Chap 1 - Final Discussion

[irdeggman]

Here is the latest version of Chap 1. This is the final round of comments before a sanctioning vote.

Here is a summary of changes since the last version:


Editing notes:
- space paragraphs out more; especially those that change the topic
- the humane bonus should read "on [______] saves" not "to".
- pg 23, 2nd column: the listing of cross-class skill for "Admin." should be "cc"
- pg 27, Discipline: "Fortitude and Will"
- pg 29, Northener: change "You gain a +1 bonus on all Fortitude saves. You gain an additional +4 bonus on all Fortitude saves to resist subdual damage from cold and exposure). You must suffer subdual damage equal to at least one quarter of your current hit points before becoming fatigued from frostbite or hypothermia." to "You gain a +1 bonus on all Fortitude saves and an additional +4 bonus on Fortitude saves to avoid taking nonlethal damage from exposure to cold weather. You only get fatigued by nonlethal damage from exposure to cold weather if that nonlethal damage equals at least one quarter of your hit points."
- pg 30, Plainsrider: "Wild Empathy, Handle Animal, Heal, and Ride"
- pg 30, Regional Arms Focus: "Region: Any"; "Special" line explains it.
- pg 30, Regional Arms Training: change to reflect format of Regional Arms Focus
- pg 30, other "Regional [____]" feats: as above.
- pg 31, Spellsong Mastery: avoid using caps for metamagicked spell names

Incorporated


Just a few typos:
p8 under Character Classes
"to more accurately their roles" needs the word reflect.
p21 in Noble class influence
"monetary assets is considered a simple favor when
done in person that is the noble is physically present
in his home province when this action is attempted." needs , ; or () to fix grammar.
p31 Shadow Walker feat
"winter nights. The risks of entering the shadow world
are many, and this feat should be with exceptional
care. The Shadow World is fraught with danger," needs word 'used' after 'be'.

Incorporated


Knowledge (nature ) should be added to the Sorcerer skill list, since it is the skill involved with source holdings.

Incorporated


Right now the Elite armor for Vos is Banded mail. The largest concentration of Barbarians is within vos, and I assume most Vos warriors are Barbarians. Barbarians do not get heavy armour proficiency and lose fast movement while wearing it. Why not make a medium or light armour the Elite armour. I would suggest either chainmail or chain shirt, which are commonly found in the region.

Not incorporated. Elite is more in relation to an organized and trained militia or warrior (e.g., fighters) and neither are traits possessed by barbarians. Vos do have troops (which are more trained than groups of barbarians) and as such this is more applicable to organized units and the like.


Regarding Knowledge (Bloodlore)

Maybe a +2 bonus on Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft checks when dealing with Blooded items?, or magical items that effect Blood?

Added a synergy description to this.


I don't really have a problem with changing the +hp to +1 to AC. It does fit with the what the dwarven artisan feat does to weapons, as long as we add the same caveat to it, "this +1 doesn't stack with any enchancement bonus the item may have".

Changed the description to reflect this.


I also agree with you on the Knowledge (Shadow World) issue: we could specifically state in the skill description (which does not deviate from 3.5e rules, as it is campaign material) that 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (nature) grant a +2 bonus on Survival checks made while on Aebrynis and that Knowledge (Shadow World) grants a +2 bonus on Survival checks made while on the Shadow World.

Added a synergy description for this and more detail under new knowledge skills to address the difference (and similarity) between Knowledge (Nature) and Knowledge (Shadow World)

I pretty much left the noble alone. Osprey had some comments, but since no one else commented I felt that a single individual's comments (including my own at this time) didn't justify changes. I had asked if any one agreed with his comments, but no one else posted they did.


Here is the pdf version

[irdeggman]

Here is the word version.

[The incredible, edible Phil]

As the regional feats are based off the FRCS, with the new revision in the Player'"s Guide to Faerun will the regional feats be modified to reflect the new mechanic or remain as is?

[The Jew]

perfect it ain't, but good enough it is. Vote Vote Vote

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by The incredible, edible Phil@Jan 18 2005, 09:21 PM
As the regional feats are based off the FRCS, with the new revision in the Player'"s Guide to Faerun will the regional feats be modified to reflect the new mechanic or remain as is?
Remain as is. They are also based on the Wheel of Time so it is not totally either.

[The incredible, edible Phil]

Did they update Wheel of Time to 3.5 or did the license expire prior to that?

