Nobles

[kintire]

The problem is not that the Noble doesn't open doors, but that social skills are only as weak or as powerful as GM scripting.

Err... no. That may be the way your GM runs things - in which case Noble may not be the class for your group - but there's no reason to do things that way. we don't.

 

[treeplanter]

Nice, I really like the greater rally thing. That was exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. I'll sure incorporate that.

 

[decker423]

The noble is definitely underpowered. The problem is not that the Noble doesn't open doors, but that social skills are only as weak or as powerful as GM scripting. That makes the bulk of noble achievements dependent on what the GM decides to do, and takes a lot out of the hands of the player. That is not the Sword & Sorcery way for the heroes.

That depends on your point of view. Personally, I like strong players (players who have personalities and goals for their character with good background material) and strong GMs. A game doesn't succeed or fall on the GM alone or the PCs alone, it's a group effort.
I guess the point for all of this is that everyone should sit down and figure out what kind of campaign the PCs want to play in and what kind the GM wants to run. then they figure out restrictions or whatever on PC classes (no Kushites or Stygians, no nobles, nobody from Khitai for example) and try to place those characters INTO the agreed upon campaign.

It's all about individual taste and "flair" I guess. Nobles can be very handy. They (like anyone else for that matter) can be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

PCs shouldn't let themselves be led by the nose by a GM and the GM shouldn't allow himself to be trampled over by hording players. I think and feel that the best games I've played in or run were built on consensus from both sides and a willingness to work together.

 

[Spade]

I'm not saying social skills are useless, just that the numbers assigned to them don't translate into other clear numbers- such as hit points. And as such, social skills and powers are very squishy. At extremely advanced gameplay levels you can reliably evaluate them in a clear and even manner, but otherwise, it's a problem.

At intermediate levels, you can set up an intrigue-heavy campaign in which the Noble social skills have a firm and clear place. This requires the GM stand firm about not providing "gimme" substitutions if a Noble isn't present to drive the social aspects of the gameplay. As soon as the GM makes a trend of doing that, that entire side of the Noble becomes hollow.

What's more, players in general want to be somewhat useful in all situations, and as written the Noble is very frail as soon as combat comes into play. And while I'm against giving the Noble more skill points, he just doesn't get enough to both be a complete, specialized Face and have a useful suite of field skills.

Because the powerlevel of social skills is so subjective, I say give the Noble some slight tweaks to help him contribute to the party in the field both directly (through stronger Rally powers), and indirectly (by having the defenses to have some ability to stand and fight).