Noble PC class.

[geeman]

RPG Objects have a Noble PC class that they`ve posted. This class is part

of an Arthurian/knighthood type campaign setting, so it has stuff about

assigning quests and the like, which doesn`t really lend itself to BR in

particular, but could be useful here and there. It also uses a point value

for "nobility" that isn`t included in the download that I saw, but we can

associate that stuff with bloodline (just having one) for BR purposes. I

do like the stuff about granting knighthood--something that is oft handled

badly in other RPGs. I think they`re on to something there. It`s a little

vague, but could inspire a sort of BR equivalent. Lastly, the special

ability of the noble (inspiration and majesty) looks like a blood ability

to me, and might provide a basis for a BR equivalent of the noble that uses

the bloodline score in place of a "nobility" score.



http://www.rpgobjects.com/dlm/download.php?id=30



Gary

[RaspK_FOG]

In my opinion, the best noble class I've ever seen is the one presented in The Wheel of Time (sorry guys!), just like the wanderer is a lot more interesting than the rogue... Anyway, I think that Birthright has a need for a noble that really feels more - how should I put it - aristocratic?!

[Seeker164]

If your looking for a Noble type Character with some diplomacy why not use the Noble class out of Dragonlance Campaign Setting. They have a good array of skills and abilities that would work well for BR.
Just my 2 cents on that

[geeman]

At 08:05 PM 12/17/2003 +0100, RaspK_FOG wrote:



> In my opinion, the best noble class I`ve ever seen is the one presented

> in The Wheel of Time (sorry guys!), just like the wanderer is

> a lot more interesting than the rogue... Anyway, I think that Birthright

> has a need for a noble that really feels more - how should I put it -

> aristocratic?!



Classes are generally tweaked for the campaign setting, and I`m starting to

think the BR noble should have more to do with bloodline than with

expressing things having to do with anything else since bloodline is core

to the setting. The Aristocrat might be the non-blooded version of the

Noble, but the Noble itself could comprise aspects of a scion character

class and other issues having to do with realm rulership since that`s the

other major aspect of the BR setting....



Gary

[Eosin the Red]

Green Ronin just put out a Nobles book in their masterclass line (Includes Witches, Shamans, Assassians, Avatars, and Unholy Warriors). 3 of 5 have been outstanding IMO and I look forward to reading their treatment.



Other than that, I use the Wheel of Time noble (updated to match the Star Wars Revised Noble) as my noble class and the BR noble as a Jack of all trades/bardly type class. It is an extremely versitile class just not a noble one.



PS for those of you non-magical ranger types on the other thread...The Woodsman from the Wheel of Time is exactly that a non-magical ranger.



Eosin



>

> At 08:05 PM 12/17/2003 +0100, RaspK_FOG wrote:

>

> > In my opinion, the best noble class I`ve ever seen is the one presented

> > in The Wheel of Time (sorry guys!), just like the wanderer is

> > a lot more interesting than the rogue... Anyway, I think that Birthright

> > has a need for a noble that really feels more - how should I put it -

> > aristocratic?!

>

> Classes are generally tweaked for the campaign setting, and I`m starting to

> think the BR noble should have more to do with bloodline than with

> expressing things having to do with anything else since bloodline is core

> to the setting. The Aristocrat might be the non-blooded version of the

> Noble, but the Noble itself could comprise aspects of a scion character

> class and other issues having to do with realm rulership since that`s the

> other major aspect of the BR setting....

>

> Gary

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 2:56 PM





> Classes are generally tweaked for the campaign setting, and I`m starting

to

> think the BR noble should have more to do with bloodline than with

> expressing things having to do with anything else since bloodline is core

> to the setting. The Aristocrat might be the non-blooded version of the

> Noble, but the Noble itself could comprise aspects of a scion character

> class and other issues having to do with realm rulership since that`s the

> other major aspect of the BR setting....



