Sanctioning vote for classes part of Chap 1

[irdeggman]

With the one exception of the dwarven paladin there doesn't seem to be any more coments on the class section so it is time to vote for sanctioning of the class section of Chap 1. Magician class is exempt from this vote since it is still being discussed.

If you vote no please give comments so we (I) can see what may need to be changed depending on the vote totals.

Again be careful not to use the null vote to see the totals since you won't be able to vote if you do.

[irdeggman]

Here is the pdf version.

Same one as the one used for races.

[irdeggman]

Here is the Word version.

[irdeggman]

I guess people decide not to read or take any action ohter than making a click for a no vote. :( Real useful this way.



If you vote no please give comments so we (I) can see what may need to be changed depending on the vote totals.

[tcharazazel]

I voted no because I still don't like the way the noble class is done. I have 3 major objections.

1st: The cordinate ability is still there, and this ability is very powerful when it can be used, having a +10 to a skill check just from the noble cordnating 5 or less people at higher levels, is allowing them to reach epic levels of skill ability. This really should be either taken out or at least powered down to +1.

2nd: The inclusion of the wealth ability into the resources ability is just a bit rediculous. All the objections to the noble having wealth were arguments for how over powering it was for low level characters. Now using the new system low level characters get more gp than before, a 2nd level noble with Cha 14 will get 100 x 2 + 100 = 300gp vs the 150 gp per domain turn from the old system, and thats only by using the ability once. If he were to use it the maximum number of times that he could 3 in that case he would then be getting 900 gp per domain turn, thats a 600% incrrease!

Now once the noble reaches higher level 9th+ the character already has aquired wealth from either adventuring, wise rulershipe, guild enterprises ect. And this is when the new system would start to taper off with the amount of gold the noble recieves at to some extent. A 9th level noble now with a Cha of 16 will get 100 x 3 + 100 x 8 = 1100 gp instead of 2000 gp from the old system, from 1 use of the ability. However, again if he were to use it the max number of times. 5 now, that he could get 5500 gp. At even higher levels, when the noble is likely to have acquired items that will raise his Cha even more however we'll just pretend that he was unable to do so. At 15th level with a Cha of 18 he will get 100 x 4 + 100 x 14 = 1800gp instead of 8000 gp from one use of the abiltity. Again, when he uses it to its full extent he can then acquire, 7 times, he would get 12600 gp.

Thus it is very obvious that the problem that people had with the wealth ability has not been addressed, and instead it has been just made more difficult to calculate.

3rd: What reason was there for lowering the BAB of the noble? If it was so he could get a bonus feat every 5 levels that's one sucky trade off. If we wanted to actualy put some weight behind the 3 paths offered to the noble the BAB should follow them with the Warrior path getting a high BAB the Guilder getting a medium BAB and the scholar getting a low BAB. Then to balance the 3 types, the guilder should get a higher amount of wealth per domain turn, and the scholar should have a high number of skill points and they shoudl definately get the Spellcraft skill as they give a bonus to those checks for that ability Look of the Noble, also maybe add use magic device as a class skill, sorta like the loremaster. If this doesnt balance them enough then just drop the bonus feats for the warrior path, as he spent his free time training with his weapon instead of learning new feats, like the others.

[Osprey]

I voted no as well. In general I agree with T'Char, I'm not overly fond of the revised noble, I think the Resource/Wealth option is very dense and complex, whereas the original Wealth kept things simple. Coordinate too powerful, as mentioned above.

And dropping the BAB is a major down-powering of the class with few compensators - a bonus feat starting at 5th level? I still prefer something like a bonus feat at 2nd, 6th, 11th, etc., drop all but the first level of Coordinate, and taper down or simply drop Resources. As for what the bonus feat is, when it's every 5 levels, I don't see a need for "paths" when the only distinction is which save is high and getting occasional feats at higher levels. If these paths are supposed to be significant, they should have a noticable effect before 5th level.

