Lawyer Class

[Rakoa]

I was wondering if any of you fine folks could point me in the direction of any base classes, prestige classes, or the like that enhance a character's abilities to lawyer. I would imagine the proceedings of a court would simply be some opposed diplomacy rolls between lawyers (with circumstance modifiers based on evidence present) followed by a verdict, with maybe some bluff and sense motive thrown in for good measure, but still, I don't think it hurts to ask.

It is a strange request, and I doubt there is anything along the lines of this in even the most obscure sourcebooks. I'm not against well done homebrew, if even any of that exists, but of course would prefer the official sources.

Really I just want to make a detective/lawyer NPC team. I have the Detective statted as a Factotum 5 / Watch Detective 3.

Any help would be much appreciated.

[Kennisiou]

Factotum, Rogue, and Expert all would work nicely as they're skill-based classes. Clerics of St Cuthbert actually also work nicely thematically as judges or lawyers. Exemplar as a prestige is nice in the same general way.

Additionally, marshal is a pretty good dip for skill focus diplomacy and charisma to charisma based checks.

You're probably already aware of all of this, just giving you the jumping off point. There really isn't much specifically themed this way in the rules, but lots of stuff that could help with the checks necessary.

[rmnimoc]

Bards aren't half bad at it, with all the main conversation skills and glibness. Glibness. You could have a class that has Glibness and nothing else and it would still make a good lawyer.

[Location - Zone of truth]
"Lawyer Jim the expert, state your case."
"My client couldn't have done this. You were all watching him. This literally happened while my client was sitting in this chair with antimagic shackels."
"That's a pretty good point. Okay Lawyer Bob the bard, state your case."
"Glibness. This man is clearly guilty of contributing to the crime by secretly filling this chamber with Dihydrogen Monoxide. Also, get me a sandwich."
"Well that argument is completely moronic, but for some reason I can't doubt it. Hang the defendant. And for Pelor's sake someone get this man a sandwich."
Glibness = Win

[Psyren]

Someone with telepathy (like a Psion or Binder) would be a good lawyer simply because when you ask someone a question, their surface thoughts can usually tell you whether they're lying or not, and even give you a hint as to what you should be asking.

[Greenish]

Sharn, The City of Towers has the court case working as opposed Profession: Barrister checks, best of three.

[D4rkh0rus]

Experts are the go to class for anything that doesn't require you to bash stuff with a giant weapon/spell/other combat option.

they get to choose 10 skills, and get 6 SP per lvl.

Just make his skills Bluff, Diplomacy, Forgery (To detect forged papers, hmm ahem.. hmm.), Sense Motive, Gather Information, Proffession (Lawyer), Knowledge (Law), Listen and Spot. then try and get 16+ Int.

Or just go rogue... Rogue.

[Matticussama]

Knowledge: Local specifically covers the laws, customs and traditions of a region, so a good lawyer character would need high ranks in that in addition to Diplomacy/Bluff. A few ranks in Knowledge: Nobility/Royalty to play off the personalities of the local leaders would help as well.

[Zaydos]

I'm going to second Marshal (2 for Motivate Charisma and Motivate Wisdom), and Bard (Perform (Oratory) being a traditional skill of lawyers, lots of skills, charisma focus, and buff spells).

[gorfnab]

Exemplar dip for the skill boost and so you can take 10 on lawyer type skills such as Diplomacy, Perform: Oratory, and others.

[the_archduke]

Speaking as a lawyer myself, the best class is probably a bard.

Perform oratory to talk to judges and juries

Fascinate and suggestion would be beyond useful in a courtroom

Bluff, intimidate, sense motive and diplomacy as class skills with a CHA focus

Spells like calm emotions, glibness, scrying, modify memory, eagle's splendor... I could go on

Definitely bard

[D4rkh0rus]

Speaking as a lawyer myself, the best class is probably a bard.

Perform oratory to talk to judges and juries

Fascinate and suggestion would be beyond useful in a courtroom

Bluff, intimidate, sense motive and diplomacy as class skills with a CHA focus

Spells like calm emotions, glibness, scrying, modify memory, eagle's splendor... I could go on

Definitely bard

If only they could be Lawful... D:

[Phelix-Mu]

Wasn't there a Courtier class in some of the Rokugan materials (or some other oriental-type setting)? Can't remember if those were third party, but there was an npc Courtier in a multi-DM campaign that I was part of, and he was pretty badass in social situations.

[XmonkTad]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060620a&page=2

Well, it depends on where you want to be a lawyer. Your two keys are Bluff and Diplomacy, no mention of profession:(barrister) in planar court. Knowledge:(the planes) and Knowledge:(local) will let you know the laws, but I'm not sure if knowledge:(nobility & nobility) help you with extraplanar judges the same way it would help with a regular judge.

