Well, I can see your point how you prefer to compare the Robber Baron to the Rogue. I compared him to the Knight (and Yeoman, the other "combat" class) instead because the descriptive text, before the game rule information, portrays him as basically a not-so-honorable, fallen Knight. He's given up his "mobile tank" niche to be the "dirty fighter". Since he has heavy armor, Mounted Combat bonuses and a Knight's Warhorse this seemed to further reinforce a comparison with the Knight instead of a rogue.
The Robber Baron is probably a solid class excactly as written but the flavor text/description seems to paint him as more combat oriented. An un-chivalrous knight with some dishonorable dirty tricks up his sleeve, but then he doesn't have the BAB to back up that impression. With a high BAB, and maybe lower Sneak Attack damage, he's still not going to hold his own in a straight up fight with a Knight just based on the Hit Die difference. (This is assuming he could even fight at all after being impaled by the Knight's lance!
) And he'll probably be dead from ranged attacks before he could get near a Yeoman for a straight up fight. Of course, this is why the Robber Baron doesn't do the "straight up" fight thing at all- thus, Improved Feint and Sneak Attack! Anyway, that's the way I saw it after my initial read through.
Of course, you could also say that if the Robber Baron gets Full BAB, Sneak Attack AND Bonus Feats why would anybody play a Fighter? (Other than the fact that "Fighter" seems kind of bland compared to the flavorful classes of the setting.
) Based on that balance issue, maybe the Robber Baron is fine as is after all. But the descriptive text still paints a different picture, so maybe it could be addresses that way. Either way, something seems a little off about the Robber Baron. This is all my opinion (and my wife's to a lesser degree) of course, and based on not actually
playing the game yet, AND operating, at the moment, on not quite enough sleep too. So maybe I'm just not "seeing it" yet.
However, that "why would anyone play X when you could play
Y" comparison still holds for the Minstrel. Not as compared to the Druid, but to the Bard. The Minstrel has everything the Bard has and Druidic powers to boot. So even though Bard is an allowable class in the setting, we couldn't see why anyone would play one over a Minstrel. Which brings up the axiom "if something is SO good, no one would NOT take it = unbalanced". Of course this could be partially fixed just by cutting the Bard out completely and replacing it with the Minstrel, which fits the setting just fine. Though the Wild Shape abilities, even if they aren't as powerful as the Druid's, still steal a lot of the Druid's thunder. I think if I were playing a Druid in a party with a Minstrel I'd feel a bit out-classed by a guy who can do most of what I can, almost as good, AND has Bardic Music as well! Of course I could sic my Animal Companion on him if he annoyed me too much though. (but then there's that Soothe the Savage Beast ability to deal with. So I guess I'd have to smack him down with my higher level spells, or wait till I get an Elemental wild shape and roast him alive.
) And, again, this is all without playing it yet and just reading the rules, so I may be completely off base on all of this.
And I also want to reiterate the many things I like about Excalibur, just so you don't think I'm only trying to pick it apart. I'm
real tempted to roll up a Fool character, cause they seem like a kick and a half to play. And hey, who else can get away with insulting the nobility!
My wife and I have also considered playing a pair of Friar Tuck, a-la Kevin Costner's
Robin Hood, Priests. We could absolve each other of our drunken brawls and such, then send each other on "Crusades" to give to the poor and enhance thier lives- thru robbing our enemies and redistributing the wealth via lavish parties and excessive "rounds for the house" at various bars, of course! Such truly pious characters we would be!
LOL!! But seriously, you really have done a tremendous job with this. The PrC's, especially, really hit the feel of the setting. I really like the various "Color Knights". (I think whatever character I play will be aimed at the Red Knight!) So, isolated balance issues (IMHO) aside- Great work!
-Chuck
--Edit: Speaking of the Fool. Have you considered how appropriate a Sneak Attack ability fits this character? Especially with Improved Feint at 1st level! You might qualify the Sneak Attack damage as non-lethal only though since a knife in the back really doesn't fit, but some kind of "3 stooges" distraction manuever followed up by a lead shot filled fake chicken to the side of the head does! It could be balanced by slowing the progression of the Wit and Verbal "attack" abilities at later levels, cutting off the highest level ones since they get a little repetitive. It's a modification to the class I know I'd make if I were running an Excalibur game. Of all your classes, The Fool seems most fitting for sneak attacks, especially with a non-lethal qualifier. Think about it.