My responce to the Legends of Excalibur noble class was the opposite. I

think that a class designed to represent a noble class for birthright should

be distinct from the bloodline system. Otherwise, like the LoE setting,

they should be rolled into one. Part of this involves the fact that two

mechanisms allows for a different kind of approach to what the divine touch

implies. The Arthurian setting involves one kind, and generally only one

kind, a kind we might associate with Andurias` derivation. That makes it

easy to roll the aristocrat and the bloodline into one class. But in BR,

not only does bloodline come in varieties, there is no reason to associate

it with a single class. I associate Reynir not with aristocrats but with

druids. Vorynn I associate with sorcerers. I could have a class for common

druids, and for blooded druids, common rogues, and blooded rogues, common

sorcerers and blooded sorcerers, but its much easier to seperate bloodedness

and class. This works as well for aristocrats, who may or may not be

blooded. I have the greatest ability to mix and match for any character

concept when bloodline and class are not combined.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Eosin the Red" <eosin_the_red@COX.NET>

Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 3:34 PM



> I use the Wheel of Time noble



I am not happy with the WoT/SW noble. His two primary abilities both strike

the wrong note with me. "Call in a Favor" strikes me as something that

should be built by a network of circumstance (a priest of Avani being able

to get some kind of aid from temples of Avani, people drawing on familial

relations) or by a network built by the character, not by the accumulation

of mere levels. "Command" suggests that nobles are so good at giving

directions (or gives such good directions) that whether or not the noble

actually knows anything about the matter at hand (the noble makes a Charisma

check) a potentially huge bonus is provided. "Inspire Confidence" doesn`t

bother me, but I would rather take it and "Command" and make it the basis of

a class called "Officer" or "Captain" and replace "Call in a Favor" with

some ability that is useful in large scale combat.



The AEG Courtier (used in Rokugan, Swashbuckling, and other AEG settings) is

a nice class, but its not well suited to Cerilia, where war is so frequent,

where the god of law and governance is also a god of war, where the god of

heraldry and diplomacy is a god of battle. I have used this class once, to

describe Lady Carissa Castamona from the Talinie PS.



AEG also has a Noble class (Swashbuckling), but it seems too well suited to

a Three Musketeers campaign, and not well enough suited to a world where a

noble does more than stare down his enemies and sneer at their impotence.



Mongoose has a Noble class which is nice enough, but duplicates too closely

the powers of other classes (particularly the Bardic Knowledge ability which

Courtiers have as well) and otherwise could benefit from a bit of tinkering.



The BRCS noble is just a fighter who has traded some combat power (slower

BAB, d8 HD, and fewer feats) for a boat load of skills. The use of

unlimited bonus feats strikes me as both not specific enough as well as too

flexible (related but not just two sides of the same coin).



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by kgauck@Dec 17 2003, 07:13 PM
----- Original Message -----

From: "Eosin the Red" <eosin_the_red@COX.NET>

Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 3:34 PM



> I use the Wheel of Time noble



I am not happy with the WoT/SW noble. His two primary abilities both strike

the wrong note with me. "Call in a Favor" strikes me as something that

should be built by a network of circumstance (a priest of Avani being able

to get some kind of aid from temples of Avani, people drawing on familial

relations) or by a network built by the character, not by the accumulation

of mere levels. "Command" suggests that nobles are so good at giving

directions (or gives such good directions) that whether or not the noble

actually knows anything about the matter at hand (the noble makes a Charisma

check) a potentially huge bonus is provided. "Inspire Confidence" doesn`t

bother me, but I would rather take it and "Command" and make it the basis of

a class called "Officer" or "Captain" and replace "Call in a Favor" with

some ability that is useful in large scale combat.



The AEG Courtier (used in Rokugan, Swashbuckling, and other AEG settings) is

a nice class, but its not well suited to Cerilia, where war is so frequent,

where the god of law and governance is also a god of war, where the god of

heraldry and diplomacy is a god of battle. I have used this class once, to

describe Lady Carissa Castamona from the Talinie PS.



