Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 2870055" data-attributes="member: 1757">Well, I'm assuming there are metasetting reasons as to why princes and lordlings are aristocrats as opposed to bards, clerics, paladins, or rogues, since if not, I can't see why a king wouldn't want all of his offspring trained as one of those classes. My assumptions have always been as follows (of course, I play Iron Heroes these days):1) Not everyone is cut out to be an adventurer. Only certain individuals blessed with the right combination of heredity, temperament, and plain luck can be PC-classed characters. Everyone else is an NPC.2) NPC-classed individuals advance in level for different reasons than do PC-classed individuals. Running a kingdom may net Arthur the Aristocrat some class levels, but Furnald the Fighter is unlikely to gain anything unless he constantly engages in battles. This also means that the kinds of pursuits required for adventurers to gain levels are far too hazardous for ordinary folk to pursue and tend to "cull the ranks" a bit.In my old (epic-level) campaign, the player of the baron PC (a wizard) rolled his sons' ability scores, and is trying to train his two sons to be a wizard (high Int) and a bard (high, well, everything) respectively. I've thus had to grapple with this problem rather immediately. My sense is, though, that any ruler with the choice will train his son to be a bard or rogue rather than an aristocrat; the question is whether that element of metagame choice is present in the setting.</blockquote>

Verification