Chapter 5 ideas

[Athos69]

I'm not sure who is assigned to work on Chapter 5, but there are a few things I'd like to bring up for discussion.

Rule Province -- In a game I'm playing, I've noticed a glaring loophole from a cost-effectiveness standpoint. The current cost for this action is 1 GB x the current level of the province. For a level 0 province, this results in a free action. I'd like to see this action have a minimum cost of 1 GB.

Create Province -- I'd like to see this as an option -- There are many seafaring powers out there who can lay claim to islands as provinces. I have no idea what to stipulate as parameters, but it could be an option.

Depopulate Province -- This could be used as a means to rid a province of a population of goblins, Orogs, or any other 'undesirable' race that is giving your nation morale problems.

Create Holding -- Should this be opened up to allow a Domain Action to establish multiple holdings of the same type in many provinces?

[Raesene Andu]

Very quickly, because I'm supposed to be working...

Rule Province: I'm already using this rule, so yes, a minumum cost of 1 GB

Create Province: Will be added.

Depopulate Province: I'll look into adding something like this... although pillaging provinces sort of cover it...

Create Holding: No, can only create one holding at a time, otherwise makes it too unbalanced.

[Athos69]

Thx Ian!

[tcharazazel]

By Depopulate province did you mean lower the province level or to just slaughter all its inhabitants? There is a difference as a higher source rating means that it can hold a higher number of tribal groups, like the goblins, Orogs ect you mentioned.

To lower its province level, just pillaging it would work, While actually slaughtering its tribal groups would probably require first meeting them on the battlefield, and then you could slaughter them all however that may not be viewed as a "good" deed as it would be women and children you're talking about. Much better to round up those who havent fled the province and put them in work camps, MWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[Athos69]

Thing is, Dwarves may take a dim view of it if dealing with goblins, but Orogs are considered vermin and no tears would be shed...

[Raesene Andu]

In one campaign I ran, one of the PCs wanted to slaughter the goblin population of one of the Five Peaks provinces (having defeated the province's army). That caused the entire goblin population of the province to rise up and the PC's army suffered a humiliating defeat and was forced to withdraw. I wrote some rough rules to determine the number of levy units that he faced, something like 1/4 of the province's population. Not entirely accurate, but fun at the time.

[Osprey]

Create Holding: No, can only create one holding at a time, otherwise makes it too unbalanced.

It seems to me this would be no more unbalanced than Rule Holding as a Realm Action, or Contest Holding as a Realm Action. There's no sound logic in forbidding Create Holding as a Realm Action, is there? If that' is too unbalanced, then I'd argue that in fact you might as well say the same for all Realm Actions. While they are very powerful, they're to me the the truly impressive aspect of a blooded regent's power - that great scion with a level 10 court is a vicious opponent or a powerful friend...

[Osprey]

A Note on Domain Action DC's (this will be posted in Ch. 5 section, too):

Was it really necessary in the BRCS to lower DC's by one from their 2e origins?

IMC, for Rule Province or Holding I use DC 10 + target level of province/holding, which you might have noticed reading tcharazazel's examples ( I think he forgot that I even changed that ;) ).

In BRCS it was DC 10 + current level of province or holding.

To be blunt, I think my system's better: this way, it's 1 DC harder for every action, which answer's Athos69's concern about the +1/+2 bonus on Master Feats...there's where the extra +1 gets sucked up. :)

Also, it keeps ruling to higher levels just a tad harder, which is necessary when allowing +1 per +5 skill.

Finally, it makes a distinction between the Create Holding DC (10) and Ruling a Holding to level 1 (DC 11 now, was DC 10 in BRCS).

Raesene, a question: If Create Holding is so resource intensive that it cannot be done as a Realm Action, why is it one of the easiest Domain Actions in the game at DC 10? Whereas Ruling Holdings is more difficult, yet it's no problem to do up to 6 a month with a sufficient court?

[Raesene Andu]

Firstly, I should point out that I didn't write the original chapter 5 in the BRCS, I'm just editing it. Chapter 5 was added in virtually unedited, so is the one that will likely need the most alteration based on everyone's playtesting.


DC 10 + target level. I use the same rule, so likely that will be up for inclusion, unless someone can give me a valid reason why not.


As for Create Holding, I would imagine that setting up something from scratch is a lot more time consuming to do than expand something that already exists. It is also something that might take more of the regent's time (meeting the locals, arranging for building to be built, etc), rather than just delegating the work to his agents in that province (with rule and contest actions).

The reason it is unbalanced if you allow mutiple create actions is that it speeds up the maximising of holdings too much. If (with a sufficiently high court and resources) a regent could create mutiple holdings in one action, rule them the next action and so on, he could go from nothing to say 6 level 2 holdings in one domain turn. Is that realistic? If forced to create each holding individually then it would take at least 3 times as long for the same result.

As for it's DC, well that is only the base DC. It can be opposed by other regents and the province ruler with RP and their holding levels. That could make creating a holdings much more difficult if it is in enemy lands. That does hold true for all actions of course, but something to remember. Even friendly regent aren't going to sit by and allow compeditors to muscle into their territory.

[Osprey]

Fair enough - this is a case though where game balance really stands as the dominant reason more than any realism-rationalization. In truth, every realm action is decidedly powerful and potentially unbalancing, and represents the scope of a blooded regent's power in creating sweeping change. If pressed we could probably justify allowing or not allowing realm actions for any given domain action.

Speaking of which, for game balance, I was re-reading the original domain rules from 2e last night, and came across Create Trade Route, which was supposed to be allowed as a Realm Action. Please, gods, no!!! Here is a case where I'd say NO WAY should Trade Route be allowed as a realm action. Talk about unbalancing - trade routes are powerful additions to a guild's income. Moreover, being Diplomacy based, they should be considered at least as time-consuming and resource-intensive as creating a holding. I'd strongly advocate keeping them a standard domain action only. As it is, with the BRCS rules, guilders tend to become immensely wealthy even creating trade routes at a max. rate of 1 per month. No need to let that be speeded up.

Osprey

[Raesene Andu]

Yep, trade routes were originally realm actions, and I think produced more GB too. The rules were changed for the BRCS for exactly the reasons you highlighted.

[Osprey]

The more I've thought about key skills for actions, the more excited I've become about certain changes, the biggest one being:

Create/Contest/Rule Guild Holdings: Profession (Merchant)

I love making this skill a must-have for serious guild regents, it goes back to the original practical feel of the BR game as I remember my first impressions of it, and reinforces the BRCS-stated notion that things like Profession skills should be more important for characters in the BR setting.

Besides, Administrate is immensely useful simply for its cash-saving abilities alone, I'd be perfectly happy if it were only a key skill for Rule Province.

I'm still undecided as to what I think best for other holding types. But it's something that really needs to be resolved for the sake of finalizing those Master feats for Chapter 1. I'm really curious to hear any other ideas for input.

Another one I've proposed that I definitely still favor:

Coronation and Invest Province: Lead

This just makes sense to me, as these domain actions are the quintesential actions where charismatic leadership would have the biggest effect. Create Province is another one Lead might apply to for similar reasons, though if this actions is more about "taming the wilderness," then probably Administrate would be more appropriate.

For Law holdings, I'm really tempted to make Knowledge (Law) a key skill, though Lead is also an effective one here too. What do you think? I kind of miss the Law skill from 2e, but I'm not sure how it would fit into 3.5 BR as a useful skill seperate from regent uses. Perhaps manipulating the legal system to one's advantage?

Finally: I still am a big fan of Knowledge (Nature) to Create/Contest/Rule Sources, and K/Arcana to create ley lines.

Ideas? Comments? Yay or nay?

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Something I’ve been think about and rereading past posts on the subject was how to change the RP collection methods from the BRCS-playtest. While the skill-based collection system was great in concept it failed miserably mechanically when put into use.


In 2nd ed the RP collection method was very unbalanced, some classes made out far better than others in how much RP they could collect.

So something like this is what I was thinking of. A regent draws regency (RP) from his holdings as follows:


The amount of RP a regent can collect in a domain turn is limited to his bloodline score.

A regent chooses a primary class and for this class he collects RP at the full rate. For any other class he collects RP at ½ of the rate that class would normally collect. The question is whether or not the primary class should be fixed at character creation or be more flexible and fall along the line of whatever class the regent has the highest level in at the time of RP collection.

A regent can only collect RP once from each holding. That is he can’t collect full rate as a fighter and half the rate of a cleric for the same holding.

A regent of any class collects RP equal to the province rating for any province he controls.

Fighters – 1 ½ times the Law holding level

Clerics – the Temple holding level and ½ the Law holding level

Rogues – the Guild holding level and ½ the Trade Route level

Wizards/Sorcerers – 1 ½ times the Source holding level

Druids – 1 ½ times the Temple holding level or if allowing druids to hold sources then the Temple holding level and ½ the Source holding level

Ranger – 1 times the Trade Route level and ½ the Guild holding level or if allowing rangers to hold sources ½ the Guild holding level and ½ the Trade Route level and ½ the Source holding level

Bard – ½ the Guild holding level and ½ the Trade Route level and ½ the Law holding level

Barbarian – 1 times the Law holding level and ½ the Guild holding level (this one is real tough)

Noble – 1 ½ times either Law or Guild Holding level – the character must choose which is his focus when the first level of noble is acquired and this can’t be changed or 2 times the province rating for any province he controls (this one is by far the hardest one to handle)

[Osprey]

Hmmm....accepting the basic premise of class=RP collection rates for the time being...a few comments:

RP collection greater than holding levels? I have pretty strong feelings against this, as RP collections are going to shoot through the roof. In other words, there's goping to be way more RP out there than in any previous version of the game.

RP for trade routes? No way, baby! The GB from trade routes is more than enough reqward IMO. Those cash cows need no further incentive for any regent to build them, especially considering how easy they are to create as long as they're not opposed. Here I'm all in favor of splitting off from the 2e game.

