Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The Shaman 10-24-04, 06:19 PM	The skills necessary to run a feudal fief are quite different from those of most adventurers. In fact, the characters perhaps most likely to get a title - fighters - don't have some of the most important skills necessary to take their place as members of the aristocracy as class skills: Diplomacy, Knowledge (local, history, geography, nobility and aristocracy), possibly Appraise Object, Bluff, Sense Motive, or Speak Language. Clerics, another class likely to gain a fief, also lack many of these same skills. In fact, the skills more useful to ruling over a fief or town are those possessed by bards and rogues! I'm considering a feat that would allow a character who is granted title to a fief of some kind to select three skills as class skills from the bunch noted above and gain one additonal skill point per level to be applied only to those skills. The skill ranks will acrue slowly, so that the adventuring fighter remains "rough around the edges" compared to say an NPC Aristocrat, but it will eliminate untrained skill checks for some very necessary abilities. Thoughts, opinions?
kliate 10-24-04, 06:38 PM	1. Leadership often fills the needs of fighters and the like given positions of authority, but without the skills to make them flourish. An NPC Aristocrat, Bard or Rogue to advise the Fighter with the position of authority can usually help matters significantly 2. Multiclassing can be a common result of this sort of "promotion". If the character in question has advanced as a pure fighter and fits one of the following: a) is human b) is half-elf c) has fighter as favored class then they can just as easily begin to multiclass as a more "diplomatic" type. Not only will they have access to the necessary class skills, but they'll probably have more skill points to buy them with, too (and quickly - since last I checked it was total HD that determined the cap on skill ranks) 3. The character insistant on continuing as a fighter without a cohort's assistance has a class skill that already suits their type: Intimidate!
Dash Branaghan 10-24-04, 06:42 PM	My thoughts. Title does not dictate ability. Odds are there will be a number of people here who will cite copiously from the history textbooks that titles went to those who could afford them, not necessarily those who were capable. The problem I see with granting class skills along with a title is that it suggests that the person is suddenly very proficient at it, which won't necessarily be the case. Those who want to excel at the various skills will "put forth the effort" (read: invest the skill points at CC values) to improve them. Keep in mind, you can always hire someone who is stronger in those skills than you are (ie. an NPC Expert or Commoner with the necessary training). Dash
FriendoftheDork 10-24-04, 06:50 PM	the fighter can hire a senechal to organize his fiefdom. a herald to deal with other nobles etc. Of course, he'll have a hard time gaining political power beyond what he already has, but he can be a lord nontheless. And if he's called to fight for his liege lord, he can gain more power and a larger fiefdom. It depends on where he's knighted... if his fighting skills are never called for hell probably never improve his standing. Also don't forget that not only people with high diplomacy skill can gain friends, sometimes only loyalty and friendship can help more than a silver tongue.
Talanall 10-24-04, 06:55 PM	You may wish to draw a distinction between the "running" of a fief, and the "ruling" of a fief. A fighter may get a title, but that doesn't mean that he runs his fief personally. It means that he rules it. The distinction is that a ruler has advisors, who help him decide what needs to be done to make his fief prosper. By the same token, though, the advisors need the fighter-ruler, because they can't enforce their opinions. The reason why a king is a king is because he can reward his servants, and punish his foes. The growth of laws began as a tool for the king to enact this simple function, by defining who is his servant, what a given servant's expectations from the king should be, who the king's enemies are, and how they're to be punished. This very simple system was eventually complicated, in the real world, by its successful appropriation by Christian thinkers. The formula changed, so that instead of being situated as an ultimate, almost deific authority, the king was secondary to God, ruling by divine right in a quasi-ecclesiastical role -- essentially as God's warrior. It was complicated yet more when a "king" became more than a warlord who raided his neighbors for wealth, and then used the spoils of battle to pay for the loyalty of his servants. The end of this economic system meant that trade began to flourish, and that taxes became a primary source of revenue, which then went towards rewarding the king's subjects. But putting aside the geneaology of the rule of law . . . a mere fighter can rule quite well, if he has advisors who can help him with the actual running of a fiefdom. The primary function of a feudal lord was really to serve his king as a warrior. Many lords did more than this if they happened to have the ability, either by natural inclination or by training. The simple fighter would do very well as a border lord whose biggest concern as a ruler is either to hold off foreign invaders or to carve new lands out of a frontier. These roles allow him to make ample use of his talent for war. By the same token, the Lord Chancellor should NOT be, and probably IS not, a simple fighter. He's probably an aristocrat, a rogue/aristocrat, or something similar, having been educated in the most settled, cosmopolitan area of the kingdom with an eye towards making him a cultured, capable minister of state. The same sorts of reasoning apply to clerics -- no, they don't have all the skills you listed. But high-ranking clergy tend to be intelligent, perceptive, and charismatic in their own right, and are often well-educated to boot.
