Which is the better BAB for noble class? [Archive]

irdeggman

08-09-2004, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Don E@Aug 8 2004, 09:55 PM
I think this depends entirely on the focus of the class. If one go for the version with several different paths I think the average BAB would be best. If one opt for a class representing a typrical Anuirean lord then the higher BAB could be a better option.
There is a problem basing this on the Anuirean lords, since they have a cultural disposition towards empire building. IMO this is where people are getting confused on the noble issue.

There seems to be common perception that the noble is a warrior-ruler. There is actually nothing in the cultural text (2nd or BRCS) to give the impression that the class is limited to Anuire. Brecht and Khinasi cultures are very specifically noble based. But the Brecht are specifically not a warrior based society hence the default of warrior-ruler just doesn't fit for the average Brecht noble. In Khinasi it could make more sense they are warrior-scholars and in Anuire it makes a lot of sense. But a class shouldn't be based on a single culture - that is what there is no standard human (and common language) in Cerilia.

If one looks to supporting classes (from WotC and other companies) one can readily see that this is not the case. The aristocrat, the NPC equivalent of noble, is most definitely not a warrior-ruler based class.

A class exclusive to a single culture is a prestige class and that is how it should be presented, IMO, if that is the way people want it.

Azulthar

08-09-2004, 12:15 PM

I voted average. Like irdeggman said, this isn't a warrior-noble per se. If you want to play an Anuirean warrior-noble, multiclass a few fighter-levels. Levels in the noble-class should focus on leadership and the benefits of nobility - things that are not covered by the other classes.

Osprey

08-09-2004, 03:16 PM

RaspK_FOG

08-09-2004, 04:11 PM

I think we should take a step back and consider the situation as it has come to be: is the Noble we are going to be using the aristocratic example of a landed courtier, or is he a war-trained defender of the realm?

While people will argue that Anuire is a good example of the second and Brechtur a good example of the first, I have to say that multi-classing is always the best way to make something fit something as different as two such cultures.

The typical Brecht noble is a noble/rogue, while the typical Anuirean noble is a fighter/noble. It would only make sence that a Khinasi noble is a noble/wizard, or a fighter/noble perhaps. The only example which leads to a non-militarian noble is that of the Brecht noble, since even the Khinasi have the "defend the realm" attitude; the former has a more "make money" attitude.

This leads to the simple conclusion that most nobles have an at least average BAB progression. However, there is this other issue...

Wouldn't multiclassing actually present a better way to handle BAB and its role? For example, a typical Mhorien noble receives military training (especially the princes), but as the novel "The Falcon and the Wolf" indicates, there are high-standing nobles with little capacity even in sword-swinging! This suggests an average BAB, since even a couple of levels in a fighting-oriented class really make a difference.

The whole point is this: make it obvious that nobles tend to be multiclassed. A good idea would be to signify that nobles cannot choose just any "occupation" without being looked down; this could be treated like Oriental Adventures' system of honourable and dishonourable skills or, even trickier, say that any class other than a few select ones per region are considered uneven immediately (they impose an XP penalty). I prefer the earlier method, to be honest...

Think of it this way: an Anuirean noble that left his people and surrendered because of being outnumbered will have the understanding of his people; if he did it because of being too young and was afraid he would kill most of them, they will have grudges, but may well understand in their anger; if he surrendered on more roguish grounds (meaning he surrendered after a deal or because he is militarily incapable), his people would hate him!

The idea is to apply a penalty similar to the Sidhelien's penalty for infamy. How do you see that? And nobles to get an average BAB, of course...

For example:Noble Birth: Nobles are the elite of each society and are thus expected to set the highest paradeigm for all others. Each region has a few classes which are considered appropriate for a noble to consider as secondary endeavours; if a noble ever onvolves himself with any other class, he takes a cumulative -2 penalty on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, and Sense Motive checks [MY NOTE: aren't this the most appropriately penalised skills?] for each such class he has undertaken with people of his region who do not have them.

Consider this: if a Brecht noble is expected to multiclass in the fighter and rogue classes (for example), and he takes levels in the ranger class, he takes a -2 penalty with any non-ranger Brecht character. If he also undertook the wizard class, he would take a -4 penalty with non-ranger non-wizard Brecht, and a -2 with ranger or wizard Brecht; he would have no penalty with a ranger/wizard Brecht.

Osprey

08-09-2004, 04:44 PM

This leads to the simple conclusion that most nobles have an at least average BAB progression. However, there is this other issue...

Wouldn't multiclassing actually present a better way to handle BAB and its role? For example, a typical Mhorien noble receives military training (especially the princes), but as the novel "The Falcon and the Wolf" indicates, there are high-standing nobles with little capacity even in sword-swinging! This suggests an average BAB, since even a couple of levels in a fighting-oriented class really make a difference.

The problem is that a medium BAB guarantees a weaker fighting capability when multiclassing, thanks especially to having a +0 attack at 1st level. So with a medium BAB, a fighter/noble will always be a weaker combatant as a result. Meanwhile, a Noble/Cleric or Noble/Rogue is also a weaker combatant than a straight Cleric or Rogue, and a Noble/Wizard will be pathetically poor.

By contrast, a high BAB Noble avoids these problems; a Noble/Fighter will be an excellent warrior; however, multiclassing as a Fighter is still stronger than a straight Noble thanks to Specialization and bonus feats, while multiclassing as a Rogue, Cleric, or Wizard will still lower their total BAB and thus maintain the thematic element that these are less combat-worthy than a pure Noble.

As for the high-standing nobles of Mhoried in the above example, wouldn't these perhaps be better represented by the Aristocrat than the Noble? This seems to me a better example of the not-so-dedicated nobility, who still have the social skills but not the commitment of the heroic noble.

irdeggman

08-09-2004, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 9 2004, 09:16 AM

So exactly what does distinguuish or exemplify the Brecht nobility? What, for instance, makes a noble class more fitting than the Rogue? While there is a focus on commerce, are the landed nobility often guilders, or are they generally seperate? And if seperate, what IS their role in society? I would think defending the land is pretty important to landed nobility in any culture. It's not as if the Brecht have entirely peaceful borders, what with the Gorgon and many humanoids filling the mountains and pirates a recurring problem in the Great Bay.

The idea of landed nobility being warriors is based on the role of feudal lords in medieval society - defense of the realm was their primary role, hence the reason they always led the fighting.
Not necessary defense of the land but of the holdings. Most nobles would not be landed regents but rather non-landed ones (i.e., those who come from a family that runs holdings only). This makes the biggest distinction. In Brechtur, they have ceded the government to those of Anuirean descent while the actual power (i.e., the economic control) is held by Brechts.

The problem with the historical comparison is the landed part. Since most regents (in BR) are not landed most nobles would likewise be the same.

Osprey

08-09-2004, 05:10 PM

Not necessary defense of the land but of the holdings. Most nobles would not be landed regents but rather non-landed ones (i.e., those who come from a family that runs holdings only). This makes the biggest distinction. In Brechtur, they have ceded the government to those of Anuirean descent while the actual power (i.e., the economic control) is held by Brechts.

The problem with the historical comparison is the landed part. Since most regents (in BR) are not landed most nobles would likewise be the same.

Hmmm...I had always believed a Noble class would represent landed nobility - not only regents, however, as there aren't all that many regents in general. Also, I thought it was pretty clear that a Noble class would also represent unblooded aristocracy who still play a leadership role. However, the nobility in most societies would be landowners - however BR differs from medieval Europe, this fact would need to remain constant because it is an agrarian society, where land is the backbone of any economy because land supplies food. While trade, mining, sea husbandry, and craftsmanship are important economic factors, they cannot exist without agriculture to support them. This is such a fundamental backbone of a medieval economy I don't see how it can be ignored. Even the Brecht would use whatever arable land they could to raise food, and that requires landlords in a feudal system, who are traditionally the nobility.

As for regents (and their families) of other holdings, why should a Noble class be better suited than Rogues or Clerics or Wizards? Would temple or source regents necesarily be hereditary, the basic requirement for a Noble class?

Finally, the Brecht leaving government to the Anuirean-descended nobility while the guilds hold power: to me this symbolizes that those Anuireans would be better suited as Aristocrat and Noble-class characters, while the Brechts would tend to be more practical-minded Rogues running the guilds.

graham anderson

08-09-2004, 06:53 PM

Most people seem to be in favour of an average bab at the moment myself included.

Nobles have other things to spend their time on ruling, matters of law and ettiquete to name but a few. A fighter as a heroic character focuses almost solely on fighting. While yes nobles get better training than the common people remember that all characters are heroic and exceptional individuals. One of the reasons I support an average bab is the fact that they should focus some of their time and expertice on other matters. Nobles were rarely great warriors they had the best equipement and bodyguard to ensure their safety in battle. If you look at the medieval period nobles would frequently be taken captive and held for ransom. Then their is chivalry etc. There is little real proof that nobles have ever been great fighters but they have always held positions of leadership as well as being some of the best educated people in the ancient world and I think that this is a better focus for the class than I can hit things well. If you want a warrior noble just multiclass.

irdeggman

08-09-2004, 08:44 PM

By contrast, a high BAB Noble avoids these problems; a Noble/Fighter will be an excellent warrior; however, multiclassing as a Fighter is still stronger than a straight Noble thanks to Specialization and bonus feats, while multiclassing as a Rogue, Cleric, or Wizard will still lower their total BAB and thus maintain the thematic element that these are less combat-worthy than a pure Noble.

The same argument could be made for why a character with an average BAB would want to multiclass towards one with a good BAB.

As for regents (and their families) of other holdings, why should a Noble class be better suited than Rogues or Clerics or Wizards? Would temple or source regents necesarily be hereditary, the basic requirement for a Noble class?

