Paring down the noble options

[irdeggman]

Based on what I'm seeing on the "real" poll for the noble class, I think some additional fine tuning might be in order.

What I see is a run off poll with the 2 classes and a single class ruler type.

What this poll is to decide will be what style of ruler type noble to use, either a pathed version or a non-pathed version (more generic if you wish).

If you had to choose between the two style which one would you prefer most.

I didn't include an other vote since this is an attempt to fine tune between 2 distinct choices.

If you vote for one choice but don't feel that strongly about it, that is you could go with the other one instead make a comment with that statement. It will help if the vote is close here.

I hope this makes sense because we need some type of focus on this subject.

IMO we can't have 3 variant styles of nobles (on with 2 different classes, one pathed and one non-pathed) in the BRCS. I'm not that keen on any variants for this class since they are all real similar.

[irdeggman]

I voted pathed but can go with the non-pathed version.

[Osprey]

I voted single class, focused ruler, in part because most of the community's description of how they see a noble seems like it could be contained within a single class description. So long as there's enough flexibility for some variability in bonus feats and class abilities, players can then customize along whatever "path" they envision. Give the choice to the players, and keep the class fairly flexible.

I would also add that with a single class focus, it might be reasonable to have a Noble Warrior variant class; this based in part on my personal attachment to the idea, and in part that the votes from the previous poll indicate a strong minority support for such a class. So making it a single distinct variant (Geeman...come on, buddy, show us your Armiger already) seems pretty reasonable to me, especially if the core class isn't pathed.

Osprey

[Bokey]

I voted pathed, but hear me out.
What I actually think everybody would like is one class, with a couple of different paths to take within that class, much like the ranger in 3.5e. The ranger can either take the two-weapon fighting style, or the archery style. Once that decision is made, there is no going back. I think that the noble should use the ranger's basic framework, with different noble type abilities substituted in for some of the "ranger-like" abilities.
Therefore, what we would be looking at is a good BAB, 6+ skill points, and some unique abilities dependant on a which varient of noble was chosen. The two varients could be a militant noble, and a more courtly noble. The choice between these two could be required at first level, and could effect the available feats and special class features available at later levels. There should be enough similiarities between the two types of nobles so that either can be identified as noble, but the differences should also be quite obvious. Since a ranger gets spells and a noble doesn't, I might suggest slightly more "feats" for the noble, maybe one at 2nd level and every 4 levels after that. The "feat pool" that these feats come from could be determined by the choice that was made at the earlier level, and I would recommend no overlap within these feat pools. After all, if both subtypes could use it, maybe it should be a predetermined "feat" or ability that is automatically assigned at a certain level.

If you really wanted to get complicated, you could have more than 2 options, with the only thing changing being the available feats within each pool.

[Osprey]

Bokey,

The version of the Noble I proposed earlier, merging Irdeggman's 3 paths into it, was almost exactly as you described - based on the Ranger but with noble-appropriate, leadership and resource-type abilities.

However, the high BAB was voted down in favor of an average one, which kind of throws off the feasibility of a warrior-pathed noble altogether, IMO. Check out the previous threads discussing the Noble, they include a few Word files with proposals for downloading.

Osprey

[Stormcaller]

I vote what Bokey said - seems to be as close as possible to what i already use :-)

[Athos69]

The high-BAB version is what is currently in use in the PBeM I'm in. The DM, who has a very sharp eye for balance issues, finds it fits nicely in the core classes without being overpowering with a high BAB progression.

[irdeggman]

Athos69, Stormcaller, Bokey,

As Osprey has pointed out the good BAB (single class) noble was clearly voted down in favor of an avg BAB version. 23 total votes is a pretty good response for these polls based on past experience.

To ignore the polls taken is, well, undemocratic. It is also insulting to those who bothered to vote in the first place. Reopening this discussion is, well counterproductive and backwards in progression. It sets a bad precedence and will not lead to any sort of completion of the BRCS itself.

Pretty much the bottom line on this one is that if there is a single class (pathed or otherwise) noble it will have an average BAB. That is the only thing that a clear majority has agreed to so far. Note that when I use the phrase clear majority it means as close as 2 to 1 as can be accomplished.

For related discussion check out the poll thread itself – there was quite a lively discussion:

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2781

[Stormcaller]

erk - i meant (on reading his post again) that i agree with his idea of a choose one half of the path and you cant change from it...

BAB doesnt worry me :-)

[daniel]

voted (B) but could go with (a) if necessary

[addifferent]

I like the pathed version better, but the non-pathed one works too.

[Bokey]

Oops. Didn't mean to stir up contraversy. Wasn't aware that a poll had already been run regarding the BAB issue. Missed that one. Oh well, sorry.

However, barring a good BAB, what are people thinking that will make a noble a better choice than the rogue? Maybe the types of domains he can collect regency from? Or do you have some new special "feat" types in the works? I have dl the playtest, and I actually thought the noble was ok the way it was written there, but since I am out of the loop, where can I find the most current iteration?

[irdeggman]

Time to close this poll, here are the results:

Which of the following do you prefer for the noble?
(1) A ruler based noble class. [ 16 ] [53.33%]
(2) A pathed version of the above. [ 13 ] [43.33%]
(3) Abstain [ 1 ] [3.33%]
Total Votes: 30


Which puts the ruler based noble (non-pathed) ahead, if adjusting by those who said they refer the pathed version but could go with the non-pathed - one the results would be:

(1) A ruler based noble class. [20]
(2) A pathed version of the above. [9]
(3) Abstain [1]