What is the Guilder?

[kgauck]

Here we can collect the Polling on what people see the guilder role as being.

The explorer adventurer would put its greatest emphasis as a traditional adventuring class, and using the least domain level or leadership abilities. The example of Indiana Jones might be offered.

The domain guild expert would be most directed to running a domain with skills and abilities suited to being a regent.

The noble/rogue hybrid would be a mixture of rogue and noble classes, probably a bit of a swashbuckler. Something of an adventurer, but with the leadership of a noble, and probabaly more of a diplomat and charmer than a rogue.

I think every option is probabaly a skills based PC, as much as the rogue is anyway. No one has suggested that the guilder isn't a skillsed heavy guy.

[Fizz]

Here we can collect the Polling on what people see the guilder role as being.

Since i'm the cause of all this trouble, i'll start. :)

In 3E and in the BRCS, there has been an effort to expand the availability of core classes beyond their regional boundaries. In 2nd Ed, only Anuireans and Khinasi could be paladins. But in 3E the effort has been made to remove boundaries such as these.

Most people here are relegating the guilder to a regional merchant. Even in 2nd Ed that was not a fair description. With the same BRCS spirit of removing old boundaries, i think the guilder can be the skills-based class of choice. This doesn't mean that most guilders aren't profit-seeking Brechts, but there is room for many other motives and cultures.

He can be a sailor who ferries people to new lands. Or he can be a treasure hunter using his knowledge of the occult to bypass ancient traps. Or he can be an herbalist who seeks out new plants and formulae (either to sell or prevent a plague). Or he might even be a merchant who wants to expand his trading empire.

The point is, he is heavily reliant on skills- more reliant than any other class. Other classes may remain better at some skills (rogues are better sneaks, bards are better diplomats, rangers better survivalists). But the guilder makes use of a variety of different types of skills better than others.

Does that help any?


-Fizz

[Fizz]

The options in the poll are not complete. You need a `skills-based PC class' or similar in there. I don't think any of the other options reflect what i've been envisioning.

-Fizz

[Sorontar]

My idea of a Guilder is a negotiator who has industry and administration knowledge (key ability is Charisma). But since the options in this survey have just been listed, not defined, I'm not sure whether that is a rogue/noble or domain-based guild thing. Or something else.

Could someone add a definition of each of the options, rather than forcing me to read the length thread again that has been discussing the Guilder.

Sorontar

[hazard]

I see guilder as versatile ruler with lots of skills. I liked very much version with 3 subclass. Administrator (Lord type) , Guilder ( Rogue type) and Sage ( Mage type) but. I know is long lost concept...

[RaspK_FOG]

According to Havens, the guilder is a resourceful deal-striker.

[Mojczak]

I think that if you simply take the guilder as a "guild" oriented character you are remarkbly limiting the potential of this class. First, let's take a look at what a guild is... BASICALLY ANYTHING tide to commerce. And what can someone make the comemerce of... basically anything. From selling souvenirs to selling orcish-slave females. However, in this world of opportunity the guilder is an adventurous one... someone bold enough to go and fare for success and glory whenever it calls to him. He is bold, and profit-oriented AND adventurous. In my mind, his evident experience comes from the said boldness translated into opportunity-grabbing and chance. So, he is as much an adventurer, considering the orientation of trade in that period of the history... as a "guild" oriented character who knows how to count on his boldness, luck and natural talent to seize the right opportunities.

And I just said in many words what others have said in one short sentence.

[irdeggman]

I agree with most so far that these are not real good choices for what is trying to be accomplished.

A rogue/noble hybrid is not a "role" for one thing - that is a "mechanic".


Just thinking while typing - I think choices more along the following are more accurate for the "first step" in defining a new class:

What role/niche should the guilder fill?

1. Explorer/adventurer
2. Master of all things having to do with economics
3. Other, please specify

Things like skill master are more of a "mechanic" than a role, IMO.

I though about putting in domain level economics, but thought about that again that was actually a subset of ""all things having to do with economics"

I also thought about putting in "combination of the above" but that would lead to an "uber-class" that can do "everything" and has no specific role. In which case using the "generic" classes of Unearthed Arcana would be best to capture what someone is going for. But mixing "generic" and "specific" classes is a very bad thing to do. That is having a skill based class (expert from UA) and a paladin class in the same game makes no sense since the paladin is now "limited" when compared to the "generic class".

