Druids, leading to disasterous genetic fall-out. The class isn't totally without merit, but it sure doesn't feel right.

Of the other classes, I consider the thief's kits to be probably the best balanced. Each one has good give & take, and (imo) the pure class is still relevant, if not optimal. Clerics I already touched upon, but the 3 kits are all useful with no disadvantages, and as such make the pure class obsolete. Monks I'll mention here, too, as they're really priests even if the game insists they're fighters for stronghold purposes. Now they are different, but somewhat overpowered and a bit dull to play.

[Splunge]

I voted best class for Bards, just because I love Blades. Best all-round class.

[Chelsea]

All Druid classes seem pretty poor. I have been playing a Totemic Druid recently and I do think he is the best of the lot.

On the flip side I love ALL of the the Thief kits. Assassin remains a big fave of mine. Celestial Fury attacking at big plusses for x7 damage is just too gorgeous.

A big disapointment for me recently looking around mods to add to my game has been the quality of Kits. As mentioned by 'Death Rabbit' most are over powered. I was looking into the Druidic Sorcerer the other day. Looked grosely over powered. I have used a Samurai kiy but it does not seem too different to what we already have.

[Felinoid]

While my first intention was to vote based on which ones stayed truest to 2e, I did try to keep it into the "good kit, bad kit" idea too.

GOOD - Paladins and mages
The paladin kits are some of the best, making a vanilla paladin not even worth it. And the best part is that the Inquisitor kit (as well as Undead Hunter / Ghosthunter, IIRC) matches perfectly with the 2e description in the Complete Paladin's Handbook.
The specialists, even the Diviner, are never bad. Excluding one school, even an "important" school like Evocation for the Enchanter, only forces you to re-examine your spell choices. You work through the rest of your spell book, looking for alternatives to the popular Magic Missile, and you may even find one that's good. Plus the Wild Mage and Diviner are 2e standard, with the others able to be made 2e standard if you just remember the other opposition schools they're supposed to have.

WORST-Ranger and Druid
Nature gets majorly screwed over here. An archer is barely better than a fighter with missile weapons and crap with melee, including armor. The Beasmaster...is pretty clear. And the Stalker is just plain wrong; rangers shouldn't backstab or cast wizard spells.
Druids, ugh. Avenger sucks, Shapeshifter is ridiculous, and Totemic...well, that one's okay.

MIXED-Fighter & Cleric
Berserkers are great, but Kensais and Wizard Slayers have...issues. They have many small advantages balanced by a single big disadvantage in not being able to use certain things. It works out about even for them.
Clerics of Lathander and Helm have their uses, with no disadvantages, making a vanilla cleric more worthless than a vanilla paladin. The Cleric of Talos comes up a little short in comparison, though.
(The other reason these were included here is that they are the only ones I don't have information for. Kensais are from Oriental Adventures, Wizard Slayers are a Barbarian kit, and the clerical orders are situated in FR lore.)

[Die_Bad_Guys]

Good - Paladin

3 kits which all make the original class obsoulete. Terrible from a balance perspective, but an easy answer for this poll

Bad - Druid

Druids are neigh-useless already with their treeible exp progression. Add in kits with few advantages and hideous disadvantages and you have the right answer.

Good and Bad - Fighter

Berserker is awesome. Kensai has its uses. Wizard Slayer is garbage.

Best Balanced- Thief

Not in the poll, but worthy of mention. Each kit has strengths of its own without completely invalidating the base class, and all kits fit the thief class flavor-wise.

[Caradhras]

Cleric Kits don't have any drawbacks at all.

IMO the best Mage kit is Wild Mage if you can handle wild magic of course (it's a lot of fun to play).

There is no real point in playing a true class Bard or Paladin.

Druids are better as Druid/Fighters DC or MC to be able to use armours and get better attacks.

I don't think a wizard slayer is "garbage" it has hefty disadvantages but a wizard slayer's attacks (only melee, not ranged attacks) can disable any spellcaster in the game.
It's not worse than a kensai and both kits can greatly benefit from UAI if dualled into Thief.

A big disapointment for me recently looking around mods to add to my game has been the quality of Kits. As mentioned by 'Death Rabbit' most are over powered

That's a problem. I played a few mods and I would recommend the Wild Jester, the Blade Master or the Arcane Archer. They are different from the original kits but not overpowered (the AntiPaladin, the Death Knight or the Hellion are so powerful they're not even funny but they are the kits for a really godlike evil PC).

