[poll] Three Worlds: Class Workshop (And Setting Teaser)

[Xeviat]

[note]Things are reaching a state of completion on my end: The racial stats and fluff have been decided and written, the core setting has been chosen, and the unique magic presentation is even taking shape. It is very playable in its current form; all that is left is some polish. I will try to make some teaser "articles" as different elements come together, so I hope my "fans" are still interested. Thank you for your patience, and I hope it will have been worth the wait.[/note]
As anyone who has known me for a week will tell you, I'm a fan of symmetry. For two years, I have been structuring my class design off of having four roles (warrior, expert, support caster, offensive caster), but the finalization of my setting's magic has removed the distinction between divine and arcane magic. With the two spellcaster roles combined into one, I have taken a new direction with my setting's class structure.

Now, there are three roles (warrior, expert, caster), and I intend to have three classes in each role. The three classes of each roll will fit into one of three styles: Civilized, Neutral, or Wild. A Civilized class is a class that functions best within the confines of civilization; in fact, they are classes which would not grow outside of some form of civilization. Neutral classes are classes which embody their role; the Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard are neutral classes. Wild classes are classes which either function the best outside of civilization, are easily self taught classes, or are classes which represent an inborn savagery or chaos.

[table=Three World's Classes]
[tr][th][/th][th]Civilized[/th][th]Neutral[/th][th]Wild[/th][/tr]
[tr][th]Warrior[/th][td]? or Monk[/td][td]Fighter[/td][td]Barbarian[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]Expert[/th] [td]Monk or ?[/td][td]Rogue[/td][td]Scout[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]Caster[/th] [td]Priest[/td][td]Wizard[/td][td]Sorcerer[/td][/tr][/table]

Fighter: Warrior who uses battle techniques honed through rigorous practice.
Barbarian: Warrior who uses primal fury and reflexes.
Monk: Warrior/Expert on a quest for enlightenment, turning their body into the perfect weapon.
Rogue: Expert who uses trickery and guile.
Scout: Expert skilled in the ways of the wild.
Priest: Caster tied to a deity, serving their interests in the mortal world.
Wizard: Caster who learns magic through study.
Sorcerer: Caster whose power comes innately.

The two question-marks are the following classes:

Knight: Frontline warrior, with the power to inspire their allies. They will gain immunity to effects that would otherwise make them break their chivalric code, and they will grant bonuses to their allies against similar effects.
Noble: An educated expert, commanding the party through inspiration, a collector of obscure knowledge. They will be exceptionally skilled in social situations, and invaluable on the field as commanders.

From the PHB, the Bard, Druid, Paladin, and Ranger have been removed. The druid is blended with the cleric to form the priest, while the Ranger has evolved into the scout, leaving the Bard and Paladin to be represented. The Bard has been removed because their magic and music doesn't fit in with the magical themes of the setting, even though their party role is appreciated; this decision was very difficult for me, since the Bard is one of my more favorite classes in theory. The Paladin has been removed because my setting is more focused on Law vs. Chaos (hence, the civilized vs. wild scheme in the class design) than Good vs. Evil.

I like both classes in theory. I'm not here to discuss the mechanics of them; I have working betas already. I'm here to discuss which would better fit the world and the game. I'm currently leaning in the direction of using the Noble as the civilized expert and retooling the Monk as a true warrior, but several people have told me that they feel the Monk is more of a skirmish warrior (like the rogue) and that my setting features Knights heavily.

So, here are my pros and cons to kick start the discussion:

KNIGHT
Pros

*The Knight is a perfect counterpart to the Barbarian, and brings an excellent code of conduct to the table (meaning all three civilized classes have to abide by some sort of alignment restriction or behavior guidelines).
*Knights feature heavily in my setting's mythology (five knights saved humans from enslavement, and are the center of human religion).

Cons

*The Knight could easily be represented by a Fighter/Noble with a Prestige Class: knighthood is prestigious by any definition.

NOBLE
Pros

*The role is difficult to fill by a Rogue: the rogue brings sneak attack to the table, which not all smooth talking, educated diplomancers should have.
*Nearly all monks in game are built for combat; the whole idea of developing ones perfection through enlightenment and combat screams warrior.

Cons

*Nobles seem to be more of an NPC role than a heroic PC role.

So, with that said, what do you think?

[spoiler=Setting Teaser]We have always been the center of the world. We were the first to be freed by the Black Knight, and we are where the Holy Knights established their houses and passed down the doctrines of Chivalry. We were the site of the only Empire to have spanned the world. We are where the Spirits of the Swords were first revealed. We are where the goddesses of Light and Darkness battled to their deaths, marking the coming of the Second Age. We are the first Republic, the center of knowledge and enlightenment. History is not lost here, never forgotten, always and forever sought.

We are the Holylands.

The Holylands will be the central setting of Terran, the primer world of the Three Worlds Campaign Setting. It is the most diverse region in all the world, the only to contain all six races. It possesses a rich history and a complex realm of politics, both of which the players are encouraged to explore. As the site of most of the worlds defining moments, there is no shortage of repercussions to deal with.

In the weeks and months to come, the Holylands will take shape. The cultures will be explored, its history detailed, and important figures will be introduced. Adventure hooks will be discussed, which are to be the focal points of my three first novels.

Hopefully, the Holylands can grow to be a complex realm of fantastic adventure with modern tone and taste.[/spoiler]

[limetom]

Because this first appeared in an IM session with Xev, I'll add some later thoughts...

