PDA

View Full Version : What PC classes would the children of nobility study?



Scalenex
2010-12-26, 10:03 PM
See I figure a disproportionate number of PC classes would emerge from the children fo the nobility. Having a PC class is expensive and nobles have to protect their lands and citizenry.

I envision a lot of inheriting sons taking up martial classes like fighter or Knight in the majority of places and non-inheriting sons becoming clerics. This would be reversed in areas with less conflict or especially powerful priesthoods.

I picture the most popular PC class for daughters of nobility would be bard or rogue. Noble women in the real world were frequently given duties beyond producing heirs and had to manage their estates and staff and the skill selection would be beneficial for their routine duties. Rogues would win out over bards in more ruthless, cutthroat courts compared to bards for more peaceful courts.

The son/daughter dichotomy would be a tendency not a rule, especially if your world is relatively egalitarian.

I envision wizards being mostly apolitical seeking out apprentices for merit not birth but some wizards would see the political benefits of training the children of nobility and some nobles would see the practical benefits as well but it would be mostly younger children who are wizards.

Favored Souls, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Hex Blades are born not trained so nobles would be unlikely to belong to these classes unless the nobility was made up of bloodlines with these traits common in them. Scouts, Rangers, Druids, and Beguilers seem almost the exclusive province of commoners. Barbarians are typically the products of non-feudal societies altogether.

0Megabyte
2010-12-26, 10:17 PM
Since you're asking specifically about PC classes, I won't mention Aristocrat, at least not as a suggestion here. But, I'd probably assume that the majority, maybe even the vast majority, of children of nobles would be aristocrats, and possibly some experts. I don't really assume they'd have significantly higher average stats, either.

However, I'd definitely agree that PC classes are probably more likely amongst the children of nobles than among the lower classes, because of training and most important, the opportunity to pursue those classes.

With that said, I agree that things like sorcerer, favored soul or warlocks would be no more likely within nobles than otherwise (unless this is a specific family known for sorcerers or something) since those aren't generally things that can be trained.

I'd also say that rogues would be less common than fighters, wizards or bards, and rangers and druids would be uncommon. I'd say paladins would be less common than fighters, but more common than rangers, and clerics less common than wizards, but more common than druids. But it depends on the area.

If you're playing Eberron, for example, and the noble family is in Thrane, then you'd almost certainly have a higher percentage of clerics than wizards.

Psionics doesn't seem any more or less likely than the norm, ToB classes might be more popular than fighters if they're well known in this world, Binders seem at best no more likely, possibly less (Because why search for that kind of power, if you already have political power? Not saying they wouldn't, but I'd imagine there'd be more incentive to make pacts with mysterious beings, if you don't have another recourse.)

arguskos
2010-12-26, 10:20 PM
Binders seem at best no more likely, possibly less (Because why search for that kind of power, if you already have political power? Not saying they wouldn't, but I'd imagine there'd be more incentive to make pacts with mysterious beings, if you don't have another recourse.)
Actually, Binders and Warlocks seem MORE likely among the very often cutthroat nobility than elsewhere. Why? Because they need the edge more than most. In the vicious political waters of the nobility every magical edge is of use, especially something like soul binding, where if you can hide it you can reap grand rewards. I'd imagine such is quite common among nobility, or well, as much as binders and warlocks can be called "quite common".

gbprime
2010-12-26, 10:24 PM
Nobles would tend to want to get their kids into the best opportunities. Typically the first few born would be groomed for leadership roles, while any kids who follow them would be trained for prestigious life outside the line of succession. History shows us that much.

In D+D, the eldest kids are going to be trained in classes with real "leader of men" potential. Fighters and Paladins, Rangers to a lesser extent, Marshalls, swashbucklers, Knights... Anybody in this birth range who has spellcasting ability would be pushed toward developing it in ways that would not tie them to some obligation outside the family. Sorcerers actually fit here, as do favored souls, and most especially Beguillers. (A beguiller is a true prize for any noble family to have in it's arsenal.)

Children of lower birth ranks would be groomed for marrying off to other bloodlines or securing prestigious community ties. Community ties such as wizards, clerics, duskblades, samurai, etc. The marrying kind could be nearly any path of life, and oddly enough might be the most free to choose a career for themselves, apart from the spectre of an arranged marriage.

For anyone who doesn't fit the criteria above, who has the pedigree but not the natural talents, there's Aristocrat and Expert. This by no means makes them lesser family members, just perhaps not the heroic ones.

And finally, there are the outcasts. Those nobles who turn their back on their heritage (or whose heritage turns it's back on them). Sorcerer fits here again, as does fighter and swashbuckler, and you'll also find rogues, monks, druids, wu jen, and warlocks in this category.

Serpentine
2010-12-26, 10:32 PM
I'm reminded of Tamora Pierce's Tortall books: almost all sons of nobility (and later a few daughters), including royal children, study to become knights. There's enough room for specialisation in there (i.e. by the time they become full-fledged knights, although they are expected to be competent in everything they're taught, they are able to specialise in a particular weapon) that they might not strictly be of the Knight class, but something like that is definitely the norm.
The girls... They're usually sent off to learn how to be ladies. But that happens at the same place they teach magic, so... maybe they tend to be taught a bit of wizardry? Not sure.