I don't think Rangers, as minor spellcasters, should gain any regency from sources, though druids are a different matter. I think the cutoff should be no realm spells = no source RP collection.

What's wrong with a basic premise of 1 times the primary holding level and 1/2 times any secondary holding level? Also, do you think it's necesarily a problem if there are somewhat uneven collections? After all, it would be ridiculous to assume that all classes are equally well suited to being regents, however "fair" it might seem as a game mechanic.

If using class-based collections, I would go with something closer to the original game (leaving out trade routes). Allow one primary regent class for collection, this being the character's highest level class (this should be non-negotiable; your highest class level is certainly your character's main professional focus). If a character has two high classes of equal level, they may choose which is their primary regent class. Secondary class levels from multiclassing grant 1/2 normal collection rates for that class type (and yes, this does encourage multiclassing, but keep in mind that the multiclass monkeys will pay a heavy price in lack of specialized skills and abilities more often than not). Collections from secondary classes do not stack with one another or with the primary class collections. Also remember that there are more reasons than just RP collection to have certain holding types and trade routes, such as the general security of law holdings, income from trade routes and provinces, or realm spells from temples and sources.

Here's some revision suggestions:

Noble – Full Collection (1 RP per level) from Provinces
-Choose either Law or Guild for full collection at 1st level, the secondary type gets 1/2 collection (total all holding levels, round up).
[Yes, these are and should be, IMO, the 'favored sons' of regents, as they are born to rule].

Fighters – Full Province and Law collections

Clerics – Full Temple collections, 1/2 province and law

Paladins - 1/2 temple, law, and province collections [paladins probably don't make the greatest of focused regents, as their deific devotion is rather distracting from the duties of a ruler; however, totalling all 3 holding types may well add up enough to provide a good chunk of RP; also, with multiclass paladins some of this problem might be alleviated, such as Noble/Paladins of Haelyn, Cleric/Paladins of Neserie, or Fighter/Paladins]

Rogues – Full Guild collections, 1/2 province and law

Wizards/Sorcerers – Full Source collections, 1/2 province collections [wizards must multiclass to get anything from law or guild holdings, as seems only proper].

Druids – Full Temple and Source collections [without ley lines they are inferior source regents, and they make terrible landed regents; also, since sources are counter to land/temple levels, this will tend to balance itself more than a first impression might imply]

Ranger – Full Law collections, 1/2 province and guild

Bard – Full Guild collections, 1/2 province [I think blooded bards would make excellent guild regents if they put their mind to it, focusing on artisans and/or information networks for their guilds]

Barbarian – 1/2 Province, Law, and Guild collections [barbarians really are not well-suited to ruling anything resembling civilized provinces or holdings; levels in these places derive from organization, counter to any barbarian's focus]

OR...a possible alternative:
Barbarians gain only 1/2 province and law collections, but they also gain 1 RP per company of troops under their direct command (the regent barbarian must pay the units' maintenance). I like this one, as it represents the real measure of status and power for barbarians from classic D&D: the Horde. B)

So all in all, characters will get either full, half, or no regency collection for the primary class, and at best 1/2, 1/4, or no collection for secondary classes. I think this will lead to far less of a regency overflow problem, while encouraging appropriate classes for regents of certain holding types.

Another little stickler of a subject are prestige classes. Since these are built seperate from any direct base class level requirements, it's difficult to do the sensible thing, which would be to have PrC levels stack with the appropriate base class. I think it best to either ignore PrC levels entirely, or have them automatically stack with the highest class levels when determining the primary regent class. I'm leaning towards ignoring them as the least problematic way to go.

[harvs2]

I personally think that the GB cost of rule actions should be scaled in porpotion to the level of holding being ruled.

For instance...

The difference in a Level One holding and a Level Two holding is actually quite insignificant in many ways.

A level 1 holding handles about 1000 people, a level 2 handles about 2000. A level three holding though sees a large additonal of people (and as such more infrastructure is needed).

A GB cost of 1 GB per desired level seems to fairly simulate this difference for holdings levels.

Incidentally, it also has an affect of slowing the game down to a degree (it becomes rather expensive to do large scale realm actions to rule holdings).

[irdeggman]

I did have problems with having anyone get RP greater than holding level but was having trouble getting any type of evening out of RP colection. The 2nd ed system was flat out broke in this regard. Thieves and Clerics slammed fighters by gaining more RP from holdings.

The first premise is that a regent, regardless of what kind gains full regency from provinces. Aglondier is a prime example of a Wiz Regent (using the capital R for province ruler).

I really don't have trouble with ranger, bard or paladin not getting RP like other classes - but in the spirit of 3.5 it just didn't make sense to shaft them. It made more sense to spread their collection around to reflect their lack of focus.

So keeping in mind that all classes should be balanced per 3.5 concepts how would this be kept in regards to RP collection? Bring me another rock Osprey old man :D

[tcharazazel]

So the Noble class who gets x2.5, and all others can potentially get x1.5-x2 RP collections.

So the max RP you want to allow a regent to collect will be x2 RP, then irdeggman?

and then all classes should be able to get x2 RP then?

heheh, well if you go by the 3.5 idea of Balanced then you really will be ignoring the reasons why certain classes really were not meant to rule domains as well as other classes. So, whats your reasoning besides that 3.5 has balanced classes?

Additionally in 3.5 classes were mainly balanced for combat really... look at their social skill diferences and tell me they are balanced for the generally social domain level actions that are a large part of BR. Bards, Nobles and Rogues have far more social skills than any other class. So how should we balance them for a game that has a strong basis in social interactions as per 3.5? Heheh, doesnt really make sense then does it?

If you wanted to really use a more logical system, you should probably go by which skills are the dominante ones for ruling a province/holding. If they only get the skills as cross class skills then they should get 0 rp from ruling it (would have to multiclass to get RP then), if they have 1/2 the skills as class skills then they should get 1/2 the RP and if they have all skills as class skills then they should get full RP. True this would probably cause some unbalancing, however, it cerrtainly is more logcial and wouldnt be arbitrary balancing for balancing sake.

[Athos69]

A skill-based collection, in my personal opinion, is probably the most fair method of doing things. To use a 3.0/3.5 analogy, it opened up the option for a wizard to carry around and effectively use a Longsword if he wanted, provided he expended a feat on Martial Weapons Proficiency.

The same general concept should be adhered to. If said wizard wants to sacrifice skill points and throw them into something like Administrate, or Diplomacy or even Warcraft, he should be able to reap the benefits of doing so.

If Duane, you are so concerned with the proliferation of RP, then let's do something like stretching out the table, giving 100% Regency collection for higher skill rank totals.

An example would be if 20 ranks were needed for 100% collection, 5 could still be 0%, but you'd see 20% at 8, 40% at 11, 60% at 14, 80% at 17 and 100% at 20.

[Athos69]

Conversely, we could stipluate that it is the average of the skill ranks that determines the percentage of the RP income without fiddling with the table at all.

Using an average forces the player to take both (or all) of the skills to achieve the maximum RP collection as soon as possible. if the 100% threshold is set at 10 ranks (average), a character that puts ranks into only one of the skills will only get 100% collection at 17th level, where he can get 20 ranks. (20+0)/2 = 10

The drawback to this approach is that it will take a character until 3rd level to generate any RP at all.

If we go with an averaging scheme, I would expand the table a bit, setting a threshold of 4 ranks (average) for 10% collection.

[tcharazazel]

heh, thats definately the easier way to do it. If the average level of the NPC regents is 7th level, then they all could potentially have 20 ranks and thus 100% of the RP collection. Those who do not focus upon the required skills would get less RP, which makes sense.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 6 2004, 01:53 PM
So the Noble class who gets x2.5, and all others can potentially get x1.5-x2 RP collections.

So the max RP you want to allow a regent to collect will be x2 RP, then irdeggman?

and then all classes should be able to get x2 RP then?

But the bottom line is indeed that all classes should have the same potential to collect RP.

Where did you get this one from?

I said all regents gain full for provinces and that a noble gets 1 1/2 times either law or guild (depending on his focus).

There is no 2 1/2 times in any variation here. It is a multiplier and that must be kept in mind. Provinces are rated differently then holding and there are far more unlanded regents than there are landed ones.

All regents will be limited by their blood score for maximum RP collection - that will always be the limiting factor.

If anything is done to mess with the province tie in for regents than basically landed regents end up being given the shaft when in fact they should be held at a higher level of influence than non-landed regents.

[irdeggman]

Let me again clarify my opinion here - I really liked the skill based RP collection method. In theory it allowed for characters to get better as they got more skilled and again in theory it workd/sounded real good. But the mechanics got in the way - many many people talked about how the skill based system just didn't work (that was where I got what I did from - what people had said they wanted or at least wanted changed)

The skill based system gave in inherent advantage to classes with more skill points and someone pointed out that a rouge could fairly quickly gain max RP for all holdings due to the number of skill points they gained per level. In a domain-level based game this is quite a problem since people focus not on the adventure level skills but instead on the domain influencing ones - hence classeswith more skill points come out way ahead in the system. There is really no easy way to get around this either, which was why people had suggested going back to the class-based system instead, but to have diminishing returns for secondary classes since multi-classing is way more common now.


As far as 3.5 balance being combat-oriented, well that is indeed a flaw in the system. But the bottom line is still to not have a class that people want to play so much more than others because of its power in the system being used. So to keep the spirit of 3.5 since BR is definitely more skill/domain level based than a standard setting this intent for balance needs to carry over to the domain level of play (e.g., RP collection and domain actions). This is something that we clearly can control since it is not in the core rules.

[tcharazazel]

sry it wasnt clear enough for ya irdeggman, I was refering to Osprey's system. and if you look at it again, Nobles will get full for province (x1), full for Law or guild (x1), and 1/2 for the secondary (x.5) = 2.5. And if you look at your system ALL regents could potentially collect x2.5 RP as all got full RP from provinces, and all got a total of 1.5 from holdings = 2.5...

