3.5 Noble

[Osprey]

OK folks, as it's appearing the noble needs to go through some more revision, I have taken the liberty to write up a revised class that integrates some of the proposals for revision. The hope is that I'm creating something that a majority of folks can live with for the 3.5 BRCS project. I can't post it for download (Irdeggman will hopefully do that :) ), but I'll detail the major changes below:

1. The high BAB was restored.

2. Resources has been revised somewhat. It is available at 1st level as a basic class ability, usable a number of times per adventure/domain turn equal to the noble's Charisma modifier (minimum 1). This number increases by one every 5 levels (5th, 10th, 15th, 20th).
However: accessing wealth nets only 50 gp per Noble class level. After doing some calculations, I realized that higher levels of Resources could earn ridiculous levels of wealth in the current system.

3. Leadership was bumped down to 2nd level as a bonus feat, and path-based bonus feats are gained at levels 6, 11, and 16. I figured if DM's don't like Leadership at 2nd level, they can always swap it with the 6th level path feat.

4. Coordinate +2 was kept at 3rd level, but higher levels (+4, +6 etc.) were removed, and the check to add the bonus was changed from Charisma (DC 10 + number of people being coordinated) to a Lead check (DC 15 + number of people being coordinated). This seemed like an obvious use of the Lead skill, and it can still be used untrained as a Charisma check.

And that about sums it up. A high BAB is the real "power up" from the last version. There's one less bonus feat, significantly reduced wealth from resources, and no higher levels of Coordinate to compensate for this. What do folks think of this? If there's generally positive feedback, then we can run a poll to sanction it.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Here is the pdf version.

[irdeggman]

And here is the Word version.

[Osprey]

Thanks for posting that Duane, and converting it to .pdf! Much appreciated... :)

And folks, some feedback would be great, so that we know if this is worth putting forth for sanctioning as an official version. Thanks in advance!

Osprey

[RaspK_FOG]

I truly like this version! Works fine, if you ask me...

[Athos69]

I *really* like this... I think we should set up a Sanctioning vote on this....

now if we could only get going with the Magician, we could put Chapter 1 to bed soon and give Duane his long-deserved break :)

[irdeggman]

At 1st level, a noble can requisition resources a number of times equal to his Charisma modifier per adventure (or Domain turn, if more appropriate), with a minimum of 1 attempt per adventure at 1st level (even with a Charisma modifier of 0 or less). He may make an additional attempt per adventure or domain turn at 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter (10th, 15th, and 20th). A failed check doesn’t expend any of the noble’s influence, but the noble cannot attempt to access the same resource (or contact) and suffers a cumulative –2 to every subsequent attempt that domain turn made to gain the same benefit from other resources.* The DM should carefully monitor the use of this ability to ensure that it isn’t abused.

This doesn’t play well. There is no time limit expressed for how long it takes to access resources. Also using an adventure as a basis is rather awkward since some adventures can last a real real long time (Kingdom of the Giantdowns for instance lasts many domain turns). It works fine if there is only 1 access of resources but when the number increases it makes it real hard to deal with. I prefer the way trying to make the variable was the number of resources of which the noble could only access one an adventure or domain turn, but he has a choice. The idea being that each contact had a different function or different things that the noble could get from them. This is something I noticed in how the revised version I wrote reads also. I don't know maybe it works as written, but when reading it again it just seems awkward. I think that 1 access per adventure or domain turn but an increase in the number of of attempts to max of 1 per month with a larger number of resources might work better.


The * annotation is supposed to indicate a new feat listed in the BRCS and not to be confused with a domain level feat. See Magic chapter for examples. Should use the annotation consistently. Probably should add a note indicating this.


I'm still not real comfortable with the good BAB, since I see this class as more of a classroom/interaction learning one and not as a constant training on the practice field or in the woods where constant practice in martial arts is a part of the way things are learned. A bonus feat would fit better IMO, but the class is balanced as written and if that is what the masses want - then so be it.

[Athos69]

suggestion:

Could we give the good BAB to the Warrior subset, and do something for the other 2 in order to even it out?

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Athos69@Aug 4 2004, 07:21 PM
suggestion:

Could we give the good BAB to the Warrior subset, and do something for the other 2 in order to even it out?
That would make them more like 3 separate classes instead of variations/paths on the same one.

If it came to that, I'd rather the class had a good BAB.

[RaspK_FOG]

I tend to think of the noble as a class with a good BAB progression. Anyway, regarding resources, I noticed that as well but had no clear idea till now. What if the ability to ask for resources is broken down on a time basis? Like, once per week or month, or something like that?

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Aug 5 2004, 02:57 AM
I tend to think of the noble as a class with a good BAB progression. Anyway, regarding resources, I noticed that as well but had no clear idea till now. What if the ability to ask for resources is broken down on a time basis? Like, once per week or month, or something like that?
It could be 1 free action and then something like what you propose.

Regardless we need to include a definition of 'free' actions in regards to domain actions in that chapter.

I have no problem with multiple resource actions as long as they tie into another action. Like an Agitate or Rule in a province and a resource check (using a resource located in that province) makes sense to me.

There is a corollary to this when compared to the quick draw feat. If a character has a +1 BAB he can draw his weapon as a free action when used as part of another action. IF he has the feat it is always a free action.

[the Falcon]

Noble Focus: I don't see what purpose this serves. I also don't see why running a guild would give you good reflex saves. Besides that, I don't really think of most guilders as "noble". And what on Æbrynis is a scholarly noble, anyways?

Resources: How about replacing this with the Contacts system from Unearthed Arcana (page 179–180)? A noble could then get a new contact every level, for instance (bards get one every other level, clerics/paladins/rogues every 3 levels, fighters/sorcerers every 4, and barbarians/druids/monks/rangers/wizards every 5). I think the Contacts system works very nice in Birthright in any case.

Leadership: Second level seems kinda early to me.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by the Falcon@Aug 5 2004, 04:55 AM
Noble Focus: I don't see what purpose this serves. I also don't see why running a guild would give you good reflex saves. Besides that, I don't really think of most guilders as "noble". And what on Æbrynis is a scholarly noble, anyways?

Noble guilders would be very prominent in Brechtur. There is a strong noble system there and they are very much business oriented.

Scholarly nobles would likewise be common in Khinasi lands due their emphasis on education.

For scholarly noble think in terms of King Solomon from the bible.

[the Falcon]

Originally posted by irdeggman+Aug 5 2004, 12:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (irdeggman @ Aug 5 2004, 12:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-the Falcon@Aug 5 2004, 04:55 AM
Noble Focus: I don't see what purpose this serves. I also don't see why running a guild would give you good reflex saves. Besides that, I don't really think of most guilders as "noble". And what on Æbrynis is a scholarly noble, anyways?

Noble guilders would be very prominent in Brechtur. There is a strong noble system there and they are very much business oriented.

Scholarly nobles would likewise be common in Khinasi lands due their emphasis on education.