AEG also has a Noble class (Swashbuckling), but it seems too well suited to

a Three Musketeers campaign, and not well enough suited to a world where a

noble does more than stare down his enemies and sneer at their impotence.



Mongoose has a Noble class which is nice enough, but duplicates too closely

the powers of other classes (particularly the Bardic Knowledge ability which

Courtiers have as well) and otherwise could benefit from a bit of tinkering.



The BRCS noble is just a fighter who has traded some combat power (slower

BAB, d8 HD, and fewer feats) for a boat load of skills. The use of

unlimited bonus feats strikes me as both not specific enough as well as too

flexible (related but not just two sides of the same coin).



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com


We had a real hard time trying to come up with a PC class to replace the aristocrat for the BRCS. I tend to agree that the noble wasn&#39;t specific enough. I had originally proposed making the noble take a focus (warrior, guilder or scholar) and then have their bonus feats be selected from a corresponding list . Similar to what the 3.5 ranger had done to it. This was determined to be too complicated. The class has been revised though and will come out for the next round of discussions and playtests with a better focus than it had before, and not as many "free any type of" feats.

The Mongoose noble was the best work up of the class that I have seen in a published product so far, IMO. And yet I also agree it is far too duplicating in other class abilities and not enough in new ones.

[destowe]

It seems that people would like the same distinction between Noble and Aristocrat as there is from Wizard and Magician.

The Noble and the Wizard are the regent holder and have bloodlines.

While the Magician and Aristocrat are more common and while still suitable for adventuring, are more suited as LTs.

[Osprey]

The BRCS noble is just a fighter who has traded some combat power (slower
BAB, d8 HD, and fewer feats) for a boat load of skills. The use of
unlimited bonus feats strikes me as both not specific enough as well as too
flexible (related but not just two sides of the same coin).

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com


I would be happy with a similar Noble class that uses bonus feats from a list of class feats. It should allow for the cultural variety you described (rogue, fighter, and other bents, combined with different cultural tendencies and bloodline derivations), yet be distinct enough to be a seperate class unto itself rather than a simple multiclass 2-in-1 deal.

My ideal Noble class would have just a few distinct and fairly general (i.e., common to all nobles) class abilities, along with fairly regular bonus feats (1 every 4 levels seems reasonable) from a class list.

-Osprey

[kgauck]

The key thing I wanted in my own Noble class (I call it Aristocrat because I

don`t use the DMG NPC version) was the things specific to a wealthy,

powerful elite: free Leadership feat, a Rally ability, knowledge of nobles

and etiquette, a bonus to resist suggestions to maliciously harm the realm,

a governance bonus, the familiar range of charisma powers, and a few special

kinds of access.



For those who haven`t seen it, its here:

http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/aristocrat.htm



I gave the aristocrat 4 skills ranks per level, but I also gave him a bonus

to Knowledge (Nobility) and Perform (Etiquette) equal to the Aristocrat`s

class level, which is similar to having 6 skill ranks. Doing things this

way channels the skill potential of the aristocrat as well as allowing an

aristocrat to take the bonus and spend ranks in these skills. In any event,

its not more powerful than the gossip (bardic knowledge) ability.



Rather than having a list of bonus feats, I have a class ability called

Noble Conduct which allows you to choose from eight abilities from having a

bonus Ally (a limited form of Call in a Favor ability) to having a secret

hide-out lined up



The five bonus feats included allow for a combat specialization, skill

emphisis, magical feats, or any of the politcal feats found in books like

City Works or Dyansties and Demagogues.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

Apropos of the discussion of a noble PC class is this article on how to use

nobles in a campaign. It might seem a sensible place to start when coming

up with things a D20 noble PC class should be able to do....



http://www.roleplayingtips.com/issue189.asp



Gary

[RaspK_FOG]

