Noble Warrior

[Osprey]

OK folks, I couldn't bear to see things go this long and not produce anything solid. So here's my best go to date, my attempt to produce a balanced Noble Warrior core class (appropriate suggestions for alternative names welcome). My thinking is that this could be produced as a second, perhaps variant or optional, core class for the revised BRCS, next to the core Noble class. Here's the Word document.

PS - I confess to being less than well-read on Khinasi matters, so any helpful input as to cultural specifics would be appreciated. See waht you folks think - feedback (for better or for worse) is welcome.

Osprey

[The Jew]

I like it, especially given the current deadlock in the poll. My one critique would be to allow for the benefits to aid an admiral as well as a general. Pretty much add Profession (Sailor) to the skills list, allow Command to give a bonus to Prof (Sailor), allow battle cry and inspire troops to effect ships along with units and add Skill focus (sailor) to the list of bonus feats.

[irdeggman]

While this class sounds good there are several issues I have with it.

What really does it have to do with being a regent styled ruler? I don’t really see any ruler-oriented benefits. The way this class is written it fits in better with what I had originally called it – a prestige class, or it could be an alternate fighter class. It is not as written a ruler-oriented one. It is a troop leader one though, maybe a prestige class along the lines of a great general/admiral would be a better fit. Dropping the born to rule slant.

Command – as described it is supposed to specifically slanted towards a battlefield commander. As written it grants a bonus to skills used in some other ways. If it supposed to be a battlefield commander then these bonuses should be applied only to those circumstances and not to all. Why should be being a good battlefield commander relate to being a good regent?

Why have Weapon Focus as a bonus feat when Regional Arms Focus is a 1st level class ability?

Noble Presence. What is meant by an effective Charisma increase? You need to spell it out here or people will apply benefits not intended. As I see it, what you had intended was that his Charisma is treated as 2 higher (sliding up) for interactions and Leadership score. But I could be wrong. I’m pretty sure you didn’t intend for turning undead, bard/sorcerer spells to be affected, etc.

If you go to the prestige class concept then this great general/admiral could be opened up to just about all races vice only Anuirean and Khinasi.

[Osprey]

First off: Jew, great suggestions for the P/sailor and ship additions - can we say Brecht noble warrior? ;) Not sure if it's appropriate to the class concept, however - just a little afraid of it trying to stretch the class' applications further than they should go. Would great Brecht sea captains really be Noble Warriors, or would Rogues or Swashbucklers (if you use Complete Warrior) be more appropriate?

Irdeggman,
What this class has to do with being a ruler is encased within it in several ways:

1. Class Skills - the class skill set is pretty ideal for most militant regents (landed, law, even temples for a multiclass cleric/nw). Having Administrate as a class skill, and having 4 skill points per level, makes this class quite a bit different from a fighter, ranger, or paladin, and far better suited to represent a militant hereditary noble.

2. In a medieval world, military and rulership abilities are close companions. Why do you think Lead was chosen as the primary skill for Law holdings and Agitate? The military effect of Lead isn't incidental to the skill, it's a primary focus of it. Similarly, a noble warrior focuses on warcraft and leadership, which in turn makes him quite capable (perfect, in fact) as a Law regent, and he may be an excellent administrator and landed regent if he so chooses. The noble warrior is born to rule in a militant world, but may be less comfortable in a high court situation where finesse and subtlety are more important. That's part of the contrast with the core Noble class - the Noble is at an advantage in court, but at a disadvantage on the battlefield. I actually took out Master Administrator as a bonus feat specifically because I didn't want them to be quite so apt as core Nobles at being efficient and industrious regnets.

3. This class is meant to be distinct from the core Noble being proposed. You say the class as written doesn't fit a born ruler, yet in previous class writeups you have complained how the class was too much like the core Noble. Now you say this one is like an alternate fighter.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems to me that you are opposed to the basic concept of this class existing as a core class, no matter how it is written up. Working against biased critique is frustrating to say the least.

A prestige class is problematic because it does open up the class to anyone, something that is diamatrically opposed to the core concept I built it on - that a noble warrior is born and raised, that it is NOT an open class to anyone with the right skill ranks, feats, or BAB.

Command – as described it is supposed to specifically slanted towards a battlefield commander. As written it grants a bonus to skills used in some other ways. If it supposed to be a battlefield commander then these bonuses should be applied only to those circumstances and not to all. Why should be being a good battlefield commander relate to being a good regent?

Why should the Lead skill apply to situations both on and off the battlefield? The answer to this question and your own are the same. According to our current BRCS system, good military leaders DO make good law regents and tend to be quite popular with the masses (Agitate, the other Lead-based domain action). Makes perfect sense to me. Being good at leading and commanding men certainly does translate to being an effective medieval regent - this may be less true in the modern world, yet even now IRL military leaders continue to remain both popular and effective because people trust that they can handle war and crisis effectively. Competence inspires trust.

Why have Weapon Focus as a bonus feat when Regional Arms Focus is a 1st level class ability?
Because a character may want to have Weapon Focus in more than one weapon at the same time, such as an Anuirean knight having weapon focus with both sword and lance, or a Khinasi NW having weapon focus with the composite longbow and scimitar. As you've written up the Regional and Elite Arms focus in the rev. Ch 1, those feats now grant weapon focus with only a single weapon at a time, though the focus may be shifted whent he character levels up.