[Osprey]

Hey Folks,
I'm reposting my comments on the Noble class here. They weren't all that easy for me to find, so I doubt many others were going back and looking at them either. I've read over my former comments again, and I still think they're pretty valid adjustments to make to the class. If others agree, please post and say so. If others disagree, please post and say so. Without voices of assent or dissent, it's hard to have any sense at all of group approval or opposition. Thanks!

Osprey

PS - I made bold the one change I feel most strongly about: higher levels of Coordinate are broken. I'm kinda tired of saying that, it seems so blatantly obvious to me, but if no one agrees with this the +4/6/8 Coordinate bonuses will stay on the Noble's class ability list. Is that what people want?

Soome of you might be sick of the whole noble debate. I know I'm pretty tired of it, too. But let's make one final push of editing and improving, then kick the final sanctioning vote, OK? Onward with the BRCS!!! :D


Concerning the Noble:

For the most part, I think the class looks pretty good. While there are a lot of level-based class abilities, I think this is necessary (in terms of game balance) to make the class on par with other classes, and it gives a great deal of distinct flavor to the class. Rasp, if you wanted to see a "cleaner" list, all you have to do is take away all of the level-based improvements on existing abilities - these are what take up most of the upper-level slots.

I do have a few comments, though.


Inspiring Leader (Ex):* When a noble appears on the field and presents himself as a leader, it inspires himself and his followers, soldiers, hirelings, or other loyal subjects who can see and hear him. At 4th level, the noble and those that look to him for guidance (such as his employees, followers, or sworn subjects) gain a +1 morale bonus. This bonus can apply in one of the following methods (noble’s choice):
· A +1 bonus to attack, weapon damage rolls and Will saving throws against fear and mind-influencing enchantments (such as charm person).
· A +1 to Search, Spot, Listen checks and Reflex saving throws.
· A +2 bonus to Spellcraft checks and all saving throws versus spells and spell-like effects.
Presenting himself is a free action but entails standing tall and proud along with shouting (or forcefully giving) directions, and the bonuses last a number of rounds equal to the noble’s Charisma modifier. This ability may be used a number of times per day equal to the noble’s Charisma modifier.

I would simplify this by dropping the last 2 choices for effects, and just add a +1 morale bonus to all skill checks, making it the same effect as inspire loyalty but w/ shorter duration. The skill bonuses seem rather odd - I wouldn't assume, for example, that most Anuirean nobles are particularly adept at aiding Spellcraft checks or in inspiring rather impressive resilience to magic. The bonus to mind-affecting magic, however, makes a lot of sense for a morale bonus, and a general +1 morale bonus to skill checks could cover Spellcraft, Spot, Listen, Search, or any other action-oriented skill (while non-action skills probably wouldn't benefit anyways due to the short duration of the effect; DM's can arbitrate this case-by-case).

I also think that inspiring one's allies should be a standard action, much like a bard singing a song to grant similar effects. This forces the noble to choose between taking either a direct (active) role in the action, or exhorting greater efforts fromhis allies. It is the same for bards singing songs or spellcasters casting support spells, why make it different for nobles using a class ability? It is a classic dilemma for leaders on the battlefield, too (on a larger scale): Does he lead the charge personally, or does he direct the action from behind? Leading the charge is more inspiring and makes that unit more effective, but leading from behind allows him to better coordinate his forces as a whole.


My second comment regards the increasing Leadership bonuses: a higher-level Noble's Leadership score will likely cap off at "25+" well before 20th level, especially if said character is a blooded regent. A high level Noble is almost guaranteed to have high Charisma (especially with the Presence class ability) and will probably have many of the conditional modifiers (special powers, great prestige, stronghold/base of operations).

While the effect is definitely advantageous for mid-level characters, it might be prudent to simply keep Leadership as a bonus feat at 3rd level but drop the higher level bonuses. This will help unclutter the class abilities somewhat, and also encourage characters to improve their CHA scores and take feats like Great Leader if they want to increase their Leadership score more rapidly.

Same goes for Coordinate: drop the higher-level improvements. This I've said before: higher bonuses get very broken because they are multiplied by the number of people aiding in the task. Also, dropping these higher bonuses will unclutter the list even more.

Since most of the other class abilities continue to improve with class levels, I don't think you need to worry about the class lacking high-end desirability/power. Bonus feats, favored regions, resources, inspire loyalty, and presence all continue to improve at higher levels: more than enough to make the class attractive through all 20 levels of progression.

