Return of the Guilder

Dungeons & Dragons The Royal Library
1

Hi all-

I’ve been thinking that the Guilder deserves to be a full class. I mean, if the noble can make it into the 3E rules, a guilder can too. Yes, the rogue has plenty of skills. But not all guilders should be able to sneak attack.

So, i’ve thought up some ideas for people to consider. Clearly this is no where near done, but just a starting point.

The Guilder:

Hit Die: d6
Base Attack Bonus: Moderate (as a rogue)
Weapons: Proficient with light armor, simple weapons, plus 2 martial weapons of his choosing.
Saves: Good Will, Good Reflex?, Fort Poor

Class Skills
Administrate (Wis), Appraise (Int), Bluff (Cha), Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Decipher Script (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Forgery (Int), Gamble (Wis), Gather Information (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (all), Listen (Wis), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis), Search (Int), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Speak Language (Int), Use Rope (Dex)

Plus, the guilder chooses 3 other skills to be class skills.

Skill Points: 10

Class Features:
Expert: The guilder is not constrained by the maximum ranks as other classes are. The maximum ranks he may have in a given skill is equal to 3 + 1.5 times his level. Thus, at 2nd level his max ranks would be 6 instead of the usual 5. At 10th he could have 18 ranks, instead of 13. At 20th he could have 33 instead of 23. (This emulates the 2nd Ed guilder ability of having extra nonweapon proficiency slots.)

Silver Tongue: Constant dealing with others gives the guilder a keen sense of how to make them believe his lies. He may attempt a retry of the Bluff skill, but with a –5 penalty.

Pidgin: Guilders have a knack for communicating despite barriers of an uncommon language. He can communicate and understand simple concepts, such as the need for food, desire to trade, warnings, etc. This works similar to the Decipher Script skill. The guilder makes a Pidgin check equal to d20 plus his Intelligence modifier plus his level. The DC varies with the complexity of information that is trying to be conveyed.

Improvised Tools: The guilder can select any two skills that require tools. With these two skills, the penalty for using improvised tools is halved.

Skill Mastery: As the rogue special ability. (Probably gained a couple times.)

Slippery Mind: As the rogue special ability

I’m not sure if these should all be standard abilities (Expert definitely should be) or optional abilities that he chooses as he advances, the way a rogue gains some special abilities at higher levels.

I’m sure others have some further ideas that would flesh it out a bit more. What does everybody think?

-Fizz

2

I see two issues.

Firstly, it is strongly recommended that no character have more skill points than a rogue (the same way that nobody should have a better BAB progression than a fighter). And secondly, the “expert” ability has the potential for great abuse when it comes to qualifying for prestige classes.

Now, one could argue that the guilder - not being very good at combat, and so forth - is not unbalanced even with this issues. However, that fails to take into account the possibility of multiclassing - grabbing a single level of guilder is enough to grant the expert ability, which lets more traditional characters qualify for prestige classes earlier than they are “supposed” to be able to.

I would suggest instead:
[ul]
[li]Drop the skill points to 8 per level. It is far too tempting to “dip” into this class for a single level otherwise; you get pre-3.5 ranger syndrome.
[/li][li]Change the expert ability to instead provide (say) a +2 competence bonus to 3 skills, with possibly the number of skills and the bonus increasing with level. (Or one could treat the progression similar to a ranger’s favoured enemy).
[/li][/ul]

3

Actually, i thought about this. Since numbers always get rounded down in 3E, the expert ability wouldn’t have any effect at 1st level. One would need at least 2 levels of guilder to gain that extra rank.

I would suggest instead:
[ul]
[li]Drop the skill points to 8 per level. It is far too tempting to “dip” into this class for a single level otherwise; you get pre-3.5 ranger syndrome.
[/li]> [li]Change the expert ability to instead provide (say) a +2 competence bonus to 3 skills, with possibly the number of skills and the bonus increasing with level. (Or one could treat the progression similar to a ranger’s favoured enemy).
[/li]> [/ul]

The first point is a valid concern. So long as he didn’t get anything else (or nothing overly potent) at 1st level, it’d be ok imo. (I mean, every class needs something unique at 1st level right?)

The second point, well, i like the idea of increasing ranks. The idea is to allow him to become a specialist, and qualify for skill-dependent benefits sooner than other classes. He doesn’t do much else, but with those few skills he’s a true master.

The progression similar to a ranger’s favored enemy- that has possibilities. I’ll have to think about that.

Thanks for the input!