I have similar feelings about the Paladin of Neserie class having its BAB dropped to medium. Why would anyone play a paladin instead of a cleric, when it's weaker in most respects? Even basic NPC Warriors have a high BAB. I think any paladin class should also have this, as they are warriors at heart.

Osprey

[Athos69]

Osprey, T'char;

Something that you should be thinking about is just what kind of a monster you wish to create. The Rogue is a skill monster, getting 8 skill points/level and no bonus feats. The Fighter is a Feat monster, getting a large number of feats, but only 2 skill points/level. There is a bonus that we need to achieve. Perhaps the balance could be achieved in the tweaking of feats vs. skill points for each path. The problem with this is that when we monkey with this, we are, in essence, creating 3 classes, not one... I don't claim to know the solution to this, but wanted to give you an idea of how my thought processses were thinking on this one.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Jul 31 2004, 01:44 AM
Again be careful not to use the null vote to see the totals since you won't be able to vote if you do.
If you want to see the results without voting or abstain, simply log yourself out. Guests can't vote... :D

[irdeggman]

Hey, Tchar/Osprey,

I only posted this for a vote because no one had commented on it in about 2 weeks so the the only assumption I could make was that people 'liked' it.

The reason for dropping the BAB for the noble is to make up for the class abilities gained. You pointed out that you thought they were too powerful - well that was why the BAB was lowered. But it seems that in your minds you have already dropped the abilities you didn't like and then looked at the class for balance.

As far as the paladin of Nesire goes. It is a combination of cleric and PHB paladin. The BAB is less than that of a paladin, but the spell selection and progression is greater. It is not as combat oriented (i.e., warrior at heart) as is the other paladin classes, but is still more so than a standard cleric (hence the greater starting weapon proficiencies) {those would cost a cleric a feat for each weapon}. The class gains most of the paladin's abilities hence it is not quite the same as the cleric. It was designed to be somewhere between the two as part of trying to define the role of the class. That water affinity ability (2nd level) can really be powerful and the freedom of movement ability (10th level). Oh yeah there is no reason to give the class a d8 hit die and avg BAB.

[Osprey]

As far as the paladin of Nesire goes. It is a combination of cleric and PHB paladin. The BAB is less than that of a paladin, but the spell selection and progression is greater. It is not as combat oriented (i.e., warrior at heart) as is the other paladin classes, but is still more so than a standard cleric (hence the greater starting weapon proficiencies) {those would cost a cleric a feat for each weapon}. The class gains most of the paladin's abilities hence it is not quite the same as the cleric. It was designed to be somewhere between the two as part of trying to define the role of the class. That water affinity ability (2nd level) can really be powerful and the freedom of movement ability (10th level). Oh yeah there is no reason to give the class a d8 hit die and avg BAB.

I understand the thinking here, I just don't agree with it. When I compare balance, one of the things I do is say: if I had to choose between a cleric and paladin of Neserie, which would I prefer based on power potential? If these 2 characters of equal single class level squared off against one another, who would I put my money on? The cleric, every time. Why? Because the cleric spells create an advantage that the paladin's class abilities can't match, particularly at higher levels. Clerics have now the same BAB, HD, and more powerful magic. They also get access to the Sea Domain if they so choose, only they get more out of it because of greater casting abilities.

Weapon proficiency is a poor tradeoff for BAB - clerics have enough decent weapon options such that the ability to use martial weapons is really only a very small advantage in combat. Armor and weapon proficiency are very much "cheap" feats because they can be gained en masse by multiclassing. Using the above example, I'd rather have a Cleric8/Fighter2 then a Paladin 10.


The reason for dropping the BAB for the noble is to make up for the class abilities gained. You pointed out that you thought they were too powerful - well that was why the BAB was lowered. But it seems that in your minds you have already dropped the abilities you didn't like and then looked at the class for balance.

