Noble Class (Again)

[Bokey]

I voted for 2 separate classes, but now that I think back on it, if you want a fighter-noble all you really have to do is multiclass. Hopefully the new noble class will support multiclassing by having a good balance of power throughout the class progression.

One thing I didn't understand however: why was the noble going to get cast aside if there was no real clear winner in this poll? Both of the above options include a noble-ruler class, the only question really was if there would be a noble-warrior class as well.

Somebody want to fill me in?

Also, I hope the site problems have been corrected, as this is the first time I have been able to log on in about a month. Hard to vote if you can't get to the polls!

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Bokey@Nov 23 2004, 10:10 AM
One thing I didn't understand however: why was the noble going to get cast aside if there was no real clear winner in this poll? Both of the above options include a noble-ruler class, the only question really was if there would be a noble-warrior class as well.

Somebody want to fill me in?

Because in order to "sanction" the product we need a clear majority. A clear majority has been defined as being as close to twice as many for as against.

Based on the previous polls and the "deadlocks" they showed, a clear majority might not be obtainable. If it is not obtainable then the "new" class just goes since it could not be considered as anything close.

In the sanctioning arena things are not decided (at least not at the sanctioning end) by a simple majority. That is how the BRCs has ben progressing all along. See the various polls and discussion in the past on Chap 2 and I see no reason to change that plan.

If the decisions are made just on a simple majority then things drastically change at any point in time depending on who is active on the boards. Using the clear majority concept dramatically narrows this variation and thus a more longer standing useable product is created.

[The Jew]

I think Pokey's point is that, even without this poll, it is clear that a majority want a Noble class. It is just that we are split between wanting multiples types or else flexibility for its progression. Mute point now, this poll will end this part of the discussion.

[Bokey]

I think Pokey's point is that, even without this poll, it is clear that a majority want a Noble class. It is just that we are split between wanting multiples types or else flexibility for its progression.

The Jew has hit it on the head. I don't think anybody in the BR community (or at least not very many) opose the concept of a noble; they just have different visions of what it should include. If two concepts were equally popular and people were split firmly down the middle, then we could just take a poll to see whether or not to include both concepts or neither concepts. I would doubt that people would be so hostile as to prefer nothing over two different options, and it seems somewhat ridiculous to throw out a good idea because folk can't agree.

If everybody had to agree to everything, we never could get a president elected in the good ole USA!!

But as the Jew also stated, it kind of a mute point now.

[irdeggman]

I'm closing polls now.

Despite the problems caused by the server issues - I think we need to move on. I'll post a revised chap 1 using what results we have from the polls and then we talk it out and vote on it.

Here are the poll results:

How should the noble class be structured?
(1) Ruler based class. [ 18 ] [66.67%]
(2) A combination of ruler-based class and noble-warrior (i.e., 2-classes). [ 8 ] [29.63%]
(3) Abstain [ 1 ] [3.70%]
Total Votes: 27