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

[Elder-Basilisk]

For a single Aristocrat level, I'd specify what it means to be noble--what you can expect in game. Do you have a special right to appeal to royal (as opposed to provincial) justice? Do you have special rights which can't be removed without a trial? Can you be prosecuted by lesser nobles? (Maybe only the king and the higher ranking members of your house have any authority over you). I would also develop your family and what resources you have available to you. Are you from a trading family? A knightly lineage? Are you a member of a royal house? (That might have special benefits depending upon the setting--in the WOT, for instance, those Seanchan of Royal blood occupy a unique place in the hierarchy of the Empire). Or perhaps you're a member of a displaced royal house. (A member of the house of Lancaster in Tudor England, for instance).

If your DM is open to modifying the aristocrat class to be equal with PC classes, I would suggest starting by changing the BAB progression to 1/1. Contrary to other suggestions, I don't believe that this would be at all excessive. It would leave you with the following breakdown:

• *Barbarians get d12 HD, all martial weapons, rage, 4 skills from a moderate list, light and medium armor.
  *Fighters get d10 HD, all martial weapons, all armor, 2 skills from a lousy list, and a bonus feat.
  *Paladins get d10 HD, all martial weapons, all armor, 2 skills from a moderate list, detect evil divine grace, lay on hands, etc.
  *Rangers get d10 HD, all martial weapons, light armor, track, ambidexterity, two weapon fighting, and 4 skills from an excellent list.
  *Aristocrats get d8 HD, all martial weapons, all armor, lots of money, connections, and 4 skills from a good list.

I don't see that as out of line with the other fighting classes in the least. If you wanted to take Aristocrat all the way up, I would suggest working in some of the other suggestions like Leadership, etc. A few bonus social feats (stuff like Trustworthy (Star Wars), Silver Palm (FRCS), Cosmopolitan, Skill focus, alertness, Iron Will, etc.) scattered every three to five levels might be good too. (Aristocrats who wanted more martial abilities would multiclass with fighter--consequently I wouldn't include any bonus combat feats).

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Other Sources

There are some pretty good write ups for 'Aristocratic' PC classes in both Rokugan and Swashbuckling Adventures, which has two actually.

Both of those give them lower than fighter BAB, tend to assign more skill points and fewer weapon profeciences, and they all have more special abilities. Mostly all dealing with modifying the leadership in various ways and giving the class more social power. Sort of bardic music with a glance and less combat effectiveness.

 

[Corwin]

I'm not sure you understand what non sequitur means...

Sheesh. I can't even make a joke without getting attacked. Come on man, I made a non sequitur by stating "non sequiturs are cool"...

Then, after inserting my non sequitur (thus making itself cool by default), I went on to make my points. Jeez. [shrug]

That's doesn't follow from anything I said; that is a non sequitur.

It's interesting that here, you claim you aren't saying a certain thing, and then, throughout the rest of the very same post, you proceed to prove my point...

Evidenced by:

An inferior Fighter shouldn't belong to a different class; he should have fewer levels. The Warrior class is a kluge to allow for less-than-first-level Fighters for our heroes to cut down.

Why should a noble PC belong to a lesser class again? Where's the balance in that?

If the NPCs are supposed to be simply inferior beings, they should have fewer levels of whatever classes they do have.

I'd also like to re-reitterate that I have no problem with you wanting to erradicate NPC classes in your games. Do whatcha like. Don't be ashamed. It's your game. But that really isn't the point of this thread, now is it. I realize the subtle difference between erradicating the NPC class concept and determining what may, or may not, need to be done to the Aristocrat to make it a viable class worthy of PCs. Do you?

Other games (Star Wars and Rokugan) present PC Aristocrat classes (the Noble and the Courtier) to bump the Aristocrat's power level up to that of the other PC classes. I don't see a problem with doing the same thing in D&D. In fact, it seems quite natural.

For you. Sure. Just please quit acting like it needs to be natural to everyone. Some people are happy with the NPC classes the way they are. Is that so hard for you to fathom? Is it so difficult to believe other people may play differently or have different opinions? Sheesh.

 

[Wolf72]

wolf's changes to the noble ...

Aristocrat/Noble

 Bonus: Leadership feat at lvl 6, you can have this feat more than once

 At lvl 7 and every 3 lvls after (10, 13, 16, 19): +1 to leadership score (total of +5)

 Max starting gold +100 (6d8x10+100=580). +100gp/lvl gained (an ARIS 2 who makes lvl3 gains 300gp).

 

[Jack Daniel]

I use a straight-up conversion of the Star Wars noble. Works fine.

 

[gpetruc]

The main reason for which I gave much more power to the aristocrat class is simply that I want (in my Middle Earth setting) use it as a PC class, while the warrior remains a NPC class.

About the multiple Leadership feat actually I didn't look on the books, because I was thinking of some a post here on the boards (by sultain of smack ?) where a character was maxed to gain a hell lot of followers taking multiple Leadership feats and so I taught it was possible. Now I've read the SRD and it doesn't say anything, and so it should not be allowed to take it multiple times.

Maybe one could house rule that taking the feat multiple times is allowed but only adds followers and not cohorts.

 

[HellHound]

We've been looking at using the Courtier class from Rokugan.

Otherwise, we originally used a lightly modified Noble from Wheel of Time

 

[Celebrim]

Corwin: 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.

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

Aren't those two positions direct contridictions?

Either the Warrior is still a viable class no matter how many classes are superior to it, or it is not. You can't have it both ways.