-Fizz

4

The way it is written, I interpreted this as an ability that was tied to character level rather than class level - which means that it would be possible to take 1 rank of guilder and 3 ranks of rogue, at which point you have a maximum of 9 ranks rather than the usual 7. Most prestige classes
require 8 ranks of skills to get into, with the assumption that you will be at least level 6 before taking taking your first level in a prestige class; this would allow it to occur 1 level earlier. Granted, that may not cause the sky to fall down, but it is a perhaps unintended consequence.

However, if you’re saying that only the levels in guilder have this benefit… well, firstly it doesn’t actually alter the problem (you can still get into a class early, it’s just that now you can’t multiclass to do so; for some prestige classes, that may be a worthwhile trade). Secondly, I can’t think of how to correctly write such a benefit so that it won’t be misinterpreted the way I did above. Maximum skill ranks is always based on character level rather than class level; you’d need some sort of formula to calculate it based on the number of guilder levels you had… messy.

5

No more “core classes” will be added to Chapter 1.

That is the point of the “sanctioning”. It was voted on by the community and not something I merely “declared”. Now that doesn’t mean that there won’t be some modifications to things in Chap1 and 2 but in general they stand as written. The variant paladin of Nesirie does need improving and there will probably be included some Prestige Classes that are generic, that is aren’t specifically tied to any one region or culture - but rather may cross cultures.

There was specific logic in not including a Guilder core class in the BRCS.

It was always a “weak” class.

The class can basically be consumed via the rogue and noble.

Since it was a regionally specific class - anything along its lines would better fit as a Prestige Class. In fact that would probably be the best way to handle it - a class that is much more oriented towards domain level economics than adventuring.

6

Well, it is level-based, but fractions in 3E always round down. The rule i was using was 3 + 1/2 guilder level. So, at first level, that’s 4. Same as any other character.

which means that it would be possible to take 1 rank of guilder and 3 ranks of rogue, at which point you have a maximum of 9 ranks rather than the usual 7.

However, if you’re saying that only the levels in guilder have this benefit… well, firstly it doesn’t actually alter the problem (you can still get into a class early, it’s just that now you can’t multiclass to do so; for some prestige classes, that may be a worthwhile trade). Secondly, I can’t think of how to correctly write such a benefit so that it won’t be misinterpreted the way I did above. Maximum skill ranks is always based on character level rather than class level; you’d need some sort of formula to calculate it based on the number of guilder levels you had… messy.

The increased max ranks would apply to guilder levels only. As above, 1 level of guilder won’t get you any increase in max ranks. Instead consider a 6/2 rogue/guilder. He’d have 10 for his max ranks, only 1 more than the guilder.

Maybe instead of the formula, it should simply be a bonus max rank at every 2 out of 3 levels. That would remove the confusion from multiclassing.

As for qualifying for a prestige class early, i think that’s ok. Remember, this is all the guilder does- skills.

-Fizz

7

I wasn’t proposing it should be added to the Sanctioned version. But i hope that doesn’t mean it can’t be discussed for those of us who want to add it to our own campaigns.

It was always a “weak” class.[/quote]

The class can basically be consumed via the rogue and noble.[/quote]

The Noble is an NPC class improved to be a core class. The Guilder, in my mind, does the same for the Expert NPC class.

But i do see how people could lump the two together. In the way that the Rjurik call Bards Skalds', maybe the Brecht call Nobles Guilders’. Still, i think there are enough ideas to warrant a class.

Since it was a regionally specific class - anything along its lines would better fit as a Prestige Class. In fact that would probably be the best way to handle it - a class that is much more oriented towards domain level economics than adventuring.

I find that argument inconsistent with the rest of the setting- Many core classes are regional in Birthright. Barbarians are only found among the Rjurik and Vos, Paladins among Anuireans and Khinasi. The Brechts need one of their own. (And it fits well among the merchants of Khinasi too, anyways.)

-Fizz

8

Then this should go to the Royal Library thread and not the BRCS one. This thread is supposed to be dedicated to the BRCS itself - questions, changes, etc.

I find that argument inconsistent with the rest of the setting- Many core classes are regional in Birthright. Barbarians are only found among the Rjurik and Vos, Paladins among Anuireans and Khinasi. The Brechts need one of their own. (And it fits well among the merchants of Khinasi too, anyways.)

But the original 2nd requirement for the guilder was specifically to have come from the Great Bay region. That is specific to a region hence the reason I said that it should be in the Atlas (as a Prestige Class).

