Chapter 5 opinions and questions

[ConjurerDragon]

The table 5.3 Maximum number of Regents and the rule around it
is only slightly changed the old rule from p. 34 of the 2E rulebook.

However in the 2E rulebook it was clearly stated:
"(Note: this breakdown is provided for the sake of practicality. The DM may
alter or ignore this guide line.)"

If you have this rule, which is not even used in all PBEMS, then you should
have the note as well.


I second the opinion of an earlier poster, about wondrous structures:
Spending 25 GBX level to gain the option to change 2GBXlevel into 1 RP/level
seems useless to me when RP and GB spend to support actions are equally
valuable. Or did I understand it wrong and a regent can´t any longer spend
GB to support his actions as the listing of modifiers under "Resolving
actions" does not list GB?


Contest Action: Why lose 1D3 levels? This is an additional roll, and in my
opinion an unnecessary change to the old rule of having a successfully
contested holding produce no GB, no RP and have neutralized trade routes
that origin from it. To lose 1D3 levels of the holding in addition to that
for 1 successful contest seems harsh to me. If the intention was to stop the
total destruction of holdings of any size with two successful contest
actions then the rule could have been that the contested holding suffers the
old penaltys from the first successful contest and is reduced by half (at
least reduced by 1) by each following successfull contest actions.

A variant I like more is that a in a province filled with holdings to the
maximum a regent can rule up his own holding and when his RULE action is
successful automatically reduces a holding that has been contested before by 1.
More to follow
Bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[doom]

On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 12:56:58PM -0800, Michael Romes wrote:
> Contest Action: Why lose 1D3 levels? This is an additional roll, and in my
> opinion an unnecessary change to the old rule of having a successfully
> contested holding produce no GB, no RP and have neutralized trade routes
> that origin from it. To lose 1D3 levels of the holding in addition to that
> for 1 successful contest seems harsh to me. If the intention was to stop the
> total destruction of holdings of any size with two successful contest
> actions then the rule could have been that the contested holding suffers the
> old penaltys from the first successful contest and is reduced by half (at
> least reduced by 1) by each following successfull contest actions.

In the current version, there is no longer any need to track a "contested" state,
just current holding level. After its reduction, the remainder of the
holding functions at normal capacity (collecting RP/GB as per norm).
The regent can _choose_ to Rule holding to increase their holding back
towards its original level, but does not need to do so in order to
allow the remainder of the holding to become "uncontested.

This is a rather significant change designed to deal with the many
noted problems of the one-two contest-contest all-or-nothing contesting
rules in 2e. It is certainly simpler... but does it have the right
feel? This is one of the rules that has yet to be playtested (as noted
previously, Chapter 5 needed another couple of rounds to work
everything).

- Doom

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Eosin the Red]

>> Contest Action: Why lose 1D3 levels?
<<<SNIP>>>


By DOOM:
<<SNIP>>>
>> This is a rather significant change designed to deal with the many noted problems of the one-two contest-contest all-or-nothing contesting rules in 2e. It is certainly simpler... but does it have the right feel?


I really like the new contest action. It seems for more workable than the CONTEST + CONTEST that is practically required at this point. A d3 also seems just about right to me.

Eosin

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Dr. Travis Doom wrote:

>On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 12:56:58PM -0800, Michael Romes wrote:
>
>>Contest Action: Why lose 1D3 levels? This is an additional roll, and in my
>>opinion an unnecessary change to the old rule of having a successfully
>>contested holding produce no GB, no RP and have neutralized trade routes
>>that origin from it. To lose 1D3 levels of the holding in addition to that
>>for 1 successful contest seems harsh to me. If the intention was to stop the
>>total destruction of holdings of any size with two successful contest
>>actions then the rule could have been that the contested holding suffers the
>>old penaltys from the first successful contest and is reduced by half (at
>>least reduced by 1) by each following successfull contest actions.
>>
>In the current version, there is no longer any need to track a "contested" state,
>just current holding level. After its reduction, the remainder of the
>holding functions at normal capacity (collecting RP/GB as per norm).
>The regent can _choose_ to Rule holding to increase their holding back
>towards its original level, but does not need to do so in order to
>allow the remainder of the holding to become "uncontested.
>This is a rather significant change designed to deal with the many
>noted problems of the one-two contest-contest all-or-nothing contesting
>rules in 2e. It is certainly simpler... but does it have the right
>feel? This is one of the rules that has yet to be playtested (as noted
>previously, Chapter 5 needed another couple of rounds to work
>everything).
>- Doom
>
Then the reduction makes sense, as the remaining holding is still able
to collect RP/GB and have a working trade route/ley line originating
from it without needing a rule action to make it work again, only to
bring it back to the former size. However to avoid holdings larger than
0 to be destroyed in one contest the rule to"lose 1D3 levels/destruction
when below 0" should be softened. In 2E Birthright only 0 level holdings
could be destroyed with 1 successful contest, all others neeeded 2
successful contests to be destroyed and the owner had the chance to rule
it out of contest before the enemy could contest the second time. With
losing 1D3 levels any holding of level 0, 1 or 2 risks destruction in
one successful contest and an high roll on the 1D3 - without the owner
being able to "repair" that damage through an action of his own. Perhaps
two flies with one hit: Avoid the additional dice roll of 1D3 and avoid
destruction of level 1 and 2 holdings in one action by reducing the
contested holding by a percentage of itself, say half but at least 1. So
highlevel holdings (e.g. 10 would become 5 which is a good blow, but a
level 2 holding would become 1 not destroyed by chance).
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[DanMcSorley]

