Fighter Regents

[Simon Graindorge]

Hey all,

I've been following the threads about guilder regents getting so much money,
etc, and a thought has struck me. I've always been of the opinion that
fighter (not ranger, paladin) regents are at a disadvantage compared to
other character classes. For example, thief regents, or guilders, tend to
make much more money; Priest regents get a lot more regency from various
sources, and have a 'higher power' on which to blame things; etc.

OK, now I do realise that fighter regents tend to be domain rulers for the
most part, which does come with a lot of power in it's own right (see the
current guilder vs. province ruler thread), BUT....

what I was wondering is two things:

* Firstly, what is your take on the above? do you agree with me that
fighters seem at a disadvantage, or not?

* and secondly, has anyone got any ideas of how to address this [perceived?]
imbalance?

Cheers all,

Simon

--------
Simon Graindorge
Tribology Laboratory
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering
University of Western Australia

email: simong@mech.uwa.edu.au
phone: +(61 8) 9380 3604
fax: +(61 8) 9380 1024
--------

[Gary V. Foss]

Simon Graindorge wrote:

> * Firstly, what is your take on the above? do you agree with me that
> fighters seem at a disadvantage, or not?

I think the guys who really are at a disadvantage are wizards. Their sources
generate no money and their realm spells cannot be cast without money. They
either have to ally themselves with some other regent, or they have to spend a
month earning enough money to spend another month casting an Alchemy spell to
earn enough money so that they can even perform domain actions or cast other
realm spells. Alchemy burns RPs like crazy, so a mage without an ally ends up
short of both regency and money, which seems like a pretty lousy situation to
me.

Gary

[RocksHope@aol.co]

Wizards are only disadvantaged if you limit them to sources.

Law Holdings generate no income of their own (and law claims are the worst way
to make money from a holding..) and cast no spells.

Everyone benefits equally from provinces, only from tradition do fighters have
any chance whatsoever.

Fighters as a class in BR are the same as everywhere else, great at low
levels, pathetic at high levels.

- -joshua

[Simon Graindorge]

>Simon Graindorge wrote:
>
>> * Firstly, what is your take on the above? do you agree with me that
>> fighters seem at a disadvantage, or not?
>
>I think the guys who really are at a disadvantage are wizards. Their sources
>generate no money and their realm spells cannot be cast without money. They
>either have to ally themselves with some other regent, or they have to spend a
>month earning enough money to spend another month casting an Alchemy spell to
>earn enough money so that they can even perform domain actions or cast other
>realm spells. Alchemy burns RPs like crazy, so a mage without an ally ends up
>short of both regency and money, which seems like a pretty lousy situation to
>me.

I agree with this, and the only mage regent that has ever been even mildly
successful in my campaigns was also a province ruler, so they gained money
through taxation.

But...my argument against this would be that mages have access to (wizardly)
magic - no-one else can even *think* about using realm (let alone "normal")
magic. ***Only*** mages (and they don't have to be high level) can use
magic. And magic is the sort of power which can make or break an
attack/defence in the blink of an eye. It is no wonder that powerful (and
mediocre) mages are so feared and pandered to by rulers.

Even priests (who are a dime-a-dozen in BR) don't compare to the awesome
power wielded by wizards (regents in particular). Granted, they have a
different type of power, but they don't (IMO) possess the earth-shattering,
land-moving aura that wizards manifest. But, as you say, wizards pay a
pretty hefty price for this power, and it's also pretty difficult to keep
it. The point is, wizards have something which balances out the hard time
they have collecting enough RP's so they can cast some magic. Not only does
it balance it out, it is unique to the wizard class, and no-one else can
access this power.

