Aristrocrats, why have em? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Aristrocrats, why have em? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Aryxbez
07-13-07, 11:45 PM As the Title says, What use are really Aristocrats? Sure the whole Politics thing, but as far as I am aware, there are other classes that would do it's job better.

Although it is probably the best, or second best NPC Class out there. But something like the Bard would be better I'm sure.
I otherwise like this class as it has decent skills, and good proficiencies, and a good Will save.

So what is your guys opinions?
Vaelan
07-13-07, 11:57 PM Aristocrats represent the ruling class. The ruling class usually had more of an emphasis on military prowess than the Expert class and thus a new class is needed.

But something like the Bard would be better I'm sure.
NPC classes are supposed to be worse than PC classes.
ChinchillaofDoom
07-14-07, 12:27 AM Besides, when your paladin marries that NPC princess, you don't want to see "Barbarian" with Charisma as the dump stat on the NPC stat-up sheet. Or maybe you do, who am I to judge.
Rerecros
07-14-07, 12:28 AM Yeah, PC classes are for heros, while NPC classes are for everyone else.
A bard is more powerful than an aristocrat, but the average noble doesn't have magical or rock and roll based powers.
Erato
07-14-07, 12:29 AM Because the Aristocrat represents a member of the ruling class that has been trained in the skills needed for a member of the ruling class, and nothing more - unlike adventures, who have to develope exeptional skills to survive in their chosen field.

And the ruling class doesn't need special song-powers.
NobodyRemembersThis
07-14-07, 01:31 AM Although, I had a character in a 3.0 game that was a fighter that took a few levels of Aristocrat - it made his character actually useful for his character concept. Aristocrat gave him the skills and the points in the skills that he wanted and was not, as a 3 level dip, appreciably worse than taking 3 more fighter levels.
darth_borehd
07-14-07, 01:47 AM I allow my players to take NPCs classes without getting a multi-class penalty. If they want a royal title like "Count" or "Duke", I require them to take at least 1 level in Aristocrat. For one player, we even rolled played this out. His barbarian was promised nobility if he could prove that he "was not a savage" by watching his manners at the royal ball. We had a whole game session that was like "My Fair Lady" where he had to be trained in etiquette, dancing, and table manners with the other party members helping. It was a hilariously fun time.
Zousha_Omenohu
07-14-07, 01:52 AM In addition to having some PCs with levels in Aristocrat, there can also be nobles who have levels in a PC class. I think I read somewhere that Lord Nasher Alagondar of Neverwinter was a Fighter/Divine Champion of Tyr before he settled onto his throne. These are usually the NPCs that are the most powerful, and thus, they are the NPCs that the PCs decide against killing just because they're bored.
Leonis472
07-14-07, 01:56 AM I allow my players to take NPCs classes without getting a multi-class penalty.We had a DM who did that a while back. I played a Sorcerer/Adept, whose parents were murdered mysteriously. Orphaned at a young age, he was sent far away to a tribe/village (mostly village) for safety. There his magical heritage surfaced intuitively as a Sorcerer, and as he was raised by the village elder, he was briefly taught as an Adept. His divine focus was placed on the palm of his right hand through scarification. It was the sun on the horizon—the symbol of Fharlanghn—seen on page 107 of the Player's Handbook.

And that My Fair Lady thing is awesome, man. :D
JulesCARV
07-14-07, 02:05 AM The funny thing is, there really aren't any PC classes that are the "PC equivalent" of an aristocrat -- a "courtly knight" type figure with a mix of combat ability, education, social skill, etc. A bard, for instance, does not have heavy armor, a fighter has no knowledge skills, etc. A fighter is strictly an upgrade from a warrior, a ranger is strictly an upgrade from a commoner, etc, but oddly enough, in spite of its mediocrity, I don't think there are any classes that strictly dominate the aristocrat (correct me if I'm wrong).

I have a little quixotic project to replace all NPC classes with PC-equivalent classes. The adept and magewright can be straightforwardly replaced by existing spellcasters and manifesters, and the warrior is straightforwardly replaced with fighters, barbarians, warblades, etc.