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
> Perhaps two flies with one hit: Avoid the additional dice roll of 1D3
> and avoid destruction of level 1 and 2 holdings in one action by
> reducing the contested holding by a percentage of itself, say half but
> at least 1. So highlevel holdings (e.g. 10 would become 5 which is a
> good blow, but a level 2 holding would become 1 not destroyed by
> chance).

So a level 1 guild contesting a level 9 guild could use a lot of RP from
somewhere and reduce the 9 to a 4?

I think contest should be exactly the opposite effect of Rule. Rule
raises your holding one level, Contest should reduce it 1 level.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Mark_Aurel]

So a level 1 guild contesting a level 9 guild could use a lot of RP from
somewhere and reduce the 9 to a 4?

I think contest should be exactly the opposite effect of Rule. Rule
raises your holding one level, Contest should reduce it 1 level.

This was the original version of contest, that was playtested at TSR before BR was published. It was found to be too slow a mechanic (i.e. it made contest wars into trench warfare of contest-rule-contest-rule-contest-rule-contest-rule where nothing would ever really happen). The version in the BRCS is a step back in that direction, and yes, the intent is that you can be able to wipe out a low-level guild quickly.

The "halve the level" mechanic was examined - however, it essentially works similarly, though in a clunkier fashion - i.e. halving a level 9 guild to 4, then a level 4 guild to 2, then a level 2 to 1 as opposed to 9 to 7 to 5 to 3 to 1, on average; same number of steps, but why should the initial result have such a dramatic effect as opposed to the later rounds? Doesn't make much sense, IMO.

Also, note that if you use the variant rule for exceptional results on domain actions, you could roll a "crit" for contest, making the effective reduction 2d3 instead.

[ConjurerDragon]

daniel mcsorley wrote:

>On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
>
>>Perhaps two flies with one hit: Avoid the additional dice roll of 1D3
>>and avoid destruction of level 1 and 2 holdings in one action by
>>reducing the contested holding by a percentage of itself, say half but
>>at least 1. So highlevel holdings (e.g. 10 would become 5 which is a
>>good blow, but a level 2 holding would become 1 not destroyed by
>>chance).
>>
>
>So a level 1 guild contesting a level 9 guild could use a lot of RP from
>somewhere and reduce the 9 to a 4?
>
That was what I thought. However to succeed in such a contest assuming
the same skills would require a lot of RP as the holding level alone
would make it less likely to succeed and both regents can bid RP.

>I think contest should be exactly the opposite effect of Rule. Rule
>raises your holding one level, Contest should reduce it 1 level.
>
There is a house rule, that when a holdings is contested (a status no
longer there in the new rules) another regent ruling his holding up,
reduces the contested one by 1 - I always thought that much friendlier
than to utterly destroy another holding with 2 contests and then rule
your own holding up.

However your argument of Contest = Negative Rule sounds also good to me.
With extraordinary success perhaps 2 instead of 1, but as before I think
that no holding of level 1+ should be destroyeable in one action.
bye
Michael Romes

bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[DanMcSorley]

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
> There is a house rule, that when a holdings is contested (a status no
> longer there in the new rules) another regent ruling his holding up,
> reduces the contested one by 1 - I always thought that much friendlier
> than to utterly destroy another holding with 2 contests and then rule
> your own holding up.

That`s an interesting rule, and remarkably I`d never heard it before. I
think the current attempt to reduce tracking by getting rid of the
contested state is a good thing, though.