And for the record, the Warrior's inclusion in 3ed. is to be backwards compatible with earlier editions. It's to allow 1st level Orcs and Hobgoblins to still be cannon fodder. I personally was disgusted by that back in 1st edition, and though 3rd has made great great strides, I personally don't think it has gone far enough.

Warrior is a still a marginally useful class. It represents a commoner in a martial society. It represents someone without training but who has had to face and deal out violence to survive. But that is about all it is good for. The idea that there are standing armies of warriors, high level warriors, and so forth is pretty ridiculous if you ask me because it suggests that for some reason people with attributes just like other people must enherently accept an inferior class just because those other people are 'better' than them.

As far as turning the Aristo into a PC class, one way is to simply give it d10 HD and fighter BAB. Then it is a variant fighter that exchanges skills for feats - something that doesn't really exist in the core classes at present. Going the other way towards lower HD and more skills isn't all that interesting to me, because the Aristo would then not be terribly different from an Expert which is in turn not all that different from a rogue with fewer class abilities. And I'm skeptical of the notion of automatically gaining social feats since that tends to contridict the setting frequently, but it would not be so bad to make the Aristocrat a variant rogue that exchanged rogue class abilities for bonus feats from a short list of Aristocratic feats.

 

[Spatzimaus]

I like Celebrim's points. Anyhoo, one thing I wanted to point out is that as written, the Aristocrat does NOT automatically imply "nobility"; "Aristocrats are not only the well-born, but also the wealthy or politically influential people of the world." I have an Aristocrat/Psion who came from a merchant family. He's not a leader, so the Leadership feat wouldn't be appropriate; he's just wealthy, with good connections.

Right now I think it works as a PC class, although it's underpowered. But, if you really wanted it to be balanced as a PC class, I'd say base it on the Bard, trading spells for combat ability. Or, make it a Fighter-type that trades Feats for mental and social skills. Sort of like a spellless Bard/Fighter hybrid; they have the Bard's great skill list and points, the Fighter's combat ability, but not the spells or Feats that make those classes so good for PCs.

So, what I'd do:
> Leave the HD at d8 (they're not soldiers) but bump the BAB to +1/level. If you include all of the stuff below, that might not even be necessary.
> Alignment: Aristocrats can't be Chaotic. The rich and powerful ARE the law, after all. It mirrors Bards this way.
> Contacts: Give them an ability bestowing contacts/connections; treat it like Bardic Knowledge, except instead of gaining knowledge they locate a person offering goods and services they need (same DCs will work, but make the bonus equal to class level + CHA modifier instead of INT).
> Natural Leader: When using the Leadership Feat, add a +1 bonus to your character level for the purpose of determining cohorts and followers. This increases by +1 per 5 class levels (at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th). Since this increases character level, it lets them have more followers, and cohorts above their level (the king's Champion sort of thing)
> Morale: They should have one other ability. I was thinking something motivational along the lines of the Bardic Music ability (and hey, they already have Perform) but it's too strong and not really appropriate. But, if you tone it down a bit and use Diplomacy as the skill, it could work. Something line:
Once per day per level, an Aristocrat can motivate his allies to do exceptional feats.
An Aristocrat with 5 ranks of Diplomacy can Inspire Courage. An Aristocrat with 10 ranks of Diplomacy can Inspire Competence. An Aristocrat with 15 ranks of Diplomacy can Inspire Greatness (in one target; unlike the Bard ability it doesn't scale).
These abilities act as the Bard abilities except are Extraordinary, not Supernatural (and no Countersong, Fascinate, or Suggestion).

How's that sound? I don't think it'd stop people from playing Bards, since they have all those spells (never make fun of Mass Haste). They get something every level or two, and it's not a one-level wonder.

 

[Corwin]

Corwin: 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.

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

Then you didn't understand what I was saying. I never proposed #1. In fact, I stated something approaching the opposite. If you make a very good class that provides everything a 1st level PC needs (BAB, money, skills, saves), it becomes irresistable.

Aren't those two positions direct contridictions?

Yeah. Which is why I'm glad I didn't say them.

Either the Warrior is still a viable class no matter how many classes are superior to it, or it is not. You can't have it both ways.

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

And for the record, the Warrior's inclusion in 3ed. is to be backwards compatible with earlier editions. It's to allow 1st level Orcs and Hobgoblins to still be cannon fodder. I personally was disgusted by that back in 1st edition, and though 3rd has made great great strides, I personally don't think it has gone far enough.

That's your opinion. One I don't subscribe to.

Warrior is a still a marginally useful class.

Says you.

It represents a commoner in a martial society. It represents someone without training but who has had to face and deal out violence to survive. But that is about all it is good for. The idea that there are standing armies of warriors, high level warriors, and so forth is pretty ridiculous if you ask me because it suggests that for some reason people with attributes just like other people must enherently accept an inferior class just because those other people are 'better' than them.

Nice color. But irrelevant. 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.

It seems interesting that I'm the one advocating leaving Aristocrat the way they are so all PCs won't want it. And yet, you seem to be stating that no one (even NPCs) should ever take an inferior class. You seem to be placing NPCs in the same realm as PCs.

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. If there are no Knights of the Inner Circle to recruit you, you can't be one, right? That is the same problem for NPCs. You can't just decide to be a Fighter. You need to invest a lot of time, energy and training. Not every farmer is going to have that available to them. So they are Commoners. They spend their lives farming, not fighting.

I guess we have no serious discussion here. You feel the entire class system needs an overhaul. I don't. Let's leave it at that.