However, my take on fighters is that everything they do, someone else seems
to be able to do better (or at least just as well - OK, I'm over-reacting
here, but I'm sure you all understand what I mean). I mean this both from a
personal (ie. character abilities) and regency (rulership abilities &
potential) point-of-view. In fact, I have always wondered why fighters need
so much experience at high (and low levels), when they really have very few
special talents (compared to say thieves & priests), but that's getting a
little off-topic.

anyway, just my take on things,

Simon

[Craig Greeson]

Greetings all,
I agree with Simon that fighter regents get the short end of the stick in
BR. People in my campaign usually prefer the more "glamorous" ranger or
paladin classes, and the BR rules for regency tend to slant the game even
more in favor of them vs. the standard fighter class. I've considered
allowing each basic class to only gather regency from a single type of
holding. Warriors would gather regency from Law holdings, rogues from
Guilds, priests from Temples, and wizards from Sources. Unfortunately, I
also see the logic in the way most of the regency gathering rules are set
up now. The one I'm not so sure about is rangers and Guilds.

With regards to Gary's comment about wizards being at a real disadvantage,
I would have to agree with his basic premise. It is VERY difficult to play
a successful wizard with limited GBs. On the other hand, the campaign can
be completely dominated by a wizard who has plenty of gold. Some of the
wizard realm spells (i.e. mass destruction, warding, transport, defection,
and especially animate dead) can be quite unbalancing if a wizard can throw
a lot of cash and RP into them. The fact the alchemy spell burns a lot of
RPs helps explain why wizards don't dominate the Cerilian landscape. Of
course, there is nothing preventing wizards from creating guilds and raking
in the obscene sums that trade routes can produce, with the notable
exception of mass paranoia that would probably ensue with local guilders
and landed regents.

Regards
Craig

Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
> Simon Graindorge wrote:
>
> > * Firstly, what is your take on the above? do you agree with me that
> > fighters seem at a disadvantage, or not?
>
> I think the guys who really are at a disadvantage are wizards. Their sources
> generate no money and their realm spells cannot be cast without money. They
> either have to ally themselves with some other regent, or they have to spend a
> month earning enough money to spend another month casting an Alchemy spell to
> earn enough money so that they can even perform domain actions or cast other
> realm spells. Alchemy burns RPs like crazy, so a mage without an ally ends up
> short of both regency and money, which seems like a pretty lousy situation to
> me.
>
> Gary
>
> ************************************************** *************************
> > 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Simon Graindorge
>I've been following the threads about guilder regents getting so much
money,
>etc, and a thought has struck me. I've always been of the opinion that
>fighter (not ranger, paladin) regents are at a disadvantage compared to
>other character classes. For example, thief regents, or guilders, tend to
>make much more money; Priest regents get a lot more regency from various
>sources, and have a 'higher power' on which to blame things; etc.
>
>OK, now I do realise that fighter regents tend to be domain rulers for the
>most part, which does come with a lot of power in it's own right (see the
>current guilder vs. province ruler thread), BUT....
>
>what I was wondering is two things:
>
>* Firstly, what is your take on the above? do you agree with me that
>fighters seem at a disadvantage, or not?
>
I don't neccessarily agree, see below.

>* and secondly, has anyone got any ideas of how to address this
[perceived?]
>imbalance?
>
When playing a warrior regent (I'm assuming with a domain of mainly law
and provinces, though you could have a fighter rule a guild if you wanted to
I suppose, he just wouldn't do well), you have several advantages to balance
the wealth of guilds and priests. To knock down a wizard, just rule up your
provinces when you get a chance, he'll lose power at the same time as you
gain it, net effect he loses _fast_.
1 Use law holdings to collect all the GB you can.
2 Play guilds against each other, and temples too, so you have a clear
majority of law in each province, and can collect more money.
3 Don't allow temples or guilds to have troops. Strongly discourage
fortifications.
4 Take 50% of every trade route. If they don't like it and won't pay, shut
it down with a decree (another reason to have higher law holdings than their
guild holdings, see page 60 of the Rulebook).
5 Fortify everything. Castles are the best investment you can make, it's
automatic defense in depth. Even if you have no troops stationed in a
province, they can't just raze your holdings, they have to neutralize it
first and wear it down.
6 If worst comes to worst, threaten them physically. Since you didn't allow
troops or fortifications, a declare war action will allow you to raze any
holding they have. All their money you took will let you get more troops to
do it with :) Remind all your neighbors (who, being feudal lords
themselves, won't realistically want a guild to get that much power) that an
uppity guilder might turn on them someday, too, so they shouldn't let him
muster troops in their lands.
7 If feeling sneaky, make a deal with a neighbor; you each invade each
other, but mysteriously only raze XYZ Guilds in the lands you occupy.
Bluster, rattle sabres, and withdraw, apologize mutually six months later.
The guilds will never know what hit them (same goes for temples).
So, if you really feel that a fighter regent is disadvantaged, cut the
other regents down a few notches. The one that is really disadvantaged is
the wizard, he can hardly hold his own. No GB income unless he uses a high
level source as a guild, no troops, the realm spells balance it some, but he
really needs a patron to cast those. And, no way to really get ahold of a
province to rule, unless he gets some kind of vassalage or treaty from a
landed lord, since most of the lands are taken.