For scholarly noble think in terms of King Solomon from the bible. [/b][/quote]
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the bible, but your other two examples do indeed make some kind of sense, especially the Khinasi one.

By the way, does anyone know any good, historically accurate online resources about guilds? I'm not really sure what real-world guild would've been like and I'm trying to get a better picture.

[RaspK_FOG]

The term guild refers to a "union" of likewise employed people; think of this as the first form of measure that took care of employees rights. The difference here is that guilds were created at a time when to be an employee you were either the employer or an assistant or apprentice. There was no such thing as a company the way we use the word nowadays: each to his own, that's how it was...

So, a guild could be as loose as the butchers' guild, which only made sure meats were properly cared for and ensured its member's was not lying to the public as much as possible (by that time's standards, of course), or as tight as a cartographers' guild, a building with shelves filled with maps of all kinds, lots of writing surfaces and material, and so on.

A good example of a scholarly noble is Denethor from the Lord of the Rings, though I could easilly appoint him to a more... aristocratic class. Another example is Faramir, though I would multiclass him with Fighter. :P

[Osprey]

This doesn’t play well. There is no time limit expressed for how long it takes to access resources. Also using an adventure as a basis is rather awkward since some adventures can last a real real long time (Kingdom of the Giantdowns for instance lasts many domain turns). It works fine if there is only 1 access of resources but when the number increases it makes it real hard to deal with. I prefer the way trying to make the variable was the number of resources of which the noble could only access one an adventure or domain turn, but he has a choice. The idea being that each contact had a different function or different things that the noble could get from them. This is something I noticed in how the revised version I wrote reads also. I don't know maybe it works as written, but when reading it again it just seems awkward. I think that 1 access per adventure or domain turn but an increase in the number of of attempts to max of 1 per month with a larger number of resources might work better.


I would prefer that we simply remove the adventure aspect and stick with a set time period, in the current case, a number of Resource checks per domain turn (season). Any BR adventure is likely to keep track of actual time passing since domain events tend to be important regardless of whether the PC's are regents themselves or not. So making limits based on domain-scaled time makes sense.

How long does it take to access a resource? Well, in reality it would be totally dependent on the resource being accessed, which is a difficult variable to deal with as a class ability. As a DM, I would probably rule that it would only require a day or so to work out a deal with a contact, but it might take a bit more time (a week or so is a fair average) to actually have it take effect (the money or goods are delivered, the favor is performed, etc.).

In general, I agree, the current Resource system is a bit clumsy and difficult to interpret. My preference is to try and simplfy it as much as possible without trying to bog it down in reams of mechanics. I think we need to draw a line here between allowing a DM to rule on the specifics if they are an issue, and setting some general limitations like a maximum number of uses per season. If a PC wants to call in all their favors or collect on their investments all at the beginning of the season, this may be acceptable in certain campaigns, especially since it simplifies book-keeping.

I think the current limitations on number of Resources is pretty good as is, I don't think it's wise to raise the number...when re-writing the class, I had to keep reducing the number of Resources accessed to keep the potential gp income reasonable. The reality is that collecting wealth is likely to be the default use of Resources, whereas favors are more the type of thing to call in every once in a while, when the PC is in a pinch and needs some extra help. Thus, the balance for the Resource ability needs to keep careful track of how much income can be generated by the ability. Even toned down as it is, that income can add up at higher Noble levels with a high Charisma score.


Also, I really like that Resources and Favored Regions increase together. Thematically, this works very well: as the Noble's status and political influence increase, so does his netwrok of contacts and his ability to be influential in some region of Cerilia.

[Osprey]

I'm still not real comfortable with the good BAB, since I see this class as more of a classroom/interaction learning one and not as a constant training on the practice field or in the woods where constant practice in martial arts is a part of the way things are learned. A bonus feat would fit better IMO, but the class is balanced as written and if that is what the masses want - then so be it.

Hmmm...well, one of the real advantages of a high BAB is that it makes the Noble very desirable as a multiclass option, something I see happening a great deal in a BR campaign, esp. for regents. On the other hand, the class is also highly rewarding for those who pursue it as a straight class through many levels. So it works well used either way.

Thematically, it would of course make the most sense if the Warrior path had the high BAB, while the Guilder had a medium BAB and the Scholar a low one. But as you've said, it's nigh impossible to do this without creating 3 seperate classes, and it seems for the sake of space and time this isn't the best option.

One of the original thematic reasons for a high BAB was the idea that they are drawn from landed nobility, and almost all landed nobility are trained to fight and lead on the battlefield. This may break down somewhat for some of the Khinasi scholar-types or Brecht guilders, however, which is the rub here - the nobles of different cultures are rather different in their emphasis, perhaps more than a different saving throw and a few bonus feats adequately represent.

On the other hand, dropping the BAB progression for an extra feat or two is a terrible tradeoff for the warrior-type nobles, because feats almost never replace this basic fighting ability.

I still don't have a great answer for this, but I'm playing with the 3 path idea and seeing what I can come up with to work out some balance there.

[Osprey]

OK, not meaning to waffle so much, but the more I try to make the 3 paths idea work, the more it becomes 3 similar but different classes.

Let me say this: I do like the idea of 3 paths of nobility representing the different versions of nobility in Cerilia. Thematically, it's cool.

However: creating 3 variants of the Noble is going the way of the paladins, something I'd rather avoid here - my own preference is to simplify and unify the class concept somewhat, and let multiclassing do the work of fine-tuning the focus of a character towards being a warrior, guilder, or scholar. As it is, there are some serious built-in problems with the 3 paths as written.

SOOOO...here's my latest proposal:

Let's restore and re-unify the Noble class to make it a more general ideal of the medieval warrior aristocracy. This is a basic "default" template for the Noble, more similar to the first version of the 3.5 Noble. I don't have time to do the re-write and post it for download at the moment, and some feedback will let me know if this is worth doing, but here's where I'm going:

1. Keep the High BAB.
2. Restore the High Will save.
3. Condense the bonus feats into a single list, keep the same level progression (6/11/16).
4. Otherwise, the class will remain the same as the latest proposal, with perhaps a few tweaks to Resources (dropping the "per adventure" limit and simplifying it to "per Domain Turn").

As I mentioned earlier, with the high BAB this remains an attractive multiclass option. If Khinasi nobles want to be more scholarly or arcane, they can multiclass as wizards or magicians. Brecht nobles may multiclass as rogues, or simply be straight-class rogues if this suits them better. Anuirean nobles can multiclass as Fighters if they want a more militant focus (i.e., higher Fort saves and more combat feats), and Rjurik nobles could go the way of the Ranger for multiclassing for more wilderness-oriented skills.

Finally, don't forget that human Nobles will also be gaining their regional class skills (like Spellcraft for Khinasi, or Hide and Move Silently for Rjurik), which will also allow for some culturally specific variation.

So what do folks think of this? Is this the way to go, simplify and allow multiclassing to do the work of the paths?

