Captain Artemesia at your command!

[Jens Namtrah]

I like this idea very much as a class of an advy. (perhaps the character types should now be "noble" and "commoner", with "adventurer" and "captain" being commoner classes)

I can see a lot of reasons why an adventurer might want to go join the army during wartime. i don't see the class having enough reason to exist when there isn't a war.

I wasn't clear if you were proposing this as a separate "person" that can go find a noble to attach himself to on his own,  or one that a player can create to go along with his first,  noble character, but would never move around on its own. if the first, how would the captain even be able to play if he was attached to a semi-active noble who never made it to battle? it seems too dependent on the activity level of another player.

[Jhaelen Irsei]

I like the idea of a specific class for adventurers but why it has been the Captain of  a Noble unit?

During Middle-Ages it was full of Soldiers of fortune, Free Lance, Mercenaries etc. Some of them led (relatively) huge armies sometimes stronger that those of Nobles. Mercenaries sometimes become even Nobles (like adventurers in the game thank to recommendations)

It's a BM restriction that a commoner cannot lead armed men, but in real Middle Age there where lots of indipendent warbands. It'd be interesting to me playing a mercenary leader in BM: fight for several realms in your carreer without switching loyalty..'cause you're loyal only to who pay better :P

[Bael]

It's a BM restriction that a commoner cannot lead armed men, but in real Middle Age there where lots of indipendent warbands. It'd be interesting to me playing a mercenary leader in BM: fight for several realms in your carreer without switching loyalty..'cause you're loyal only to who pay better :P

Now here is something that could start up a new thread :)