The three that gave me trouble were the commoner, expert, and aristocrat, none of whom seemed to have a good PC analogue, so I made three classes to replace them: the civilian (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=823977) and survivalist (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=823980) to replace the commoner and expert, and the kshatriya (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=823979) to replace the aristocrat. The kshatriya has the notable feature of actually possibly being of interest to typical PCs, unlike the other two.
Potato_Dragon
07-14-07, 02:20 AM Slightly off topic, but why don't aristocrats get leadership as a bonus feat?
Dhavaer
07-14-07, 02:24 AM Slightly off topic, but why don't aristocrats get leadership as a bonus feat?

Because not all Aristocrats will actually want or need to lead an army.
NobodyRemembersThis
07-14-07, 02:24 AM Slightly off topic, but why don't aristocrats get leadership as a bonus feat?Because other than Magic and familiars (Adept), the NPC classes don't get class abilities.

To get around this, I have actually reduced all of my NPC classes to 5 levels only. I have then given each class (save commoner and adept) a bonus feat at levels 2 and 4. I also created a "Thug" class that is basically an ability less rogue.

All of the bonus feats are "skill" feats. Like so:

The Aristocrat gets Negotiator at level 2 and Persuasive at level 4.

The Commoner gets Skill Focus at level 3.

The Expert gains Skill Focus at levels 2 and 4.

The Thug gets Deceitful at level 2 and Stealthy at level 4.

The Warrior gets Alertness at level 2, and Athletic at level 4.

I feel this makes the classes decent at the jobs they are supposed to do. With the 5 level limit, this keeps them from being an alternative to heroic classes.
Aryxbez
07-14-07, 03:35 AM Also another question I had forgotten to mention. Was who and why would really anyone listen to them as leaders and what not? Such as a wizard, and any other class for that matter. Seeing how Aristocrats usually have a bodyguard, or someone who takes orders from this noble.
Leonis472
07-14-07, 04:03 AM Society tends to polarize. Leaders may at first lead for the benefit of the people, but then their children or successors might like power and wealth too much, and so they begin to exploit the people. After a few generations, leaders who lead for the commonwealth take power again, but with some of the older forms still mixed in. The rich stay rich simply because they've become and stayed smarter, even if the leaders are just. Not to say any of the aristocracy are evil, only that they stay at the upper crust, evil or no.

Wizards may fall in line because they know the rich protect their money, and money is useless in anarchy. Having rulers means stability, stability means universities, universities mean learning, learning means power. Therefore to have power means to let the rulers keep stability, regardless of fairness and unfairness. As long as things are generally peaceful and generally fair for most everyone, there's one reason a wizard won't protest. That, and a Wizard may think rulership is beneath him or too much hassle but necessary, as a noble might think farmwork is beneath him, while recognizing its necessity. All that, and a stable economy lets wizards set up shop and sell fancy swag.
Vaelan
07-14-07, 05:04 AM Also another question I had forgotten to mention. Was who and why would really anyone listen to them as leaders and what not? Such as a wizard, and any other class for that matter. Seeing how Aristocrats usually have a bodyguard, or someone who takes orders from this noble.
What this forum decides to label "power" and leadership ability aren't the same thing.

Also, NPCs of NPC classes tend to be several levels higher than NPCs of PC classes, according to the DMG. It doesn't matter if you can make things explode because when speaking of leadership, being able to make things explode rather than being able to hire people to make things explode is rarely beneficial and often detrimental.

The Aristocrat, on the other hand, has advantages that are relevant to leadership. He has somewhere around five to seven ranks of Diplomacy, Bluff, and Gather Information on everyone around him, not to mention skill-boosting feats. He also doesn't spend all of his time doing his god's work, studying, or practicing swordplay. He will prevail in any political arena because he is more talented and spends more time stacking circumstance in his favor.
Lord_Zeb
07-14-07, 10:41 AM The funny thing is, there really aren't any PC classes that are the "PC equivalent" of an aristocrat -- a "courtly knight" type figure with a mix of combat ability, education, social skill, etc. A bard, for instance, does not have heavy armor, a fighter has no knowledge skills, etc. A fighter is strictly an upgrade from a warrior, a ranger is strictly an upgrade from a commoner, etc, but oddly enough, in spite of its mediocrity, I don't think there are any classes that strictly dominate the aristocrat (correct me if I'm wrong).