Noble Presence. What is meant by an effective Charisma increase? You need to spell it out here or people will apply benefits not intended. As I see it, what you had intended was that his Charisma is treated as 2 higher (sliding up) for interactions and Leadership score. But I could be wrong. I’m pretty sure you didn’t intend for turning undead, bard/sorcerer spells to be affected, etc.

No sarcasm intended, right? Yes, it's meant to be the same as the core Noble ability - and you're right, I'll amend the description to note it applies to Charisma-based skills, ability checks, NW class abilities, and the Leadership score.

If you go to the prestige class concept then this great general/admiral could be opened up to just about all races vice only Anuirean and Khinasi.
If Profession(Sailor) is added, along with the abilities affecting naval actions as the Jew suggested, then Brechts may be added to the cultural list. Though I'm still debating how appropriate this is to the core class concept.

[geeman]

That class is very similar to what I was working on but, to be honest, your

version is better. I had a few issues with the development of the class

that are also in this incarnation. A couple of issues/points of discussion:



1. Some grammatical and organization notes:



A. The skill Lead is listed out of alphabetical order in the list of class

skills.



B. I`d eliminate the last sentence of the first paragraph. It`s too

specific (18 years of age) and the class isn`t particularly courtly.



C. The "Preferred Race/Culture" section doesn`t include the non-human

races. Dwarves in particular might have access to the class, and it seems

apt for orogs as well. Less so amongst other races. As The Jew noted, the

Brecht should have some nautical oriented feats and descriptive text.



2. Should the class have d8 or d10 HD? I went with d10 because I think

they should be able to go toe to toe with fighters (fighters will still be

superior overall in a straight fight in that they will have more bonus

feats dedicated to fighting) and because the class should be differentiated

from the more courtly noble. Of course, I don`t like the ranger having d8

HD either....





3. Special abilities. This is the hardest part of a character class, of

course, because it is the definitive part of the class. In this case, the

distribution of special abilities is particularly weird because they range

from personal combat feats to things that effect units at the large scale

combat level. If we are to break those two categories of special abilities

up and look at how they are laid out in the proposed class write up we get:



Personal combat: 1st, 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, 20th.



Large scale combat: 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 18th,

19th.



That`s an awful lot of special abilities. By comparison, the fighter gets

eleven bonus feats, and there are eleven large scale combat special

abilities here in addition to eight bonus feats. Granted, some of them are

part of a series (Noble Presence +2, Noble Presence +4) and others have a

relatively limited scope, but on the whole I think these should get toned

down some.



Clearly, the personal combat bonus feats follow a pattern: every three

levels after 2nd level. The bonus Weapon Focus for regional feats as well

as the bonus feats starting at 2nd level parallels that of the fighter

character class. Going 1/3 rather than the fighter`s 1/2 is a good idea,

but perhaps it should be 1/4 rather than 1/3, starting at 2nd level. That

is, a bonus feat at 1st, 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th and 18th. This would still

have a decent pattern and it has a nice ancillary benefit when it comes to

synchronizing the special abilities with the actual functions. To wit: the

Leadership feat is amongst the bonus feats for the class and if that bonus

feat is granted using the 1/4 pattern after 2nd level the class will have

it available at 6th level per that feat`s description.



Personally, I would drop the Noble Presence ability entirely. On the

whole, I prefer for ability score bonuses to be used only in racial level

classes, but even if that were not the case the special ability (as

irdeggman points out) is a bit vague and can be eliminated without too much

trouble. If there is a particular application of the charisma modifier

that can be used (to a few skills or for the purpose of the Leadership

feat, for example) then go with that rather than the general ability score.



The Battle Cry and Inspire Troops special abilities have pretty much the

same general function, and are fairly similar in effect, so I think they

should be combined. The exact write up of that special ability might

combine the skill check rather than mandate 1 company for the "starting

level" of the special ability. Since the character`s Lead score will go up

with level (if the player isn`t an idiot, that is) the scale of the ability

will automatically rise as well. That is, the number of companies

potentially affected with consistently increase. The affect of that

special ability might not rise as high as +4. If the special ability

starts at 5th level and the increase recurs every 5 levels then the ability

can hit +4 at 20th level. (IMO the character class tables should end on a

particular emphasis.)



The distribution of special abilities of the class then would be:



1 Regional Arms Focus

2 Bonus Feat

3

4 Command +1

5 Inspire Troops +1

6 Bonus Feat

7

8 Command +2

9

10 Inspire Troops +2, Bonus Feat

11

12 Command +3

13

14 Bonus Feat

15 Inspire Troops +3

16 Command +4

17

18 Bonus Feat

19

20 Inspire Troops +4



On the whole, these are pretty minor tweaks, but it makes the special

ability progression look a bit more like the distribution of other classes,

particularly the fighter which is probably the most apt comparison to the

class in the core texts.



Gary

[geeman]

At 12:24 PM 10/4/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>While this class sounds good there are several issues I have with it.What

>really does it have to do with being a regent styled ruler? I don’t

>really see any ruler-oriented benefits. The way this class is written it

>fits in better with what I had originally called it * a prestige class, or

>it could be an alternate fighter class. It is not as written a

>ruler-oriented one. It is a troop leader one though, maybe a prestige

>class along the lines of a great general/admiral would be a better

>fit. Dropping the born to rule slant.



