Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wingsandsword" data-source="post: 7959020" data-attributes="member: 14159">That is part of why I support the existence of a Noble character class so much.I absolutely hate looking at campaign setting materials and seeing Kings, Emperor's and Princes written up as Fighters (or similar classes like Samurai or Knight), and that while some martial training would be expected of a historic or fantasy nobleman, the idea that someone's a supreme high-level weaponmaster just because someone's a powerful noble or aristocrat seems absurd.&nbsp; I always hated that there aren't more skill-based, non-spellcasting/non-supernatural character class options in D&amp;D.A Noble class that gives better fighting options than a random commoner, but not as good as a fighter, but instead has social skills (both through the skill system, and leadership-themed buffing abilities similar to bardic magic) seems a pretty obvious choice for a character class.If D&amp;D didn't exist and was being made from scratch now, and we had to define a dozen archetypes from fantasy fiction and history to be the core classes, we would be more likely to end up with a charismatic aristocratic &quot;Noble&quot; class than a heavily armored, mace-swinging warpriest &quot;Cleric&quot; class.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wingsandsword, post: 7959020, member: 14159"] That is part of why I support the existence of a Noble character class so much. I absolutely hate looking at campaign setting materials and seeing Kings, Emperor's and Princes written up as Fighters (or similar classes like Samurai or Knight), and that while some martial training would be expected of a historic or fantasy nobleman, the idea that someone's a supreme high-level weaponmaster just because someone's a powerful noble or aristocrat seems absurd. I always hated that there aren't more skill-based, non-spellcasting/non-supernatural character class options in D&D. A Noble class that gives better fighting options than a random commoner, but not as good as a fighter, but instead has social skills (both through the skill system, and leadership-themed buffing abilities similar to bardic magic) seems a pretty obvious choice for a character class. If D&D didn't exist and was being made from scratch now, and we had to define a dozen archetypes from fantasy fiction and history to be the core classes, we would be more likely to end up with a charismatic aristocratic "Noble" class than a heavily armored, mace-swinging warpriest "Cleric" class. [/QUOTE]

Verification