And I wasnt refering to the limit of only being able to collect up to their bloodline score, I was refering to keeping the multiplier equal for all classes. So at most people could collect x2.5 from the total province/holdings they have.

I used a multiplier as it is easier to keep track of it. I was just basing it as 1 level of holding = 1 RP normally, and its multiplied by the perfered class modifier.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Athos69@May 6 2004, 02:41 PM

If Duane, you are so concerned with the proliferation of RP, then let's do something like stretching out the table, giving 100% Regency collection for higher skill rank totals.

I was not concerned with the proliferation of RP only with developing a relatively easy to use and 'balanced' system.

[tcharazazel]

heh, an easy example of what i meant is a noble with a level 6 province, level 6 Law and level 6 Guild would get 6*2.5=15 RP or 6 + 6 + 3= 15 RP.

just really depends on how you want to think about it.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 6 2004, 03:11 PM
sry it wasnt clear enough for ya irdeggman, I was refering to Osprey's system. and if you look at it again, Nobles will get full for province (x1), full for Law or guild (x1), and 1/2 for the secondary (x.5) = 2.5. And if you look at your system ALL regents could potentially collect x2.5 RP as all got full RP from provinces, and all got a total of 1.5 from holdings = 2.5...

And I wasnt refering to the limit of only being able to collect up to their bloodline score, I was refering to keeping the multiplier equal for all classes. So at most people could collect x2.5 from the total province/holdings they have.

I used a multiplier as it is easier to keep track of it. I was just basing it as 1 level of holding = 1 RP normally, and its multiplied by the perfered class modifier.
That is pretty much what I was aiming for, the sums adding up to 5 1/2s for all classes.

For those classes that really aren't suited for ruling like bards, rangers and possibly paladins (although there is Elinie) the most logical way to handle this while still maintaining balance is to spread it out over more holding types which forces them to have higher levels of holdings or a lot of holdings in order to keep up with a more 'suitable' class. Either option is more difficult for them to accomplish.

I do like the barbarian and troops tie in, law holdings just didn't seem right even though they still must maintain control over their lands.

I also forgot the scion classes which probably should be handled like the noble for this purpose.

[Athos69]

Originally posted by irdeggman@May 6 2004, 01:09 PM
The skill based system gave in inherent advantage to classes with more skill points and someone pointed out that a rouge could fairly quickly gain max RP for all holdings due to the number of skill points they gained per level. In a domain-level based game this is quite a problem since people focus not on the adventure level skills but instead on the domain influencing ones - hence classeswith more skill points come out way ahead in the system. There is really no easy way to get around this either, which was why people had suggested going back to the class-based system instead, but to have diminishing returns for secondary classes since multi-classing is way more common now.
Duane, I wasn't bashing you there.. I was trying to make a case for retaining the skill point system, but with some tweaks that make it more palatable.

True, the Rogue gets alot of skill points, but that has al;rady been offset by the large number of skills that are tied to the collection of Guild RP. In fact, the Guilds are already using a form of averaging to determine their RP collection.

If we use the averaging scheme, it makes it much more difficult to get RP without concentrating on those skills. We also need to think about Wizards. They may only get 2 skill points per level, but their high INT scores almost guarantee them 2 or 3 points in addition to any racial bonus. On the other hand, Sorcerers don't have the benefit of a high INT -- this makes increasing the number of skills for Source RP collection a dicey prospect.

[irdeggman]

Maybe I'll just start another poll. Those are alwyas popular.

[tcharazazel]

we should try to give them at least 2 good examples before we turn to the polls.

So we have 2 clear examples i mean, not just use skill points or have it class based.

[Athos69]

I agree. Peiople should understand the mechanics behind it before they vote.

[Athos69]

Here's the averaging writeup for the poll, Duane....


Skill Point Averaging.

For purposes of determining RP collection, the average of all relevant skills (determined by table 5-9 -- Key Regent Skills) is taken and the result is compared to Table 5-10 -- Regency Collection.

With the current Table 5-10, this has the effect of making it more difficult for characters to achieve 100% RP collection until higher levels, with 7th level being the minimum level needed to get 100% and 3rd level being the mimium to get 20% collection. The Table will, of course, be adapted to slide this curve up, down or flatten it as desired.

The advantage is that Regents can no longer ignore all aspects of ruling their realm, concentrating on only the most critical skills. This promotes balance in character development and skill sets.

The disadvantage is that Table 5-10 will need to be reworked so that characters of level 1 can collect some Regency and we lose 'unique' characters with very narrow focus.

[tcharazazel]

mayb have the table go by 10%s then?

So it would be 1-10 where 1=10% and 10=100%. that way a level 1 character can gain RP.

Or we can just say, that low level regents are really out of their depth when trying to effectively rule a domain (which does make sense as they dont really have enough ranks in right skills anyway, nor experience atruling).

[Athos69]

I would support the 1-10 = 10-100% table...

[tcharazazel]

ok then for the averaging write up it would look like this:

Take the average of the total number of ranks in the main skills for the province/holding a regent has and multiply it by 10% to get the total % of RP collected from the province/holding.

Formulas:
For all except guilds

(total ranks in skill 1 + skill 2) / 2 x 10% = total % gained

For guilds

(Total ranks in Appraise + Bluff + Craft (any) + Diplomacy + Gather Information + Intimidate + Proffession (any) + Sense Motive) / 8 x 10% = total % gained

All RP collected is rounded down.

For example:
A regent (4th level noble/1st level scion of Anduiras, with Int 16, so total 68 skill points) has 8 ranks in Diplomacy, Lead, Warcraft, Bluff, Gather Information, Intimidate, P/Merchant and Sense Motive and 4 ranks in Craft (weaponsmith).

If hes regent of a total of 10 province levels, 10 Law holdings and 10 guildings. So a quick calc of how much % RP he gets for each type:

Province RP: (8+8) / 2 x 10% = 80% x 10 = 8 RP

Law RP: (8+8) / 2 x 10% = 80% x 10 = 8 RP

Guilds RP: (8+8+8+8+8+8+8+4) / 8 x 10% = 60/8 x 10% = 75% x 10 = 7.5 RP so its rounded down to 7 RP

Thus the regent would collect a total of 23 RP out of a total of 30 RP.



Ok, next one then. Using the by class basis for RP collections... we still need to decide on which version we want to use. or actually we dont need to, and just leave it up to the poll to decide, and show both methods summed up here clearly and their reasoning, so there would be 3 things to vote on... I'm not sure how to sum up these two easily so ill just repaste em instead.

irdeggman's Version:

A regent of any class collects RP equal to the province rating for any province he controls.

Fighters – 1 ½ times the Law holding level

Clerics – the Temple holding level and ½ the Law holding level

Rogues – the Guild holding level and ½ the Trade Route level

Wizards/Sorcerers – 1 ½ times the Source holding level

Druids – 1 ½ times the Temple holding level or if allowing druids to hold sources then the Temple holding level and ½ the Source holding level

Ranger – 1 times the Trade Route level and ½ the Guild holding level or if allowing rangers to hold sources ½ the Guild holding level and ½ the Trade Route level and ½ the Source holding level

Bard – ½ the Guild holding level and ½ the Trade Route level and ½ the Law holding level

Barbarian – 1 times the Law holding level and ½ the Guild holding level (this one is real tough)

Noble – 1 ½ times either Law or Guild Holding level – the character must choose which is his focus when the first level of noble is acquired and this can’t be changed or 2 times the province rating for any province he controls (this one is by far the hardest one to handle)



Osprey's version:

Noble – Full Collection (1 RP per level) from Provinces
-Choose either Law or Guild for full collection at 1st level, the secondary type gets 1/2 collection (total all holding levels, round up).
[Yes, these are and should be, IMO, the 'favored sons' of regents, as they are born to rule].

Fighters – Full Province and Law collections

Clerics – Full Temple collections, 1/2 province and law

Paladins - 1/2 temple, law, and province collections [paladins probably don't make the greatest of focused regents, as their deific devotion is rather distracting from the duties of a ruler; however, totalling all 3 holding types may well add up enough to provide a good chunk of RP; also, with multiclass paladins some of this problem might be alleviated, such as Noble/Paladins of Haelyn, Cleric/Paladins of Neserie, or Fighter/Paladins]

Rogues – Full Guild collections, 1/2 province and law

Wizards/Sorcerers – Full Source collections, 1/2 province collections [wizards must multiclass to get anything from law or guild holdings, as seems only proper].

Druids – Full Temple and Source collections [without ley lines they are inferior source regents, and they make terrible landed regents; also, since sources are counter to land/temple levels, this will tend to balance itself more than a first impression might imply]

Ranger – Full Law collections, 1/2 province and guild

Bard – Full Guild collections, 1/2 province [I think blooded bards would make excellent guild regents if they put their mind to it, focusing on artisans and/or information networks for their guilds]

Barbarian – 1/2 Province, Law, and Guild collections [barbarians really are not well-suited to ruling anything resembling civilized provinces or holdings; levels in these places derive from organization, counter to any barbarian's focus]

OR...a possible alternative:
Barbarians - 1/2 province and law collections, but they also gain 1 RP per company of troops under their direct command (the regent barbarian must pay the units' maintenance). I like this one, as it represents the real measure of status and power for barbarians from classic D&D: the Horde.

[Athos69]

Looks good, except for one thing that I *just* thought of...

What if a character had more than one Profession or Craft skill? Should we specify the sum total of these skills, or use just the highest?

[tcharazazel]

Hmm... honestly i wasnt sure of that either :) heheh. I figured that they could either pick 1 cause otherwise they will really not get much from those 2 parts of the guild RP collection.

However, to follow trough with the logic used in the averaging process, then they should be averaged and the number used for the ranks in Craft and Proffesion should = the average craft ranks and the average proffesion ranks.

