What is the Guilder?

[Fizz]

So, most people are going with the `Domain Guild Expert' option. I'm surprised by this.

According to Havens, "Only adventurous people with a certain mettle can become guilders." and "guilders should be considered adventurers just like thieves and wizards."

The `Domain Guild Expert' option sounds overly focused to me- as though the class would only be useful in a game played at the domain level, not on the classic adventuring level.

After all, the wizard isn't just the `Domain Source Expert'. The cleric isn't just the `Temple Source Expert'.

In 2nd Ed, the guilder's primary advantage was non-weapon proficiencies. In 3E, that translates to skills.

So, the 3E version i've attempted to create works along those lines- adventurous skillful characters.


-Fizz

[Fizz]

I just had another idea for a character who could be a guilder. Vizzini, from The Princess Bride (love that movie!).

He's not a physical character of any sort, but he's a genius plotter with a lot of knowledge, out to make a profit (by starting a war in this case). I think he fits the bill nicely.


-Fizz

[irdeggman]

So, most people are going with the `Domain Guild Expert' option. I'm surprised by this.

According to Havens, "Only adventurous people with a certain mettle can become guilders." and "guilders should be considered adventurers just like thieves and wizards."

The `Domain Guild Expert' option sounds overly focused to me- as though the class would only be useful in a game played at the domain level, not on the classic adventuring level.

IMO people are making that coice because it is the only one that alludes to an economic/profit theme. I mentioned that earlier when I said I thought the poll was mixing themes and mechanics.

In 2nd Ed, the guilder's primary advantage was non-weapon proficiencies. In 3E, that translates to skills.

Actually in 2nd ed the guilder's primary advantage was at the domain level of play - with all those bonuses to guild/trade related domain action.

So, the 3E version i've attempted to create works along those lines- adventurous skillful characters.

Which really falls along the line of a rogue without the sneak attack focus.

[AndrewTall]

Irdeggman:
Which really falls along the line of a rogue without the sneak attack focus.

Andrew:
The guilder is certainly as distinct from the thief as a barbarian is from a fighter, so a separate class seems valid, and underscores the different philosophy - sneak attack being a powerful determinant of how the character is played and viewed (backstabbing little ####'s vs money-grubbing ###'s), the change in terminoligy from thief to rogue reduced the problems slightly but 'any rogue is thieving scum' is an attitude I've faced several times.

Personally I had no problems with 10 skill points per level for the guilder but then I never saw the rogue as skill bunny anyway - once you'd bought combat-skills such as hide, move silently, spot, etc you were left with only a handful of points for 'colour' skills.

I'd be against domain level advantages being class abilities for the guilder because if they exist, everyone should have some - particularly the noble.

I would make domain level skills for each class a distinct area of the rules, and give priests bonuses to agitate, resist interference, fighters battle bonuses, etc - if only one class has an edge then they dominate at domain play and unless the game is very mixed it will be extremely hard to balance out the classes.

[kgauck]

I never saw the rogue as skill bunny anyway - once you'd bought combat-skills such as hide, move silently, spot, etc you were left with only a handful of points for 'colour' skills.

Looking at the basic types of characters described in some of the party analysis stuff where the party is assumed to have a sneaker, scout, flanker character and the rogue will work exactly as you described. I don't generally create rogues of that type for the Rjurik, and rogues end up being characters who bluff their way as being a good karl, but are full of skills like

Skills: Appraise 5, Bluff 5, Decipher Script 3, Diplomacy 5, Disable Device 2, Disguise 5 Escape Artist 1, Forgery 3, Gather Information 5, Innuendo 2, Open Lock 3, Profession (Administration) 5, Search 4, Sense Motive 5, Use Magic Device 2
(from http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/porsgrun.htm)

He's a courtly rogue, not an adventuring rogue.

When a fighter multiclasses in rogue (or any of the basic 2 skill classes) he's generally looking for a lot of skill points, not neccesarily sneak attack, or the spot, sneak, hide skill set.

[irdeggman]

Personally I had no problems with 10 skill points per level for the guilder but then I never saw the rogue as skill bunny anyway - once you'd bought combat-skills such as hide, move silently, spot, etc you were left with only a handful of points for 'colour' skills.

It is important to realize what this would do if other WotC feats are allowed like the following:

Able Learner (pg 150 of Races of Destiny).

Human or doppleganger only – must be taken at first level.

All skills cost 1 sp each.

Put this together with 10 sp and all of sudden you have a character that is extremely dominating with skills. While this feat can't be including in the BRCS - its existance needs to be considered since people will use it.

I'd be against domain level advantages being class abilities for the guilder because if they exist, everyone should have some - particularly the noble.

I would make domain level skills for each class a distinct area of the rules, and give priests bonuses to agitate, resist interference, fighters battle bonuses, etc - if only one class has an edge then they dominate at domain play and unless the game is very mixed it will be extremely hard to balance out the classes.

I disagree with this one.

The Noble was designed to have an advantage at realm management.

Having a domain level benefit (or at least the option of it) when it comes to economics was one of the major benefits the 2nd ed class had.

The arguement that not all guilders would be nobles (hence not relying on the noble class to capture what the guilder can do) allows someone to go with a guilder (i.e., non-noble) as a means of increasing domain level economic advantage.

The skills tied to RP generation at the domain level were chosen with the goal of giving an advantage to the class normally associated with running that holding type. The guilder would thus be able to relace the rogue when it comes to guild management - which is logical. The rogue woud then be relegated to a secondary guild managers, like paladins are to clerics for temples.

[Fizz]

Put this together with 10 sp and all of sudden you have a character that is extremely dominating with skills. While this feat can't be including in the BRCS - its existance needs to be considered since people will use it.

WotC has issued plenty of broken feats in their huge list of splat books. This one is broken whether the PC has 10, or 8 or 6 skill points. Why should we have to account for something poorly written by WotC? Whatever happened to DM discretion?


-Fizz

[irdeggman]

WotC has issued plenty of broken feats in their huge list of splat books. This one is broken whether the PC has 10, or 8 or 6 skill points. Why should we have to account for something poorly written by WotC? Whatever happened to DM discretion?


-Fizz

It is not a broken feat.

It becomes broken when misread.

When people misread it as allowing this to treat all skill as class skills.

The feat only allows skills to be bought 1 sp per rank.

The max ranks allowed are still based on the whether or not the skill is a class skill.

[Fizz]

The max ranks allowed are still based on the whether or not the skill is a class skill.

Oh, ok, my misunderstanding.

So, consider two characters with this feat. One character has 10 skill points, the other 8 skill points. The character with 10 could gain himself an extra rank in 2 cross-class skills over what the character with 8 could have.

They're not cross-class skills, so the max ranks are held in check, and won't play a major role anyways. Most skill points are going to go towards class skills, which this feat doesn't impact. Turns him into a bit of a dilletente.

So, i don't think this feat makes a 10 skill point character overly dominating. I mean, the 10 skill points we've talked about is supposed to make the guilder into the best overall skills-character.

But i don't see this feat extending that ability much farther than it does for an 8 skill point character.


-Fizz

[kgauck]

Two additional skill points built into the class means that there are two skills that the Guilder would be able to master in addition to any that his rogue rival could master. If such a character were possible, he should be 20-25% weaker in his special abilities.

Another approach is to use the same 8 skill points as a rogue, but have class features improve the position of the guilder in the skills arena. Again, at the expence of other abilities so that the rogue is not a step-child in Brectur.