The Shaman 10-24-04, 08:44 PM	Excellent points, all - thank you for your feedback. With regard to hiring help, this may be an option for some, but historically in many cases early feudal lords actually worked the land alongside their serfs - think of the lord in this case as a "small business owner" rather than a corporate giant like a Branson or a Gates. While a wealthy and powerful noble with dozens of manors could certainly hire a senechal and other staff, a small country lord with a single manor might have only a few servants and the aid of a reeve chosen from among the serfs on the demesne. It should also be noted that the senechal was a relatively late feature of feudal life - for earlier cultures, the lord of the land simply had to attend to many of his or her own responsibilities. The new lord would also be expected to act as the judge, a duty that could not be easily passed to another of lower station without social consequences. This puts a bit of a burden on the lord to develop these necessary skills, but then we run up against the rules mechanics. Then there is time spent attending to one's own lord and feudal obligations, duties at court, and hosting other lords to maintain or gain the necessary horsepower to survive as an aristocrat. For example, suppose a character's feudal lord refuses to accept scutage and demands military service - how will the new vassal make his case? While I would allow a herald (such as a bard) to aid another in making the Diplomacy check, it would still be the responsibility of the noble to plead his own case. kliate, multi-classing is certainly an option - take a level in bard and pump up those knowledge and social skills, for example. Another option is to take a level in Aristocrat, which though normally an NPC class has all of the skills as class skills, decent numbers of skill points, and doesn't completely whack BAB or saves (though a cleric or other spellcaster gives up a level without increasing their ability). While multi-classing may be a good option for some, I thought perhaps a feat opening up at least a few of the class skills might be better for most players - I think it's much easier to give up a feat slot than a level in this case. Excellent critique so far - you could really help me out by considering whether or not a feat that allowed a character to designate new class skills would be too much.
Carkni 10-24-04, 08:49 PM	If the Fighter is a noble, or believes that they've got a shot at fiefdom and need some extra skills, the Education feat in Eberron would easily fill the gap. It makes two Knowledge skills of the player's choice class skills instead of cross-class, the catch is that they must select it at level 1.
MinusInnocence 10-24-04, 09:49 PM	I have to say, this idea really doesn't sit well with me. Knowledge skills are somewhat more vacuous, so the feat from Eberron doesn't sound like it would bug me very much... but I'm afraid The Shaman's plan is a mistake. Multiclassing represents exactly what you want this feat to accomplish: a desire on the character's part to expand his horizons and subsequently pick up a few more skills and talents that would otherwise be beyond him. This trend is encouraged in 3E/3.5 because multiclassing is easier than ever before. Taking a level of aristocrat is impossible at this point, according to Core rules; the DMG, p108 states no one can multiclass as an Aristocrat unless it was their first class. However, Expert is just as good. In the end, I think you're trying to make it as easy and convenient as possible for people to take on the role of "Lord" instead of "Hero." But it's not easy - it's really quite difficult, and they're probably better off electing someone to rule in their stead while they go around continuing to knock heads in the wilderness. By the way, the analogy about Clerics having few of the necessary diplomatic traits of a leader is a good one... most of the higher-up clergy are probably only Aristocrats, Commoners and Experts, anyway. Just like the rest of the D&D world. To draw from Judaism, Moses was at his best when working miracles, not giving sermons. In fact, he didn't even like talking to people as the mouthpiece of God - he insisted he wasn't the right guy for the job. That's pretty telling.
Felonious Monk 10-24-04, 11:54 PM	I think that this is the sort of situation where one could justify multiclassing into aristocrat. I realize it's against the printed rules, but he just found himself in a situation where training to be an aristocrat makes sense. Cut to montage scene of the fighter learning manners, court dancing, law, etc... Rule 0.