Thus to repaste that formula then:

For guilds

(Total ranks in Appraise + Bluff + Craft (any)/#Craft skills + Diplomacy + Gather Information + Intimidate + Proffession (any)/#Proffession skills + Sense Motive) / 8 x 10% = total % gained


So using the previous example's noble and just giving him an extra craft and proffession skill.

A regent (4th level noble/1st level scion of Anduiras, with Int 16, so total 68 skill points) has 8 ranks in Diplomacy, Lead, Warcraft, Bluff, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Sense Motive and 4 ranks in P/Merchant, P/Sailor, and 2 ranks in Craft (weaponsmith), Craft(armorsmith).


If hes regent of a total of 10 province levels, 10 Law holdings and 10 guildings. So a quick calc of how much % RP he gets for each type:

Province RP: (8+8) / 2 x 10% = 80% x 10 = 8 RP

Law RP: (8+8) / 2 x 10% = 80% x 10 = 8 RP

Guilds RP: (8+8+(2+2)/2+8+8+8+(4+4)/2+8) / 8 x 10% = 54/8 x 10% = 67.5% x 10 = 6.75 RP so its rounded down to 6 RP.

Thus the regent would collect a total of 22 RP out of a total of 30 RP.

[Athos69]

If we do that, then we are averaging ranks twice....

I feel that it should be either the highest number of ranks, or the sum total ranks for all of the sub-skills in Craft or Profession.

What to others think of this?

[tcharazazel]

hmm, well id probably stick with what i first thought then, and just let them pick 1 skill to apply. heheh, just got into averaging...

[Athos69]

-Or- would knowing additional professions or crafts give the character an advantage in dealing with a myriad of differing businesses and local guilds?

Food for though, as they say...

[tcharazazel]

well, lets see then. ill use the last example and just not average the skills prior to averaging the group.

A regent (4th level noble/1st level scion of Anduiras, with Int 16, so total 68 skill points) has 8 ranks in Diplomacy, Lead, Warcraft, Bluff, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Sense Motive and 4 ranks in P/Merchant, P/Sailor, and 2 ranks in Craft (weaponsmith), Craft(armorsmith).


If hes regent of a total of 10 province levels, 10 Law holdings and 10 guildings. So a quick calc of how much % RP he gets for each type:

Province RP: (8+8) / 2 x 10% = 80% x 10 = 8 RP

Law RP: (8+8) / 2 x 10% = 80% x 10 = 8 RP

Guilds RP: (8+8+2+2+8+8+8+4+4+8) / 10 x 10% = 60/10 x 10% = 60% x 10 = 6 RP

Thus the regent would collect a total of 22 RP out of a total of 30 RP.

Heheh well if he had been the regent of 12 guild holdings then.

Guilds RP: (8+8+2+2+8+8+8+4+4+8) / 10 x 10% = 60/10 x 10% = 60% x 12 = 7.2 RP rounded to 7RP

or with the avg craft and Proffession method:

Guilds RP: (8+8+(2+2)/2+8+8+8+(4+4)/2+8) / 8 x 10% = 54/8 x 10% = 67.5% x 12 = 8.1 RP rounded to 8RP

Heheh, so using your method the actual collection of RP from guilds will always be less than or at best equal to the avg craft and proffession method.

So, actually knowing more of those skills would only be an advantage if their total ranks are averaged together and the avg Craft of Proffession skill is used.

[irdeggman]

One problem with Osprey's version is that Fighters get the shaft again. Clerics and Rogues will gain more RP then they do when Fighters were the most prolific regents in BR. Also there are almost no examples of rounding up in 3.5, the default is to round down (there can be a minimum value - at least 1)


There is at least one province with a paladin regent in Anuire (Elinie) and IIRC there is one in Khinasi. These are projected as being amongst the most stable of domains. So while paladins would most likely choose not to be regents for faith reasons they in fact make excellent regents because of it, well maybe not Cuircean.

There is also a domain with a bard regent in Anuire and at least 2 with clerics (Talnie and Medoere) so pretty much there are examples of landed regents of all classes in the 2nd ed books, with fighters being the most common.

IMO all classes should have roughly the same distribution of RP collection, only spread over different holdings/provinces.

[tcharazazel]

irdeggman dude, how many of the regents are still gonna be fighters now with the inclusion of the Noble class? Most likely.. about 1-3. Fighters will become a much rarer ruler type.

How many pali regents did you say were? 2 in all of Cerillia? If that doesnt tell you they dont make good regents versus others i dont know what would. Just because these 2 exceptional palis break the obvious norm by ruling a domain doesnt meant that ALL palis are gifted to it. Thats just like extrapolating from 2 examples that ALL lawyers are good, loving, trustworthy people because your parents are lawyers... heheh, not a way to base an argument really. Learned that one in college debate 101.

The same logic would apply to your other examples. If bards, and clerics made such good regents why were they so uncommon? If they are so obviously better at being regents than the fighters why were they controling so few domains? It makes no sense. It makes even less sense now as fighters will be replaced with Nobles as the dominate landed regent and we all know Nobles were definately made to rule.

[Osprey]

One problem with Osprey's version is that Fighters get the shaft again.

As Tcharazazel, said: Fighters can and should be replaced by Nobles in most cases. Besides, what pure Fighters in your world could or should EVER be even remotely competent temple or guild regents? There is absolutely zero logic in that.

I'll say for this, and it will apply to all of the others: Multiclassing remains a very viable option to gain at least partial regency for other holding types if that's the way they want to go. Personally, I thought I was being generous with Fighters, as their complete lack of rulership skills (and here again, I think the BRCS was throwing them a bone by somehow equating Warcraft with rulership skills??? Might make 'em popular, but doesn't make 'em competent!).


Also there are almost no examples of rounding up in 3.5, the default is to round down (there can be a minimum value - at least 1)

Well, if it must be purely 3.5, then fine. I was just trying to allow for a bit more generosity with the fractional RP collections.


There is at least one province with a paladin regent in Anuire (Elinie) and IIRC there is one in Khinasi. These are projected as being amongst the most stable of domains. So while paladins would most likely choose not to be regents for faith reasons they in fact make excellent regents because of it, well maybe not Cuircean.


Well as I only know about Elinie, I'll deal with that. While Elinie might be a very stable realm, it also appears to be one of the most stagnant. RoE talks about this being due to Anuirean prejudice against its Khinasi rulers, but personally I think it has something to do with the fact that paladins really aren't great rulers when it comes to things like Ruling Provinces and Holdings. Stability, on the other hand, while partly dependent on RP (defending against enemy Create or Contest Holding actions mainly), is also largely dependent on things like domain attitude, military security, and charismatic appeal - all paladin strengths. So yes, paladins as regents might be very good at generating stable realms, but not necesarily at dynamic growing realms. Finally, look at the level of Elinie's regent, and his policy regarding his children all competing for the position of heir, and you'll understand why one high-level regent succeeds the previous one. And a high level regent will always make for a better ruler and certainly be better able to provide that stability.


There is also a domain with a bard regent in Anuire and at least 2 with clerics (Talnie and Medoere) so pretty much there are examples of landed regents of all classes in the 2nd ed books, with fighters being the most common.

Keep in mind that the 2e humans didn't have multiclassing, which makes for an extremely different world than a revision might allow.

When I remade Laela Flaertes (Duchess of Tuornen) for my campaign, she ended up being a Noble/Bard rather than a pure bard, as she was reared by the nobility for at least part of her life. Hence she was able to be a competent landed regent as a result (tho I was using the BRCS collection system then).

Talinie and Medoere? Well, who said just because they are landed regents they have to get full RP collection from province levels? I have yet to really hear a good argument for WHY everyone should get full collection from provinces, as if everyone is equally well-suited to this role. That makes no sense to me. The regents of Talinie could be quite competent regents by getting full collection from temples and 1/2 from law and land - that's 2x total holding levels if they're all of equal level, which should be more than enough to at least approach their bloodline limits if not exceed them. Where's the problem here?

In my system, the average RP collection is more like 2x total holding levels, with slight adjustments higher or lower depending on the class: Nobles are slightly better as they are best suited to rulership and regency; Paladins, Barbarians, Bards, and Mages are slightly lower at 1-1/2 for various reasons because they make poorer rulers in general. Mages require specialization as source regents to really do well as regents, which is fitting. Bards do well as Guild regents, but not much else (I threw in provinces for the sake of Laela, to be honest). And Paladins and Barbarians are just not great regents at all.

If anything, I think the only real inconsistency in any of this are the Fighters, who realistically would be even poorer than I described, but for the sake of the 2e game and a nod to the importance of military in the medieval world, I'll leave them alone.

SO all in all, I'm pretty satisfied with my initial setup, qualifying option #2 for Barbarians as the preferred choice.

and finally, one last thing must be said:

We've only been at this for a day or two! Let's let this brew and give ourselves time to reflect and consider things before jumping into a poll. Many BR.net members may not have even had a chance to look at these options yet, let alone comment. Give it a few more days at least, as there may be other ideas, and certainly other comments or criticism, that could be invaluable in refining these ideas or giving us alternatives.
Osprey

[geeman]

At 08:43 AM 5/7/2004 +0200, Osprey wrote:



>
One problem with Osprey`s version is that Fighters get the shaft

> again.

>

> As Tcharazazel, said: Fighters can and should be replaced by Nobles in

> most cases. Besides, what pure Fighters in your world could or should

> EVER be even remotely competent temple or guild regents? There is

> absolutely zero logic in that.



Kind of a leap here... but I think there is an argument that nobles should

gain RP from control of province population levels (with half RP collection

for law holdings) while fighters gain RP from control of law holdings, and

that all other classes should gain 1/2 RP from provinces. In that context,

all of the regents who are clerics, rogues or wizards in the original

materials would probably be redefined to have a few levels as nobles, and

most of the existing landed regents would vary their levels between noble

and fighter.