While temple regents wouldn’t be necessarily hereditary (something that is not a basic requirement of the class by the way – only that the power/influence and money be hereditary) – it was quite common for nobles to attempt to send one of the sons into the priesthood. Realizing that most had multiple children and only the eldest was in direct line to be the successor many of nobility sought other means to increase their family’s influence. Having a priest as a son was usually taken to be a good sign that God would favor the family. Also monasteries were very academically inclined and the source of most of the higher education. As far as temples having influence and affluence a real world example would be the Roman Catholic Church and all of the affluence that it has. Historically the Church of England and many other major ‘temples’ shared this type of affluence and influence.

Finally, the Brecht leaving government to the Anuirean-descended nobility while the guilds hold power: to me this symbolizes that those Anuireans would be better suited as Aristocrat and Noble-class characters, while the Brechts would tend to be more practical-minded Rogues running the guilds.

Why would it mean that Anuireans are better suited to aristocracy and noble-classes? The Brecht are very much a class oriented society, only that class is driven by economic factors and nor empire building (something that the Anuireans are prone to do). It is all about influencing people and leading them. The Brecht only give the Anuireans token leadership not real leadership, that is reserved for those with the money.

RaspK_FOG

08-10-2004, 12:11 AM

My previous post was more or less such an argument.

A good example of the education granted in most monasteries include the studies of Gregor Mendel on the laws of hereditary characteristics, as well as the discoverer of black-powder (he did not invent it, he discovered a chinese "alchemical" recipe for the creation of black-powder). Furthermore, families would be able to influence the Church and thus even other families easier through more impersonal means, like a brother in its service.

Don E

08-10-2004, 02:04 AM

There seems to be common perception that the noble is a warrior-ruler. There is actually nothing in the cultural text (2nd or BRCS) to give the impression that the class is limited to Anuire. Brecht and Khinasi cultures are very specifically noble based. But the Brecht are specifically not a warrior based society hence the default of warrior-ruler just doesn't fit for the average Brecht noble. In Khinasi it could make more sense they are warrior-scholars and in Anuire it makes a lot of sense. But a class shouldn't be based on a single culture - that is what there is no standard human (and common language) in Cerilia.
I think the crucial difference in our points of view here is that the nobility talked about in the Brecht and Khinasi realms are what I see as the characters with the Aristocrat class. The Noble class we are trying to hammer out here is a PC class, and one that should perhaps be suitable for the player character who comes along to reunite Anuire, rid the Khinasi lands of the swarms of Awnsheghlien or lead the hordes of Vos to plunder all of Cerilia. No matter what culture we are looking at, the noble class might be perfectly justified as being a 'heroic' type rather than a dillettante or courtier.

That said does of course not automatically mean the Noble must have a high BAB progression. The Marhsall class from the Miniature handbook which I think is a good starting point for the class have a average BAB progression. The fundamental issue here is that the class should ensure "everyone gets a chance to shine". Unless the class is granted some significant class abilities that give it a nice focus, high BAB and hence combat ability is a reasonable option.

One possibiliity I was studying earlier was to make the noble a bit along the same lines as the Evangelist PrC from Complete Divine. This class gains 'social attacks' in the same way that the Bard does, and their abilities even stack to a certain expetent. While I'm not compeltely happy with the exact mechanism (perhaps because I'm not entirely happy with the Bard), it is a possible way of making the noble a class that has focus of the 'social' side of the game. To make the feudal warrior king it could multiclass with fighter to gain some improved matrial abilities, but still having a slightly better leadership capability (and a limited ability to improve allies) as well as the possibility to use his honey voice to talk the group past the sentries. Similarly the ultiamate courtier could be made by multiclassing into a bard, making a very socially oriented character, but with the martial skills suitable for somebody with a noble upbringing.

In general I think the class should not have an resource/contact abilities, as they are things that should be represented by actual character contacts or sources of income. Being of noble birth and character doesn't automatically imply the character should end up with more and more gold. If anything it is the rogue that should have such contacts.

Hmm, that was meant to be a quick reply, but turned into a bit of a ramble.

RaspK_FOG

08-10-2004, 02:42 AM

First of all, the Aristocrat is an NPC class and should be treated as such; it is a more courtly Noble, and should be thus treated.

OK, it seems there is another issue here, which we can be captured in these words:In general I think the class should not have an resource/contact abilities, as they are things that should be represented by actual character contacts or sources of income. Being of noble birth and character doesn't automatically imply the character should end up with more and more gold. If anything it is the rogue that should have such contacts.
What I think of as an issue is the way resources are being interpreted; while asking for such mechanics to be dealt on a more campaign-specific level with the usage of roleplaying aids is not something entirely undesirable, it simply defeats the whole D&D system: aren't sneak attacks limited to rogues?

What I mean is that the game has an inherent pattern; we can adjust it, but we do have to follow it either way. For example, sneak attacks are only an example of precision-based damage solutions available to characters. The same applies to resources as well. Still, it is only the rogue who gets such damage mechanics so easilly, and only the noble should be getting his hands on gold so easilly too!

Don E

08-10-2004, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Aug 10 2004, 02:42 AM
First of all, the Aristocrat is an NPC class and should be treated as such; it is a more courtly Noble, and should be thus treated.

That is my point exactly, and all those 'typical' nobles from around the various regions are better described by this class than the noble.

What I think of as an issue is the way resources are being interpreted; while asking for such mechanics to be dealt on a more campaign-specific level with the usage of roleplaying aids is not something entirely undesirable, it simply defeats the whole D&D system: aren't sneak attacks limited to rogues?

What I mean is that the game has an inherent pattern; we can adjust it, but we do have to follow it either way. For example, sneak attacks are only an example of precision-based damage solutions available to characters. The same applies to resources as well. Still, it is only the rogue who gets such damage mechanics so easilly, and only the noble should be getting his hands on gold so easilly too!

What I see as the difference here is that the sneak attack ability is inherently the ability of the rogue to do a cartain thing. The resource ability is only a numerical representation of wealth the character have not really aquired. One could say that the character should have access to money from his family, but that should not be limited by the nobles class but rahter by the amoutn of wealth the family have. Similary if the son of Darien Avan chooses to become a fighter, rogue or wizard, why shouldn't he have access to such resources?

On a character level game the resrouce ability is a fictious add on to the class that in many cases might not even be very well in line with the character background and/or situation. A noble character whose family has been banished from their home realm, is now making his way through the Adurian wilderness and don't really have much in the way of new contacts. Just because he has leveled up in the class does it mean he should suddenly have access to more resources. On a domain level of the game a noble's resources are better represented by actual holding levels, GBs or allies and friends.

In essence it is my opinion that one should move away from the Noble class based on a notion of socail class, and rather base it on some notion of what the 'ideal heroic leader' is. Despite what culture one looks at I think it is possible to find that they support the notion of a fighting leader of the people, be it an Anuirean Emperor, Brecht League leader or Khinasi liberator.

RaspK_FOG

08-10-2004, 10:55 AM

First of all, it has been made obvious that DMs should handle how resources play out; the above example you gave is a good example of a case where the DM should not allow the character to fraw on resources, UNLESS he reaches a new area where his family already has other contacts, or if he establishes new contacts altogether.

As for the more courtly nature of the Aristocrat, what I meant is that the Aristocrat, while trained to do battle, taught things and such, he still DOES NOT CARE for his people in the way of defending them through the use of arms, thus becoming more courtly. I didn't mean he is more focused on the court, I meant he has simply left the battle-field for more enjoyable pursuits.

ConjurerDragon

08-11-2004, 04:50 PM

graham anderson schrieb:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2781

>

> graham anderson wrote:

> Most people seem to be in favour of an average bab at the moment myself included. Nobles have other things to spend their time on ruling, matters of law and ettiquete to name but a few. A fighter as a heroic character focuses almost solely on fighting. While yes nobles get better training than the common people remember that all characters are heroic and exceptional individuals. One of the reasons I support an average bab is the fact that they should focus some of their time and expertice on other matters. Nobles were rarely great warriors they had the best equipement and bodyguard to ensure their safety in battle. If you look at the medieval period nobles would frequently be taken captive and held for ransom. Then their is chivalry etc. There is little real proof that nobles have ever been great fighters but they have always held positions of leadership as well as being some of the best educated people in the ancient world and I think that this is a better focus for the cl

> ass than I can hit things well. If you want a warrior noble just multiclass.

>

As I remember from school Karl der Große (Charlemagne?) could not even

read and never really learned it well later... ;-)

bye

Michael

graham anderson

08-11-2004, 08:19 PM

As I remember from school Karl der Große (Charlemagne?) could not even
read and never really learned it well later... ;-)

I don't remember that but even if he couldn't many of the rulers of the time new multiple languages to speak, read and write. Its all their in the books all you need to do is read a little.

RaspK_FOG

08-12-2004, 11:42 AM

I say Charlemagne is one of the best example of a - *ahem* - noble multiclassed with LOTS of fighter levels.

Birthright-L

08-12-2004, 01:00 PM

> RaspK_FOG wrote:

> I say Charlemagne is one of the best example of a - *ahem* - noble

multiclassed with LOTS of fighter levels.

>

>

Funnily enough I don`t think so, mostly because Historical Charlemagne was

an astute adept and highly /skilled/ man who didn`t come from noble stock,

rather his father Pepin the Short, became king by ursurping the rule of the

King who he was a steward (ish) person for by making an alliance with the

Church.

It is a bit counter to the whole "Divine Right of Kings" withinn

Birthright-in fact if you were doing Carolingian stuff in BR--he`d likely be

unblooded...