Actually, I was one of the ones defending the class as not being so far out of balance with the 3.5 ranger class, but fairly comparable. My main suggestions were to trade off the higher levels of Coordinate and drop Resources in exchange for a few bonus feats (2nd, 6th, 11th, etc.). I liked the Wealth feature, and never had a problem with it, tho I do remember participating in brainstorming about ways to combine Wealth and Resources. I also posted a modified Noble class, but this was brushed over. After the latest class revision came out, I did some constructive criticism but was also still looking at the class as a whole. I've mentioned several times that "I still like my version better."

The reason I haven't posted on the subject in the past few weeks is because I figured I would have been repeating earlier posts about it.

I've been playtesting with the first revised 3.5 version of the Noble, and for the most part I really like the class. The changes I've suggested were based on that experience, and the tweaking to grant bonus feats but drop resources and coordinate allowed the class to have all of its class features be utilized in the game, rather than having several that were rarely used and/or extremely unbalancing when utilized (like Coordinate +4/+6/+8).

Here's one idea for Coordinate: make it a one-time class ability that adds the Noble's Charisma modifier as an additional synergy bonus to any group action that the noble leads. Alternately, using the existing bonuses would be fine as one-shot additions to a group action rather than each individual synergy bonus being boosted by the ability (and thus stacking to ludicrous levels).


Something that you should be thinking about is just what kind of a monster you wish to create. The Rogue is a skill monster, getting 8 skill points/level and no bonus feats. The Fighter is a Feat monster, getting a large number of feats, but only 2 skill points/level. There is a bonus that we need to achieve. Perhaps the balance could be achieved in the tweaking of feats vs. skill points for each path. The problem with this is that when we monkey with this, we are, in essence, creating 3 classes, not one... I don't claim to know the solution to this, but wanted to give you an idea of how my thought processses were thinking on this one.

The class seperating into 3 classes is the same problem I ran into when working with the 3 path idea. I think the 3 path idea is interesting, but not really necessary when it only concerns a few bonus feats. I'm OK with the original high Will save, and a bonus feat every 5 levels could be chosen from a single noble-type list of bonus feats, a mix of combat, domain, and skill-oriented feats.

[Osprey]

Something that you should be thinking about is just what kind of a monster you wish to create. The Rogue is a skill monster, getting 8 skill points/level and no bonus feats. The Fighter is a Feat monster, getting a large number of feats, but only 2 skill points/level. There is a bonus that we need to achieve.

And what sort of monster is the 3.5 Ranger? This was the class most comparable to the original version of the 3.5 Noble; high BAB, bonus feats, special class abilities (some which are quite strong), 2 high saves, and a few minor spells at higher levels. I think the 3.5 Noble (1st draft) was slightly weaker as an action/adventure class, stronger as a social and political class (of course).

I think there's a reigning tendency when creating classes here to err on the side of weakness rather than daring to create a powerful class that is still within the acceptable limits of the core classes. And this, of course, comes down to personal preference. I'd prefer to see the noble be a very strong class in Birthright, and one which many regents would have some levels in (if not be straight-classed for the political gurus like Darien Avan and Hierl Diem).

Osprey

[Athos69]

Don't get me wriong Osprey, I agree with you that created classes tend to be weaker because of a tendancy to not overpower them, but what balances out the Ranger is the fact that the ranger bonus feats tend to be fixed, while the fighter player has free choice from a very wide range of feats. It is precicely the fact that there is a choice of bonus feats, and the size of the range of choice that we need to look at as well. In the first draft of the BRCS, the class was overpowering because the bonus feats were many *and* had free reign over the feat list.

The questions that need to be asked are: "Has the feat list been tightened up too much for this class to balance the number of skill points available, or is it too tight?" and "Are there too many bonus feats or not enough?"

The trick is to recognize that the two questions are interrelated in the overall balance. If we cut the feat list, we need to expand the number of bonus feats to compensate. Of course down this path leads fixed feats as the two become equal to each other. If we reduce the number of bonus feats, we need to expand the feat list -- something that not alot of people want...

