Here is another recent ‘hot’ topic that deserves some quantification.
If you have a different idea for BAB please post it since there are only 3 options (good, average and poor).
I’m acvtually quite ambivalent on the BAB issue in regards to the Noble. As far as I am concerned, either a Good or Average BAB suits the class well, as I can see the arguments for both.
Based on that, for the first time in a Poll, I have Abstained…
I think this depends entirely on the focus of the class. If one go for the version with several different paths I think the average BAB would be best. If one opt for a class representing a typrical Anuirean lord then the higher BAB could be a better option.
Originally posted by Don E@Aug 8 2004, 09:55 PM
I think this depends entirely on the focus of the class. If one go for the version with several different paths I think the average BAB would be best. If one opt for a class representing a typrical Anuirean lord then the higher BAB could be a better option.
There is a problem basing this on the Anuirean lords, since they have a cultural disposition towards empire building. IMO this is where people are getting confused on the noble issue.
There seems to be common perception that the noble is a warrior-ruler. There is actually nothing in the cultural text (2nd or BRCS) to give the impression that the class is limited to Anuire. Brecht and Khinasi cultures are very specifically noble based. But the Brecht are specifically not a warrior based society hence the default of warrior-ruler just doesn’t fit for the average Brecht noble. In Khinasi it could make more sense they are warrior-scholars and in Anuire it makes a lot of sense. But a class shouldn’t be based on a single culture - that is what there is no standard human (and common language) in Cerilia.
If one looks to supporting classes (from WotC and other companies) one can readily see that this is not the case. The aristocrat, the NPC equivalent of noble, is most definitely not a warrior-ruler based class.
A class exclusive to a single culture is a prestige class and that is how it should be presented, IMO, if that is the way people want it.
I voted average. Like irdeggman said, this isn’t a warrior-noble per se. If you want to play an Anuirean warrior-noble, multiclass a few fighter-levels. Levels in the noble-class should focus on leadership and the benefits of nobility - things that are not covered by the other classes.
There seems to be common perception that the noble is a warrior-ruler. There is actually nothing in the cultural text (2nd or BRCS) to give the impression that the class is limited to Anuire. Brecht and Khinasi cultures are very specifically noble based. But the Brecht are specifically not a warrior based society hence the default of warrior-ruler just doesn’t fit for the average Brecht noble. In Khinasi it could make more sense they are warrior-scholars and in Anuire it makes a lot of sense. But a class shouldn’t be based on a single culture - that is what there is no standard human (and common language) in Cerilia.
So exactly what does distinguuish or exemplify the Brecht nobility? What, for instance, makes a noble class more fitting than the Rogue? While there is a focus on commerce, are the landed nobility often guilders, or are they generally seperate? And if seperate, what IS their role in society? I would think defending the land is pretty important to landed nobility in any culture. It’s not as if the Brecht have entirely peaceful borders, what with the Gorgon and many humanoids filling the mountains and pirates a recurring problem in the Great Bay.
The idea of landed nobility being warriors is based on the role of feudal lords in medieval society - defense of the realm was their primary role, hence the reason they always led the fighting.
I think we should take a step back and consider the situation as it has come to be: is the Noble we are going to be using the aristocratic example of a landed courtier, or is he a war-trained defender of the realm?
While people will argue that Anuire is a good example of the second and Brechtur a good example of the first, I have to say that multi-classing is always the best way to make something fit something as different as two such cultures.
The typical Brecht noble is a noble/rogue, while the typical Anuirean noble is a fighter/noble. It would only make sence that a Khinasi noble is a noble/wizard, or a fighter/noble perhaps. The only example which leads to a non-militarian noble is that of the Brecht noble, since even the Khinasi have the “defend the realm” attitude; the former has a more “make money” attitude.
This leads to the simple conclusion that most nobles have an at least average BAB progression. However, there is this other issue…
Wouldn’t multiclassing actually present a better way to handle BAB and its role? For example, a typical Mhorien noble receives military training (especially the princes), but as the novel “The Falcon and the Wolf” indicates, there are high-standing nobles with little capacity even in sword-swinging! This suggests an average BAB, since even a couple of levels in a fighting-oriented class really make a difference.