Personally, I find most of the colour text in the character class

descriptions to be more of a distraction than a boon. I`m talking about

the stuff in the core text too, not just the ones being discussed

here. They usually just make for a muddle, or wind up directing how

players and DMs role-play such characters in a way that has little or

nothing to do with what the class stats actually represent. In fact, the

colour text in character classes often limit the actual utility of the

classes more than they give players and DMs methods of playing those

classes. It is, therefore, something that is best read, acknowledged for

what it is and then ignored. In that context, while I generally agree that

the text is better dropped the character class descriptive text is a

convention of all D20 products and--though superfluous and often

misleading--this particular example is no more so than any other. Since it

is such a convention of D20 products, however, there`s really not a way of

excising it if one wants to abide by the "convention" of character class

write-ups. As a necessary evil this particular example isn`t bad.



As for making the "noble warrior" class a prestige class rather than a 20

level class, my viewpoint is that that same argument can be applied to

around half the existing 3e character classes. Paladins are the most

obvious example of a core class that could be reinterpreted as a prestige

class, but rangers, bards and druids could similarly be interpreted as

prestige classes. (In D20 Modern all spellcasting classes are prestige, or

"advanced" classes, for example.) The same standard could, in fact, be

applied to the noble character class as well. Whether a class should be a

prestige class or a "core" character class depends on the nature of the

campaign, and in this case I`d suggest that the same arguments that apply

to making a (courtly) noble a 20 level class also apply here.



The questions to ask are there enough emphasis in the campaign setting for

the class to exist as a 20 level class in the setting, and is it something

that the campaign themes intimate should be available to starting (1st

level) characters? In this case, I`d suggest that it is more than

appropriate for BR because the setting is meant to be used to portray

characters in rulership positions from the get go. The domain structure in

particular features large scale combat, holdings and structures that

emphasize the militaristic, feudal warrior-king dynamic, etc. Plus, the

campaign itself is often described as a "low-level" campaign, meaning that

the ability to rule is available even to 1st level characters. On the

whole that makes for a "core" class to reflect rulership/leadership dynamics.



>Command * as described it is supposed to specifically slanted towards a

>battlefield commander. As written it grants a bonus to skills used in

>some other ways. If it supposed to be a battlefield commander then these

>bonuses should be applied only to those circumstances and not to all. Why

>should be being a good battlefield commander relate to being a good regent?



There are a lot of parallels between the two activities, but that aside I

think this addresses your first objection a bit: what does it have to do

with being a regent styled ruler. That is, the class has some depth in its

use. This particular special ability is more apt towards use on the

battlefield, but could be used in non-combat situations.



>Why have Weapon Focus as a bonus feat when Regional Arms Focus is a 1st

>level class ability?



Quite right. That should be taken out of the list. A player who wants his

character to take levels in this class AND focus on other weapons should

spend one of his feats available every 3rd level to do so.



>Noble Presence. What is meant by an effective Charisma increase? You

>need to spell it out here or people will apply benefits not intended. As

>I see it, what you had intended was that his Charisma is treated as 2

>higher (sliding up) for interactions and Leadership score. But I could be

>wrong. I’m pretty sure you didn’t intend for turning undead,

>bard/sorcerer spells to be affected, etc.If you go to the prestige class

>concept then this great general/admiral could be opened up to just about

>all races vice only Anuirean and Khinasi.



A little clarification there would be helpful, but in general (as I noted

in the previous post) I think this special ability should be dropped or it

should have a particular focus described. It should affect the character`s

leadership score, or other charisma-based stat.



Gary

[The Jew]

You are right Osprey, the swashbuckler should be a rogue. The Admirals who command Avanils, Mudens or a Khinasi Realm fleet should be a warrior noble though. If you look at European history, that was pretty standard. The English and french gentry both made up the commanders of their navy's. That was one reason the french sucked so much on the sea during the napoleonic wars, because all the noble sea commanders fled during the revolution.

[The Jew]

I like Geemans redo, though I would throw in the more specific noble presence in at 9h and 17th levels.

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by Osprey@Oct 4 2004, 07:18 PM
A prestige class is problematic because it does open up the class to anyone, something that is diamatrically opposed to the core concept I built it on - that a noble warrior is born and raised, that it is NOT an open class to anyone with the right skill ranks, feats, or BAB.
That's where I will have to disagree with you: core classes are made in such a manner that most characters can gain at least a couple of levels in them, no sweat, without meaning this would be the best of choices; just that they can actually do it.

On the other hand, if you REALLY want to hold a class concept onto something, the best way to do it is by making good use of prestige classes: a core paladin can be taken by nearly any LG character with the proper attitude, but only a few fighters will get the paladin prestige class from Unearthed Arcana. ;)

[The Jew]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG+Oct 4 2004, 04:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RaspK_FOG @ Oct 4 2004, 04:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Osprey@Oct 4 2004, 07:18 PM
A prestige class is problematic because it does open up the class to anyone, something that is diamatrically opposed to the core concept I built it on - that a noble warrior is born and raised, that it is NOT an open class to anyone with the right skill ranks, feats, or BAB.
That's where I will have to disagree with you: core classes are made in such a manner that most characters can gain at least a couple of levels in them, no sweat, without meaning this would be the best of choices; just that they can actually do it.