Now, if I were a noblewoman in a D&D world with a gaggle of children to raise... For all Wizard is the most powerful class, it takes a lot of work to do, not leaving all that much time for nobling.
I think Cleric is the next obvious choice. Metagamingwise, it's one of the most powerful classes, with combat, magic and social abilities. Ingamewise, it would always be handy having a god on the rulers' side. They're competent in a wide range of abilities, all useful for running a country/fiefdom. The ability for a member of the ruling family to heal their subjects is always good for PR, as is the whole "divine right" thing. And although I'd imagine it'd still take a fair bit of study, it's not as much as the Wizard, and involves a greater variety of useful talents.
Druid could also be handy - the threat of the very land itself rising up to repel invaders would be a powerful one - but it might be too prone to conflict of interest.

Can't be bothered going through all of them :smalltongue: I think Cleric's my top pick for at least one offspring, though.

Danin
2010-12-26, 10:35 PM
I would think Swashbuckler would be pretty common. Its a fairly polished way to fight, doesn't rely on heavy armor, intelligence is a virtue and has many useful skills like diplomacy and bluff.

Warlocks too seem common, as they are trying to gain an edge in a very competitive atmosphere.

Favored Souls of gods of trade seem likely among major merchant houses, as do clerics.

Rangers would be common in more remote regions, or younger generation kids that stand to inherit less and thus enter the military. Also fighters and knights would fall into this category.

Bards would likely be heavily encouraged, particularly for women in less egalitarian societies due to the number of skills and more... passive role.

Wizards would likely be encouraged among younger children as a wizard is a great ally, but must devote too much time to their study to be able to properly administrate a region.

Paladins seem less likely in most circles, though in primarily 'good' societies it would likely be seen as a mark of pride and social standing to have Paladins among your house. It adds a sense of legitimacy to your house's actions.

Druids, Shamans, Ninjas, Rogues, Hexblades, Initiator classes and other odd ball classes seem less than likely though. They would more be agents, rather than tied to the house by blood. Adds a certain mobility of action in their exploits. One that could be denied should they ever be caught pursuing a less than legal end.

WarKitty
2010-12-26, 10:40 PM
Bard definitely for young ladies. The picture of the innocent, genteel young woman, but cunning and charismatic and secretly able to bend men to her will...definitely a bard. If you allow stuff like oratory as performance, could also be a good class for firstborn sons.

If we're going medieval society, cleric was traditional for "extra" sons. Send them off to the church.

Admiral Squish
2010-12-26, 10:42 PM
I had an idea for a setting where the nobility were all sorcerers. Warlocks were like their honor guard, the families of the most loyal servants of the sorcerers. Wizards were traitors, trying to steal the art of the nobles, and clerics were a grudgingly controlled force, a threat against the power of the nobles. The head of each family was a true dragon that started the bloodline. Draconic or even half-dragon nobles were common. There were also bards and hexblades in the noble blood, though they were usually half-noble children.

Trekkin
2010-12-26, 10:51 PM
The first thing I'd do with a batch of noble kids is check them for psionic potential; the House needs Seer/Thrallherds. The nonpsionic ones would likely be cloistered clerics or bardic sages; anything likely to get them far more information than the normal noble can access or otherwise enhance their ability to make decisions in the timeframe of snap judgments that nonetheless conform to those decided upon by time-consuming reasoning.

A Mentat Duke would be powerful indeed.

Gavinfoxx
2010-12-26, 10:56 PM
Nobility is likely to be Aristocrat class. The Heroic class that is most similar to Aristocrat in skills is, I think, the Bard, Beguiler, Factotum, Lurk, Rogue, and am I leaving any out?

Keinnicht
2010-12-26, 11:00 PM
Bard seems like a good choice for the carousing, disappointment-to-the-family child.

Rasman
2010-12-26, 11:08 PM
I, sadly, see your views a LITTLE sexist, but that's ok. In my vision, the men of the kingdom would, depending on alignment of the rulership, probably lean towards being Bards or Paladins. Bards for the N/C and Paladin for the Lawful Leaning. Knights are acceptable in place of Paladin as well, I do agree on that point. Dips into Ranger wouldn't be unusual either.

The women of the courts I can see a little bit into bard, but not actually as much as the men. Rogue seems pretty natural along with Wizard or Cleric. Women tended to deal a lot with the religious aspects of daily life. I can see some with dips into Druid as well.

Gavinfoxx
2010-12-26, 11:12 PM
Bard seems like a good choice for the carousing, disappointment-to-the-family child.

Not necessarily. A Bard can be a PERFECT Nobleman. It has all of the skills that nobility would need in most fantasy and heroic societies. In D&D, these things would be things like:

Literacy in things beyond the realm of normal folk (basically, lots of languages, maybe ability to cast Read Magic, a rank in Decypher Script, stuff like that)

important courtly skills, LOTS of them, like:

Perform Orate
All the courtly instruments as perform instruments
Disguise
Diplomacy
Bluff
Sense Motive
All the Knowledge skills

The only thing relevant it DOESN'T have is:
Forgery
Handle Animal
Ride

Also the Bardic Knowledge and the Fascinate and Inspire Competence class features would be REALLY useful

for some strange reason. At least it has extra skill points, though...

IMO, Bards should have a pseudo-gestalt with the Aristocrat class. I don't think that would take them out of Tier 3, and would make them 100% the "Heroic Noble" type.

Serpentine
2010-12-26, 11:40 PM
It also has Craft. If we're assuming there will be a differentiation between the sexes, then the women will know gentlewomanly crafts such as tapestry making, embroidery and the like.

Coidzor
2010-12-26, 11:55 PM
Druids, Shamans, Ninjas, Rogues, Hexblades, Initiator classes and other odd ball classes seem less than likely though. They would more be agents, rather than tied to the house by blood. Adds a certain mobility of action in their exploits. One that could be denied should they ever be caught pursuing a less than legal end.