Gary

[Osprey]

Kind of a leap here... but I think there is an argument that nobles should
gain RP from control of province population levels (with half RP collection
for law holdings) while fighters gain RP from control of law holdings, and
that all other classes should gain 1/2 RP from provinces. In that context,
all of the regents who are clerics, rogues or wizards in the original
materials would probably be redefined to have a few levels as nobles, and
most of the existing landed regents would vary their levels between noble
and fighter.

Gary


Yeesh! That's kinda harsh, isn't it? While I see the logic behind the fighters (and it was what I had been thinking was most logical but rather unfair to all those converts from 2e), why would nobles not be excellent Law regents? If Law holdings were nothing but military training centers, then OK, I see your point. And while they clearly serve this function, they're also bearacratic and legislative bodies too, especially in higher level provinces where's it more than just the local reeves, wardens, and/or bailiffs. Legalism seems to me to go hand in hand with the Noble class just as well as landed rulership does. I always imagine the emissary's role, something Noble class characters are ideally suited for, and how working out some diplomatic agreement involves a mass of legalistic terms, conditions, exceptions, etc. These guys thrive on Law as muchas they do on the land. As for the military aspect, well true, no one's better at pure warfare than fighters, but nobles are pretty darn close, and with Warcraft and Lead as a class skills, there's no reason they can't do the job just as well.

[irdeggman]

Fighters lead that is what the class is about. It is about training and tactics (most of the fighter feats revolve around some kind of personal tactics) and not brute force.

In Anuire and Khinasi both societies are militant oriented. They are much more likely to follow the path of great generals rather than the noble - which is not necessarily one that has royal blood, although being decended from royalty whoudl make one a noble there is always the nouveau riche (those guilders who have bought their way into privilege).

Nobles are basically only found in Anuire, Khinasi and Brechtur. While Anuire and Khinasi are much more military orientated hence their greatest leaders are from military backgrounds. This does not exclude a noble who focused on military training, but he should still never be as good at it as is a fighter. All of the greatest leaders in those two cultures were great generals and pretty much only Michael Roele was from a family that could be considered nobility - although it was generally earned and his ancestors that weren't good miltary leaders were terrible emperors - hence the tie in to fighter vice pure noble.

In Brechtur a case could be made for nobles making the predominant ruling class, but their society strikes me more as paying lip service to the nobles (read how they incorporated the Anuirean rulers into their society) and following those who actully prove themselves as great merchants.

[irdeggman]

We also need to be careful that the Noble class doesn't evolve into something that has so many game advantages over the other classes that it becomes an essential one to have. If that is what happens then the class itself needs to be adjusted to make it less of a 'must have' or else all of the balance of the system (3.5) goes out the window.

[harvs2]

I don't know if this was mentioned but the wording for Contest, Rule and the various other actions that can be preformed as realm actions need to be revised.

In their current wording they give the impression that they are exempt from the rules of realm actions as describe on pg. 102.

[The Jew]

They don't give the impression that they are exceptions to the general rule; they clearly articulate that they do not follow the general rule from pg 102.

Yes harvs2, we carry this discussion from one site to the next. :lol:

Carilon

[Athos69]

"Indeed...."

-The Chamberlain. :)

[Athos69]

Perhaps we need to look at the definition of 'Realm' for the revised Chapter 5.

[The Jew]

I agree with harvs2 reading of pg 102, but if you read the realm action descriptions for individual actions the opposite conclusion is reached.

Contest holding: This action can be supported by court actions to affect the scope of an entire realm. For each court action spent, an additional holding of the same type or held by the same opposing regent can be selected. 'pg 107'

Rule Holding: If a domain takes a rule holding as its standard action it may use additional court actions to rule holdings of the same type in other provinces. For each court action used, an additional holding of the same type may be affected. 'pg 110'

Both of those realm action descriptions clearly are in opposition to your argument, and therefore the rule stated on pg 102. Besides which rule to followe, my main question is what is the definition of a realm. Is it the scope of ones holdings or is it clearly defined political units such as Avanil or Alamie. If it is the latter would the Empire be a political unit for the Emperor or would his actions be limited by scope of single realms?

[harvs2]

Then it is apparant that either the pg. 102 for Realm Action is very misworded, or the Agitite, Contest Holding and Rule Holding actions are misworded utterly (these are the only three actions that can be realm actions and 2 of them deviate from the rule of realm actions???). Either way one of them needs to be revised. As it stands though, the articualtion of the 3rd edition realm action is far different from that of 2nd edition. I have the feeling that this was not intentional, but a function of miswording.

The point remains that a major contradiciton exists, and perhaps it can be answered by the author of the section for the 3e BRCS Chap. 5.


A realm (an an english word) is define as the following:

1. A community or territory over which a sovereign rules; a kingdom.
2. A field, sphere, or province: the realm of science.

In the case of the Emperor, though a soveriegn ruler of sorts, he disseminates his power to others, but in the case of the Emperor, the only thing that should prevent him is either a lack of holding (a holding is still required to take an action) or lack of communication (because of distance). But other than this there is little to say that an Emperor couldn't take a realm action across the territories of his Empire.

Empire

1. a ) A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority; b ) The territory included in such a unit.
2. An extensive enterprise under a unified authority: a publishing empire.
3. Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control: “There is a growing sense that the course of empire is shifting toward the... Asians” (James Traub).

This is what an empire is.


So my point becomes that a realm is by its definition land (this land forms a political unit). Realm actions as such in both their intention (I believe) and there name implies that they are in fact limited to a single scope of a realm (though they may in fact effect different provinces).

[harvs2]

Originally posted by irdeggman@May 7 2004, 02:58 PM
Fighters lead that is what the class is about. It is about training and tactics (most of the fighter feats revolve around some kind of personal tactics) and not brute force.

In Anuire and Khinasi both societies are militant oriented. They are much more likely to follow the path of great generals rather than the noble - which is not necessarily one that has royal blood, although being decended from royalty whoudl make one a noble there is always the nouveau riche (those guilders who have bought their way into privilege).

Nobles are basically only found in Anuire, Khinasi and Brechtur. While Anuire and Khinasi are much more military orientated hence their greatest leaders are from military backgrounds. This does not exclude a noble who focused on military training, but he should still never be as good at it as is a fighter. All of the greatest leaders in those two cultures were great generals and pretty much only Michael Roele was from a family that could be considered nobility - although it was generally earned and his ancestors that weren't good miltary leaders were terrible emperors - hence the tie in to fighter vice pure noble.

In Brechtur a case could be made for nobles making the predominant ruling class, but their society strikes me more as paying lip service to the nobles (read how they incorporated the Anuirean rulers into their society) and following those who actully prove themselves as great merchants.
I rather disagree with you.

The ability to fight a large-scale is not dependent upon the ability to wield a sword with mastery. The ability to lead men is not gained by the ability to wield a sword either. A Fighter is a master of weapons and combat. This is what he is intended to be. Nobles are masters of ruling. This is what they are intended to be.

A problem that I see is that warfare is by no means a function of personal battle prowess. It is far more like a science. It carries different rules from a battle between two ppl, maintaining only elements from this. It would be a misnomer to say that a battle between two armies of 300 hundred men is simply three hundred simple battles between two men. Instead their are considerations of food, manuevering, anticipation (the motives/goals of the opponent), and far more which a Noble would be most adept to.

Also, if you want to talk about leading people, I would put my money of a cleric far more quickly that I would a fighter. It is amazing how much influence a temple can have when the people come to rely on them to save their immortal souls. There is also a great deal of politicking neccessary to administer their particular flocks.

[Osprey]

The ability to fight a large-scale is not dependent upon the ability to wield a sword with mastery. The ability to lead men is not gained by the ability to wield a sword either. A Fighter is a master of weapons and combat. This is what he is intended to be. Nobles are masters of ruling. This is what they are intended to be.

Agreed. However, I would add that Fighters in BR, right from its 2e beginnings, were expanded to be equally able as strategists, field commanders, and charismatic leadership.

Now, to assume that fighters are BETTER suited to be these things than nobles? I think this is a leap of logic that has no basis in anything other than a conservative attachment to the original game which said that Fighters are the ideal landed regents. I think this view is detrimental to a revised BR game in which the Noble becomes an integral, if not central, figure of the ruling class of regents in the majority of Cerilia. We simply cannot compare to the original game because in it Fighters WERE the Nobles of the revised game in most cases.

Let's revise our perspective to better suit a new definition of major regent classes, and admit that yes, Nobles are going to better rulers than Fighters in almost all cases. Do they have undue advantage as rulers over Fighters? Yes. Is this in conflict with 3.5? Not if you're running a classic BR game, one balanced between adventure and domain actions. And this kind of game is what I think must be the standard around which the rev. BRCS is designed. To weight it toward one aspect or the other will inevitably skew the balance. In a PBeM, I think it's inevitable that the Noble will become a favored class of PC's, and this may in fact simply reflect a political reality: those born and raised and trained to be rulers are in fact going to be the best rulers more often than not. I think it's ridiculous to try and introduce some sort of artificial, hard-to-believe situation in which somehow every single character class has almost exactly equal potential to be proficient rulers, regardless of upbringing, training, and applicable experience. This perfect balance of political power is simply fantastical in the extreme, and would be an insult to the somewhat mature atmosphere of the not-so-pretty realities of politics and power that make Birthright a better-than-typical (IMHO) D&D campaign setting.

Osprey

[geeman]

At 04:21 PM 5/7/2004 +0200, Osprey wrote:



> Yeesh! That`s kinda harsh, isn`t it?



I know it seems like it, but if one takes into consideration the actual

number of regents it`ll effect it`s really not that drastic as it seems at

first. Consider, for instance, the following three things:



1. Since landed regents tend to be fighters in the original materials, if

those characters have their levels split up between noble and fighter

levels they will, essentially, be unaffected by the change.