:)

Now maybe I mssed a relevant bit of prior conversation, but he was a "noble"

made noted for his combat abilities yes--but he was not born to nobility in

quite the same way as many, and he was born to it inn a time when nobility

/was/ expected to fight. The issues is I`d say in a class driven system that

"nobility" is actually more a set of skills (a kit if you will) than a

class--and the fact of the matter is who has the Kit various based on

prevailing culture---plenty of Clergy Nobles, Rogue Nobles, and even Ranger,

Fighter etc Nobles I suspect in history ("historical" as inn closer than not

King Arthur would likely have been a Fighter or Ranger, while Atilla the Hun

probably a Ranger (who els would bring Elephants to a fight?) )

;)

irdeggman

08-12-2004, 03:15 PM

Another point for the multiclassing topic that Osprey brought up a while ago, the point was that a non warior oriented noble could best be doen with multiclassing with the applicable class (a lot based on the relative BAB - with a warrior type class having the good BAB). Something that also works is multiclassing the other way (i.e, noble with an average BAB multiclassing with a class with a good BAB). If one wants to play a warrior styled noble-regent, the logical (min maxing wise) method would be to multiclass paladin (of Haelyn, the BRCS -default method not separate class on) with noble. This is an allowable multiclass combo that allows continued advancement in paladin. A paladin has a good BAB and the combination of class skills between the two yield a very strong warrior oriented noble.

Heck a straight classed paladin makes (mechanically if not themeatically) a great warrior style regent. The paladin of Haelyn is common (culturally as far as paladins go) to the Anuire and Khinasi cultures, which are the primary cultures where the warrior styled noble would be common. Just my 2 cps.

Osprey

08-12-2004, 04:12 PM

Well, so far I've heard a lot of people coming up with their own concepts of a Noble class, but am entirely unclear on what people actually believe makes a Noble - that is, what is the core concept of the Noble as a character class?

"The educated all-around leader" is about the best way I can sum up the main concept the majority of folks have been arguing for.

Is that about right?

ConjurerDragon

08-12-2004, 04:20 PM

Sidhain schrieb:

...

>Now maybe I mssed a relevant bit of prior conversation, but he was a "noble"

>made noted for his combat abilities yes--but he was not born to nobility in

>quite the same way as many, and he was born to it inn a time when nobility

>/was/ expected to fight. The issues is I`d say in a class driven system that

>"nobility" is actually more a set of skills (a kit if you will) than a

>class--and the fact of the matter is who has the Kit various based on

>prevailing culture---plenty of Clergy Nobles, Rogue Nobles, and even Ranger,

>Fighter etc Nobles I suspect in history ("historical" as inn closer than not

>King Arthur would likely have been a Fighter or Ranger, while Atilla the Hun

>probably a Ranger (who els would bring Elephants to a fight?) )

>

>;)

>

Attila/Etzel and Elephants? Not Hannibal?

bye

Michael

irdeggman

08-12-2004, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 12 2004, 10:12 AM
Well, so far I've heard a lot of people coming up with their own concepts of a Noble class, but am entirely unclear on what people actually believe makes a Noble - that is, what is the core concept of the Noble as a character class?

"The educated all-around leader" is about the best way I can sum up the main concept the majority of folks have been arguing for.

Is that about right?
From the last revised Chap 1 version

"Raised among the comforts and constrains of civilization, nobles are usually educated, wealthy individuals born into a high rank in society. Nobles are concerned with a wide range of societal activities, including the use of arms, the administration of laws, mercantile enterprise, and other highly skilled trades. . . .

The Noble class represents characters with sophisticated training in the art of command and in the garnering and managing of political influence. The noble class should generally be reserved for the ruling regents of long dynasties and their family members. . . .

Noble is a class that a character is born into and hence a character must start out with the class in order to gain the benefits of it. The single exception is the scion class, which a character can take prior to having a class level in noble. The character must take a level of noble as his first non-scion class if he is to claim being derived from nobility to the extent that he gains the class features. After taking a level in noble the character is free to take levels in other classes and return to advance in noble following the normal rules for multiclassing. . . .

Nobles, on the whole, recognize that their skills are primarily focused on personal interaction and conflict resolution. Very few nobles could travel in the wild unaided - they are, for the most part, dependent on the comforts of civilization. Thus, nobles tend to work exceptionally well with others, particularly lawful minded warriors and clerics. Nobles are bred to the concept of giving and obeying fair and necessary orders from their superiors and tend to work well in any party with a strong party leader (often themselves)."

I think that pretty much sums up what I think.

geeman

08-14-2004, 12:20 PM

At 09:19 PM 8/11/2004 +0200, graham anderson wrote:

>>As I remember from school Karl der Große (Charlemagne?) could not even

>>read and never really learned it well later... ;-)

>

>I don`t remember that but even if he couldn`t many of the rulers of the

>time new multiple languages to speak, read and write. Its all their in the

>books all you need to do is read a little.

It`s true, he never really learned to read even though by several accounts

he made a sincere effort to learn. You`re also quite right that many

rulers knew more than one language, so I don`t know if one or the other is

particularly a good example as "typical" of nobles.... In 3e, Charlemagne

seems to me to be best expressed as a character who started out as a

barbarian, took a few noble levels and wound up in some strange "Emperor"

prestige class or something along those lines.

I know I`m chiming in late one this bit, but when it comes to the BAB of a

noble class, I think it depends a bit on how one is interpreting the

process. If I might suggest a distinction there might be two things going

on here. First, there is a sort of courtly, aristocratic character being

described that is more along the lines of what I`m going to call

"Courtier." The Courtier has all the qualities of aristocratic background,

wealth and education that are generally being ascribed to the noble. Their

emphasis is upon intrigues and politics, interpersonal relationships,

etc. One could give such a class d8 hit dice and the medium BAB

progression like that of rogues or clerics.

Another interpretation of the noble, however, would be "those who bear

arms" which is a very important historical distinction. A character class

along those lines would be more like a knightly, soldier-general type. We

might call this character the "Armiger" which conveys their social status

right to bear arms. The emphasis of this noble class would be more

military and fighter-like, and would have the fast BAB progression, and

possibly d10 hit dice rather than d8.

Class abilities for either interpretation should be associated with the

appropriate emphasis.

Gary

Osprey

08-14-2004, 05:33 PM

Geeman, I think you pretty much summed up the two distinct divisions going on - I think it's a far more relevant class division than the three paths in terms of making a noble class with historical precedence.

Realistically, nobles would have more "power" than other classes, for the simple fact that they have more potential training and resources than anyone else (as unfair as this might be, it certainly is the way it was). Which is one of the reasons I didn't mind the Noble being a strong class relative to other PC classes.

When I think of medieval European nobles raised to knighthood, for instance, then wow: they start training as pages at age 5 or so, learning some basic literacy, history, and other basic education, as well as the duties of a knight and lord. By 10-12 they become squires, more directly tending a knight and his arms, and sometimes even fighting with them in battle (squires would occasionally win their spurs through valorous conduct on the field). Typically it was around age 20 or 21 that a knight would eventually earn his spurs as a knight.

So all that time, the knight is being trained to fight, to serve, and to observe the ways of court and rulership. If he received superior training, likely he would learn more of the inner workings of politics, warfare, history, etc., but this varied wildly historically and was no certainty.

I had proposed before that a militant Noble might best be represented by a high BAB and 4 skill points per level (and d10 for hit die would probably be accurate here too), with a more courtly array of class skills than Fighters.

The courtier-type Noble that Geeman described definitely seems to be the popular favorite for folks' conception of the Noble, and I believe most people who voted on the medium BAB probably had this in mind (and I would say Irdeggman's description certainly leans in this direction). To me, this is more of the late Renaissance and beyond type of noble (though some of the trade states like Italy might have had this type earlier) - the fencing, courtly, refined noble who really specializes in the social arts.

I do think this sort of concept could well fit as an archetype for Brecht and some Khinasi and Anuirean nobility, but the warrior variety would also fit well in Anuire and Khinasi (and maybe for the Anuirean-descended nobles in Brechtur).

Osprey

RaspK_FOG

08-15-2004, 01:03 AM

OK, I am starting to believe it would be best if we cleared this up: is a two-class option more welcome?

geeman

08-15-2004, 04:20 AM

At 02:03 AM 8/15/2004 +0200, RaspK_FOG wrote:

>OK, I am starting to believe it would be best if we cleared this up: is a

>two-class option more welcome?

Well, like anything it depends on execution, but in this case it seems like

two classes might be more on track with satisfying the BAB issue, and could

actually wind up making for a more carefully articulated system of

portraying BR nobles. Also, when it comes to the issues regarding

maintaining parity with the 3e/3.5 rules I don`t think this should cause

too much of a problem since we really need to articulate nobles more

carefully in BR than in other settings since the concept is so central to

the setting.

Gary

graham anderson

08-15-2004, 10:00 AM

No not two classes you are just slipping back to the three class version. The vast majority are in favour of an average bab keep it as one class.

RaspK_FOG

08-15-2004, 12:07 PM

What I am pointing out here is that there are two "factions" when it comes to how people think the noble should really be: those who think of the noble as a militant feudal leader, and
those who think of him as a courtly aristocrat.
I know it sounds strange, but what I think we have here is trying to square the circle!

Osprey

08-15-2004, 01:05 PM

I think both are very valid but very different concepts of nobility - and both have a prominent place in Cerilian society. As Birthright is a very politically-driven game, I think Geeman said it pretty well: if well-executed, two different Noble classes might be entirely approporiate here, even though they wouldn't be in any other system.

geeman

08-15-2004, 01:50 PM

At 02:05 PM 8/15/2004 +0200, Osprey wrote:

>I think both are very valid but very different concepts of nobility - and

>both have a prominent place in Cerilian society.

True, and one can see to which societies they might apply. Brecht and the

Khinasi might be more likely to have Courtiers while the Rjurik and Vos

would tend more towards an Armiger. Anuireans might be right there in the

middle. Amongst non-human races one can also see a split. Elves would be

most likely to be courtiers (though, it seems like wizards are still more

likely amongst the sidhe than even nobles) while most of the rest of the

non-humans, except maybe halflings, would find the Armiger more appropriate.

