Noble Class (Again)

[irdeggman]

Based on the results of the paring down the noble class and noble class polls here are the final 2 choices.

I looked at including another choice of ruler based with a variant of noble-warrior but that didn't make any sense to me as a variant. A variant is supposed to be an alternative to something not an option to add an additional class to the choices. What I mean is that if presented as a variant then there would be a ruler oriented class with the option of adding another class to capture the warrior-noble one.

The previous variants are complete rewrites of the existing classes and are to be used instead of them not an option to add a new one.

I don't know if I'm being clear here or just coming off as arrogant (not my intention).

I also didn't add the "other" choice to the poll, since that was already included in the previous version and it is now time to make the clear choice.

Regardless, if there is no clear majority winner (or close) on this poll - the noble class will be stricken from the BRCS since it would obvious to even the dullest individual that we (as a group) cannot reach a consensus (clear majority) on this issue and we will have spent more than enough time trying to work it out, IMO.

[RaspK_FOG]

Let me get this straight: you mean that you are uncomfortable/find foreign the idea of introducing a variant which effectively adds another class, since the typical variant substitutes an existing option.

I agree with your feelings on that.

[Osprey]

OK -I'm unclear on choice #2. I had written a whole retort, but now I don't know what the choices actually are? Is choice #2 to allow for 2 classes (a ruler and noble warrior both)? Or is it for a single class with 2 paths, one ruler-focused and one warrior-focused? Please clarify.

[RaspK_FOG]

I suppose it means any combination that allows 2 versions, be it two classes or two paths.

[The Jew]

I voted for option 1 simply to insure that a ruler based class is introduced. I would add the caveat though, that this assumes that fighters feat list are broadened, as in the discussion in Noble Warrior thread. Far from perfect, but the simplest option.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Oct 10 2004, 12:16 AM
OK -I'm unclear on choice #2. I had written a whole retort, but now I don't know what the choices actually are? Is choice #2 to allow for 2 classes (a ruler and noble warrior both)? Or is it for a single class with 2 paths, one ruler-focused and one warrior-focused? Please clarify.
It was supposed to be the choice from the earlier poll:

(d) Two separate classes (one for (a) one for ( b ))

But I tried to be more specific - that is two classes.

The pathed version got nixed in the narrow down the ruler style poll.

The choices are:

a ruler based class (only one class, no pathed version)

and a ruler based class and a noble-warrior one (i.e., 2 classes)

That is what I meant to write. Is it any clearer?

[irdeggman]

Let me try to explain differently using the poll results (from earlier polls)


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%]
( c ) 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


And the narrow down the ruler styled noble poll

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]


Putting the two together you end up with a choice of;

(1) ruler based class

or

(2) ruler based class and noble-warrior (i.e., 2 separate classes)

I guess you could say that choice (2) is actually two paths, a ruler based one and a noble-warrior based one - but they really translate into 2 separate classes since the most recent versions aren't really path changes (the noble-warrior has a good BAB while the ruler based one has an Average BAB, and they both have different class abilities). Best represented as 2 separate classes, the way I see it.

[Osprey]

The choices are:

a ruler based class (only one class, no pathed version)

and a ruler based class and a noble-warrior one (i.e., 2 classes)

That is what I meant to write. Is it any clearer?

Yep, much clearer, thanks. I hadn't realized the pathed version was truly nixed until now.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Normally it would be time to close this poll, but with the problems with access to the site still ongoing (I still can't get to it from work - I don't have administrator privileges to insert the "patch" to fix things). I'll leave it open for a while longer and hope that things get straightened out soon. The problems have been going on for nearly 3 weeks and posting is way off. :(

[Osprey]

Normally it would be time to close this poll, but with the problems with access to the site still ongoing (I still can't get to it from work - I don't have administrator privileges to insert the "patch" to fix things). I'll leave it open for a while longer and hope that things get straightened out soon. The problems have been going on for nearly 3 weeks and posting is way off.

No kidding - this is only the 3rd time in the past 3-4 weeks that I've managed to successfully access the site - which is way below par for me. :rolleyes:

Makes discussion of any subject almost impossible. I hope we do get this problem fixed, it's really killin' the project's momentum that had been building and pushing ahead. Ill omens brewing...

[irdeggman]

Osprey, I absolutely agree on all points in previous post.

Did you receive my e-mail on latest rev to Chap 1? I haven't heard from you so I'm checking. If not send me another e-mail (irdeggman@cox.net) just to make sure I haven't messed up your e-mail.

[fiftyone]

Instead of a Noble class give the characters at creation a choice. Noble or Common. As a Noble, said character chooses Int, Wis or Cha based skills and gets a +1 bonus in that category. A Commoner does the same, but chooses from Str, Dex, Con based skills.

Yeah?!

Hey.. Wait.. put those rocks down..!

OW!

[fiftyone]

AND!

Bump the Aristocrat up from the DMG. Give it a feat progression like fighter, but add all the BR feats to the list and some minor combat ones + the combat expertise chain. Also skills to 6 per level.

Add the warcraft and perhaps lead ones to the fighter list.

Poof done discussion over!

Hey.. Rocks again!?!

ow!

