View Poll Results: Should the noble get leadership as a class ability prior to 6th level?

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • (1) Yes

    14 63.64%
  • (2) No

    5 22.73%
  • (3) Other (please describe in as much detail as possible)

    1 4.55%
  • (4) Abstain

    2 9.09%
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    This is something that is a core part of the noble class, regardless of type (i.e., straight ruler or noble-warrior).

    We have never formally captured this aspect so I thought it was time before the noble class gets rewritten (based on poll results).
    Duane Eggert

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Blackgate, Danigau
    Posts
    87
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I voted Other.

    In general I would open up the modified Leadership feat to Nobles only if other low level regents also could have this feat. Wheter or not a particular character would have the leadership feat at an unusally low level should probably depend on the history and situation of the character, best left up to the DM. Brecthur guilders, Khinasi wizards, Rjurik rangers, or Vos fighters might all have devoted cohorts who are linked to prestige of the characters family rather than the characters own deeds, just as much as Anuireans with the noble class. Not all PCs of "noble" heritage are the Noble PC class(es).

  3. #3
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    Since the benefits of Leadership are primarily level-based anyways, I think the minimum level requirement for the BR (or any) setting should be eliminated. The feat being such a direct inheritor of the original BR "bodyguards for regents" rule, I think it makes too much sense to have it available for any ruler.

    Since the feat also has other built-in limiters (like the cohort must be no higher than 2 levels below the PC), there seems no reason at all to keep a 6th level requirement. This is a world where domain-level realities are often part of even a 1st level character's experience.

    So my vote goes to "yes" but is all-inclusive - I agree with Danip completely. There must be some points where it is OK to change (not just add to) core rules where the setting says that change is more approporiate. Leadership is, IMHO, one of those most glaring of cases where this is true.

    Osprey

    *Edit*
    Leadership as a class ability makes more sense than as a feat. It is unique in being a feat that gets progressively better with every level - something that normally happens only with class abilities. So I have no problem with it being an automatic class ability (essentially a designated bonus feat).

  4. #4
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,130
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I voted yes. A good level to give him such a class feature would be 3rd level: thus, not only is he at the "I've reached another step in the proverbial ladder!" point, he also can have a 1st level cohort right after that.

  5. #5
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Osprey@Oct 15 2004, 10:54 PM
    Since the benefits of Leadership are primarily level-based anyways, I think the minimum level requirement for the BR (or any) setting should be eliminated. The feat being such a direct inheritor of the original BR "bodyguards for regents" rule, I think it makes too much sense to have it available for any ruler.

    So my vote goes to "yes" but is all-inclusive - I agree with Danip completely. There must be some points where it is OK to change (not just add to) core rules where the setting says that change is more approporiate. Leadership is, IMHO, one of those most glaring of cases where this is true.

    Osprey
    Which is why it was listed as a variant in Ch 8 (pg 148 - early leadership).

    This was done to allow DMs to have the option of having regents (regents-only) take the feat as early as 1st level.

    What was accomplished by listing it as a variant was to allow a change from the core rules without mandating one.

    By allowing regents to gain the feat (note they still have to purchase the feat - they don't get it for free) they have the option of whether or not they want to be rulers with lots of followers or be adventureres (who shed the role of leadership). Part of the options not restrictions concepts of 3/3.5.
    Duane Eggert

  6. #6
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    What was accomplished by listing it as a variant was to allow a change from the core rules without mandating one.
    Have we signed any agreements to not alter the core rules in any way for the Birthright setting? Not to my knowledge.

    Writing in a rule or rule change for the setting merely states "this is the norm." Like any rules they can be changed by the DM as he or she pleases. I have no problem re-arranging unsuitable core rules to better fit the core BR setting, of which regents and bodyguards were definitely a part. All I'm saying is that the norm for the BR setting was that low-level regents could have bodyguards, which are essentially followers from the Leadership feat.

  7. #7
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Osprey@Oct 18 2004, 08:51 PM
    What was accomplished by listing it as a variant was to allow a change from the core rules without mandating one.
    Have we signed any agreements to not alter the core rules in any way for the Birthright setting? Not to my knowledge.

    Writing in a rule or rule change for the setting merely states "this is the norm." Like any rules they can be changed by the DM as he or she pleases. I have no problem re-arranging unsuitable core rules to better fit the core BR setting, of which regents and bodyguards were definitely a part. All I'm saying is that the norm for the BR setting was that low-level regents could have bodyguards, which are essentially followers from the Leadership feat.
    Osprey, I agree with you whole heartedly with the signigficance of leadership feat and bodyguards and Lts (cohorts) {formerly henchmen in 2nd ed}.

    We pretty much have to stick with the 3.5 rules. This site (like the Athas.org - Dark Sun one) are stuck in the same heirarchy structure from WotC - we have to use the 3.5 rules pretty much as written. There are built in allowances for making some changes (classes, races, etc.). And technically we could use other WotC OGC material , like Unearther Arcana but made a conscious decision to keep the required books down to the core 3 (or the SRD) for world wide user friendliness.

    There are things where there was no clear 3.5 equivalent (like bloodlines) but we managed to align them with the 3.5 mechanics. This is one case where there is a clear 3.5 mechanic in place that should be followed though. Note making a similar class ability is not quite the same (and hedges the rules somewhat).

    While we didn't sign anything, Arjan did - the Official Fansite contract. And that governs what we can produce as far as "official" products go.

    The folks at Athas.org have run into similar issues, which is why their 3.5 product looks they way it does. Originally they had written things that had strayed from the 3.0 mechanics but were encouraged to realign themselves with the proper mechanics. Just read some of their posts on the D&D Other Worlds discussion boards to get the feel of what they went through. WotC has kept a much closer eye on them then us, but that doesn't exclude us from the same commitment as they have to follow.
    Duane Eggert

  8. #8
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    And yet another poll that would normally be closing. . ..
    Duane Eggert

  9. #9
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Closing this poll too. Here are the results:

    Should the noble get leadership as a class ability prior to 6th level?
    (1) Yes [ 14 ] [63.64%]
    (2) No [ 5 ] [22.73%]
    (3) Other (please describe in as much detail as possible) [ 1 ] [4.55%]
    (4) Abstain [ 2 ] [9.09%]
    Total Votes: 22
    Duane Eggert

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.