All the above is just from my experience, disagree if you like, I'd love to
hear it.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[LrdTuerny@aol.co]

In a message dated 10/5/98 9:52:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
simong@mech.uwa.edu.au writes:

[BenandAmy]

>>Simon Graindorge wrote:
>
>However, my take on fighters is that everything they do, someone else seems
>to be able to do better (or at least just as well - OK, I'm over-reacting
>here, but I'm sure you all understand what I mean). I mean this both from a
>personal (ie. character abilities) and regency (rulership abilities &
>potential) point-of-view. In fact, I have always wondered why fighters need
>so much experience at high (and low levels), when they really have very few
>special talents (compared to say thieves & priests), but that's getting a
>little off-topic.
>
>anyway, just my take on things,
>
> Simon




Although it's probably not worth as much as the disadvantages, warrior
class regents are the only ones who collect full regency for law holdings
right? This, of course includes paladins and rangers.

[Simon Graindorge]

> When playing a warrior regent (I'm assuming with a domain of mainly law
>and provinces, though you could have a fighter rule a guild if you wanted to
>I suppose, he just wouldn't do well), you have several advantages to balance
>the wealth of guilds and priests. To knock down a wizard, just rule up your
>provinces when you get a chance, he'll lose power at the same time as you
>gain it, net effect he loses _fast_.
>1 Use law holdings to collect all the GB you can.
>2 Play guilds against each other, and temples too, so you have a clear
>majority of law in each province, and can collect more money.
>3 Don't allow temples or guilds to have troops. Strongly discourage
>fortifications.
>4 Take 50% of every trade route. If they don't like it and won't pay, shut
>it down with a decree (another reason to have higher law holdings than their
>guild holdings, see page 60 of the Rulebook).
>5 Fortify everything. Castles are the best investment you can make, it's
>automatic defense in depth. Even if you have no troops stationed in a
>province, they can't just raze your holdings, they have to neutralize it
>first and wear it down.
>6 If worst comes to worst, threaten them physically. Since you didn't allow
>troops or fortifications, a declare war action will allow you to raze any
>holding they have. All their money you took will let you get more troops to
>do it with :) Remind all your neighbors (who, being feudal lords
>themselves, won't realistically want a guild to get that much power) that an
>uppity guilder might turn on them someday, too, so they shouldn't let him
>muster troops in their lands.
>7 If feeling sneaky, make a deal with a neighbor; you each invade each
>other, but mysteriously only raze XYZ Guilds in the lands you occupy.
>Bluster, rattle sabres, and withdraw, apologize mutually six months later.
>The guilds will never know what hit them (same goes for temples).
>
>All the above is just from my experience, disagree if you like, I'd love to
>hear it.

well, you asked for it :-)

I agree with everything you have said above, but all of these
"powers/abilities" are not unique to fighters. Pretty much *any* character
class can use them - all they have to do is become the ruler. Now, granted
that fighters do tend to be more Let's face it, from a purely game mechanics
(ie. numbers) perspective, other classes make much better domain rulers
(collect more RP, GB, etc).

What I was really getting at is that the fighter seems to have nothing that
says "I am a fighter, and taking me on in this area is going to go badly for
you". For example, a wizard has magic, a priest has higher powers, thieves
have a network of informants and other such things, rangers have woodland
friends, paladins have supreme military powers as well as a god - fighters
don't have anything like this, yet they still have one of the highest
experience point tables of all the classes.

