Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 153
  1. #41
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Kenneth - I like that one.

    The "masses" clearly decided that the core BRCS guilder should be more of a knightly one and I had to fight to ensure that it could still function as a guilder of sorts, although it still ended up with the military leadership slant.
    Duane Eggert

  2. #42
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    I have noticed a desire among some posters that classes be suitable for conventional adventuring. Its fun to go adventuring and seek the famed Sails of Captain Luetenhaven with their amazing ability to aid the speed, navigation, and sea-worthiness of a ship. But, some guilders never adventure. They may be your arch-rival who focuses entirely on his realm, rather than his own personal prowess, or he may be your stay-at-home lieutenant who watches the shop while you're out seeking the Rudder of the Shoals or doing climactic battle with the Vampire.

    With the ease of multi-classing, each character can easily find the happy blend of adventuring classes and domain focused classes that best suits their own character concept. There is no shortage of Brecht (or otherwise) combat classes.

    Heinrick von Lausruef might opt to go with Noble 3/Swashbucker5/Guilder 4 while his archrival Johann van der Leipzur might be Noble 5/Guilder 7. Heinrick would be the more adventuring character, and some players would prefer it. PBeM'ers or PC rivals, a PC's day-to-day operations guy, or even the PC himself might want to focus totally on his realm, his domain actions, and his organization, and want the skills and abilities to do that rather than make every class more or less balanced for combat.

  3. #43
    Special Guest (Donor)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    southwest Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    563
    Downloads
    140
    Uploads
    1
    Havens of the Great Bay says:

    "In Cerilia, the guilder also represents a new social class: the middle class. Guilders can be nobles or commoners, but they generally fall into the middle layers of income."

    Further...

    "Many Brechts become guilders in careers as sailors, merchants, farmers, and more."

    This is completely at odds with the notion that guilders are born into money, or are only of the elitist class. Indeed, it's the exact opposite. Even the lowliest beggar could be crafty and work his way to great wealth.


    -Fizz
    Last edited by Fizz; 12-05-2006 at 06:36 PM.

  4. #44
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    In 2nd ed there was also no rogue class they were "thieves".

    There was also nothing like Prestige Classes - kits (the closest thing) had to be taken at first level.

    I said that the noble (those born to privelige) should have a quicker route to become the master trader. Those that struggled to become that would best fall under the realm of a prestige class.

    So there are 2 paths to get there:

    One via noble (those with a head above the others)

    and the other a Prestige Class that characters have to earn their way to.

    To best capture what you seem to be looking for a Prestige Class is probably best. The noble would most likely have the quickest path to it.


    Even the lowliest beggar could be crafty and work his way to great wealth.
    This concept reflects, IMO, the idea of a Prestige Class. Something you work towards not something you start with.



    "Many Brechts become guilders in careers as sailors, merchants, farmers, and more."

    To continue this paragraph:

    "Unblooded guilders tend to progress within established guilds and become lieutenants, sea captains, and trade emissaries. Blooded guilders may work to become regents of their own guilds and strive to establish thier personal and regency power in the thriving merchantile lands around the Great Bay."

    This still falls in line with my point about the domain level focus of teh class.
    Duane Eggert

  5. #45
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    It should also be noted that in 2nd ed a non-regent guilder could at best generate 6d4 x 10 gp per ply trade action. That is once a month thye coould generate that amount of income. Assuming it was an excellent trade (e.g. major merchant).

    Only regents could perform domain actions (ply trade was a character action). They would have to gain any other income from advneturing (which really doesn't reflect the core concept of being a guilder at all IMO).
    Duane Eggert

  6. #46
    Special Guest (Donor)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    southwest Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    563
    Downloads
    140
    Uploads
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by irdeggman
    In 2nd ed there was also no rogue class they were "thieves".
    True, but let's face it - rogues are essentially thieves. They're sneaky, they're backstabbing, they're uber-reflexive. They don't fit the classic concept of the guilder.

    I said that the noble (those born to privelige) should have a quicker route to become the master trader. Those that struggled to become that would best fall under the realm of a prestige class.
    But you did say that Guilders are best made through the Noble class. But the Noble class is the class of privelige. My point was that guilders should not have that requirement.

    "Unblooded guilders tend to progress within established guilds and become lieutenants, sea captains, and trade emissaries. Blooded guilders may work to become regents of their own guilds and strive to establish thier personal and regency power in the thriving merchantile lands around the Great Bay."
    Yes, and this doesn't change anything. What's said there is the same as for any class in Birthright.

    For example, fighters can be rich or poor, and they can become lieutenants or work to become regents (if blooded) too. Yet, you don't need a prestige class for the pauper fighter to become a regent.

    So why should it be different for the guilder? Why can't a single core class guilder (rogue variant) be able to advance his way to guild-leader?


    -Fizz
    Last edited by Fizz; 12-05-2006 at 07:32 PM.

  7. #47
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Fizz
    True, but let's face it - rogues are essentially thieves. They're sneaky, they're backstabbing, they're uber-reflexive. They don't fit the classic concept of the guilder.
    I have had many many player run the "I'm not that type of rogue" character. They instead of focusing on the sneaky aspects focus on the skill aspects. I think someone already brought this point up earlier too.