Initiator classes as oddball classes for black ops? :smallconfused: what.

gbprime
2010-12-26, 11:58 PM
I had an idea for a setting where the nobility were all sorcerers. Warlocks were like their honor guard, the families of the most loyal servants of the sorcerers. Wizards were traitors, trying to steal the art of the nobles, and clerics were a grudgingly controlled force, a threat against the power of the nobles. The head of each family was a true dragon that started the bloodline. Draconic or even half-dragon nobles were common. There were also bards and hexblades in the noble blood, though they were usually half-noble children.

One of the nations in my campaign world does something similar. The founder of the nation was a Paladin/Sorcerer, and all the nobles today are blood relatives of his. So sorcery is VERY common in the noble houses, and tradition says they are guarded by an order of paladins.

But the players learned the truth of it as the campaign progressed. The original king got his sorcerous power from his demonic bloodline, and the demon prince(ss) at it's head had plans for him. He wrestled with his inner demons (literally) his entire life, and in his old age finally lost that battle. In accordance with his wishes (well... prior wishes), the clergy had him murdered.

And all his decendants carry that bloodline as well, each of them with a talent for sorcery, each of them with the same whispers in their ear at night. And each of them... with a lawful good bodyguard capable of detecting evil at will...

Run noble daughter, run, or the church man will get you. He'll hang you for the good of us all, for things you haven't done, for things you didn't know you could do.

Admiral Squish
2010-12-27, 12:08 AM
One of the nations in my campaign world does something similar. The founder of the nation was a Paladin/Sorcerer, and all the nobles today are blood relatives of his. So sorcery is VERY common in the noble houses, and tradition says they are guarded by an order of paladins.

But the players learned the truth of it as the campaign progressed. The original king got his sorcerous power from his demonic bloodline, and the demon prince(ss) at it's head had plans for him. He wrestled with his inner demons (literally) his entire life, and in his old age finally lost that battle. In accordance with his wishes (well... prior wishes), the clergy had him murdered.

And all his decendants carry that bloodline as well, each of them with a talent for sorcery, each of them with the same whispers in their ear at night. And each of them... with a lawful good bodyguard capable of detecting evil at will...

Run noble daughter, run, or the church man will get you. He'll hang you for the good of us all, for things you haven't done, for things you didn't know you could do.

That is AWESOME. I must do this now.

Goonthegoof
2010-12-27, 12:11 AM
One of the nations in my campaign world does something similar. The founder of the nation was a Paladin/Sorcerer, and all the nobles today are blood relatives of his. So sorcery is VERY common in the noble houses, and tradition says they are guarded by an order of paladins.

But the players learned the truth of it as the campaign progressed. The original king got his sorcerous power from his demonic bloodline, and the demon prince(ss) at it's head had plans for him. He wrestled with his inner demons (literally) his entire life, and in his old age finally lost that battle. In accordance with his wishes (well... prior wishes), the clergy had him murdered.

And all his decendants carry that bloodline as well, each of them with a talent for sorcery, each of them with the same whispers in their ear at night. And each of them... with a lawful good bodyguard capable of detecting evil at will...

Run noble daughter, run, or the church man will get you. He'll hang you for the good of us all, for things you haven't done, for things you didn't know you could do.

Oh dear god that is so very awesome.

Serpentine
2010-12-27, 12:13 AM
Yeah, that's a brilliant idea.

sonofzeal
2010-12-27, 12:23 AM
Base class by social class....

Barbarian - lower
Bard - upper
Cleric - mid/upper
Druid - lower/non
Fighter - mid
Monk - mid
Paladin - upper
Ranger - lower/mid
Rogue - any
Sorcerers - any
Wizards - upper

Adept - mid/upper
Aristocrat - upper
Commoner - lower
Expert - mid/upper
Warrior - mid

thorgrim29
2010-12-27, 01:04 AM
One of the nations in my campaign world does something similar. The founder of the nation was a Paladin/Sorcerer, and all the nobles today are blood relatives of his. So sorcery is VERY common in the noble houses, and tradition says they are guarded by an order of paladins.

But the players learned the truth of it as the campaign progressed. The original king got his sorcerous power from his demonic bloodline, and the demon prince(ss) at it's head had plans for him. He wrestled with his inner demons (literally) his entire life, and in his old age finally lost that battle. In accordance with his wishes (well... prior wishes), the clergy had him murdered.

And all his decendants carry that bloodline as well, each of them with a talent for sorcery, each of them with the same whispers in their ear at night. And each of them... with a lawful good bodyguard capable of detecting evil at will...

Run noble daughter, run, or the church man will get you. He'll hang you for the good of us all, for things you haven't done, for things you didn't know you could do.

Wow... Awesome

gbprime
2010-12-27, 01:14 AM
Yeah, that's a brilliant idea.

It was all part of challenging the player's pre-conceived notions. They've all been playing D+D for decades. So could I introduce them to a lawful good religion that could play the bad guy at times? Sure, all too easy when you look at the rules for Ravages. (Oh look, an allegory for waterboarding! Holy waterboarding!)

Evil people to love, good people to fear, and sacrifices made by the party members in trying to make sense of it all. Good stuff. :smallbiggrin:

holywhippet
2010-12-27, 01:15 AM
I'd agree with bard for 2nd edition and 4th edition D&D. For both of them, the bard is a class that studies many things and is good at working with people. For 3rd edition though, the bard is similar to the sorcerer class - both require some kind of special bloodline to give you innate magical powers.