Osprey

[Athos69]

Well I can't speak for the Arabic cultures, but weapons training was just as important for the merchant-princes, who had the best tutors brought in to teach the arts of swordsmanship and duelling. The 'Arte of Defense' wasn't just for common brawlers in the street and thugs, it was a refined skill tought to the upper classes, regardless of what station they would wind up assuming in the Nobility.

[irdeggman]

IMO this class would still be desireable as a multiclass option even with an avg BAB. The main reason being its emphasis on the domain level of play. This is something that the other classes don't have. They can of course take the domain level feats as standard character level ones but don't get them as bonus feats like the noble does.

Don't forget that there has been a lot of talk about revising the RP collection rules and having nobles gain max for provinces with the other classes getting mx from individual holding types. I can't say for sure that is how it will end up, but IMO it is highly likely it will. Hence another reason for the noble class being a desirable one.

Note that if someone is playing an adventure based campaign then no matter what changes we make to this class it just won't be a very desirable one - but nothing can really be done about that IMO.

So when looking at things from a broader standpoint than just a single class versus class issue (i.e., how the setting intertwines between adventure and domain level of play) I still see this working even with an avg BAB. But as I have said, I can live with the good BAB if that is what people want - it just seems to me that the class is more oriented towards leadership and domain level of play - something that a BAB just doesn't really reflect.

Note that an avg BAB still reflects a decent level of arms knowledge - there are only three levels of BAB now. If there was the mutli leveled ranges of old (fighter/thief/cleric/mage) the slight difference becomes better, but in its simplification WotC has reduced the BAB options so we just need to look at which one fits best.

I'm really against making the noble 3 separate classes. It reduces the commonality they have and I just don't see enough differences to warrant an entire different set of classes - heck I don't even mind dropping the different saving throws for the three paths it it makes a better fit. The reason for the paladin separate class variant was to reflect the descrete differences between the classes from 2nd ed. They had different spells, different granted abilities and now they have different alignments. This isn't a problem with nobles since the class didn't exist then.

[graham anderson]

Yes get back to the one class noble things keep creaping towards very specialized classes which I can't agree with. You specialise your character with multiclassing and the skills/feats that you choose. Put this to a vote I will support it. As for the paladins I would have been happier myslef if their was just one class but you gained the powers of you god at set points with the different gods powers being in the description. Thats me though I think it would be simpler to work with. Saying that though I quite like the paladin classes I just would have prefered one class with variables.

[RaspK_FOG]

I will back this up as well: the simpler the better it seems.

I am not totally sure about high BAB; I know, I may seem very frustrating with what I say, but the ability to fight without thinking of your battle prowess as your only resource really pays out as an average BAB - hence a monk's average BAB.

[Osprey]

Don't forget that there has been a lot of talk about revising the RP collection rules and having nobles gain max for provinces with the other classes getting mx from individual holding types. I can't say for sure that is how it will end up, but IMO it is highly likely it will. Hence another reason for the noble class being a desirable one.


Hmm, as I understood things we had come up with a fairly well-accepted system of key skills to determine RP collection, meaning that things weren't nearly so class-dependent as the 2e system. Diplomacy and Warcraft would be the key skills for province RP collection, which it's true, will favor Noble-class characters. However, Anuirean and Khinasi warrior classes who have Warcraft as a class skill can be equally good landed regents, since Diplomacy is a cultural "class" skill for them now. Also, multiclass nobles should have ample opportunity to be quite effective landed regents as well.

In general, the Noble will be well-suited to being a regent because of his class skills and skill points. If the there is a problem with his skill points or class skills, then we have an issue, otherwise I think this is a moot point.

[Athos69]

I too had thought that we had already discussed and decided on RP collection in a previous thread. Why are we now changing the decisions?

[Osprey]

OK, I've gone back to the drawing board to come up with a more standardized, unified Noble class. Irdeggman will hopefully post it soon, but I'll outline the most recent revision here.

1. I've trimmed the class skill list a bit to reflect a more generic noble skill set. With culturally-based class skills and multiclassing, this shouldn't be a problem. Disguise, Forgery, Survival, and Swim were removed from the list. Disguise and Forgery seemed too Rogue-specific, Survival and Swim more appropriate for Rangers or other athletic types. (Rjurik humans will still have Survival as a cultural class skill.)

2. High Will save is once again standard for the class.

3. All path functions were removed. I changed Look of the Noble back to Battle Cry, and it functions like the original ability (+1 Morale save to attack, damage, skill checks, and Will saves vs. fear).

4. Bonus feats are chosen from a single list: many are the master-class domain feats, plus a few others (blood focus and bloodline prodigy, conqueror, negotiator, mounted combat, persuasive).
-Errata: Regent Focus should also be included in this list.

5. Some small editing was done to Resources, mainly dropping the "per adventure" nebulous time set and standardizing it to "per domain turn" (season). Also, I re-wrote it so that the number of Resource checks is pass or fail; a failed check uses up that attempt for the season. This is another balancer to keep the power from being abused through constant re-tries, and makes the issue of "how long does it take?" that much less important.
-Errata: missed the last instance of "per adventure". Will remove this in final version.

6. Edited the sample character, removing Appraise and Swim from the "typical skill list" and swapped them for Warcraft and Knowledge (Nobility). Dropped the Masterwork Longsword from starting equipment, as average starting funds don't cover it plus other arms. Now has Longsword, Longbow, Breastplate, and Large Shield as basic arms package. Also noted that this was an Anuirean (Human) Noble, as a longsword and longbow are regionally favored arms and Regional Arms Focus is listed as one of the starting feats.

7. Just caught one other piece of errata: the Noble should be proficient with the common AND elite arms and armor of his region. This would give Anuirean nobles proficiency with the Breastplate, for instance, which is highly appropriate (more so than half-plate, IMO)

8. Oh yeah, and one other minor point: I edited all of the class abilities so that there's not a definitive level cap on them. This will allow all of the Noble's class abilities to continue progressing through epic levels so that the class doesn't become obsolete above 20th level, for those who wish to run epic BR campaigns.

And that about sums it up! See what you think...I feel like this one may well be ready for a sanctioning vote, as I'm pretty satisfied with it overall. Besides the few pieces of errata, the only things that might need editing is the introductory description and possibly Resources if folks still don't think it's workable.

Osprey

[RaspK_FOG]

I believe it should be fine now. ;)

[Osprey]

OK, folks here's the Word version of the file for download. Check it out.

[irdeggman]

I like the 'previous' version better.

I don't like having Blood Focus and Bloodline Prodigy as noble bonus feats. They realy don't have anything to do with what makes a noble a noble IMO. I would add the regional feats to the list, as in and any regional feat since they are common.

This expands the list of options without the blooded theme - which is more of a scion theme than a noble one.

Still not too comfortable with the good BAB and this version has a whole lot less color/theme feel to it than did the previous one.