Yes, you're wrong;):

Marshal = Aristocrat with following differences:

High Fort save progression.

Bonus Feat: Skill Focus(Diplomacy) at 1st,

Auras (Minor auras: bonuses from CHA; Major Auras: Minor bonus on more general area; due to orders and active withon 60', one of each active at a time), and

special ability: Grant Move action 1/day per 4 levels, starting at 4th.

Do not gain Appraise, Disguise, Forgery, & Gather Information as Class skills.

Do not get Tower Shield proficiency

Do not get 6d8x10 gp starting equipment (would deem they gain Warrior starting equipment: 6d4 x 10 gp by the example Starting Package equipment, but this is not specified).

Marshal Class is described in Miniatures Handbook.

Also, Ranger: Upgrade from Expert(Hunter), not Commoner.
The Simbul
07-14-07, 11:16 AM As an NPC class, an artisocrat 20 has 20HD but a CR of only 10.

Which in turn means he/she can have 23 ranks in skills like Diplomacy or Sense Motive as opposed to the 13 ranks possessed by the CR-equitable PCs.

That in turn means that the king/queen/etc will not be effortlessly reduced to a useless pawn in the hands of a charismatic PC rogue (sense motive vs. bluff), nor out out negotiated by a PC bard, cleric, or paladin (opposed diplomacy checks resolve negotiations).
navar100
07-14-07, 11:41 AM What would you rather the punchline be?
:P
Shedeo
07-14-07, 12:56 PM I've been tossing around ideas lately about having NPC classes be something that I don't use. I generally don't stat out commoners or any of that, but I have started to use a homebrew class (still in the early stages mind you) for Nobles, which I called the Mediator. For Experts/Thugs I just use the Rogue variant from UA for feats, but its limited to general feats (like Great Fortitude or Negotiator), and they have 6+ skills and a d8 hit dice.

I'm not a huge fan of NPC classes. Granted, it allows the heroes to be extraordinary, even at first level, but I don't particularly follow the normal idea of what DnD is. I have a lower-magic campaign setting and, with people like the PCs and their BBEGs running around, the world needs to be a bit more... Prepared for that. So thusly, the average soldier in my campaign is a level 4 Fighter.
thorr_kan
07-14-07, 02:20 PM Funny.

I've been thinking of a capaign using *only* the NPC classes:
Adept - updated w/one domain, from Eberron. Maybe make a spontaneous caster. Maybe add a few spells.
Magewright - we gotcher arcane caster here. Maybe add a few spells.
Commoner - no change.
Warrior - probably no change. Maybe make Weapon Specialization/Gr. Weapon Spec/Gr. Wep. Focus available.
Expert - probaby no change. Maybe add Skill Focus as a bonus feat at some point.
Aristrocrat - Leadership as a free feat at 6th level. Now I'm thinking about letting them have Persuasive, Investigator, or Negotiator at 1st level.
NobodyRemembersThis
07-14-07, 02:47 PM I've been tossing around ideas lately about having NPC classes be something that I don't use. I generally don't stat out commoners or any of that, but I have started to use a homebrew class (still in the early stages mind you) for Nobles, which I called the Mediator. For Experts/Thugs I just use the Rogue variant from UA for feats, but its limited to general feats (like Great Fortitude or Negotiator), and they have 6+ skills and a d8 hit dice.

I'm not a huge fan of NPC classes. Granted, it allows the heroes to be extraordinary, even at first level, but I don't particularly follow the normal idea of what DnD is. I have a lower-magic campaign setting and, with people like the PCs and their BBEGs running around, the world needs to be a bit more... Prepared for that. So thusly, the average soldier in my campaign is a level 4 Fighter.Look into the stat based base classes from Modern. This would probably work well for you.
one_eyed
07-14-07, 03:26 PM Funny.