The point of my post was not really that province/domain rulers (who are
mostly fighters, I'll admit) are relatively weak, but that fighter rulers
seem to have very few benefits.

I was wondering if perhaps they should have some benefits, in battle - ie.
if you are going to attack a neighbouring warlord's (fighter regent)
provinces, you better think twice about it.

Like you say, disagree if you like, I'd love to hear it :-)

Simon

[Jim Cooper]

Simon Graindorge wrote:
> * Firstly, what is your take on the above? do you agree with me that
> fighters seem at a disadvantage, or not?

I do.

> * and secondly, has anyone got any ideas of how to address this [perceived?] imbalance?<

See my arguement about giving prov. rulers more control over their
economy. Just like Mark said about centralized power and stuff, I think
the ruler's (Anuirean at least) should have all the power and the
guilder regents having to fight to get their 'fair share'.

Not the other way around. I mean, if you look at it from a strictly RP
point of view, only the wizard is as 'limited' as the fighter class. And
they get spells to boot! So, what does everyone else think?

'Course, it could just be my players that have caused me to worry about
this dilemma ...

Cheers,
Darren

[Jim Cooper]

Daniel McSorley wrote:
> All the above is just from my experience, disagree if you like, I'd love to hear it.> To knock down a wizard, just rule up your provinces when you get a chance, he'll lose power at the same time as you gain it, net effect he loses _fast_.fighter regent). It always seems to be
lightning bolt. Course, they are outlaws after that, but heck,
they don't care - they seem to prefer hermit wizards anyway ...

OR, convince the regent that its in their best interest to keep the
sources strong, so wizard can use magic in defense of the land. That's
a pretty powerful arguement - which fighter regent *wouldn't* want magic
on their side of the battle. However, what can the fighter regent give
comparable in return? "Uh, I promise to be really nice to you ...?" :)

> 1 Use law holdings to collect all the GB you can.

This amounts to about 1 or MAYBE 2GBs of the taxed regents collection,
per holding. When one makes 3-4GBs a turn, that isn't such a big loss.
Frequent use of the table proved that to me.

> 2 Play guilds against each other, and temples too, so you have a clear
> majority of law in each province, and can collect more money.

One word: alliance (between the guilds or temples - or both! And when
two people get together who make more money than you do *individually*,
there is big trouble for said regent). Again, experience DMing my BR
campaigns.

> 3 Don't allow temples or guilds to have troops. Strongly discourage
> fortifications.<

One phrase: Who doesn't have enemies? Prov. ruler's got to have made
some enemies - guess who the guilders/priests go to first?

> 4 Take 50% of every trade route. If they don't like it and won't pay, shut it down with a decree (another reason to have higher law holdings than their guild holdings, see page 60 of the Rulebook).<

Works for as long as said regent finds out who the ruler's enemies are,
and then guess who doesn't get money anymore - and finds an army
marching towards their capital. Granted, I've used the excuse that no
feudal lord in their right mind would allow such a thing, even to hurt
enemies, but they then just go hire mercenaries ...

> 5 Fortify everything. Castles are the best investment you can make, it's automatic defense in depth. Even if you have no troops stationed in a province, they can't just raze your holdings, they have to neutralize it first and wear it down. other, but mysteriously only raze XYZ Guilds in the lands you occupy.
> Bluster, rattle sabres, and withdraw, apologize mutually six months later. The guilds will never know what hit them (same goes for temples).

[Morg]

Simon Graindorge wrote:

> >Simon Graindorge wrote:
> >
> >> * Firstly, what is your take on the above? do you agree with me that
> >> fighters seem at a disadvantage, or not?

I agree. Rogues have the best deal all around (IMO) Regency & Cash from guilds,
half rps from law. Free epionage move. They can't loose!



> However, my take on fighters is that everything they do, someone else seems
> to be able to do better (or at least just as well - OK, I'm over-reacting
> here, but I'm sure you all understand what I mean). I mean this both from a
> personal (ie. character abilities) and regency (rulership abilities &
> potential) point-of-view.

I agree here too. However, I think the fighter could really shine if a Dm allows
for certain 'game possibilities' or 'role playing' effects.