[Osprey]

I don't like having Blood Focus and Bloodline Prodigy as noble bonus feats. They realy don't have anything to do with what makes a noble a noble IMO. I would add the regional feats to the list, as in and any regional feat since they are common.

OK, I have no problem removing the blooded feats. In fact, consider it done. Also, I did leave in the regional feats option. This is in the end of the text, before the actual list:
In addition to those feats listed below the noble may choose any regional feat for his homeland since they are commonly available.

Still not too comfortable with the good BAB and this version has a whole lot less color/theme feel to it than did the previous one.

One of the problems I had with the previous "color/theme feel" is that those themes were culturally specific. The 3 paths of the previous version were really based on 3 cultural stereotypes: the Anuirean warrior noble, the Brecht guilder noble, and the Khinasi scholar noble - the latter an obvious one by the inclusion of all the arcane feats, despite the fact that a noble can't cast arcane spells, nor does he have any arcane skills except Knowledge (Arcana).

Since we have the culturally-specific themes built into the various human sub-races already, it seemed a bit redundant to try and repeat this in a Noble class. Better IMO to make a more general class that has the flexibility to fit into each of these cultures and then be tailored to suit.

As I said before, this version of the Noble is meant to represent something a bit more generic in the sense of being a member of the (usually) landed aristocracy in a feudal society, who are invariably trained to fight and lead troops on the battlefield. Moreover, they tend to be the main force of professional soldiery in the medieval world. Knights were dominant on the medieval battlefield in part because they could afford horses and armor, but also because they were trained from childhood to fight. This was as true of the Germanic world as it was of the French and English world as it was of the Arabic world (the 3 bases for the most common noble-breeding cultures in Cerilia). The nobility were nearly always the best-trained part of any medieval army.

So the idea that the basic noble character class is warrior-focused in terms of BAB is thematically quite apt. For much the same reason they have Mounted Combat as a bonus feat - nobles were the ones who traditionally could afford to train and ride horses in combat. While this may not be particularly apt for the Brecht, there are plenty of other bonus feats that better suit them.

With only 3 bonus feats to choose from 6th to 16th level, I don't think there's a need to be TOO picky about the list. However, I should've added the derivative feats for Mounted Combat: Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, and Trample.

Now, if there is need for further cultural tailoring, why can't multiclassing do this job? For the former scholar noble, it was obvious that this was expected already. Thanks to good skill points, this wasn't as necessary for the guilder noble, and the warrior noble? Pretty unimpressive for a warrior...

If Khinasi nobles do multiclass as wizards, magicians, etc., then their BAB will suffer plenty, just as their arcane abilities will suffer from taking levels as a noble even as they gain better skill sets and fighting ability. A fair trade-off, but not one that will cause a major thematic upset.

Bottom line: to be flexible enough to be a single class that can be adapted to multiple cultural types, it is necessary to sacrifice some of the flavor specifics and generalize. That is the nature of the beast. Personally, I am comfortable with this, because I expect the majority of flavor to come not from the published class description and abilities, but from good character development and roleplaying. The job of the BRCS, and of this class, is to provide a solid foundation to buld on, not dictate every detail of what an individual's Khinasi or Anuriean or Brecht noble should look like. I believe the cultural descriptions of the races have provided excellent grounds to build from, and the current Noble class is well-suited to represent the elites of those societies.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 6 2004, 11:20 AM
[
One of the problems I had with the previous "color/theme feel" is that those themes were culturally specific. The 3 paths of the previous version were really based on 3 cultural stereotypes: the Anuirean warrior noble, the Brecht guilder noble, and the Khinasi scholar noble - the latter an obvious one by the inclusion of all the arcane feats, despite the fact that a noble can't cast arcane spells, nor does he have any arcane skills except Knowledge (Arcana).

Basically the similarity exists because those 3 human cultures are the 3 cultures where nobles are most likely to hail from in the first place.

Pretty much the other human cultures wouldn't be condusive to the class anyway. Rjurik are too independent to fall into a nobility and Vos are well Vos.

The variety comes when a business (not warfare) based culture like the Brecht creates a warrior path noble or a primarily warrior based culture (like Anuire) produces a scholar path noble. There is nothing that says this couldn't or wouldn't happen only the cultures have a tendency to follow those with the basic cultural values it has.

[Osprey]

The variety comes when a business (not warfare) based culture like the Brecht creates a warrior path noble or a primarily warrior based culture (like Anuire) produces a scholar path noble. There is nothing that says this couldn't or wouldn't happen only the cultures have a tendency to follow those with the basic cultural values it has.

So why wouldn't multiclassing deal with this variety?

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 6 2004, 02:34 PM
The variety comes when a business (not warfare) based culture like the Brecht creates a warrior path noble or a primarily warrior based culture (like Anuire) produces a scholar path noble. There is nothing that says this couldn't or wouldn't happen only the cultures have a tendency to follow those with the basic cultural values it has.

So why wouldn't multiclassing deal with this variety?
Well, multiclassing covers many aspects of just about anything. But that wasn't the point of the noble. Have 3 paths gives variety (just like the ranger with its 2 paths) and yet maintains a core concept. The core being a class designed to rule. But the paths give different specializations - a generic noble could (and would) end up all over theplace. Spreading studies across mutliple disciplines and never becoming really good at anything. So essentially the generic noble is in actuallity a multiclass type of character.

Back to that good BAB and the training concept. Check out the Aristocrat NPC class from the DMG. It has an average BAB with proficiency in all simple and martial weapons. The description of the class is extremely close to that of the noble (I wonder why?). That is an example of a class born of privilege and how that is reflected with martial training and proficiencies.

[Athos69]

Duane, keep in mind that the Aristocrat *should* be to the Noble as the Warrior is to the Fighter, Ranger or Paladin. The Noble has to be more than an Aristocrat.

Further, I am in agreement wit you that the three path version of the Noble was better than the 'cookie-cutter' one class fits all. It is a jack of all trades, master of none at this point. It's just my personal preference Osprey, and not meant as a slam.

[Osprey]

Well, multiclassing covers many aspects of just about anything. But that wasn't the point of the noble. Have 3 paths gives variety (just like the ranger with its 2 paths) and yet maintains a core concept. The core being a class designed to rule. But the paths give different specializations - a generic noble could (and would) end up all over theplace. Spreading studies across mutliple disciplines and never becoming really good at anything. So essentially the generic noble is in actuallity a multiclass type of character.


I totally disagree with the statement that says this version of the noble would end up all over the place. More like there are many possibilities here. By trimming down the skill list and the overall number of bonus feats, I believe I have focused the class somewhat.

Second, the skill list and class features show a few specific foci: social skills, leadership, and elite warrior training. These are the core attributes of all nobles.

Third, any Noble character now has more options to be focused or not. Being "all over the place" remains very much in the hands of the player or DM (for PC's and NPC's respectively). I could very easily build a very focused PC from this class - as focused as the 3 path version, I'd say. I can't agree that because a class doesn't force a player to be specialized, they will automatically become generalists. This assumes an utter lack of decisiveness and autonomy on the part of players, as if they need us to tell them "nobles look one of 3 ways." I think nobles could appear in more variety than this - it's why I prefer one more flexible class (and always have).