This determing of the role does not specify whether or not the class is best determined by a Prestige Class or a core class though, only the "role" or "niche" it should fill.

I'm having trouble coming up with more than 2 choices for the base list though.

I would recommend not using this poll itself, but the thread to come up with the list of choices for a moore clearly defined poll.

Please don't take any of this as condescending or a put down. I'm only trying to put in what I've learned by the "numerous" polls I'v run in the past.

[kgauck]

If the noble has a role, and the rogue has a role, how is it that a noble/rogue hybrid has to lack any role, and be purely mechanical?

Take as an example the scout. Clearly a rogue/ranger hybrid, the scout has a clear role and is not just a mechanical combination of ranger and rogue parts. Skirmish is inspired by sneak attack, but is an adaptation to fill the role imagined for a scout.

[RaspK_FOG]

The thing is, while the concept you have in mind and some of us can realise is not "noble/rogue hybrid," that's what mechanics boil down to. Imagine a priestly order of warrior monks - there you have it, a monk/paladin prestige class hybrid! See what Irdeggman says?

[Jaleela]

I guess the question is, first impression:

When you think of a guilder, what is the first thing you think of?

Merchant
Explorer
Thief
Banker
Tradesman
Other?

When someone says Guild or Guilder, the first thing I think of is a Merchant. Personally, I think "Guilder" as a class, is a misnomer. I think Merchant is a more suitable class identifier looking at it historically.

Guilds traditionally offer a service or a specialty skill/product. These Guilds are run by a master(s). Masters are exactly that, masters of a specialized trade; they decide everything that relates to their trade, from the rules of how to do something, to the penalties assigned if done incorrectly, to who can join the mystery or not, examples of guilds. saddler, loriner, cordwainer, dyer, drapier, grocier, goldsmith, etc... There are very interesting records that deal with inter-guild disputes which can easily offer ideas for domain turns resulting in "Trade Matter".

If one thinks in terms of Medieval Italy or Spain, you have Merchant Adventurers or Explorers. The Merchant may be the captain of the vessel with a crew of sailors and some military might to protect the interests of the venture. He might be the hiring party to send adventurers out to find new and exotic spices beyond the Dragon Isles. He might be like Colombus, seeking a new trade route. He could be an Anuirean Banker setting up an office in the Free City of Ilien, or he could be a merchant like Hassan el-Hadid, who has connections (and a means of intelligence) all over the south coast.

Needless to say, depending on the type the player wants to portray, they could have all of the aspects that were listed in the poll.

Guilder as a domain ruler would have to be an able adminstrator and have some notion of how the military works (to maintain his position and defend his holdings) and may have acquired the latter skill in a merchantile venture that involved forging into hostile territory.

I don't think having a mixture of skills would classify them as an "uber-class", but a ruler of a domain should be exceptional not typical.

Perhaps classifying them as primarily Merchant/Guilder with skill sets that are broken down into the categories that you came up with.

Just some early morning ramblings. ;)

[kgauck]

The fighter is the master of combat, and can, in theory, master any type of combat, be it archery, mounted combat, swords and shields, axes, pole arms, what have you.

In practice, the fighter can master as many fighting styles as his feats will allow, and to the depth that his feats will allow. The fighter in the generic classes in UA is exactly like the fighter. Of course the fighter's flexibility is in feats, which are themselves pretty specific. Skills are much more generic than feats, and a generic skills based character would, as irdeggman suggests, be too wide open for a setting that also includes very narrow character concept like wizards (who must be blooded) and paladins.

So the question of a class that is good at all commerce can only be so, in as much as the fighter is good at all combat. He might have the potential to be smuggler, or banker, or kingpin, or mine owner, or ship captain, but he shouldn't be able to be all of these things and more than a fighter can be archer, knight, pikeman, swordsman, axeman all at the same time.

