Nobles

[treeplanter]

To complement the Pirate thread.

Are Noble to weak? In our campain we gave them 6 kills per level, so that help them a bit. However is that enough? Not that Noble is the ONLY class that still have blank level (3rd, 8th, 13th, 18th). On the other hand, one could argue that abstractly, Noble is one of the class that can acheive the highest power level (along with scholar). After all, with the wealth, improved standing, and the bonus to leadership along with the Ally and Refuge, they are really the best at what they do.

You can make a pretty decent fighter by multiclassing with the soldier for a more "adventuring noble". A noble/soldier using his Regional feature weapon, with focus and specialization (can also add the Intricate swordplay for insane parry defense) will be a real powerhouse in combat (tough a bit slow), while having a decent skill selection.

Also, depending on how GM interprete the importance of social standing, Noble can get a huge subjective advantage on this side in any civilised nation. (On the other hand, barbarian thief and pirate should be the opposite)

Still, I would like those blank hole filled. especially the 3rd and 8th level. Nothing is more boring than a blank level

a bonus feat choosed from Iron will, great fortitude, annimal affinity, investigator, negociator, performer, knowledgable, persuasive, weapon focus (weapon from regional feature), skill focus could do the job i think.

other tought?

 

[decker423]

I think nobles are a good class if you multiclass them with soldier or scholar.
I say scholar because they have to have a high charisma too (scholars need it for magick attacks) and a high charisma for a starting noble equals to a certain amount of silver pieces given to the PC at the start of the game and every year thereafter for "noble's upkeep". For a scholar, all of this extra money means "material compnents, bribes, dirty deeds fees (sacrificial slaves, lotus, etc.), etc.". Scholars probably need the money more than nobles do per se.

As far as 3rd and 8th level being boring I disagree, you get a feat at 3rd level and you increase one stat at 8th level. Who in their right mind turns down feats or stat increases?

I admit that I wouldn't put too many levels into noble (at least 2, I wouldn't put too much unless I intended on being a king or some other major noble)) but for starting out nobles who multiclass into soldiers (especially Hyborians since all classes are racial favorite classes), the extra silver pieces up front can really buy some good armor and weapons AND replace lost armor/weapons each and every year (versus squandering it on whores and ale).

My 2 cents.

 

[treeplanter]

Oh yeah I aggree that you get a feat on 3, but like any other class basicly get 2 feat on 3. So the question is do you think other noble abilities account for that when compared to other class? In my opinion, the only Noble ability wich is truly great is enhanced Leadership, and maybe the Do you know who I am.

Oh also, I allow the Lead by exemple to be break down on multiple allies. That become much better. Instead of a +6 to one person you could give a +2 to 3 different allies. Make sense to me.

 

[Halfbat]

Should I mention a Noble's followers? They seem to be one of his most powerful assets...

 

[treeplanter]

well that part of the leadership feat it is not a Noble-only feature. the noble feature comme from the leadership bonus wich give him more follower.

 

[Spectator]

To answer your question about the blank 3rd an 8th levels, give em some feats that wont throw off the game: Carouser or PErsuasive, and WEapon focus: arming/fencing sword or Mounted combat (hell, nobles after nomads are the most accustomed to mounts).
I still use just the first edition, fyi.

 

[Ichabod]

Are Noble to weak?

How about instead of "weak" "unfun"? There are RPGers who enjoy controlling power without actually having it. I'm not one of them. The noble class is all about having more minions than anyone else, being able to direct those minions better than anyone else, getting non-minions to do things for the party, and totally sucking at doing anything itself.

Also, depending on how GM interprete the importance of social standing, Noble can get a huge subjective advantage on this side in any civilised nation. (On the other hand, barbarian thief and pirate should be the opposite)

Our GM gives this subjective advantage and, based on other threads, it sounds like others do as well. That might be enough if the campaign has a significant political/intrigue element. Or, the player may just get incredibly frustrated by not having a character who is effective on its own.

other tought?

Eliminate the noble class. It makes no sense anyway. You don't have a dilettante style noble because you get these (generally awful) regional bonuses that are frequently combat based and you don't have an effective war chief style noble because you utterly suck at doing stuff like combat. I can't figure out what the noble is actually trying to represent in the game - "To smear or not to smear, should I whip out my sword and bow and ineffectually engage my enemies in physical combat or should I make them look bad in society?"