One of the objections I`ve had in the past to the noble character class

descriptive text is the placement of the class mostly amongst Anuirean,

Brecht or Khanasi cultures. Nobility is really a rather universal cultural

feature for feudal societies like those of BR, so it shouldn`t be more apt

towards one culture than another IMO. However, if one breaks the Noble up

into courtiers and armigers the descriptive text makes pretty good sense if

it stays in the Courtier class write up.

Gary

graham anderson

08-15-2004, 03:01 PM

3 times as many people are in favour of a average bab than a high bab and while I realise that some people are not happy with this I think that the numbers speak for themselves with this being one of the best majoritys I have seen in a vote. That talk of creating more classes is just muddying the waters when a noble class with an average bab should be made up. Even if the noble is a militant feudal leader he still has lots of other things to take up his time and should not be the equal of a heroic fighter who is more dedicated to combat. If you want a warrior pick the fighter class. The noble class is supposed to represent something different from pre existing classes.

those who think of the noble as a militant feudal leader, and
those who think of him as a courtly aristocrat

The noble should be a mixture of both not one or another exclusivly.

I think both are very valid but very different concepts of nobility - and both have a prominent place in Cerilian society. As Birthright is a very politically-driven game, I think Geeman said it pretty well: if well-executed, two different Noble classes might be entirely approporiate here, even though they wouldn't be in any other system.

I could not disagree more there is no need for more than one class.

geeman

08-15-2004, 05:30 PM

At 04:01 PM 8/15/2004 +0200, graham anderson wrote:

>3 times as many people are in favour of a average bab than a high bab and

>while I realise that some people are not happy with this I think that the

>numbers speak for themselves with this being one of the best majoritys I

>have seen in a vote.

I don`t think the situation was articulated very well when that poll was

taken. Regardless of that, was the option for there to be two classes

presented in it?

Gary

geeman

08-15-2004, 05:30 PM

At 04:01 PM 8/15/2004 +0200, graham anderson wrote:

>>those who think of the noble as a militant feudal leader, andthose who

>>think of him as a courtly aristocrat

>

>The noble should be a mixture of both not one or another exclusivly.

I think these two are basically different themes and mixing them in one

character class creates a muddle. A courtier should be at least as

different from an armiger as, for instance, a fighter is from a ranger, or

a bard is from a rogue. To extend the comparison to other character

classes, I`d suggest that the differences are more broad than that of the

Jedi Councilor and the Jedi Guardian from Star Wars D20, and where that

campaign setting has a noble PC class and two classes to portray jedi,

Birthright`s emphasis is upon the political level of play, and the

characters take on roles that reflect that distinction.

Gary

irdeggman

08-15-2004, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by geeman@Aug 15 2004, 07:50 AM
At 02:05 PM 8/15/2004 +0200, Osprey wrote:

>I think both are very valid but very different concepts of nobility - and

>both have a prominent place in Cerilian society.

True, and one can see to which societies they might apply. Brecht and the

Khinasi might be more likely to have Courtiers while the Rjurik and Vos

would tend more towards an Armiger. Anuireans might be right there in the

middle. Amongst non-human races one can also see a split. Elves would be

most likely to be courtiers (though, it seems like wizards are still more

likely amongst the sidhe than even nobles) while most of the rest of the

non-humans, except maybe halflings, would find the Armiger more appropriate.

One of the objections I`ve had in the past to the noble character class

descriptive text is the placement of the class mostly amongst Anuirean,

Brecht or Khanasi cultures. Nobility is really a rather universal cultural

feature for feudal societies like those of BR, so it shouldn`t be more apt

towards one culture than another IMO. However, if one breaks the Noble up

into courtiers and armigers the descriptive text makes pretty good sense if

it stays in the Courtier class write up.

Gary

I think this is where the difference in defintion of what a noble is come to thr forefront.

It appears that you are (and to an extent Osprey although not as great IMO) taking the position that the Armiger is the noble that has recently taken control of the area he is ruling. In historical (again biblical) comparison this would be King David or in mythical comparison Arthur. Neither was born with distinct advantages, the silver spoon in their mouth so to speak. They didn't have any kind of tutors or assets that they could draw on to gain any step up on leadership, skills or fighting proficiency. An extension in BR could be made to Raesene and Roele and Haelyn. Roele and Haelyn learned how to be leaders (it was expected of them) while Raesene learned how to be a warrior. Raesene did not have a silver spoon to draw upon, while unlike most bastard children of nobles he was embraced by his father he was never given all of the privileges that his brothers were. So IMO Haelyn and Roele were warrior-path nobles (mostlikely multiclassed fighters) while Raesene was a fighter. Haelyn and Roele were very competent warriors but never in the same class as their brother.

This is one of the core concept of the noble class - a class that draws from the prestige and advantages of a family that has them in order to gain a step up on leadership, etc.

The warrior king has just taken control of the land and has no heridatary advantages. This type of ruler would best be captured by some sort of prestige class. Something that reflects how after gaining skills (broad sense also refering to feats and the like) and then using them has seized control and is now becoming a great leader.

As far as Birthright cultural aspects go:

The Vos have no history or tendency at all to give any great respect to the sire of a great leader. All of their leaders are expected to earn their position on their own and gain no extra respect or benefits because of their heritage. Hence the noble with advantages he is born with just doesn't apply to that society.

The Rjurik ar similar in many aspects to this. They have city dwellers and roaming clans, but both have a strong tendancy towards individuality and not heridatary benefits.

Osprey

08-15-2004, 08:33 PM

I think this is where the difference in defintion of what a noble is come to thr forefront.

It appears that you are (and to an extent Osprey although not as great IMO) taking the position that the Armiger is the noble that has recently taken control of the area he is ruling. In historical (again biblical) comparison this would be King David or in mythical comparison Arthur. Neither was born with distinct advantages, the silver spoon in their mouth so to speak. They didn't have any kind of tutors or assets that they could draw on to gain any step up on leadership, skills or fighting proficiency. An extension in BR could be made to Raesene and Roele and Haelyn. Roele and Haelyn learned how to be leaders (it was expected of them) while Raesene learned how to be a warrior. Raesene did not have a silver spoon to draw upon, while unlike most bastard children of nobles he was embraced by his father he was never given all of the privileges that his brothers were. So IMO Haelyn and Roele were warrior-path nobles (mostlikely multiclassed fighters) while Raesene was a fighter. Haelyn and Roele were very competent warriors but never in the same class as their brother.

Umm, no, I don't think this is correct at all. The concept you speak of, that of a conqueror who becomes a ruler, is most obviously a fighter. I have been describing (from day one) a noble born and bred to fight and rule, trained from the earliest age at the arts of war and rulership. This has nothing to do with conquering a domain. It is very much the "class born to privelage", but that privelage is focused on the training of the premier leader and warrior. Training that most fighter-class characters, of common origin, would never recieve. Sorry, but I think Fighters are poor examples of knights and noble warriors, because they lack the skills and leadership abilities of a true noble. And I think Fighter/Noble multiclass is a watered-down version of what that concept should be.

If Haelyn and Roele were not as competent as Raesene, I think this has nothing to do with character class, but with the fact that Raesene would have been (in D&D stats) a higher-level character; he was older and had had a great deal more real-world experience than his younger half-brothers. This is logical - that Haelyn and Roele would have recieved inferior warrior training, especially given that Haelyn became the next God of Nobility and War is ludicrous. Haelyn should be viewed as a paragon of the noble warrior, not a second-rate fighter with some leadership and courtly skills.

But I can see already that the various posts I have already made on this topic, illustrating the hereditary privelage of the noble warrior are lost on the majority - obviously people already had pre-concieved ideas of the noble, and this gut-level feeling fueled the votes taken. I wonder how many of the folks who voted here even read the previous thread on the 3.5 Noble?

I'm upset because the poll has obviously allowed people to have their way without presenting much in the way of valid, logical argument. No one has presented much a convincing case for the medium BAB, though plenty of folks have voted for it. Which can only lead me to conclude that folks have voted on how they feel about it rather than basing this on any well thought-out rationale. I'm not impressed.

To reiterate once more: I prefer having in BR a gritty, medieval-style feudal lord, who is most definitely militant in focus. If the Fighter or a Fighter/Noble of your version did an adequate job of portraying that, I'd let this go right now. But both options make for a weaker character than I feel is accurate given their hereditary advantages. Though I think perhaps Noble Warrior would be a better class name than Armiger [I checked the definition of that, it really refers to a squire/arms-bearer rather than a belted knight].

geeman

08-15-2004, 08:50 PM

At 08:01 PM 8/15/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:

>It appears that you are (and to an extent Osprey although not as great

>IMO) taking the position that the Armiger is the noble that has recently

>taken control of the area he is ruling.

I`m not really making that assumption, but I guess it`s as apt as several

others that might be possible for such a character class. In general, I

think it works for a parvenu, and it could be used to portray such a

character pretty easily as it might work for just a character raised

amongst the trappings of nobility who just had a more militant

edge. There`s a bit of interpretation here, but Prince Avan vs. Archduke

Bourine might be a good example of BR characters that exemplify the difference.

Gary

RaspK_FOG

08-15-2004, 10:52 PM

I feel like I opened a can of worms better left alone... :( The whole idea was that I felt like people have started showing such an attitude anyway.