[cyrano24100]

I guess the "Guild" in "Guilder" make me go for non-adventurer.
Sure adventurers are lured by gold too, but the term guilder lends itself more to an overweight brecht-speaking burger, who's favorite weapon is his toungue; not his rapier. The noble/rogue doesn't convey the sense of administration and sometimes dogmatic money-making aspect to some of the more successful guilders.
"A noble would not miss a banquet or a ball, a rogue, would probably go too, but the guilder would have more important things to do; meet with vendors, or negociate over a brew to expand his trading empire anew."

[kgauck]

"A noble would not miss a banquet or a ball, a rogue, would probably go too, but the guilder would have more important things to do; meet with vendors, or negociate over a brew to expand his trading empire anew."

As someone who regularly attends the events sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce (how long do you suppose that term dates back to?) I can attest there are plenty of banquets for business folks too. That's where the vendors, competition, and customers are.

http://www.springfieldchamber.com/nc/news_events/chamber_calendar/

[Jaleela]

I had posted something earlier, but for some reason it never showed.

When someone says Guilder to me, I see a Merchant or Tradesmen. A person who is adapt in administration, trade, negotiation, and sometimes as Merchant adventurer/explorer, and sometimes depending on their alignment and resources as a "carpet bagger" in which case the rogue applies.

Normally I don't view them in game terms or in a historical view as nobles. But BR doesn't limit domain level rulers from coming from a non-noble class and taking up the reins of power.

Guilders can fall into several categories and perhaps skill-sets could apply.

Administrative (Banker or Minister of trade)
Merchant Adventurer (personally goes to new places)
Explorer (finds new places may be hired by another party)
Noble: might be a second son/daughter that doesn't have any prospects of inheriting the kingdom)
Rogue: Pirate or other party that may have orders of mark to intefere with another regent's shipping and trade and making a profit.

Just some thoughts.

[Arjan]

I had posted something earlier, but for some reason it never showed.


recently theres a spamfilter installed on the forum which puts posts on moderated when certain words are used (and members have less then 10 posts)

but the post is approved now :)

[Fizz]

As Havens of the Great Bay describes, merchant is one possible career for a guilder, but not the only one. Farmers, sailors, etc might also be guilders- if they have the proper mettle. Guilders are meant to be as viable an adventuring class as any other.

So even in 2nd Ed, guilders were more than mere merchants. Now that we're in 3E, the trend is to expand the role that classes can have even further.

Thus i am surprised that so many people think guilder = merchant. This narrower definition seems a bit contrary to the 3E spirit, imo.


-Fizz

[RaspK_FOG]

Actually, most of us pretty much refer to it as one sort of mercantile profession or another, and not a merchant per se. Furthermore, none expanded the role of any classes, we simply expand their scope; these two things are very, very different, you know...

[Jaleela]

Thus i am surprised that so many people think guilder = merchant. This narrower definition seems a bit contrary to the 3E spirit, imo.

-Fizz

Perhaps it has far more to do with historical tradition.

[geeman]

At 04:41 AM 1/18/2007, kgauck wrote:

>If the noble has a role, and the rogue has a role, how is it that a
>noble/rogue hybrid has to lack any role, and be purely mechanical?

I don`t think characterizing noble/rogue as a mechanic is quite
right, but I do think it makes sense to argue that it is already
covered by the multi-classing mechanic, and to a certain extent we
should acknowledge that such descriptions are really a sort of
short-hand rather than a truthful assessment of such combined
character themes. That is, when character classes are purely a mix
of the stats and abilities of other classes then we could probably
look at such a class and assume that its "theme" would be better
expressed by multi-classing, but when that class really does have
different stats and new class abilities, then the class is more
independent than the noble/rogue (or paladin/monk, druid/bard,
whatever) description of it really has.

However, a class that is described as a "skill master" really is
something more of a mechanic than a theme since we get no actual
basis for the theme itself. The rogue is often described as the
skill master, but since the class has class skills there really is a
theme to the idea. A guilder class that just had a bunch of skill
points and an open-ended choice of class skills (which a previous
suggestion was IIRC) is more mechanic than thematic.