On the other hand, if you REALLY want to hold a class concept onto something, the best way to do it is by making good use of prestige classes: a core paladin can be taken by nearly any LG character with the proper attitude, but only a few fighters will get the paladin prestige class from Unearthed Arcana. ;) [/b][/quote]
Not the Noble Warrior though. You have to take it at first level, it is a class which you can only be born into. That is the point which Osprey was making. A prestige class would mean that it is something that anyone can get, as long as they have the right placement of skills, feats and BAB. This is meant to be a class which you have to start as, you do not become a noble, you are born one.

[geeman]

At 10:52 PM 10/4/2004 +0200, The Jew wrote:



>Not the Noble Warrior though. You have to take it at first level, it is a

>class which you can only be born into.



Personally, I`m not wild about this kind of restriction on a character

class, or any of the similar, "off-the-path" restriction on paladins, for

that matter. It strikes me as being counter intuitive to the class system

itself, and a rather restrictive interpretation of what a character class

is. That is, the first level of a character class represents the

_beginning_ of a character`s involvement in a particular development path,

not necessarily the result of a life-long course of study and

effort. Rather, it is the beginning of that process or, at least, early in

the process--at around age 16-18 for humans. If a character were to

acquire the social class and interest in such a class I don`t think there

should be any reason why he couldn`t take it later in life.



To draw the distinction a little more, I think part of the problem is

semantic. That is, the term "noble" as a name for a character class does

not mean the class must represent a "noble" as in a titled

aristocrat. (This is one of the reasons I prefer the title "Armiger" for

this class and "Courtier" for the more courtly character class.) Members

of the titled aristocracy might very well be the most likely characters to

take such a class, but why couldn`t someone who gained access to that level

of society and starts leading others in the way a noble or "warrior noble"

does through experience and hard work be able to take levels in the class?



There are plenty of literary precedents to serve as an example of

characters who might be interpreted as having started off in one class and

then taken levels in a kind of "noble warrior" class. Probably the most

dramatic character from fantasy fiction is Conan the Barbarian who winds up

being a king and leading armies, and doing several of the things that might

be attributed to a noble warrior here.



Gary

[Athos69]

Well Gary, Conan isn't the best of examples. Sure he started as a Barabarian in the forests of Cimmeria, Asgard and Hyperboria, but he also spent a fair amount of time as a thief in the streets of Shadizar. This was before he was 25. In later life, he would have piled on the fighter levels, and only gained the throne od Aquilonia after strangling the King with his bare hands.

He never really became comfortable as a "Noble Warrior", being a General of the highest quality, and relied on his trusted advisors Valerius and Prospero to govern the realm.

(Yeah, I have every Conan novel in my bookcase...) :)

[geeman]

At 09:00 AM 10/5/2004 +0200, Athos69 wrote:



>Well Gary, Conan isn`t the best of examples. Sure he started as a

>Barabarian in the forests of Cimmeria, Asgard and Hyperboria, but he also

>spent a fair amount of time as a thief in the streets of Shadizar. This

>was before he was 25. In later life, he would have piled on the fighter

>levels, and only gained the throne od Aquilonia after strangling the King

>with his bare hands.He never really became comfortable as a "Noble

>Warrior", being a General of the highest quality, and relied on his

>trusted advisors Valerius and Prospero to govern the realm.(Yeah, I have

>every Conan novel in my bookcase...) :)



Ah, cool, a fellow Conan aficionado, so I can quote chapter and verse.



Personally, I think the BR player/DM can learn a lot from reading the Conan

series. There is a surprising amount of politics and intrigue in the

series in what most folks who haven`t read them assume is going to be a

hack `n slash theme. Though Conan often operates as the scythe that cuts

through those things with abrupt, barbarian pragmatism, he does find

himself involved in things that are essentially inspired by a political

level of play like the BR domain level. It`s a fascinating example of what

is my personal ideal; the interaction of the political level of play with

the adventure level of play.



When Conan "matures" a bit he begins to become not just the lone barbarian

with the sporadic companion, but a mercenary captain in charge of troops

even whole armies of soldiers. The progression of descriptors from the

titles of the books is fairly consistently in the direction of more and

more influence and responsibility. These aren`t necessarily in order but

it goes something like barbarian, wanderer, freebooter, warrior,

usurper.... Eventually he`s king and leads men in a way that I`d interpret

as being fairly close to this interpretation of the warrior-noble. (I

still like armiger better as a title.... Oh, well.)



I grant you the following quote comes from the L. Sprague de Camp sequel

_Conan the Usurper_ which some barbarian purists (odd that there could be

such a breed of creature) might not find authentic, but aside from a couple

of stylistic differences I like LSdC`s stuff, and it works in context here

pretty well.



"When I overthrew the old dynasty... it was easy enough, though it seemed

bitter hard at the time. Looking back now over the wild path I followed,

all those days of toil, intrigue, slaughter, and tribulation seem like a

dream."



"I did not dream far enough, Prospero. When King Numedides lay dead at my

feat and I tore the crown from his gory head and set it on my own, I had

reached the ultimate border of my dreams. I had prepared myself to take

the crown, not to hold it. In the old free days all I wanted was a sharp

sword and a straight path to my enemies. Now no paths are straight and my

sword is useless."



Of course, despite his complaints Conan finds a use for his sword pretty

consistently even after becoming king, but the point here is that he find

himself engaging in character traits that have little to do with being a

barbarian anymore. In later stories he is a general, leading thousands of

knights (not just mercenary soldiers but knights) into battle.