I don't have any answers for you, but I did want to leave you with some food for thought.

[Osprey]

Athos,

My personal feeling is that a free range of feat choices is onsly slightly more weighted than a restricted list. Why? Because the restricted lists tend to be the sensible feats that a noble class character would take anyways. If they're not, then the list is not well-designed. So I agree that an open-ended list tends to be somewhat more powerful, but not a great deal. Also, this shouldn't be a major issue if feats are supposedly power-balanced already, right?

I think the BRCS Noble wasn't at all overpowered, it simply lacked much distinct flavor as a character class, which if I recall was the major reason it underwent revision.

My feeling is that one bonus feat every five levels is about as minimal as it gets. Comparing to other PC classes, the range seems to go from once every 2 levels (Fighters) to every 3 levels (Rogues level 10+) to every 5 levels (Wizards). Class abilities may or may not compare to feats in power, so they create a much greyer area to contend with class balance.

As Nobles are, above and beyond anything else, politically focused, I'd have no problem with a single tight group of bonus feats that are politically focused, such as the Master feats (Administrator, Diplomat, Great Leader, etc.) and other domain and social feats. A few scion-specific and regional feats might also be appropriate for many Cerilian nobles. In fact, I'll whip out a quick list off the top of my head. This is, of course, a first draft (any prerequisites must be met normally):

Blood Focus, Bloodline Prodigy, Conquerer, Great Leader, Leadership, Master Administrator, Master Diplomat, Master Merchant, Master of the Arcane, Military Genius, Mounted Combat, Negotiator, Persuasive, Regional Arms Focus, Elite Regional Arms Focus, Skill Focus, Spymaster, and Wilderness Savant.

While this may seem like a lot of choices, no noble will actually desire more than a few of these feats, and besides, at one feat every 5 levels, who cares?

Ah yeah, one otyher general comment on the current incarnation of the class: bonus feat at 5th level, then Leadership (or another bonus feat) at 6th???

Why not grant the first bonus feat at 2nd level, and the 2nd feat at 6th level, 3rd at 11th, etc., and simply put Leadership on the list(s) of bonus feats, regardless of whether there's a path or not?

Does there need to be 3 paths? I don't think so. I don't think it downpowers the class one bit to open up these options in a single list of bonus feats, as there's a natural power balance in the lack of specialization if a noble chooses multiple feats that apply to different skills/abilities rather than several that stack.

[irdeggman]

Leadership was specifically mentioned as a noble ability because it is so inherently tied to the class that it bore specific mention. People had also mentioned that what should we do if th enoble already had leadership - he then ends up with nothing, hence the specific wording of the present incarnation of noble.

The prereq for leadership is 6th level, but if certain variants of the BRCS are used it is possible for a character to actually have it early. In additional after the first level of noble a character can start to multiclass and with the addition of scion class levels by the time a noble is 6th level noble he could be a much higher level character and have already chosen leadership as a character level feat. This option was also designed to cover that one. But for a basic stright clased noble (with no scion levels) at 6th level the noble gains the leadership feat to reflect what the class is about. He doesn't have a choice for another feat in its place it is what the class was all about from the get go.

[Osprey]

Leadership was specifically mentioned as a noble ability because it is so inherently tied to the class that it bore specific mention. People had also mentioned that what should we do if th enoble already had leadership - he then ends up with nothing, hence the specific wording of the present incarnation of noble.

The prereq for leadership is 6th level, but if certain variants of the BRCS are used it is possible for a character to actually have it early. In additional after the first level of noble a character can start to multiclass and with the addition of scion class levels by the time a noble is 6th level noble he could be a much higher level character and have already chosen leadership as a character level feat. This option was also designed to cover that one. But for a basic stright clased noble (with no scion levels) at 6th level the noble gains the leadership feat to reflect what the class is about. He doesn't have a choice for another feat in its place it is what the class was all about from the get go.