Only problem with being a bard is no lawful alignment. Otherwise they're perfect. Although, nothing says a lawyer has to be lawful...

[Snowbluff]

Beguilers. Scream "OBJECTION!" to cast Halt.

The added bonus is that you make a bard weep in a corner by having Glibness more times per day.

[watchwood]

I just took ranks in Profession: Lawyer once. It worked out pretty well the couple of times I needed it.

[Jeff the Green]

If only they could be Lawful... D:

What are you talking about? Haven't you ever seen Damages, Scandal, or any other show that is a totally honest take on the legal profession and where lawyers break laws willy-nilly? Obviously all lawyers are CE.

And yes, beguiler. More skill points and early glibness.

[Pickford]

I was wondering if any of you fine folks could point me in the direction of any base classes, prestige classes, or the like that enhance a character's abilities to lawyer. I would imagine the proceedings of a court would simply be some opposed diplomacy rolls between lawyers (with circumstance modifiers based on evidence present) followed by a verdict, with maybe some bluff and sense motive thrown in for good measure, but still, I don't think it hurts to ask.

It is a strange request, and I doubt there is anything along the lines of this in even the most obscure sourcebooks. I'm not against well done homebrew, if even any of that exists, but of course would prefer the official sources.

Really I just want to make a detective/lawyer NPC team. I have the Detective statted as a Factotum 5 / Watch Detective 3.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Paladins have knowledge nobility and royalty as a class skill which synergizes with Diplomacy (and would, I think, feed into knowledge of court proceedings), along with a code that requires them to punish those who threaten the innocent and help those in need. Charisma is also a major stat for them.

These combined suggest the Paladin would make a good Prosecutor or Defense Attorney.

The Warlock is another possibility (Cha stat + invocations that improve diplomacy).

[Telonius]

Binder could be good for it, thematically. The whole class is dedicated to making Pacts, so it's a natural fit for contract law. :smallbiggrin:

[rmnimoc]

Beguilers. Scream "OBJECTION!" to cast Halt.

The added bonus is that you make a bard weep in a corner by having Glibness more times per day.

True, but Perform (Oratory) and bardic knowledge are big deals. He needs the perform to keep the jury from throwing things at him halfway through the chewbacca defense.

[Snowbluff]

True, but Perform (Oratory) and bardic knowledge are big deals. He needs the perform to keep the jury from throwing things at him halfway through the chewbacca defense.

That's not a primary use of Perform. Use diplomacy instead.

[Rakoa]

Whoah, thanks for all the replies, everyone! Looking through the replies, it seems that Factotum, Beguiler, and Bard are pretty sweet. Exemplar looks like the absolute perfect 1 level dip for something like this.

Actually, getting away from even my own topic a bit, what do you guys think court proceedings would look like in a typical D&D setting? Obviously it would be specific to the exact DM, but boosting Diplomacy, Bluff, and Profession skills seems like a must. I wonder if a court of law would consider spell casting to be "cheating", or even illegal?

Thanks for all the replies, again.

[Phelix-Mu]

Depends on the power level of the society that produced the court. If it's the village elder in Yokelville, then you can probably get off covert castings of spells or cast before entering court without a hitch.

If you are being tried for serious crimes in Waterdeep or some similarly high-caliber setting, I'd avoid trying to use anything aside from mundane skill in the courtroom.

An entirely different matter is if the DM is allowing some kind of truth-detecting magic or functional zone of truth. Because that kind of thing can be viewed as terribly invasive in some societies, while in other places it can be accepted to the extent that court scenes resembling irl stuff never happen (because the truth can be objectively determined).

[Emperor Tippy]

I would probably do it with Factotum/Marshal/Exemplar.

Exact levels and build depends on what you actually want

[Jeff the Green]

Depends on the power level of the society that produced the court. If it's the village elder in Yokelville, then you can probably get off covert castings of spells or cast before entering court without a hitch.

If you are being tried for serious crimes in Waterdeep or some similarly high-caliber setting, I'd avoid trying to use anything aside from mundane skill in the courtroom.

It also probably depends on the magic. Skill-boosting spells are probably kosher (though top-flight attorneys are probably going to have the same spells up and cancel each other out). Glibness, enchantment, and illusion are right out. And of course in a high-magic society there are going to be caster-lawyers who try to circumvent the rules.


An entirely different matter is if the DM is allowing some kind of truth-detecting magic or functional zone of truth. Because that kind of thing can be viewed as terribly invasive in some societies, while in other places it can be accepted to the extent that court scenes resembling irl stuff never happen (because the truth can be objectively determined).

Remember that most truth-finding spells have weaknesses, though. Illusions, Glibness, Nondetection, Misdirection, etc. can beat them.

[bekeleven]

Note that if your court proceedings are anything like real-world, bluff is not going to be very important. Yes, despite what network television may tell you.