My point here is that Conan stops taking on levels as a barbarian. In D20

terms he is probably into the epic level, though such things are always

debatable. In order to portray that later character, however, one pretty

much has to have some sort of noble-warrior class. It wouldn`t be sensible

(in fact, it is ridiculous in the extreme) to give him levels in the more

courtly noble class. Conan is surprisingly articulate throughout the

books, but he doesn`t really adopt the affected speech and manner of a

courtier.



Gary

[irdeggman]

The point I was trying to make was along the lines of the following:

In the BR setting there is a more clear need/place for a great general than in the core rules. This class-concept is sometheing that can be used for any culture that has armies. Armies and military units are not something that the core rules handles at all really and only a few prestige classes in the supplemental books even talks to them.

The reason I really didn't like the first version of the noble-warrior was I felt it was to across the board and didn't really have a clear cut class function/concept to it. This is the same argument that Osprey has used to describe the pathed version but there are differences. One thing that is abundently clear is that people want some sort of noble class that is born to rule and comes from some type of heriditary privelidge (much like the NPC class aristocrat, again a class that the character must take at first level). With this assumption in place making a combination fighter-noble (using the term to describe the ruler oriented class) doesn't quite work as a unique class concept. It still fits better as a combination fighter-noble situation.

Now going with the overall setting difference, the great military leader (lets refer to him a Great General for convenience) really fits with the setting. There are many opportunities for every race to spawn these types of characters. Their rulership abilities spawn from their great abilities as a general and not vice versa.

They would be a better law type regent then a fighter but not as good an overall ruler as a noble would be. In fact if the two were paired up against each other for rulership the noble would most likely come out on top.

Now characters aren't born to be great generals they become them as they grow.

Historically (those history experts help me out here - including pointing out where I'm wrong) most great generals were not of the aristocracy prior to setting themselves apart by their performance on the battlefield (read as nobility) they earned their place in the aristocracy by their performance as military leaders and the outcome of wars they were in. I believe this was common in the Roman society and the Greek ones too. The only culture that might have the opposite would be the English.

So what happens is a chracter becomes a great general, increases his social status by so doing and then his offspring are treated as nobles since they are now from a privilaged group.

[RaspK_FOG]

It is my belief that, if the paladin is a class that could get prestige-classed, then the millitant-noble sure is a prestige class from the very start.

Look at it this way: SOME nobility were appointed at millitary positions in order to learn how to lead armies on the battlefield, and only SOME of them ever became officers. This pretty much rules out the concept of someone born to lead wars from atop his proud steed.

On the other hand, if a person with the proper training in war (both game-mechanically and roleplaying-wise) took up such a position, why not?

[Athos69]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Oct 5 2004, 09:11 AM
Historically (those history experts help me out here - including pointing out where I'm wrong) most great generals were not of the aristocracy prior to setting themselves apart by their performance on the battlefield (read as nobility) they earned their place in the aristocracy by their performance as military leaders and the outcome of wars they were in. I believe this was common in the Roman society and the Greek ones too. The only culture that might have the opposite would be the English.
I can't speak for Ancient Greece, Duane -- Maybe RaspK can give us some insights, but in the early days of Rome, when it was still a Republic, the Patricians were at the top of the food chain, both in terms of wealth and political power. In fact, the armies were composed of only those who had sufficient wealth to own their own equipment. The leadership came solely from the Patrician class. The armies were only called up when needed, and disbanded once the crisis had passed.

The first major change to that came in the timespan between 100BCE and 44BCE. Starting with Gaius Marius, a newcomer to the Patrician families (his family had finaly attained enough wealth to be allowed into the Senate). He instituted a series of reforms during his unprecidented 7 terms as Consul that forever changed Rome's armies. First and foremost, he started to recruit from the Capiste Censi (the Head Count), the lowest of the social strata, and equiped then with State funds. The Head Count were to serve for two campaigns or 25 years, whichever was up first. They would all get shares of the spoils and lead more productive lives than before, and at the end of their term, they were to get land of their own, usually in the conquered territories. This last point was brilliant -- it meant that in the case of an uprising, there would be trained soldiers already in place that could deal with it.

This practice was institutionalized by a succession of great Patricians: Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Pompeius Magnus and Gaius Julius Caesar.

Once Empire was declared, things continued in this vein until the last of the Julii dynasty. This was the period where great commanders could rise through the ranks and become generals in their own right.

When the Empire collapsed, these able commanders started to coallesce their troops around them and protect small areas, thus the birth of many tiny Kingdoms in the Dark Ages. It was at this point where the status quo started to once again solidify, and it was only a very rare event when a commoner was granted lands and title.

[Athos69]

Gary, I never see Conan actually being the Noble Warrior that you do. Sure he's leading armies and ruling Aquilonia, but the vast majority of what is going on day-to-day is being directed by Prospero.

To put this all in 3.5 terms...

He starts out as a Barbarian. (Youth, Venarium, Asgard, Hyperborea)
Multiclasses into Rogue. (Shadizar/Zamora, Koth)
Multiclasses into Fighter. (Mercenary days wandering the globe where he picks up all of hs leadership and military feats and skills. This includes his days freebooting in the Barachan Isles.)

By the time he takes the Aquilonian throne, he already has the feats and skills he needs to rule, save literacy. Sure he can speak almost every language in the world, but he cannot write.

I just don't see him ever becoming a Noble....