As for this being cookie cutter? Please...there is no other class even remotely similar except the NPC Aristocrat, which is by design a far inferior version. The Aristocrat is the noble diletante, the "average" rich and privelaged. The Noble is the idealized, heroic form - the wealthy and privelaged being all they can be. The elite taking advantage of the opportunities afforded them.. hence the better combat skills, class abilities, and strong skill set. in addition, there are still a number of specialized class abilities, both specific (Regional Focus, Resources, Leadership, Battle Cry, Presence) and variable (the bonus feats).

If anything, I'd say the class is rather narrowly focused in terms of class abilities, while the large skill set allows the majority of tailoring to suit individulists.

What I believe is that further tailoring is beyond the ken of a single class. Arcane pursuits are the purview primarily of spellcasters, though Khinasi nobles could still learn both K/Arcana and Spellcraft as class skills (and thus be a sort of sage of the arcane). The class is already adaptable enough to make an excellent guilder as well as landed/law regent (or a lieutenant within such a network).

My point is that the class has enough breadth to allow a great deal of specialization, but it remains a player choice rather than a rule-enforced necessity. If the player wants their noble to be a bit more spread out and generalized, why is this a crime? There is a natural balance of power inherent in such a choice, and as I said before - even the best-made class will fall flat without good character development and roleplaying to flesh it out and bring it to life. Don't expect the class to do this work for the player - it can't. Rather, create a class that allows a player to create a unique individual, unlike every other member of the class. This is facilitated, not hampered, by a flexible character class.

In short, a more general class puts the main responsibility of character development on the player rather than the system, while still providing some basic guidelines for what's appropriate without dictating too many specifics.

Osprey

[Osprey]

Further, I am in agreement with you that the three path version of the Noble was better than the 'cookie-cutter' one class fits all. It is a jack of all trades, master of none at this point.

First off, you are free to disagree as much as you like. However, would you mind giving some reasoning behind this statement? As for my counter to the general sentiment, I'll refer you to my post above.

[irdeggman]

Here are some other sources of noble class. the BR noble can pretty much be seen as an aggregate of these sources, at least it was how the revised (1st attempt) was developed.

BAB bonuses of noble class from other sources:

Wheel of Time Noble – has an average BAB.

Star Wars d20 (Revised) Noble – has an average BAB.

Power Class Noble, Mongoose Publishing – has an average BAB.

Sovereign Stone also has a noble class which I believe (but can’t confirm) also has an average BAB.

The Mongoose and SS versions both grant leadership at 6th level, although Mongoose changes the leadership table (calls it enhanced leadership)

[Osprey]

1st: With the possible exception of Star Wars (revised), I'm guessing these are all systems built to integrate with 3.0 D&D. At that time, I think this would have been more reasonable. However, with the advent of the 3.5 revisions, particularly the Ranger (the template I've said before was the working parallel of the 3.5 BR noble), the versions of the Noble with High BAB don't seem so unreasonable anymore.

2nd: Most of these versions, at least the ones I'm familiar with setting-wise, definitely view nobles as dilettante jack-of-all trade types, those who pursue fighting more as a sport than a serious profession. Thematically, this entirely justifies a medium BAB. My argument has been that the medieval-style nobles of the BR setting take fighting very seriously as one of their foremost duties: defending the realm, leading the charge, heroic combat against villains, etc. I can't comment on Mongoose and SS versions, I have no experience with those and what settings they're geared toward, but I'm guessing they match the afore-mentioned generic concept of the dilettante. This is a concept I find inadequate for Birthright's nobles, many of whom are engaged in a constant struggle to hold their lands and titles against rivals on the battlefield as often as in the courts.

[RaspK_FOG]

Couldn't put it better, Osprey; totally behind you on that point.

[Athos69]

Osprey;

What I was trying to get across is that having the three paths with different foci and save progressions really added flavour to the class. For me is was never a case of whether the BAB was good or average. It was the fact that you could wind up with a huge number of distinctly different Noble characters, while still maintaining the stereotype Noble for the Khinasi, the Brcht and the Anuireans. It mirrored strongly the pattern for European Nobility in the middle ages: The son most likely to succeed (eldest, usually), would up becoming a warrior and general, the next most eligible went into the path of diplomacy and court intrigue -- not so much a warrior, but definately holding most of the skills needed for rulership, and those sons who had no hope of ascending to the throne wound up going into the Church.

My comment of 'cookie-cutter" comes from Starfleet Battles, and the argument that as Tech progresses, all of the various races' ships start to look identical -- same number of systems, same shield strengths, same number of each class of weaponry, etc. I fear that by removing the three-path system, we are starting to create a Noble-shaped cookie cutter.

[Osprey]

What I was trying to get across is that having the three paths with different foci and save progressions really added flavour to the class. For me is was never a case of whether the BAB was good or average. It was the fact that you could wind up with a huge number of distinctly different Noble characters, while still maintaining the stereotype Noble for the Khinasi, the Brcht and the Anuireans. It mirrored strongly the pattern for European Nobility in the middle ages: The son most likely to succeed (eldest, usually), would up becoming a warrior and general, the next most eligible went into the path of diplomacy and court intrigue -- not so much a warrior, but definately holding most of the skills needed for rulership, and those sons who had no hope of ascending to the throne wound up going into the Church.


That's cool - I can respect that, it has some real merit. Although I'd point out that historically many younger sons also became knight errants, something I'd expect this to happen even more frequently in a heroic fantasy setting. Also, keep in mind that in BR eldest sons don't always inherit, so it's quite resonable to get situations like Elinie, where seven sons and daughters are all competing to become the next Patriarch (or Matriarch) after their father.

My comment of 'cookie-cutter" comes from Starfleet Battles, and the argument that as Tech progresses, all of the various races' ships start to look identical -- same number of systems, same shield strengths, same number of each class of weaponry, etc. I fear that by removing the three-path system, we are starting to create a Noble-shaped cookie cutter.

I see your point here, though I'd point out that in the D&D class system, this is rather built-in to the system already. Can you point out a class that isn't pretty cookie-cutter generic already? D&D's class system appeals to this crowd, whether we personally like it or not. Classless RPG's tend to be far more flexible and open-ended in this respect.

My own feeling is that the 3-path system, while it does provide flavour, is actually more limiting and constrictive; my own preference is for a class that allows for more flexibility and player-driven choice instead of a rules-enforced choice.