For example:
Thieves, Priest, etc might be able to afford to raise an army, but whose going to
lead it? A fighter regent who commands his armies should be the only one to get
certain bonuses. Morale, movement, combat bonuses maybe? While the other
character classes are laughing while they sign off the payroll cheques for their
huge, but immobile army, the fighter walks up and bats them all about the head.

Here's some more thoughts that aren't very well thought out:

- - fighters get initiative bonus when engaging in military operations.
- - fighters know HOW to use troops to the best advantage. Maybe they pay half
maintenance on troops. Could be problematic though..... maybe muster at half cost?

- -fighters are more easily able to 'upgrade' their troops. IIRC, this was a Source
Book action.

If a Dm allows the fighter to use his 'fighter' abilities (BR is the only game that
I know of where a fighter's high level 'bonuses' ould apply.) His castle and
warfare knowledge finally has a forum in which it can be addressed. Unfortunately,
the game mechanics don't really show this point blank.

> In fact, I have always wondered why fighters need
> so much experience at high (and low levels), when they really have very few
> special talents (compared to say thieves & priests), but that's getting a
> little off-topic.
>

Just as an off-topic note, I think the high XP comes from the low level 'mega
damage' they do in relation to the other classes, and it unfortunately got carried
through the XP chart. From levels 1 - 4, fighters are the ones who are killing
everything. They do the mega 2 handed sword + strength bonus damage (compared to
the 1- 6 short sword, and the magic missle). However, once the wizard is able to
lob a fireball or two, the fighter looses his gleam.


Keith
- --
"I am your humble knight, and I swear allegiance to the courage and power in your
veins.
So strong it is, it's source must be Uther Pendragon."
The Draftmine (Home of the Brass Boar & other Oddities.)
http://www.angelfire.com/ak/draftmine/
Brenna's Blood Secret PbeM (A Haven's of the Great Bay PBeM.)
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dungeon/2239/index.htm

[Pieter A de Jong]

Simon Graindorge wrote:
>
> >Simon Graindorge wrote:
> >
> >> * Firstly, what is your take on the above? do you agree with me that
> >> fighters seem at a disadvantage, or not?
> >
> >I think the guys who really are at a disadvantage are wizards. Their sources
> >generate no money and their realm spells cannot be cast without money. They
> >either have to ally themselves with some other regent, or they have to spend a
> >month earning enough money to spend another month casting an Alchemy spell to
> >earn enough money so that they can even perform domain actions or cast other
> >realm spells. Alchemy burns RPs like crazy, so a mage without an ally ends up
> >short of both regency and money, which seems like a pretty lousy situation to
> >me.
>
> I agree with this, and the only mage regent that has ever been even mildly
> successful in my campaigns was also a province ruler, so they gained money
> through taxation.
>
> But...my argument against this would be that mages have access to (wizardly)
> magic - no-one else can even *think* about using realm (let alone "normal")
> magic.

Yeah, and the problem with this is that mages generally cannot afford to
use thier realm spells without a separate source of income. The second
problem is that ruling provinces is usually not enough for a secondary
source of income for a mage. Why? a) because, as many people have
suggested, simply ruling a province does not provide large amounts of
free cash when compared to the amount of money spent maintaning and
controlling that province (ie. armies, castles, etc.) and b) because
mages cannot rule their provinces with any efficiency while keeping
their source holdings intact (unless they are elves). This gives other
regents a definite edge over wizards in that their class-specific
holdings (law,temple,guild) all increase with larger province sizes
(what the province ruler wants), while sources are decreased.