Gary

[Fizz]

However, a class that is described as a "skill master" really is
something more of a mechanic than a theme since we get no actual
basis for the theme itself. The rogue is often described as the
skill master, but since the class has class skills there really is a
theme to the idea. A guilder class that just had a bunch of skill
points and an open-ended choice of class skills (which a previous
suggestion was IIRC) is more mechanic than thematic.


Though, how is this different than a fighter being described as the weapon master? The fighter has no inherent flavor or theme. He just gets gobs of feats, with only a couple of those being unique to him alone.

Not that i'm suggesting that the guilder should get to choose all his class skills- i'm convinced that is not the way to go at this juncture.

-Fizz

[Exile]

For my part, I also don't think that I can vote in the poll....

I'm almost in agreement with Fizz, but I'm not quite certain as yet that what he proposes constitutes a full class under 3e. I could see it developing into one, with the creation of a coherent theme of specialist abilities... but to create that there'd need to be a firm idea of what that theme should be.

*scratches head and proceeds to ramble*

Just as "rogue" is the development of what was once merely "thief", and permits the creation of career gamblers and con-artists as well as dungeon-crawling assassin-cum-burglars, I can see the feasability of making "guilder" something more than a fat merchant who sits at home counting his gold.

What would make the class distinct from rogue would surely have to be the "guild" in the name - a member of the class would have as his class ability a specialisation in dealing with organisations, extracting money and securing deals from them, figuring out how they work, and establishing connections.

So far as I know, there is no provision for that sort of skill-set beyond the universally-available Leadership feat and the Diplomacy skill. If you wish to expand the class's remit further to permit the same sort of breadth of variation as Rogue does, then long-distance explorers, expert navigators and career diplomats might also be covered by the class, with options for special abilities related to their fields.

To be a class viable for inclusion in the range of options for players, it does not have to be universally useful or always able to use their talents - Scouts aren't, as an obvious example. I think that a "social and economic group expert" class could have a valid place in games - such as many BR campaigns - that deal with such things.

[irdeggman]

The 2nd ed Guilder was:

“. . .the guilder is an adventuring trader – an individual who braves expedition into the unknown territory primarily for the love of money. The guilder makes deals, trades, and explores in the name of capitalism – a philosophy the Brecht nations have embraced wholeheartedly.”

“Guilders specialize in trade, profit, marketability, arbitrage, and monetary concerns.”

That first sentence in the class description describes the “role” of the class.

Later on it points out:

“Guilders manage or work in guilds and perform trade, but they can also adventure like fighters, clerics, thieves, and wizards. Their primary interest, however, lies in truning a profit consistently.”

While it goes on to state that:

“Many Brecht become guilders in careers as sailors, merchants, farmers, and more. . . .sea captains, and trade emissaries.”

None of that removes their primary focus – “making a profit consistently”.

The entire class was built around that precept.

So far I haven't gotten that "theme" or "focus" from any of the proposals made. I have gotten a class that is based on skills and is roughly as powerful in combat as a ranger (avg BAB vice Good BAB but otherwise pretty close).

What is the "theme" trying to be implemented, what is the "role" trying to be filled. what is the "niche" as you will? What, so far can't be done via multiclassing (take levels in expert and ranger, expert and rogue, noble and expert or noble and rogue and you are pretty well there)?

One of the early comments I recall was that someone wanted a "less sneaky" rogue, one that didn't "sneak attack". That is a different issue, IMO and I'm still very surprised that WotC has yet to put out a rogue variant without sneak attack - I have heard a lot of people in the past talk about that.

If that is what is truely being considered then let's work on a "class variant", like the spell-less ranger and paladin (from Complete Warrior) or the various familiar-less wizard and sorcerer variants in Unearthed Arcana (and other books).


A new class and variant of an existing class are two very different things and require different mindsets when looking at their design.

I really don't want to come off as arrogant or condescending, but I really do see the arguments coming from two vastly different perspectives when broken down.

[kgauck]

I'll offer up my guilder (http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/guilder.htm) again as a possible draft.

I took average BAB, good will save, d6 HD, and 6 skill points (same as expert).

Here are the special abilities I included

Haggler: At 1st and 7th level, the guilder gains a +5 competance bonus on any Diplomacy check made to buy or sell. At one time he selects legal market transactions and the other time illegal, black market transactions. The character may take them in either order.