I've been thinking of a capaign using *only* the NPC classes:
Adept - updated w/one domain, from Eberron. Maybe make a spontaneous caster. Maybe add a few spells.
Magewright - we gotcher arcane caster here. Maybe add a few spells.
Commoner - no change.
Warrior - probably no change. Maybe make Weapon Specialization/Gr. Weapon Spec/Gr. Wep. Focus available.
Expert - probaby no change. Maybe add Skill Focus as a bonus feat at some point.
Aristrocrat - Leadership as a free feat at 6th level. Now I'm thinking about letting them have Persuasive, Investigator, or Negotiator at 1st level.

i've played a game like that, it was great, the plan was to go 1-20, then at 21 we'd have acess to pc classes, we could multi class as normal along the way, use prc's and such, we made it t lvl 7 before we had to call it quits cause of schedual conflicts.
Gwenfloor
07-14-07, 03:30 PM Aristocrats represent the ruling class. The ruling class usually had more of an emphasis on military prowess than the Expert class and thus a new class is needed.

NPC classes are supposed to be worse than PC classes.

Except in unique circumstances, like Thay in FR, where the spell casters are in control, or Ravenloft's Falknovia, which is like a medieval military dictatorship.
JulesCARV
07-14-07, 03:43 PM Yes, you're wrong;):

Marshal = Aristocrat with following differences:

....

Also, Ranger: Upgrade from Expert(Hunter), not Commoner.

You have a point on the marshal. I forgot about that -- the marshal does seem to be superior to the aristocrat in almost every way (although it's still a weak enough class that few people really like it).

However, on the ranger compared to the expert and commoner, the ranger actually doesn't strictly dominate the expert, because an expert could pick up speak language, forgery, or another skill that a ranger couldn't, whereas the commoner's skill list is a strict subset of the ranger's skill list (which is why I picked the ranger), although of course generally speaking the ranger is a far superior class to the expert. I think the factotum might be a strict upgrade from the expert (and commoner), if it gets good will saves. (Not sure about that -- never seen the factotum)
Kobold Paladin
07-14-07, 03:48 PM I dont use the aristrocrat class because in my setting all nobles are primary casting PC classes, otherwise they wouldnt be in power.
Shedeo
07-14-07, 05:01 PM Look into the stat based base classes from Modern. This would probably work well for you.

I was actually considering using them, but at the same time I'd still like to keep things basically DnD. The only one that I'm a bit confused about would be the Commoner. I really wouldn't make that a PC-viable class, but then again, it shouldn't be. I would still increase the hit die to a d6 probly, but I see no reason to.
one_eyed
07-14-07, 05:52 PM the commoner works ok as a pc class, i've played a commoner/adept/healer it turned out great.
Sleepwalker13666
07-14-07, 06:09 PM The funny thing is, there really aren't any PC classes that are the "PC equivalent" of an aristocrat -- a "courtly knight" type figure with a mix of combat ability, education, social skill, etc. A bard, for instance, does not have heavy armor, a fighter has no knowledge skills, etc. A fighter is strictly an upgrade from a warrior, a ranger is strictly an upgrade from a commoner, etc, but oddly enough, in spite of its mediocrity, I don't think there are any classes that strictly dominate the aristocrat (correct me if I'm wrong).

I have a little quixotic project to replace all NPC classes with PC-equivalent classes. The adept and magewright can be straightforwardly replaced by existing spellcasters and manifesters, and the warrior is straightforwardly replaced with fighters, barbarians, warblades, etc.

The three that gave me trouble were the commoner, expert, and aristocrat, none of whom seemed to have a good PC analogue, so I made three classes to replace them: the civilian (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=823977) and survivalist (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=823980) to replace the commoner and expert, and the kshatriya (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=823979) to replace the aristocrat. The kshatriya has the notable feature of actually possibly being of interest to typical PCs, unlike the other two.

In Dragonlance campaign setting they have a noble class, despite that I don't feel the aristocrat needs to be dropped.
danielinthewolvesden
07-14-07, 10:24 PM I allow my players to take NPCs classes without getting a multi-class penalty.

