Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 7957403" data-attributes="member: 87792">Being an expert at rolling mental skills is not really a niche in D&D; the skill system is deliberately thin. And given that my warlords tended to end up with most of the mental skills trained I can only disagree with you about not having the skills; multiclass feats are almost never worth getting.As for being a noble and mechanically playing like one, that depends on what your conception of a noble is. Not all of them were bookworms - and I'd expect the ones that were to also learn magic. I'd also expect the ones that focused on their studies rather than more active pursuits to not become adventurers. This means that down-the-line bard or possibly even wizard covers almost all the bookworming. Possibly the 5e bard is slightly overpowered - but that's an issue with the bard.The key reason noble is a background not a class is because you don't learn special stuff after character creation by being a noble - you don't suddenly run off to return to your tutor every time you level. If you take <a href="https://www.dndbeyond.com/backgrounds/noble" target="_blank">the Noble background</a> you get an education, you get training in social manipulation (persuasion), you get a language, and you get social status. That's playing like a noble and what you claim to want.But different nobles in different countries or even different families or even different places in the family get different training and different tools to approach the world. When the British gentry used to train the first one to inherit, send the second into the army, the third law, and the fourth the church as the pattern why would they all get the same class? Why should a colonel and a bishop share a class just because they share parents when their parents pointed them at those careers from birth?(And yes I know the gentry were one step below the nobility)</blockquote>

Verification