Noble Class

[Osprey]

Hello folks, here's the last major snag remaining in the completion of Chapter 1. If we can iron this one out, we might actually be ready to fully sanction Chapter 1! Besides, the Atlas is waiting on our final decision so it can assign appropriate levels to the NPC's of Cerilia. So cast your vote, and then we can go ahead and put forth some appropriate proposals for inclusion in the revised BRCS.

Osprey

[RaspK_FOG]

I generally have found myself more agreeable with this: a d8, average BAB, close combatant
lots of skill points and bonus feats to compensate for not-so-unique performance; something like 4 + Int and 1 per 4 levels or something, choosing from amongst skill boosting and some (but not many or too good) fighter or combat-oriented feats.
LOTS of potential when it comes to handling situations and stuff.

[Osprey]

Rasp,
Allow me to make a few replies to your comments:

Overall sounds like you prefer the "all-arounder" style of Noble.

4 skill points per level is not what I'd consider "lots" of skill points. I'd call that about average, while 2 per level is low.
8 skill points per level is "lots," 6 per level is a goodly amount.

For comparison: consider that the Rogue has an average BAB, 8 skill points per level (with the best selection of class skills imaginable), a d6 hit die (only slightly less than d8 - average 1 hp less per level), AND some of the best array of class abilities anywhere! +1d6 sneak attack every other level, evasion, uncanny dodge and imp. uncanny dodge, trapfinding, trap sense, and special abilities/bonus feats at 10th level and every 3 levels thereafter- every three levels.

However this turns out, I would urge you and anyone contributing to the final version NOT to underpower the class. The Aristocrat might be a crappy NPC class, but there's no reason the Noble need be just a slightly-improved version of that.

Osprey

[Stormcaller]

i would suggest 6 Skill points per level, and every 3 (or 4) levels gain a class skill of your choice (from a list) and only start them with 5 or 6 class skills.

(therefore each noble develops a slightly differnt class to each other noble, with some specialising in behind the scenes manipulation, while others prefer to concentrate on "being outdoors and having fun"

[RaspK_FOG]

Sorry for that: I actually made a typo there (2 "4s" in the same raw, you see; so down on how many thngs he should get I mixed it up)...

[Fourth Horseman]

Hello, I'm new here though I've been into Birthright now for a couple years. Just found this site back in April and told my friends in the campain about it. Since then we've started up a BRCS campain.

Anyway, how we've been handling the noble class in our campain was more like the lesser noble and the high noble. The lesser noble takes after a mix of the rogue and noble, while the high noble takes after a mix of fighter and noble. The noble we've been using is from the BRCS Ch 1 3-04 update.

Basically, the lesser noble has an average BAB, 2 high saves, Ref and Will, skill points, 6/level, and some shadier skills, like slight of hand, hide, move silently, disguise and forgery. Reflecting that they are more likely to learn a few tricks away from their tutors from hanging out with bad crowds, and/or having to find a way to make a living as they didnt inherit much, ect. As for abilities, they lost the wealth, inspire loyalty and battle cry. They gained a variant of the rogues trap sense, it applies to 1 skill of their choice, ie +1 to diplomacy every 4 levels, and uncanny dodge at 5th level and improved uncanny dodge at 10th.

While the high noble has high BAB, kept the high Will save, lowered skill points, 4/level, and took out off disguise and forgery. We from the mix of the medieval and renissance high noblility. We recalled how they got into all those duels from jousting in medieval age to the sword/pistol in renissance, why we liked the high BAB for the high noble. We just kept their abilities the same from the BRCS update.

Overall, the differences are subtle, however, we weren't lookin to push the envelope, just try out some smaller differences at first, and play with them as we go along. So far, we're liking the two different kinds of noble. We're thinking about minimizing the Cordinate ability to just +2, and decreasing the favored regions for the lesser noble to maybe every 6 or 8 levels and giving them evasion and 8/level skill points.

[Fourth Horseman]

One thing I forgot to add, the high nobles have some restrictions upon them. 1st they must either be landed regents or come from a line of landed regents. (This one was debated for some time, and we still argue about it on occassion, however, land is what really made the nobility in the middle ages and that pretty much continued into the renissance.) 2nd they cannot multiclass with barbarians, rogues, bards, or rangers (except Rjurik, couldnt decide if any high nobles would really be there or not and as were not playin there we left it more open). 3rd Non-Chaotic.

The lesser nobles had no such restrictions upon them as they have a lot more freedom to choose what they want to do with their lives, while the high nobility, who is in the lime light, has to keep up appearances.