- --

Pieter A de Jong
Graduate Mechanical Engineering Student
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Simon Graindorge
>I agree with everything you have said above, but all of these
>"powers/abilities" are not unique to fighters. Pretty much *any* character
>class can use them - all they have to do is become the ruler. Now, granted
>that fighters do tend to be more Let's face it, from a purely game
mechanics
>(ie. numbers) perspective, other classes make much better domain rulers
>(collect more RP, GB, etc).
>
>What I was really getting at is that the fighter seems to have nothing that
>says "I am a fighter, and taking me on in this area is going to go badly
for
>you". For example, a wizard has magic, a priest has higher powers, thieves
>have a network of informants and other such things, rangers have woodland
>friends, paladins have supreme military powers as well as a god - fighters
>don't have anything like this, yet they still have one of the highest
>experience point tables of all the classes.
>
>The point of my post was not really that province/domain rulers (who are
>mostly fighters, I'll admit) are relatively weak, but that fighter rulers
>seem to have very few benefits.
>
>I was wondering if perhaps they should have some benefits, in battle - ie.
>if you are going to attack a neighbouring warlord's (fighter regent)
>provinces, you better think twice about it.
>
Hmm, ok, now I understand where you're going.
Well, a quick glance reveals that the Strategy and Seigecraft NWP are
both warrior proficiencies, so a higher proportion of warriors will have
them than will priests and etc, which can be an advantage.
Maybe muster should only be free for warrior regents, make it a domain
action for others.
But, I'm still not sure I agree with you. Since all fighters really
_can_ rule are lands and law, then by exclusion, those are fighter benefits,
everyone else just tries to gain them, too. A fighter competing with a
priest, each ruling equal provinces and law, will win. The problem comes
when players try to load the dice by having that priest monopolize all the
temples, too. I think this is because fighters don't diversify like a
landed guilder or priest does, getting into other holdings. If the fighter
used his landed lord advantage, he could control the guilds in his country
easily, and own them himself. He might not get RP for them, but he'd get
the gold. Or, he could declare one guild or temple the state one, and get
gold from them in return. It's diversification that wins, and fighters can
do that like anyone else. I don't really see a problem here, maybe it's
just my perspective.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Jim Cooper]

J. D. Lail wrote:
> BTW Do all of you deduct the law claims from the income of the Guild
> and/or Temple being claimed against ? Also does this come before RP's
> are taken ?

Yes, and no.

Cheers,
Darren

[The Olesens]

Morg wrote:

> Simon Graindorge wrote:
>
> > >Simon Graindorge wrote:
> > >
> > >> * Firstly, what is your take on the above? do you agree with me that
> > >> fighters seem at a disadvantage, or not?
>
> I agree. Rogues have the best deal all around (IMO) Regency & Cash from guilds,
> half rps from law. Free epionage move. They can't loose!

I agree. Priests are well off too, with RP from temples, realm spells, and 1/2 law RP.
Not to mention thier free agitate action. Poor warriors. Well in response I have created
some special benefits for warriors.

All warriors: how about a reduced muster cost? Maybe a GB or so cheaper. Or maybe he
could take a character action to 1/2 or really reduce the cost of troops by personally
looking for soldier and training them. Perhaps both.

Fighters should get an improved version of what all warriors get.

Rangers have a special place in my heart and I made them thier own domain action. But
they can take it as a free action one per DT. It is a form of espionage that is based on
how un-populated a province is and can only locate troops or any other
scout-rangery-wilderness type thing. I'll put it up for the Netbook soon.

Paladin, IMC, get a free agitate action like priests. The diffrence is that they may only
use it to raise loyalty in non-rebellious provinces.

This doesn't balance it out totally but it is a weight on the right side of the scale.

- -Andrew

[Jim Cooper]

Daniel McSorley wrote:
> Maybe muster should only be free for warrior regents, make it a domain action for others. But, I'm still not sure I agree with you. Since all fighters really _can_ rule are lands and law, then by exclusion, those are fighter benefits, everyone else just tries to gain them, too. A fighter competing with a
> priest, each ruling equal provinces and law, will win. The problem comes when players try to load the dice by having that priest monopolize all the temples, too. landed guilder or priest does, getting into other holdings. If the fighter used his landed lord advantage, he could control the guilds in his country easily, and own them himself.

Actually, this is the problem - even if fighter regents _do_ diversify,
they still receive little benefit, as opposed to other classes who will
receive the benefit (like 1/2 RPs from law, or in the case of
rangers/paladins, full regency from a second holding type!)

> He might not get RP for them, but he'd get the gold. Or, he could declare one guild or temple the state one, and get gold from them in return. It's diversification that wins, and fighters can> do that like anyone else. I don't really see a problem here, maybe it's
just my perspective.

