3.5 Noble

[Osprey]

The variety comes when a business (not warfare) based culture like the Brecht creates a warrior path noble or a primarily warrior based culture (like Anuire) produces a scholar path noble. There is nothing that says this couldn't or wouldn't happen only the cultures have a tendency to follow those with the basic cultural values it has.

So why wouldn't multiclassing deal with this variety?

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 6 2004, 02:34 PM

The variety comes when a business (not warfare) based culture like the Brecht creates a warrior path noble or a primarily warrior based culture (like Anuire) produces a scholar path noble. There is nothing that says this couldn't or wouldn't happen only the cultures have a tendency to follow those with the basic cultural values it has.

So why wouldn't multiclassing deal with this variety?

Well, multiclassing covers many aspects of just about anything. But that wasn't the point of the noble. Have 3 paths gives variety (just like the ranger with its 2 paths) and yet maintains a core concept. The core being a class designed to rule. But the paths give different specializations - a generic noble could (and would) end up all over theplace. Spreading studies across mutliple disciplines and never becoming really good at anything. So essentially the generic noble is in actuallity a multiclass type of character.

Back to that good BAB and the training concept. Check out the Aristocrat NPC class from the DMG. It has an average BAB with proficiency in all simple and martial weapons. The description of the class is extremely close to that of the noble (I wonder why?). That is an example of a class born of privilege and how that is reflected with martial training and proficiencies.

[Athos69]

Duane, keep in mind that the Aristocrat *should* be to the Noble as the Warrior is to the Fighter, Ranger or Paladin. The Noble has to be more than an Aristocrat.

Further, I am in agreement wit you that the three path version of the Noble was better than the 'cookie-cutter' one class fits all. It is a jack of all trades, master of none at this point. It's just my personal preference Osprey, and not meant as a slam.

[Osprey]

Well, multiclassing covers many aspects of just about anything. But that wasn't the point of the noble. Have 3 paths gives variety (just like the ranger with its 2 paths) and yet maintains a core concept. The core being a class designed to rule. But the paths give different specializations - a generic noble could (and would) end up all over theplace. Spreading studies across mutliple disciplines and never becoming really good at anything. So essentially the generic noble is in actuallity a multiclass type of character.

I totally disagree with the statement that says this version of the noble would end up all over the place. More like there are many possibilities here. By trimming down the skill list and the overall number of bonus feats, I believe I have focused the class somewhat.

Second, the skill list and class features show a few specific foci: social skills, leadership, and elite warrior training. These are the core attributes of all nobles.

Third, any Noble character now has more options to be focused or not. Being "all over the place" remains very much in the hands of the player or DM (for PC's and NPC's respectively). I could very easily build a very focused PC from this class - as focused as the 3 path version, I'd say. I can't agree that because a class doesn't force a player to be specialized, they will automatically become generalists. This assumes an utter lack of decisiveness and autonomy on the part of players, as if they need us to tell them "nobles look one of 3 ways." I think nobles could appear in more variety than this - it's why I prefer one more flexible class (and always have).

As for this being cookie cutter? Please...there is no other class even remotely similar except the NPC Aristocrat, which is by design a far inferior version. The Aristocrat is the noble diletante, the "average" rich and privelaged. The Noble is the idealized, heroic form - the wealthy and privelaged being all they can be. The elite taking advantage of the opportunities afforded them.. hence the better combat skills, class abilities, and strong skill set. in addition, there are still a number of specialized class abilities, both specific (Regional Focus, Resources, Leadership, Battle Cry, Presence) and variable (the bonus feats).

If anything, I'd say the class is rather narrowly focused in terms of class abilities, while the large skill set allows the majority of tailoring to suit individulists.

What I believe is that further tailoring is beyond the ken of a single class. Arcane pursuits are the purview primarily of spellcasters, though Khinasi nobles could still learn both K/Arcana and Spellcraft as class skills (and thus be a sort of sage of the arcane). The class is already adaptable enough to make an excellent guilder as well as landed/law regent (or a lieutenant within such a network).