The reason I returned to a single path class derived from efforts to flesh out a 3-path system that had better internal logic. But the only way I could seem to justify it was by giving so many variable attributes that it did in fact become 3 seperate classes for all intents and purposes. Let me flesh out some of those ideas so you have an idea where I was going. If this were 3 classes (not a proposal, just putting it out for the sake of illustration), here's what I might do for them to best suit the paths:

Warrior: High BAB, High Fort save, 4 Skill Points per level
Guilder: Medium BAB, High Will save (Reflex really has no direct justification),
6 skill points per level, bonus Resources (either faster progression or more gp per monetary resource attempt)
Scholar: Low BAB, High Will save, 8 skill points per level OR 6 skill points and add Skill Focus as extra bonus feats at levels 7/12/17 (the empty slots in the current version)

These in addition to the first version's revisions, including Look of the Noble (I still want a better name there) and the path-based bonus feats.

As things stand, I think as soon as we start adjusting BAB's and Saves for the different paths, we're really talking about seperate classes. Path-based choices for bonus feats has some precedence, variable saves and BAB does not.

On the other hand, I really can't stomach the idea of a Warrior-path Noble with a medium BAB, but I'm also not comfortable with a Scholar-path Noble with a High BAB. Which is why I think the 3 disparate paths are just a little too disparate to contain within a single class. And since folks have said they don't want to see 3 seperate classes, this was why I thought it better to unify the class as a base class with more singular focus, and allow roleplaying, multiclassing, and choice of bonus feats to do the work of creating a focused scholar/mage noble - truth is, the single class noble will work just fine as a guilder or warrior regent/lieutenant.

If a nobleman wanted to go into the clergy, why wouldn't they become a cleric or druid?
If he wanted to become a mage, why wouldn't he become a wizard, sorcerer, or magician?
If he wanted to be an adventuring guilder, why wouldn't he be a rogue?

And if he begins life as landed nobility, why wouldn't he just multiclass into one of these as a later focus for his life's path?

One class, one class concept - two classes, two class (path) concept; this is the basic premise of the 3.x D&D class system. Here is where I think we need to adhere to the core guidelines for a base class, in that each class represents one main unified concept/path, while multiclassing and prestige classes are used for dual-path concepts.

In 3.5 in particular, many of the prestige classes have been used to tie together dual-class concepts into a single (more efficient) class: examples include the Arcane Trickster, Eldrith Knight, and Mystic Theurge from the DMG.

So one possibility is that we create a couple of prestige classes such as the Noble Sage and the Guilder (one that's already been done in the archives but that I believe could stand some re-doing along a Noble/Rogue guideline) to exemplify the more specialized focus of advanced noble/scholar or noble/guilder concepts.

Food for thought.

Osprey

[Don E]

I generally agree with Osprey and think the noble should be a single class, and the players can rather multiclass if they want to move outside the European feudal lord stereotype. I also don't see the Ranger as a very good comparision here, as the class' flavour is very much the same no matter what path is chosen, it is simply a choise of weapons similar to a fighter choosing different feats. They three different noble 'concepts' are fundamentally different, in fighting ability, skill selection and types of feats suitable.

If people are very uncomfortable with requiring a noble to multiclass as they feel it hampers them, it could be an option to give the noble a speicial ability allowing them to choose another favoured class depending on the focus they want.

[Osprey]

Bases on some discussions concerning a militant version of the Noble, here's a latest rough draft of a Noble Warrior class. I'm still searching for a better name - Feudal Lord? Knight? dunno - anyways, this is very much based on the other Noble versions, but definitely re-arranged somewhat - Resources doesn't start 'till 3rd level (and Coordinate is dropped as a more courtier-appropriate ability), bonus feats are mainly combat and military in nature, 4 skill points per level with a slightly trimmed class skill list (Appraise and Gather Info were dropped, Knowledge skills reduced to Architecture, History, and Nobility, Jump added); a high BAB, a d10 hit die, and high Fort and Will saves are the primary strong features of the class, along with the class features. Still uncertain on the 2 high saves - it seems thematically appropriate, and by comparison the ranger class would suggest it's within reasonable limits for power balance...

The idea here is that it's not over-powered compared to some warrior character classes, such as the Ranger (who have more practical wilderness and stealth skills, and 6 skill points per level + 2 high saves); the Fighter remains the superior pure combatant with many combat bonus feats + specialization (incl. Gr. Weapon Focus and Gr. Specialization at higher levels in 3.5); the Paladin has divine abilities as their primary class features, in addition to being strong warriors; and Barbarians are, well, barbarians - raging, tough (d12 hit die, DR at high levels), and practically competent (4 skill points, some decent class skills).

Here it is pasted, tho the tables will probably come out screwy - a Word version (much easier to read) is down below:
Noble Warrior

Alignment: Any
Class Hit Die: d10
Class Skills:
The noble's class skills (and the key ability for each) are Administrate (Int), Bluff (Cha), Diplomacy (Cha), Handle Animal (Cha), Lead (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Knowledge (Architecture), Knowledge (History), Knowledge (Nobility) (Int), Listen (Wis), Perform (Cha), Ride (Dex), Sense Motive (Wis), Spot (Wis), and Warcraft (Int).
Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + Int bonus) x 4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4 + Int



Table: the Noble Warrior
Level Attack Bonus Fort. Save Ref. Save Will Save Special
1 +1 +2 +0 +2 1st favored region
2 +2 +3 +0 +3 Leadership
3 +3 +3 +1 +3 Resources
4 +4 +4 +1 +4 Battle Cry
5 +5 +4 +1 +4 2nd favored region
6 +6/+1 +5 +2 +5 Bonus Feat
7 +7/+2 +5 +2 +5 Resources +1
8 +8/+3 +6 +2 +6 Inspire Loyalty +1
9 +9/+4 +6 +3 +6 Presence +2
10 +10/+5 +7 +3 +7 3rd favored region
11 +11/+6/+1 +7 +3 +7 Bonus Feat
12 +12/+7/+2 +8 +4 +8 Resources +2
13 +13/+8/+3 +8 +4 +8 Inspire Loyalty +2
14 +14/+9/+4 +9 +4 +9 Presence +4
15 +15/+10/+5 +9 +5 +9 4th favored region
16 +16/+11/+6/+1 +10 +5 +10 Bonus Feat
17 +17/+12/+7/+2 +10 +5 +10 Resources +3
18 +18/+13/+8/+3 +11 +6 +11 Inspire Loyalty +3
19 +19/+14/+9/+4 +11 +6 +11 Presence +6
20 +20/+15/+10/+5 +12 +6 +12 5th favored region


Noble Warrior Bonus Feats: Cleave, Combat Expertise, Conquerer, Great Cleave, Great Leader, Improved Critical, Improved Disarm, Master Administrator, Military Genius, Mounted Combat, Power Attack, Regent Focus, Regional Arms Focus, Regional Elite Arms Focus, Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, Trample, and Weapon Focus.

-All feat prerequisites must be met normally.

[RaspK_FOG]

Looks fine to me... Sorry if I've been going back and forth, but most of the time I felt both sides were right, at least partly so... I am really sorry, I assure you!

I like what this class promises.

[Osprey]

I too have come to see merit in both forms - I'm fine with a courtier type of Noble with average BAB, I just want to see a militant version given some due credit.