All of which is fine - just don't make the class go 4 levels without anything, then wham! 2 bonus feats in a row for the next 2 levels...space 'em out.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 1 2004, 09:40 AM
All of which is fine - just don't make the class go 4 levels without anything, then wham! 2 bonus feats in a row for the next 2 levels...space 'em out.
You have now really gotten me confused. :unsure:

The noble gets something at every level, something that barbarians, druids and monks do. That is unless you have already subtracted those abilities you thought were too powerful then there are gaps.

Fighters get a feat at each level for the first three levels. Fighter bonus at 1st and 2nd and then a character level feat at 3rd and of course the 1st level character feat. Rangers get feats at 2nd level (combat style) and 3rd (endurance) (plus bonus character level feats at 1st and 3rd). In fact the ranger gets 2 feats at 6th level (if straight class) so does the fighter and the fighter gets 2 at 12th and 18th levels.

The path bonuses seem to take a while. Other than the saving throw at 1st level the next one is actually 4th level (Look of the Noble) and not 5th (bonus feat). This is a true statement that it doesn't kick in until later when compared to say the ranger where it kicks in at 2nd level (then again at 6th and last at 11th). The noble actually makes better progress once he has started to 'dedicate' himself to his path. He gets the Look of the Noble at 4th, the bonus feat at 5th (and again at 10th, 15th and 20th level). So the noble gets 6 things specific to his path while a ranger only gets 3. Potentially 7, if he has leadership before 6th level from some other means.

So in fact the noble is the most path specific class (standard not prestige) that there is when looked at throughout the total progression of the class.

[Osprey]

Irdeggman,
Truth be told, I don't tend to equate bonus feats with class abilities like "Look of the Noble." Maybe I err to do so, but I generally look at bonus feats as their own set of progressions. So I meant going without any bonus feats from 1st through 4th level, then getting 2 in a row at levels 5 and 6. Get me?

Being as the Ranger gets his first path feat at 2nd level, is there any particular reason you are opposed to the Noble getting hers at the same level? I understand not giving a first level bonus feat, too easy to do some "cheap" multiclassing, but then again the Fighter suffers from the same problem, yet it remained unchanged in 3.5 except for the Greater Weapon Focus and Specialization feats rewarding higher level dedicated fighters (which was a cool addition IMO).

One other small thing to consider: our Master class feats are all based on having 9 ranks in a primary skill; in the current class scheme, the noble wouldn't be able to choose one of these as a bonus feat until 10th level, which is a real bummer considering the fairly narrow selection of choices available. This adds yet another argument for shifting to a 2/6/11/16 bonus feat progression, and simply add Leadership to the bonus feat lists for every path, such that a noble may choose this feat if they so desire but it may not be an immediate priority for some characters, which I think should be OK.

I realize that by doing this they're actually getting one less feat, but keep in mind that I also want the high BAB back, that's why I'm willing to trim a few things off. I'd rather have nobles with high BAB's and a few less class skills then medium BAB's and a few more class abilities that I may or may not use.

[graham anderson]

I agree with the sentiments given about the noble classes I don't like it either. I thought that the old noble worked fine it wasn't perfect but it was workable.

Other than that and my usual gripe that rangers shouldn't get spells it seems fine.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by graham anderson@Aug 2 2004, 04:39 AM

Other than that and my usual gripe that rangers shouldn't get spells it seems fine.
Which was why I put in the variant for non-spell casting rangers ;)

[graham anderson]

I know that the variant is their I just don't think that rangers should ever get spells but I don't think I will ever get enough people to agree with me to have it changed so I will have to live with it.

[irdeggman]

Irdeggman,
Truth be told, I don't tend to equate bonus feats with class abilities like "Look of the Noble." Maybe I err to do so, but I generally look at bonus feats as their own set of progressions. So I meant going without any bonus feats from 1st through 4th level, then getting 2 in a row at levels 5 and 6. Get me?