The Shaman 10-25-04, 11:21 AM	In the end, I think you're trying to make it as easy and convenient as possible for people to take on the role of "Lord" instead of "Hero." I think that might be overstating it a bit. What I'm suggesting is that a feat, with the prerequisite of receiving a fiefdom of similar, allow a character to select two designated skills (rather than three - everything seems to come in even numbers in 3.x!) as class skills to represent their training and experience discharging their responsibilities as lord of the fief. I don't necessarily see that as unbalancing (though I could be convinced otherwise), nor will the new lord acquire the same level of acumen as someone who chooses to mullti-class - btw, I was specifically considering waving the class restriction for Aristocrat for the reasons mentioned by Felonious Monk. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while it may seem easier and perhaps more convenient to invest in a feat slot than a new class level, it also provides a much lower level of benefit - the character still has to invest skill points in the new skills, and loses a feat slot that could otherwise be used for taking the latest-and-greatest improved whatever. It provides a range of options: do nothing and hope you can scrape by with your current skills or hired help, make some effort to learn the ropes and develop new skills appropriate to being the lord of the land, or make a full-blown investment in, as MinusInnocence sagely described it, being not just a "Hero" but a "Lord" as well by committing one or more class levels. So what's the downside that I'm missing here?
FriendoftheDork 10-25-04, 11:48 AM	Excellent points, all - thank you for your feedback. With regard to hiring help, this may be an option for some, but historically in many cases early feudal lords actually worked the land alongside their serfs - think of the lord in this case as a "small business owner" rather than a corporate giant like a Branson or a Gates. While a wealthy and powerful noble with dozens of manors could certainly hire a senechal and other staff, a small country lord with a single manor might have only a few servants and the aid of a reeve chosen from among the serfs on the demesne. It should also be noted that the senechal was a relatively late feature of feudal life - for earlier cultures, the lord of the land simply had to attend to many of his or her own responsibilities. The new lord would also be expected to act as the judge, a duty that could not be easily passed to another of lower station without social consequences. This puts a bit of a burden on the lord to develop these necessary skills, but then we run up against the rules mechanics. Then there is time spent attending to one's own lord and feudal obligations, duties at court, and hosting other lords to maintain or gain the necessary horsepower to survive as an aristocrat. For example, suppose a character's feudal lord refuses to accept scutage and demands military service - how will the new vassal make his case? While I would allow a herald (such as a bard) to aid another in making the Diplomacy check, it would still be the responsibility of the noble to plead his own case. kliate, multi-classing is certainly an option - take a level in bard and pump up those knowledge and social skills, for example. Another option is to take a level in Aristocrat, which though normally an NPC class has all of the skills as class skills, decent numbers of skill points, and doesn't completely whack BAB or saves (though a cleric or other spellcaster gives up a level without increasing their ability). While multi-classing may be a good option for some, I thought perhaps a feat opening up at least a few of the class skills might be better for most players - I think it's much easier to give up a feat slot than a level in this case. Excellent critique so far - you could really help me out by considering whether or not a feat that allowed a character to designate new class skills would be too much. You're free to make your own setting, of course, but most of the D&D worlds are more similar to historical renaissance, or at least late medieval times. When warlords became kings, and a collection of fiefdoms became nations. Most born nobles have one or more levels of aristocrat, but a common fighter might have alot of trouble if he's sudden granted a fiefdom with no help to run it. Running a very small fiefdom might not require much more than common sense, but given larger areas, or especially a city, he would need someone with the proper acumen. Shaman, your idea is not bad, but I have to agree with minus innocence, the PC should multiclass. The fighter class basically means he spends most of his spare time training... just picture yourself a teacher running after the lord as he charges dummies with his lance, shouting "but lord, we must speak of the matters of state, mylord!"
scrollreader 10-25-04, 01:22 PM	You can find the feat you're looking for in Unearthed Arcana. The Human Paragon there might also be helpful.
ck2001wendt 10-25-04, 01:41 PM	I'm in accord with everyone here who thinks it would be a bad idea just to grant class skills. Building a character in D&D is all about sacrifice; by choosing X you give up the opportunity to do Y and Z. Your method would be giving the character X AND Y. A better option woul djust be to multi-class. The fighter SHOULD be bad at ruling at first...he's never done it before and he's received no training. The next time he levels, he's been hitting the books with his Chamberlin, and now he's a Rogue 1 (focusing on Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Bluff, Knowledge). He even gets combat benefits, which he wouldn't if he just went Aristocrat. The last time he went to a party at the King's castle he put his foot in his mouth...this time he at least knows how to bow properly. This is why Wizards and Clerics should rule, frankly...here here to magocracy!
jasper 10-25-04, 01:54 PM	How about just a situational modifier of +1 or +2 when dealing with aristocrat /fief things. Ex Telling duchess she is great dancer but is stepping on your toes just add +2 diplom roll Telling the serving wench she is stomping on your toes just roll the die.