I could see wizard being a choice for some nobility depending on the setting. In some places wizards would be shunned being distrusted but in some cases it would be a worthwhile academical pursuit.

Ranger would be an option for nobility who live out in forested areas - they'd get training for patrolling the region, tracking down bandits etc.

Ajadea
2010-12-27, 01:17 AM
One of the nations in my campaign world does something similar. The founder of the nation was a Paladin/Sorcerer, and all the nobles today are blood relatives of his. So sorcery is VERY common in the noble houses, and tradition says they are guarded by an order of paladins.

But the players learned the truth of it as the campaign progressed. The original king got his sorcerous power from his demonic bloodline, and the demon prince(ss) at it's head had plans for him. He wrestled with his inner demons (literally) his entire life, and in his old age finally lost that battle. In accordance with his wishes (well... prior wishes), the clergy had him murdered.

And all his decendants carry that bloodline as well, each of them with a talent for sorcery, each of them with the same whispers in their ear at night. And each of them... with a lawful good bodyguard capable of detecting evil at will...

Run noble daughter, run, or the church man will get you. He'll hang you for the good of us all, for things you haven't done, for things you didn't know you could do.

Awesome...truly awesome. *makes a note* I may have to run a campaign with this in it :smallsidelonglook:

Godskook
2010-12-27, 01:19 AM
Initiator classes as oddball classes for black ops? :smallconfused: what.

Agreed.

Crusaders and Warblades are essentially elitist versions of Paladin and Fighter, and would be recognized as such by the Nobility of any campaign they're allowed in.

Swordsages.........that entirely depends on how swordsages are handled. Desert Wind and Shadow Hand are more odd, while Setting Sun is to Monk what Warblade is to Fighter. The rest of the swordsage disciplines are available to a Warblade, so a swordsage of those varieties would be treated like a skirmisher-version of a warblade.


One of the nations in my campaign world does something similar. The founder of the nation was a Paladin/Sorcerer, and all the nobles today are blood relatives of his. So sorcery is VERY common in the noble houses, and tradition says they are guarded by an order of paladins.

But the players learned the truth of it as the campaign progressed. The original king got his sorcerous power from his demonic bloodline, and the demon prince(ss) at it's head had plans for him. He wrestled with his inner demons (literally) his entire life, and in his old age finally lost that battle. In accordance with his wishes (well... prior wishes), the clergy had him murdered.

And all his decendants carry that bloodline as well, each of them with a talent for sorcery, each of them with the same whispers in their ear at night. And each of them... with a lawful good bodyguard capable of detecting evil at will...

Run noble daughter, run, or the church man will get you. He'll hang you for the good of us all, for things you haven't done, for things you didn't know you could do.

I *SO* want to incorporate this into my setting, now.

Coidzor
2010-12-27, 01:21 AM
For 3rd edition though, the bard is similar to the sorcerer class - both require some kind of special bloodline to give you innate magical powers.

Only with house-ruling. I mean, you could hyper-inflate the importance of a bit of throwaway fluff text and believe dragons(or elementals/celestials/fiends) are what make sorcerers special, but that doesn't explain how you're applying it to bards whose only commonality with sorcerer spellcasting is that it's spontaneous and charisma based.

Even if you play it that way, well, with the inbreeding of nobility, it's quite possible that they've been selecting for such a special bloodline anyway.

T.G. Oskar
2010-12-27, 01:27 AM
Hmm...I'd say based on the type of government, the predominant race and the focus of the region of dominion.

For example: on a human feudal-inspired kingdom, Fighters and Paladins (with Knights added for good measure) would be predominant, with the successor having lots of important magic items. The rest would be Clerics (as mentioned before; actually a very good way to get more political power, especially if you're part of the clergy of the predominant faith) and/or Monks (the latter if monasteries are common and they decide to take an ascetic life). I could generally see Wizards and Bards as well, given that both classes imply serious academic studies (either through a college of magic or a bardic college/conservatory).

In the case of Elves, there would be less Paladins and Knights, but you might see a lot of Duskblades, Wizards, some Clerics, and the lesser nobility probably adopting the path of Druidism (on the same regard on which a prince would adopt the mantle of clergy). Dwarves would probably be Fighters, Paladins and Clerics, perhaps with a dash of Artificers (if the class is viable) for good measure.

Now, on a group of principalities (assume, say, Germany during the High Middle Ages and afterwards, up and around the Protestant Reform), Fighters, Knights, Paladins and Wizards would be less common, and you might see a wider variety of classes around (such as Binders and Warlocks, eager for more power; alternatively, you might see more Bards given their options as diplomats and spies). On tribal lands, you might see the children of the chieftains assume the paths of Barbarian (think Scotland, for example; a Barbarian would be well-educated and probably gifted with literacy by expending the two points), Ranger or Druid, possibly with Sorcerer to represent the lesser arcane arts.

Some I wouldn't see: Rogue (Rogues are represented as the class of the common people rather than the nobility, except for the odd prince who's in love with the city; Factotum would be a more extreme version of this, a la Figaro for example), Hexblade, Dread Necromancer, Shadowcaster (the first because of being an outcast, the second on similar trends, and the third mostly as a different kind of outcast), Spellthief (similar to Rogue, and also akin to Assassins), all psionic classes (Psions and Psychic Warriors train their abilities in unique ways, but they are pretty much foreign to the usual perception of nobility; Psions make awesome advisors tho), all Incarnum classes (Totemist would work nicely as a tribal doctor of sorts, Incarnate and Soulborn are of a more philosophical bent), amongst others.

