Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 68

Thread: Classes

  1. #11
    It wasn't until KG reminded me that the Khinasi have a kind pact like deal with Avani, that it dawned on me we could do that way, and the Star Pact powers just felt like Shadow better, although some of the Fey powers (movement really) could as well.

  2. #12
    4th Edition Classes

    The classes in the 4th edition players handbook are ...

    Cleric - Allowed
    Fighter - Allowed
    Paladin - Allowed
    Ranger - Allowed
    Rogue - Allowed
    Warlock - Not allowed (not in core rules but fine addition)
    Warlord - Replaces noble
    Wizard - Allowed



    Cleric - Should be a fairly easy transition. We would have to add at least one extra feat power for each seperate god. That's it.

    Fighter - As is

    Paladin - We should treat paladins of different gods in the same way we treat clerics of different gods. Create seperate power feats for different gods.

    Ranger - As is

    Rogue - As is

    Warlord - This class will replace the Noble class. It fits quite well.

    Wizard - As is


    Now this leaves us with just really one class we would have to create from scratch ... and that is the Magician class. This will take a serious amount of work.

    Classes that aren't in the rulebook, Bards, Druids, Monk, Sorcerer. We can live without all of these classes. The two we will miss and would have to add at some point are druids and bards. You know 4th edition will add them with the next players handbook.

    -BB

  3. #13
    I must disagree with the bard and druid not being essential as they are major for the rjurik who use druids to guide their jarls and bards are lore keepers throughout cerilia except in vosgaard.

  4. #14
    I agree they are important ... but they aren't in the book and really would be silly to create new classes for them to have them replaced next year.

    I say keep a holding pattern on those classes until Wizards does the work for us.

    -BB

  5. #15
    but with us creating them then we can make them unique to Birthright and then at a later time if we need we can vote/or incorporate elements from the official version. so as for a waste of time I do not think it is but if would be a good idea to rely on wizards for druids and bards because it could take them a year or 2 for them to come out with the appropraite classes for them to come out.

  6. #16
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bbeau22 View Post
    Warlord - This class will replace the Noble class. It fits quite well.
    Franky, it does no such thing. I can't reproduce anything like the nobles I know of. The Warlord is a fighter variant perfectly suited to BR in so much as large military actions are a commonplace, but nobles are about ruling domains. Same with the Guilder (notably absent).

    These two classes are much more about interactions. There are currently (and let's face it there is a lot coming down the road) only two solutions that I can see. Either a class that has these interactive skills, but would make totally no sense in the kinds of combats these classes were designed for, or as talent trees allowing any normal class to have a little noble or guilder flavor on the side.

    Both of these strike me we woefully inadequate. Now, in the 3rd edition conversion I didn't buy the PHB right away, and I didn't buy the DMG or MM until I found them used. And by then I was finding noble classes being presented by 2003 in their first forms. Later as settings with proper nobles were being presented (Wheel of Time, Star Wars, Lof5R) it was possible to think seriously about a noble class.

    What I wonder about is whether 4e supports characters whose main job isn't to fight, but to provide all those roles so important to narrative and politics, like exposition and interaction without devolving those roles onto NPC's like the 2nd edition sage.

    Of course we don't even have a bard. I don't blame them for leaving the bard out. The bard had a mixed reputation among players as it was, and his role in this tactical combat game would either require giving him the warlord abilities or making him useless.

    The bard is a half step towards a character whose role is interaction and exposition. Until, however, we devise or discover good classes that focus on economic (crafting and commerce) and social (interaction and exposition) skills, we are not updating BR, only the parts of BR that have a place in 4e.

  7. #17
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by aluman View Post
    It wasn't until KG reminded me that the Khinasi have a kind pact like deal with Avani, that it dawned on me we could do that way, and the Star Pact powers just felt like Shadow better, although some of the Fey powers (movement really) could as well.

    Actually it is a pact with Rournil and not Avani.
    Duane Eggert

  8. #18
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    What I wonder about is whether 4e supports characters whose main job isn't to fight, but to provide all those roles so important to narrative and politics, like exposition and interaction without devolving those roles onto NPC's like the 2nd edition sage.
    I'm wondering really if we need to make classes, if the class choice only impacts combat, then any class is fine for noble & guilder as those would then be what you do when your sword is sheathed rather than how you do things when it isn't.

    So a noble would be someone with non-combat expertise in rulership, etiquette, good knowledge, etc. A guilder is someone with business interests and a commercial eye, etc.

    4e lacks the typical system back stuff like social class etc, puffing out someone as 'peasant, craftsman, savage, noble, priest, etc' and giving each benefits and penalties to reflect their social area should be easy enough once we are happy with systems for skills and social inter-actions outside combat.

  9. #19
    Special Guest (Donor)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    532
    Downloads
    11
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    Of course we don't even have a bard. I don't blame them for leaving the bard out. The bard had a mixed reputation among players as it was, and his role in this tactical combat game would either require giving him the warlord abilities or making him useless.
    The Bard is going to be an Arcane Leader, so yes, his role in combat will be the same of the Warlord and the Cleric but he will draw from a different source.

  10. #20
    I think 'noble' was a bad class anyway. It makes one class better at being an aristocrat than the others, when the idea is that the whole party are nobility.

    On the Warlock: Can we not do the monk thing again? The idea of getting power by making deals with spirits is as old as the idea of 'magic', and I just think it's a really negative way to start the conversion: "Oh, by the way, these core classes are out.".

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Any of the 'new classes' in use?
    By Ragathol in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 05-01-2007, 08:44 PM
  2. Prestige classes
    By graham anderson in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-17-2004, 04:51 PM
  3. Prestige Classes
    By The Jew in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 11-23-2003, 03:43 PM

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.