Better Lucky Than Good: Starting at 2nd level, the guilder can, once per game session, reroll any failed ability check, skill check, attack, or saving throw. The second result must be used, regardless of whether it is better or worse than the first.

Skill Focus: At 4th level, and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th) the guilder gains the bonus feat Skill Focus. This feat may be applied to any class skill. The guilder may not select the same skill twice.

Uncanny Dodge: As the rogue special ability.

Been There Done That: At 6th, 12th, and 18th levels, the guilder may designate any one cross-class skill as a class skill.

There are other skill based feats and class features that might just as easily be substituted, like the feats that offer a +2 to two skills, Deceptive, Persuasive, &c.

This design is very commerce focused, but may lack certain leadership features that may be in demand, like various loyalty abilities, morale abilities, contact abilities, favor abilities, and the like which might be preferable to some of what I originally identified.

The combat potential of the guilder I present here is decent, but a bit weaker than the rogue, since he lacks sneak attack. The ranger is a front line fighter (albeit second to the fighter in flexibility) and not a good comparison to the guilder. The various Brecht fighting styles go nicely with the Uncanny Dodge skill.

This a draft and could use improvement, but I think its a reasonable point of departure, being derived from the Scoundrel from Star Wars, and influenced by Rogue and a PC version of Expert I've used.

[geeman]

At 04:52 PM 1/18/2007, Fizz wrote:

>Though, how is this different than a fighter being described as the
>weapon master? The fighter has no inherent flavor or theme. He
>just gets gobs of feats, with only a couple of those being unique to him alone.
>
>Not that i`m suggesting that the guilder should get to choose all
>his class skills- i`m convinced that is not the way to go at this juncture.

I`d suggest that the difference is that second aspect of the system,
choosing a large number of class skills, that makes such a class more
of a game mechanical one than a themed one. Fighters might be
thought of as "feat masters" but, again, that`s more a short-hand
than actual game mechanic assessment. The feats that fighters are
masters of are all themed, so its more comparable to a rogue being a
"skill master" but only when ignoring that class skills provide a
theme for the class. Both use a game mechanic to express theme by
controlling the range of choices for the mechanic. A guilder class
that had a lot of skill points/level and a wide open system of class
skills (as in pick any 10) would be much more of a game mechanical
class than one with a theme.

Gary

[Fizz]

At 04:52 PM 1/18/2007, Fizz wrote:The feats that fighters are masters of are all themed, so its more comparable to a rogue being a
"skill master" but only when ignoring that class skills provide a
theme for the class. Both use a game mechanic to express theme by
controlling the range of choices for the mechanic. A guilder class
that had a lot of skill points/level and a wide open system of class
skills (as in pick any 10) would be much more of a game mechanical
class than one with a theme.

Ah, so it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for Guilders to choose their own class skills, so long as they all come from a guilder-themed list. I see what you mean.

Mind you, most (half?) feats are combat oriented anyways, so the fighters list is very extensive. He can have themes within themes with his vast selection. (Archer vs knight vs skirmisher vs duelist vs pikeman... etc.)

But there aren't nearly as many skills as there are feats, so choosing them for the is guilder almost meaningless since he should have a large selection of skills anyways. That is, there is not much point in choosing 10 skills out of a list of 12 guilder-themed skills- they'll all end up pretty similar anyways.

-Fizz

[RaspK_FOG]

Or he could be picking 5 or 6 out of 12, as I mentioned... :mad:

[geeman]

At 01:59 PM 1/19/2007, Fizz wrote:

>Ah, so it wouldn`t necessarily be a bad thing for Guilders to choose
>their own class skills, so long as they all come from a
>guilder-themed list. I see what you mean.

It would be interesting to design character classes in a way that
might be comparable to D20 Modern in which the core classes are based
on ability scores. Instead of that one could have class
features. The Skilled Hero, the Feat Hero, etc. It wouldn`t be a
Guilder, of course, but it`s an interesting idea....

Gary

[irdeggman]

All right as I stated earlier the two of you are arguing over semantics here.

Not tthat it is unimportant, but not really germaine to the subject being discussed. Rmeber that subject - what is the guilder?