I'd make a distinction amongst the ToB classes. Warblade could work very nicely as a class for nobles, especially if choosing the Iron Heart and White Raven disciplines to specialize into (White Raven is almost a given for crown princes), but Swordsages don't fit into that idea (unless it's a China-inspired country, in which case everybody and their mother would be a swordsage). Crusaders are a bit of an oddball in this case, because it would be a more extreme case of becoming a Cleric: abandoning your pretension to the crown willingly, but you don't get political power out of it, instead doing voluntary service to a faith. However, the Crusader in terms of flavor seems like a choice for the faithful men-at-arms, while Paladins would be the choice of a very select few nobles. In a way, nobility would go mostly as a Cleric, occasionally as Paladins (if they get the call) and rarely as Crusaders.

Ravens_cry
2010-12-27, 01:38 AM
In 3.5, which I assume you are referring to, classes are pretty much metagame. That being said, some classes do suit certain roles better then others. In the real Middle Ages, it was pretty common for noble children who wouldn't inherit, that is anyone besides the eldest son, to join the Church. So cleric as a representation of that may make make a good choice. Only the wealthy could probably afford the paraphernalia and schooling associated with wizardry. The Paladin class also tends to be associated with nobility, if only because they equipment is so expensive.

Urpriest
2010-12-27, 01:50 AM
It's already been suggested, but I would imagine many nobles would be Beguilers, as it gives a rather impressive edge.

In a setting where psionics are common, I could see many nobles as Ardents, mostly for their devotion to abstract philosophical principles, which seems like the sort of thing that only a wealthy class would have the free time to care about.

Morithias
2010-12-27, 02:05 AM
Factorum

Leaders have to be intelligence charismatic and ultimately good at just about everything to a degree. You can be the best at this one area, but it ain't gonna save your skin when someone who can best you in another comes along.

Ultimately though it depends on the kingdom. A kingdom with lots of forests and few super large urban areas, is likely to produce druids more than other types of people, and so on.

Personally I tend to avoid stating royalty, but this would be my best guess. Maybe archivest for divine nobles.

0Megabyte
2010-12-27, 02:15 AM
This thread somehow makes me want to play a campaign filled with nothing but siblings of a noble house.

Heck, it'd be even better if there were enough siblings/family members to form other, competing adventuring groups. Oh the intrigue.

Urpriest
2010-12-27, 02:17 AM
This thread somehow makes me want to play a campaign filled with nothing but siblings of a noble house.

Heck, it'd be even better if there were enough siblings/family members to form other, competing adventuring groups. Oh the intrigue.

Hmm...Song of Ice and Fire RPG anyone?

0Megabyte
2010-12-27, 02:30 AM
Ha! I'd play that campaign anytime.

Duncan_Ruadrik
2010-12-27, 03:04 AM
I always felt that rangers were a good choice for a second or third noble child... Sword of the Arcane Order (maybe they studied under a wizard a bit) some decent skillz.... sort of Faramir-esque, I suppose.

holywhippet
2010-12-27, 03:21 AM
Only with house-ruling. I mean, you could hyper-inflate the importance of a bit of throwaway fluff text and believe dragons(or elementals/celestials/fiends) are what make sorcerers special, but that doesn't explain how you're applying it to bards whose only commonality with sorcerer spellcasting is that it's spontaneous and charisma based.

Even if you play it that way, well, with the inbreeding of nobility, it's quite possible that they've been selecting for such a special bloodline anyway.

Take a look at the prestige class Dragon Disciple, one of the prerequisites is Spellcasting - Ability to cast arcane spells without preparation. There is nothing stopping a bard from dipping in this class the same as a sorcerer.

If you think about it, a character really needs some kind of odd bloodline to be able to cast spontaneously and without ever actually studying magic.

Coidzor
2010-12-27, 03:25 AM
Take a look at the prestige class Dragon Disciple, one of the prerequisites is Spellcasting - Ability to cast arcane spells without preparation. There is nothing stopping a bard from dipping in this class the same as a sorcerer.

If you think about it, a character really needs some kind of odd bloodline to be able to cast spontaneously and without ever actually studying magic.

I have thought about it, and all I can see is that this is your own particular preference. If that's what it takes for you to be able to accept spontaneous spellcasting, you're welcome to it. All of the spontaneous spellcasting PrCs that require intensive training to enter or cast divine spells make this seem impractical to me.

Runestar
2010-12-27, 06:17 AM
I would take a page from Eberron, where your class might more or less be dictated by the needs of your house. Dragonmarked is quite a good read in that aspect. :smallsmile:

FelixG
2010-12-27, 06:29 AM
Short answer: whatever they dang well choose! they are noble little brats and will likely do whatever they want....


Though really, I would expect 99.9% of those noble children would just kick back and enjoy the perks of being a noble...why go out being a deranged militant hobo seeking treasure if all of the treasure you could use is already at your finger tips? :smallwink:

Though if I had to pick something, I would likely say rogue/bard into spy master. Bard for some reason fits the dilettante idea for me pretty well! Might be fun to make a noble lazy bard who considers the rest of the group his servants and entourage

Scalenex
2010-12-27, 06:40 AM
Short answer: whatever they dang well choose! they are noble little brats and will likely do whatever they want....