Lawyers can be disbarred for stating untruths, and one of their most important defenses against this is not asking a client if they did it. Look up Leading Questions.

[Phelix-Mu]

Remember that most truth-finding spells have weaknesses, though. Illusions, Glibness, Nondetection, Misdirection, etc. can beat them.

And thus a barrage of detection, dispels and so forth would likely precede entering the courtroom. In a society where no one bothers to lie because they accepted that it was impossible, such workarounds might work, though, since standards might have slipped since the precautions are generally not necessary.

That said, rigor and diligence are two mainstays of law and order, so anyone trying to cheat the system would do well to punch well above the general weight-class, because cheating itself is probably a criminal offense.

[Necroticplague]

Thanks to divinations, most courts would be unnecessary for purposes of determining guilt, and hearing would only be to determine the sentence. Actually, two divinations would be necessary;One by the the evidence-providing party (usually prosecution), and one by the other side to make sure they actually did it. I'd recommend against Contact other Plane, though, gods might get a bit pissed off if they have to waste too much time settling your mortal crime issue. A simple Speak with Dead or two can easily give very good leads to most murders (except in cases where the victim never saw the attacker, which itself provides hints), which has the bonus of not needing second-casting verification (since anyone standing near the corpse can hear it talk).Detect Thoughts would make the "guilty concience" (name might be wrong, basic premise involves presenting information before known only to the police, some key parts of which are wrong. If they react differently to wrong portions than right ones in their thoughts, they know something)test work almost perfectly, thanks to the "don't think about pink elephants" issue. .

[rmnimoc]

That's not a primary use of Perform. Use diplomacy instead.

I mean using it for fascinate. After all no amount of diplomacy will make the chewbacca defense lead up to anything.

[Jeff the Green]

Note that if your court proceedings are anything like real-world, bluff is not going to be very important. Yes, despite what network television may tell you.

Lawyers can be disbarred for stating untruths, and one of their most important defenses against this is not asking a client if they did it. Look up Leading Questions.

Yeah, but Bluff isn't just lying. It's also implying something without saying it, leading someone to believe something without a good reason (even if it is true), and not letting on that you know something (or seeming like you know something you don't). All of which are stock and trade for lawyers.

[Necroticplague]

Note that if your court proceedings are anything like real-world, bluff is not going to be very important. Yes, despite what network television may tell you.

Lawyers can be disbarred for stating untruths, and one of their most important defenses against this is not asking a client if they did it. Look up Leading Questions.

Yes, but simply "get somebody to believe what you say is true" seems like one of those kinda grey areas where bluff and diplomacy overlap, so it doesn't hurt to have both. Also, since the sending part of Innuendo was subsumed into Bluff, it could be used to send nonverbal hints (or even try and subtly prod witnesses or your client in a certain direction).

[XmonkTad]

The people or monsters you want to look at when setting up a courtroom are:
the judge
The jury (if one)
The bailiff
The prosecutor
the gallery
and possibly the stenographer

A courtroom itself may contain:
A judge's stand
A jury stand
A prosecution table
A defense table (or stockade)
A gallery

Court proceedings include:
"All rise" and "you may be seated"
swearing to tell the truth
Objections
"We the jury"
sentencing

Designing your own setting would really depend on venue. I always pictured a court of St. Cuthburt to have the judge use a mace for a gavel. In hell, the lawyer for the defense might get the same punishment as the defendant (and they might refer to the defendant as "the dammed"). In a monarchy, the king may preside over all capital trials. I always pictured D&D trials as having nearly instant sentencing too.

[Talionis]

Yeah, but Bluff isn't just lying. It's also implying something without saying it, leading someone to believe something without a good reason (even if it is true), and not letting on that you know something (or seeming like you know something you don't). All of which are stock and trade for lawyers.

I'll suggest neutral or chaotic are better alignments for lawyers. I'm sure many irl lawyers are lawful, but it takes lawyers that will advocate for their clients and not necessarily the truth. Bards are really spot on lawyers. I actually think the chaotic alignment restrictions on Bards are silly and courtly and religious Bards might very well support the law and order.

Factotems and Paladins also work. Paladin seems likely in more rural areas where a constable might be both sheriff and prosecutor. I belive there is a web enhancement for heroes of valor that gives Paladins singing, but I think only inspire courage so it may not help.

Clerics also might serve that function as advocates for the accused and being learned.

[Rakoa]

I would imagine Court Proceedings would follow a piece given in the Rule of Evidence sidebar in Masters of the Wild, stating that "evidence gained by detection magic, psionic powers, or other magical or supernatural means must be backed up with either physical proof or uncoerced confession. Only concrete forms of evidence satisfy all members of a community."

Essentially, there is nothing wrong with using detection magic and so on to raise suspicion or implicate a suspect, but without physical proof you aren't going to sway a judge (or at least, you will have a severe penalty to your skill check to do so).