Instead, one idea is to make nobility a feat. Get all of the fluff stuff like title and wealth and get something actually useful, like rewriting one of the temptresses better abilities into a more generic social ability. Have other feats (take the social abilities and make them not suck or give like 5 of them for every feat slot) that require the nobility feat.

Another idea is to have everyone have a status. A simple system would be a three level one of lower, middle, upper. Upper gets noble features. Lower gets survival skills or whatever. Middle gets ... I haven't thought it through that much to think about what would be balanced and appropriate. Could make it more complicated by having more ranks.

Another is to just say that nobles get advantages and disadvantages that should net out. Sure, you can get your +2's in CHA based skills, but you are always highly visible, so you make enemies and they can find you easily. Whatever. Probably only works with some groups.

Anyway, besides not having to rewrite the class (if not getting rid of it, I'd rewrite it as two different classes - dilettante noble, warrior noble), it just makes complete intuitive sense that you have:

Barbarians ... who are noble (chiefs);
Scholars ... who are noble (see Stygia);
Soldiers ... who are noble (knights);
Thiefs ... who are noble (Scarlet Pimpernel, Zorro).

Why not do this with multiclassing? Because you dilute the effectiveness of the class you are multiclassing with severely. Not every knight should be distinctly inferior at fighting to pure soldiers, for instance. It's just thematically wrong to be thinking all of the time, "Sure, that dude is rich and has a fine horse, but I can kick his ass every time."

And, the current Noble Blood feat, which goes some way to thematically explaining groups like Stygian scholars, is far too weak as I'd never want to take noble levels ever anyway.

 

[decker423]

Are Noble to weak?

How about instead of "weak" "unfun"? There are RPGers who enjoy controlling power without actually having it. I'm not one of them. The noble class is all about having more minions than anyone else, being able to direct those minions better than anyone else, getting non-minions to do things for the party, and totally sucking at doing anything itself.)

I respectfully disagree. You're looking at it in action-gaming terms only. It's not about minions. Being a noble is like a pirate or a scholar or a nomad or a barbarian- it's a roleplaying opportunity in and of itself. Nobles live in the world of Conan, some are adventure-like, some are not. It's up to the PC.

Also, depending on how GM interprete the importance of social standing, Noble can get a huge subjective advantage on this side in any civilised nation. (On the other hand, barbarian thief and pirate should be the opposite)

[/quote="Ichabod"]Our GM gives this subjective advantage and, based on other threads, it sounds like others do as well. That might be enough if the campaign has a significant political/intrigue element. Or, the player may just get incredibly frustrated by not having a character who is effective on its own.[/quote]

I agree. A noble can open doors that normally wouldn't be open to other PCs. Also, info, money and resources ("Can we stay the night at this manor house?", "is it ok to switch out our horses for fresh ones?", "tell me sheriff, which way did they go?", etc.) can be available that otherwise wouldn't be available.
I'm not saying that the Noble is the best (by a long shot) character class but he/she does bring something to the table (like all other classes).
Debating pros and cons is fine but borders on min-maxing. I prefer role-playing and interesting stories, whether one's character is "buffed up" or not isn't that critical (IMHO).


.[/quote=Ichabod]Eliminate the noble class. It makes no sense anyway. You don't have a dilettante style noble because you get these (generally awful) regional bonuses that are frequently combat based and you don't have an effective war chief style noble because you utterly suck at doing stuff like combat. I can't figure out what the noble is actually trying to represent in the game - "To smear or not to smear, should I whip out my sword and bow and ineffectually engage my enemies in physical combat or should I make them look bad in society?".[/quote]


It depends on how you look at it I guess. Another game with a variety of classes and societal/combat levels like this is Fading Suns. Soldiers, priests, thieves, nobles, enough variety to fill several roles. It depends on the player running the noble.
Don't just look at a noble as a combat class (or any and all classes in terms of combat). If you look at all classes through the same lens then you're not fully taking advanatage of the game or the classes and yes, in that particular light all other classes would "suck".



[/quote=Ichabod]Instead, one idea is to make nobility a feat.[/quote]

In the Scrolls of Skelos it is. One can have noble blood but that doesn't make one a noble. You can have a "commoner" soldier who has noble blood (his father was a knight, baron, whatever and had an affair with his mother). This can be a good source for an adventure or an adventure plot down the road (is the PC a bastard of a King or the only one in line for an inheritance?, etc.).
You can also have a nobleborn person who decided to join a temple (hence the feat in Scrolls of Skelos) or leave home for the life of a pirate (Argossean/Zingaran) or prefers the life of a spy/assassin (Zamoran).
Noble blood is a tool and story maker/shaker for the GM.