2. There are a lot of non-fighters in the original materials, but that

number is a fraction of those who have fighter levels. At a guesstimate,

it`s somewhere in the neighborhood of less than 1/4 of those with fighter

levels. (If anyone has an actual number based on spreadsheets or their

PBeM tables I`d be interested to know what the actual numbers were.) In

most of those cases one really could justify a level or three of a noble PC

class in a 3e update of the campaign. Take Count Danigau as an

example. While he`s given only wizard levels, a few noble levels would

suit his character description quite well. Since most of what we now think

of as being part of a noble PC class was assumed to be handled by strictly

non-mechanical role-playing/colour material, I think it`s sensible to

assume such characters in a 3e update that actually has a noble PC class

might be better portrayed by multi-classing. I`d suggest of those

characters in the original materials who are not fighters and control

provinces probably around half (maybe more) could be so interpreted in a 3e

conversion.



3. Not every non-fighter regent who controls provinces in the original

materials, however, is described as having noble characteristics like

Danigau... but so what? It`s not the end of the world if a regent who

controls provinces can only collect half RP from them. In many cases,

those same regents will still get their full RP collection from the

holdings typical of their class--which is unavailable to fighters or

nobles. I haven`t had the time to go through all the existing characters

to see how their RP collection ight actually be affected, but I suspect

this one is much like the concern expressed about access to RP when 3e

first came out and multi-classing was much more open. In practice, the

bloodline score maxes out RP collection at a point before it would make a

difference for most of the existing regents, and in those few cases in

which it made a difference it was a low (single digit) number of RP that

were gained. That can make a difference in the long run, but it`s not

imbalancing. (Those cases in which RP collection would be drastically

altered, BTW, are probably good candidates for re-interpretation per #2 above.)



I should also note that I disagree with the opinion expressed that the

noble PC class would be common only amongst the Anuireans, Brecht and

Khinasi. Aside from ignoring that elves and dwarves would be as apt to

take a few levels, I think this is really a rather narrow interpreation of

the class itself, and isn`t based on either the class as written (other

than that colour commentary itself) or the limitations of the culture. In

reality, nobles are ubiquitous to all cultures, and the noble class itself

could be used to portray not just a "titled aristocracy" but a character`s

abilities and skill set. Even a local chieftain or the leader of a

barbarian horde might have his abilities reflected by taking a few levels

as a noble. It`s more productive to think of the class as a way of

portraying a character`s abilities and emphasis, not as the class as a way

of reflecting the particulars of a titled social class alone.



Also, the noble skill set could be apt to describing the characteristics of

any of the regents who control just holdings. Pictures, for example, an

aristocratic guilder whose wealth and influence give him the aura of

leadership that is often associated with nobility. He is (almost

literally) a "merchant prince." Similarly, many religious figures can and

should be interpreted as not only living in the rarified world of theology,

but also amongst what are, in effect, the social classes of nobility. Many

(too many to count) members of the clergy also had noble rank in the

medieval period. The noble class should be as common among BR regents as

the commoner class is amongst everyone else. It is, in effect, the class

of regents. (Along with a scion class, I suppose....)



>While I see the logic behind the fighters (and it was what I had been

>thinking was most logical but rather unfair to all those converts from

>2e), why would nobles not be excellent Law regents? If Law holdings were

>nothing but military training centers, then OK, I see your point. And

>while they clearly serve this function, they`re also bearacratic and

>legislative bodies too, especially in higher level provinces where`s it

>more than just the local reeves, wardens, and/or bailiffs. Legalism seems

>to me to go hand in hand with the Noble class just as well as landed

>rulership does. I always imagine the emissary`s role, something Noble

>class characters are ideally suited for, and how working out some

>diplomatic agreement involves a mass of legalistic terms, conditions,

>exceptions, etc. These guys thrive on Law as muchas they do on the

>land. As for the military aspect, well true, no one`s better at pure

>warfare than fighters, but nobles are pretty darn close, and with Warcraft

>and Lead as a class skills, there`s no reason they can`t do the job just

>as well.



When it comes to military training centers I think provinces are more apt

to describe that aspect of the domain level since units are mustered based

more upon the province population levels than law holding levels. In fact,

law holding levels needn`t be used at all in mustering troops.



When it comes to who should have full access to RP collection from law

holdings, there are interpretations that could go either way. I see law

holdings as being more like the sheriffs and the constables, the patrols

and the guards, while the control over the province itself is what would be

the "infrastructure" of a bureaucracy of the type that nobles are most apt

to controlling. That`s not to say nobles would be inept or incapable of

controlling law holdings. I just think the comparison of "noble is to law

holding" is more similar to "as paladin is to temple" or "as ranger is to

guild" than it would be to "as cleric is to temple" or (in this case) "as

fighter is to law holding."



Gary

[The Jew]

Could fighters be slightly tinkered with to make them more general like. The simplice way would be to expand the selection of feats they can spend their fighter bonus feats on. Include Military genius, Great Leader, Skill focus(lead or warcraft) and leadership. This would be particularly useful in giving them added flexibility depending on the type of game, whether its table-top or PBEM.

[tcharazazel]

yeah, letting fighters get Conqueror, Discipline, Great Leader, Hardiness and Military Genius all make sense to add to the bonus feat list. However, not the skill focus as skills are definately not a fighters strong suit.

[Don E]

Originally posted by The Jew@May 7 2004, 06:50 PM
They don't give the impression that they are exceptions to the general rule; they clearly articulate that they do not follow the general rule from pg 102.

I wouldn't say that they clearly go against the definition of a realm action as described on p102. While reading the relevant paragraph in each three actions I cannot find any reference allowing for the action to be performed in more than one realm.

The interesting part here, IMO, is that most people I have played with allow for a realm action to be performed throughout a domain rather than limiting to a single realms. As others have commented on, the current definition puts a significant constraint on those regent with domains spanning several realms, typically guilds and some temples. To get around this, a lot of games allows for this changed use of the realm action

I would suggest that the definition of a realm action is changed so it allows for regents to perform it within their domains, irrespective of the political borders they cross. While this might appear heretical to some people, I think it makes more sense and a more playable game for the majority of non-landed regents.

One might also wish to reinstate the rule allowing for Espionage to be taken as a realm action when spying on militray forces.

Cheers,
E

[Don E]

Originally posted by Athos69@May 7 2004, 07:43 PM
Perhaps we need to look at the definition of 'Realm' for the revised Chapter 5.
I agree. While the definition on p89 of the BRCS ("Any domain that includes one or more provinces is a realm") seems straight foward enough, it could do with some rewriting. How about "Any number of provinces owned by the same regent is a realm"? In this way it is possible to differentiate between a domain and a group of provices (realm), and a regent may control both.

[Osprey]

I would suggest that the definition of a realm action is changed so it allows for regents to perform it within their domains, irrespective of the political borders they cross. While this might appear heretical to some people, I think it makes more sense and a more playable game for the majority of non-landed regents.


I've thought about this one alot, and even tried both versions, but I have to say: as frustrating as it might be for non-landed regents to have to respect and work within landed regents' realm borders it makes sense. Each realm's laws, roads, people, nobility, and most importantly perhaps, Courts, are distinctly seperate entities. The high level of cooperation necessary for a Realm Action I think would be impossible if it had to interact with more than one realm's court at a time.

From another perspective, restricting realm actions to actual realms keeps the defining power of the game in the hands of the landed regents. The temple and guild regents are forced to work with the landed regents more closely, and might even become more motivated to say, push the Lord of the Realm to expand their borders so the guilder can benefit.

[Osprey]

I've always thought the definition of Realm Actions was pretty clear, but here it is in my own words.

"A Realm Action may be used to affect multiple holdings of the same type within a single realm, OR multiple holdings of different types within a single province.

A realm is one or more provinces ruled over by a single regent, contained within a single cultural and geographical region, such as the Southern Coast of Anuire, the Plains States of Khinasi, and so on."

For example, say the regent of Meres has expanded to invest some far-away Adurian provinces (as happened in my camapaign). While all of these provinces are under one regent, there's no way I'd allow that regent to Rule his law holdings in Mieres and the colonial provinces within the same realm action. Medieval and Renaissance courts simply didn't have that kind of power, and even with the aid of magic it would be exceedingly difficult over a month's time.

[Don E]

Originally posted by Osprey@May 9 2004, 06:26 PM
I've thought about this one alot, and even tried both versions, but I have to say: as frustrating as it might be for non-landed regents to have to respect and work within landed regents' realm borders it makes sense.* Each realm's laws, roads, people, nobility, and most importantly perhaps, Courts, are distinctly seperate entities.* The high level of cooperation necessary for a Realm Action I think would be impossible if it had to interact with more than one realm's court at a time.*

I think this depends entirely on how one imagines the whole domain system works in ones campaign. There would be a great difference between, lets say a temple holding purely as a function of the number of worshippers to that dogma and the income solely from their contributions, vs. the relative number of holdings in a province representing more of the influence the various temple regetns have at the relevant court and/or ruler.

In the former contest/rule actions might be more a question of proselytizing, and hence quite independent of who is the local lord or lady. In the second scenario it would very much be an issue of who's realm one have the relevant holdings.


From another perspective, restricting realm actions to actual realms keeps the defining power of the game in the hands of the landed regents.* The temple and guild regents are forced to work with the landed regents more closely, and might even become more motivated to say, push the Lord of the Realm to expand their borders so the guilder can benefit.

My personal taste would be in the opposite direction. I have never like the 'power bloc' phenomenon where one realm plus the respective temple, guild and wizard gang up against the neighbour realm plus temple, guild and guild. It is probably more a question of playing style, but I like the way spreading guilds and temples can cause more heterogenity and prevents the whole setting becoming too orderly.

So what is the better solution? I don't know, and no matter which way it is interpreted/written/re-written it will always be somebody prefering and playing with the other set of rules. For the BRCS it might be for the best to include both as alternatives the GM can choose from.

Cheers,
E

[Osprey]

In the former contest/rule actions might be more a question of proselytizing, and hence quite independent of who is the local lord or lady. In the second scenario it would very much be an issue of who's realm one have the relevant holdings.