[geeman]

At 09:55 PM 10/5/2004 +0200, Athos69 wrote:



>Gary, I never see Conan actually being the Noble Warrior that you

>do. Sure he`s leading armies and ruling Aquilonia, but the vast majority

>of what is going on day-to-day is being directed by Prospero.To put this

>all in 3.5 terms...He starts out as a Barbarian. (Youth, Venarium, Asgard,

>Hyperborea)Multiclasses into Rogue. (Shadizar/Zamora, Koth)Multiclasses

>into Fighter. (Mercenary days wandering the globe where he picks up all of

>hs leadership and military feats and skills. This includes his days

>freebooting in the Barachan Isles.)By the time he takes the Aquilonian

>throne, he already has the feats and skills he needs to rule, save

>literacy. Sure he can speak almost every language in the world, but he

>cannot write.



I`d generally agree with that assessment, but it`s what happens after

taking the throne that I`m talking about, at which point he starts taking

on duties having to do with generalship, leading a military that numbers in

the thousands. As for his ruling Aqulonia on a day-to-day basis, here`s a

bit more from Conan the Usurper to illustrate the issue:



---ooOoo---



[H]e laid down the golden stylus with which he had been laboriously

scrawling on waxed tablets, rested his chin on his fist and fixed his

smoldering blue eyes enviously on the man who stood before him. This

person was occupied in his own affairs at the moment, for he was taking up

the laces of his gold-chased armor, and abstractedly whistling -- a rtaher

unconventional performance, considering that he was in the presence of a king.



"Prospero," said the man at the table, "these matters of state-craft weary

me as all the fighting I have done never did."



"All part of the game, Conan," answered the dark-eyed Poitainian. "You are

king -- you must play the part."



"I wish I might ride with you to Nemedia," said Conan enviously. "It seems

ages since I had a horse between my knees -- but Publius says that affairs

in the city require my presence. Curse him!"



---ooOoo---



My point is that he does engage in ruling his nation. While he may

delegate much of the administration of the realm, when it comes to the role

of the warrior-noble as presented in this thread (and the one that seems to

be has been suggested from the very beginning) the class is primarily a

sort of military officer with personal combat abilities. He is a

warrior-king. The day-to-day activities of the realm from an

administrative level aren`t addressed by the class with possible ancillary

connection to the Lead skill and the Command special ability. As such,

it`s pretty apt to describe the rulership style of Conan in Aquilonia while

keeping the warrior esthetic for the adventure level actions of the character.



>I just don`t see him ever becoming a Noble....



Well, everyone calls him king, so he`s definitely a noble in the titular

sense.... However, it isn`t very useful to read overmuch into the word

"noble" for the purpose of the name of a character class. He isn`t noble

in the genteel, courtly and chivalric sense of the word, but the class need

not represent that kind of character. In the past the terms used to

describe character classes have been used in various unproductive

ways. One justification for the elimination of 1e assassin character

class, for instance, was that an "assassin" is merely one who kills for

money, and anyone can kill for money be they fighters, rogues, etc. That

same definition could be used to describe just about any of the character

classes; fighter is simply one who fights, thief one who steals, etc. The

truth is TSR was trying to avoid some of the issues that were playing havoc

with the company`s image in the media, so they eliminated the class for

that reason, but the tendency to read too much into the names of the

character classes has been going on for a long time.



In the same sense the warrior-noble need not imply a title or a certain

characterization. It`s merely a set of stats used to portray a character`s

abilities. In this case, Conan definitely becomes a leader of troops and

engages in activities that can be seen in the special abilities of the

warrior-noble character class. Aren`t troops he leads made more effective

for his leadership? Doesn`t he rule his realm well? More quotes from

_Conan the Usurper_:



---ooOoo---



"I am a barbarian, so I shall sell my kingdom and its people for life and

your filthy gold? Ha! How did you come to your crown, you and that

black-faced pig beside you? Your fathers did the fighting and the

suffering, and handed their crowns to you on golden platters. What you

inherited without lifting a finger -- except to poison a few brothers -- I

fought for."



"You sit on satin and guzzle wine the people sweat for, and talk of divine

rights of sovereignty -- bah! I climbed out of the abyss of naked

barbarism to the throne, and in that climb I spilt my blood as freely as I

spilt that of others. If either of us has the right to rule men, by Crom,

it is I! How have you proved yourself my superior?"



"I found Aquilonia in the grip of a pig like you -- one who traced his

genealogy for a thousand years. The land was torn with wars of the barons,

and the people cried out under suppression and taxation. Today no

Aquilonian noble dares maltreat the humblest of my subjects, and the taxes

of the people are lighter than anywhere else in the world."



---ooOoo---



Conan is definitely unsubtle as a ruler. Why be subtle when a simple

brain-bashing will do the trick? But there`s nothing in the warrior-noble

class that requires subtlety, and levels in the proposed class will do the

trick nicely in this case. Again, there need be nothing noble (in the

titular sense, nor in the sense of the word as genteel and courtly) about a

noble-warrior. "Warrior-noble" is just a name that expresses, maybe, more

types of characters that might take levels in the class than those of a

Conan the (former) Barbarian type would. That does not mean, however, that

a character couldn`t take levels in the class and be played very

differently from what the implications of the class name, and even the

colour text of the class description, portray.



Gary

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, the funny thing is that people refer to "Ancient Greece" quite easilly, when Greece in antiquity was split up in city states.