Right, this is a good idea and fairly common. In one campaign, the DM req'd us to take one level of a NPC class for 1st level. It was sorta a 0 level start.

thorr_kan: Magewright?:confused:
Furion Thamior
07-14-07, 10:36 PM Huh, maybe it's just me, but I've always felt that Rogues, Bards, and in some cases, Paladins, were the most logical step up from an aristocrat. Ditto on the expert => rogue/ bard.
thorr_kan
07-15-07, 12:57 PM thorr_kan: Magewright?:confused:

Eberron's arcane magic crafter class. Really limited spells, slow progress. "We make things." "We make things better." Hedge wizard, alchemist types.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Aryxbez 07-13-07, 11:45 PM	As the Title says, What use are really Aristocrats? Sure the whole Politics thing, but as far as I am aware, there are other classes that would do it's job better. Although it is probably the best, or second best NPC Class out there. But something like the Bard would be better I'm sure. I otherwise like this class as it has decent skills, and good proficiencies, and a good Will save. So what is your guys opinions?
Vaelan 07-13-07, 11:57 PM	Aristocrats represent the ruling class. The ruling class usually had more of an emphasis on military prowess than the Expert class and thus a new class is needed. But something like the Bard would be better I'm sure. NPC classes are supposed to be worse than PC classes.
ChinchillaofDoom 07-14-07, 12:27 AM	Besides, when your paladin marries that NPC princess, you don't want to see "Barbarian" with Charisma as the dump stat on the NPC stat-up sheet. Or maybe you do, who am I to judge.
Rerecros 07-14-07, 12:28 AM	Yeah, PC classes are for heros, while NPC classes are for everyone else. A bard is more powerful than an aristocrat, but the average noble doesn't have magical or rock and roll based powers.
Erato 07-14-07, 12:29 AM	Because the Aristocrat represents a member of the ruling class that has been trained in the skills needed for a member of the ruling class, and nothing more - unlike adventures, who have to develope exeptional skills to survive in their chosen field. And the ruling class doesn't need special song-powers.
NobodyRemembersThis 07-14-07, 01:31 AM	Although, I had a character in a 3.0 game that was a fighter that took a few levels of Aristocrat - it made his character actually useful for his character concept. Aristocrat gave him the skills and the points in the skills that he wanted and was not, as a 3 level dip, appreciably worse than taking 3 more fighter levels.
darth_borehd 07-14-07, 01:47 AM	I allow my players to take NPCs classes without getting a multi-class penalty. If they want a royal title like "Count" or "Duke", I require them to take at least 1 level in Aristocrat. For one player, we even rolled played this out. His barbarian was promised nobility if he could prove that he "was not a savage" by watching his manners at the royal ball. We had a whole game session that was like "My Fair Lady" where he had to be trained in etiquette, dancing, and table manners with the other party members helping. It was a hilariously fun time.
Zousha_Omenohu 07-14-07, 01:52 AM	In addition to having some PCs with levels in Aristocrat, there can also be nobles who have levels in a PC class. I think I read somewhere that Lord Nasher Alagondar of Neverwinter was a Fighter/Divine Champion of Tyr before he settled onto his throne. These are usually the NPCs that are the most powerful, and thus, they are the NPCs that the PCs decide against killing just because they're bored.
Leonis472 07-14-07, 01:56 AM	I allow my players to take NPCs classes without getting a multi-class penalty.We had a DM who did that a while back. I played a Sorcerer/Adept, whose parents were murdered mysteriously. Orphaned at a young age, he was sent far away to a tribe/village (mostly village) for safety. There his magical heritage surfaced intuitively as a Sorcerer, and as he was raised by the village elder, he was briefly taught as an Adept. His divine focus was placed on the palm of his right hand through scarification. It was the sun on the horizon—the symbol of Fharlanghn—seen on page 107 of the Player's Handbook. And that My Fair Lady thing is awesome, man. :D