In the BRCS there is no restriction on the paladin like there was in 2nd ed. There is however a prefered race/culture thing. That does not mean that every class isn’t available in all cultures only that they are not very common (and some are extremely rare). Elven clerics/paladins are the one exception.

9

Ooops. Didn’t realize putting here meant a `proposal’ for BRCS. Thought this area it was more of a generic discussion board for 3E-like conversion. OK, feel free to move the thread over to the Royal Library. :slight_smile:

-Fizz

10

In 3rd edition, classes don’t mean what they used to. Someone with a level of barbarian isn’t necessarily a primitive savage - it’s just someone that can rage in combat. Someone with a level of paladin doesn’t necessarily belong to a knightly order - it’s just someone that has learned to channel their faith into minor healing abilities. Likewise, a fighter isn’t necessarily a soldier (could just be someone that took a course in Power Attack 101), a rogue isn’t necessarily a thief, and so forth.

Granted, spellcasters tend to be the exception, but that’s only because the mechanics of spell acquisition do not favour multiclassing.

11

Hmm actually classes are better themed than that. A barbarian is not merely someone who can rage.

Read the Background information in the PHB it talks about what the classes are about. All of the color information in the PHB is not included in the SRD so if you are using that as your source (many people do) it lacks a lot of information that helps to fill out what the classes are about.

Paladins in 2nd ed never had to be “knights” either. They are still more than character who can channel their faith into minor healing. There is that Code of Conduct thing (no other class has it) that separates them from clerics and the like. Again the Background information in the PHB is useful.

The major difference between 2nd ed and 3.x as far as classes go is the relative ease with which a character can multiclass. No set class combination restrictions (nor level restricitions) based on race nor any minimum ability score requisites to take a class. A character can choose to be a fighter with a 5 strength if he wanted to (IIRC in 2nd ed the minimum was an 8) he just isn’t very good in melee while he could have a relatively high dex and be a capable archer.

12

In my opinion, the “background” information is meaningless fluff that is flat out contradicted by the mechanics of multiclassing.

If you want a campaign whereby barbarians are primitive savages, you’ll need something besides the core rules to play such a campaign. The core rules allow you to take level 1 as a fighter, level 2-3 as a ranger, level 4 as a barbarian, and then continue on as a fighter for the next couple of levels until you reach level 6 or so when you pick some cool-power prestige class. What does the “background” section have to say about such characters?

You could describe such a character as someone that started off as a trained veteran, then spent some time in the woods, where he kicked around with a bunch of orcs that taught him their primitive ways, before re-enlisting… but does anyone not find that story ludicrous? (Incidentally, if you’re human this would not impose any XP penalties).

If you think that this sort of multiclassing is hard to justify for story reasons - that is of course your prerogative. But it’s absolutely allowed as far as the 3.5 core rules are concerned.

Paladins in 2nd ed never had to be “knights” either. They are still more than character who can channel their faith into minor healing. There is that Code of Conduct thing (no other class has it) that separates them from clerics and the like. Again the Background information in the PHB is useful.

The code of conduct is what I was referring to by “faith”. (Of course in my campaign paladins have no such code of conduct anyway, but we’re talking about the core rules here, so that’s irrelevant).

The major difference between 2nd ed and 3.x as far as classes go is the relative ease with which a character can multiclass. No set class combination restrictions (nor level restricitions) based on race nor any minimum ability score requisites to take a class. A character can choose to be a fighter with a 5 strength if he wanted to (IIRC in 2nd ed the minimum was an 8) he just isn’t very good in melee while he could have a relatively high dex and be a capable archer.

And this difference is exactly why I claim that classes are just collections of abilities. The reason to multiclass is not “I want my fighter to have some primitive roots”; it’s “I want the rage ability”. The former, if you’re one who hates the idea of power gaming, can be had just by declaring it so (and maybe buying only hide armour and a spear instead of more civilised equipment). There’s no need to multiclass for that. The only reason to multiclass is if you want some mechanical ability rather than just a story idea.

13

I think this is a bit of an overstatement. Certainly, a mechanical advantage is a reason to multiclass, but just as certainly it’s not the only one. Story ideas are also a reason to multiclass, and a potent one, often (though not always) leading people into suboptimal designs (in particular, almost every multiclassed spellcaster would nearly have to be of the “story-justified” type).

