View Poll Results: Which of the following do you prefer for the noble?

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • (a) A ruler based noble class.

    16 53.33%
  • (b) A pathed version of the above.

    13 43.33%
  • (c) Abstain

    1 3.33%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Based on what I'm seeing on the "real" poll for the noble class, I think some additional fine tuning might be in order.

    What I see is a run off poll with the 2 classes and a single class ruler type.

    What this poll is to decide will be what style of ruler type noble to use, either a pathed version or a non-pathed version (more generic if you wish).

    If you had to choose between the two style which one would you prefer most.

    I didn't include an other vote since this is an attempt to fine tune between 2 distinct choices.

    If you vote for one choice but don't feel that strongly about it, that is you could go with the other one instead make a comment with that statement. It will help if the vote is close here.

    I hope this makes sense because we need some type of focus on this subject.

    IMO we can't have 3 variant styles of nobles (on with 2 different classes, one pathed and one non-pathed) in the BRCS. I'm not that keen on any variants for this class since they are all real similar.
    Duane Eggert

  2. #2
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I voted pathed but can go with the non-pathed version.
    Duane Eggert

  3. #3
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    I voted single class, focused ruler, in part because most of the community's description of how they see a noble seems like it could be contained within a single class description. So long as there's enough flexibility for some variability in bonus feats and class abilities, players can then customize along whatever "path" they envision. Give the choice to the players, and keep the class fairly flexible.

    I would also add that with a single class focus, it might be reasonable to have a Noble Warrior variant class; this based in part on my personal attachment to the idea, and in part that the votes from the previous poll indicate a strong minority support for such a class. So making it a single distinct variant (Geeman...come on, buddy, show us your Armiger already) seems pretty reasonable to me, especially if the core class isn't pathed.

    Osprey

  4. #4
    Member Bokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Lawrenceville GA
    Posts
    32
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I voted pathed, but hear me out.
    What I actually think everybody would like is one class, with a couple of different paths to take within that class, much like the ranger in 3.5e. The ranger can either take the two-weapon fighting style, or the archery style. Once that decision is made, there is no going back. I think that the noble should use the ranger's basic framework, with different noble type abilities substituted in for some of the "ranger-like" abilities.
    Therefore, what we would be looking at is a good BAB, 6+ skill points, and some unique abilities dependant on a which varient of noble was chosen. The two varients could be a militant noble, and a more courtly noble. The choice between these two could be required at first level, and could effect the available feats and special class features available at later levels. There should be enough similiarities between the two types of nobles so that either can be identified as noble, but the differences should also be quite obvious. Since a ranger gets spells and a noble doesn't, I might suggest slightly more "feats" for the noble, maybe one at 2nd level and every 4 levels after that. The "feat pool" that these feats come from could be determined by the choice that was made at the earlier level, and I would recommend no overlap within these feat pools. After all, if both subtypes could use it, maybe it should be a predetermined "feat" or ability that is automatically assigned at a certain level.

    If you really wanted to get complicated, you could have more than 2 options, with the only thing changing being the available feats within each pool.
    Kill 'em all, let the God's sort them out!!

  5. #5
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    Bokey,

    The version of the Noble I proposed earlier, merging Irdeggman's 3 paths into it, was almost exactly as you described - based on the Ranger but with noble-appropriate, leadership and resource-type abilities.

    However, the high BAB was voted down in favor of an average one, which kind of throws off the feasibility of a warrior-pathed noble altogether, IMO. Check out the previous threads discussing the Noble, they include a few Word files with proposals for downloading.

    Osprey

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    (MURP), Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    8
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I vote what Bokey said - seems to be as close as possible to what i already use :-)

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Victoria BC, Canada
    Posts
    368
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    The high-BAB version is what is currently in use in the PBeM I'm in. The DM, who has a very sharp eye for balance issues, finds it fits nicely in the core classes without being overpowering with a high BAB progression.
    "It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion -- and usually easier."

    - R. A. Heinlien, from The Collected works of Lazarus Long

  8. #8
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Athos69, Stormcaller, Bokey,

    As Osprey has pointed out the good BAB (single class) noble was clearly voted down in favor of an avg BAB version. 23 total votes is a pretty good response for these polls based on past experience.

    To ignore the polls taken is, well, undemocratic. It is also insulting to those who bothered to vote in the first place. Reopening this discussion is, well counterproductive and backwards in progression. It sets a bad precedence and will not lead to any sort of completion of the BRCS itself.

    Pretty much the bottom line on this one is that if there is a single class (pathed or otherwise) noble it will have an average BAB. That is the only thing that a clear majority has agreed to so far. Note that when I use the phrase clear majority it means as close as 2 to 1 as can be accomplished.

    For related discussion check out the poll thread itself – there was quite a lively discussion:

    http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...showtopic=2781
    Duane Eggert

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    (MURP), Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    8
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    erk - i meant (on reading his post again) that i agree with his idea of a choose one half of the path and you cant change from it...

    BAB doesnt worry me :-)

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    voted (B) but could go with (a) if necessary

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.