Aristocrat Survivor

[Sado]

Why do NPC Aristocrats have survival as a class skill? When I think of an aristocrat, I think of an upper-crust, high society, possibly noble type. As such, wouldn't they spend more time in the ruler's court, at parties, balls, touneys (whatever was in vogue among the elite), and society functions than scurrying around in the underbrush learning survival techniques?

Maybe survival should be removed from the Aristocrat and given to the Commoner, for logical as well as balance reasons.

 

[xazil]

Fox hunting?

 

[Antoine]

All kinds of hunting.
In most medieval society, hunting was a privilege, as well a aristocracy's favourite occupation.

 

[Sado]

Not really the same as survival, IMO.

Besides, didn't they take professional hunters with them (the equivalent of an Expert, I guess) as guides? They would be the real "survivalists".

 

[Piratecat]

For the life of me, I can't understand why you're asking this question. Of COURSE aristocrats should have survival! What if the caterers don't show up on time? Suppose the chambermaid falls into the fois gras and smothers, leaving the east wing of the mansion unswept? What if a bed ends up not getting made, or a chamberpot isn't emptied? Survival is there to help the disadvantaged aristocrat through these sort of hard times.

Remove the skill, indeed. Hmmph.

 

[The Souljourner]

*lol* Hardship is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

-The Souljourner

 

[Felix]

I think many of the younger aristocrats were encouraged to spend time getting to know their land. This meant a lot of riding around, going through forests and over hill and dale. Compared to the peasants, the Aristocrat saw a whole lot of horseback time... the peasants were busy working one small plot.

Basically, having Survival on the class list allows you to make an Aristocrat who does ride around his land, know every furrow like the back of his hand, hunt wolves with his dogs and hardy mates. But it doesn't mean that you have to make every Aristo that way. If you want a foppish city-bred nonce, then don't give him ranks in Survival. But a younger son of a rural lord would be expected to know his way around, and survival on the class list allows for this kind of build.

3e: Options, not restrictions, right?

Heh heh, I know it's not historical, but if anyone has read Anne Rice's The Vampire Lestat you'll remember how Lestat rode out from the village with his guns, his horse, his mastiffs, his mace, and his sword to hunt the starving wolves that were terrorizing his village. That guy definitely had ranks in Survival.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Also, when people use the word "aristocrat" it often connotates a pampered, arrogant SOB who is completely disconnected with the hardship of surviving. However, it's important to remember that not all aristocrats are the late Renaissance "Let them eat cake" variety of aristocrat.

Since it was on TV last night in my area, consider the Nordic chieftain from "The 13th Warrior," (the one who died from the poison.) He was a noble among his people, and could very well have had a level or two in aristocrat. But he was hardly a wilting daisy.

King Einan in "Dragonheart" is hardly a perfumed fop, either. He might have a rank or two in Survival just to represent his experience hunting in the forest.

LotR is full of examples of aristocrats who probably had ranks in Survival.

 

[Christian]

Not really the same as survival, IMO.

Survival
...
Survival DC Task
10 Get along in the wild. Move up to one-half your overland speed while hunting and foraging ...

Survival is the skill that includes hunting. If an aristocrat is to be a skilled hunter, he must have the Survival skill.

Also, 'balance' doesn't apply to NPC classes. The metagame reasoning for balance requirements isn't relevant. "Why would anyone ever be a Commoner? That class sucks." Well, yeah-but they're not Commoners by choice, obviously ...