[fiftyone]

(e) Other (please provide suggestions)

d8 hit die, average BAB, good will @ fort saves

class skills;
Administrate (wis), Bluff (cha), Concentration (con), Diplomacy (cha), Disguise (cha), Handle Animal (cha), Knowledge (all skills taken individually) (int), Lead (cha), Perform (cha), Sense Motive (wis), Speak Language (none), Spot (wis), Warcraft (int)

Though I would eliminate the possibility of Knowledge (arcana). Possibly add Craft, Profession, Intimidate, Escape Artist (^_^) and Decipher Script.


feats; Leadership @ 1st level & bonus feat every 4 levels thereafter (4th, 8th, 12th, etc..) , can take weapon specialization like fighter - add weapon spec feats to bonus feat selection.

specials;

Resources: fine

Favored Region: I dislike this ability very much. Each realm has it's own laws and sub-culture/attitudes. Selecting a region is to broad.

..change to something like..

Influence (or Sphere of Influence): The noble at 1st level chooses a province if he isn't landed. In that province he gains the 1st favored region bonus. At 5th level his influence spreads to all provinces that have a border with his selected province(2nd favored region), this continues at 10th, 15th level etc generating a sphere of influence for the noble. If the noble is a landed regent controlling a domain of many provinces his entire 'realm' counts as his 1st province and later iterations of the ability spread from there. Should the noble want to change his sphere of influence he must spend 100 experience for each province he has influence in AND pay 200 gold (or the equiv.) for each new province his sphere will encompass.

Coordinate: @ 2nd level.

Battle Cry: @ 3rd level.

Presence: leave bits like this to blood abilites imo.

Could add another ability perhaps.

[ConjurerDragon]

fiftyone 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=2830

>

> fiftyone wrote:

> (e) Other (please provide suggestions)d8 hit die, average BAB, good will @ fort savesclass skills;Administrate (wis), Bluff (cha), Concentration (con),

>

Are there rules for using Concentration except for spellcasting? If not

then why should a non-spellcasting Noble have Concentration as Class Skill?



> Diplomacy (cha), Disguise (cha), Handle Animal (cha), Knowledge (all skills taken individually) (int), Lead (cha), Perform (cha),

>

Riding? Which noble would disgrace himself by walking in the mud or

fighting in the infantery?

bye

Michael

[irdeggman]

Fiftyone and anyone else who intended to do the same,

As I read what you are saying you are talking about how to fine tune the noble class. If we do that at this time (via this poll) it will never get any votes in an order to come up with something.

What this poll was intended to do was to determine what tact to take when rewriting the noble class. Don't assume that anything posted so far is exactly what you are is voting on in this poll. This is only to determine a direction.

There have been several different versions of the ruler-only noble posted (any of those can be used to determine the feel of how such a class would work, IMO).

Osprey had posted a warrior-oriented one that can be used as an idea of how one of those would look.

There are a couple of posts on the multi-path oriented noble tha can be used as an idea of how that style would look.

Stating "other" and then basically (IMO) making changes to the ruler-oriented style dilutes the ability to quantify people's opinion here. At least that is how I'm reading what you posted, basically how to change (i.e., fine-tune) the ruler-only style noble.

One thing I would put together from an earlier poll is that if there is a single class-noble (i.e., not 2 separate ones) that it should have an average BAB (the votes were pretty convincing on that issue earlier, IMO)

Fourth Horseman, If I read your post truly (and assuming you also voted "Other") wat you are saying is 2 separate classes (one warrior-oriented, one ruler oriented) but then started to get into the detail of quantifying you concept. While that is very good I think you have also confused what the intent of the choices presented actually mean. If you have an idea or concept that fits into one of the choices given, then pleas vote accordingly. If you have an idea/concept that doesn't fall into one of the choices then vote other. For example, an "Other" vote could be used for not having a noble class at all or having a prestige class instead.

Rasp_KFog, I'm assuming that you are the 3rd "Other" vote. I can't really tell what you are trying to get to with you comments on how to make a noble though. On the surface it looks like you are saying a ruler-only style, but I can't be certain. IMO a warrior-oriented style would almost certainly entail having a good BAB.

I hope this helps. I know that trying to make sense out of a poll's tallying is hard enough even when they fall into extremely clear categories and the intent of everyone is clear. Remember this poll is only to determine how to take the next step and that will be to figure out the style of the noble class and attempt to fine tune it.

[Fourth Horseman]

Duane,

I didn't vote for other, I voted for 2 seperate classes. I thought it was rather obvious from my post, guess not.

[Vallariel]

I have read every noble class that I have been able to get my hands on, and the one that you guys have come up with here, seems to be about the best of the lot, I think.