Though really, I would expect 99.9% of those noble children would just kick back and enjoy the perks of being a noble...why go out being a deranged militant hobo seeking treasure if all of the treasure you could use is already at your finger tips? :smallwink:

Though if I had to pick something, I would likely say rogue/bard into spy master. Bard for some reason fits the dilettante idea for me pretty well! Might be fun to make a noble lazy bard who considers the rest of the group his servants and entourage

I respectfully disagree with most of the first half of what you said. Nobles in the real world have a lot of expectations placed on them by their families and societies. They are groomed for very specific jobs and roles. Most marriages are arranged as are most other aspects of their lives. If growing up among the nobility was all peaches and cream the Prince and the Pauper wouldn't be a plausible story. Being a noble isn't all perks, the feudal society places expectations on them. They have to be able to protect and administrate their lands and people. If a noble house has a lot of children their wealth can get spread pretty thin and those not inheriting land are going to have societal expectations to live well without much handed to them, so they are likely to take up adventuring or settle into the middle class. An inheriting noble has relatively little reason to go adventuring unless it protects his realm in some fashion or he has a thrillseeking personality or martyr complex. Running away from an arranged marriage is another good adventuring trope.

That being said, lazy dileantes are still possible, they just have to be sneaky about it or they could be disinherited or assasinated.

Dr.Epic
2010-12-27, 07:31 AM
Wouldn't the sons be raised as paladins (assuming the parents and country are good)? In Medieval times, were'nt noble and royal male children trained to be knights?

WarKitty
2010-12-27, 07:53 AM
Wouldn't the sons be raised as paladins (assuming the parents and country are good)? In Medieval times, were'nt noble and royal male children trained to be knights?

Depends on the era and the location. There were a lot of places where the knight training was mostly formality. Or where knight was a class for dealing with extra sons that didn't have their own inheiritance. Generally it's going to depend on how much actual warfare the kingdom sees.

pasko77
2010-12-27, 07:57 AM
One of the nations in my campaign world does something similar. The founder of the nation was a Paladin/Sorcerer, and all the nobles today are blood relatives of his. So sorcery is VERY common in the noble houses, and tradition says they are guarded by an order of paladins.

But the players learned the truth of it as the campaign progressed. The original king got his sorcerous power from his demonic bloodline, and the demon prince(ss) at it's head had plans for him. He wrestled with his inner demons (literally) his entire life, and in his old age finally lost that battle. In accordance with his wishes (well... prior wishes), the clergy had him murdered.

And all his decendants carry that bloodline as well, each of them with a talent for sorcery, each of them with the same whispers in their ear at night. And each of them... with a lawful good bodyguard capable of detecting evil at will...

Run noble daughter, run, or the church man will get you. He'll hang you for the good of us all, for things you haven't done, for things you didn't know you could do.

Copy-pasted in my draft folder.
Thank you!

Evil DM Mark3
2010-12-27, 08:01 AM
I do know that in real life europe a younger son would be sent into the church as a kind of insurance policy. If all of the elder sons died in battle there would still be a line of succession.

Orzel
2010-12-27, 08:20 AM
In one of my games, the royal family went like this.

Eldest son: Paladin. Groomed to be the next king, he was forced into the most popular church to be well lked and a quality general-prince.

Second son: Fighter/Bard. Back up heir in case the eldest died. Trained to be a general and true head of the army in case the eldest lived or sucked at war.

Eldest daughter: Wizard. Sent to the mage guild to solidify ties as older generation in guild die/quit/get old.

Twins: NPC classes converted into Munchin Prestige classes. Brought up in the political system. Did whatever they wanted.

Rest: See first 3. When war broke out, groomed as back ups. Back up political leader, war general, and political srategist.

Youngest: Munchin. The baby is pushed all over and sheltered. If one prince got a top master, he got all of them. Everyone older wishes to control him and he plays in right get access to whatever he wanted.

Most nobles did the same.

I see the first groups groomed to manage the family's resources and gain more. Full bab or high skill, socially respected, non-rogue classes to run the armies, finances, and political ties.

The next are sent to places where they can build influence outside to the the families usual connections. This where you get full caster classes and academic classes. Wizards and the respected divine classes.

Anyone born with at least 3 living older siblings who don't seem to be failures have free roam if they live long enough. This where you get rogue, loner, and nature classes in most non-nature traditional societies. Since they are last, they get the leftovers or the propety of the dead and hierless. Those who are not assassinated, become wily or are taken under another's wing.

Rion
2010-12-27, 11:44 AM
Fighter, Warblade, Marshal, Knight, Crusader, Paladin or other fighting classes. I would actually expect a large proportion of adventurers to be non-inheriting nobles, considering there were at least 10.000 german mercenary men-at-arms (the majority nobles) in Italy between 1320 and 1360.

Ravens_cry
2010-12-27, 01:32 PM
Fighter, Warblade, Marshal, Knight, Crusader, Paladin or other fighting classes. I would actually expect a large proportion of adventurers to be non-inheriting nobles, considering there were at least 10.000 german mercenary men-at-arms (the majority nobles) in Italy between 1320 and 1360.
I think that there would be a broader scope then just the fighting classes, such as classes that fluff says require great study like the Wizard as well as classes usually connected to in-universes organized faith.
But I do agree that adventurers typically would be non-inheriting nobles. They would have the funding to buy the gear needed yet have a vested interest in finding a a place for themselves in the world. Another nice thing is it gives you a something concrete. I am Blah, Scion of Whoever, Begot By Them . . . etc.
A nice way to make yourself belong to the world you are playing in.

Psyren
2010-12-27, 02:07 PM
A noble scion has the advantage of having access to vast sources of literature and lore that a common child would not. So you could easily get a Factotum, Savant, Archivist etc. out of such a household.

For a martial class, a noble or merchant's child could be sent to a martial arts school to learn humility; resulting in any of the ToB classes or other complex melee.