Regardless of the details of the socio-economic system being used I beleive pretty much both sides agree with the basis for Brecht culture revolves around turning a profit and making money. Whichever terminology people are comfortable with using to describe that basic philosophy.


Please also remember that there is a huge faction of people on this site and e-mail that are not from the US or North America. That makes getting real specific in terminology extremely difficult whereas dealing with philosophy is much easier. That is to say agree on concept rather than detail definitions.

[kgauck]

The discussion of Capitalism and the Brechts is now here.

[Fizz]

So, most people are going with the `Domain Guild Expert' option. I'm surprised by this.

According to Havens, "Only adventurous people with a certain mettle can become guilders." and "guilders should be considered adventurers just like thieves and wizards."

The `Domain Guild Expert' option sounds overly focused to me- as though the class would only be useful in a game played at the domain level, not on the classic adventuring level.

After all, the wizard isn't just the `Domain Source Expert'. The cleric isn't just the `Temple Source Expert'.

In 2nd Ed, the guilder's primary advantage was non-weapon proficiencies. In 3E, that translates to skills.

So, the 3E version i've attempted to create works along those lines- adventurous skillful characters.


-Fizz

[Fizz]

I just had another idea for a character who could be a guilder. Vizzini, from The Princess Bride (love that movie!).

He's not a physical character of any sort, but he's a genius plotter with a lot of knowledge, out to make a profit (by starting a war in this case). I think he fits the bill nicely.


-Fizz

[irdeggman]

So, most people are going with the `Domain Guild Expert' option. I'm surprised by this.

According to Havens, "Only adventurous people with a certain mettle can become guilders." and "guilders should be considered adventurers just like thieves and wizards."

The `Domain Guild Expert' option sounds overly focused to me- as though the class would only be useful in a game played at the domain level, not on the classic adventuring level.

IMO people are making that coice because it is the only one that alludes to an economic/profit theme. I mentioned that earlier when I said I thought the poll was mixing themes and mechanics.



In 2nd Ed, the guilder's primary advantage was non-weapon proficiencies. In 3E, that translates to skills.

Actually in 2nd ed the guilder's primary advantage was at the domain level of play - with all those bonuses to guild/trade related domain action.


So, the 3E version i've attempted to create works along those lines- adventurous skillful characters.

Which really falls along the line of a rogue without the sneak attack focus.

[AndrewTall]

Irdeggman:
Which really falls along the line of a rogue without the sneak attack focus.

Andrew:
The guilder is certainly as distinct from the thief as a barbarian is from a fighter, so a separate class seems valid, and underscores the different philosophy - sneak attack being a powerful determinant of how the character is played and viewed (backstabbing little ####'s vs money-grubbing ###'s), the change in terminoligy from thief to rogue reduced the problems slightly but 'any rogue is thieving scum' is an attitude I've faced several times.

Personally I had no problems with 10 skill points per level for the guilder but then I never saw the rogue as skill bunny anyway - once you'd bought combat-skills such as hide, move silently, spot, etc you were left with only a handful of points for 'colour' skills.

I'd be against domain level advantages being class abilities for the guilder because if they exist, everyone should have some - particularly the noble.

I would make domain level skills for each class a distinct area of the rules, and give priests bonuses to agitate, resist interference, fighters battle bonuses, etc - if only one class has an edge then they dominate at domain play and unless the game is very mixed it will be extremely hard to balance out the classes.

[kgauck]

I never saw the rogue as skill bunny anyway - once you'd bought combat-skills such as hide, move silently, spot, etc you were left with only a handful of points for 'colour' skills.

Looking at the basic types of characters described in some of the party analysis stuff where the party is assumed to have a sneaker, scout, flanker character and the rogue will work exactly as you described. I don't generally create rogues of that type for the Rjurik, and rogues end up being characters who bluff their way as being a good karl, but are full of skills like

Skills: Appraise 5, Bluff 5, Decipher Script 3, Diplomacy 5, Disable Device 2, Disguise 5 Escape Artist 1, Forgery 3, Gather Information 5, Innuendo 2, Open Lock 3, Profession (Administration) 5, Search 4, Sense Motive 5, Use Magic Device 2
(from http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/porsgrun.htm)

He's a courtly rogue, not an adventuring rogue.