To make my point (since Osprey is at least partly right about what he said), I have come to picture the Noble as what is to be expected of a scion of any bloodline (no BR themes intented to be portrayed here) who is bred up to reign over whatever piece of land or other form of fortune; in other words, he is a person educated in the use of arms and armours, can ride, read, write, speak many languages, knows his heraldry and history, can take actions when it comes to ruling something, such things... This is best described as a character with the ability to choose from various not specifically fighting-related feats, like Diligent (I think?), Negotiator, etc., while having an average BAB, high Fort & Will saves, d8 HD size, proficiency in simple and martial weapons (or some of the latter, like free Regional Arms Proficiency and Regional Elite Arms Proficiency at 1st level), plus some ability or another that represents funds or contacts, plus some governing ability or something.

irdeggman

08-16-2004, 01:22 AM

Umm, no, I don't think this is correct at all. The concept you speak of, that of a conqueror who becomes a ruler, is most obviously a fighter. I have been describing (from day one) a noble born and bred to fight and rule, trained from the earliest age at the arts of war and rulership. This has nothing to do with conquering a domain. It is very much the "class born to privelage", but that privelage is focused on the training of the premier leader and warrior. Training that most fighter-class characters, of common origin, would never recieve. Sorry, but I think Fighters are poor examples of knights and noble warriors, because they lack the skills and leadership abilities of a true noble. And I think Fighter/Noble multiclass is a watered-down version of what that concept should be.

Then paladins seem to fit the role yo outlay almost precisely. They are good leaders, the most logical and recognized knights and have good fighting skills.

If Haelyn and Roele were not as competent as Raesene, I think this has nothing to do with character class, but with the fact that Raesene would have been (in D&D stats) a higher-level character; he was older and had had a great deal more real-world experience than his younger half-brothers. This is logical - that Haelyn and Roele would have recieved inferior warrior training, especially given that Haelyn became the next God of Nobility and War is ludicrous. Haelyn should be viewed as a paragon of the noble warrior, not a second-rate fighter with some leadership and courtly skills.

Then Raesene would have been a better ruler than he was wouldn't he if it was just due to his level? I mean if a character is splitting his time between multiple tasks (the primary basis for multiclassing, a multiclass character is never as good as a single classed one at any one class) Which is precisely what Haelyn and Roele had to do. They had to spend time learning the intracises of rulership while Raesene spent his time learning how to fight.

But I can see already that the various posts I have already made on this topic, illustrating the hereditary privelage of the noble warrior are lost on the majority - obviously people already had pre-concieved ideas of the noble, and this gut-level feeling fueled the votes taken. I wonder how many of the folks who voted here even read the previous thread on the 3.5 Noble?

Unfortunately as I have noticed over the past year people as a whole tend not to really bother posting opinions until an actual vote is called for. They then seem to read the document and come up with things that should have been voiced earlier. Very reminicient of when I recently did the revision to the noble that ended up with the 3 path version. Some felt they didn't need to revoice their original objections even after it was revised and this was read as agreement.

I do think that the 3.5 noble was read since the same people that made arguements for and against the good BAB are the ones posting now. Others don't bother to give their opinion exept via a vote :(

I'm upset because the poll has obviously allowed people to have their way without presenting much in the way of valid, logical argument. No one has presented much a convincing case for the medium BAB, though plenty of folks have voted for it. Which can only lead me to conclude that folks have voted on how they feel about it rather than basing this on any well thought-out rationale. I'm not impressed.

IMO what this indicates is that the case for a good BAB wasn't made very convincingly. Despite the large amount of posts on the subject it appears that those arguments weren't enough to sway most people.

Remember it is called an average BAB for a reason - it is the default starting point for any class, changes in other aspects of the class result in raising the BAB to good or lowering it to poor. The other defaults are a d8 hit dice and 2 sp per level (plus Int modifer), 1 good save and 2 poor ones. These things are all modified based on the other class abiltities. So deviation from the default needs to have justification, not keeping with it.

To reiterate once more: I prefer having in BR a gritty, medieval-style feudal lord, who is most definitely militant in focus. If the Fighter or a Fighter/Noble of your version did an adequate job of portraying that, I'd let this go right now. But both options make for a weaker character than I feel is accurate given their hereditary advantages. Though I think perhaps Noble Warrior would be a better class name than Armiger [I checked the definition of that, it really refers to a squire/arms-bearer rather than a belted knight].

Knighthood wasn't something people were born into, it is something they had to earn. Most were (in D&D mechanics anyway) organizations that a character had to join and be accepted into first. Paladins were always given the benefits of being a knight due to their dedication and honor. There is that paladin code of honor thing that reflects knighthood.

So back to my assertion that the knight-like noble you are describing is best captured via a prestige class since it is something that must be earned and demonstrated not something that a character is born to.

graham anderson

08-16-2004, 03:19 AM

I think these two are basically different themes and mixing them in one
character class creates a muddle. A courtier should be at least as
different from an armiger as, for instance, a fighter is from a ranger, or
a bard is from a rogue. To extend the comparison to other character
classes, I’d suggest that the differences are more broad than that of the
Jedi Councillor and the Jedi Guardian from Star Wars D20, and where that
campaign setting has a noble PC class and two classes to portray Jedi,
Birthright’s emphasis is upon the political level of play, and the
characters take on roles that reflect that distinction.

Why do you need an armiger when you can just be a fighter or multiclass fighter.

I have been describing (from day one) a noble born and bred to fight and rule

this very rarely happened and is best represented with multiclassing

This is logical - that Haelyn and Roele would have received inferior warrior training, especially given that Haelyn became the next God of Nobility and War is ludicrous. Haelyn should be viewed as a paragon of the noble warrior, not a second-rate fighter with some leadership and courtly skills.

haelyn most exemplified the virtues of the old god it did not necessarily have anything to do with how good a fighter he was.

But I can see already that the various posts I have already made on this topic, illustrating the hereditary privilege of the noble warrior are lost on the majority - obviously people already had pre-conceived ideas of the noble, and this gut-level feeling fuelled the votes taken. I wonder how many of the folks who voted here even read the previous thread on the 3.5 Noble?

please don't make me laugh do you want me to start quoting from books. You appear to view the noble as the fantasy inspired version often found in fantasy books and fairy tales or exactly the opposite of the true story.

I'm upset because the poll has obviously allowed people to have their way without presenting much in the way of valid, logical argument. No one has presented much a convincing case for the medium BAB, though plenty of folks have voted for it. Which can only lead me to conclude that folks have voted on how they feel about it rather than basing this on any well thought-out rationale. I'm not impressed.

no you are upset because you haven’t got your way. there has been very good arguments for a medium bab and the votes represent this. Sorry it seams pretty rational to me.

To reiterate once more: I prefer having in BR a gritty, medieval-style feudal lord, who is most definitely militant in focus. If the Fighter or a Fighter/Noble of your version did an adequate job of portraying that, I'd let this go right now. But both options make for a weaker character than I feel is accurate given their hereditary advantages. Though I think perhaps Noble Warrior would be a better class name than Armiger [I checked the definition of that, it really refers to a squire/arms-bearer rather than a belted knight].

I prefer br gritty. but the whole point of the classes is that they are equal. Remember that all pc characters are exceptional and better than the common man. Multi classing does not lead to a weaker character it may lead to you being weaker in a fight but that is only a small part of role-playing. Please tell me how the character is weaker.

graham anderson

08-16-2004, 03:22 AM

I feel like I opened a can of worms better left alone... The whole idea was that I felt like people have started showing such an attitude anyway.

To make my point (since Osprey is at least partly right about what he said), I have come to picture the Noble as what is to be expected of a scion of any bloodline (no BR themes intended to be portrayed here) who is bred up to reign over whatever piece of land or other form of fortune; in other words, he is a person educated in the use of arms and armours, can ride, read, write, speak many languages, knows his heraldry and history, can take actions when it comes to ruling something, such things... This is best described as a character with the ability to choose from various not specifically fighting-related feats, like Diligent (I think?), Negotiator, etc., while having an average BAB, high Fort & Will saves, d8 HD size, proficiency in simple and martial weapons (or some of the latter, like free Regional Arms Proficiency and Regional Elite Arms Proficiency at 1st level), plus some ability or another that represents funds or contacts, plus some governing ability or something.

Yes preach brother preach a balanced class.

Osprey

08-16-2004, 05:17 AM

Osprey

08-16-2004, 05:28 AM

Then paladins seem to fit the role yo outlay almost precisely. They are good leaders, the most logical and recognized knights and have good fighting skills.

Well, Paladins are closer to knights than Fighters are, yes, thanks to having a chivalrous type code of conduct and an emphasis on high Charisma. Also, they have Diplomacy in addition to Lead (in BR) as a class skill. So yeah, closer. My hangup is the religious emphasis. I would gladly trade those divine powers for some leadership class features and 4 skill points per level if I wanted a secular noble knight as a core character class.

Knighthood wasn't something people were born into, it is something they had to earn. Most were (in D&D mechanics anyway) organizations that a character had to join and be accepted into first. Paladins were always given the benefits of being a knight due to their dedication and honor. There is that paladin code of honor thing that reflects knighthood.

So back to my assertion that the knight-like noble you are describing is best captured via a prestige class since it is something that must be earned and demonstrated not something that a character is born to.

While knighthood had to be earned (historically speaking here), it certainly was a privelage reserved mainly for the nobility. And if a man was trained for it from age 5, don't you think by age 21 or so he's far more likely to make it than the farmboy-turned-soldier who's only been fighting for the past 3 years? I'm not basing this on my own fantastic notions, I'm basing it on the agreement of every book I've ever read concerning the majority of medieval knights and the training and upbringing they recieved. Rarely a squire or soldier of non-noble birth would earn distinction (and his spurs) through valorous conduct on the field, but this was definitely the exception and not the rule. The majority of knights were as I have described: noble-born warriors trained from an early age to fill a specific role as elite mounted warriors and landlords. This was the feudal knight par excellence.

Osprey

P.S. - A side note, Irdeggman: take no offense at my rantings, I have appreciated that you have made considerable efforts to articulate and justify your own views on the Noble concept and design. We may disagree, but I respect the work and attention you have put into this. :)

graham anderson

08-16-2004, 10:47 AM

Why do you need an armiger when you can just be a fighter or multiclass fighter.