One of the ideas I've been working on in regards to Anuire: there has been discussion regarding medieval vs. Renaissance culture in Anuire. When looking at original material, it seems to me Anuire is quite a mix of the two. It is definite that technology has reached Renaissance standards in parts of Anuire, Brechtur, Khinasi, and the elven and dwarven realms. Given the absence of firearms, however, I would expect certain aspects of the older culture, such as heavy cavalry, heavy armor, and archery, to be further refined rather than become obsolete.

In a similar vein, I see Anuirean culture as a blend of the "old ways" of feudalism and the newer refinements of the later Imperial eras, and more recent innovations in culture imported from progressive elements in Brechtur and Khinasi. The resulting blend would lend itself to a real mix of tradition and innovation - possibly a very strong combination, but also something of a confused mess in contemporary, divided Anuire.

The two classes of Noble I see much the same way - the warrior path of nobility, while generally the older, more traditional path, is by no means obsolete in the violent world of contemporary (551 MR) Cerilia. A warrior king has a prominent place in a war-torn world, and so long as violence continues to settle conflicts, will continue to do so. The courtier noble, by contrast, is a far more politcized version of the noble, one who uses diplomacy, intrigue, and strategic resources to garner power. Both are leaders, both use aspects of the other path - both can fight, lead, politick, and rule fiefs effectively, but each has a different emphasis - one primarily militant, one primarily social.

In a more stable world, such as the Imperial era, warfare would have been far less common, and as such the militant noble would have existed more for the sake of tradition than through any practical need. As such, I expect that for some time this class was a dying breed of the "old guard" of Anuirean nobility, while the noble courtier thrived as the dominant political player in what must have been web-like courts of intrigue, shifting alliances, and schemes within schemes. That was the heyday of the later Imperial era, and not surprisingly one filled with political corruption and intrigue.

But for the past 550+ years, Anuire and most of Cerilia have seen frequent warfare while the feudal system thrives and strong warlords can expand their power and territory very rapidly. As ever, a strong warlord must be a strong leader of his men and a competent manager of his lands, otherwise he will quickly bankrupt his treasury in his bid for expansion - or in simply maintaining the strength necessary to defend a large realm.

On a smaller scale, the lesser lords of manors and fiefs would follow a similar example - training to fight in service to their liege lords, but also managing their estates to pay their taxes and maintain their quotas of fighting men and retainers, both to defend their lands from rival petty lords and to aid in the defense of their realm from neigboring enemies. Such is the reality of the chaotic world of modern Anuire as I picture it.

In general I speak of Anuire because I'm far more knowledgable about it than Khinasi or Brechtur (and about its historical basis in western Europe), especially about those regions' traditions of nobility, inheritance, and what status warriors tend to hold there. I imagine the inland nomadic peoples certainly keep a warrior tradition at the forefront, though I expect this is far less true of the more "civilized" coastal states. The Brechts I imagine as relying more on paid professional soldiers for their primary fighting troops rather than noble warrior elites. But this is mostly conjecture pieced together from hints and scraps about those cultures - if anyone has better source info, please share. :)

Osprey

[irdeggman]

I don't like it and see this as an unnecessary class.

Here are my reasons;


I'm assuming that the courtier type of Noble is going to end up being a core class. This really can't be determined unless another poll is run. (I'm not going to start one since every poll I start adds at least 2 weeks to the start of my sabbatical - which is going to be by the end of the week since the classes {other than noble and magician} have now been sanctioned}). With the assuumption that the courtier noble class will exist this noble warrior is really nothing but a combo-class with the courtier noble and fighter. That is essentially a multi-class, since there is nothing really unique about this one.

Really to be a good militant noble a character needs only to multiclass between the courtier noble (which gives the skills/abilities necessary to rule effectively) and the fighter (which gives the combat skills/abilities and military leadership). What this does is create a character that is not as good at either as a straight classed character of equal level, but that is the way things ought to be, IMO.

Historically look to Richard and John. One was a realy good military leader and had the respect of his people in that regard, but was a totally ineffectual ruler (basically he left his kingdom in debt).

For a more modern day comparison. Look to the US nobility (the Kennedies). All were born with great privilege. Jack (the oldest who died in war) was a competent miltary man - but unproven as a social leader, John (the one who became president and was assassinated) was a competent military man (a hero - see the book Profiles in Courage) and social leader. He was not as good a warrior as his elder brother (something the historians have refered to). Bobbie (the other one assassinated but never became president) was not a military leader but was by all recounts the better social leader and brain than John. He did manage to keep J. Edger Hoover in check (no easy task). Then there is Ted (the one with the bridge and senior senator who didn't die). He has basically no military experience but is quite an effective social leader, despite his checkered past.

How this translates in D&D terms to me is;
Jack - low level noble/higher level fighter
John - med level noble/med level fighter
Bobbie - high level noble/low level fighter
Ted - high level noble/0-level fighter

Now while this example may seem out of place - the role of military and nobility in the ranks of power and influence has always had a place.


Throughout history, with few exceptions, characters were either good military leaders or they were good social leaders and managers of the good of the land and people.

The US presidents that were military men were far and away the least effective presidents from a social/economic management standpoint. While those that were good at managing the country were poor military men (at least from a personal standpoint). The same historical perspective can be seen throughout Europe also.

What this version of the noble does is try to bypass this logic and make military men good rulers.

You can start a poll to see if people want both types of nobles (as separate classes - since that is the only way this one and the courtier one would mesh), but I doubt it would pass. This is because the classes are too similar, again there is nothing unique enough about this noble warrior to justify a class of itself, IMO.


More specifics on this version:

Things that don't seem to fit the theme:

Resources -well they need to be more closely defined for this class, I'd see them only as monetary assets and contacts that are organizations (e.g., knightly orders and such) not personal contacts.


I'm not real certain that multiple favored regions fit this concept since it is a military leader and not a social one. Favored region grants interaction benefits and this type of noble really would only have one region that it would work in, i.e., his home region where he is known.

I'm not certain that Regent Focus fits either, but it realy depends on what actions it applies to - rule probably, create holding maybe (probably only certain types - like law holdings), etc.

The class skill Perform should be only perform-oratory only. A warrior playing a lute just doesn't fit this concept very well to me.

[geeman]

I`m putting together a first draft of an armiger character class (it should

take me a few days) so why don`t we hold off a bit until there`s a version

that could be used, playtested or otherwise discussed. That way we can

make an informed decision on the matter.



Gary

[Osprey]

Geeman,

Can we do anything about a better name? While Armiger might be fine for the first few levels (as I recall it was the name for a 2nd or 3rd level Cavalier in AD&D), does it really describe a 15th or 20th level militant noble? I think something more generally applicable is in order to decribe the class concept, yeah? I know, I'm having a hard time coming up with a better alternative too, but I'd rather something generic than something overly specific for a core class, you know?

[geeman]

At 04:54 PM 8/17/2004 +0200, Osprey wrote:



>Geeman,Can we do anything about a better name?