Finally, the outcast/middle child etc. could easily seek out forbidden lore - out of neglect by his guardians and/or a desire to stand out; this would lead to Binders, Shadowcasters and other such faster routes to power.

Two power sources I can't fathom for nobility would be incarnum and dragons (i.e. DFA/DS). They seem too primal and shamanistic to appeal to a child of privilege to me, though there would naturally be rebels and exceptions.


In a setting where psionics are common, I could see many nobles as Ardents, mostly for their devotion to abstract philosophical principles, which seems like the sort of thing that only a wealthy class would have the free time to care about.

Actually, I'd see ascetics as having more time and inclination than anyone to pursue the path of the Ardent. There could feasibly be noble ascetics, who have turned their back on their family's wealth and power to seek principles of universal truth of course... but asceticism is a path that is just as welcoming to the poor.

grimbold
2010-12-27, 05:02 PM
depending on the type of nation the class for the royal heir could change too
a theocracy would have cleric heirs
while a more traditional monarchy would have knight/paladin heirs

Godskook
2010-12-27, 05:14 PM
Two power sources I can't fathom for nobility would be incarnum and dragons (i.e. DFA/DS). They seem too primal and shamanistic to appeal to a child of privilege to me, though there would naturally be rebels and exceptions.

Incarnum is a fairly pervasive magic system, and I would analog soulborns with crusaders and paladins, Totemists with Druids, Barbarians and Rangers, and Incarnates.......not too sure, but something more 'civilized' than Totemist. Probably religious figures(with a god-king complex maybe?)

As for Dragons, YMMV, but Eberron would be a distinct exception to this.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 05:20 PM
I'd agree with bard for 2nd edition and 4th edition D&D.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe only player characters use character classes in 4e.

Urpriest
2010-12-27, 05:22 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe only player characters use character classes in 4e.

Sort of. There are templates for NPCs which give them some of the capabilities of the PC character classes. More to the point, I don't think the thread specified NPCs, and there has definitely been some talk of noble PCs.

Zonugal
2010-12-27, 07:26 PM
I think some nice builds might look like:

Human Marshal 1/Swashbuckler 3 (focusing on Knowledge Devotion to really play up a noble duelist).

Human Divine Bard 5/Evangelist 5 (groomed to be the noble speaker for the church)

Human Paladin 6(focusing on the Red Falcon substitution levels from Champions of Valor turns this noble into a standard military leader)

Human Mystic Ranger 6 (focusing on Sword of the Arcana Order & Shooting Star substitution levels this could very well be the noble that is sent to become a 'Renaissance Man' and as such learn near every field).

HunterOfJello
2010-12-27, 09:27 PM
In rural areas, I can see the children of nobility learning to become Rangers or Fighters most commonly. A few rebellious ones might learn the ways of a Rogue. Some might end up learning a bit of everything and be Factotums, or follow the path of the Bard in learning about the world and music.


In a metropolitan area, I would imagine the more intelligent children of nobility learning to become Wizards. The third or fourth child might dedicate themselves to the path of the Cleric in working inside a church following a god or ideal. Those children who are born with strength of body would be sent to learn the art of the Warblade or Duskblade where they would become master tacticians and warriors unrivaled. For nobility who have power and the proper resources at their command, having their child not follow the path towards powerful magic or mastery of steel would be an embarrassment.

To me, the default classes for lesser nobility who lack the resources to go into more focused and powerful classes would be Fighter and Factotum.

~

Also guys, please remember that classes like Favored Souls and Paladins are obtained by being divinely chosen for them. A child of a noble can't go out and choose to become a Paladin, they have to be called to it.

Ormur
2010-12-27, 11:46 PM
Nobility in a D&D world would have to make sure their kids are some pretty powerful people in order to actually stay a nobility, so the NPC aristocrat class makes little sense. Neither does fighter fit for the same reason, they're both weak and lack leadership abilities.

But raw power alone isn't sufficient, nobles might be expected to manage estates, lead armies and govern nations, at least the eldest child. So skilled classes that can handle themselves in fights are appropriate. Warblade, Bard, Beguiler, Factotum and maybe Rogue and Marshal seem pretty standard.

Wizard, cleric and archivist are very powerful and expensive to train so they must be popular choices but they may require too much devotion to the class abilities to be appropriate for the actual heir. That depends on how much religion and arcane spells are appreciated by the nobility.

Younger children that don't have the wisdom or intelligence for that might receive martial training to become swordages, crusaders, rangers, rogues and fighters. Aristocrat for the completely talentless maybe.

Some classes might not be appropriate for the nobility however. Druids, while powerful, don't fit the world view of a nobility if we assume it's all about sophistication and ruling large tracts of land. Barbarian fluff pretty much rules them out but the abilities might still fit a noble child with a very martial bent. Classes with innate power or ones that are chosen can't be taught so they don't fit a nobility unless the nobility itself arose around such classes. I just don't see why anyone should train for monk, at least not if they're concerned with power.

Of course classes are to a degree metagame concepts and not all of them require specific training. What classes are chosen depends on the culture of the nobility at large, how hard it has to fight for self-preservation, the talents and nature of the child and the preferences of the parent. Power, leadership and a certain amount of refinement are all that is necessary.

In my campaign the nobility is predisposed towards martial and leadership type characters so warblades, marshals, swift hunters and bards are popular. Sneakier or more subtle nobles might be rogues or factotums. Clerics and wizards have their own power structures but the children of nobles are very heavily represented. The martial nobility, lawful churches and wizards are functionally a single cross-connected overclass.

