How would you balance the Aristocrat with PC classes at 1st level?

[Celebrim]

Oh, I see, you are one of those posters that isn't even aware of what you've said.

To remind you, this discussion began with:

gepetrc - "I gave the Aristocrat the full fighter BAB (+1/level); he still does not get all those feats, and so a decent BAB might balance it."

Corwin- "So what good is the Warrior now?"

Now, I think everyone here understood that to mean, "What good would there be in taking warrior if you could take Aristocrat instead."

To which the reply was:

mmadsen - "Yeah, what good is the Warrior now? (You don't need to bump up the Aristocrat to make the Warrior a worthless class.)"

Which I think everyone here understood to mean, "But Fighter is already clearly superior to Warrior, so what does it matter if I make Aristocrat another clearly superior alternative."

Let's get this straight. No one 'takes' warrior as a class. Warrior is a class that is a DM tool for controlling power in his game world.

(Since you brought it up) your responce to mmadsen was a complete non sequitur, as was your responce to mine. And, what you so blithely attribute as the position of the person you are arguing with is very clearly NOT their position. So it hardly matters that you can knock down an arguement not held by your opponent. While we are on the subject of false arguements, this is called 'a straw man arguement'.

corwin - "All street urchins are minimum 11th level rogues. Fine. All town malitia guards are 9th level fighters or better. OK. Every village healer is at least a 14th level cleric. Un huh."

Nobody said that. Nobody even remotely implied that.

corwin - "Warrior is the combat oriented NPC class. It's the only one with fighter BAB progression. Like it or not."

First of all, since NO ONE TAKES WARRIOR AS A CLASS, it doesn't matter how many NPC classes have fighter BAB progression, DM's can still chose to give Warrior to those individuals that they feel should be warriors. The presence of Aristocrats with fighter BAB does not force a DM to abandon Warrior as a class, any more than the existance of Fighter forces the DM to abandon Warrior as a class. Why should I suddenly assume that the average Orc has become an aristocrat just because Aristocrat now has a fighter BAB, huh? Does or does not warrior fit the Orc better than being an Aristocrat?

And besides, that's not even the subject of the discussion. The subject of the discussion is changing Aristocrat to a PC class.

corwin - "To give the same thing to Aristocrats does indeed make Warrior obsolete. You may have no problem with that, but I don't recall the topic being "Let's get rid of the Warrior class and make Aristocrats good fighters".

How does that follow? Warrior is alread obseleted by Fighter. Are you saying that NPC's are some free willed organism that chooses to take Warrior because it is the only class available to them with fighter BAB (since ordinary NPC's can't take PC classes for some reason), and if you make Aristocrat have fighter BAB they will suddenly rebel against your authority as DM and start taking Aristocrat instead? Please, don't be ridiculous. Once again, it doesn't matter how many classes are superior to Warrior, I can still make warrior NPC's.

Is Aristocrat already a viable class? Sure. PC's may choose to take it for whatever reasons. However, Aristocrat is clearly inferior to other core classes and a DM that wants to encourage PC's to take Aristocrat is free to try to attempt to balance Aristocrat in some fashion vs. Fighter, Bard, Rogue, etc. And there won't be any Warrior uprising if he does.

So anyhow, you respond to me by stating that I've created a straw man arguement out of your arguement. I don't believe that, but lets give that line a fair shake anyway.

me - "So if I understand what you are saying it is:

1) Not every Tom, Dick and Harry is going to take the most powerful class available."

corwin - "In fact, I stated something approaching the opposite."

Really? Something approaching the opposite would be the position that average people should be Barbarians, Rogues, Fighters, etc. The opposite position to 'not every one is going to min/max', is 'every one is going to min/man'. And frankly, that is nothing at all like what you said. What you said was:

corwin - "NPC classes are supposed to be under par with PC classes. That's the point."

And...

corwin "I use the Warrior class for my NPCs. I have had no problems with it. IMO, it has its place.

I guess you are also disgusted by the Commoner class, right? Even a 2nd level Commoner pisses you off, huh? I mean, why take a level in something that lame when you can be a Barbarian."

Now, I don't think it is a stretch to say that you are arguing a point closer to the level of 'not everyone is going to min/max' (Point #1 that I attributed to you), and you are accusing me of arguing that 'everyone is going to min/max.' And in that case, your accusation that I misrepresented you is false. Clearly, you are suggesting that not everyone is going to be fighters, barbarians, etc., and clearly you are suggesting that NPC's will frequently be commoners, experts, warriors, whatever.

So maybe you are claiming that you didn't say this...

me - "So if I understand what you are saying it is:...

2) If someone were to give the Aristocrat full BAB bonus, no one would take the warrior class."

Didn't we already establish that you said:

corwin - "Warrior is the combat oriented NPC class. It's the only one with fighter BAB progression. Like it or not. To give the same thing to Aristocrats does indeed make Warrior obsolete."

So no, it looks like your opinion really is quite close to my point #2.

So please explain what you did say, and tell me if you are glad now that you said it?