[Klorox]

I like kits a lot, but I think I like multiclassing better. It's too bad you can't (legally) do both.

[Shaitan]

You can with Gnomes

[Dendri]

Best kits - bards
Each adds a special flavour, all the while keeping with the theme of the class; possible exception (ooooo, if I dood it, I donna det a whippin'... I dood it!) the Blade. Anyhow... much plentiness.

Worst kits - mages
Nothing of interest is offered.

Mixery - druids
Cant say I care for Shapeshifters. Totemics do not get me all excited. Avengers, on the other hand, are awesome. Their disadvantages are of no consequence for a druid's impact on battle, their special abilities (esp. the allotment of mage spells) rule.

[Kip]

Druids are awsome IMO, just needs some thinking out before you play um.

[Die_Bad_Guys]

I like the Anti Paladin. Once an Inquis gets Carsomyr he is just as powerful (if not more so) then an Anti-Pally. I believe that the kits in the Song and Silence mod are good (Silverstar has been having fun with the Chorister).

Blade Master is easily my favoirte mod kit. I havent tried an Arcane Archer (or whatever that druid archer is) but it looks like a fun class to try. If I didnt hate druids I probably would.

[Silverstar]

Good kits-I just so love fighter kits. They are all very powerful in their own areas. Kensai is a vicious killing machine, berserker is so tough with immunities, and wizard slayers are a pain for mages. They have disadvantages, I know, but they are so good at what they do! Paladin kits are...incredible. Undead Slayer and Inquisitor are way too over powered for SoA part of the game where you fight lots of vampires and high level spell casters!

Worst kits-Rangers....and druids. Not very spiffy kits. At least they don't appeal to me.

OK Kits-bards and thieve kits are OK, I guess. But mod kits for them are better!

[Caradhras]

Arcane Archer (or whatever that druid archer is) but it looks like a fun class to try

The Arcane Archer is a fighter kit which can create special arrows depending on the level (you get arrows of slaying at level 19... this is not too powerful since the effect does not bypass MR).
I think you are referring to the Archer of Sylvanus kit IIRC.

I'm currently playing an evil Blade Master which I intend to dual to Thief (the DEX bonus is going to look quite nice).

[Rudiger]

I think the thief kits are the best because, IMO, they add the most variety to the game without making the base class irrelevant.

Paladins come next, and would be tied with thieves were it not for the fact that some of the best ranged weapons are available to Cavaliers making their "disadvantage" no disadvantage at all, and thereby making the vanilla Pally more or less pointless.

As for Rangers and fighters
Well Beast masters and Wizard Slayers both suffer due to the environment that Bioware has put them in.
Imagine a beast master in a game where there were loads and loads of really tough animals they could charm.
Or wizard slayers in a game where most spells had harder saves (to shift the balance of magic defense from saving throws to MR), about the same HP as an F/M has (to make spell suppression more valuable), and no one ever had access to Force Spell.

Stalkers are cool and all, but to me they always seem like a poor and lazy mans fighter/thief. If they had better arcane spells they might change my mind.

Beserkes and Kensais are very very good.

Archers are very good, but they should be great.
(I started to rant here, at great length, about what an archer needs, but I think I'll start a new thread on it)

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

I've always wished Mages had kits in addition to schools. That would make them a little more interesting. Even though he's a generalist, the Wild Mage is a great example of this

This is an interesting idea. However, there seems like there would have to be a lot of changes toward PnP 3E, or even 3.5E to get it to work. Because the amount of equipment mages can use in 2E is extremely limited, the only thing you can really do to make them different is change the number of spells they can learn, and the types of spells they can cast. And the current setup with schools of magic accomplishes this nicely. Unless you are going to open up new weapon classes or such for mages, and make them a more combat oriented class, I do not see how a kit can really add anything to the mage class.

[Felinoid]

Speaking engine-wise, you're right. But speaking to actual 2e, you can have a kit alongside a specialization. BG2 represents less than half of what 2e can do, and even that's a little generous.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Well of course I'm speaking within the limits of the game engine. Naturally when you look to PnP 2E, there are no restrictions other than that of your own imagination. However, with any computer game you have the limits of the engine to deal with, and I don't see how mage kits can be easily incorporated into the game without some pretty large changes.