    But you did say that Guilders are best made through the Noble class. But the Noble class is the class of privelige. My point was that guilders should not have that requirement.
    "Best" is not a requirement. Best means the easiest and quickest way to get there.



    Yes, and this doesn't change anything. What's said there is the same as for any class in Birthright.

    For example, fighters can be rich or poor, and they can become lieutenants or work to become regents (if blooded) too. Yet, you don't need a prestige class for the pauper fighter to become a regent.
    Never said you "needed" a prestige class to become a regent did I? If I implied that I am sorry that wasn't my intent.

    In 2nd ed the guilder had that specific text that was very much tied into domain levela ctions. They are also the only class to be given bonuses for domain level action in 2nd ed and specifically called out to be given role-playing awards for executing said domain level actions. So the very class was oriented around the domain level of play, unlike the other classes.

    So why should it be different for the guilder? Why can't a single core class guilder (rogue variant) be able to advance his way to guild-leader?
    Again, you are painting a Prestige Class. Something "Guild Master" that reflects the power and authority gained by years of work and training.

    Everything you have pointed out here and say you want ends up defining a Prestige Class.

    A noble would have the quickest path to this one.

    A commoner would go through the Expert NPC class.

    Or you could do a rogue (variant).

    All paths would end up in the same place - the Guild Master.

    I still think the end in mind is a class that is the master of major economics. A guild Master, a merchant Prince, a fleet admiral, something that is greater the the normal merchant.
    Duane Eggert

  8. #48
    Special Guest (Donor)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    southwest Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    563
    Downloads
    140
    Uploads
    1
    "Best" is not a requirement. Best means the easiest and quickest way to get there.
    OK, so are you saying that the `best' way for any character to become a regent is to be of the Noble class?

    If so, then that's fine. I was getting the impression that you thought it was the best way ONLY for guilders. That the Noble class would not be the best way for a fighter, priest, etc.

    In 2nd ed the guilder had that specific text that was very much tied into domain levela ctions. They are also the only class to be given bonuses for domain level action in 2nd ed and specifically called out to be given role-playing awards for executing said domain level actions. So the very class was oriented around the domain level of play, unlike the other classes.
    It has that text yes, but it's also very specific that guilders should be considered adventurers just like anyone else.

    Also, the mechanics for 3E are different too. In the BRCS domain action checks are based on skills, not class. The guilder should have the appropriate skills as class skills, and not worry about the class bonus 2nd Ed gave them.

    Everything you have pointed out here and say you want ends up defining a Prestige Class.
    Hmmm. That's not what i'm envisioning. At least, not any more than any other class. That is to say- i don't think the guilder should have any more difficulty working his way to regent than any other class. I don't think the guilder needs any rules or conditions that wouldn't also apply to other classes. Does that make sense?


    -Fizz
    Last edited by Fizz; 12-05-2006 at 09:27 PM.

  9. #49
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Fizz
    OK, so are you saying that the `best' way for any character to become a regent is to be of the Noble class?
    Hmmm. That's not what i'm envisioning. At least, not any more than any other class. That is to say- i don't think the guilder should have any more difficulty working his way to regent than any other class. I don't think the guilder needs any rules or conditions that wouldn't also apply to other classes. Does that make sense?


    -Fizz
    We seem to be missing each other here.

    A character can be regent without being a noble.

    A noble will make the best regent, as far as Realm Management goes.

    A noble also has the skill selection (and skill points) to give him a leg up on being a regent of any type (except the spell caster ones, but even there he can get the necessary skills to higher ranks quicker than most).

    A Guild Master, IMO, is not just a regent he is a regent who is especially good at the domain level economics. That was what I was trying to get to.

    2nd ed said they were to be used as adventurers, but most have seen that they were much more focused at the domain level. Magicians in 2nd ed were supposed to be a decent adventuring class too - both failed in comparison to every other class.

    Magicians were just too weak and guilders were too focused on domain actions. For adventuring it was far better to play a thief or a bard than a guilder. A guilder didn't really have anything that he could do adventure-wise. He had better armor and weapons than a thief, but didn't have any of the combat or stealth abilities. He had better interaction capabilites than a thief, but nowhere as good as a bard and no spell capability.

    So capturing that in 3.5 seems kind of counterproductive to me. Whereas capturing the domain level command of economics seems to be something interesting and very reflective of the Brecht culture.
    Duane Eggert

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    124
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I removed the entire problem by realizing that ANYONE
    can be a guilder. I`ve had Fighters become
    guild-masters and rule guild holdings. I simply
    removed the "class requirement" from the different
    types of holdings...even source holdings simply
    because:

    Anyone with the "Blood of the Gods" could make a
    connection with the "Land" or whatever other force
    allows the collection of regency.

    The reason I did this is that I had players constantly
    debating "Why can`t my Fighter collect regency from a
    guild holding when he puts the time and effort into
    running the business?"

    I tried explaining it took certain skills to do it
    "the right way" but he explained (and justly so) that
    his fighter had a high INT and high CHA as well; so he
    didn`t think his fighter was not capable of running a
    business.

    So I said: "Ok...no class requirements for collecting
    regency...but if someone out "skills" you, I don`t
    want to hear complaining!"

    Worked out pretty good.


    Anthony Edwards



    __________________________________________________ __________________________________
    Want to start your own business?
    Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
    http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index

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.