JulesCARV 07-14-07, 02:05 AM	The funny thing is, there really aren't any PC classes that are the "PC equivalent" of an aristocrat -- a "courtly knight" type figure with a mix of combat ability, education, social skill, etc. A bard, for instance, does not have heavy armor, a fighter has no knowledge skills, etc. A fighter is strictly an upgrade from a warrior, a ranger is strictly an upgrade from a commoner, etc, but oddly enough, in spite of its mediocrity, I don't think there are any classes that strictly dominate the aristocrat (correct me if I'm wrong). I have a little quixotic project to replace all NPC classes with PC-equivalent classes. The adept and magewright can be straightforwardly replaced by existing spellcasters and manifesters, and the warrior is straightforwardly replaced with fighters, barbarians, warblades, etc. The three that gave me trouble were the commoner, expert, and aristocrat, none of whom seemed to have a good PC analogue, so I made three classes to replace them: the civilian (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=823977) and survivalist (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=823980) to replace the commoner and expert, and the kshatriya (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=823979) to replace the aristocrat. The kshatriya has the notable feature of actually possibly being of interest to typical PCs, unlike the other two.
Potato_Dragon 07-14-07, 02:20 AM	Slightly off topic, but why don't aristocrats get leadership as a bonus feat?
Dhavaer 07-14-07, 02:24 AM	Slightly off topic, but why don't aristocrats get leadership as a bonus feat? Because not all Aristocrats will actually want or need to lead an army.
NobodyRemembersThis 07-14-07, 02:24 AM	Slightly off topic, but why don't aristocrats get leadership as a bonus feat?Because other than Magic and familiars (Adept), the NPC classes don't get class abilities. To get around this, I have actually reduced all of my NPC classes to 5 levels only. I have then given each class (save commoner and adept) a bonus feat at levels 2 and 4. I also created a "Thug" class that is basically an ability less rogue. All of the bonus feats are "skill" feats. Like so: The Aristocrat gets Negotiator at level 2 and Persuasive at level 4. The Commoner gets Skill Focus at level 3. The Expert gains Skill Focus at levels 2 and 4. The Thug gets Deceitful at level 2 and Stealthy at level 4. The Warrior gets Alertness at level 2, and Athletic at level 4. I feel this makes the classes decent at the jobs they are supposed to do. With the 5 level limit, this keeps them from being an alternative to heroic classes.
Aryxbez 07-14-07, 03:35 AM	Also another question I had forgotten to mention. Was who and why would really anyone listen to them as leaders and what not? Such as a wizard, and any other class for that matter. Seeing how Aristocrats usually have a bodyguard, or someone who takes orders from this noble.
Leonis472 07-14-07, 04:03 AM	Society tends to polarize. Leaders may at first lead for the benefit of the people, but then their children or successors might like power and wealth too much, and so they begin to exploit the people. After a few generations, leaders who lead for the commonwealth take power again, but with some of the older forms still mixed in. The rich stay rich simply because they've become and stayed smarter, even if the leaders are just. Not to say any of the aristocracy are evil, only that they stay at the upper crust, evil or no. Wizards may fall in line because they know the rich protect their money, and money is useless in anarchy. Having rulers means stability, stability means universities, universities mean learning, learning means power. Therefore to have power means to let the rulers keep stability, regardless of fairness and unfairness. As long as things are generally peaceful and generally fair for most everyone, there's one reason a wizard won't protest. That, and a Wizard may think rulership is beneath him or too much hassle but necessary, as a noble might think farmwork is beneath him, while recognizing its necessity. All that, and a stable economy lets wizards set up shop and sell fancy swag.
Vaelan 07-14-07, 05:04 AM	Also another question I had forgotten to mention. Was who and why would really anyone listen to them as leaders and what not? Such as a wizard, and any other class for that matter. Seeing how Aristocrats usually have a bodyguard, or someone who takes orders from this noble. What this forum decides to label "power" and leadership ability aren't the same thing. Also, NPCs of NPC classes tend to be several levels higher than NPCs of PC classes, according to the DMG. It doesn't matter if you can make things explode because when speaking of leadership, being able to make things explode rather than being able to hire people to make things explode is rarely beneficial and often detrimental. The Aristocrat, on the other hand, has advantages that are relevant to leadership. He has somewhere around five to seven ranks of Diplomacy, Bluff, and Gather Information on everyone around him, not to mention skill-boosting feats. He also doesn't spend all of his time doing his god's work, studying, or practicing swordplay. He will prevail in any political arena because he is more talented and spends more time stacking circumstance in his favor.