I’ll grant that a character multiclassing into (for example) barbarian can be a little tricky to justify, but the justification can still be “I’m losing control of the beast within” rather than “I want to be able to rage once a day and gain some other abilities for which I’d have to give up the best armor choices.” On the other hand, prestige classes are a little different. Regardless of any mechanical benefits which may be the reason some players want to join, prestige classes require that at least lip service be paid to story justifications, in the character having to perform some campaign related goal or take a number of sub-optimal skills or feats.

This is certainly not the only way one could describe such a character. Even looking at the Scandinavian cultures that the Rjuriks are primarily based on, the berserker/barbarian was a prominent type of warrior but certainly not the only one. Martial training of a less chaotic sort was certainly not unknown (not everyone was a berserk) and woodland and tracking skills would no doubt have proved valuable as well. These multiple abilities don’t require the story you propose above, just an interest in finding out a little of many of the skills and talents a group (or several groups) practice. Think of (another real-world analogy) a student who studies several martial arts, or martial arts and fencing, or fencing and tracking. The people who do such things may be dilettantes, but they are not impossible to believe in, nor do they require ludicrous story explanantions, just a deep curiosity. Real people can rarely be claimed to be following some optimal game path.

So yes, you are correct in that the multiclassing system doesn’t require any sort of story justification. However, it certainly doesn’t contradict or make meaningless class background information, nor disallow or make ludicrous story-based or campaign-based justifications for multiclassing. In fact, the non-numeric descriptions of the races (such as the general personality description, alignment tendencies, and physical description) and the classes (standard backgrounds, origins, and motivations) are not meaningless. Even for characters who do not match these usual characteristics, the standard version plays an important role for the characters, as their differences from the norm are a large part of what make them interesting.

14

Sorry if my last post was a bit off-topic in a thread at least originally intended to promote the reintroduction of the Guilder or at least an exploration of how it could be made to work as a DM specific add-on. I don’t necessarily oppose the use of the Guilder, though I’d suggest one needs to be careful in making them to avoid making them either game-breaking in some areas or utterly inferior to other classes. I agree with gazza that the following are definitely problems:

His fixes of both problems seem reasonable too:

How to fix the Guilder to make it not useless compared to the Rogue, but still not overpowered is a little tougher. One suggestion is to give the Guilder a greatly expanded selection of class skills, possibly even to the extreme of the Akashic in Monte Cook’s Arcana Evolved, making all skills class skills. This would of course require that the Guilder’s special abilities be significantly weaker than the Rogue’s (which is probably almost guaranteed given the nature of the classes). Another option is to give the Guilder a player-chosen class skill list (in a little more extreme version than Fizz’s Original one) such as:

Class Skills
The guilder’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Craft (Int), Knowledge (all skills, taken individually) (Int), Profession (wis), and any ten additional skills chosen by the player. These skills are chosen at first level and thereafter cannot be changed.

In either case, I’d suggest that the Guilder have equal skills per level to the Rogue (but no more) and generally somewhat weaker (and vastly different) special abilities, but not completely inconsequential ones. Additionally, the second option above could be modified to allow six, eight, or twelve player-chosen class skills as seems appropriate given their other abilities. The good Will saves seem to be another worthwhile difference from the Rogue, either coupled with good Reflex saves or not. Another possibility is to grant the Guilder Medium armor proficiency (and probably only simple weapons), and maybe even d8 hit dice, further differentiating them from the Rogue by leading them away from being so steath-oriented.

Anyway, the Guilder would be a difficult class to make both balanced and useful, but something like this seems like a possibility to get there without stepping on too many toes of the other classes.

15

Here is some things that may be useful.

Follow the link to an old “discussion” about the noble.

There are several documents (i.e., versions) there.

The first one was my original concept for a noble. IMO it does a whole lot towards capturing the guilder issue but it was shot down via polls and we ended up with the current version in the sanctioned chapter.

I’ve attached the word file to make it easier to “find”.

http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?t=2401&highlight=noble

16

I like the idea of having regional base classes. There are pleanty of good base classes out there that could very well fit into a Birthright campaign. For Brechtur, it seems like the Swashbuckler and Scout classes are good fits, no?

17

If you are going to introduce such a class, good ideas are the Illicit Barter ability found in the Star Wars d20 Scoundrel class, as well as The Wheel of Time d20 Wanderer class (I think). Check up on those two classes for a good theme.

Additionally, it’s very important to actually give the Guilder some more defining skills: Appraise, Bluff, Craft, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Profession, Spot, and an additional 10 skills as class skills seems to be a sound mechanic (though I would go for 10 + Int modifier); I would also grant him bonus feats chosen from a list, including Cosmopolitan and Skill Focus. Contacts from the Scoundrel and Noble are also a sound mechanic if handled properly.

