3.5 Noble

[irdeggman]

I don't think superior personal combat skills necesarily exclude social skills. Certainly they don't preclude leadership skills - or do you believe that all military officers (those with dedicated leadership training) are inferior combatants? I don't think history bears out this conclusion at all.

No, but I do think that all officers (with few exceptions) are not as good of combatents as are their sargents or those in the trenches. History will bear this statement out I do believe.

As far as real world history goes we could always look towards generals like George Washington, Grant, Eisenhower, Jackson, etc. Almost to a man they were ineffective leaders of a nation (something that the noble is trying to do - leader of a nation - regent, same thing or at least real close).

Washington was 'chosen' to be president based soley on his miltary expertise. He was a powerful combatent, stories of his strength still abound, but really did nothing but be a figurehead for setting up the nation. The real power was in the congress with those who were not solders.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Athos69@Aug 17 2004, 02:19 PM
My oipinions too, have changed over these discussions.

*IF* we do away with the multiple path Noble, then we should make him primarily a politician with some courtly combat skills. Keep the BAB at Average, emphasize skills, grant them a good Will save, and tailor any bonus feats to those that have social and leadership functions.

If a player wants to create a warrior-king, then multiclassing into Fighter will give him a superior BAB, a good Fortitude save, bonus combat feats and an improved Hit Die.

If a player wants a Guilder, well some levels of Rogue in there will give the appropriate skill selection (filling in the few gaps that remain), an increased Reflex save and more skill points to spend.

Either combination will be simultaneously stronger and weaker than a 'pure' Noble, due to the aforementioned bonuses, and the fact that the social development of the character is stunted.

I have no real problem with a single path noble much as you suggest. I didn't like the any feat selection from the original revision - I saw that as far too broad and not specific enough.

I put together the 3 path noble mostly to attempt to incorporate the warrior noble that some people expressed a strong desire to have. I really didn't like the 3 different saves for the paths though - I think that makes them too much like separate classes.

[Michael Romes]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Aug 17 2004, 11:30 AM
The class skill Perform should be only perform-oratory only. A warrior playing a lute just doesn't fit this concept very well to me.

Not lute but flute - Friedrich II (der Große):

http://www.fecho.de/Zinnfiguren/s020.htm
bye
Michael

[Osprey]

So Geeman, how's that noble warrior class writeup coming? Anytime soon?

[geeman]

At 03:59 PM 8/28/2004 +0200, Osprey wrote:



> So Geeman, how`s that noble warrior class writeup coming? Anytime soon?



I`ve got the table (BAB, HD, saves) written up and I`m outlining the

special abilities, but I need to write them up. In the meantime, however,

I have to come up with some stuff to actually DM for tomorrow, so the class

is on a back burner until the weekend is over....



Gary