Lord_Zeb 07-14-07, 10:41 AM	The funny thing is, there really aren't any PC classes that are the "PC equivalent" of an aristocrat -- a "courtly knight" type figure with a mix of combat ability, education, social skill, etc. A bard, for instance, does not have heavy armor, a fighter has no knowledge skills, etc. A fighter is strictly an upgrade from a warrior, a ranger is strictly an upgrade from a commoner, etc, but oddly enough, in spite of its mediocrity, I don't think there are any classes that strictly dominate the aristocrat (correct me if I'm wrong). Yes, you're wrong;): Marshal = Aristocrat with following differences: High Fort save progression. Bonus Feat: Skill Focus(Diplomacy) at 1st, Auras (Minor auras: bonuses from CHA; Major Auras: Minor bonus on more general area; due to orders and active withon 60', one of each active at a time), and special ability: Grant Move action 1/day per 4 levels, starting at 4th. Do not gain Appraise, Disguise, Forgery, & Gather Information as Class skills. Do not get Tower Shield proficiency Do not get 6d8x10 gp starting equipment (would deem they gain Warrior starting equipment: 6d4 x 10 gp by the example Starting Package equipment, but this is not specified). Marshal Class is described in Miniatures Handbook. Also, Ranger: Upgrade from Expert(Hunter), not Commoner.
The Simbul 07-14-07, 11:16 AM	As an NPC class, an artisocrat 20 has 20HD but a CR of only 10. Which in turn means he/she can have 23 ranks in skills like Diplomacy or Sense Motive as opposed to the 13 ranks possessed by the CR-equitable PCs. That in turn means that the king/queen/etc will not be effortlessly reduced to a useless pawn in the hands of a charismatic PC rogue (sense motive vs. bluff), nor out out negotiated by a PC bard, cleric, or paladin (opposed diplomacy checks resolve negotiations).
navar100 07-14-07, 11:41 AM	What would you rather the punchline be? :P
Shedeo 07-14-07, 12:56 PM	I've been tossing around ideas lately about having NPC classes be something that I don't use. I generally don't stat out commoners or any of that, but I have started to use a homebrew class (still in the early stages mind you) for Nobles, which I called the Mediator. For Experts/Thugs I just use the Rogue variant from UA for feats, but its limited to general feats (like Great Fortitude or Negotiator), and they have 6+ skills and a d8 hit dice. I'm not a huge fan of NPC classes. Granted, it allows the heroes to be extraordinary, even at first level, but I don't particularly follow the normal idea of what DnD is. I have a lower-magic campaign setting and, with people like the PCs and their BBEGs running around, the world needs to be a bit more... Prepared for that. So thusly, the average soldier in my campaign is a level 4 Fighter.
thorr_kan 07-14-07, 02:20 PM	Funny. I've been thinking of a capaign using only the NPC classes: Adept - updated w/one domain, from Eberron. Maybe make a spontaneous caster. Maybe add a few spells. Magewright - we gotcher arcane caster here. Maybe add a few spells. Commoner - no change. Warrior - probably no change. Maybe make Weapon Specialization/Gr. Weapon Spec/Gr. Wep. Focus available. Expert - probaby no change. Maybe add Skill Focus as a bonus feat at some point. Aristrocrat - Leadership as a free feat at 6th level. Now I'm thinking about letting them have Persuasive, Investigator, or Negotiator at 1st level.
NobodyRemembersThis 07-14-07, 02:47 PM	I've been tossing around ideas lately about having NPC classes be something that I don't use. I generally don't stat out commoners or any of that, but I have started to use a homebrew class (still in the early stages mind you) for Nobles, which I called the Mediator. For Experts/Thugs I just use the Rogue variant from UA for feats, but its limited to general feats (like Great Fortitude or Negotiator), and they have 6+ skills and a d8 hit dice. I'm not a huge fan of NPC classes. Granted, it allows the heroes to be extraordinary, even at first level, but I don't particularly follow the normal idea of what DnD is. I have a lower-magic campaign setting and, with people like the PCs and their BBEGs running around, the world needs to be a bit more... Prepared for that. So thusly, the average soldier in my campaign is a level 4 Fighter.Look into the stat based base classes from Modern. This would probably work well for you.