I would imagine, too, in a big metropolis, a Wizard would also preside over the court, to ensure that no spells are cast within the courtroom that are against the law. Which is to say, nothing invasive upon the defendant or the witnesses unless the Judge allows it. What qualifies as invasive is to be determined, I guess, haha.

I think that some prebuffing would be allowed, as in the eyes of the Law it doesn't change what you say, just how you say it, but is likely to be frowned upon by others as a sign of weakness to be depended upon by lesser Lawyers. In addition I can see some courts disallowing it just because it shouldn't be necessary if you're actually defending/prosecuting an innocent/guilty person. Enchantment is right out.

On the note of bluff, I could see it as useful for either the prosecution or the defense if they can meet up with a witness before the trial, and roll it up in an effort to convince them things are different than what they actually saw. Some trick questions and psychology bull**** can do wonders for changing a person's perceptions of an event.

After that, some Diplomacy/Profession checks (I still haven't determined which would be more appropriate), again with some modifications based on witness testimony and evidence, should provide a verdict of some kind.

With that in mind, being primarily skill-based, but still with room for some limited spells, (possibly underhanded, some in court, some not) a Bard or Factotum seems best, but I am erring on the side of Factotum just because of the huge skill bonuses it is possible to get. Something like Factotum 10 / Exemplar 1 would be a good start, I think.

[Kennisiou]

If it's skill-based, definitely one level of marshal so they can gain their charisma modifier as a morale bonus on charisma-based checks for diplomacy and bluff (or if you feel they're more likely, wisdom based checks for profession and sense motive). It's going to mean a lot more for the skills involved than one level of factotum for sure.

[bekeleven]

Also remember that Zone of Truth is worse than useless. Assuming it's being cast by, say, a 10th level cleric with 22 wisdom, they save DC is 18, SR applies, Mind-affecting, and people can be evasive. This means:

Assuming people have a will save of only +1, it fails 15% of the time. Then add on the 5000 ways to be immune to it or acquire SR.
Someone that knows what's happening and succeeds can act like it fails, evade a bunch of questions they don't want to answer, then when asked if they committed the crime, lie. People won't be looking for it if their evasions were obvious enough.

In other words, it provides security theater, not true security. Get better divinations.

[Necroticplague]

I would imagine Court Proceedings would follow a piece given in the Rule of Evidence sidebar in Masters of the Wild, stating that "evidence gained by detection magic, psionic powers, or other magical or supernatural means must be backed up with either physical proof or uncoerced confession. Only concrete forms of evidence satisfy all members of a community."

Essentially, there is nothing wrong with using detection magic and so on to raise suspicion or implicate a suspect, but without physical proof you aren't going to sway a judge (or at least, you will have a severe penalty to your skill check to do so).

That seems relatively arbitrary. The reason such evidence isn't allowed in court in real life is because psychic evidence is unreliable at best and usually unverifiable (can't tell if the person is actually psychic, or just making crap up). And heck, despite those two problems, for the longest period of time, evidence obtained by divine revelation was valid in court.

However, the dnd verse has neither of those problems. Divinations can produce reliable results, and another person can verify it by using Spellcraft or the spell themselves. And with magic items, you don't need to even be a caster yourselves.

"I can prove this weapon was owned by the defendant. With these *passes out Gloves of Object Reading*. Now, any member of the jury that would care to use them would clearly see that the second to last person to own the murder weapon, the first being the man who keeps stores evidence at the precinct, was the defendant. And given how the alarm spell on the weapon related to the Arcane Mark the defendant has was still untriggered when we found it, we can know that it was not used by anybody else to commit the murder, because otherwise the alarm would have already gone off (as it did when the detective picked up the weapon)."
Anybody using the Gloves gets a verifiable reading in exact detail.Magic is just as solid as physical evidence within the dndverse.

[bekeleven]

Keep in mind that basically every spell can be fooled by a higher-level spell.

[Rakoa]

Yes, no rationale for this was provided in the sidebar given, but I believe it is essentially along those lines. If magic exists to solve it, better magic exists to hide it. Something like that.

[D4rkh0rus]

Yes, no rationale for this was provided in the sidebar given, but I believe it is essentially along those lines. If magic exists to solve it, better magic exists to hide it. Something like that.

If better magic exists to hide it, then so does better magic to point it out exist.

It creates a neverending cycle.

Or you can use an antimagic field on the courtroom...

[Rakoa]

If better magic exists to hide it, then so does better magic to point it out exist.

It creates a neverending cycle.

Or you can use an antimagic field on the courtroom...

That does seem to be the most logical solution. Which brings us back to evidence and skill ranks instead of spells.

[Necroticplague]

If better magic exists to hide it, then so does better magic to point it out exist.

It creates a neverending cycle.

Or you can use an antimagic field on the courtroom...

Invoke Magic solves that annoying little problem.