[/quote=Ichabod]Another idea is to have everyone have a status. [/quote]

If you look in 2nd editions Players Guide to Hyboria you will find the various social classes/status for the various cultures.


[/quote=Ichabod] Anyway, besides not having to rewrite the class (if not getting rid of it, I'd rewrite it as two different classes - dilettante noble, warrior noble), it just makes complete intuitive sense that you have:

Barbarians ... who are noble (chiefs);
Scholars ... who are noble (see Stygia);
Soldiers ... who are noble (knights);
Thiefs ... who are noble (Scarlet Pimpernel, Zorro).[/quote]


Check out "Hyboria's Firecest", "Hyboria's Finest", "Hyboria's Fallen" for combo examples in multiclassing.

[/quote=Ichabod] Why not do this with multiclassing? Because you dilute the effectiveness of the class you are multiclassing with severely. Not every knight should be distinctly inferior at fighting to pure soldiers, for instance. It's just thematically wrong to be thinking all of the time, "Sure, that dude is rich and has a fine horse, but I can kick his ass every time.")[/quote]

It's how you look at it I guess. When you multiclass, you give up something in order to take something up. There's lots of way to give variety to one class much less 2 or three. Again, I prefer the storyline and PC history/depth/motivation to mere number crunching.


[/quote=Ichabod]And, the current Noble Blood feat, which goes some way to thematically explaining groups like Stygian scholars, is far too weak as I'd never want to take noble levels ever anyway.[/quote]

Yeah, but as above, it provides some cool story outlets, foreshadowing, adventure ideas/hooks/complications, etc.

My 2 cents.

 

[treeplanter]

Removing a class? why that? make no sense at all.

Then why not removing scholar too? they should be bookworming or giving ceremonies anyway, not roaming the world. Why not remove soldier too, since they are just figther and have no cure for adventuring. why not remove pirate since we are there? Every pirate should remain cloitred in their Ship anyway, not well suited for adventuring.

Your argument don't stand at all. When creating a character, you're creating an adventurer. So that up to the players to decide his backgroup and why he his adventuring, whatever his class is. Because whatever class you take, the majority of their representant are NOT adventurer. Cimmerian will stay in their hills depressing. Pict will remain in their forest. Typic Koth soldier will stay at his lord service as long he his alive.

So maybe it doesn't fit YOUR campain, but saying it should be removed is just utterly stupid.

A young son travelling to get world experience, a banished bastard son looking for revenge, a Nemedian knight who his not the first-son and thus will not inherit any land so he roam the world to improve his status and wealth, a rebel princess fleeing for a forced mariage.

Those are all good hook that could justify an adventuring noble.

OR, one could just run a campain set in feudal aquilonia or nemedia where the main plot are mainly political intrigue (Where noble would actually be one of the best class and barbarian, pirate and nomad would be truly innapropriate).

As for combat: A noble/soldier is almost as strong as a soldier, but get much more skill point and make a pretty good party leader. A Noble 2/Borderer 7 almost as strong as a Borderer 9, i don't think your gonna cry in a combat because of your 2 nobles level.

The 2 thing tha upset me with the noble class:
- Those blanks level
- The really weak dodge value. Wich mean multiclass option with dodging character are not synergic, or noble based on dexterity. I think both parry and dodge should cap at +10 for noble. (+1 / 2 levels)

 

[B_Steele]

As an aside, I added some new ways to make Nobles cooler adventurers in the Warrior's Companion and Thief's Companion.

Cheers,
Bry

 

[decker423]

You don't need more "game mech" to make nobles "cooler". Their position in and of itself automatically implies a story and complications (family allegiences, royal allegiences, loyalty to one's serfs and lord, etc.

I didn't mention it but the above post had some great examples: 2nd, 3rd or 4th son with no inheritance (in Medieval Europe some of these sons also went into the Church), penniless nobles striking out to make it rich and creat their own fiefdom, simple revenge, a noble with a great title (Duke for example) but almost no land and money to back it up or a noble who was set up and exiled for some nefarious reason.

Nobles have plenty of adventure hooks attatched to them. You can say that for all characters but Nobles are from very "social" cultures so plots, history and stories abound.

 

[Spectator]

Nobles are pretty much a waste.
I think the only way you could justify a noble ever being played by a PC would be if you boosted his skills to 10/ level.