I disagree with the choice you made, Kenneth: giving a bonus to two such skills, on top of all the other class features, that&#39;s too much&#33; And o cannot possibly be meaning what you said; such a HUGE bonus does not equal two extra skill points, even if the skill points give more freedom of choice: the bonus is there and will be there, so the Aristocrat need not raise his ranks in these skills a lot... And if he does, the better it is for him, I suppose&#33;

[Osprey]

Kenneth,
Perform: Etiquette? Don&#39;t you think seperating that from Diplomacy is splitting hairs a bit? They&#39;re both Charisma skills, so no conflict there, and it seems to me etiquette is part and parcel of any trained diplomat&#39;s arsenal. With only 4 skill points a level for your noble, it seems a little cruel to make them take 2 skills that are normally covered by one. The etiquette skill seems so specialized as to be not quite worth it, and Knowledge: Nobility is most useful for the synergy bonuses it provides, although I do encourage my PC&#39;s to take it and offer opportunities to use it (recognizing who&#39;s who at court and identifying heraldic symbols, for examples).

Still: I&#39;d far rather have an extra bonus feat or two, and take skill focus (in MY choice of class skills rather than the pre-fabricated class template&#39;s), and I&#39;d also far rather have more skill points. Wasn&#39;t the point of having class and cross-class skills to set limitations of appropriate skills for a given class? Why then force certain skills down their throats?

Again I say, keep things broader...let players have a little freedom in tailoring and specializing their nobles to their own taste, &#39;cause god knows the nobility have always been an eccentric bunch to say the least&#33;

As a player, I know for sure I have a lot more fun with characters and classes that I have freedom to customize a good deal, but I also enjoy a few useful and neat class abilities. I just think it&#39;s important to keep those abilities specific enought o the class to make sense but broadly applicable enough to be worth having in the first place. Otherwise a player ends up feeling "ripped off" when his class abilities don&#39;t really match up to his fellow PC&#39;s except in very specialized situations (3.0 rangers fell prey to this problem sometimes with their favored enemies and limited spell lists. The 3.5 ones are much improved in this regard, IMHO).

And as a DM, well...I want my players to have fun, too&#33;
It&#39;s a prickly fine line to write a balanced class that retains the best mix of playability, conceptual accuracy, power balance, flexibility, and distinctiveness. If you want a class with a long string of class abilities but few choices, I strongly recommend making that a prestige class rather than a core character class. That&#39;s the proper place for the dedicated specialists in the 3.x D&D world.

-Osprey

[kgauck]

The skills Knowledge (Nobility) and Performance (Ettiquete) are hard to

abuse. If I had a 12th level Aristocrat PC who had maxed out their ranks in

those subjects (a choice none of my players have ever come anywhere near),

and put 15 ranks with a +12 bonus (and lets give him a +2 Int and Cha bonus)

for a +39 to a roll, I would have no problem with that. As I worked out for

an article on Gather Information, information that is not commonly known is

either forgotten or secret. Who built your house is forgotten information.

The fact that Lars Aerora has a shirne to Azrai hidden in a chest under his

bed is a secret. Knowledge skills generally, and in this case specifically

only cover forgotten knowledge, not secret knowledge. If a PC had Knowledge

(Religion: Azrai), he might know symbols, myths, practices, and teachings of

the cult of Azrai, but he wouldn`t know the names of followers in a given

place, no matter how many ranks he had. So, having a +39 bonus only comes

in handy if you want to know about far off places or a long, long time ago.



Given a PC based in Stjordvik, such questions might have the listed DC

Who was the jarl of Tealrjud 712 years ago? DC 30

How about the lord of Ostborg in Taelrjud the same year? DC 35

Who was the jarl`s steward? DC 35

Who did the jarl`s sister marry? DC 35

or

What is the coat of arms of the current tsarevo of Urysk (in Yeninskiy)? DC

30

What is the popular courtly dance in the Khinasi island states? DC25

Show it to me. DC 35

What Maetian rank approximately corresponded to our current meaning of jarl

just prior to Deismaar? DC 30



Secret information not found in histories, genealogies, armorials,

chronicles, manuals of etiquette, or circulating through court rumor cannot

be known.