Because fighters lack the range of class skills and abilities that reflect leadership - they are good at fighting, that's all.

That would be why you multiclass

QUOTE
I have been describing (from day one) a noble born and bred to fight and rule

this very rarely happened and is best represented with multiclassing

Do you have any justification for this? Or is your word simply gospel?

How much justification do you want the fact that nearly all the knight were not nobles but instead soldiers selected by the king. That nobles were leaders but rarely fighters and even more rarely competent leaders. I will start quoting examples but do you have any justification for your view except for having read a couple of fantasy books? maybe a history book for instance or is your word just gospel?

haelyn most exemplified the virtues of the old god it did not necessarily have anything to do with how good a fighter he was.

Yes, the old god of War, Anduiras.

Anduiras was the god of courage , justice , chivalry and rulership not how many people can I kill how quickly as you seem to see him

QUOTE
please don't make me laugh do you want me to start quoting from books. You appear to view the noble as the fantasy inspired version often found in fantasy books and fairy tales or exactly the opposite of the true story.

I want you to start backing your opinions with at least some rational argument if not actual facts grounded somewhere. So far all I've heard from you are strongly felt opinions. Nothing more.

And yes, I do consider Birthright to be a game somewhat based in heroic fantasy. This is D&D, right? This is a fantasy game, right? If Arthurian knights and medieval folklore are not a good source of inspiration for BR, what is?

I have been backing up my opinion but do not view you as having done so. All you have been doing is whining and trying to get the noble back to the multiple classes that people were unhappy with. There is nothing wrong with considering birthright heroic fantasy but don’t try and put real life emphasis behind fantasy. However remember that the classes are meant to be balanced and if you give a noble a high bab they have to loose the other things that make them a noble.

QUOTE
no you are upset because you haven’t got your way. there has been very good arguments for a medium bab and the votes represent this. Sorry it seams pretty rational to me.

There have been a few voices bothering to post rationales for their votes - but not nearly so many as the votes represent. Which means many are voting without voicing their reasoning, if in fact there is any reason behind it. Have you seen 12 different posters stating why they prefer an average BAB? I haven't. Even fewer have actually worked out some logic to this, as opposed to posting that they feel strongly about the subject, then failing to give some argument for their feelings.

Maybe people don’t feel that they have to justify their vote its not like they have been chiming in to support your view. people are entitled to vote and not tell you why but the fact that they went for an average bab shows they are likely against your view.

QUOTE
no you are upset because you haven’t got your way. there has been very good arguments for a medium bab and the votes represent this. Sorry it seams pretty rational to me.

Then please, why don't you take the time to articulate your feelings rather than emphasizing how you feel about the subject as if everyone agrees without you needing to say it? People may have voted the same as you on this for very different reasons. I believe the reasons matter.

I refer you to the last answer.

QUOTE
I prefer br gritty. but the whole point of the classes is that they are equal. Remember that all pc characters are exceptional and better than the common man. Multi classing does not lead to a weaker character it may lead to you being weaker in a fight but that is only a small part of role-playing. Please tell me how the character is weaker.

Yes preach brother preach a balanced class.

Ah...and in one sentence you've finally given a single reason for your feelings articulated in all of your previous posts on the subject. You think the high BAB is unbalancing.

This, at least, is a reason I can accept, even if I disagree with it. I happen to recall you ranting about how unbalanced the 3.5 Ranger was too, yes? And since this was the comparative class in my own previous versions, you didn't like it either. Sound about right?

What are you on if you have read my posts you will see that I think it is unrealistic, unbalancing and inappropriate. I don’t have a problem with the 3.5 ranger except for their spell casting which I think shouldn’t exist in birthright in my opinion. I didn't like the previous versions because they were clunky poorly done and most of what was in them should have been represented with multiclassing and skills/feats.

Yes I support raspk fogs view of the noble it is a good all rounder

QUOTE
Knighthood wasn't something people were born into, it is something they had to earn. Most were (in D&D mechanics anyway) organizations that a character had to join and be accepted into first. Paladins were always given the benefits of being a knight due to their dedication and honour. There is that paladin code of honour thing that reflects knighthood.

So back to my assertion that the knight-like noble you are describing is best captured via a prestige class since it is something that must be earned and demonstrated not something that a character is born to.

While knighthood had to be earned (historically speaking here), it certainly was a privilege reserved mainly for the nobility. And if a man was trained for it from age 5, don't you think by age 21 or so he's far more likely to make it than the farm boy-turned-soldier who's only been fighting for the past 3 years? I'm not basing this on my own fantastic notions, I'm basing it on the agreement of every book I've ever read concerning the majority of medieval knights and the training and upbringing they received. Rarely a squire or soldier of non-noble birth would earn distinction (and his spurs) through valorous conduct on the field, but this was definitely the exception and not the rule. The majority of knights were as I have described: noble-born warriors trained from an early age to fill a specific role as elite mounted warriors and landlords. This was the feudal knight par excellence.

you are so wrong it’s not even funny this is the fantasy view. The exception is towards the age of jousting and chivalry when there was only about 100 knights and they were on the circle but that has nothing to with fighting. I agree that there should be a knight prestige class to represent a lot of the things people have brought up.

Right the last time I started quoting was on the history of algebra under the historical basis for the khinasi and look what happened.

geeman

08-16-2004, 10:50 AM

At 04:19 AM 8/16/2004 +0200, graham anderson wrote:

>Why do you need an armiger when you can just be a fighter or multiclass

>fighter.

Couldn`t the same argument be employed to portray the paladin as simply a

fighter/cleric? Other existing character classes could be similarly

(though arguably less easily) discounted by multiclassing options; bard =

rogue/sorcerer, and ranger = fighter/druid with maybe a rogue level. In

fact, using the above standard isn`t the proposed noble class just a

portrayal of a character that forgoes some extant multi-classing options?

>>I have been describing (from day one) a noble born and bred to fight and rule

>

>this very rarely happened and is best represented with multiclassing

Well, that comment runs counter to almost all of my knowledge and

interpretations of history, fantasy fiction or how one should portray those

things in gaming....

I`d suggest that the noble born and bred to fight and rule is probably the

more likely character historically speaking for BR`s "medieval"

purposes. The later, more courtly and politically minded person is more

the product of the Renaissance. There are, of course, BR cultures that are

quasi-Renaissance in addition to that more medieval one, so I really think

both is a better option than only one, or trying to portray the former by

multi-classing as a fighter which is, essentially, only an incidentally

related character class.

However, I do think multi-classing might be the best way to represent

certain characters in this regard: If there are both a courtier and an

armiger character classes then a character could multi-class as a

courtier/armiger to get a kind of rugged, yet savvy noble.

>haelyn most exemplified the virtues of the old god it did not necessarily

>have anything to do with how good a fighter he was.

Well, I`d agree that Haelyn most exemplified the virtues of the old god,

but I think it had quite a bit to do with how good a fighter he was since

being a good warrior was a fairly significant aspect of that process of

exemplification.

>>I`m upset because the poll has obviously allowed people to have their way

>>without presenting much in the way of valid, logical argument. No one has

>>presented much a convincing case for the medium BAB, though plenty of

>>folks have voted for it. Which can only lead me to conclude that folks

>>have voted on how they feel about it rather than basing this on any well

>>thought-out rationale. I`m not impressed.

>

>no you are upset because you haven`t got your way. there has been very

>good arguments for a medium bab and the votes represent this. Sorry it

>seams pretty rational to me.

I still don`t think the poll, if you go back and look at the voting

criteria, address this issue at all. The question being asked was whether

or not the noble as it was being presented should have the medium or fast

BAB progression. The issue has taken a turn into whether or not there

should be a noble-courtier with a medium BAB progression, and a

noble-armiger with the fast BAB progression. That is a new and

different. Equating the results of an unrelated poll is, I`m afraid, not

particularly rational.

Personally, I didn`t vote on the BAB issue until just now because I wasn`t

sure how I thought it should go and it took a little more reflection for me

to consider the issue. Now that I have given it some more thought I voted

"other" but I`m afraid that doesn`t really answer the question. The BAB

progression for the proposed noble _should_ be medium, so technically a

vote for that option is more correct than "other." There`s not an option

for "Medium and a second class that is fast." Adding another

interpretation to the BR concept of nobility doesn`t invalidate that poll

any more than that poll applies to this situation.

In any case, if you go back to read the early posts on the subject posters

were debating the issue from the very beginning of the thread, so the issue

is not as clear-cut as all that.

Gary

graham anderson

08-16-2004, 10:50 AM

The medieval knight was not the first man ever to hold special status for his job as a horse-mounted soldier. In Ancient Rome, the equites (mounted officers) held a special social position. But the Roman political structure differed markedly from that of medieval Europe. It is feudalism that gave the knight his unique status. The history of feudalism and the knight goes back to late antiquity.
After the Roman Empire fell, western Europe had to adapt to new circumstances. Kingdoms struggled to survive, constantly faced by the threat of invasion by nomadic tribes and aggressive neighbors, including Magyars and Vikings .
The European leaders formed armies consisting of ordinary men -- peasants and tenant farmers -- who were used to standing up for their homes and community, and when they fought other foot soldiers they often held their own.