When a fighter multiclasses in rogue (or any of the basic 2 skill classes) he's generally looking for a lot of skill points, not neccesarily sneak attack, or the spot, sneak, hide skill set.

[irdeggman]

Personally I had no problems with 10 skill points per level for the guilder but then I never saw the rogue as skill bunny anyway - once you'd bought combat-skills such as hide, move silently, spot, etc you were left with only a handful of points for 'colour' skills.

It is important to realize what this would do if other WotC feats are allowed like the following:

Able Learner (pg 150 of Races of Destiny).

Human or doppleganger only – must be taken at first level.

All skills cost 1 sp each.

Put this together with 10 sp and all of sudden you have a character that is extremely dominating with skills. While this feat can't be including in the BRCS - its existance needs to be considered since people will use it.


I'd be against domain level advantages being class abilities for the guilder because if they exist, everyone should have some - particularly the noble.

I would make domain level skills for each class a distinct area of the rules, and give priests bonuses to agitate, resist interference, fighters battle bonuses, etc - if only one class has an edge then they dominate at domain play and unless the game is very mixed it will be extremely hard to balance out the classes.


I disagree with this one.

The Noble was designed to have an advantage at realm management.

Having a domain level benefit (or at least the option of it) when it comes to economics was one of the major benefits the 2nd ed class had.

The arguement that not all guilders would be nobles (hence not relying on the noble class to capture what the guilder can do) allows someone to go with a guilder (i.e., non-noble) as a means of increasing domain level economic advantage.

The skills tied to RP generation at the domain level were chosen with the goal of giving an advantage to the class normally associated with running that holding type. The guilder would thus be able to relace the rogue when it comes to guild management - which is logical. The rogue woud then be relegated to a secondary guild managers, like paladins are to clerics for temples.

[Fizz]

Put this together with 10 sp and all of sudden you have a character that is extremely dominating with skills. While this feat can't be including in the BRCS - its existance needs to be considered since people will use it.


WotC has issued plenty of broken feats in their huge list of splat books. This one is broken whether the PC has 10, or 8 or 6 skill points. Why should we have to account for something poorly written by WotC? Whatever happened to DM discretion?


-Fizz

[irdeggman]

WotC has issued plenty of broken feats in their huge list of splat books. This one is broken whether the PC has 10, or 8 or 6 skill points. Why should we have to account for something poorly written by WotC? Whatever happened to DM discretion?


-Fizz

It is not a broken feat.

It becomes broken when misread.

When people misread it as allowing this to treat all skill as class skills.

The feat only allows skills to be bought 1 sp per rank.

The max ranks allowed are still based on the whether or not the skill is a class skill.

[Fizz]

The max ranks allowed are still based on the whether or not the skill is a class skill.

Oh, ok, my misunderstanding.

So, consider two characters with this feat. One character has 10 skill points, the other 8 skill points. The character with 10 could gain himself an extra rank in 2 cross-class skills over what the character with 8 could have.

They're not cross-class skills, so the max ranks are held in check, and won't play a major role anyways. Most skill points are going to go towards class skills, which this feat doesn't impact. Turns him into a bit of a dilletente.

So, i don't think this feat makes a 10 skill point character overly dominating. I mean, the 10 skill points we've talked about is supposed to make the guilder into the best overall skills-character.

But i don't see this feat extending that ability much farther than it does for an 8 skill point character.


-Fizz

[kgauck]

Two additional skill points built into the class means that there are two skills that the Guilder would be able to master in addition to any that his rogue rival could master. If such a character were possible, he should be 20-25% weaker in his special abilities.

Another approach is to use the same 8 skill points as a rogue, but have class features improve the position of the guilder in the skills arena. Again, at the expence of other abilities so that the rogue is not a step-child in Brectur.

[Fizz]

Two additional skill points built into the class means that there are two skills that the Guilder would be able to master in addition to any that his rogue rival could master. If such a character were possible, he should be 20-25% weaker in his special abilities.