The whole point is this: make it obvious that nobles tend to be multiclassed. A good idea would be to signify that nobles cannot choose just any “occupation” without being looked down; this could be treated like Oriental Adventures’ system of honourable and dishonourable skills or, even trickier, say that any class other than a few select ones per region are considered uneven immediately (they impose an XP penalty). I prefer the earlier method, to be honest…
Think of it this way: an Anuirean noble that left his people and surrendered because of being outnumbered will have the understanding of his people; if he did it because of being too young and was afraid he would kill most of them, they will have grudges, but may well understand in their anger; if he surrendered on more roguish grounds (meaning he surrendered after a deal or because he is militarily incapable), his people would hate him!
The idea is to apply a penalty similar to the Sidhelien’s penalty for infamy. How do you see that? And nobles to get an average BAB, of course…
For example:
Noble Birth: Nobles are the elite of each society and are thus expected to set the highest paradeigm for all others. Each region has a few classes which are considered appropriate for a noble to consider as secondary endeavours; if a noble ever onvolves himself with any other class, he takes a cumulative -2 penalty on all Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, and Sense Motive checks [MY NOTE: aren’t this the most appropriately penalised skills?] for each such class he has undertaken with people of his region who do not have them.
Consider this: if a Brecht noble is expected to multiclass in the fighter and rogue classes (for example), and he takes levels in the ranger class, he takes a -2 penalty with any non-ranger Brecht character. If he also undertook the wizard class, he would take a -4 penalty with non-ranger non-wizard Brecht, and a -2 with ranger or wizard Brecht; he would have no penalty with a ranger/wizard Brecht.
[b]This leads to the simple conclusion that most nobles have an at least average BAB progression. However, there is this other issue…
Wouldn’t multiclassing actually present a better way to handle BAB and its role? For example, a typical Mhorien noble receives military training (especially the princes), but as the novel “The Falcon and the Wolf” indicates, there are high-standing nobles with little capacity even in sword-swinging! This suggests an average BAB, since even a couple of levels in a fighting-oriented class really make a difference.
[/b]
The problem is that a medium BAB guarantees a weaker fighting capability when multiclassing, thanks especially to having a +0 attack at 1st level. So with a medium BAB, a fighter/noble will always be a weaker combatant as a result. Meanwhile, a Noble/Cleric or Noble/Rogue is also a weaker combatant than a straight Cleric or Rogue, and a Noble/Wizard will be pathetically poor.
By contrast, a high BAB Noble avoids these problems; a Noble/Fighter will be an excellent warrior; however, multiclassing as a Fighter is still stronger than a straight Noble thanks to Specialization and bonus feats, while multiclassing as a Rogue, Cleric, or Wizard will still lower their total BAB and thus maintain the thematic element that these are less combat-worthy than a pure Noble.
As for the high-standing nobles of Mhoried in the above example, wouldn’t these perhaps be better represented by the Aristocrat than the Noble? This seems to me a better example of the not-so-dedicated nobility, who still have the social skills but not the commitment of the heroic noble.
Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 9 2004, 09:16 AM
[b]
So exactly what does distinguuish or exemplify the Brecht nobility? What, for instance, makes a noble class more fitting than the Rogue? While there is a focus on commerce, are the landed nobility often guilders, or are they generally seperate? And if seperate, what IS their role in society? I would think defending the land is pretty important to landed nobility in any culture. It’s not as if the Brecht have entirely peaceful borders, what with the Gorgon and many humanoids filling the mountains and pirates a recurring problem in the Great Bay.
The idea of landed nobility being warriors is based on the role of feudal lords in medieval society - defense of the realm was their primary role, hence the reason they always led the fighting. [/b]
Not necessary defense of the land but of the holdings. Most nobles would not be landed regents but rather non-landed ones (i.e., those who come from a family that runs holdings only). This makes the biggest distinction. In Brechtur, they have ceded the government to those of Anuirean descent while the actual power (i.e., the economic control) is held by Brechts.