But the invaders brought a new element of warfare for which they could not cope: The Mounted Warrior.
To fight fire with fire, it was necessary for the western European armies to create cavalries of their own. But an ordinary citizen could not afford the maintenance and care of a trained war-horse, let alone its purchase. Furthermore, horsemanship skills needed practice, and the average citizen had no time for that, because he had to feed his family. This usually involved working the land, which not only put food on the tenant farmer's table but put money in his landlord's pocket.
It was the Roman practice of commendation that brought on the birth of knighthood. A Roman soldier would attach himself to a superior officer, promising military service in return for some kind of support, usually a grant of land known as a benefice. European leaders such as Charlemagne adopted this practice; they would grant parcels of land (complete with serfs) to their best warriors.
In return, each warrior (who was now a lord himself) would use the income from his land to equip himself with a horse and weapons. And, now that he had the leisure time of a land-owner, he would practice horsemanship and horse weaponry so that he might better serve his liege-lord.
The land grants did not end with one distribution -- each warrior-cum-lord would divide up his land and grant parcels of it to retainers, who would then follow the same procedure. The land would be divided and re-divided until what was left was the minimum required amount of land to support a knight. This was usually 12 hides (about 1500 acres), but it depended on the quality of the specific land and how much food or other natural resources it could produce. It cost 30 marks a year to support a knight.
The knight of Europe therefore had his origins in military and economic need. His role was as a warrior, and in some cases he was little more than a thug rewarded for his viciousness. But if a knight was to succeed, he had to take his role in the military seriously. As time went on, success required more than brawn: it required loyalty to his liege-lord in society as well as strategy and ingenuity on the battlefield.

irdeggman

08-16-2004, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 15 2004, 11:28 PM
P.S. - A side note, Irdeggman: take no offense at my rantings, I have appreciated that you have made considerable efforts to articulate and justify your own views on the Noble concept and design. We may disagree, but I respect the work and attention you have put into this. :)
And I you.

While we may disagree on things, I appreciate that we don't get personal on this subjects. When the line does get crossed (as it will sometimes) we apologize for the personal attacks and get back to business.

geeman

08-16-2004, 11:50 AM

At 11:50 AM 8/16/2004 +0200, graham anderson wrote:

>After the Roman Empire fell, western Europe had to adapt to new

>circumstances. Kingdoms struggled to survive, constantly faced by the

>threat of invasion by nomadic tribes and aggressive neighbors, including

>Magyars and Vikings .The European leaders formed armies consisting of

>ordinary men -- peasants and tenant farmers -- who were used to standing

>up for their homes and community, and when they fought other foot soldiers

>they often held their own. But the invaders brought a new element of

>warfare for which they could not cope: The Mounted Warrior. To fight fire

>with fire, it was necessary for the western European armies to create

>cavalries of their own. But an ordinary citizen could not afford the

>maintenance and care of a trained war-horse, let alone its purchase.

>Furthermore, horsemanship skills needed practice, and the average citizen

>had no time for that, because he had to feed his family.

OK, now I`m confused. The above quoted text (culled from a book or a web

page?) would seem to support the idea of an armiger character class to

reflect that socially elevated status of the mounted warrior, rather than

to indicate that the d8, medium BAB "courtier" noble satisfies the

issue. Is this a reversal of the previous stance, or an argument to rename

the class the "cavalier" rather than "armiger?" How does the courtly noble

address the issues and paradigms expressed above?

Gary

graham anderson

08-16-2004, 01:21 PM

OK, now I`m confused. The above quoted text (culled from a book or a web
page?) would seem to support the idea of an armiger character class to
reflect that socially elevated status of the mounted warrior, rather than
to indicate that the d8, medium BAB "courtier" noble satisfies the
issue. Is this a reversal of the previous stance, or an argument to rename
the class the "cavalier" rather than "armiger?" How does the courtly noble
address the issues and paradigms expressed above?

No this is to show that the knight is rarely a noble but instead usualy a soldier ( fighter class). The nobles would themselves employ knights provided that they had the wealth to. It shows the difference between real life and the fantasy cliche that all nobles are knights or all knights nobles.

The noble class is to show a character that has been raised in a priveledged background and the benefits of such an upbringing. Thats how I see it anyway.

Osprey

08-16-2004, 04:22 PM

It was the Roman practice of commendation that brought on the birth of knighthood. A Roman soldier would attach himself to a superior officer, promising military service in return for some kind of support, usually a grant of land known as a benefice. European leaders such as Charlemagne adopted this practice; they would grant parcels of land (complete with serfs) to their best warriors.
In return, each warrior (who was now a lord himself) would use the income from his land to equip himself with a horse and weapons. And, now that he had the leisure time of a land-owner, he would practice horsemanship and horse weaponry so that he might better serve his liege-lord.
The land grants did not end with one distribution -- each warrior-cum-lord would divide up his land and grant parcels of it to retainers, who would then follow the same procedure. The land would be divided and re-divided until what was left was the minimum required amount of land to support a knight. This was usually 12 hides (about 1500 acres), but it depended on the quality of the specific land and how much food or other natural resources it could produce. It cost 30 marks a year to support a knight.
The knight of Europe therefore had his origins in military and economic need. His role was as a warrior, and in some cases he was little more than a thug rewarded for his viciousness. But if a knight was to succeed, he had to take his role in the military seriously. As time went on, success required more than brawn: it required loyalty to his liege-lord in society as well as strategy and ingenuity on the battlefield.

What you are describing I think is fairly accurate. However, it is also describing a Dark Age - early medieval era (Charlemagne was a Dark Age king, the medieval era hadn't really begun yet). These are the militant origins of knighthood and the mounted warrior. What of the sons of these commoners-turned-warriors? Did they not inherit the positions of their fathers in most cases? As I understand things (and yes, I am definitely basing my readings on historical books), the feudal knights of later eras (beyond the start of the medieval era, and getting into the High Medieval period) were mainly hereditary - typically the eldest son, sometimes the second, and sometimes the whole crop of 'em, were trained as pages, then squires, and eventually tested to become knights. This is no conjuration of Arthurian fantasy - this was the system that ensured the landed nobles would have their families retain the lands they or their forefathers had won. In order for these nobles to remain valuable to their liege, they had to be able to fight, and to provide a body of fighting retainers under their command. Chivalry, as a code of conduct and ideal, is certainly something more prominent in stories than reality, and largely was a popular product of the French troubadors, but it certainly had a real influence on the knights of the High and Late medieval eras, and is not to be discounted as pure fantasy.

The details of this system of course varied depending on the region and times, but the general system of hereditary fighting feudal lords was pretty much the staple of the medieval feudal system. Which is why I see it as a good example of the "old way" of the Anuirean lords, but a way that would have seen a serious revival since the fall of the Empire and the five+ centuries of calamity and civil war since then.

ConjurerDragon

08-16-2004, 04:40 PM

Osprey schrieb:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2781

>

> Osprey wrote:

>

..

>There have been a few voices bothering to post rationales for their votes - but not nearly so many as the votes represent. Which means many are voting without voicing theit reasoning, if in fact there is any reason behind it. Have you seen 12 different posters stating why they prefer an average BAB? I haven`t. Even fewer have actually worked out some logic to this, as opposed to posting that they feel strongly about the subject, then failing to give some argument for their feelings.

>

As he wishes for others to state their reasoning why they would prefer a

Noble with average BAB I´ll try to give mine:

The Warrior (NPC) is to the Fighter (PC) as the Aristocrat (NPC) should

be to the Noble - same BAB as the NPC variant, but in the Fighters case

a wagonload of fighter feats and in the Nobles case he gains a lot

compared to the Aristocrat but still resembles his BAB as basically they

are as similar as Warrior and Fighter.

I do not see a Noble as being the medieval Warrior-King who rules by the

Sword (Fighters BAB) and has Leadership Skills in Addition instead of

Fighter Bonus Feats, because I do not see the main cultures of Anuire,

Khir-aften-el-Arrasi or Brechtür as medieval. They are described as

Renaissance, and while this period of time may be interpreted

differently by others, I see it as the time in which Civilization has

developed a less martial and more skilled leader.

bye

Michael

ConjurerDragon

08-16-2004, 04:40 PM

Osprey schrieb:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2781

>

> Osprey wrote:

>...

>While knighthood had to be earned (historically speaking here), it certainly was a privelage reserved mainly for the nobility. And if a man was trained for it from age 5, don`t you think by age 21 or so he`s far more likely to make it than the farmboy-turned-soldier who`s only been fighting for the past 3 years? I`m not basing this on my own fantastic notions, I`m basing it on the agreement of every book I`ve ever read concerning the majority of medieval knights and the training and upbringing they recieved. Rarely a squire or soldier of non-noble birth would earn distinction (and his spurs) through valorous conduct on the field, but this was definitely the exception and not the rule. The majority of knights were as I have described: noble-born warriors trained from an early age to fill a specific role as elite mounted warriors and landlords. This was the feudal knight par excellence. OspreyP.S. - A side note, Irdeggman: take no offense at my rantings, I have appreciate

> d that you have made considerable efforts to articulate and justify your own views on the Noble concept and design. We may disagree, but I respect the work and attention you have put into this. :)

>

But would the majority of knights be nobles in BR?

I thought the Noble class is reserved for regents and their heirs only,

so that the lower levels of nobility, the vassals which do not appear on

the normal BR scale as Counts or Knights would be limited to other

classes. Is your remark that knights are noble warriors meaning that you

see even the knight who might hold a law (1) as not detailed NPC for

Prince Avan, that this knight would be a Noble?

bye

Michael

Osprey

08-16-2004, 04:56 PM

But would the majority of knights be nobles in BR?
I thought the Noble class is reserved for regents and their heirs only,
so that the lower levels of nobility, the vassals which do not appear on
the normal BR scale as Counts or Knights would be limited to other
classes. Is your remark that knights are noble warriors meaning that you
see even the knight who might hold a law (1) as not detailed NPC for
Prince Avan, that this knight would be a Noble?
bye
Michael

Past discussions on this topic have yielded a general consensus (I thought so, anyways) that the noble was not to be reserved only for blooded characters. The class was defined as those born into the wealth, privelage, and training reserved for the hereditary upper class. So all of those unblooded nobles and minor bloodline families without domain-level holdings are eligible - though many of the less-motivated ones would probably be Aristocrats rather than true Nobles.