In Laconia (la-ko-NEE-a), the city of the Spartans, people spoke little, acted as seen fit, and trained for war from an early age; it was the only state in all of Greece where women had so many rights (they could do battle, were all respected [even if kidnapped to get married to their future husbands :rolleyes:], etc.). A spartan phrase that remains well known in Greece to this day is: "Either it or atop it."; that's what mothers told their sons when they went to war while giving them their shield, meaning: "Either (come back carrying) it or (return being carried) atop it."

In Athens, on the other hand, fluency in the Archaic Greek, knowledgeability, and so on were valued more than mastery of arms (without thinking of the latter as of little use; it was just that generals were more respected than most soldiers, except for heroes of war, who usually were of great renown).

Nobility held political and military power, but it seems that they held such powers out of wealth as much as of competence, so it blurred what was most important (campaigns needed gold and silver to be run). However, nobility was more lax in Ancient Greece than in medieval Europe, meaning that anyone with money, military or political power was a noble right away...

[Athos69]

So Greece was more of a Plutocracy then, where those who had the wealth were automatically on the top of the pile, or was it more of a hereditary Oligarchy?

[Athos69]

Gary, my entire point though is this:

While I voted for the multi-pathed Noble, I could just as easily settle for a pure rulership Noble, because if you really want a General in the high social strata, you can always multiclass with Fighter or (if you are using it, Marshal), and wind up with a superior character to the Armiger, which dilutes both concepts too much for me to consider it a 'core' class.

That said, I like and appreciate the work that Osprey put into this Class. It could certainly form the basis of a PrCl that would require a level in either Aristocrat or Noble to qualify.

[The Jew]

Originally posted by Athos69@Oct 5 2004, 06:09 PM
So Greece was more of a Plutocracy then, where those who had the wealth were automatically on the top of the pile, or was it more of a hereditary Oligarchy?
I believe their was to much difference between city-states and change over time to answer that question. Wealth, military prowess and family were all important factors in most of the city-states, but the precise form varied tremendously.

[The Jew]

I could settle for a Noble/fighter instead of Noble warrior class if their was one alteration in the rules; adding general type feats to the fighters selection. That is the simplest path in my mind.

[Athos69]

Can you give some examples of what you'd like to see added to the Fighter bonus feat list?

[The Jew]

Military genius, Great Leader, Leadership and Regent focus Warcraft and Lead. The 5 basic general (as in military commander) feats. Their may be a a couple more which I missed. The level and skill requrements would still have to be made. This would give a fighter the potential to be a hack and slash character or a military commander; whichever way a character wished to go or maybe a little of both. I realize this is a slight deviance from the D&D class, both in mechanics and ethos, but it seems proper given the greater emphasis which Birthright places on military commanders. It is also the simplest way to go, which is a natural good in my mind.

I've put forth this idea before and it was shot down due, if my recollection is correct, to the fact that I was altering a core class. A definite no-no in many peoples minds, which I generally agree with. Still, we already expanded the skill lists for many classes, this is pretty much the same thing.

[Athos69]

Well, in truth, we are already altering the core classes, by adding the new BR specific skills.

*I* don't see any problem with listing these feats as eligible for Fighter bonus feat slots...

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by The Jew+Oct 6 2004, 01:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Jew @ Oct 6 2004, 01:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Athos69@Oct 5 2004, 06:09 PM
So Greece was more of a Plutocracy then, where those who had the wealth were automatically on the top of the pile, or was it more of a hereditary Oligarchy?
I believe their was to much difference between city-states and change over time to answer that question. Wealth, military prowess and family were all important factors in most of the city-states, but the precise form varied tremendously. [/b][/quote]
That pretty much what I had in mind... Thanks!

Oh, and I agree with the feats thingy.

[irdeggman]

Yes the point about adding the feats to the fighter list seems like a good concept to me also. I would only address 'new' feats created by the BRCS though. This makes it more palatable IMO since it is not restructuring the core class but instead adding to it the campaign specific modifications being made. By adding a few new ones to the list it would work better by giving some to add. Core rules feats like Leadership can remain as general feats and since it is the only one on the list here that is not BRCS-specific shouldn't cause too much trouble to have to spend a character level feat on. Besides there will most likely end up with other ways before we are finished to get that feat without having to use a character level feat to obtain it.

Even though the classes have been sanctioned already, this shouldn't matter since the distinction for fighter feats is made at the feat level (i.e., on the table with the list of feats) and the feats section hasn't been sanctioned yet.

[geeman]

When it comes to using the fighter to reflect an officer or military leader

type character in the BR setting I think adding some feats to the list of

bonus fighter feats is a good idea. There are a few things, however, that

a separate character class description does that reflects the issues

involved here a little better. While I do like the idea of adding a few

BR-specific feats to the fighter bonus feat list in the campaign setting

update, I don`t think it necessarily replaces the need for a character

class to reflect the issue for several reasons.



1. Skill points and the list of class skills. Having an independent class

description allows one to bump up the number of skills points/level and to

have a list of class skills appropriate to the character theme of a

socially privileged character raised to be a military leader. One could

similarly add the class skills to the fighter class and/or increase the

number of skill points the class has, but it starts not looking much like

the core class at that point IMO, so it might as well be a different class

description.



