Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aqua Vitae" data-source="post: 3658183" data-attributes="member: 53708">Thanks.&nbsp; I just edited it above (and also in my own files; revision is ongoing).Yes, part of my design philosophy was to make every base class in my campaign more customizable than the standard D&amp;D classes while keeping them culturally specific (i.e. to my Arthurian/medieval setting).&nbsp; Hence, I use Knights, Knaves and Priests in lieu of Fighters/Paladins, Clerics, and Rogues.&nbsp; Many of the talents are &quot;social&quot; in nature, at least for Nobles and Priests; however, I've tried to leave open enough room for players who want more abilities that relate less to social circumstances and more to combat.I was impressed by the Yeoman in Legends of Excalibur, but I didn't like the idea of having every Yeoman a master archer.&nbsp; Some fictional sources, such as La Morte de Arthur, explicitely reference the Yeoman but more so as a social ranking.&nbsp; Hence, we have a warrior stating that &quot;King Arthur made me a Yeoman&quot;.&nbsp; I don't presume that in so doing he became an archer; with optional Talents/Feats, such a character could go in any direction.All of my other classes incoporate the Talent (or Talent/Feat) system.&nbsp; In a few cases, what I perceived to be crucial class abilities (a Noble's &quot;Noble Quest&quot; ability, borrowed directly from Legends of Excalibur, for example) were presumed, alongside bonus Talents.&nbsp; The Knight gets the most option, combat-wise, with respect to such Talents/Feats; almost all (save for Courtly Love) of his Talents relate to combat, as do his bonus Feats.I'm glad you like my Yeoman, Quartz!Your idea of restricting (at least some of the) talents to use with light or medium (or even no) armor is a good one; I'll definitely toy around with it and see what I come up with.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aqua Vitae, post: 3658183, member: 53708"] Thanks. I just edited it above (and also in my own files; revision is ongoing). Yes, part of my design philosophy was to make every base class in my campaign more customizable than the standard D&D classes while keeping them culturally specific (i.e. to my Arthurian/medieval setting). Hence, I use Knights, Knaves and Priests in lieu of Fighters/Paladins, Clerics, and Rogues. Many of the talents are "social" in nature, at least for Nobles and Priests; however, I've tried to leave open enough room for players who want more abilities that relate less to social circumstances and more to combat. I was impressed by the Yeoman in Legends of Excalibur, but I didn't like the idea of having [I]every[/I] Yeoman a master archer. Some fictional sources, such as La Morte de Arthur, explicitely reference the Yeoman but more so as a social ranking. Hence, we have a warrior stating that "King Arthur made me a Yeoman". I don't presume that in so doing he became an archer; with optional Talents/Feats, such a character could go in any direction. All of my other classes incoporate the Talent (or Talent/Feat) system. In a few cases, what I perceived to be crucial class abilities (a Noble's "Noble Quest" ability, borrowed directly from Legends of Excalibur, for example) were presumed, alongside bonus Talents. The Knight gets the most option, combat-wise, with respect to such Talents/Feats; almost all (save for Courtly Love) of his Talents relate to combat, as do his bonus Feats. I'm glad you like my Yeoman, Quartz! Your idea of restricting (at least some of the) talents to use with light or medium (or even no) armor is a good one; I'll definitely toy around with it and see what I come up with. [/QUOTE]

Verification