For a very interesting discussion on this, and some really (IMO) insightful ideas on religion in BR, check out the "Polytheism in BR" thread in the Royal Library...it shouldn't be too far back on the lists (last post onit was a few months ago I believe). It's long, and a lot of reading, but the subject deserves it for the most part, and I think you'll find it well worth it (and you might even want to revive it and post your own opinions on the matter).


My personal taste would be in the opposite direction. I have never like the 'power bloc' phenomenon where one realm plus the respective temple, guild and wizard gang up against the neighbour realm plus temple, guild and guild. It is probably more a question of playing style, but I like the way spreading guilds and temples can cause more heterogenity and prevents the whole setting becoming too orderly.

So what is the better solution? I don't know, and no matter which way it is interpreted/written/re-written it will always be somebody prefering and playing with the other set of rules. For the BRCS it might be for the best to include both as alternatives the GM can choose from.


As which way it'll go, I'll put heavy money on the "realms defined by landed regents" option, because it is the default system from the original game. Now as to whether or not your version gets included as a variant is something you'll have tot ake up with the BRCS team, which I'm not on. In general, the original 2e version is default unless strong arguments for it being broken and requiring change can be made. In this case, however, it comes down to opinion and personal preference, I think, so I suspect it will remain unchanged from the original.

Osprey

PS - Hey, good to know what "E" stands for. Even - cool name. B)

[ConjurerDragon]

Don E schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2554

>

> Don E wrote:

>

[comments on how realm actions should be able to cross political borders

for domains as guilds or temples snipped]



That is exactly the way the computer game of Birthright (The Gorgon´s

Alliance) handled the issue. While in that game any player had to be

landed he could rule his holdings up everywhere regardless in which "realm".



Defining a realm action as actions that can influence several holdings,

however only in one "realm" at a time is a severe restriction to any

ruler who has holdings in more than one realm.

bye

Michael

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@May 7 2004, 08:00 PM
I should also note that I disagree with the opinion expressed that the

noble PC class would be common only amongst the Anuireans, Brecht and

Khinasi. Aside from ignoring that elves and dwarves would be as apt to

take a few levels, I think this is really a rather narrow interpreation of

the class itself, and isn`t based on either the class as written (other

than that colour commentary itself) or the limitations of the culture. In

reality, nobles are ubiquitous to all cultures, and the noble class itself

could be used to portray not just a "titled aristocracy" but a character`s

abilities and skill set. Even a local chieftain or the leader of a

barbarian horde might have his abilities reflected by taking a few levels

as a noble. It`s more productive to think of the class as a way of

portraying a character`s abilities and emphasis, not as the class as a way

of reflecting the particulars of a titled social class alone.



Also, the noble skill set could be apt to describing the characteristics of

any of the regents who control just holdings. Pictures, for example, an

aristocratic guilder whose wealth and influence give him the aura of

leadership that is often associated with nobility. He is (almost

literally) a "merchant prince." Similarly, many religious figures can and

should be interpreted as not only living in the rarified world of theology,

but also amongst what are, in effect, the social classes of nobility. Many

(too many to count) members of the clergy also had noble rank in the

medieval period. The noble class should be as common among BR regents as

the commoner class is amongst everyone else. It is, in effect, the class

of regents. (Along with a scion class, I suppose....)




Gary,
Your concept of the noble is so far off, at least so far off what the class as written in the BRCS was about, it is scary.

The noble was written (and it matches the noble of several other d20 products, WotC and independent in concept) was a class born of privilege. This is inherently based on a socially classes society. While the nuveau riche could fit in it still has to be generational in order to work. That is you gain the privilege because of your family that has opened doors and arranged for you not to have to 'work for a living' but instead study and train with the best tutors around, etc.

Cerilian elves and specifically dwarves do not have classed societies. The dwarves are from clans and actually 'elect' their overthane - so there is no born to be better concept.

Elves likewise don't really have the strict classed societies that lend themselves to the noble class.

Just because it is a good class to have doesn't mean that all societies have access to it.

[tcharazazel]

Well, so far we've managed to get distracted from several Ch 5 topics... heh, one of which I posted up as a seperate thread so it can get addressed quicker. So, let's see if we have come to some agreement upon the earlier topics that we seem to have gotten distracted from. The major one was deciding on how RP collections were determined. So, which method do you believe to be best?

We have 4 different methods: (All of which should really get some playtesting to make sure that they are good methods.)

1) The old skill based system, on Table 5-9 page 95 BRCS, that instead of using the Table 5-10 on pg 96 in the BRCS, rather it uses 1 = 10%, 2 = 20%... 9 = 90% and 10 = 100% to determine the RP collection.

2) The new average skill based method that uses the same 1 = 10% idea as 1.

3) Osprey's class based system where each class gets a different amount of RP for the province/holdings ranging from x1.5-x2.5 with the average being x2.

4) irdeggman's class based system where every class gets the same amount of RP for the province and different for the holdings however every class gets a total of x2.5 RP.


I like #1 the best, as its the simplest of them all, and allows low level characters to get some RP for ruling. Additionally it will resolve this whole arguement as to who makes the best ruler and trying to figure out if the classes should be balanced at RP collection or not for the #3 and #4, which has really gotten us off track here.

[Don E]

Originally posted by Osprey@May 9 2004, 08:16 PM
For a very interesting discussion on this, and some really (IMO) insightful ideas on religion in BR, check out the "Polytheism in BR" thread in the Royal Library...it shouldn't be too far back on the lists (last post onit was a few months ago I believe). It's long, and a lot of reading, but the subject deserves it for the most part, and I think you'll find it well worth it (and you might even want to revive it and post your own opinions on the matter).

I had already read the thread, and it is by far one of the more interesting ones to come up on this list. I'll leave the bickering to others though ;-)


As which way it'll go, I'll put heavy money on the "realms defined by landed regents" option, because it is the default system from the original game. Now as to whether or not your version gets included as a variant is something you'll have tot ake up with the BRCS team, which I'm not on. In general, the original 2e version is default unless strong arguments for it being broken and requiring change can be made. In this case, however, it comes down to opinion and personal preference, I think, so I suspect it will remain unchanged from the original.


I wouldn't really call it 'my version, it was more an observation of what I've seen in a lot of other games. But who is to say what rules are broken...

[geeman]

At 10:31 PM 5/9/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>Your concept of the noble is so far off, at least so far off what the

>class as written in the BRCS was about, it is scary.



Well, yeah... that was kind of my point. The noble colour text as written

is needlessly narrow. It interferes with both the role-playing use of the

character class and is an inaccurate interpretation of the role of nobility

and leadership in any culture. The concept is much broader and inclusive

than it has been portrayed. Nobility (and the leadership qualities of the

noble class) aren`t exclusive Anuirean, Brecht and Khinasi traits, that

exist in those cultures more strongly than they do in other Cerilian

cultures. Each culture has their own take on leadership and nobility, but

the idea isn`t limited to them, and the class as written has applications

that are broader than is described in the text for that class description.



In many ways, the variations amongst fighting styles and methods are

broader between the various human (and other) cultures, yet the fighter

character class is adequate to describe those dissimilarities. Yet for

some reason the BRCS would suggest nobles as being particularly Anuirean,

Brecht and/or Khinasi, despite the fact that every single other race in the

setting (possible exception: orogs and gnolls) has the same characteristics

and fundamental role of nobility and leadership. Even halflings have a

social/leadership role in their society, yet the BRCS makes the halfling

paladin as sensible (arguably less so) than the halfling noble.



>The noble was written (and it matches the noble of several other d20

>products, WotC and independent in concept) was a class born of

>privilege. This is inherently based on a socially classes society. While

>the nuveau riche could fit in it still has to be generational in order to

>work. That is you gain the privilege because of your family that has

>opened doors and arranged for you not to have to `work for a living` but

>instead study and train with the best tutors around, etc.



This is mostly a matter of colour text. In reality, there`s very little

"social class" related material in the character class. In fact, if you

take a look at the class` game mechanics there is nothing in the class

description itself whatsoever to indicate that characters should have to be

born into that class other than the colour describing it.



The reality is that many people historically gained noble titles despite

having common background. Many even were elevated to great heights amongst

the aristocracy and the noble ranks. In a RPG this is even more likely in

that gaming is often much more closely akin to a meritocracy than the

social classes of real life, and role-playing often supercedes that aspect

of a campaign.



Regardless of that, however, the character class itself has nothing to do

with that role in the campaign. It`s merely a set of stats that, if

examined objectively, could occur at any point in a character`s

development, and reflect a wide range of such a character`s abilities. In

fact, there`s nothing in the class description that mandates a standard,

European or Arabic sequence of noble titles. The class is described as

belonging to characters who have been raised to lead... but other than a

skill set there`s nothing about the class that indicates what the benefit

of that might be. Essentially, the class has access to wealth--which

anyone with connections to the domain level of play does in one way or

another. Like the original colour text describing 3e sorcerers as being

descended of dragons in some way, the social class descriptive text of a

noble character class, and the aristocrat NPC class, should be taken with a

grain of salt.



> Cerilian elves and specifically dwarves do not have classed societies.



They don`t? Fhileraene, Prince of Tuarhievel is the son of queen Ibelcoris

and holds court in a realm in which "elf nobles play an essential part in

the kingdom. Blooded or unblooded, they come to the Council of the Moon to

offer guidance and receive redress to their complaints" (RoE

55.) Furthermore, noble houses are described in that kingdom--which is

pretty much the definition of an aristocracy. The Emerald Queen rules the

Sielwode, and holds an elaborate court there. We can presume that holding

court would at least imply courtiers. In other elven realms there are

parallel roles to the human titled aristocracy. "The Master of the Hunt,

one of the most powerful elven nobles, controls all law within

Lluabraight`s borders" (RH 56.) That`s just three of the elven

realms. With the exception of Rhoubhe (which is, after all, a single

population 2 province) one can find nobles and titled aristocrats in all

the elven realm in the published materials.



