Category talk:Kits

(2e) in category names?
In several instances we have categories for kits both with and without the addition of "(2e)", e. g. Category:Farisan and Category:Farisan (2e). Do we really need both? Actually, do we need the added "(2e)" at all, or should we have Category:Mamluks only instead of Category:Mamluks (2e)? As far as I know, kits only exist in 2nd Edition. (Category:Sorcerers (2e) is an exception, as sorcerer was the name of a kit in 2nd Edition, but Sorcerer is a class in 3rd and higher edition.) Daranios (talk) 19:06, May 23, 2015 (UTC)


 * Those categories are supposed to be automatically generated by the Class table template, and yes, they should have the edition in the name. If they don't, then something is wrong. Apparently, the problem with "Farisan" is that the kit/class is called "Faris" and the plural is not "Fariss", (see Khalil al-Assad al-Zahir where it generated Category:Fariss (2e)). This is easily fixed, I just didn't notice it had happened and nobody brought it to my attention until now.
 * We are treating 2nd edition kits as analogous to 3rd edition prestige classes and 4th edition paragon paths. There should be a non-edition specific article and category (e.g., Morninglord and Category:Morninglords) and an edition-specific class category (e.g., Category:Morninglords (3e), Category:Morninglords (4e)) for every class. Individuals are placed in these as they apply and also a level-based category, if known (e.g., Category:Morninglords of 3rd level (3e)). The edition-specific categories should always be generated by Class table (if possible). Does that help? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 19:50, May 23, 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, someone with the proper references will probably have to do this, or at least answer some questions. Is Farisan a title or a kit/class, or both? We have to be careful when distinguishing titles and occupations from PC classes. Are they Fighter kits or Warrior kits? It makes a difference for category purposes. Likewise, are they Priests kits or Cleric kits? Rogue, Thief, or Bard kits? When all is said and done, Category:Kits should look just like Category:Prestige classes in content and have subcategories that are analogous. Category:Corsairs (2e) looks right, except for maybe the Warrior/Fighter question. When you get down to the level-based categories, there should be only two categories, and it should be sorted by the level number, like 08 or 14 as in Category:Corsairs of 8th level (2e) and Category:Corsairs of 14th level (2e).


 * According to Arabian Adventures, the faris is a kit (with a well-defined role). It might be used as a title, too, but the source does not clearly say so.
 * All warrior kits from Arabian Adventures really are for warriors, not only fighters. The "priest kits" there (so far we have the ethoists and pragmatists) are really all cleric kits only (except the outland priest). How is this done? Should there be a sub-category Category:Cleric kits within Category:Priest kits? (Actually, are priest kits out there in the sense that they are available for clerics, druids and specialty priests, all?) The situation for rogues is mixed. Barbers may be thieves or bards. So do we need Category:Rogue kits here, or do we just add Category:Bard kits to Category:Barbers (2e)? Daranios (talk) 20:13, May 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we should just make a decision to categorize them by Priest, Warrior, Wizard, and Rogue kits and not use Thief, Bard, Cleric, or Fighter, etc. Kits are variations on a theme and I don't think we need to quibble about where to draw the line between a Thief and a Bard, or a Fighter and a Ranger, let's just go with the broader categories. There are plenty of other kits that could be documented, like from The Complete Priest's Handbook and others from that series. I am trying to model the Category:Kits category tree after what we've done for Category:Prestige classes with the addition that we put Category:Mamluks (2e) as a subclass of Category:Warriors (2e), for example. If 5th edition brings back the concept of kits, then we won't have to rearrange our categories, we'll just add (5e) cats to Category:Kits. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 13:41, May 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Daranios (talk) 19:36, May 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed! - Darkwynters (talk) 22:37, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have to state something... all the Land of Fate character statblocks have an inhabitants' class, such as Nasir el-Mamadin is a fighter... and while it does say he is a mamluk... I feel it is more important that he is a fighter for our category system... a kit feels more like the 5e archetypes... or our occupation line in the Person infobox... 3e Prestige classes are an actual separate class, while kits are just flavor... I propose we add a Kit/Archetype/Background line to the Person infobox... and just make Class level categories... of course, keep the kit categories, like Category:Mamluks, but do not have levels... So Nasir is a 10th level Fighter who would also have the mamluk category... a good example is in 5e, a fighter can be a Champion or Battlemaster... we should not have Battlemasters of 12th level, because these archetypes really only add flair to the Fighter class... my two cents :) - Darkwynters (talk) 23:21, May 26, 2015 (UTC)


 * So you want to take "Mamluk" et. al. out of the Class table and replace it with the basic class? That's okay with me, but they did go to the trouble of making three-letter abbreviations for some of these kits, treating them like a class, didn't they? Oh well, I think it would be better to use Fighter for the class, just for sorting and listing purposes if nothing else. I'm not sure what to call the additional field for the Person template. The archetype of Mamluk would be Fighter, right? Any suggestions on what to call it that would work across editions? How about "Flavor", "Variation", or "Variant"? Maybe "Subclass"? I think "Build" has a different meaning to 4th edition players (?) Thoughts anyone? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 13:19, May 27, 2015 (UTC)