[edit] Inspire Loyalty should use a Lead check rather than Diplomacy. If we're including the Lead skill in the BR setting, this certainly seems like a quintessential use of the skill. Inspiring crowds (esp. troops on a battlefield) should be the forte of the Lead specialist, while negotiations and etiquette should be the purview of the diplomat. It's important to distinguish these two, otherwise they overlap so much that having 2 seperate skills seems rather redundant and superficial.

Otherwise, the class looks good: more balanced, attractive, and distinct than most other versions we've tried out.

Osprey

[The incredible, edible Phil]

I would agree with Osprey, the current buffing abilities do seem a tad strong when stacked against those of the Bard class who prides itself in those abilities.

[The Jew]

Coordinate +4 and +8 are given on multiple line (7,8 and 16,17)

Cap the coordinate bonus at +4, given at level 12 when no other bonus exists

For leadership remove the bonuses at levels 7 and 15. Give a +1 at 11 and then +2 at 19. At level 11 it will still be worthwhile, and if a character has reached level 19 then they will soon be entering epic levels, where they can take epic leadership.

[Arius Vistoon]

i agree with Osprev exept this

Originally posted by Osprey@Jan 20 2005, 04:58 PM
I also think that inspiring one's allies should be a standard action, much like a bard singing a song to grant similar effects. This forces the noble to choose between taking either a direct (active) role in the action, or exhorting greater efforts fromhis allies. It is the same for bards singing songs or spellcasters casting support spells, why make it different for nobles using a class ability? It is a classic dilemma for leaders on the battlefield, too (on a larger scale): Does he lead the charge personally, or does he direct the action from behind? Leading the charge is more inspiring and makes that unit more effective, but leading from behind allows him to better coordinate his forces as a whole.

For me,
it's very different ( Noble and bard ability )
The one must do effort to be heard, it must find right melody for each circonstence that will motivate the others without that it some is conscience. It's a active action.

The other, by his alone presence its "subjects" are more confiding. as the standards of the leaders on a battle field that to climb back up the morale of the troops.
Lancelot or achille, did not need to do to hear itself to climb back up the morale of the troops (achille itself some to mock even), on the other hand the men had faith in them, and if it decide to quit battle moral decrease, it's a inactive action ( it's include in action of quit battle ).

There is many literature examples or the hero do not need to do although this be to inspire courage and the determination. ..lancelot did not be a bard ! :P

NB :
page 26, regional feat
highlander is for rjurik and Vos
and page 29
it's noted this
Highlander [General]
You come from the highlands of Rjurik.
Regions: Rjurik
this feat isn't for vos

[Arius Vistoon]

in table 1.1 : warrior arms, armor(s), and feats
halfspear ? what's it ? in which book i can find it ? ( most of my book is in french, and i don't see a traduction of this arm )

another point :
this table ( 1.1 ) is very similare with "weapon group feats" in unearthed arcana page 95 ?
why call the feat "regional arms training" and no "weapon group(name of the region)" as this official 3.5 book ?


NB :
if i look the book "tribes of the heartless waste", just the color softcover
i see the very representation of vos, right ?

or, Vos in this picture as no wearing shortbow or flail
i see a war spear, under right character, a katar/gauntled spiked ( i don't know ) with a gratclub under the character at bottom, greataxe and longspear ( or perhaps it's your halfspear ) under the top character

[RaspK_FOG]

I will also side with Osprey; well-thought comments, and I tend to agree with his opinion.

I also noticed something that might interest you: I earlier mentioned that having both a Lead skill and a Leadership feat (and subsequent score) seems awkward, but I didn't realise that the Leadership feat could benefit from the Lead skill: we can say that 5 or more ranks in Lead grant a +2 bonus on your Leadership score from synergy! much like 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (history) grant a +2 bonus on Bardic Knowledge checks...

[The Jew]

I believe a half spear is a short spear

[Arius Vistoon]

Originally posted by The Jew@Jan 22 2005, 06:16 AM
I believe a half spear is a short spear
thanks :)

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Jan 21 2005, 09:16 PM

I also noticed something that might interest you: I earlier mentioned that having both a Lead skill and a Leadership feat (and subsequent score) seems awkward, but I didn't realise that the Leadership feat could benefit from the Lead skill: we can say that 5 or more ranks in Lead grant a +2 bonus on your Leadership score from synergy! much like 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (history) grant a +2 bonus on Bardic Knowledge checks...
You don't get a bonus from synergy to a score - bonuses only apply to checks (that is to something that is rolled). It is like saying that 5 ranks in Balance provides a bonus due to synergy to a character's Dexterity.

If you notice the mechanic used for bardic knowledge it is a dice roll so the bonus applies to the dice roll.