Apart from the amount of options listed in Green Ronin's Noble's Handbook, which certainly does have a few good ideas in it, The copy of the noble class I have recently downloaded from here, provides a lot of flexibility to deal with the various aspects of BR characters (noble warrior and noble guilder, etc).
Certainly more than TSR's DLCS Noble, which is what I thought might end up in the BRCS.

[RaspK_FOG]

My vote was ruler-only.

[irdeggman]

Sorry folks, I guess I misinterpreted the posts.

What it boils down to I guess is that we have several people voting for "Other" without bothering to make a different suggestion. {Same as always :( }

[fiftyone]

I voted other and I see what your saying about my post Duane, my mistake ^_^

Theres been so many slightly different postings of the version I 'tweaked' that I thought it might've been somewhat official.

That aside,

I probably should have voted ruler only.. but thats not even it, really.

In my opinion there is no point whatsoever to having 2 noble based classes, unless one is strictly listed as a variant and the 'pathed' noble? More variants.

I guess I would prefer the core noble to be ruler only. If the 'noble' desires to be more warrior like he can take feats to make himself more a martial character or simply multi-class into a martial class.

Clerics, wizards, rogues and bards etc., don't have variant classes just because they 'want' to be more warrior like, they multi-class to a martial class.

^^^
That is all out of the window if the core class is deemed to be a warrior themed noble and then the whole argument is vice versa with warrior-themed nobles who want to be more charismatic and regal.. multi-class to bard/rogue or something!?! ^_^

[Athos69]

Fiftyone, you make a very convincing point, surprisingly enough, for having a pathed Noble. That way people have the choice between a leader/social Noble, and a warrior Noble. One writeup. One set of rules. Less confusion.

Let's face it, the multi-path Noble is a much more elegant solution than writing up more than one class, and it allows for alot of variety.

[Raesene Andu]

Looking at the result of the poll so far, I think the only thing we can agree on it that we are divided on the issue of the noble. I voted for a), but I'd also accept a pathed noble if that is the final choice. I don't really see the need for mutiple versions of the noble though, unless they were very different classes and were known by different names.

Anyone considered using prestige classes to solve the noble issue, with one for each path? Or is that suggestion only going to cause more problems?

[Osprey]

Let's face it, the multi-path Noble is a much more elegant solution than writing up more than one class, and it allows for alot of variety.

It's only elegant if it succeeds in its task, i.e. doing a good job of describing those 3 different paths adequately. The problem we ran into before, if you remember, is that the 3 paths were thematically quite distinct: warrior, guilder, and scholar. Yet the only mechanical difference between these disparate concepts was a rare bonus feat (1 per 5 levels is pretty rare IMO), shades of difference in the Look of the Noble ability at 4th level, and which Save was high.

To me this wasn't an elegant solution. It was a blurring together of what should be distinct concepts, makin those 3 concepts slight variations of one another. No thanks.

I don't want to see a warrior-pathed noble with an average BAB. It's demeaning to the entire concept of "warrior." If there is to be only one noble class, I'd prefer one that has a distinct identity seperate from the other core classes.

So far the most "noble" class concept I have heard is that nobles come from the upper echelons of society, typically from landed families. I however expect there to be many non-regent landed families - manorial knights, landlords, provincial governors (counts, viscounts, baronets, etc.) - these are all potentially hereditary positions that have individuals doing the actual governing and managing of the land while the blooded lords manage things on a larger scale and occasionall6y drop in to look at things in detail (like when ruling a province).

[Osprey]

I should have mentioned, I voted for the 2 class option because I'd rather see 2 core classes that know what they're about rather than one undistinct class that tries to be everything at once. Core classes are the single main "identity templates" for characters within the D20 mechanics. That's why it's important they be distinct - not necessarily hyper-restrictive, just having mechanics that truly reflect the class concept. The character should be capable of doing what the theme says it can.

For instance, if my warrior-path noble is focused on being a warrior, then he'd better be good at fighting. With an average BAB, his actual experience over time (assuming dice rolls average out) will be that he's not all that impressive of a warrior at all - just so-so. Every other warrior-type will tend to kick his butt more often than not, and just about everyone else besides wizards are as competent as he. Not very impressive at all.

If folks insist on one class of noble with an average BAB - don't create a pretense of him being a warrior, OK? A fighting feat or two does not a warrior make. A high BAB, otoh, is pretty core to establishing that basic fighting competence that distinguishes warriors from other classes. Average is just that...average.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Raesene Andu@Sep 16 2004, 07:19 AM
Looking at the result of the poll so far, I think the only thing we can agree on it that we are divided on the issue of the noble. I voted for a), but I'd also accept a pathed noble if that is the final choice. I don't really see the need for mutiple versions of the noble though, unless they were very different classes and were known by different names.