Because of this inclusion, I think the majority of hereditary knights would be Nobles or Aristocrats. I've created some major NPC knights in my own campaign who have a first level of Noble to represent their upbringing, then the rest are Fighter levels to represent their devotion to the military life. Others have more mixed levels between the two classes. This worked very well with a high BAB Noble class, as they could remain potent warriors, but lacked the sheer number of combat feats and particulary Specialization of higher level, single class Fighters.

BTW, I appreciate your previous post stating your reasons for the average BAB. They're solid ones.

irdeggman

08-16-2004, 07:48 PM

. . .were trained as pages, then squires, and eventually tested to become knights

This is why it appears to be more appropriate as a prestige class. Since the 'knight' is the end result of an evolution and not something one starts out in.

Athos69

08-17-2004, 12:17 AM

I think that this topic has unnecessarily wandered from its intended purpose. If I crecall correctly, we were trying to decide if we wanted an Average or Good BAB for the Noble Class, not discuss the merits of multiple paths.

Let's get back to the decision at hand, shall we?

Personally, considering the arguments that have been on-topic, I would like to change my vote from Abstain to Average.

RaspK_FOG

08-17-2004, 02:02 AM

And I will have to apologise: I really think I gave the whole thing a wrong turn, even if so by mistake; also because my reasoning was not clarified, even if I tried to do that... I guess I (excuse the language) screwed up. :(

geeman

08-17-2004, 02:40 AM

At 02:21 PM 8/16/2004 +0200, graham anderson wrote:

>No this is to show that the knight is rarely a noble but instead usualy a

>soldier ( fighter class). The nobles would themselves employ knights

>provided that they had the wealth to. It shows the difference between real

>life and the fantasy cliche that all nobles are knights or all knights

>nobles.The noble class is to show a character that has been raised in a

>priveledged background and the benefits of such an upbringing. Thats how I

>see it anyway.

Lots of information about social class, fiefdoms, etc. in there, which

would read to me like it lends itself more to the description of a warrior

class that expresses something other than simple fighting class. While

that text does discuss the _origins_ of the feudal system in Roman and

Carolingian times the subsequent generations then become the hierarchy of

vassals that represent a warrior elite.

In this particular case, however, I don`t think we should read necessarily

"knight" into "armiger" any more than we should read "baron" into

"noble." That`s why I used the term "armiger" rather than the title

"knight" to describe it when first framing the distinction. Generally, I

think knighthood and such things are better portrayed as a prestige

class. I hesitate to make this particular comparison because I don`t think

it should be locked into the class descriptions in order to keep it as

universal as possible when it comes to character concepts, but the class in

question could be seen as representing the page and squire portions of the

path to knighthood not knighthood itself.

A character who took the more militant/officer track of nobility rather

than the more courtly noble already described might be someone who took his

first level as a fighter and then was rewarded by a regent with a small

fief. A player might take levels then as an "armiger" in order to reflect

that development. Another character, however, might be raised into the

warrior tradition and take his first level as an armiger. By contrast, a

"courtier" noble might be one of the less combatant types who might pay

escuage to avoid service.

Gary

Athos69

08-17-2004, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Aug 16 2004, 06:02 PM
And I will have to apologise: I really think I gave the whole thing a wrong turn, even if so by mistake; also because my reasoning was not clarified, even if I tried to do that... I guess I (excuse the language) screwed up. :(
No worries RaspK... I just felt the need to shepherd the discussion back to the right path... :)

ConjurerDragon

08-17-2004, 04:10 PM

irdeggman schrieb:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2781

>

> irdeggman wrote:

>

>

>------------ QUOTE ----------

>. . .were trained as pages, then squires, and eventually tested to become knights

>-----------------------------

>

>This is why it appears to be more appropriate as a prestige class. Since the `knight` is the end result of an evolution and not something one starts out in.

>

That reason is not really convincing - ANY class is the result of a

development, e.g. 1st level PC Rogues are no apprentices but adventurers

who may have been apprentices before. DMG for example names only those

apprentices who start as 1/2 multiclassed characters. The starting age

of, in case of humans at least 16 years, is pretty high to assume that

the character is still learning and training and later becomes the

knight or any other coreclass.

Especially in old times you could be married with children in that age

and not have to wait for your 21st or 18th birthday to be an adult.

Another poster mentioned that training for knighthood could start as

early as 5 years (which I don´t know if it´s correct but even if the

child would start some years later it would not matter for this

argument) which means that e.g. the page training is not reflected in

the game by a class level and later gaining a knight prestige class, but

by the assumption that page training is *before* the starting age and

the character begins adventuring not before he finished it.

bye

Michael

irdeggman

08-17-2004, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by ConjurerDragon@Aug 17 2004, 10:10 AM
irdeggman schrieb:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php...36&t=2781<br (http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2781<br) />
>

> irdeggman wrote:

>

>

>------------ QUOTE ----------

>. . .were trained as pages, then squires, and eventually tested to become knights

>-----------------------------

>

>This is why it appears to be more appropriate as a prestige class. Since the `knight` is the end result of an evolution and not something one starts out in.

>

That reason is not really convincing - ANY class is the result of a

development, e.g. 1st level PC Rogues are no apprentices but adventurers

who may have been apprentices before. DMG for example names only those

apprentices who start as 1/2 multiclassed characters. The starting age

of, in case of humans at least 16 years, is pretty high to assume that

the character is still learning and training and later becomes the

knight or any other coreclass.

Especially in old times you could be married with children in that age

and not have to wait for your 21st or 18th birthday to be an adult.

Another poster mentioned that training for knighthood could start as

early as 5 years (which I don´t know if it´s correct but even if the

child would start some years later it would not matter for this

argument) which means that e.g. the page training is not reflected in

the game by a class level and later gaining a knight prestige class, but

by the assumption that page training is *before* the starting age and

the character begins adventuring not before he finished it.

bye

Michael

True enough.

But. . .(there is always a but ;) ) age has nothing to do with training and levels (an important thing to keep in mind).

And the distinction between what a paige, squire and knight learns is pretty descrete - hence my opinion of difference classes for the evolution. The corrollary would be use of expert NPC classes or the commoner NPC class as a basis for 'pre core class' training and experience.

Osprey

08-17-2004, 07:39 PM

So are we to assume that all true knights in Anuire are level 6+ (the minimum level for a prestige class)? Won't that make for a very small number of actual knights?

Historically, pages recieved basic all-around education, as well as learning through observation the ways of court and how to serve a belted knight. Squires were more directly focused in training for knighthood: practicing fighting, riding, arms care, and sometimes (for elder squires) accompanying their knight-mentors into battle as arms-bearers. Technically they were supposed to be non-combatants, but there are many cases of eager squires defending their knights.

So in terms of a class, it's possible that a senior squire might be represented by a low-level character, though unlikely he would be given the freedom to go off adventuring before gaining his spurs - at least a historical version.

RaspK_FOG

08-18-2004, 01:19 AM

I prefer to distinguish roleplaying issues from rulings at times, and this a good example; if you go the other way, we might end up like DLCS were both the Solamnic Knights and the Knights of Takhisis have been awfully portrayed in 3 different 10-level prestige classes for each of them, not to top that with the 3-level prestige class that effectively grants a more secretive/rumour-based Bardic Knowledge based on character level!

Don E

08-18-2004, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by Athos69@Aug 17 2004, 12:17 AM
I think that this topic has unnecessarily wandered from its intended purpose. If I crecall correctly, we were trying to decide if we wanted an Average or Good BAB for the Noble Class, not discuss the merits of multiple paths.

Let's get back to the decision at hand, shall we?
Quite on the contrary, I think it is essential to determine what type of Noble that one is actually voting for. While it might appear that discussing two different nobles might seem like a step backwards in the discussion I'm starting to think that this is the only way to allow the majority of people to have their preference taken into consideration.

irdeggman

08-19-2004, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 17 2004, 01:39 PM
So are we to assume that all true knights in Anuire are level 6+ (the minimum level for a prestige class)? Won't that make for a very small number of actual knights?
I have no problem with that. Using the term 'true knight' to refer to the kind of warrior-noble character you are talking about.

There should be few of these, as there should be few of the warrior-noble you have described.

Another thing to keep in mind is given the propensity for Cerilians to 'embellish' their titles, the phrase knight might not actual refer to the the 'true knight' but only to a titular nom given to individuals with no actual meaning behind it. That is it would have nothing to do with ability in any way shape or form but only courtesy.

I think it would be important to distinguish between the 'true knights' and all of the the wannabees. The use of some sort of prestige class would serve well in this regard.

RaspK_FOG

08-19-2004, 12:48 AM

Generally speaking, the application of titles to persons has 3 uses in gaming worlds (with only the first 2 of which having any meaning in real life): as a means of courtesy,
as a means of distinction, or
as a rules-based condition.
In the case of courtesy, no offence meant to any noble character, but just about any aristocrativ figure with a militant background or occupation can hold the title of "knight".

In the case of proper title, we are talking about a person with a military position that places him above others, and thus is part of an elite military group, be it a real group or a group in the least appropriate way, like a categorisation. Of course, such people us knights are usually members of knightly orders or military officers.

The last case is the most complex, since it can be equally removed or close to the roleplaying conditions and effects of a campaign: a prestige class under the name of "Knight" should best require an applicant to be a member of a knightly order or something like that, restricting its occurance to members who rightfully bear the title, but this is not something a prestige class must require...

I believe that any character should be able to become a knight in the second sense of the term, and nobody can stop calling another a knight out of courtesy (still, this can prove awkward or foolish at times), but introducing a prestige class under such a name really is another step; surely, though, it would be unwise to allow access to such a class only to nobles: fighters and paladins, especially if multi-classed with noble levels, are perfect candidates for such a prestige class. Still, I believe that the prestige class should be built around an organisation or something like that, like the church of Haelyn or something like that.