[RaspK_FOG]

Should I feel insulted now? OK, just kidding, but I obviously know this, it's just that I don't see what this should not work, anyway... If you can lead so many troops EFFECTIVELY, I don't see why this should not draw more people under your banner. And there are no synergy bonuses, anyway, as the term "synergy bonus" is obsolete now; I used the term more as a well-known theme. In any case, I made this suggestion because it seems a little too abvious to actually miss that people who actually devote some time in being better and more efficient leaders should also get a bonus on their Leadership score: my 2 cp.

I also like bards to much not to know how Bardic Knowledge works! :D

Cutting to the chase, the idea is more of a, reasonable in my point of view, suggestion; take it or leave it, as the saying goes...

[Osprey]

I also noticed something that might interest you: I earlier mentioned that having both a Lead skill and a Leadership feat (and subsequent score) seems awkward, but I didn't realise that the Leadership feat could benefit from the Lead skill: we can say that 5 or more ranks in Lead grant a +2 bonus on your Leadership score from synergy! much like 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (history) grant a +2 bonus on Bardic Knowledge checks...

I think this is an excellent idea. It makes quite a lot of sense, and to be honest I've often puzzled over the seeming redundancy of these 2 things (Lead skill and Leadership score). I could personally care less if there's a resounding precedent for it in the core system, since the core rules don't have a Lead skill in the first place! The great weakness of the Lead skill as a new skill in Birthright is that it lacks enough practical applications in the setting. This has been improved since making it a key skill for Law holdings and Investiture on the domain level, but having it have a few other uses would be great. Improving one's Leadership score seems like a very logical consequence of being a skilled and inspring leader.

Even if it's not added to the BRCS, a DM could always say that 5+ ranks in Lead qualifies the character for the "Great Prestige" leadership bonus in the DMG.

So there's my 2cp on your 2cp. If this keeps up we'll be rich in no time! :lol:

[RaspK_FOG]

That's a viable way to put it (and one I had in mind, though I kept it as a reserve, but having another person mention it as an idea backs it up!), and I am glad you like how it seems to play out.

It also makes cutting down on the Leadership bonuses the noble has much more smooth, since he can still benefit from many ranks in Lead.

If we are to follow this pattern at all, we could even use rules as found in the PHB, ELH, and Complete Adventurer as a basis and say that for every 10 ranks in Lead beyond 5, you get an additional +2 bonus on your leadership score.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Jan 20 2005, 10:58 AM
Hey Folks,
I'm reposting my comments on the Noble class here. They weren't all that easy for me to find, so I doubt many others were going back and looking at them either. I've read over my former comments again, and I still think they're pretty valid adjustments to make to the class. If others agree, please post and say so. If others disagree, please post and say so. Without voices of assent or dissent, it's hard to have any sense at all of group approval or opposition. Thanks!

Osprey

Soome of you might be sick of the whole noble debate. I know I'm pretty tired of it, too. But let's make one final push of editing and improving, then kick the final sanctioning vote, OK? Onward with the BRCS!!! :D

Thanks Osprey, I couldn't have put it better myself. :D

I did state I didn't incorporate any of your previous comments on the noble because there were no other opinions (for or against) them before.

Have I stated before that I appreciate your efforts? whether or not I agree with everything you post - you do make an attempt to particapte and get things done. That has to be admired. I personally appreciate your efforts.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Arius Vistoon@Jan 20 2005, 03:16 PM
The other, by his alone presence its "subjects" are more confiding. as the standards of the leaders on a battle field that to climb back up the morale of the troops.
Lancelot or achille, did not need to do to hear itself to climb back up the morale of the troops (achille itself some to mock even), on the other hand the men had faith in them, and if it decide to quit battle moral decrease, it's a inactive action ( it's include in action of quit battle ).

There is many literature examples or the hero do not need to do although this be to inspire courage and the determination. ..lancelot did not be a bard ! :P


That was the intent. It is the morale from the noble mere presence that cause inspiration. The fact that those around have faith in their leader and is mere presence tat give the benefit. So just making it know is what causes it.

I'm pretty sure I "borrowed" the concept, but tweaked so it is different in effect, from a 3rd party product (there's no shortage of nobles out there).

The ability is a free action, but the act of making himself known could be a move action. It all depends on where the noble is relation to his followers. He may have to move to gain visibility - this would be a circumstantial call.