The problem with the historical comparison is the landed part. Since most regents (in BR) are not landed most nobles would likewise be the same.
[b]Not necessary defense of the land but of the holdings. Most nobles would not be landed regents but rather non-landed ones (i.e., those who come from a family that runs holdings only). This makes the biggest distinction. In Brechtur, they have ceded the government to those of Anuirean descent while the actual power (i.e., the economic control) is held by Brechts.
The problem with the historical comparison is the landed part. Since most regents (in BR) are not landed most nobles would likewise be the same. [/b]
Hmmm…I had always believed a Noble class would represent landed nobility - not only regents, however, as there aren’t all that many regents in general. Also, I thought it was pretty clear that a Noble class would also represent unblooded aristocracy who still play a leadership role. However, the nobility in most societies would be landowners - however BR differs from medieval Europe, this fact would need to remain constant because it is an agrarian society, where land is the backbone of any economy because land supplies food. While trade, mining, sea husbandry, and craftsmanship are important economic factors, they cannot exist without agriculture to support them. This is such a fundamental backbone of a medieval economy I don’t see how it can be ignored. Even the Brecht would use whatever arable land they could to raise food, and that requires landlords in a feudal system, who are traditionally the nobility.
As for regents (and their families) of other holdings, why should a Noble class be better suited than Rogues or Clerics or Wizards? Would temple or source regents necesarily be hereditary, the basic requirement for a Noble class?
Finally, the Brecht leaving government to the Anuirean-descended nobility while the guilds hold power: to me this symbolizes that those Anuireans would be better suited as Aristocrat and Noble-class characters, while the Brechts would tend to be more practical-minded Rogues running the guilds.
Most people seem to be in favour of an average bab at the moment myself included.
Nobles have other things to spend their time on ruling, matters of law and ettiquete to name but a few. A fighter as a heroic character focuses almost solely on fighting. While yes nobles get better training than the common people remember that all characters are heroic and exceptional individuals. One of the reasons I support an average bab is the fact that they should focus some of their time and expertice on other matters. Nobles were rarely great warriors they had the best equipement and bodyguard to ensure their safety in battle. If you look at the medieval period nobles would frequently be taken captive and held for ransom. Then their is chivalry etc. There is little real proof that nobles have ever been great fighters but they have always held positions of leadership as well as being some of the best educated people in the ancient world and I think that this is a better focus for the class than I can hit things well. If you want a warrior noble just multiclass.
By contrast, a high BAB Noble avoids these problems; a Noble/Fighter will be an excellent warrior; however, multiclassing as a Fighter is still stronger than a straight Noble thanks to Specialization and bonus feats, while multiclassing as a Rogue, Cleric, or Wizard will still lower their total BAB and thus maintain the thematic element that these are less combat-worthy than a pure Noble.
The same argument could be made for why a character with an average BAB would want to multiclass towards one with a good BAB.
As for regents (and their families) of other holdings, why should a Noble class be better suited than Rogues or Clerics or Wizards? Would temple or source regents necesarily be hereditary, the basic requirement for a Noble class?
While temple regents wouldn’t be necessarily hereditary (something that is not a basic requirement of the class by the way – only that the power/influence and money be hereditary) – it was quite common for nobles to attempt to send one of the sons into the priesthood. Realizing that most had multiple children and only the eldest was in direct line to be the successor many of nobility sought other means to increase their family’s influence. Having a priest as a son was usually taken to be a good sign that God would favor the family. Also monasteries were very academically inclined and the source of most of the higher education. As far as temples having influence and affluence a real world example would be the Roman Catholic Church and all of the affluence that it has. Historically the Church of England and many other major ‘temples’ shared this type of affluence and influence.
Finally, the Brecht leaving government to the Anuirean-descended nobility while the guilds hold power: to me this symbolizes that those Anuireans would be better suited as Aristocrat and Noble-class characters, while the Brechts would tend to be more practical-minded Rogues running the guilds.