I was addressing the point you had made on not getting any path benefits except for saving throws until 5th level. So I was pointing out all of the path features.


and simply add Leadership to the bonus feat lists for every path, such that a noble may choose this feat if they so desire but it may not be an immediate priority for some characters, which I think should be OK.

This is something that I am very much opposed to. That is simply adding leadership to the bonus feat list. It defines the class like the ranger that gets endurance (not from a bonus list and can’t make a substitution if he already has the feat).


I realize that by doing this they're actually getting one less feat, but keep in mind that I also want the high BAB back, that's why I'm willing to trim a few things off. I'd rather have nobles with high BAB's and a few less class skills then medium BAB's and a few more class abilities that I may or may not use

Less class skills? That also defeats the purpose of the class. They benefit from their ability to get educated because of their connections. This should be reflected in a high number of skill points and class skills and not a good BAB. That is they spend more time getting instruction than do the warrior classes. If one goes with the ‘no path’ tack on nobles then there is no real reason for them to spend their time in the direct martial arts practice to the point where they are as good as a warrior. Rangers gain their skills/abilities from practice in the field and in the field type of education. Nobles are designed to rule domains so they spend their time in more broad type of education (i.e., more class room than in the field oriented).

[CMonkey]

Another Noble objector I'm afraid - the original version, although with problems, was better than the new one a veiw I made clear at the time.

Seeing as silence is being taken as assention, let me also re-iterate that there was little wrong with the old paladin methods in my view and the tendency to variant bloat makes the rules inelegant and difficult to read. (Could we at least (if we must) have them in distinct box-outs so the main rules can be easily followed with the eye?)

Edit: Just to be clearer, I have minor problems with a few thing in the chapter, but I voted "No" largely because of the Noble.

CM.

[Osprey]

QUOTE
I realize that by doing this they're actually getting one less feat, but keep in mind that I also want the high BAB back, that's why I'm willing to trim a few things off. I'd rather have nobles with high BAB's and a few less class skills then medium BAB's and a few more class abilities that I may or may not use



Less class skills? That also defeats the purpose of the class. They benefit from their ability to get educated because of their connections. This should be reflected in a high number of skill points and class skills and not a good BAB. That is they spend more time getting instruction than do the warrior classes. If one goes with the ‘no path’ tack on nobles then there is no real reason for them to spend their time in the direct martial arts practice to the point where they are as good as a warrior. Rangers gain their skills/abilities from practice in the field and in the field type of education. Nobles are designed to rule domains so they spend their time in more broad type of education (i.e., more class room than in the field oriented).



Oops...sorry, that was a case of not careful enough typing - I said class skills, should have said class abilities. I think the class skill points and list are fine - my bad.

[Osprey]

One possibility for Leadership as a set class ability/bonus feat is that Nobles could get it earlier than other characters. While it is a variant rule for regents to get it earlier, allowing it as a class ability at a lower level for Nobles might be acceptable - essentially acting as their first (automatic) bonus feat, perhaps at 2nd or 3rd level. It's not unprecedented for class abilities to supercede normal requirements for feats - then allow feats from a set of choices at higher levels. Dunno, just an idea I thought I'd throw out there for the wolves. ;)

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 2 2004, 09:30 AM
One possibility for Leadership as a set class ability/bonus feat is that Nobles could get it earlier than other characters. While it is a variant rule for regents to get it earlier, allowing it as a class ability at a lower level for Nobles might be acceptable - essentially acting as their first (automatic) bonus feat, perhaps at 2nd or 3rd level. It's not unprecedented for class abilities to supercede normal requirements for feats - then allow feats from a set of choices at higher levels. Dunno, just an idea I thought I'd throw out there for the wolves. ;)

Osprey
Early leadership was something I had originally proposed whent he original playtest version of the noble came out but was nixed by the other developers in that there is a level requirement for the feat.

Actually I don't recall any classes giving (level dependent) feats as abilties early. If you can point some out I'd like to see them. There is the giving them feat equivalent (or feats) even if they don't meet prerequisites (like the monk) but not for character level based (or class level based {like fighter level 4 for specialization}) feats.