My point is that the class has enough breadth to allow a great deal of specialization, but it remains a player choice rather than a rule-enforced necessity. If the player wants their noble to be a bit more spread out and generalized, why is this a crime? There is a natural balance of power inherent in such a choice, and as I said before - even the best-made class will fall flat without good character development and roleplaying to flesh it out and bring it to life. Don't expect the class to do this work for the player - it can't. Rather, create a class that allows a player to create a unique individual, unlike every other member of the class. This is facilitated, not hampered, by a flexible character class.

In short, a more general class puts the main responsibility of character development on the player rather than the system, while still providing some basic guidelines for what's appropriate without dictating too many specifics.

Osprey

[Osprey]

Further, I am in agreement with you that the three path version of the Noble was better than the 'cookie-cutter' one class fits all. It is a jack of all trades, master of none at this point.

First off, you are free to disagree as much as you like. However, would you mind giving some reasoning behind this statement? As for my counter to the general sentiment, I'll refer you to my post above.

[irdeggman]

Here are some other sources of noble class. the BR noble can pretty much be seen as an aggregate of these sources, at least it was how the revised (1st attempt) was developed.

BAB bonuses of noble class from other sources:

Wheel of Time Noble – has an average BAB.

Star Wars d20 (Revised) Noble – has an average BAB.

Power Class Noble, Mongoose Publishing – has an average BAB.

Sovereign Stone also has a noble class which I believe (but can’t confirm) also has an average BAB.

The Mongoose and SS versions both grant leadership at 6th level, although Mongoose changes the leadership table (calls it enhanced leadership)

[Osprey]

1st: With the possible exception of Star Wars (revised), I'm guessing these are all systems built to integrate with 3.0 D&D. At that time, I think this would have been more reasonable. However, with the advent of the 3.5 revisions, particularly the Ranger (the template I've said before was the working parallel of the 3.5 BR noble), the versions of the Noble with High BAB don't seem so unreasonable anymore.

2nd: Most of these versions, at least the ones I'm familiar with setting-wise, definitely view nobles as dilettante jack-of-all trade types, those who pursue fighting more as a sport than a serious profession. Thematically, this entirely justifies a medium BAB. My argument has been that the medieval-style nobles of the BR setting take fighting very seriously as one of their foremost duties: defending the realm, leading the charge, heroic combat against villains, etc. I can't comment on Mongoose and SS versions, I have no experience with those and what settings they're geared toward, but I'm guessing they match the afore-mentioned generic concept of the dilettante. This is a concept I find inadequate for Birthright's nobles, many of whom are engaged in a constant struggle to hold their lands and titles against rivals on the battlefield as often as in the courts.

[RaspK_FOG]

Couldn't put it better, Osprey; totally behind you on that point.

[Athos69]

Osprey;

What I was trying to get across is that having the three paths with different foci and save progressions really added flavour to the class. For me is was never a case of whether the BAB was good or average. It was the fact that you could wind up with a huge number of distinctly different Noble characters, while still maintaining the stereotype Noble for the Khinasi, the Brcht and the Anuireans. It mirrored strongly the pattern for European Nobility in the middle ages: The son most likely to succeed (eldest, usually), would up becoming a warrior and general, the next most eligible went into the path of diplomacy and court intrigue -- not so much a warrior, but definately holding most of the skills needed for rulership, and those sons who had no hope of ascending to the throne wound up going into the Church.

My comment of 'cookie-cutter" comes from Starfleet Battles, and the argument that as Tech progresses, all of the various races' ships start to look identical -- same number of systems, same shield strengths, same number of each class of weaponry, etc. I fear that by removing the three-path system, we are starting to create a Noble-shaped cookie cutter.

[Osprey]

What I was trying to get across is that having the three paths with different foci and save progressions really added flavour to the class. For me is was never a case of whether the BAB was good or average. It was the fact that you could wind up with a huge number of distinctly different Noble characters, while still maintaining the stereotype Noble for the Khinasi, the Brcht and the Anuireans. It mirrored strongly the pattern for European Nobility in the middle ages: The son most likely to succeed (eldest, usually), would up becoming a warrior and general, the next most eligible went into the path of diplomacy and court intrigue -- not so much a warrior, but definately holding most of the skills needed for rulership, and those sons who had no hope of ascending to the throne wound up going into the Church.