Characters with fantasically high bonuses in Knowledge (Nobility) or Perform

(Etiquette) don`t bother me. If you want to be the kind of aristocrat so

knowledgable of nobility and etiquette that you could be randomly teleported

to any court in Cerilia and you would know who was who by their badges as

well as how to engage in all the court ritual, I have no problem with that.



What does bother me is the idea that someone is a 12th level aristocrat in

Stjordvik and they don`t know that eorl Olfjor of Arvaald and king Varri are

cousins, that the proper time to serve the evening meal is sunset, or the

common camp songs of a noble hunting party. The character needs to know

this because how could they be a 12th level aristocrat and have missed this

stuff? And if they missed it because they were exiles, they know the same

kinds of things from some other land(s). Aristocrats know how to conduct

themselves as aristocrats. I made it mechanical.



http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/guilder.htm

When I wrote up my Guilder class, I included a Haggler class feature that

provides a +5 bonus to Bargain checks. You get the ability once at 1st

level and again at 7th level. At 1st level you elect to specialize in

either legal or illegal market transactions, and the +5 bonus only applies

to those. At 7th level the bonus applies to both. This was a modification

of the SW features Barter, which belongs to the fringer, and Illicit Barter,

which belongs to the scoundrel. Based on my experience with the +1/level

bonus of Knowledge (Nobility) and Perform (Ettiquete), if I were to run a

Brecht based campaign, in which I would certainly have a few Guilder PC`s, I

would switch the +5 to a +1/level bonus.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Osprey" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 8:52 PM





> With only 4 skill points a level for your noble, it seems a little cruel

to

> make them take 2 skills that are normally covered by one.



The Aristocrat gets 4 ranks per level. What he gets in Knowledge (Nobility)

and Perform (Ettiquete) is a bonus of +1/per level.



In general I like low skill numbers, so I am happy with 2 ranks per level in

the core classes, 4 in the hybrid classes and so on.



> The etiquette skill seems so specialized as to be not quite worth it

> [...] Don`t you think seperating that from Diplomacy is splitting hairs a

bit?



I split Diplomacy up into Perform (Ettiquette) which is knowing how to

behave properly, Bargain which is for negotiating with one person or a small

group, Perform (Oratory) for addressing a large group of people - Clerics

get this as a class skill, not Diplomacy, and Diplomacy which is the ability

to negotiate between realms.



My sense, having used the class as a core class for some time, is that its

well balanced. Its more powerful then other classes when its in its element

(only the bard and rogue give it a run for its money in court), its a fairly

good combat class, but clearly inferior to fighter, and beyond that its

spotty. He lacks support skills (other than being a good group spokesman

and the Rally ability) and can`t help other characters much. When magic

becomes central, he`s quite vulnerable.



He is flexible, but he`s typically only good at one kind of style. He can

go for a wilderness warrior, as a noble hunter pursuing stag or boar, or

whatever the forest throws at him. He can be the skilled communicator and a

spokesman for a party or a realm, rallying troops, negotiating treaties, or

making friends in court. He can be a companion to rogues, lyings,

eavesdropping, and bribing his way around court. He can`t be good at all

three, though.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[irdeggman]

Etiquette should be a knowledge skill and not a perform one. You can&#39;t entertain using etiquette and since a class specifically gets a different type of performance type for each rank in perform it doesn&#39;t quite fit, while all knowledge skills are individually specific.

As a reference the Alternity system (the precurser to d20 and another of Rich Baker&#39;s heavily influenced settings) has etiquette as a knowledge based skill.

Diplomacy (cha based) would reflect how well you can influnce people using your knowledge of things while knowledge - nobility or etiquette should provide the basis (and synergy bonuses) for diplomacy checks.


That&#39;s my opinion and 2 cents worth.

