Noble Warrior

[Athos69]

Gary, my entire point though is this:

While I voted for the multi-pathed Noble, I could just as easily settle for a pure rulership Noble, because if you really want a General in the high social strata, you can always multiclass with Fighter or (if you are using it, Marshal), and wind up with a superior character to the Armiger, which dilutes both concepts too much for me to consider it a 'core' class.

That said, I like and appreciate the work that Osprey put into this Class. It could certainly form the basis of a PrCl that would require a level in either Aristocrat or Noble to qualify.

[The Jew]

Originally posted by Athos69@Oct 5 2004, 06:09 PM
So Greece was more of a Plutocracy then, where those who had the wealth were automatically on the top of the pile, or was it more of a hereditary Oligarchy?

I believe their was to much difference between city-states and change over time to answer that question. Wealth, military prowess and family were all important factors in most of the city-states, but the precise form varied tremendously.

[The Jew]

I could settle for a Noble/fighter instead of Noble warrior class if their was one alteration in the rules; adding general type feats to the fighters selection. That is the simplest path in my mind.

[Athos69]

Can you give some examples of what you'd like to see added to the Fighter bonus feat list?

[The Jew]

Military genius, Great Leader, Leadership and Regent focus Warcraft and Lead. The 5 basic general (as in military commander) feats. Their may be a a couple more which I missed. The level and skill requrements would still have to be made. This would give a fighter the potential to be a hack and slash character or a military commander; whichever way a character wished to go or maybe a little of both. I realize this is a slight deviance from the D&D class, both in mechanics and ethos, but it seems proper given the greater emphasis which Birthright places on military commanders. It is also the simplest way to go, which is a natural good in my mind.

I've put forth this idea before and it was shot down due, if my recollection is correct, to the fact that I was altering a core class. A definite no-no in many peoples minds, which I generally agree with. Still, we already expanded the skill lists for many classes, this is pretty much the same thing.

[Athos69]

Well, in truth, we are already altering the core classes, by adding the new BR specific skills.

*I* don't see any problem with listing these feats as eligible for Fighter bonus feat slots...

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by The Jew+Oct 6 2004, 01:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Jew @ Oct 6 2004, 01:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Athos69@Oct 5 2004, 06:09 PM
So Greece was more of a Plutocracy then, where those who had the wealth were automatically on the top of the pile, or was it more of a hereditary Oligarchy?

I believe their was to much difference between city-states and change over time to answer that question. Wealth, military prowess and family were all important factors in most of the city-states, but the precise form varied tremendously. [/b][/quote]
That pretty much what I had in mind... Thanks&#33;

Oh, and I agree with the feats thingy.

[irdeggman]

Yes the point about adding the feats to the fighter list seems like a good concept to me also. I would only address &#39;new&#39; feats created by the BRCS though. This makes it more palatable IMO since it is not restructuring the core class but instead adding to it the campaign specific modifications being made. By adding a few new ones to the list it would work better by giving some to add. Core rules feats like Leadership can remain as general feats and since it is the only one on the list here that is not BRCS-specific shouldn&#39;t cause too much trouble to have to spend a character level feat on. Besides there will most likely end up with other ways before we are finished to get that feat without having to use a character level feat to obtain it.

Even though the classes have been sanctioned already, this shouldn&#39;t matter since the distinction for fighter feats is made at the feat level (i.e., on the table with the list of feats) and the feats section hasn&#39;t been sanctioned yet.

[geeman]

When it comes to using the fighter to reflect an officer or military leader

type character in the BR setting I think adding some feats to the list of

bonus fighter feats is a good idea. There are a few things, however, that

a separate character class description does that reflects the issues

involved here a little better. While I do like the idea of adding a few

BR-specific feats to the fighter bonus feat list in the campaign setting

update, I don`t think it necessarily replaces the need for a character

class to reflect the issue for several reasons.



1. Skill points and the list of class skills. Having an independent class

description allows one to bump up the number of skills points/level and to

have a list of class skills appropriate to the character theme of a

socially privileged character raised to be a military leader. One could

similarly add the class skills to the fighter class and/or increase the

number of skill points the class has, but it starts not looking much like

the core class at that point IMO, so it might as well be a different class

description.



2. Special abilities. Generally, special abilities and feats are fairly

interchangeable concepts, but in a few cases that`s not true. When special

abilities, for instance, have to do with character levels in the class they

aren`t very much like feats which tend to be more of a single slot kind of

thing. One can still redefine them as one or the other, but it should be

noted that any class ability (like those presented in this incarnation of

the warrior-noble) that is turned into a feat is pretty much then available

to all character classes through their standard feats available every 3rd

level. The question to ask is whether bards, clerics, druids, rogues,

wizards and sorcerers have access to those abilities as feats or are they

better kept exclusive to a particular character class. That aside, in this

case it seems to me that the special abilities of the class aren`t terribly

apt as feats.



3. Basic character class stats. The proposed class has d8 hit dice, and a

fast Will save progression. Personally, I`m not so sure that the class

couldn`t have d10 hit dice and the fast Fortitude progression just like

fighters, but I could see the argument for the d8/Will save stance, and

it`s the kind of information that is very easy to homebrew, so it`s not

that big a deal in the class description itself. There`s not really been a

lot of discussion of this aspect of the class, however, so I don`t know how

other folks are thinking about it.



When it comes to adding a set of military command feats to the list of

bonus fighter feats I think that`s a great idea. Military command isn`t

_exclusive_ to a noble-warrior type character class, and fighters should

have some abilities in that regard IMO. In BR it reflects what is probably

best exemplified by the idea of a mercenary leader or in the list of random

events at the domain level things like the Great Captain random

even. There are more types of fighter-leadership paradigms ranging from

the peasant hero to the sidhe military leadership style that it could be

used to portray. It doesn`t really address the issues of the noble warrior

per se, but it`s a good thing to include in BR regardless.



Gary

[The Jew]

Minor change, I of course meant skill focus warcraft and Lead, not regent focus. Leadership isn&#39;t that important to add, since all characters get a bonus feat when it becomes available. The one thing is leadership has been altered to allow for military cohorts. That&#39;s a huge change, and a critical use for a general. The question of skills is why I would suggest a multi-class noble/fighter for the noble warrior, while the mercenary captain would more likely be a straight fighter.

Hypothetically, if we were to abandon the Noble warrior entiretly their is the question of turning some of the noble warriors special abilities into feats. If they were to require a number of ranks in warcraft and lead, which only a noble or fighter get both of as class skills and a BAB bonus(along with Orog priests I believe), that would greatly limit other classes ability to access them. A feat that required 6 ranks in each and a BAB of +3 would be unreachable by a wizard short of 9th level, unless they had access to and took cosmpolitian feat twice and were 6th level. I for one am not against the oddball other classes having access to those feats if they are willing to make the sacrifices or be a high enough level.