> However your argument of Contest = Negative Rule sounds also good to me.
> With extraordinary success perhaps 2 instead of 1, but as before I think
> that no holding of level 1+ should be destroyeable in one action.

Not even with an extraordinary success? If someone contested a level 1
holding and got an extraordinary, that would reduce it to 0, and then
destroy it, and I think that could be ok.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[DanMcSorley]

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Mark_Aurel wrote:
>
I think contest should be exactly the opposite effect of Rule. Rule
> raises your holding one level, Contest should reduce it 1 level.
>
> This was the original version of contest, that was playtested at TSR
> before BR was published. It was found to be too slow a mechanic (i.e.
> it made contest wars into trench warfare of
> contest-rule-contest-rule-contest-rule-contest-rule where nothing
> would ever really happen). The version in the BRCS is a step back in
> that direction, and yes, the intent is that you can be able to wipe
> out a low-level guild quickly.

Hmm. Interesting. d3 seems to be a good compromise then. I haven`t got
to the actions in my Ch 5 thread yet, but that`s one less thing to object
to.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 07:14 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, Eosin the Red wrote:

>I really like the new contest action. It seems for more workable than the
>CONTEST + CONTEST that is practically required at this point. A d3 also
>seems just about right to me.

The d3 strikes me as being a little... well, random. I went with a
successful contest action halving a holding level, minimum 1. That seems
pretty high, but given that it would require a level 7 holding to represent
more potentially lost levels than the d3 rule it really isn`t all that extreme.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

daniel mcsorley wrote:

>On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
>
>>There is a house rule, that when a holdings is contested (a status no
>>longer there in the new rules) another regent ruling his holding up,
>>reduces the contested one by 1 - I always thought that much friendlier
>>than to utterly destroy another holding with 2 contests and then rule
>>your own holding up.
>>
>That`s an interesting rule, and remarkably I`d never heard it before. I
>think the current attempt to reduce tracking by getting rid of the
>contested state is a good thing, though.
>
>>However your argument of Contest = Negative Rule sounds also good to me.
>>With extraordinary success perhaps 2 instead of 1, but as before I think
>>that no holding of level 1+ should be destroyeable in one action.
>>
>Not even with an extraordinary success? If someone contested a level 1
>holding and got an extraordinary, that would reduce it to 0, and then
>destroy it, and I think that could be ok.
>
That is closer to what I like. The current draft is that even a level 2
holding could be destryoed by contest in one action when rolling a 3 on
the 1D3 - what I disklike. That normal contest reduces 1 level and
extraordinary success double sounds good - however extraordinary succes
is rare (20+ on the result of the opposed check and 10+ ranks in the
relevant skill as on p. 61 of the PHB).
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

"On a successful check against a holding, you reduce the level of the
contested holding by 1d3 levels" (p. 107, Contest Action)

It seems to me that a more 3e mechanic would be to find some number above
the required DC (say 10) and after that point, an additional level is
destroyed. Subsequent levels might be on the basis of an additional 5
beyond the DC. So, destroying 3 levels of a hodling would require exeeding
the DC by 20.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[drnuncheon]

Originally posted by ConjurerDragon
The current draft is that even a level 2
holding could be destryoed by contest in one action when rolling a 3 on
the 1D3 - what I disklike.

As I understand it (and I'm coming into this with no knowledge of 2e BR), a holding of 0 represents contacts and an information network. I agree that it ought to be very difficult to completely destroy such a thing. Here's my suggestion:

Keep the 1d3 roll, but say that it can reduce the holding to a minimum of 0.
Then, specify that only a level 0 holding can be destroyed by a contest action.

That keeps the 'at least two actions to destroy' that you like while still making it a little faster (and more random) than just saying 1 (or 2) per contest action.

J

[Green Knight]

Another option:
1 lvl destroyed by a successful contest action
2 lvls destroyed if with a margin of 10 or more (similar to the original
rule for agitate)
3 lvls destroyed on an extraordinary success (as oper the normal 3E
rules for skill checks)

Yet another option:
A holding 1+ is never completely destroyed by a successful contest
action, but reduced to a holding (0)
A holding (0) is destroyed by a successful contets action.

And one more:
Should a holding successfully reduced in this manner under the new rules
also become "contested" (provides no regency until ruled) or not?


drnuncheon wrote:

Originally posted by ConjurerDragon
The current draft is that even a level 2
holding could be destryoed by contest in one action when rolling a 3 on
the 1D3 - what I disklike.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.