THink about he fights on the thief progression table, he doesn't have back stab, cool pirate attacks, spells, or whatnot to justify his low BAB.

Wow, he has some starting coin. thanks to Rule of high living that's pissed away in no time.

The justification for high skills is:
- Nobles had time to indulge thier fancies/ skills.
- Nobles had money to indulge their fancies
Therefore as PC, they are more fundamentally apt to acquire and learn than most other class.

Mechanically wise if the foool cant spell jam, backstab, or sail a boat; he better have some skills outside his home county/ barony/ kingdom.

 

[treeplanter]

Just wanted to add something about the smear other social ability. I think the ability is actually quite good as it's written but can easily be overlooked. It is the perfect ability to overthrow a powerful leader and take control of his troop for exemple.

A wandering noble multiclassing, with Pirate, nomad or barbarian could be a very dangereous leader, being able to easily take control of crew and hordes wherever he is, kind of like in "A witch shall be born"

 

[cbrunish]

Nobles can be fun characters in the right campaign. If someone is interested in a noble they sould ask the GM what type of campaign are they going to run. If its a hack and slash then stick to the fighter type. But its going to be a well rounded campaign or a "high-society" campaign then the noble can be a blast.

In a recent D&D campaign,the campaign turned into a "high-society" style. Which actually caused some problems for another character and myself. He was a fighter and I was a ranger. So at the next level he took aristocrat class and I took rogue. Both were just for the type of skills given. Neither of us had any social skills (intimidate goes so far).

And if you are a multi-classed character then you want at least 3 levels in Noble to get the bonus to leadership. You get the free leadership feat at 6th but you still get the bonus if you have leadership from another class and reach 3rd level noble.

 

[treeplanter]

True

I tough some kind of campain with at least one noble PC and all other character are linked to this noble can be fun. Kind of like in a game of Throne, but darker hehe

So you could have the PC play the main Noble, heir to the title, his sister, the borderer who lead the hunt, the nobles body guard (a soldier or Noble soldier) and the nobles tutor (a scholar).

 

[Spongly]

It doesn't have to be a high society game for a noble to be useful. My example comes from a game of Warhammer I played years ago, but I think it's applicable:

We were sitting about wondering how to break into a warehouse that some merchant owned. Various characters tried sneaking up, picking locks and so on and got nowhere. When I thought, "wait a minute, I'm a noble".

No more sneaking, you just go up the guards and say "You there! Open this door or I'll have you thrashed within an inch of your life!"

Most people in societies with nobles are conditioned to be very subservient, because people in that position have a lot of power, and can problably get away with beating you or even killing you without much comeback. So nobles have POWER which is something game mechanics can't really describe. Even outside your own country, most people with even a slightly similar culture will recognise someone with the arrogance born of noble bearing and start doffing their caps.

 

[cbrunish]

Well said!! Except for the low skill points (my campaign goes with 6pts per level) I feel that the Noble is well written. One can have fun with this class with the right imagination.

By they way spongly, is that New Castle, England or New Castle, PA?

 

[Spongly]

Newcastle England, specifically Newcastle Upon Tyne.

 

[cbrunish]

Shoot!! Is there no one in the Western PA area that plays Conan????

 

[Spade]

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.

I would steer players away from pure Noble levels, and the Noble feat is too weak-feeling. In my opinion, nobility should either be a class or a consequence-laden player decision. Nobles are not supposed to be practical people- in that sense, they are well conceived in this class.

The regional ability is perfectly fine! The Noble class takes some very careful thought on Race, and if you don't want to build some type of archetypal noble... then don't use noble levels.

Just as with the Pirate, granting the Noble 6 skill points encroaches closely on the Thief. Our group uses these rules:

• Good Parry, Poor Dodge. The Noble carefully trains in the arts of self-defense, but is rarely put in a position where twitch is all that stands between him and death.
• Gains an additional Social Ability at first level (following that at 4, 9, 14 and 19): Weak individually, collectively they can amount to a little more aristocratic oomph.
• Early Rally & Greater Rally: Gains the Rally ability at 8th level instead of 16th (at 16 the effect of Rally doubles to +4). This is a really potent pair, and gives the Noble a reason to get into the thick of things and stay alive. Can be boring though.
• Education: The noble may select any of the skill feats as a bonus feat. Tied to the Social Ability, this provides "more skill points", but at a tradeoff.

This all has probably been posted at least in pieces by "argo" in the past.

- Spade