Why create a false dilemma?  Leave the informal fallacies for the politicians and the media; you could use them both and simply drop the monk.  Despite my love of the class, it always seems a little out of place.  Otherwise, I'd personally go with the Knight, because then the monk, assuming you use the PHB monk, would be relatively weak compared to, again assuming PHB, fighter and barbarian.

Xev said that first and foremost, the monk would be retooled if included.  I would expect nothing less from the Kap'n.  However, he said that he preferred the Noble over the Knight, and that there would be a fitting place for the monk.  However, this is a hard decision.  Both the Knight and the Noble are equally valid, and seem to have the same drawbacks and benefits.

With the teaser that is provided for the setting however, in addition to knights being mentioned by name, the battle of Law versus Chaos stands out.  If you pick only one, the Knight gives you an exemplar of both, while the Noble just replaces the bard.  In terms of the setting, and if I only could pick one, the Knight seems more in tune with what the short blurb seems to be telling me.

So, if I had to go with one, it would be the Knight.  If I didn't, I'd say go for both.  And maybe throw the monk back in for good measure.  Reality isn't perfect, a simulation of another imperfect reality even less so.  Just because it looks pretty on paper doesn't mean it's the best decision for the setting.  All three could be justified to fit in, so there is little reason not to include them, aside from the fact that it messes up the colspan symmetry.

[beejazz]

Civilized warrior should be some kind of fencing/swashbuckling bit.

For experts, consider something bard-esqe. Focus on social skills and expectations.

On the expert thing...

Civ:Guile
Neut:Stealth
Wild:Movement

Just a thought.

[Ra-Tiel]

I'd also say keep both. Put the noble as the expert/civilized, and the knight as the warrior/civilized.

Or did I miss something? :huh:

[Xeviat]

I can't use both, because there is too much overlap between them; I've designed both the Knight and the Noble to utilize the bard's Inspire abilities. I also will use the Monk, it is an important part of the mysticism of my setting.

For those who feel I should use the Knight as the civilized warrior, and the Monk as the expert, what are your reasons?

For those who feel I should use both, what are your reasons? How could I change the Knight so that there isn't overlap between the Knight and Noble?

Again, I am still leaning towards using the Noble as the civilized expert, but I could go either way. I just need justification, so I can be sure of my decision and not have to change it again and again. Heh.

[beejazz]

Just nix the monk already!
It would be preferrable to have the noble for the expert and the knight for the warrior.

Swap out "inspiring" abilities for contacts and resources.

[Xeviat]

But why nix the monk? Again, I have a place for it in my setting, and it doesn't feel like something that should be a PrC. I could be convinced otherwise, though, maybe.

And if you take inspiration away from the noble, then the noble has absolutely nothing to do in combat, which means it would be an NPC role. D&D is a combat game first and foremost.

[Stargate525]

I'm going to have to throw my lot into 'nix the monk and use both classes.'

To be honest, I really don't see the monk as a civilized class. Granted, they do theoretically have a hierarchy in their enclaves, but those are usually removed from society as a whole and the PCs playing monks will be alone even more so. Beyond simple personal discipline there isn't really a civilization aspect to them.

Secondly, the monks vast array of abilities could find an excellent home as two or three prestige classes. The Monk seemed overloaded to me, and if you split it into a couple of prestige classes, you get the benefit of still having him there in some respect, as well as being able to let some of its abilities stand alone and blossom (monk weapons and resistances, I'm looking at you).

As for the Noble, there is a reason that the only guy left standing after the horrible battle usually has a title. I can easily see the nobles that the PCs are playing being closer to a general than to a wine-sipping nobody. I would axe the inspiration stuff in favor of perhaps a sort of intimidation effect. Hell, just give them a full attack progression, decent abilities in armor, and you're halfway there.

[Xeviat]

As for the Noble, there is a reason that the only guy left standing after the horrible battle usually has a title. I can easily see the nobles that the PCs are playing being closer to a general than to a wine-sipping nobody. I would axe the inspiration stuff in favor of perhaps a sort of intimidation effect. Hell, just give them a full attack progression, decent abilities in armor, and you're halfway there.

Giving them a full attack progression would make them a warrior ... And wouldn't intimidation stuff be more suited to the Knight?

[Stargate525]

That's true. Then give the inspiration to the noble and the intimidation to the knight. The thing is, is you want the noble to stand a chance in a fight, there aren't many options. Maybe give them a bonus when fighting one on one? Make them more of a nobleman combatant, thin rapier and all?

The initial reason I didn't suggest the knight for the intimidate was that I thought you were going for the idealized, valorous view of them, not the ones that will bite off your nose before heading off to mass.

[Higgs Boson]

Knight!!!!!!!!!

[beejazz]

But why nix the monk? Again, I have a place for it in my setting, and it doesn't feel like something that should be a PrC. I could be convinced otherwise, though, maybe.

And if you take inspiration away from the noble, then the noble has absolutely nothing to do in combat, which means it would be an NPC role. D&D is a combat game first and foremost.

Combat? Easy enough. Make the rogue more like the ninja and require flat-footed-ness. You might also need to add a few special abilities to make up for it, but... y'know... it worked for the ninja.

Then give the noble a combat style based on flanking and some fencing weapons. "works well with others" doesn't have to mean "gives a numerical bonus to allies by talking."