Why would it mean that Anuireans are better suited to aristocracy and noble-classes? The Brecht are very much a class oriented society, only that class is driven by economic factors and nor empire building (something that the Anuireans are prone to do). It is all about influencing people and leading them. The Brecht only give the Anuireans token leadership not real leadership, that is reserved for those with the money.
My previous post was more or less such an argument.
A good example of the education granted in most monasteries include the studies of Gregor Mendel on the laws of hereditary characteristics, as well as the discoverer of black-powder (he did not invent it, he discovered a chinese “alchemical” recipe for the creation of black-powder). Furthermore, families would be able to influence the Church and thus even other families easier through more impersonal means, like a brother in its service.
There seems to be common perception that the noble is a warrior-ruler. There is actually nothing in the cultural text (2nd or BRCS) to give the impression that the class is limited to Anuire. Brecht and Khinasi cultures are very specifically noble based. But the Brecht are specifically not a warrior based society hence the default of warrior-ruler just doesn’t fit for the average Brecht noble. In Khinasi it could make more sense they are warrior-scholars and in Anuire it makes a lot of sense. But a class shouldn’t be based on a single culture - that is what there is no standard human (and common language) in Cerilia.
I think the crucial difference in our points of view here is that the nobility talked about in the Brecht and Khinasi realms are what I see as the characters with the Aristocrat class. The Noble class we are trying to hammer out here is a PC class, and one that should perhaps be suitable for the player character who comes along to reunite Anuire, rid the Khinasi lands of the swarms of Awnsheghlien or lead the hordes of Vos to plunder all of Cerilia. No matter what culture we are looking at, the noble class might be perfectly justified as being a ‘heroic’ type rather than a dillettante or courtier.
That said does of course not automatically mean the Noble must have a high BAB progression. The Marhsall class from the Miniature handbook which I think is a good starting point for the class have a average BAB progression. The fundamental issue here is that the class should ensure “everyone gets a chance to shine”. Unless the class is granted some significant class abilities that give it a nice focus, high BAB and hence combat ability is a reasonable option.
One possibiliity I was studying earlier was to make the noble a bit along the same lines as the Evangelist PrC from Complete Divine. This class gains ‘social attacks’ in the same way that the Bard does, and their abilities even stack to a certain expetent. While I’m not compeltely happy with the exact mechanism (perhaps because I’m not entirely happy with the Bard), it is a possible way of making the noble a class that has focus of the ‘social’ side of the game. To make the feudal warrior king it could multiclass with fighter to gain some improved matrial abilities, but still having a slightly better leadership capability (and a limited ability to improve allies) as well as the possibility to use his honey voice to talk the group past the sentries. Similarly the ultiamate courtier could be made by multiclassing into a bard, making a very socially oriented character, but with the martial skills suitable for somebody with a noble upbringing.
In general I think the class should not have an resource/contact abilities, as they are things that should be represented by actual character contacts or sources of income. Being of noble birth and character doesn’t automatically imply the character should end up with more and more gold. If anything it is the rogue that should have such contacts.
Hmm, that was meant to be a quick reply, but turned into a bit of a ramble.
First of all, the Aristocrat is an NPC class and should be treated as such; it is a more courtly Noble, and should be thus treated.
OK, it seems there is another issue here, which we can be captured in these words:
In general I think the class should not have an resource/contact abilities, as they are things that should be represented by actual character contacts or sources of income. Being of noble birth and character doesn’t automatically imply the character should end up with more and more gold. If anything it is the rogue that should have such contacts.
What I think of as an issue is the way resources are being interpreted; while asking for such mechanics to be dealt on a more campaign-specific level with the usage of roleplaying aids is not something entirely undesirable, it simply defeats the whole D&D system: aren’t sneak attacks limited to rogues?
