Noble Class

[Fourth Horseman]

Duane,

I didn't vote for other, I voted for 2 seperate classes. I thought it was rather obvious from my post, guess not.

[Vallariel]

I have read every noble class that I have been able to get my hands on, and the one that you guys have come up with here, seems to be about the best of the lot, I think.

Apart from the amount of options listed in Green Ronin's Noble's Handbook, which certainly does have a few good ideas in it, The copy of the noble class I have recently downloaded from here, provides a lot of flexibility to deal with the various aspects of BR characters (noble warrior and noble guilder, etc).
Certainly more than TSR's DLCS Noble, which is what I thought might end up in the BRCS.

[RaspK_FOG]

My vote was ruler-only.

[irdeggman]

Sorry folks, I guess I misinterpreted the posts.

What it boils down to I guess is that we have several people voting for "Other" without bothering to make a different suggestion. {Same as always }

[fiftyone]

I voted other and I see what your saying about my post Duane, my mistake ^_^

Theres been so many slightly different postings of the version I 'tweaked' that I thought it might've been somewhat official.

That aside,

I probably should have voted ruler only.. but thats not even it, really.

In my opinion there is no point whatsoever to having 2 noble based classes, unless one is strictly listed as a variant and the 'pathed' noble? More variants.

I guess I would prefer the core noble to be ruler only. If the 'noble' desires to be more warrior like he can take feats to make himself more a martial character or simply multi-class into a martial class.

Clerics, wizards, rogues and bards etc., don't have variant classes just because they 'want' to be more warrior like, they multi-class to a martial class.

^^^
That is all out of the window if the core class is deemed to be a warrior themed noble and then the whole argument is vice versa with warrior-themed nobles who want to be more charismatic and regal.. multi-class to bard/rogue or something!?! ^_^

[Athos69]

Fiftyone, you make a very convincing point, surprisingly enough, for having a pathed Noble. That way people have the choice between a leader/social Noble, and a warrior Noble. One writeup. One set of rules. Less confusion.

Let's face it, the multi-path Noble is a much more elegant solution than writing up more than one class, and it allows for alot of variety.

[Raesene Andu]

Looking at the result of the poll so far, I think the only thing we can agree on it that we are divided on the issue of the noble. I voted for a), but I'd also accept a pathed noble if that is the final choice. I don't really see the need for mutiple versions of the noble though, unless they were very different classes and were known by different names.

Anyone considered using prestige classes to solve the noble issue, with one for each path? Or is that suggestion only going to cause more problems?

[Osprey]

Let's face it, the multi-path Noble is a much more elegant solution than writing up more than one class, and it allows for alot of variety.

It's only elegant if it succeeds in its task, i.e. doing a good job of describing those 3 different paths adequately. The problem we ran into before, if you remember, is that the 3 paths were thematically quite distinct: warrior, guilder, and scholar. Yet the only mechanical difference between these disparate concepts was a rare bonus feat (1 per 5 levels is pretty rare IMO), shades of difference in the Look of the Noble ability at 4th level, and which Save was high.

To me this wasn't an elegant solution. It was a blurring together of what should be distinct concepts, makin those 3 concepts slight variations of one another. No thanks.

I don't want to see a warrior-pathed noble with an average BAB. It's demeaning to the entire concept of "warrior." If there is to be only one noble class, I'd prefer one that has a distinct identity seperate from the other core classes.

So far the most "noble" class concept I have heard is that nobles come from the upper echelons of society, typically from landed families. I however expect there to be many non-regent landed families - manorial knights, landlords, provincial governors (counts, viscounts, baronets, etc.) - these are all potentially hereditary positions that have individuals doing the actual governing and managing of the land while the blooded lords manage things on a larger scale and occasionall6y drop in to look at things in detail (like when ruling a province).

[Osprey]

I should have mentioned, I voted for the 2 class option because I'd rather see 2 core classes that know what they're about rather than one undistinct class that tries to be everything at once. Core classes are the single main "identity templates" for characters within the D20 mechanics. That's why it's important they be distinct - not necessarily hyper-restrictive, just having mechanics that truly reflect the class concept. The character should be capable of doing what the theme says it can.

For instance, if my warrior-path noble is focused on being a warrior, then he'd better be good at fighting. With an average BAB, his actual experience over time (assuming dice rolls average out) will be that he's not all that impressive of a warrior at all - just so-so. Every other warrior-type will tend to kick his butt more often than not, and just about everyone else besides wizards are as competent as he. Not very impressive at all.

If folks insist on one class of noble with an average BAB - don't create a pretense of him being a warrior, OK? A fighting feat or two does not a warrior make. A high BAB, otoh, is pretty core to establishing that basic fighting competence that distinguishes warriors from other classes. Average is just that...average.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Raesene Andu@Sep 16 2004, 07:19 AM
Looking at the result of the poll so far, I think the only thing we can agree on it that we are divided on the issue of the noble. I voted for a), but I'd also accept a pathed noble if that is the final choice. I don't really see the need for mutiple versions of the noble though, unless they were very different classes and were known by different names.

Anyone considered using prestige classes to solve the noble issue, with one for each path? Or is that suggestion only going to cause more problems?

While I voted for the pathed version but could just as easily go with a ruler-only type. Basically not a warrior-themed one. And I really don't like having two classes for this purpose. IMO if a player wanted to have a warior themed noble he would just take levels in fighter class. Sort of like how paladins of cuircean multiclass as fighters to make them more fighter-like.

What I see happening with this poll, unless something develops before it is closed (at least 2 weeks is the standard), is to narrow the choices down and then have another vote to choose. IMO if the choices are narrowed people will make a more distinct choice.

Personally I don't see a good reason for prestige classes here, but that is something that people could decide if they want. Remember that prestige classes are purely optional and they wouldn't be a core class that way.