[geeman]

At 04:20 PM 12/21/2003 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



>Etiquette should be a knowledge skill and not a perform one. You can`t

>entertain using etiquette and since a class specifically gets a different

>type of performance type for each rank in perform it doesn`t quite fit,

>while all knowledge skills are individually specific.

>

>As a reference the Alternity system (the precurser to d20 and another of

>Rich Baker`s heavily influenced settings) has etiquette as a knowledge

>based skill.

>

>Diplomacy (cha based) would reflect how well you can influnce people using

>your knowledge of things while knowledge - nobility or etiquette should

>provide the basis (and synergy bonuses) for diplomacy checks.



I like the idea of a skill to reflect the use of etiquette, and I agree

that it is essentially knowledge (intelligence) based rather than charisma

like perform, but doesn`t "etiquette" touch upon a whole set of ideas

regarding cultural norms in various social strata? That is, as expressed

in this thread the idea of "etiquette" seems to be only the manners and

affectations of a chivalric/ancestral noble class, but etiquette as a whole

is the ability to "pass" for a member of a certain culture and social class

in matters of dress, manner, language, etc. or, rather, not to offend any

of the people with whom one interacts for reasons having to do with social

protocol, regardless of the actual culture/social level. That gives us not

only a whole scope of the skill (sort of the social equivalent of disguise)

but also a glimpse of how it might be used in play. Social interactions of

any stripe could then be portrayed by that one skill. A disguised

character is trying to sneak past the temple guards? Etiquette

check. Trying to get passed a gang local toughs? Etiquette check.



In a broader context, 3.5 rolled innuendo into the bluff skill, but if we

use a slightly broader definition of etiquette we might see how innuendo

might be bluff, or it might be better portrayed by an etiquette skill, and

would work in a den of thieves or to understand what the matron of a noble

family is _really_ saying.



Gary

[Osprey]

I split Diplomacy up into Perform (Ettiquette) which is knowing how to
behave properly, Bargain which is for negotiating with one person or a small
group, Perform (Oratory) for addressing a large group of people - Clerics
get this as a class skill, not Diplomacy, and Diplomacy which is the ability
to negotiate between realms.


Ah, well that does explain a few things. What, though, does your version of diplomacy actually entail?

My own understanding of diplomacy as a trained skill is that etiquette and negotiation are the key abilities in use. Etiquette is knowing when to say the right thing at the proper time, who to bow to and how low, what is or is not polite, and of course which utensil to use for which foods. And agreeing with the others, this is heavily knowledge-based, but it is also heavily performance-based too. Knowing the right thing to do, and doing it well, are really 2 different things.

And then there&#39;s the art of negotiation, be it bargaining or mediation between 2 or more other parties. This is really the art of making deals, haggling terms (or prices - they&#39;re really very similar things), and getting the better end of a bargain. More universally similar than some would admit... I think the difference between small or large scale negotiations isn&#39;t represented as well in seperate skills as in seperate synergy bonuses based on appropriate Knowledge skills and situational modifiers, as well as proper presentation (see below).

If you insist on breaking up Diplomacy, then I suggest letting Knowledge skills cover the knowledge-based aspects of etiquette, while Diplomacy would cover the proper execution of those rules (hence the CHA base, with synergy bonuses from the Knowledge skills). But allowing Kn: Nobility to cover rules of etiquette for the nobility isn&#39;t outrageous, is it? While Kn: Local might cover a local city or rural province, Kn: Religion might include temple etiquette, Kn: Guilds would cover merchant etiquette, etc.

But also having a seperate Bargain skill is pretty reasonable IMO, and that would be used to actually make diplomatic and/or mercantile deals, with the Diplomacy check made first to indicate the opponent&#39;s intial attitude (and thus set or modify the DC for the Bargain check). Again, appropriate Knowledge skills should provide synergy bonuses here. For instance, knowledge of a country with whom you&#39;re negotiating a treaty would be extremely useful (at 5+ ranks, of course), while Knowledge:Guilds or Kn:Trade would be helpful in brokering a trade route between 2 realms.