2. Special abilities. Generally, special abilities and feats are fairly

interchangeable concepts, but in a few cases that`s not true. When special

abilities, for instance, have to do with character levels in the class they

aren`t very much like feats which tend to be more of a single slot kind of

thing. One can still redefine them as one or the other, but it should be

noted that any class ability (like those presented in this incarnation of

the warrior-noble) that is turned into a feat is pretty much then available

to all character classes through their standard feats available every 3rd

level. The question to ask is whether bards, clerics, druids, rogues,

wizards and sorcerers have access to those abilities as feats or are they

better kept exclusive to a particular character class. That aside, in this

case it seems to me that the special abilities of the class aren`t terribly

apt as feats.



3. Basic character class stats. The proposed class has d8 hit dice, and a

fast Will save progression. Personally, I`m not so sure that the class

couldn`t have d10 hit dice and the fast Fortitude progression just like

fighters, but I could see the argument for the d8/Will save stance, and

it`s the kind of information that is very easy to homebrew, so it`s not

that big a deal in the class description itself. There`s not really been a

lot of discussion of this aspect of the class, however, so I don`t know how

other folks are thinking about it.



When it comes to adding a set of military command feats to the list of

bonus fighter feats I think that`s a great idea. Military command isn`t

_exclusive_ to a noble-warrior type character class, and fighters should

have some abilities in that regard IMO. In BR it reflects what is probably

best exemplified by the idea of a mercenary leader or in the list of random

events at the domain level things like the Great Captain random

even. There are more types of fighter-leadership paradigms ranging from

the peasant hero to the sidhe military leadership style that it could be

used to portray. It doesn`t really address the issues of the noble warrior

per se, but it`s a good thing to include in BR regardless.



Gary

[The Jew]

Minor change, I of course meant skill focus warcraft and Lead, not regent focus. Leadership isn't that important to add, since all characters get a bonus feat when it becomes available. The one thing is leadership has been altered to allow for military cohorts. That's a huge change, and a critical use for a general. The question of skills is why I would suggest a multi-class noble/fighter for the noble warrior, while the mercenary captain would more likely be a straight fighter.

Hypothetically, if we were to abandon the Noble warrior entiretly their is the question of turning some of the noble warriors special abilities into feats. If they were to require a number of ranks in warcraft and lead, which only a noble or fighter get both of as class skills and a BAB bonus(along with Orog priests I believe), that would greatly limit other classes ability to access them. A feat that required 6 ranks in each and a BAB of +3 would be unreachable by a wizard short of 9th level, unless they had access to and took cosmpolitian feat twice and were 6th level. I for one am not against the oddball other classes having access to those feats if they are willing to make the sacrifices or be a high enough level.

[irdeggman]

I actually like some of the noble-warrior's class abilities. I also don't think (like Gary) they don't translate well into feats.

I still think that a great general type of class would work real well. Although I'm not real found of making an alternate fighter class, which would in essence really be adding another class since there is no way the fighter class would be replaced or abandoned.

I still think that a great general prestige class makes the most sense here. The d10 hit die could work real well along with 4 skill points (vice the 2 for fighters).

An important feature of prestige classes is that they are more powerful than standard classes so trying to balance a prestige class with a standard class is not an issue - they should only be balanced with other prestige classes.

What this would do is to open up things to adding some more powerful class type abilities or upping the power of the present ones. Something to think about.

In addition since the use of prestige classes are purely optional those who don't like the concept don't need to worry about incorporating it. And since they are optional it is much easier for a DM to make changes to them without incurring the wrath of his players by changing core rules (or in the case BRCS core rules).

[RaspK_FOG]

Ditto! ;)

[The Jew]

With a few changes, I like Ospreys class and will vote for it should a poll appear. I'm just putting forth a simple, but imperfect, solution to the lack of a general class.

[The Jew]

Noble Warrior abilities turned into feats

Battle Cry
req: 7 ranks Lead and 7 ranks Warcraft
Benefit: for a number of days equal to his charisma modifier he may shout an inspiring battle cry. Any allies who hear him gain a +1 to their Morale and Will saves for a number of rounds as equal to the characters charisma modifier. If the character is leading troops then the unit gains a +1 to Morale and attack for a single battle turn.

Inspire Troops
req: 10 ranks lead and 10 ranks warcraft
The Character must stand visibly before the army and deliver a rousing speech, taking at least one minute to do so and using one of his Battle Cry slots for the day. The character may attempt to affect as many 1 company per (Lead score-3): success requires a Lead check at DC 10 + 2 per company targeted. If the Lead check succeed, the targeted units gain a +1 bonus to attack and morale for the a number of battle turns equal to the characters charisma modifier. Individuals affected (including allied PC’s) gain a +1 morale bonus to attack, damage, and saving throws for the duration of the effect. This bonus increases by +1 for each additional 4 ranks in Lead (+2 14 ranks, +3 18 ranks, +4 22 ranks).

I think their are already enough feats which give a straight bonus to Lead and warcraft, no need to try to mimic commander. This is of course a straignt translation of the noble warriors abilities to a feat, which may not be best since I don't know of any feats which gain in strength depending on the number of ranks a character has in a skill.

[irdeggman]

This is of course a straignt translation of the noble warriors abilities to a feat, which may not be best since I don't know of any feats which gain in strength depending on the number of ranks a character has in a skill.

Neither do I, although there are the normal/greater feat trees (Spell Focus, weapon specialization, etc.)

Also the proposed feats listed are awful similar to the bard's abilities. Which was one of the intents when they were made class abilities, but they don't translate into feats well at all, IMO.