18

Thanks everyone for the input!

Seems people are worried about the extra-ranks idea. I guess that’s not usually a concern of mine since my group doesn’t use prestige classes.

While i agree the guilder is sort of a niche class, i’ve always (even back in 2nd ed) liked the idea of a solely skill-based class. I know that many consider the rogue to be that class for 3E, but it’s too sneak-focused for that purpose. In my mind, the guilder should be to the expert what the fighter is to the warrior.

The trick is finding enough special things to make it a worthwhile class. That was easy in 2nd Ed where non-weapon proficiencies were scarce.

I will consider all the stuff stated here and see what i can work up. Any other suggestions are always welcome!

-Fizz

19

At 08:53 PM 7/19/2006, Birthright.net Message Boards wrote:

>Hi all-

Hello back. Let`s see if this whole interaction between boards/list
is up and going…

Class Skills

Administrate (Wis), Appraise (Int), Bluff (Cha), Concentration
(Con), Craft (Int), Decipher Script (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Forgery
(Int), Gamble (Wis), Gather Information (Cha), Intimidate (Cha),
Knowledge (all), Listen (Wis), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis),
Search (Int), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Speak
Language (Int), Use Rope (Dex)

Plus, the guilder chooses 3 other skills to be class skills.

Skill Points: 10

As a rule of thumb, I found a couple of things in designing classes
and assigning them skill points. One, they should probably not
exceed 8/level. It just seems to work out well if that`s the cap,
especially if one considers that an INT bonus might bump it up even
higher. In general, I found 1/3 of the current total list of class
skills is a good number. That way there are always things the PC
might be able to do better but he has access to a decent number of
his class skills. In this case that would peg it at right about
8. (23 class skills / 3 = 7.blahblahblah)

>Expert: The guilder is not constrained by the maximum ranks as other
>classes are. The maximum ranks he may have in a given skill is
>equal to 3 + 1.5 times his level. Thus, at 2nd level his max ranks
>would be 6 instead of the usual 5. At 10th he could have 18 ranks,
>instead of 13. At 20th he could have 33 instead of 23. (This
>emulates the 2nd Ed guilder ability of having extra nonweapon
>proficiency slots.)

Im thinking of just doing away with max ranks entirely, but thats a
whole `nother screed.

Silver Tongue: Constant dealing with others gives the guilder a keen
sense of how to make them believe his lies. He may attempt a retry
of the Bluff skill, but with a –5 penalty.

Pidgin: Guilders have a knack for communicating despite barriers of
an uncommon language. He can communicate and understand simple
concepts, such as the need for food, desire to trade, warnings,
etc. This works similar to the Decipher Script skill. The guilder
makes a Pidgin check equal to d20 plus his Intelligence modifier
plus his level. The DC varies with the complexity of information
that is trying to be conveyed.

As for special abilities, I think there should be some effort to
differentiate the class not only from rogues, but to emphasize their
administrative/financial role at the domain level. That is, they
aren`t thieves… they steal from people licitly. Thus, things like
an ability to trade/purchase items, a long-standing relationship with
others. Maybe an income from what we might assume to be a sort of
medieval portfolio (the way certain D20 classes get a daily, weekly
or monthly stipend) might be in order.

G

20

I`ve found instances that would allow any of the core
classes in any of the regions of the Birthright
setting.

The Five Peaks region could easily spawn barbaric
humans. In fact, the northernmost province of
Mhoried, as found in a module, had highland type
people very similar to Scottish people; who were, for
all intents and purposes, still a barbarian people for
many centuries after they were “civilized” by the
English.

Barbaric desert tribes in Khinasi are easily made.

And etc…

I dont think there is a region in Birthright that cant support any class you wish to play.

Just my two pence.

Anthony Edwards

— “Birthright.net Message Boards”
<brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:

> I find that argument inconsistent with the rest of
> the setting- Many core classes are regional in
> Birthright. Barbarians are only found among the
> Rjurik and Vos, Paladins among Anuireans and
> Khinasi. The Brechts need one of their own. (And
> it fits well among the merchants of Khinasi too,
> anyways.)
>
> I like the idea of having regional base classes.
> There are pleanty of good base classes out there
> that could very well fit into a Birthright campaign.
> For Brechtur, it seems like the Swashbuckler and
> Scout classes are good fits, no?

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com