And Perform: Oratory is also a reasonable seperate skill (though I think 3.x already assumes as much), although you might want to consider whether Lead (if you use it) couldn&#39;t be used in place of this.

[RaspK_FOG]

You know what? One of the greatest ideas presented in the Noble from The Wheel of Time was that at 1st level he chooses one cross-class skill, which is then considered to be a class-skill for him. Historically, nobles were known for either endeavouring on less lawful "things", or for having a particular hoby.

[Birthright-L]

> You know what? One of the greatest ideas presented in the Noble from

> The Wheel of Time was that at 1st level he chooses one

> cross-class skill, which is then considered to be a class-skill for

> him. Historically, nobles were known for either endeavouring on less

> lawful "things", or for having a particular hoby.



Has anyone here seen the noble class from Fading Suns d20? I only got

the briefest of glimpses from my friend`s book but the idea of a large

system of Social Feats for all the classes kind of intrigued me. If any

of you have this book, could you post some of your thoughts on these

topics? Thanks.

--Lord Rahvin

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "RaspK_FOG" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:57 AM





> You know what? One of the greatest ideas presented in the Noble

> from The Wheel of Time was that at 1st level he chooses one

> cross-class skill, which is then considered to be a class-skill for him.

> Historically, nobles were known for either endeavouring on less lawful

> "things", or for having a particular hoby.



This is a fairly common bonus for nobles. The AEG Courtier gets the

Versatile feat at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th levels. This is two skills

which count as class skills. Versatile can also be taken as a feat. This

concept also comes up in some of the political supplements in classes,

PrC`s, and feats. Sometimes it comes with a bonus to the new skill,

especially when named. For example, the Brecht nobility are often nautical,

so a feat might grant Intuit Direction and Profession (Midshipman) and

include a small bonus. There is also the Forgotten Realms feat

Cosmopolitan, which gives you one skill as a class skill and a +2 bonus. I

generally think Versatile is better, but Cosmopolitan has its place.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Dec 21 2003, 11:36 AM
I like the idea of a skill to reflect the use of etiquette, and I agree

that it is essentially knowledge (intelligence) based rather than charisma

like perform, but doesn`t "etiquette" touch upon a whole set of ideas

regarding cultural norms in various social strata? That is, as expressed

in this thread the idea of "etiquette" seems to be only the manners and

affectations of a chivalric/ancestral noble class, but etiquette as a whole

is the ability to "pass" for a member of a certain culture and social class

in matters of dress, manner, language, etc. or, rather, not to offend any

of the people with whom one interacts for reasons having to do with social

protocol, regardless of the actual culture/social level. That gives us not

only a whole scope of the skill (sort of the social equivalent of disguise)

but also a glimpse of how it might be used in play. Social interactions of

any stripe could then be portrayed by that one skill. A disguised

character is trying to sneak past the temple guards? Etiquette

check. Trying to get passed a gang local toughs? Etiquette check.



In a broader context, 3.5 rolled innuendo into the bluff skill, but if we

use a slightly broader definition of etiquette we might see how innuendo

might be bluff, or it might be better portrayed by an etiquette skill, and

would work in a den of thieves or to understand what the matron of a noble

family is _really_ saying.



Gary


You just expressed one of the counters to your arguement here. 3.5 rolled as many skills into each as possible (or at least they tried to) so that characters could get the most out of their skill points.

Using etiquette as an interaction skill - what is the difference between diplomacy in this application? Diplomacy is about influencing people which is why bargain is a function of diplomacy in 3.5. The correllary between using diplomacy for bargaining and diplomacy for etiquette is pretty evident.

When I said that knowledge- nobility and knowledge-etiquette would provide sysnergy bonueses was actually incorrect they should provide circumstance bonuses. Synergy bonuses apply all the time, circumstance bonuses apply under certain circumstances.

