For the creation of an official Guilder Class

[Mojczak]

Because it's more than time that we settle that with a nifty, versatile, happy-nippy class. Since I've realised that the noble class insn't really suitable for guilder characters. Especially considering the arms and armor selections as well as the missing profession skill.

I propose that all those who are interested in participating get in that topic, manifest themselves. Makes propositions and we will proceed through votes.

Let's assume (considering the number of persons I've seen working on the wiki and on the site lately) that with work with a majority. There should be around 8 persons who would be most likely to vote. So, first the first step, I assume that we will need at least 5 (yes) to go on. You can vote or propose amendments for some parts, which will require an equal number of votes to begin with (5) until we have enough participants to need a majority over a 24-48 hours period.

I start with THIS!

The basics.

Guilder - Core Class, 20 levels.
Alignement, any with a tedency for chaotic alignments
BAB: Priest
Saves: Fort Bad, Ref Average, Will Good

HP: d6 per level
Skills: 6+Int (without forgeting the possibility for skill focus skills in the class developpment)

[Thelandrin]

Why do guilders have a tendency for chaotic alignment?

I already did a 12-level guilder class that I use quite successfully. ShadowMoon then based a PrC off my base class. There are links to both in the Guilder wiki article.

Guilder article: http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Guilder
My base class: http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/ind...andrin/Guilder
ShadowMoon's prestige class: http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/ind..._Class/Guilder

[Mojczak]

Why 20 levels? Because classes and prestiges classes with a number of levels of 10 and above can grow unlimited as per the rules. Why not just design a whole 20 level class with cool real guilder feel to it?

Guilders have a tedency for chaotic alignments because they are supposed to be "adventurers" and fend by themselves paying to no one, as per the original description. Adventure, however, can take more than the form of going to kill a dragon, they are experts in financial adventures and risk taking or that sort. If that doesn't justify enough, will have to get my copy of heavens :P.

Oh, and I vote Yes (being the first vote) to the "Basic Proposition".

[kgauck]

I think my noble class (User:KGauck/Noble) is a good class for guilders.

The BRCS noble doesn't seem useful for anyone, I have tried to use it in builds and always decide to use something else. I have seriously considered Aristocrat in preference to the BRCS Noble, because at least then you get 2 levels for a single CR.

[Mojczak]

I disagree the noble class is a good noble class built wisely. But it applie mainly to landed nobles... land-owners. I just think it isn't suitable to represent the edge of a guilder. A guilder would be very similar, but not not noble-ish... and btw, what happened to the trading venture brecht guilder special action???? Your variant has the same overall problems for a guilder gauck. It's nice tho.

[Sorontar]

Mojczak, do you want a Guilder class that you can make NPCs on, that never have to go on adventures but do act as regents? Or a Guilder class that PCs can be made of that *can* go on adventures or act as regents? Or maybe a Guilder class that is designed primarly for adventuring but not tailored for being a superregent?

And if I was you, I would look at the original AD&D Guilder then decide what was wrong with that (as well as the various Noble classes mentioned here), before trying to design a new class. Work out your basic specifications before you try and design the body of the class. This is especially important if you want the guilder to be different to the other classes (and not just a variation of one of them, e.g. Rogue or Noble).

And check out the various discussions that are in the archives of this forum.

Sorontar.