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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 5048946" data-attributes="member: 2303">I don't think we agree that much after all. I can definitely agree on the "not a full kit" issue. If a player at the royal ball started to take out coils of rope or 10 ft poles, I'd indeed say this was not reasonable (at which point the player would point out the magic purse he was keeping this stuff in, but that is my players and their preference in magic items). Swords and armor are much more readily accepted as badges of office, but carrying several weapons (such as shield, sword and axe, or sword and bow) is probably frowned upon. And it also depends on the situation and expected activity - armor is impractical at a ball if you are a dancer, but not if you are a bodyguard.As to the separate treatment different classes get, DnD has a definite mix-up of character class and social class. Look at the skill list of the rouge and try to tell me it makes a good nobleman. This is something I dislike, so when I speak of class, generally assume social class rather than character class. As for "knights" and equivalents, it is not a noble title. It is the title of a trusted professional warrior. Its not really a noble title, but only nobles could afford to have knights, and even to them they were expensive enough that they only had a few. This meant knights were elite and accorded status. Only trusted people are given access to this kind of military hardware, and they are generally trusted to carry it with them anywhere on friendly territory. I would not say that this is worth a feat, tough it might be worth some other kind of background option/cost with less game impact than a feat has. In my <a href="http://hastur.net/wiki/Traits_%284E%29" target="_blank">Traits/Talents system</a> knight is an option you can take, as it appears to be in your rules.I don't really find it credible that a character can gain training with military arms and armor without being some kind of soldier, so it boils down to the status of soldiers. Does there exist armored soldiery outside the knightly class? If a player wants a heavy-armor character to not be a knight in a chivalric setting, that takes quite an unusual background. Things might be entirely different in setting where armor is more common and soldiers in general have less status, like the renaissance.True nobility, on the other hand, bears no relationship to character class. A noble can be anything, and a rogue (or other character class with presumed low status) that is a noble is higher in station than any mere knight.On the point on whether you have to expect combat to erupt in a social situation, we really would not have this debate if there was not a chance combat would break out. Carrying arms and armor in a tavern might actually be a very good way for character to avoid a fight there. Of course, if a fight does break out, lethal force is still excessive in a barroom brawl. The bottom line for me is that armor is not as encumbering, physically or socially, as many modern people expect. You can carry out a full range of activities in armor, and the armor penalties set in 3E are quite excessive. In fact, a chain shirt is barely noticeable under clothing, and heavier armor can be worn with relative ease. The social stigma of armor depends very much on your role - people expect you to adhere to a role they understand, and if that role includes armor, there is no stigma attached. And armor need not be more brutish or bloody than clothing. Typical bandits would probably look as odd in a ballroom whether they wore armor or not. Having poor style brings social stigma, but that has little connection to armor or weapons worn.</blockquote>

Verification