Personally, I find the suggestion that Cerilian dwarves do not have classed

societies to be oxymoronic. If for no other reason, the wealth of a noble

class would seem particularly apt for reflecting characters with access to

dwarven mines. Aside from that, the existence of a social order amongst

dwarves seems axiomatic, and such a social order would make the most

orderly and caste-inclined human society seem positively anarchistic.



>The dwarves are from clans and actually `elect` their overthane - so there

>is no born to be better concept.



Well, first off, I`d argue that by and large that`s not really the

case. The leaders of dwarves are born into what amounts to an

oligarchy--which is for all intents and purposes (certainly the intents and

purposes of a noble PC class) a social class. It`s de facto vs. de jour

and in the broad context of a character class that distinction doesn`t make

much of a difference.



Despite that, the "born into" aspect of the noble class is colour text. It

has no bearing on the character class description itself. In the cases I

described (like a merchant prince) the noble levels would be taken at some

point after rogue/guilder levels had been taken to reflect that the

character was not born into the aristocracy, but learned his skills at some

point after coming into power. It`s important to note that such a

character progression is the basis of much of gaming`s history, so the

restriction placed on the 3.5 aristocrat is particularly weird, but c`est

la vie.



> Elves likewise don`t really have the strict classed societies that lend

> themselves to the noble class.



Hmmm, well, I couldn`t disagree more with that, I`m afraid.... Aside from

the notes above, I see lots of nobles amongst the Sidhe, and though their

take on it differs from that of the three human races that are described as

having access to the character class they still would have plenty of nobles

running around.



> Just because it is a good class to have doesn`t mean that all societies

> have access to it.



I have to say, this is a very strange comment coming from someone on the BR

design team given that the BR update has done so much to get rid of exactly

those distinctions in so much of the rest of the update process since that

is, ostensibly, "more 3e." Halfling paladins, elven barbarians, dwarven

sorcerers and orog bards are all possible and viable in the BR update. The

distinctions for every other class and race are eliminated and generally

only described, at best, as an emphasis, even where those restrictions were

originally thematic and purposeful in the original BR setting. Including a

noble PC class and then restricting that class to particular human

societies (not just humans) in a setting that is in many ways based on

rulership and leaders... that`s just odd. In this case its both "more 3e"

AND compatible with the themes of the setting, so I think a more relaxed

text for the class would be sensible.



Gary

[tcharazazel]

while I find this discussion about the noble class very interesting, its not really something that belongs in the Ch 5 discussion rather it should be in the Ch 1 discussion or its own thread really. So, please lets try to not get too far off subject.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 9 2004, 11:42 PM
while I find this discussion about the noble class very interesting, its not really something that belongs in the Ch 5 discussion rather it should be in the Ch 1 discussion or its own thread really. So, please lets try to not get too far off subject.
Actually the discussion of the noble class was directly related to its ability to lead and hence draw RP which was one of the main topics of this thread.

[geeman]

At 11:49 AM 5/10/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



> Actually the discussion of the noble class was directly related to its

> ability to lead and hence draw RP which was one of the main topics of

> this thread.



I suppose we could try to bring it back around to that....



Personally, I see the noble class as being geared towards ruling provinces

in the same way that other classes are oriented towards particular

holdings. The original RP collection of character classes was based on

their class/sub-class designation with, for instance, fighters, paladins

and rangers having full access to RP collection from law holdings; and

paladins and rangers getting half RP from temples and guilds,

respectively. Similarly, priests and druids (sub-classes of clerics) got

access to temples and, of course, wizards got RP from

sources. Illusionists were a subclass of wizard in 2e, but they weren`t

addressed in BR, being replaced by the "low magic" magician, which didn`t

need to have its RP collection described since it was assumed to be by

definition a character class of commoners.



Everyone got full RP from controlling province population levels. However,

there was no noble character class in 2e, and the lack of one in BR in a

D20 update would be kind of weird. Maybe it would help to illustrate the

issue by thinking of the noble character class in 2e terms. If it had

existed in 2e would it have been a sub-class of fighter or might it have

been its own character class? If they had had such a character class in

the original 2e rules how might they have assigned RP collection?



Gary

[tcharazazel]

Actually the discussion of the noble class was directly related to its ability to lead and hence draw RP which was one of the main topics of this thread.

Um, we all know the noble can lead. In fact, we all should know nobles make a better Law regent than a fighter, because the noble gets Administrate as a class skill. And we all know that to create/contest/rule a Law holding in the BCRS its based upon the Administrate skill.

Honestly, I understand why you want to keep fighters as good Law regents (attachment to 2e) and why you think nobles shouldn't be so good (3.5 balance between classes). However, you seem to have forgotten that BR is a mix between Domain and Adventure. Some games may have a balance between the 2, and some maybe focused more upon one or the other. For all games, characters will likely multiclass in fighter/noble and for balanced games they will probably be fairly even. If the game is focused upon Domain play then we can expect noble to become a dominant class, if the game is focused upon Adventure we can expect fighter to become a dominant class.

A noble is a class really specialized on domain level of play. A fighter is really specialized on adventure level of play. If you put a noble vs a fighter on a domain level of play, I'll put money on the noble, however, if you put a noble vs a fighter in a gladiator ring, I'll be betting on the fighter.

Thus, it becomes obvious that with the current skill based system nobles are the class to be for province and law regents, who are focused upon a Domain level of play, and want to get full RP collection.

Now, if you insist upon making it a class based system for RP collection, it is only benefiting those very low level regents (levels 1-3) actually, not those classes with few skill points! Every class by 4th level would have more than enough skill points to collect Max RP from their provinces/holdings, if they Choose to do so. This is the main flaw in your argument really, and one that you need to properly address if you want to gain any creedence to your argument for changing the skill based system for RP collection.

[Athos69]

Now, if you insist upon making it a class based system for RP collection, it is only benefiting those very low level regents (levels 1-3) actually, not those classes with few skill points! Every class by 4th level would have more than enough skill points to collect Max RP from their provinces/holdings, if they Choose to do so. This is the main flaw in your argument really, and one that you need to properly address if you want to gain any creedence to your argument for changing the skill based system for RP collection.

And this is why I am an advocate of the skill-based system. We don't need to endlessly argue over what classes should get what percentage of the Regency from holdings and provinces. The onus is on the player to allocate sufficient skill points. If the player has a race/class combo that makes it difficult, then it's difficult, but eventually the character will achieve 100% collection.

[Osprey]

And this is why I am an advocate of the skill-based system. We don't need to endlessly argue over what classes should get what percentage of the Regency from holdings and provinces. The onus is on the player to allocate sufficient skill points. If the player has a race/class combo that makes it difficult, then it's difficult, but eventually the character will achieve 100% collection.

I fully agree. Originally I was working within Irdeggman's schema just to tinker and refine, but honestly if a poll were started I'd vote for a skill-based system - I infintely prefer it to class-based collections, as it is less game-ish and more inherently logical. I generally prefer any game to base things on a believable system rather than an artificial one, or at least lean in that direction. Ironic, given my penchant for catapulting games I run to high levels of power, but there it is. :rolleyes:

I would, however, favor a 1-10 scale very similar to the BRCS except a simple 10% per total rank sliding scale.I prefer a system where RP collection isn't the major issue once characters have a few levels of relevant experience under their belts. The main function of bothering at all is to keep the completely inappropriate characters with NO relevant skills from gaining RP from certain types of holdings - bad rulers are bad rulers, and it's good to have something besides DM fiat to adjucate that.

In general as bloodlines are lower powered and slower-growing than in the BRCS (significantly, I'm finding, as I continue to compare the revised Ch 2 stuff to my BRCS campaign), I think that will become the primary limiter to regency collection for campaigns of any significant length, the exception being those scions who start brand new domains from scratch and try to claw their way up to significance as regents.

[Athos69]

Further, averaging is the bettert way to go as well, because any 1st level character under a sum total point system will start wit 80% RP collection (4 ranks + 4 ranks). If it was Averaged, it would be only 40%. (i.e. 1/2 as fast)

[tcharazazel]

I agree with you Athos, as it makes sense that higher level characters make better regents than lower level characters. As the averaging method will require a character of level 7+ to get full RP collections, while the current BRCS skill collection method requires level 2. Heh, and the class method only requires level 1!

There is only one issue that arrises from increasing the minimum level to get full RP from level 2 to Level 7, namely that many regents were below level 7 in 2e. Heheh, I'm fine with this, however, it may require that the atlas team rewrite some of the regents :(

[teloft]

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 8 2004, 04:22 AM
yeah, letting fighters get Conqueror, Discipline, Great Leader, Hardiness and Military Genius all make sense to add to the bonus feat list. However, not the skill focus as skills are definately not a fighters strong suit.
yep.. but to spend a feat on it, thets considerd expensive where I come from..

[Athos69]

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 12 2004, 07:04 PM
There is only one issue that arrises from increasing the minimum level to get full RP from level 2 to Level 7, namely that many regents were below level 7 in 2e. Heheh, I'm fine with this, however, it may require that the atlas team rewrite some of the regents :(
But keep in mind that the table could be rewritten to change that curve.

For ecample if we wanted 5th level to be the defining level for 100% collection, then we'd have a table that would cap with an average of 8. If we wanted it difficult for 1st level to get any RP at all, we could have the table start at 4 for 20% and go up by 20% for every point greater than that...

It's all a matter of making decisions....

[tcharazazel]

I like that idea, use the average method and have the RP colection go by avg 4 ranks = 20% RP, avg 5 ranks = 40%... avg 8 ranks = 100% RP collection. As many regents are level 5+ it wouldn't really require many changes.

Heh, also forgot that many regents are going to get a level of scion so that will also up the average level of the regents. So, that makes it even easier.

Good call with that one Athos