Anyone considered using prestige classes to solve the noble issue, with one for each path? Or is that suggestion only going to cause more problems?
While I voted for the pathed version but could just as easily go with a ruler-only type. Basically not a warrior-themed one. And I really don't like having two classes for this purpose. IMO if a player wanted to have a warior themed noble he would just take levels in fighter class. Sort of like how paladins of cuircean multiclass as fighters to make them more fighter-like.

What I see happening with this poll, unless something develops before it is closed (at least 2 weeks is the standard), is to narrow the choices down and then have another vote to choose. IMO if the choices are narrowed people will make a more distinct choice.

Personally I don't see a good reason for prestige classes here, but that is something that people could decide if they want. Remember that prestige classes are purely optional and they wouldn't be a core class that way.

[geeman]

At 03:35 PM 9/16/2004 +0200, Osprey wrote:



>I should have mentioned, I voted for the 2 class option because I`d rather

>see 2 core classes that know what they`re about rather than one undistinct

>class that tries to be everything at once.



BTW: I`m still putting together the draft of the "Armiger" class which is

meant to reflect a more warrior noble PC class. It`s turned out to be

quite a busy month, however, leaving me with very little time for writing,

so I`ll get to it as soon as is practicable.



Gary

[Ksaturn]

Personally if i wanted a warrior-kng style character i would go with a Fighter. or paladin. Aristocrats and nobles should be good at ruleing and the fighting is secondary. nobles BAB shouln't exceed the aristocrats but i would give them heavy armor proficiency. basically nobles should get Tons of neat abilities and stuff that pertain to domain level and otherwise dealing with large numbers of people. Stylizing other classes(Fighter/aristocrat or Rogue/aristocrat or such) is not what we're trying to accoplish. If king so and so wants to be a better fighter then tell him to take a level in fighter. There's no need to mess up the system. This is basically trying to make a aristocrat style class that is worthy of players and takes into account the domain level.... end of rant.

[Raesene Andu]

I'd have to concur, which is why I voted for the ruler-type noble. A warrior-king is a fighter or paladin who has been roped into being a ruler...

[RaspK_FOG]

Still, the general concesus so far leans on this: work on two class concepts, not just one...

:( Not what we might like to see, but it would be best to wait a little longer.

[geeman]

At 12:26 PM 9/17/2004 +0200, Raesene Andu wrote:



>I`d have to concur, which is why I voted for the ruler-type noble. A

>warrior-king is a fighter or paladin who has been roped into being a ruler...



IMO neither of those classes express the dynamic of the warrior-ruler very

well. The fighter is very much geared towards fighting alone, so if one

wants to express a ruler to whom ruling is incidental then that`d be the

way to go. When trying to express a character who comes from a social

elite, however, it falls short. The paladin is a very specific kind of

character, so using that class to express the rulership characteristics of

a warrior/leader doesn`t work either--unless one imagines all Vos, Brecht,

and Rjurik warrior-kings as paladins of some sort.



A multi-classed fighter/noble doesn`t do the job very well either. Because

there are no rulership aspects of the fighter class, and the rulership

characteristics of the noble PC class are much more directed towards the PC

version of the aristocrat (as, I think, it should be) so that creates a

kind of courtly fighter, which is not what is being suggested. King

Arthur, for example, if expressed as a fighter/noble is more than a little

off, as would Charlemagne or many other particularly militant rulers. It

really isn`t just a noble who fights well. Think of it as a sort of

hereditary officer class ("class" in the sense of a upper class warrior

elite) if you will. That`s the kind of thing that I`m looking for.



Gary

[The Jew]

Their are two simple ways to solve this. Either add some of the new general type feats to the fighter feat list, so that any fighter can also progress as a general, or if you would prefer to only see nobles progress as generals give them an ability at first level, to switch any feats they get as fighters to general type feats. This is the main problem with fighters IMO.

[Osprey]

Their are two simple ways to solve this. Either add some of the new general type feats to the fighter feat list, so that any fighter can also progress as a general, or if you would prefer to only see nobles progress as generals give them an ability at first level, to switch any feats they get as fighters to general type feats. This is the main problem with fighters IMO.

Feats are only a part of the equation. Skills and class abilities are the other big part. Certain noble abilities, like War Cry, Inspire Loyalty, and Presence, were quite well-suited to a noble warrior.