one_eyed 07-14-07, 03:26 PM	Funny. I've been thinking of a capaign using only the NPC classes: Adept - updated w/one domain, from Eberron. Maybe make a spontaneous caster. Maybe add a few spells. Magewright - we gotcher arcane caster here. Maybe add a few spells. Commoner - no change. Warrior - probably no change. Maybe make Weapon Specialization/Gr. Weapon Spec/Gr. Wep. Focus available. Expert - probaby no change. Maybe add Skill Focus as a bonus feat at some point. Aristrocrat - Leadership as a free feat at 6th level. Now I'm thinking about letting them have Persuasive, Investigator, or Negotiator at 1st level. i've played a game like that, it was great, the plan was to go 1-20, then at 21 we'd have acess to pc classes, we could multi class as normal along the way, use prc's and such, we made it t lvl 7 before we had to call it quits cause of schedual conflicts.
Gwenfloor 07-14-07, 03:30 PM	Aristocrats represent the ruling class. The ruling class usually had more of an emphasis on military prowess than the Expert class and thus a new class is needed. NPC classes are supposed to be worse than PC classes. Except in unique circumstances, like Thay in FR, where the spell casters are in control, or Ravenloft's Falknovia, which is like a medieval military dictatorship.
JulesCARV 07-14-07, 03:43 PM	Yes, you're wrong;): Marshal = Aristocrat with following differences: .... Also, Ranger: Upgrade from Expert(Hunter), not Commoner. You have a point on the marshal. I forgot about that -- the marshal does seem to be superior to the aristocrat in almost every way (although it's still a weak enough class that few people really like it). However, on the ranger compared to the expert and commoner, the ranger actually doesn't strictly dominate the expert, because an expert could pick up speak language, forgery, or another skill that a ranger couldn't, whereas the commoner's skill list is a strict subset of the ranger's skill list (which is why I picked the ranger), although of course generally speaking the ranger is a far superior class to the expert. I think the factotum might be a strict upgrade from the expert (and commoner), if it gets good will saves. (Not sure about that -- never seen the factotum)
Kobold Paladin 07-14-07, 03:48 PM	I dont use the aristrocrat class because in my setting all nobles are primary casting PC classes, otherwise they wouldnt be in power.
Shedeo 07-14-07, 05:01 PM	Look into the stat based base classes from Modern. This would probably work well for you. I was actually considering using them, but at the same time I'd still like to keep things basically DnD. The only one that I'm a bit confused about would be the Commoner. I really wouldn't make that a PC-viable class, but then again, it shouldn't be. I would still increase the hit die to a d6 probly, but I see no reason to.
one_eyed 07-14-07, 05:52 PM	the commoner works ok as a pc class, i've played a commoner/adept/healer it turned out great.
Sleepwalker13666 07-14-07, 06:09 PM	The funny thing is, there really aren't any PC classes that are the "PC equivalent" of an aristocrat -- a "courtly knight" type figure with a mix of combat ability, education, social skill, etc. A bard, for instance, does not have heavy armor, a fighter has no knowledge skills, etc. A fighter is strictly an upgrade from a warrior, a ranger is strictly an upgrade from a commoner, etc, but oddly enough, in spite of its mediocrity, I don't think there are any classes that strictly dominate the aristocrat (correct me if I'm wrong). I have a little quixotic project to replace all NPC classes with PC-equivalent classes. The adept and magewright can be straightforwardly replaced by existing spellcasters and manifesters, and the warrior is straightforwardly replaced with fighters, barbarians, warblades, etc. The three that gave me trouble were the commoner, expert, and aristocrat, none of whom seemed to have a good PC analogue, so I made three classes to replace them: the civilian (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=823977) and survivalist (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=823980) to replace the commoner and expert, and the kshatriya (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=823979) to replace the aristocrat. The kshatriya has the notable feature of actually possibly being of interest to typical PCs, unlike the other two. In Dragonlance campaign setting they have a noble class, despite that I don't feel the aristocrat needs to be dropped.
danielinthewolvesden 07-14-07, 10:24 PM	I allow my players to take NPCs classes without getting a multi-class penalty. Right, this is a good idea and fairly common. In one campaign, the DM req'd us to take one level of a NPC class for 1st level. It was sorta a 0 level start. thorr_kan: Magewright?:confused:
Furion Thamior 07-14-07, 10:36 PM	Huh, maybe it's just me, but I've always felt that Rogues, Bards, and in some cases, Paladins, were the most logical step up from an aristocrat. Ditto on the expert => rogue/ bard.
thorr_kan 07-15-07, 12:57 PM	thorr_kan: Magewright?:confused: Eberron's arcane magic crafter class. Really limited spells, slow progress. "We make things." "We make things better." Hedge wizard, alchemist types.