[David Sean Brown]

> Good point. Until you remember that these cost money - and isn't this
> what those fighter regents have trouble getting in the first place.
> Hence, my post on reorganizing the economy. My players say: "why
> should I give him money to build a castle for my protection? Let ME
> build it to protect myself and leave my money alone!"

Why should fighter regents have any trouble making money? They generally
being landed regents have the easiest time of all. Create a number of
guild holdings (even lvl 0, although higher lvl ones generate $$ on their
own) and create a pile of trade routes. You don't get the RP's , but the
money is all yours..and as a bonus, as the regent ownuing the lands, no
one can cut your routes by decree!!

Sean

[Jim Cooper]

The Olesens wrote:
> Fighters should get an improved version of what all warriors get.

And what is that?

[Jim Cooper]

David Sean Brown wrote:
> Why should fighter regents have any trouble making money? They generally being landed regents have the easiest time of all. Create a number of guild holdings (even lvl 0, although higher lvl ones generate $$ on their own) and create a pile of trade routes. You don't get the RP's , but the money is all yours..and as a bonus, as the regent ownuing the lands, no one can cut your routes by decree!!

[David Sean Brown]

> Perhaps we should look at it this way - which provincial ruler likes
> having another regent own all the law in their own provinces?
> Especially when the foreign regent doesn't want anyone else to have a
> share of the pie? Same principle with class specific holdings, I would
> think.
True but don't forget that the province ruler (I am assuming it is the
fighter at this point) can supress all trade routes as a free action and
can use his province/guild level as "free RPs" to bid against any action
the guilder would do in his land...essentiall strongarming the guilder
into letting have at least some of the trade routes...kinda leaves the
guilder with the choice of a) letting it go and doing it the way the
province ruler wants, b) withdrawing from the provinces in question and
starting somewhere else, or c) engage in a long and costly war...

Sean

[Jim Cooper]

David Sean Brown wrote:
> True but don't forget that the province ruler (I am assuming it is the
> fighter at this point) can supress all trade routes as a free action and can use his province/guild level as "free RPs" to bid against any action the guilder would do in his land>...essentiall strongarming the guilder into letting have at least some of the trade routes...kinda leaves the guilder with the choice of a) letting it go and doing it the way the province ruler wants,

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Simon Graindorge wrote:

> What I was really getting at is that the fighter seems to have nothing that
> says "I am a fighter, and taking me on in this area is going to go badly for
> you". For example, a wizard has magic, a priest has higher powers, thieves
> have a network of informants and other such things, rangers have woodland
> friends, paladins have supreme military powers as well as a god - fighters
> don't have anything like this, yet they still have one of the highest
> experience point tables of all the classes.
>
> The point of my post was not really that province/domain rulers (who are
> mostly fighters, I'll admit) are relatively weak, but that fighter rulers
> seem to have very few benefits.
>
> I was wondering if perhaps they should have some benefits, in battle - ie.
> if you are going to attack a neighbouring warlord's (fighter regent)
> provinces, you better think twice about it.

1.) In Anuire, under Haelyn, fighters have the highest claim to authority.
This should let them get away with things against the other classes that
they might not get away with in other cultures (seizing caravans,
imprisoning guilders as "traitors of the realm," etc.)

2.) In my opinion, the rule from the "book of priestcraft" should be
extended to guilds: that of setting up "state guilds." In effect these are
sort of "vassalage-lite" options, in which the two PC's work out an
arraingement of mutual satisfaction between them: the guilder get the
benefit of being the state guild: usually that no other guild is allowed
to exist, or to expand, or to have trade routes in the land, and the
province ruler gets regular amounts of GB's and RP's from the guilder
(esp. GB). I would suggest that the fighter regent, and fighter regent
only gets to collect RP from this sort of arraingement (prob. 1 RP per GB
collected from the "state guild." This is in keeping with #1 above, and
might be different for different cultures.