I`m open to suggestions if someone can come up with something more

appropriate. I don`t particularly care what it gets called so long as it

isn`t, as you note, too specific, and embraces a range of character

concepts. I`ve been using "armiger" since that word describes those who

embrace the right (and the obligation) to bear arms amongst the nobility,

but if someone has something more specific I wouldn`t mind using

it. Cavalier, however, I think is too specific since a horsemanship is the

kind of thing that an armiger might decide to emphasize, but needn`t

necessarily be the absolute focus of the class. (Besides, it makes a

better prestige class IMO.)



Gary

[Osprey]

For a more modern day comparison. Look to the US nobility (the Kennedies). All were born with great privilege. Jack (the oldest who died in war) was a competent miltary man - but unproven as a social leader, John (the one who became president and was assassinated) was a competent military man (a hero - see the book Profiles in Courage) and social leader. He was not as good a warrior as his elder brother (something the historians have refered to). Bobbie (the other one assassinated but never became president) was not a military leader but was by all recounts the better social leader and brain than John. He did manage to keep J. Edger Hoover in check (no easy task). Then there is Ted (the one with the bridge and senior senator who didn't die). He has basically no military experience but is quite an effective social leader, despite his checkered past.

How this translates in D&D terms to me is;
Jack - low level noble/higher level fighter
John - med level noble/med level fighter
Bobbie - high level noble/low level fighter
Ted - high level noble/0-level fighter

Now while this example may seem out of place - the role of military and nobility in the ranks of power and influence has always had a place.

I get your point here - however, I think it's highly misleading to use contemporary examples. The reason is that the role of President is an incredibly social/politcal one, while it requires very few actual fighting skills. Hence, the best presidents are dedicated, specialized politicians - military heroes make the position because of their charisma and popular appeal, not because they have superior presidential skills. How many people in modern society are trained as warriors and politicians? Few if any, given the nature of modern politics. I think the demands of the feudal era were rather different - personal fighting skills went a long way toward making a good leader (the reason Richard I was such a popular king, as opposed to his brother, whom commoners and nobles alike resented; there seems little evidence that he was actually a good king in terms of rulership abilities, only that he was ambitious and so despised by his barons that they forced him to sign the Magna Carta to limit the king's powers over them - a sign of a weak king if anything).

I don't think superior personal combat skills necesarily exclude social skills. Certainly they don't preclude leadership skills - or do you believe that all military officers (those with dedicated leadership training) are inferior combatants? I don't think history bears out this conclusion at all.

I've grown to the conclusion that the Courtier-type Noble should be superior at what he does - social networking, a well-rounded, well-educated skill set, and general political expertise. This doesn't automatically make him a superior manager of his lands, but it does make him a superior player in the courts. Intrigue, contacts, and subterfuge should suit him far better than the noble warrior.

However, I don't think this excludes the possibility of having a warrior noble. He should be inferior in political skills to the more specialized courtier, but I don't think this means he needs to be as mediocre as a Fighter/Courtier multiclass - a rather weak and unimpressive character compared to a dedicated core class. He gets a little bit of each class, but is inferior to both.

I fail to understand why you and others prefer things thus - I suppose it is somehow viewed as "unfair" for a character to be a good combatant and have social skills - something I think is the result of believing in the stereotype that good fighters must be dumb jocks with poor social skills. This may be the more likely route, given that it is the easier one, but I hardly believe it is the necessary route for a fighting feudal world in the heroic Birthright setting. Why wouldn't such a world produce fighting men with excellent leadership skills? Is this really so difficult to believe?

[Athos69]

My oipinions too, have changed over these discussions.

*IF* we do away with the multiple path Noble, then we should make him primarily a politician with some courtly combat skills. Keep the BAB at Average, emphasize skills, grant them a good Will save, and tailor any bonus feats to those that have social and leadership functions.

If a player wants to create a warrior-king, then multiclassing into Fighter will give him a superior BAB, a good Fortitude save, bonus combat feats and an improved Hit Die.

If a player wants a Guilder, well some levels of Rogue in there will give the appropriate skill selection (filling in the few gaps that remain), an increased Reflex save and more skill points to spend.

Either combination will be simultaneously stronger and weaker than a 'pure' Noble, due to the aforementioned bonuses, and the fact that the social development of the character is stunted.

[irdeggman]

I don't think superior personal combat skills necesarily exclude social skills. Certainly they don't preclude leadership skills - or do you believe that all military officers (those with dedicated leadership training) are inferior combatants? I don't think history bears out this conclusion at all.

No, but I do think that all officers (with few exceptions) are not as good of combatents as are their sargents or those in the trenches. History will bear this statement out I do believe.

As far as real world history goes we could always look towards generals like George Washington, Grant, Eisenhower, Jackson, etc. Almost to a man they were ineffective leaders of a nation (something that the noble is trying to do - leader of a nation - regent, same thing or at least real close).

Washington was 'chosen' to be president based soley on his miltary expertise. He was a powerful combatent, stories of his strength still abound, but really did nothing but be a figurehead for setting up the nation. The real power was in the congress with those who were not solders.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Athos69@Aug 17 2004, 02:19 PM
My oipinions too, have changed over these discussions.

*IF* we do away with the multiple path Noble, then we should make him primarily a politician with some courtly combat skills. Keep the BAB at Average, emphasize skills, grant them a good Will save, and tailor any bonus feats to those that have social and leadership functions.

If a player wants to create a warrior-king, then multiclassing into Fighter will give him a superior BAB, a good Fortitude save, bonus combat feats and an improved Hit Die.

If a player wants a Guilder, well some levels of Rogue in there will give the appropriate skill selection (filling in the few gaps that remain), an increased Reflex save and more skill points to spend.

Either combination will be simultaneously stronger and weaker than a 'pure' Noble, due to the aforementioned bonuses, and the fact that the social development of the character is stunted.
I have no real problem with a single path noble much as you suggest. I didn't like the any feat selection from the original revision - I saw that as far too broad and not specific enough.

I put together the 3 path noble mostly to attempt to incorporate the warrior noble that some people expressed a strong desire to have. I really didn't like the 3 different saves for the paths though - I think that makes them too much like separate classes.

[Michael Romes]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Aug 17 2004, 11:30 AM
The class skill Perform should be only perform-oratory only. A warrior playing a lute just doesn't fit this concept very well to me.
Not lute but flute - Friedrich II (der Große):

http://www.fecho.de/Zinnfiguren/s020.htm
bye
Michael

[Osprey]

So Geeman, how's that noble warrior class writeup coming? Anytime soon?

[geeman]

At 03:59 PM 8/28/2004 +0200, Osprey wrote:



> So Geeman, how`s that noble warrior class writeup coming? Anytime soon?



I`ve got the table (BAB, HD, saves) written up and I`m outlining the

special abilities, but I need to write them up. In the meantime, however,

I have to come up with some stuff to actually DM for tomorrow, so the class

is on a back burner until the weekend is over....



Gary