I don't see any suggestions here that make Aristocrat a much better choice than Fighter, Rogue, Bard, or what have you. Just a different one.

"I don't want it both ways. I voted to leave Aristocrat the way it is. Or didn't you get that?"

Oh I get it alright, but I also get that that is a non sequitur, since the second sentence about leaving Aristocrat the way it was has nothing to do with a rebuttal of the statement 'Either Warrior is still a viable class no matter how many classes are superior to it, or it is not'.

What you don't seem to get is that Aristocrat can be just as good as fighter and the world won't come falling down around you as you NPC's rebel and start taking Aristocrat. I think you feel that NPC's that aren't 'extraordinary' like PC's are some how forced to take NPC classes, and if you provide them with a NPC class alternative there will be no way to explain why regular NPC's don't take it. I think you feel that way because you say things like:

"You seem to be placing NPCs in the same realm as PCs."

Which in fact I do, but that has nothing to do with whether or not NPC's are commoners, warriors, or anything else. NPC's and PC's are in fact the same sort of things, and PC's differ from NPC's only in that they are maybe a little above average. I don't think there is some 'PC advantage' that lets you take PC classes without which you must be a subpar (your word) NPC that can only take NPC classes.

"It seems interesting that I'm the one advocating leaving Aristocrat the way they are so all PCs won't want it."

I think it interesting that you offer up a non sequitur like that, given that no one here is proposing the making the Aristocrat a class that all PC's will want. Perhaps some have proposed unbalancing aspects to the class, but everyone at the moment is proposing mostly vague suggestions of how to balance Aristocrat with other PC classes, so I think it is perhaps premature to say that everyone else on the board has offered up suggestions that make Aristocrats a broken class.

"And yet, you seem to be stating that no one (even NPCs) should ever take an inferior class."

The inclusion of 'and yet', makes this sentence a non sequitur, since it doesn't follow that it could be a contridiction of the sentence immediately proceeding it or that the two positions can be held in contrast since they deal with completely different things. It is quite possible to hold the position that the Aristocrat should be left the way it is AND that no one (even NPC's) should ever take an inferior class. Incidently, I do hold the position that no one (even NPCs) should ever take an inferior class, and yet, my campaign world is filled with characters with the commoner class (which I think we both agree is inferior). And indeed, lest you wonder, it is a commoner class essentially identical to the one in the DMG. (The only thing I changed about the commoner class was I gave them good Fortitude saves, and I think we will still agree that the commoner class is 'inferior' to say Rogue or even Expert.) I'll let you munch on that and try to figure out how the two positions are not contridictions, and why the use of 'and yet' is not non sequitus in context.

Maybe you won't have to munch long:

Corwin - "So, do you allow your players to take any PrC they have ever seen? After all, they have "access" to all of them. I would hope not. It's all a matter of access."

Hmmm... It's all a matter of access, is it? So tell me again, how would the presence of Aristocrat with fighter BAB make Warrior obselete?

Let me take it one further, even if everyone had access to the Fighter class, not everyone would take it.

As for PrC's themselves, I don't use them, so how I provide access to them is irrelevant.

And finally, we can't leave it at a position I don't have. I think that the class system is pretty much fine as is, and have only made a few minor changes to the core classes (like the aforementioned change to commoner saving throws). I have not overhauled Aristocrat, but if I wanted to make changes to the class, I would.

As for how I use warrior, I use it whenever I feel a NPC has to spend some time fighting, but can't (as you put it) "invest a lot of time, energy and training." More or less, warrior is the class of farmers (or other basic producers like miners, woodcutters, etc.) living in wilderness or other unsafe areas. I never use it for professional soldiers WHO DO have time and energy to invest in training, because if I did, it would suggest that they couldn't become fighters for some other reason than access. (And didn't you say "It's all a matter of access"?) If I did use it, I'm sure it wouldn't cause any mechanical problems (other than calculation of CR), but it would cause a philosophical problem.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Here is my suggestion: Buy Fading Suns d20 and use the "Noble" class from that book instead. This class is nicely balanced with the other classes, without having to equal fighters in fighting skill. Instead, they are masters of the social spheres...

 

[Corwin]

Whew. You sure do go on and on about very little.

I'll just cover the very small relevant parts...

And besides, that's not even the subject of the discussion. The subject of the discussion is changing Aristocrat to a PC class.

And I said that, even keeping it as an NPC class, it has enough interesting stuff to be viable to a PC who wants it. If a player wants to take it, more power to 'em. That is not the same as saying it is a PC class (or should be). You don't seem to get that. [shrug]

How does that follow? Warrior is alread obseleted by Fighter.

Only because you choose to place them all on the same level. My world is full of NPCs with plenty of NPC classes.

Aristocrat is clearly inferior to other core classes and a DM that wants to encourage PC's to take Aristocrat is free to try to attempt to balance Aristocrat in some fashion vs. Fighter, Bard, Rogue, etc.