As Gary alluded to, Fighters lack the class skills (and skill points) indicative of being raised among the social elite. I would prefer they have 4 skill points and a more social set of class skills.

My ideal set of class skills for a Noble Warrior might look like this:
Administrate, Bluff, Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Heal, Intimidate, Jump, Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering), Knowledge (Law), Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty), Lead, Listen, Perform (Oratory), Ride, Sense Motive, Spot, Swim, and Warcraft.

A fighter obviously falls far short of this in applicable skills, because they have almost no social skills except Lead and Intimidate, which just doesn't cut it in my book.

Using this as a base, along with a d8 hit die, a high BAB, a high Will and Fort save, and less bonus feats than a fighter (say one every 4th level) plus a few class abilities would IMO be a fairly balanced equation, lying somewhere between the aristocratic Noble and the pure Fighter.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Sep 17 2004, 08:52 AM
Still, the general concesus so far leans on this: work on two class concepts, not just one...

:( Not what we might like to see, but it would be best to wait a little longer.
An 8 to 6 lead is not really enough to drop one of the two options. IMo it show what I had stated earlier that this poll will pare down the choices and if left with a choice between 2 options the votes will come out different. IMO many people have voted for one option but would go with a different one if they had to.

Again we will see what happens.

[The Jew]

The fighter class alone would not be good enough, I agree. If the fighter had access to those feats, a multi-class between Noble/fighter would be adequate though. The fighter would then also be appropriate for a self made general, a mercenary captain type of character.

[Stormcaller]

i voted other, mainly cause i was thinking a bit like A (a single ruler class) but it would evolve for each player into a warrior or aristocrat or even rogue if they wanted it to. Thus it was both warrior and ari themed, but not both at the same time.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Stormcaller@Sep 19 2004, 04:49 AM
i voted other, mainly cause i was thinking a bit like A (a single ruler class) but it would evolve for each player into a warrior or aristocrat or even rogue if they wanted it to. Thus it was both warrior and ari themed, but not both at the same time.
Please explain some more. It would be useful to know what you are thinking of more specificially. In general if someone has a comment or question then there are others who simply haven't voiced the same.

If you are saying use a ruler based concept and then adjust at higher level (warrior or ari style but not both at the same time) this seems like multiclassing. Basically a vote for the ruler only class would have covered this.

If you are going with a less than fighter warrior themed and yet ruler based then it would seem to me to be the pathed version is the way you are leaning.

I don't see where you are going towards an "Other" variation based solely on the brief comment you've made. There might be something more specific you are thinking about.

[Stormcaller]

erm... first to provide background, when i run/play games i consider skills to be one of the more important aspects of a character. Therefore what i was suggesting was that the character starts with just four class skills and gets to select new class skills (either one or two of them) every level. Secondly in my custom game i use a feat list set up similar to the Spycraft method and they get a feat every level as well. I didnt suggest this the first time becuase it seems a large modification to the current game.

For those who dont know the spycraft system has different "types" of feats so there are feat classes for skills, backgrounds, different classes of combat, espionage and so on. Therefore you can have an Aristocrat type class which gains a skill or style feat every level which they cannot use for weapon feats.

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by Stormcaller@Sep 21 2004, 10:39 AM
For those who dont know the spycraft system has different "types" of feats so there are feat classes for skills, backgrounds, different classes of combat, espionage and so on. Therefore you can have an Aristocrat type class which gains a skill or style feat every level which they cannot use for weapon feats.
The same can be achieved by bonus feat lists.

[irdeggman]

Thanks Stormcaller,

That explains the post quite a bit. It is indeed something completely different. Very different from the core D&D class concept also.

[irdeggman]

Closing this poll here are the results:

What should be the overall concept for the 3.5 Birthright Noble class?
(a) A class designed to a ruler alone. [ 7 ] [23.33%]
(B) A warrior-theme ruler. [ 2 ] [6.67%]
© A pathed ruler class (based on (a) but with path-specific variations) [ 9 ] [30.00%]
(d) Two separate classes (one for (a) one for (B)) [ 9 ] [30.00%]
(e) Other (please provide suggestions) [ 3 ] [10.00%]
(f) Abstain [ 0 ] [0.00%]
Total Votes: 30


Even making a few modifications based on peoples' comments on their vvotes, there is still no clear majority on any of these.

Once the other poll on what type of ruler based noble should be used I'll put together another poll. Hopefully that other poll will narrow things down enough to allow for fewer choices and a clear majority. Otherwise I would say that the class would just be eliminated from the BRCS since insufficient support for any option is available and a sanctioning vote would likely fail every time.