That's cool - I can respect that, it has some real merit. Although I'd point out that historically many younger sons also became knight errants, something I'd expect this to happen even more frequently in a heroic fantasy setting. Also, keep in mind that in BR eldest sons don't always inherit, so it's quite resonable to get situations like Elinie, where seven sons and daughters are all competing to become the next Patriarch (or Matriarch) after their father.

My comment of 'cookie-cutter" comes from Starfleet Battles, and the argument that as Tech progresses, all of the various races' ships start to look identical -- same number of systems, same shield strengths, same number of each class of weaponry, etc. I fear that by removing the three-path system, we are starting to create a Noble-shaped cookie cutter.

I see your point here, though I'd point out that in the D&D class system, this is rather built-in to the system already. Can you point out a class that isn't pretty cookie-cutter generic already? D&D's class system appeals to this crowd, whether we personally like it or not. Classless RPG's tend to be far more flexible and open-ended in this respect.

My own feeling is that the 3-path system, while it does provide flavour, is actually more limiting and constrictive; my own preference is for a class that allows for more flexibility and player-driven choice instead of a rules-enforced choice.

The reason I returned to a single path class derived from efforts to flesh out a 3-path system that had better internal logic. But the only way I could seem to justify it was by giving so many variable attributes that it did in fact become 3 seperate classes for all intents and purposes. Let me flesh out some of those ideas so you have an idea where I was going. If this were 3 classes (not a proposal, just putting it out for the sake of illustration), here's what I might do for them to best suit the paths:

Warrior: High BAB, High Fort save, 4 Skill Points per level
Guilder: Medium BAB, High Will save (Reflex really has no direct justification),
6 skill points per level, bonus Resources (either faster progression or more gp per monetary resource attempt)
Scholar: Low BAB, High Will save, 8 skill points per level OR 6 skill points and add Skill Focus as extra bonus feats at levels 7/12/17 (the empty slots in the current version)

These in addition to the first version's revisions, including Look of the Noble (I still want a better name there) and the path-based bonus feats.

As things stand, I think as soon as we start adjusting BAB's and Saves for the different paths, we're really talking about seperate classes. Path-based choices for bonus feats has some precedence, variable saves and BAB does not.

On the other hand, I really can't stomach the idea of a Warrior-path Noble with a medium BAB, but I'm also not comfortable with a Scholar-path Noble with a High BAB. Which is why I think the 3 disparate paths are just a little too disparate to contain within a single class. And since folks have said they don't want to see 3 seperate classes, this was why I thought it better to unify the class as a base class with more singular focus, and allow roleplaying, multiclassing, and choice of bonus feats to do the work of creating a focused scholar/mage noble - truth is, the single class noble will work just fine as a guilder or warrior regent/lieutenant.

If a nobleman wanted to go into the clergy, why wouldn't they become a cleric or druid?
If he wanted to become a mage, why wouldn't he become a wizard, sorcerer, or magician?
If he wanted to be an adventuring guilder, why wouldn't he be a rogue?

And if he begins life as landed nobility, why wouldn't he just multiclass into one of these as a later focus for his life's path?

One class, one class concept - two classes, two class (path) concept; this is the basic premise of the 3.x D&D class system. Here is where I think we need to adhere to the core guidelines for a base class, in that each class represents one main unified concept/path, while multiclassing and prestige classes are used for dual-path concepts.

In 3.5 in particular, many of the prestige classes have been used to tie together dual-class concepts into a single (more efficient) class: examples include the Arcane Trickster, Eldrith Knight, and Mystic Theurge from the DMG.

So one possibility is that we create a couple of prestige classes such as the Noble Sage and the Guilder (one that's already been done in the archives but that I believe could stand some re-doing along a Noble/Rogue guideline) to exemplify the more specialized focus of advanced noble/scholar or noble/guilder concepts.

Food for thought.

Osprey