Another thing there should probably be knowedge-etiquette for each type of culture. Having etiquette knowledge of elven culture would not help in a dwarven community.

[RaspK_FOG]

Another thing there should probably be knowedge-etiquette for each type of culture. Having etiquette knowledge of elven culture would not help in a dwarven community.

Sorry to say so, Irdeggman, but you are sadly mistaken there: why then not have separate Knowledge (history), Knowledge (nobility), Knowledge ([whatever]), even Perform ([whatever]) skills? "Sure, thou danceth fabulously, milady, but we, Anuirean, dance like this..." You get the picture.

Oh, one more thing: Perform isn&#39;t about making money, it&#39;s about making an artistic expression, which makes it different from some artistic Craft skills, like Craft (calligraphy) and Perform (tea ceremony) (both found in Oriental Adventures). If you ask me, grouping Craft skills in the manner Perform was done is a good idea, as I have realised myself. For example, one could have 13 ranks in Craft (metalworking), with the following proficiencies: metallurgy, (goldworking), (silverworking), (copperworking), (bronzeworking), (brassworking), ringcasting, minting, chain casting, smelting, molding, and welding.

If you do want to go with separate Knowledge skills, I suggest you take it one step further, doing the same with other skills, like Knowledge (nobility and royalty) - elvish, dwarven, halfling, Anuirean, Brecht, Khinasi, and so on.

I hope you like the idea, and it certainly is based on 3.5e rules. :P

[kgauck]

Looking at the guide lines for Bardic Knowledge, common knowledge is a DC 10

and uncommon knowledge is a DC 20. Using that guide, asking an Anuirean who

inhabits courtly circles how to dance an Anuirean ductia is a DC 10. Asking

the same Anuirean courtier how to dance a Brecht Niedrigerschritt would be a

DC 20. I can modify the DC up or down 5 if I suspect a greater or lessor

familiarity. Likewise with elves and dwarves, which I would regard as

obscure for most humans (DC 25). Rather than having different skills, I

apply a modifier.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Dec 23 2003, 03:05 AM

Another thing there should probably be knowedge-etiquette for each type of culture. Having etiquette knowledge of elven culture would not help in a dwarven community.

Sorry to say so, Irdeggman, but you are sadly mistaken there: why then not have separate Knowledge (history), Knowledge (nobility), Knowledge ([whatever]), even Perform ([whatever]) skills? "Sure, thou danceth fabulously, milady, but we, Anuirean, dance like this..." You get the picture.

This was based, again on the Alternity rules which have etiquette - specific culture (i.e., one for each type of culture). I was wrong in my original statement concerning Alternity and the etiquette skill. It is a personality skill (Charisma in D&D) but it does work the same way as I was infering though - it can&#39;t be used untrained, there is a specific culture for each type of etiquette and ranks in etiquette give bonuses to the diplomacy checks being made for the specific culture {sounds much more like a knowledge skill to me in functionality}.

You are right about perform, but the reasoning is still sound for why etiquette shouldn&#39;t be a perform skill - for the same reasons as you list for what perform is about -artistic expression.

In 3rd ed perform had a form of performance per rank (only one skill check for all of the types of performance). In 3.5 they "fixed" this by making perform function more like craft skills, each type of performance is its own skill and ranks in that type of performance don&#39;t apply to other types.

[RaspK_FOG]

I am happy to realise we understand each other, Irdeggman. ;)

As for your suggestion, I wholeheartedly agree, Kenneth; I was just suggesting something for those who thought that such a way would be best.

[Vallariel]

I just got the Nobles Handbook from Green Ronin, and it is really worth a read. It has ideas for your noble character (nothing really new here) and some really interesting idea&#39;s on noble houses. (Really called House Avan and some of the other BR families to my mind).
Has a section on duelling. A section on handling followers.
63 pages of goodness&#33;
LOL&#33; :D