The Shaman 10-25-04, 02:01 PM	I'm in accord with everyone here who thinks it would be a bad idea just to grant class skills. I'm not suggesting "just granting class skills" - I suggested that a character use a feat slot to gain class skills if the character meets the prerequisite of receiving a fiefdom. That is giving up X to gain Y, as I understand it.
sambudak 10-25-04, 02:05 PM	Why not just sit down with the DM and hammer out a PrC specific to the campaign and the abilities needed/desirable for the PC? It can't be that hard to come up with something that'll allow the player and DM to keep the game going and be happy about it. That or let the fighter take a level as an aristo and hold your finger over the official rule everytime you come to it. Whatever.
The Shaman 10-25-04, 03:49 PM	Why not just sit down with the DM and hammer out a PrC specific to the campaign and the abilities needed/desirable for the PC? Hrrm. That's a really interesting idea. Thanks!
Blane 10-25-04, 05:26 PM	If you wanted a fief you called always multiclass into the aristocracy class........
PaladinSix 10-25-04, 05:34 PM	Once again I find myself in a position of disagreement with the majority opinion. Shaman, your idea about an enhanced Leadership feat is an excellent one. If a mid-to high-level fighter is willing to spend a feat in order to improve his social interaction skills instead of his ability to bash demons, a good DM should encourage him in this. Insisting that a PC multiclass into rogue or bard, just to gain some proficiency in diplomacy or sense motive is just plain silly, although multiclassing into Expert is more defensible. In order to avoid players abusing this feat, consider a few things (which you may already have in mind): 1) the Leadership feat is a prerequisite 2) minimum character level should perhaps be 7th or 8th 3) allow the new feat to be applied to social skills and make the skill point bonus a one-time thing (maybe 4+Int bonus) 4) use a separate feat (like Education) for Knowledge skills 5) require some kind of training or instruction for either feat; probably shouldn't be too expensive, but it should be time-consuming; maybe its a solid month of intensive instruction, or perhaps more general coaching over 6-12 months; a qualified trainer (like the aforementioned seneschal or castellan) would be a necessity. It can be rare to find a high-level PC who is concerned with more than improving combat power or acquiring magic items. You should feel free to modify the rules in order to encourage that sort of behavior.
ck2001wendt 10-25-04, 06:03 PM	I'm not suggesting "just granting class skills" - I suggested that a character use a feat slot to gain class skills if the character meets the prerequisite of receiving a fiefdom. That is giving up X to gain Y, as I understand it. That's my mistake! Didn't see the feat part. IIRC, 3.0 FR had just such a feat (Cosmopolitan?) that let you pick up two new Class skills.
Gamebird 10-25-04, 06:04 PM	This comes up frequently in our campaign. The usual solution is for the player to get enough class skills to have basic competence (this may require multiclassing) and otherwise hire help. For one thing, an active adventurer won't have time at home to make use of his skills. Whenever he's off adventuring, he's going to need someone running things in his stead. This is a great opportunity to flesh out the character's family, recruiting brothers, father, father-in-law, spouse, etc. to run things. Marry a good bureacrat and you're set. You adventure while he or she runs the holding. In our campaign world, half the population are experts. Half the rest are rogues (or rogue-types, like bards). Most of the remainder are fighters (including fighter-types, like barbarians, paladins and rangers). There are very few clerics and very few wizards or sorcerors. PCs are almost never experts because the class sucks at fighting monsters and adventuring. But that's okay, because experts **don't** fight monsters or adventure. They run feudal estates, bake bread, copy manuscripts, build houses and do all kinds of stuff. When a player wants to get something done they hire NPCs. Most of our characters in the last campaign ended up owning large tracts of land and being nobles. We got together and adventured partly to gain xp and combat occasional threats, but mainly to raise cash so we could invest it in our lands and get more and more productivity out of it.
sambudak 10-25-04, 06:20 PM	Hrrm. That's a really interesting idea. Thanks! Your welcome. I never have been all that happy with the 'published' PrCs, but the idea of them is great.
roll8dn 10-25-04, 09:50 PM	If you want a hand in trying to hammer out a PrC for this role, let me know. I'd be glad to help. While my PrCs tend to be a bit overpowered, I am open to criticism and will work with anyone who is interested. If you want, PM me and we'll work things out.