[Athos69]

I just want us all to come to a consensus pretty quickly -- I know of a potential campaign that could kick off in a couple of months, but doesn't want to get smacked by a player who is waving around a "new, feshly sanctioned" Noble class....

[Osprey]

Actually I don't recall any classes giving (level dependent) feats as abilties early. If you can point some out I'd like to see them. There is the giving them feat equivalent (or feats) even if they don't meet prerequisites (like the monk) but not for character level based (or class level based {like fighter level 4 for specialization}) feats.

Yeah, I was thinking more of allowing for feats as class abilities without meeting the normal requirements (such as rangers not having the Dex for 2-weapon feats). You're right, there aren't any level-based feats granted early, but then again there are only a very few level-based feats in the first place: Leadership and Specialization/Gr. Weapon Focus are the only ones I can think of, most others use BAB or an ability requirement as prereqs.

Still, I don't think low-level Leadership is nearly as big of a deal in Birthright as it might be in other adventure-focused settings. Otherwise it comes down to whether or not you want to treat the level requirement like any other feat requirement for the purpose of overriding it for Nobles. Personally, I like the idea that Nobles qualify for the feat earlier than other classes, its very appropriate thematically.

Osprey

[RaspK_FOG]

Actually, level-based prerequisites apply on item creation feats as well. Can't say I would be very happy to run a campaign where one of my players runs a 6th-level wizard with Forge Ring... :(

Anyway, there is another way to go with this: a 2nd-level class feature (ahem, people, that is the official wording) that says something like this:
Born Leader: Nobles are the leaders of the common folk, whether they really like the fact or not. Whenever the noble reaches (or if he has already reached) his 6th character level, he gains Leadership as a bonus feat.

[Osprey]

Actually, level-based prerequisites apply on item creation feats as well. Can't say I would be very happy to run a campaign where one of my players runs a 6th-level wizard with Forge Ring...*


Not to get too off-topic, but how many rings and of what power could that 6th level wizard actually make? Minimum caster levels would still limit the feat to a few minor items, as opposed to the broader array for level 12+ casters.

The same principle applies with Leadership. A low-level character with Leadership will have a much lower Leadership score, and hence fewer followers and lower-level cohorts. Birthright originally allowed for bodyguards and retainers for regents. By extending this to low-level Noble characters, we're really giving a nod to the reality that nobles of almost any level of experience are likely to have at least a few trustworthy henchmen and retainers.

Since this is the only bonus feat that is specifically ascribed to the noble (the rest being from a set of choices), it makes a great deal of sense that it is the first one to be attained, while the rest are available at higher levels.

Putting Leadership in earlier is a case of allowing the campaign setting to override the core rules in a small way, that being that Noble-class characters qualify for (and gain) Leadership earlier than other classes. Ultimately, any DM who doesn't agree with it can always override it and say it doesn't kick in till 6th level. Far more unlikely for a DM to allow it earlier...

I'm going to work up a rewrite for the Noble class based on some of the discussion here, so that it's easier to read in a Word format (I have no pdf conversion software), if Irdeggman would be so kind as to post ot for download once I have it done. Then perhaps we'll have an alternative to vote on.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by graham anderson@Aug 2 2004, 04:55 AM
I know that the variant is their I just don't think that rangers should ever get spells but I don't think I will ever get enough people to agree with me to have it changed so I will have to live with it.
Especially since an earlier poll clearly showed that people preferred the spellcasting ranger.


http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2394

[irdeggman]

Ok I'm closing this poll.

Here are the results:

Should the classes (except for magician) section of Chap 1 be sanctioned?
1. Yes [ 6 ] [35.29%]
2. No [ 9 ] [52.94%]
3. Abstain [ 2 ] [11.76%]
Total Votes: 17



What this means (as I read it) is that the classes section (except for magician) is not sanctioned. There is still another class poll ongoing that calls for a santioning vote for classes (except noble and magician).