3.) All non-fighter regents are limited to 5 army units than can be
controlled at one time. If they wish to field more than that many units at
any one time, they must hire fighter lieutennants as generals, each of
which allows them to control 5 more units. As most non-fighter realms are
fairly small (Ilien, Endier, Medoere) this shouldn't be too bad, but both
Taeghas and Talinie must have at least a couple of figher lieutennants.
Fighters are not limited in the number of units they can control w/o
dedicated lieutennants. If this seems too harsh, limit it to only units
which are outside of the regent's own domain borders (i.e. medoere can
have 7 units, as long as they stay within the borders of Medoere. only 5
of them can attack Diemed at one time unless Surris Enlien hires a fighter
lieutennant using the Lieutennant action).

4.) Increase the cost of fortified holdings for non-fighters. For example,
when figuring domain maintenance costs, fortified guilds count BOTH as
guilds and as castles. Thus a level 3 fortified guild counts as six
"units" of holding when figuring domain maintenance costs.

5.) When fighting a battle, the army led by a fighter always gets to
choose the field (and gets the best position). If the non-fighter has a
fighter general lieutennant, use contested Strategy proficiency checks,
but give the lieutennant a penalty for not being able to control the
army as efficiently.

Just some ideas.

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

[Jim Cooper]

Mark A Vandermeulen wrote:
> 1.) In Anuire, under Haelyn, fighters have the highest claim to authority. This should let them get away with things against the other classes that they might not get away with in other cultures (seizing caravans, imprisoning guilders as "traitors of the realm," etc.)

[David Sean Brown]

> >> or c) engage in a long and costly war...
> I guarantee that's what 99% of my players would chose. It would take
> somebody like the Gorgon to chose step (a) or (b) above.
>
> Anyone have any fresh new arguments I could use with my PCs to help me
> convince them that the NPC bad guys need to win sometime so they can
> have somebody to fight against in the future?
>
Simple enough..have the attempt option (c) above, and just get crushed by
the guy and his allies. After that, they'll be too busy attempting to get
their things back together to try to push him around...at the same time,
you can have a competator or two try to muscle in on their turf..if they
want to try to use war as a solution to everything NPCs do that bothers
them, have them lose..teaches ya a little humility..

Sean

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Jim Cooper wrote:

> Mark A Vandermeulen wrote:
> > 1.) In Anuire, under Haelyn, fighters have the highest claim to authority. This should let them get away with things against the other classes that they might not get away with in other cultures (seizing caravans, imprisoning guilders as "traitors of the realm," etc.)
> Wouldn't this be the other way around? Wouldn't fighters be under MORE
> scrutiny by temples of Haelyn? IMHO, Haelyn says its doesn't matter who
> rules, its HOW you rule ...

Well, not in MY conception. Haelyn is highly into the whole heirarchy
thing. The nobility are meant to rule (and note that many blooded people
are not actually "nobility," instead they were commoners before Deismaar
and mostly became guilders or priests or wizards after deismaar, or slowly
worked their way into the traditional hereditary nobility). For me,
Haelyn's rule says that everything and everyone has their place, and
happiness comes in finding your place and doing the best job you can,
being good and just and true to who you really are. Rulers are meant to
rule, and servants are meant to serve, and a lad meant to rule but left
among servants is as bad a sin as a greedy man taking the place of a ruler
because of his own selfish desires. If you were meant to serve the king,
then serve the king and you will be happy. If you were meant to serve the
king's servant, then wanting to serve the king will only make you unhappy,
and getting to serve the king just because you want to can only bring
tragedy.

But, of course, this could also be reading my own personal philosophy
into it, and others might see it more you way.

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

[JD Lail]

>Simon says:

>* Firstly, what is your take on the above? do you agree with me that
>fighters seem at a disadvantage, or not?

Yes I agree the fighter is at a disadvantage.

>* and secondly, has anyone got any ideas of how to address this [perceived?]
>imbalance?

Hmmm...... what about giving law holders regency from law claims ?
That sure would make it more worth my while as a law holder to keep
my law rating higher than the guilds & temples. But I will agree that
more is needed.

BTW Do all of you deduct the law claims from the income of the Guild
and/or Temple being claimed against ? Also does this come before RP's
are taken ?

L8R