What I mean is that the game has an inherent pattern; we can adjust it, but we do have to follow it either way. For example, sneak attacks are only an example of precision-based damage solutions available to characters. The same applies to resources as well. Still, it is only the rogue who gets such damage mechanics so easilly, and only the noble should be getting his hands on gold so easilly too!
Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Aug 10 2004, 02:42 AM
First of all, the Aristocrat is an NPC class and should be treated as such; it is a more courtly Noble, and should be thus treated.
That is my point exactly, and all those ‘typical’ nobles from around the various regions are better described by this class than the noble.
[b]What I think of as an issue is the way resources are being interpreted; while asking for such mechanics to be dealt on a more campaign-specific level with the usage of roleplaying aids is not something entirely undesirable, it simply defeats the whole D&D system: aren’t sneak attacks limited to rogues?
What I mean is that the game has an inherent pattern; we can adjust it, but we do have to follow it either way. For example, sneak attacks are only an example of precision-based damage solutions available to characters. The same applies to resources as well. Still, it is only the rogue who gets such damage mechanics so easilly, and only the noble should be getting his hands on gold so easilly too![/b]
What I see as the difference here is that the sneak attack ability is inherently the ability of the rogue to do a cartain thing. The resource ability is only a numerical representation of wealth the character have not really aquired. One could say that the character should have access to money from his family, but that should not be limited by the nobles class but rahter by the amoutn of wealth the family have. Similary if the son of Darien Avan chooses to become a fighter, rogue or wizard, why shouldn’t he have access to such resources?
On a character level game the resrouce ability is a fictious add on to the class that in many cases might not even be very well in line with the character background and/or situation. A noble character whose family has been banished from their home realm, is now making his way through the Adurian wilderness and don’t really have much in the way of new contacts. Just because he has leveled up in the class does it mean he should suddenly have access to more resources. On a domain level of the game a noble’s resources are better represented by actual holding levels, GBs or allies and friends.
In essence it is my opinion that one should move away from the Noble class based on a notion of socail class, and rather base it on some notion of what the ‘ideal heroic leader’ is. Despite what culture one looks at I think it is possible to find that they support the notion of a fighting leader of the people, be it an Anuirean Emperor, Brecht League leader or Khinasi liberator.
First of all, it has been made obvious that DMs should handle how resources play out; the above example you gave is a good example of a case where the DM should not allow the character to fraw on resources, UNLESS he reaches a new area where his family already has other contacts, or if he establishes new contacts altogether.
As for the more courtly nature of the Aristocrat, what I meant is that the Aristocrat, while trained to do battle, taught things and such, he still DOES NOT CARE for his people in the way of defending them through the use of arms, thus becoming more courtly. I didn’t mean he is more focused on the court, I meant he has simply left the battle-field for more enjoyable pursuits.
graham anderson schrieb:
>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2781
>
> graham anderson wrote:
> Most people seem to be in favour of an average bab at the moment myself included. Nobles have other things to spend their time on ruling, matters of law and ettiquete to name but a few. A fighter as a heroic character focuses almost solely on fighting. While yes nobles get better training than the common people remember that all characters are heroic and exceptional individuals. One of the reasons I support an average bab is the fact that they should focus some of their time and expertice on other matters. Nobles were rarely great warriors they had the best equipement and bodyguard to ensure their safety in battle. If you look at the medieval period nobles would frequently be taken captive and held for ransom. Then their is chivalry etc. There is little real proof that nobles have ever been great fighters but they have always held positions of leadership as well as being some of the best educated people in the ancient world and I think that this is a better focus for the cl
> ass than I can hit things well. If you want a warrior noble just multiclass.
>
As I remember from school Karl der Große (Charlemagne?) could not even
read and never really learned it well later… 
bye
Michael
As I remember from school Karl der Große (Charlemagne?) could not even
read and never really learned it well later…
I don’t remember that but even if he couldn’t many of the rulers of the time new multiple languages to speak, read and write. Its all their in the books all you need to do is read a little.
I say Charlemagne is one of the best example of a - ahem - noble multiclassed with LOTS of fighter levels.