Noble Class

[geeman]

At 03:35 PM 9/16/2004 +0200, Osprey wrote:



>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.



BTW: I`m still putting together the draft of the "Armiger" class which is

meant to reflect a more warrior noble PC class. It`s turned out to be

quite a busy month, however, leaving me with very little time for writing,

so I`ll get to it as soon as is practicable.



Gary

[Ksaturn]

Personally if i wanted a warrior-kng style character i would go with a Fighter. or paladin. Aristocrats and nobles should be good at ruleing and the fighting is secondary. nobles BAB shouln't exceed the aristocrats but i would give them heavy armor proficiency. basically nobles should get Tons of neat abilities and stuff that pertain to domain level and otherwise dealing with large numbers of people. Stylizing other classes(Fighter/aristocrat or Rogue/aristocrat or such) is not what we're trying to accoplish. If king so and so wants to be a better fighter then tell him to take a level in fighter. There's no need to mess up the system. This is basically trying to make a aristocrat style class that is worthy of players and takes into account the domain level.... end of rant.

[Raesene Andu]

I'd have to concur, which is why I voted for the ruler-type noble. A warrior-king is a fighter or paladin who has been roped into being a ruler...

[RaspK_FOG]

Still, the general concesus so far leans on this: work on two class concepts, not just one...

Not what we might like to see, but it would be best to wait a little longer.

[geeman]

At 12:26 PM 9/17/2004 +0200, Raesene Andu wrote:



>I`d have to concur, which is why I voted for the ruler-type noble. A

>warrior-king is a fighter or paladin who has been roped into being a ruler...



IMO neither of those classes express the dynamic of the warrior-ruler very

well. The fighter is very much geared towards fighting alone, so if one

wants to express a ruler to whom ruling is incidental then that`d be the

way to go. When trying to express a character who comes from a social

elite, however, it falls short. The paladin is a very specific kind of

character, so using that class to express the rulership characteristics of

a warrior/leader doesn`t work either--unless one imagines all Vos, Brecht,

and Rjurik warrior-kings as paladins of some sort.



A multi-classed fighter/noble doesn`t do the job very well either. Because

there are no rulership aspects of the fighter class, and the rulership

characteristics of the noble PC class are much more directed towards the PC

version of the aristocrat (as, I think, it should be) so that creates a

kind of courtly fighter, which is not what is being suggested. King

Arthur, for example, if expressed as a fighter/noble is more than a little

off, as would Charlemagne or many other particularly militant rulers. It

really isn`t just a noble who fights well. Think of it as a sort of

hereditary officer class ("class" in the sense of a upper class warrior

elite) if you will. That`s the kind of thing that I`m looking for.



Gary

[The Jew]

Their are two simple ways to solve this. Either add some of the new general type feats to the fighter feat list, so that any fighter can also progress as a general, or if you would prefer to only see nobles progress as generals give them an ability at first level, to switch any feats they get as fighters to general type feats. This is the main problem with fighters IMO.

[Osprey]

Their are two simple ways to solve this. Either add some of the new general type feats to the fighter feat list, so that any fighter can also progress as a general, or if you would prefer to only see nobles progress as generals give them an ability at first level, to switch any feats they get as fighters to general type feats. This is the main problem with fighters IMO.

Feats are only a part of the equation. Skills and class abilities are the other big part. Certain noble abilities, like War Cry, Inspire Loyalty, and Presence, were quite well-suited to a noble warrior.

As Gary alluded to, Fighters lack the class skills (and skill points) indicative of being raised among the social elite. I would prefer they have 4 skill points and a more social set of class skills.

My ideal set of class skills for a Noble Warrior might look like this:
Administrate, Bluff, Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Heal, Intimidate, Jump, Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering), Knowledge (Law), Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty), Lead, Listen, Perform (Oratory), Ride, Sense Motive, Spot, Swim, and Warcraft.

A fighter obviously falls far short of this in applicable skills, because they have almost no social skills except Lead and Intimidate, which just doesn't cut it in my book.

Using this as a base, along with a d8 hit die, a high BAB, a high Will and Fort save, and less bonus feats than a fighter (say one every 4th level) plus a few class abilities would IMO be a fairly balanced equation, lying somewhere between the aristocratic Noble and the pure Fighter.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Sep 17 2004, 08:52 AM
Still, the general concesus so far leans on this: work on two class concepts, not just one...

Not what we might like to see, but it would be best to wait a little longer.

An 8 to 6 lead is not really enough to drop one of the two options. IMo it show what I had stated earlier that this poll will pare down the choices and if left with a choice between 2 options the votes will come out different. IMO many people have voted for one option but would go with a different one if they had to.

Again we will see what happens.

[The Jew]

The fighter class alone would not be good enough, I agree. If the fighter had access to those feats, a multi-class between Noble/fighter would be adequate though. The fighter would then also be appropriate for a self made general, a mercenary captain type of character.

[Stormcaller]

i voted other, mainly cause i was thinking a bit like A (a single ruler class) but it would evolve for each player into a warrior or aristocrat or even rogue if they wanted it to. Thus it was both warrior and ari themed, but not both at the same time.