Classes, Kits and the Individual

Ask any Dungeons & Dragons player (of any edition) about their character and you will, no doubt, hear the name of the class that they are playing in the first sentence or two. Since the beginning of D&D the character class has been a very important part of the characters, being the source of the vast majority of the characters abilities, as well as aiding in providing archetypes for the characters.

In the early editions of D&D, those that came before second edition, the character class was the only source of definition for a character other than their race. (and in the very early editions, some of what we know as Races were classes then, such as the Elf and Dwarf) This made for a very simple and intuitive system, but made it sometimes difficult to distinguish one member of a certain class from another.

Second edition made some of the first steps to combat this perceived problem, with the introduction of proficiencies and kits. Proficiencies allowed the characters to have different skills, that were chosen by the player, even though the number of those skills were based upon the characters class and level. This could allow for one fighter to be a blacksmith and armorer, while another had more woodland based skills like hunting and trapping. This was the first real attempt at a mechanical means of differentiating individuals within a class.

The introduction of Kits was the next big step that 2nd edition made. A kit was a set of options that a player could choose that would change some of the abilities of the class that their character had. These kits were organized by which class that could take them, and were built around specific themes. For example: The Swashbuckler kit (for the Thief class) allowed the thief better combat abilities with rapiers and parrying daggers, and gave them bonuses to acrobatic abilities.

To balance out these bonuses some of the kits had mechanical disadvantages and some had simple roleplaying disadvantages. This lead to one of the larger concerns about kits, that if a particular DM did not enforce the Roleplaying disadvantages, some of the kits were simply much more powerful than others. This is a discussion for another time, but it does go to show the begining of the arguments for game balance.

Third edition took this idea of individuality a giant step forward with the invention of Feats and a much more fleshed out skill system. However, the systems they used for this were generally clunky and, in my opinion, added far more bookkeeping and rules minutae that was really needed.

Fourth edtion, in an effort to fight against the clunky rules of the previous edition, took a giant step backward, and created a simplification of classes that is reminicent of nothing more than the basic versions of the game. It was not that individuals of a certain class were difficult to differentiate, but that the classes themselves were difficult to tell apart simply from their abilties. It was not until many sourcebooks later that the classes began to differentiate themselves, with the intoduction of different class systems.

I personally think that the most elegant way of approaching this problem has been the kit system. I will not argue that there is nothing wrong with this system, but its optional nature makes it great for those who want some extra help in making their character unique without forcing it on those who have no problems doing so without mechanical aid. And one of the best parts for me, as a DM, is that it is relatively simple to create new kits as their are needed to flesh out the campaign world.

Like everything in D&D, it does require a DM who is willing to put the work into understanding the system and discovering which parts of it fit his particular campaign, but if used correctly the Kit system can add a great deal of depth to your game.