OW!

/dies

[Angelbialaska]

Well, the aristocrat should not have feats like a fighter. At least not unless it comes at the cost of something else. If it do get the fighter bonus feats, then the only difference between Aristocrat and Fighter is that it's D8 vs D10 for HD, but to make up for it, the Aristocrat gets 2 skill points more. And lots monies, which means a lot on low levels. Maybe a feat each 3rd level would be more fitting and then bumb skills to 6 per level.

[fiftyone]

Aristocrat also has average BAB and poor fort/ref and good will saves.

[First Horseman]

Hmm, that an idea that could work fiftyone. Giving a feat progression would be awsome. Yet not like a fighter, too scary! Some fighter feats would be great, but I've always been on player who liked the weapon specialization feats to the fighter alone. The Psi Warrior and some other class in that category has ruined that charm.

As for the Noble class, I can't remember what I voted on but I suggest a rule based class. If that regent needs anything different, multiclass into the fighter, wizard, or whatever. I know regents in Cerilia then to do warfare offten to protect or invade their domains, but many of them are wizards, magicians or spellcasting clerics.

Hmm I'm starting to wonder if magic is the true power behind it all....

[fiftyone]

That second line about Fighters was for fighters.

By minor combat feats for the noble list I meant like Improved Initiative, Weapon Focus (but not spec), Combat Reflexes, the Combat Expertise Chain (since its Int base).

/shrug

I know The Noble bit has been voted on and whatever I post about it doesn't really matter, but hey, someone may like an idea and throw it in thier game.

^_^

I think I was the one abstain.

[First Horseman]

Cool, sorry fiftyone. Didn't catch that second part. I do like you ideas though.

[The Jew]

Since the warrior noble is not to be, the fighter will probably get several feats added to its bonus list such as military genius, Great leader, skill focus (warcraft), skill focus (lead), and a couple others which I can't think of right now. He will become perfect for a warlord type character, a non-noble military leader. He will also be usefull for noble characters to multi-class with to create a noble general.

[irdeggman]

I've finished revising the noble as well as some tweaking to the rest of Chap 1. I'm waiting for Osprey to finish giving a review for logic and feel test before posting it though.

I added some more feats (BRCS-specific ones) to the list for fighter bonus feats and tweaked some of the others.

[Bokey]

I voted for 2 separate classes, but now that I think back on it, if you want a fighter-noble all you really have to do is multiclass. Hopefully the new noble class will support multiclassing by having a good balance of power throughout the class progression.

One thing I didn't understand however: why was the noble going to get cast aside if there was no real clear winner in this poll? Both of the above options include a noble-ruler class, the only question really was if there would be a noble-warrior class as well.

Somebody want to fill me in?

Also, I hope the site problems have been corrected, as this is the first time I have been able to log on in about a month. Hard to vote if you can't get to the polls!

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Bokey@Nov 23 2004, 10:10 AM
One thing I didn't understand however: why was the noble going to get cast aside if there was no real clear winner in this poll? Both of the above options include a noble-ruler class, the only question really was if there would be a noble-warrior class as well.

Somebody want to fill me in?


Because in order to "sanction" the product we need a clear majority. A clear majority has been defined as being as close to twice as many for as against.

Based on the previous polls and the "deadlocks" they showed, a clear majority might not be obtainable. If it is not obtainable then the "new" class just goes since it could not be considered as anything close.

In the sanctioning arena things are not decided (at least not at the sanctioning end) by a simple majority. That is how the BRCs has ben progressing all along. See the various polls and discussion in the past on Chap 2 and I see no reason to change that plan.

If the decisions are made just on a simple majority then things drastically change at any point in time depending on who is active on the boards. Using the clear majority concept dramatically narrows this variation and thus a more longer standing useable product is created.

[The Jew]

I think Pokey's point is that, even without this poll, it is clear that a majority want a Noble class. It is just that we are split between wanting multiples types or else flexibility for its progression. Mute point now, this poll will end this part of the discussion.

[Bokey]

I think Pokey's point is that, even without this poll, it is clear that a majority want a Noble class. It is just that we are split between wanting multiples types or else flexibility for its progression.

The Jew has hit it on the head. I don't think anybody in the BR community (or at least not very many) opose the concept of a noble; they just have different visions of what it should include. If two concepts were equally popular and people were split firmly down the middle, then we could just take a poll to see whether or not to include both concepts or neither concepts. I would doubt that people would be so hostile as to prefer nothing over two different options, and it seems somewhat ridiculous to throw out a good idea because folk can't agree.

If everybody had to agree to everything, we never could get a president elected in the good ole USA!!

But as the Jew also stated, it kind of a mute point now. :rolleyes:

[irdeggman]

I'm closing polls now.

Despite the problems caused by the server issues - I think we need to move on. I'll post a revised chap 1 using what results we have from the polls and then we talk it out and vote on it.

Here are the poll results:

How should the noble class be structured?
(1) Ruler based class. [ 18 ] [66.67%]
(2) A combination of ruler-based class and noble-warrior (i.e., 2-classes). [ 8 ] [29.63%]
(3) Abstain [ 1 ] [3.70%]
Total Votes: 27