Rumpus
2010-12-28, 11:10 AM
It's going to depend on the culture they are a part of, and what it's expectations are for nobility. All sons (and daughters, in fantasy campaigns) will take a level or two of the base "expectation" class to establish their bona fides before pursuing their real interests (which may be the same, or may be completely unrelated).

In Dark Ages Europe, there was an expectation that anybody holding a title would be a Knight who can ride into battle at the side of his liege. Anybody who can't do so is going to be viewed poorly. So if you are playing a campaign based on that setting, every nobleman is probably going to have a level of Fighter or Knight (or some other heavily-armored melee class).

Nobles in Renaisannce Italy, on the other hand, were very much of the "gentlemen" school. While they still occasionally broke out the long knives and murdered each other in the streets, open field warfare was largely the domain of hired mercenary companies. Knowledge, scholarship, and ability to make money were much more valued, so I'd say socially-oriented-Rogue, Aristocrat, or even Expert should be the default for this time and place.

In more primitive societies, where the "nobles" are the ones that personally go out and hunt and kill things that threaten their people, Ranger is totally appropriate.

Nobles in a monotheistic theocracy should probably have a level of Cleric (or maybe Paladin). A society where magic ability marked the noble houses would almost certainly take a level of wizard. You get the idea.

Rion
2010-12-28, 11:32 AM
I think that there would be a broader scope then just the fighting classes, such as classes that fluff says require great study like the Wizard as well as classes usually connected to in-universes organized faith.
But I do agree that adventurers typically would be non-inheriting nobles. They would have the funding to buy the gear needed yet have a vested interest in finding a a place for themselves in the world. Another nice thing is it gives you a something concrete. I am Blah, Scion of Whoever, Begot By Them . . . etc.
A nice way to make yourself belong to the world you are playing in.
Exactly. Non-inheriting nobles would have the education and training to acquire a pc class, and they would have the motivation to strike out and make a name for themselves as adventurers. As a bonus they would already have enough arrogance to see themselves as the right people to handle the problems that the common people can't.

Also, lower nobility wouldn't be required to lead grand armies, govern nations or scheme at court, but their families would still have enough money to ensure they get some training.



Nobles in Renaisannce Italy, on the other hand, were very much of the "gentlemen" school. While they still occasionally broke out the long knives and murdered each other in the streets, open field warfare was largely the domain of hired mercenary companies. Knowledge, scholarship, and ability to make money were much more valued, so I'd say socially-oriented-Rogue, Aristocrat, or even Expert should be the default for this time and place.

Again depends on culture and what regions they are from. They are quite a number medieval noblemen from rural Italy who became "mercenary princes", leading condotierro armies. While they still more of the "gentlemen" type and acting as non-fighting tacticians they were soldiers.

Scalenex
2010-12-28, 07:15 PM
I had the thought that while few nobles would want to train their children as monks. Cloistered monastaries would be a good place to quietly hide your bastard children.

Would Lawful Evil nobles want to have Paladins of Tyranny in their family? Or woudl they prefer to have them be strangers so as to distance themselves personally from them and have them serve as their dark secret police to stay half-hidden?

In order to get away with being able to take a portion of the wealth generated by the commoners rulers need to use some combination of the four strategies below. This is from Jared Diamonds book Guns, Germs, and Steel a very good read for principles on how societies develop that I'm trying to apply to building a logical RPG world.

1. Disarm the Populace, arm the elite

2. Make the masses happy by redistributing tribute in popular ways.

3. Use a monopoly of force to promote happiness by maintaining public order and curbing violence.

4. Construct an ideology or religion justifying kleptocracy.

Example One

I borrowed a concept for a sorcererous nobility from a friend. They believe their society was founded by dragons and they the dragon blooded descendants are the worthy rulers (number 4). They restrict the activities of all other magic users (number 1) requirng wizards to register and pay large fees, clerics to do likewise if they dont' work for the government. In my world when sorcery skips a generation it often produces a Hex Blades. The Hex Blades are below the sorcererous nobility above everyone else. They are primarily in charge of security where they use their martial prowess and cursing to handle threats backed by their sorcerous brethren when needed (number 3). Number 2 is not used very often but many enjoy putting on shows for the general populace. Gladiatorial matches between summon creatures is common.

All the nobles are sorcerers or hex blades. Other classes generally have to be hired though many nobles don't develop their sorcerery much and multiclass.

Example Two

During a protracted war between elves and humans half elves were treated as garbage by all sides. A number of halflings broke away from the Elven Empire and named them selves Apseldia (loosely translates from Latin to outcasts refuge) then snuck a lot of half elves from human lands into their borders. They created an Athenian style democracy but only citizens of fairly advanced age can vote and the assembly is less accessible to those living farther from the capital.

The assembly is dominated by a few wealthy families. They lack the ability to disarm the populace. Being a small nation sandwiched between one major elven and several major human powers everyone needs to be able to look after themselves so (1) is out of the question. That makes (3) difficult too. They rely on (2) and (4). Families make sure to make everything they sponsor for the state as visible as possible be it a fancy building, a public festival or a warship. Order is maitained the assembly is given credence by continually stressing how unique their democracy is and how it's all about the half-elves standing as brothers and sisters against a hostile world.

Most of the influential assembly members are bards but anyone can get a following. In fact adventuring is a good way to get political clout by gaining renown for deeds. People often assume heroic individuals make good leaders by default.

In a world with beings of the power level of PCs, nobles need PC class characters to maintain their power. I am really close to nixes Aristocrat class characters altogether.