Irrelevant and opinion. I never told anyone how to do it. I just gave my own opinion on what I felt to be the best thing (to not change it). You don't seem to be able to keep up with that because you are to busy writing long winded replies about nothing.

NPC's and PC's are in fact the same sort of things, and PC's differ from NPC's only in that they are maybe a little above average. I don't think there is some 'PC advantage' that lets you take PC classes without which you must be a subpar (your word) NPC that can only take NPC classes.

And that's a fine house rule for your game. But in mine, I try to keep the NPC classes in play as that is how I like it.

So tell me again, how would the presence of Aristocrat with fighter BAB make Warrior obselete?

Let me try and break this down for you.

If you are a DM who actually uses NPC classes, and the Aristocrat trumps Warrior in every way, what is the point of Warrior?

You see, in D&D, every classes is supposed to play a role. Even ther NPC classes. You may not like that. Oh well.

Your philosophy should translate equally to PC classes, then. I think Sorcerers are cool and no one in my group will play one because they think they suck. So I'm going to change their spell selection rules to match those of the popular wizards. Now they can have access to plenty of spells but continue to be able to cast on the fly. There, that should make them more appealing to my players...

Same mentality, different scale. How is it any different? The wizard was just made obsolete. Just as, on an NPC level, the Warrior becomes.

And finally, we can't leave it at a position I don't have. I think that the class system is pretty much fine as is, and have only made a few minor changes to the core classes (like the aforementioned change to commoner saving throws). I have not overhauled Aristocrat, but if I wanted to make changes to the class, I would.

Knock yourself out. I never said, anywhere, that people shouldn';t do what they want to the rules. Please stop acting like I have. It's childish.

And you are not playing with the class system as written, IMO. You already stated that you treat NPCs and PCs the same and use PC classes often for them. I can't see that as being "as intended". And (I feel I must be crystal clear here) that is OK for your game.

Have fun.

 

[Celebrim]

Oh good grief.

"And I said that, even keeping it as an NPC class, it has enough interesting stuff to be viable to a PC who wants it."

Actually, so did I.

"If a player wants to take it, more power to 'em. That is not the same as saying it is a PC class (or should be). You don't seem to get that. [shrug]"

Err... why would you say that? Maybe you ought to reread the post. You might find that there is more relevant sections than you currently seem to think, such as:

"Is Aristocrat already a viable class? Sure. PC's may choose to take it for whatever reasons."

So I think it is very clear that I do indeed get it.

"Only because you choose to place them all on the same level. My world is full of NPCs with plenty of NPC classes."

But, if you had read my post, you would note that my world is also full of NPC's with plenty of NPC classes, despite the fact that all beings PC or NPC are on the same level. Are there NPC's with PC classes in your world? What is different about them and the PC's that allows them to take PC classes? Is it not the access to them, that distinguishes between them?

I just gave my own opinion on what I felt to be the best thing (to not change it).

Yeah, I know. I understand that. It is your reasoning that seems flawed.

And that's a fine house rule for your game. But in mine, I try to keep the NPC classes in play as that is how I like it.

What house rule are you refering to? The passage you quoted of mine immediately prior to this statement does not contain a house rule, and I reiterate, I too have a whole lot of NPC's with NPC classes.

Let me try and break this down for you.

Ok.

If you are a DM who actually uses NPC classes,

Which I am.

and the Aristocrat trumps Warrior in every way, what is the point of Warrior?

Err... didn't I just explain that. The point of warrior is that it reflects the skills of a subsection of the community better than Aristocrat does, but continue...

You see, in D&D, every classes is supposed to play a role.

Agreed.

Even the NPC classes.

Agreed. If the NPC classes played no role, they wouldn't exist nor would they have been published. The role that they are supposed to play is describing characters who either haven't had access to the same challenges as the average PC, or have chosen to avoid such challenges.

You may not like that. Oh well.

I've got no problem with that. I'm increasingly thinking what I do have a problem with is flying right over your head.

Your philosophy should translate equally to PC classes, then. I think Sorcerers are cool and no one in my group will play one because they think they suck...

And it is statements like that that lead me to think so. As I said before, the point is not whether anyone takes a class. My philosophy most certainly doesn't lead me to obselete wizards because PC's won't play Sorcerers. PC's won't play warriors or commoners either, but that doesn't lead me to make warriors or commoners a more viable option.

Same mentality, different scale. How is it any different? The wizard was just made obsolete. Just as, on an NPC level, the Warrior becomes.

It is completely different, because Warrior does not exist as a class to provide a viable option to anyone but as a tool for DM's. Even if we were to assume (as you have done) that NPC's and PC's are completely different, and that there is some inherent quality of PC's that lets them take PC classes, then you still have a contridiction - because Expert is in every manner is superior class to Commoner (even if we don't change anything), so that Commoner is in the sence you are using the word 'obsolete'. Please explain to me why any of your NPC's are Commoners, when they could be Experts?

And if your answer is access, then I have won this debate.

To paraphrase you, 'If Expert trumps Commoner in every way, then what is the point of Commoner?'

My problem with you lies solely in that your reasoning is poor.