Actually, that's what i wanted to do originally. But it was met with widespread criticism for daring to break this apparent sacred limit of 8 skill points.

-Fizz

[Gwrthefyr]

As with the Trader in Darksun, I also have trouble seeing a need for the guilder as a separate class (I remain ambivalent, though).

On the lower class spectrum, a more worldly and less crime oriented rogue fits a lot of the idea; on the upper class spectrum, the noble seems an interesting option (maybe slightly modified; I remain dubious about the high BAB version: if there was a duel in, say, a roman legion, I'd put my money on the primipilum (or most centurions for that matter), not on the legate). The favored region advantage affects skills that are quite interesting in a trading context, and a lot of the activities associated with the guilder (sea trading, privateering, exploration, profitable farming, financial administration, mine administration, banking) seem to fit no only with the Noble's class skills, but also with the kind of trade that could be, on the grander scale, associated with the patriciate.

Maybe a class adapted from the Wanderer (Swashbuckling Adventures) might make an interesting addition, though.

[kgauck]

Maybe a class adapted from the Wanderer (Swashbuckling Adventures) might make an interesting addition, though.

The Wanderer is a rogue varient who swaps out sneak attack and trap abilities for luck based skills (very appropriate since Sera is the patroness of commerce and luck) and two skills based abilities, as well as five bonus feats which are swashbuckling in nature.

Wanderer 1 Tradesman: Craft and Profession skills cost 1/2 skill point (this might be fix for those who favor the 10 skill point guilder)
Wanderer 2 Luck: Once per day any result of 1 on a d20 can be converted into a 20. This is treated as a natural 20 and can cause critical threat.
Wanderer 9 Knowledge: Once per day a Wanderer can make an untrained check using a knowledge skill he does not possess.
Wanderer 18 Imp Luck: Once per week, before rolling dice, the wanderer can suceed in a single saving throw.

Bonus Feat: at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th levels, an additional feat comes from this list: Alertness, Dodge, Mobility, Endurance, Great Fortitude, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Run, Skill Focus, and Toughness.

Since this class is based on the 3.0 rogue, he retains Evasion and the four progressing Uncanny Dodge abilities.

Skills
The wanderer gets 8 skill points
The wanderer gets all Craft, Profession, and Knowledge skills as well as 12+Int modifier additional skills as craft skills. All other skills, including exclusive skills are cross-class skills.
If you multi-class into Wanderer, get 8+Int mod skills instead of 12+Int mod.

Rogue type BAB and saves

[kgauck]

Starting on page 180 of the DMG II and giving us about 8 pages of material is a section on running a business. Its mostly oriented to a PC run shop, or a business in a single or just a few locations. Nevertheless, abilties that would be useful there, would often be useful at a larger scale enterprise.

Another worthwhile place to look are rules for running other large organziations.

[vota dc]

Guilder is nearly a non landed lord.He can be even a regent.

[ploesch]

IMO, a Guilder can be any of these. What I prefer about PnP RPGs is the fact that Characters are wht the players make of them, and not relegated to what a computer tells them they are.

So, depending on how the player plays spends their points, depending on what the player chooses for feats, a Guilder can fill any of these roles qite well.

[kgauck]

Here is an interesting mechanic that might be promising for a Guilder.

Favored Contact (Ex)
At 1st level, a guilder may select a type of occupation from among those given on Table: Guilder Favored Contacts. The guilder gains a +2 bonus on Bluff, Dipomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive checks when using these skills against characters of this type.

At 5th level and every five levels thereafter (10th, 15th, and 20th level), the guilder may select an additional favored contact from those given on the table. In addition, at each such interval, the bonus against any one favored enemy (including the one just selected, if so desired) increases by 2.

Contact types are not exclusive. A captain in the navy could be both a sailor and a government type. In these cases, the guilder only gets the better bonus, not both.

Table: Guilder Favored Contact
Merchants: buyers and sellers
Craftsmen: makers of goods
Suppliers: miners or foresters
Sailors: captains or shipmasters
Goverment: officials and police
Criminals: underworld
Scholars: scholars, wizards, learned
Religion: priests, scribes, church agents
Arts and Entertainment: taverns, bards, artists, art patrons