[The Jew]

The +2 to leadership score from lead is a good idea. I think Jrdeggmans point was a false distinction. The +2 to diplomacy from Bluff, is a bonus to the diplomacy score, and not simply the diplomacy role. Though it could be argued both ways. I would have agreed with the logic using 3.0 but 3.5 has broadened the uses of synergy bonuses from simply bonsuses to skills, so why not roll with it.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by The Jew@Jan 24 2005, 03:32 PM
The +2 to leadership score from lead is a good idea. I think Jrdeggmans point was a false distinction. The +2 to diplomacy from Bluff, is a bonus to the diplomacy score, and not simply the diplomacy role. Though it could be argued both ways. I would have agreed with the logic using 3.0 but 3.5 has broadened the uses of synergy bonuses from simply bonsuses to skills, so why not roll with it.
Your arguement has lost me here. There is no such thing as a diplomacy score there is only a diplomacy check.

In reality 3.5 has not expanded bonuses from synergy to anything more than to skill checks. Diplomacy is a skill and the bonus from 5 ranks of bluff is to any dipomacy checks. It did elimante the term sysnergy as a type of bonus (which now freely allows them to stack if from different sources).

Every single bonus frm the PHB lists if for a check that is made.

So I'm sorry to seem so argumentative on this but the mechanic in place is to provide a bonus to checks made not to a flat out score. Even the bonus in the DMG to Leadership apply to the score itself and not to any sort of check made. Per the PHB there is no leadership skill, we (all of us here) created it to reflect something unque that was missing from the core rules since they do not address rulership or mass cambat (maybe theupcoming rules fro WotC will addres something similar - I don't know).

So, IMO it is not a false distinction.

[irdeggman]

Here is another way to look at this leadership score Lead skill relationship.

Does it make more sense to have the leadership score provide a bonus to any Lead checks made?

Looking at this objectively it does indeed. The things that modify a character's leadership score are the same things that should (or could ) affect how well he leads. Charisma, level, social status, scion and noble class levels (something added to Birthright).

[The Jew]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Jan 24 2005, 05:40 PM
Your arguement has lost me here. There is no such thing as a diplomacy score there is only a diplomacy check.

In reality 3.5 has not expanded bonuses from synergy to anything more than to skill checks. Diplomacy is a skill and the bonus from 5 ranks of bluff is to any dipomacy checks.

Every single bonus frm the PHB lists if for a check that is made.
Well, you're right, their is no such thing as a diplomacy score.

3.5, did expand the list of synergy bonuses to things other than skills. At least I thought that the bonus to bardic knowldege and turn undead were not in 3.0.

[Osprey]

Have I stated before that I appreciate your efforts? whether or not I agree with everything you post - you do make an attempt to particapte and get things done. That has to be admired. I personally appreciate your efforts.


Thanks. Likewise, I also appreciate your continuing efforts to keep this project moving forward even when it seems like everyone else has flaked out. Keep it up, my man. :)

Osprey

[The Jew]

Originally posted by Osprey@Jan 24 2005, 08:04 PM

Have I stated before that I appreciate your efforts? whether or not I agree with everything you post - you do make an attempt to particapte and get things done. That has to be admired. I personally appreciate your efforts.


Thanks. Likewise, I also appreciate your continuing efforts to keep this project moving forward even when it seems like everyone else has flaked out. Keep it up, my man. :)

Osprey
I deeply resent both of your efforts...it makes everyone else look bad. If you had any sensitivity you would lower yourselves to our level :P

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by The Jew@Jan 24 2005, 06:28 PM
Well, you're right, their is no such thing as a diplomacy score.

3.5, did expand the list of synergy bonuses to things other than skills. At least I thought that the bonus to bardic knowldege and turn undead were not in 3.0.
That is the point I've been trying to make. Maybe I mispoke myself and said it had to be a skill check. A bonus from synergy must be a bonus to some type of check (i.e., a dice roll). We have added bonuses from synergy to domain actions checks, which when simplified are skill checks but broadly taken they are a check of some kind (i.e., d20 roll with various modifiers).

There is no check made using a leadership score. It is a flat number that gives a set result (per the DMG). The number (i.e., score) is sliding and can be affected by situations but it is still a set number at any single point in time.

As my last post pointed out that instead of using Lead ranks to give a bonus to a leadership score - mechanically it is on the same level of applying bonuses due to synergy to grant a bonus to a Lead check based on a leadership score.

Perhaps to make the bonus mechanic similar to one we have already decied on it would be good to say "a high leadership score provides a bonus to Lead checks equal to 1/5 of the character's leadership score".

IIRC that was the formula we decided on for handling domain action checks using the applicable skill. Consistent, fits the bonus game-mechanic and is not overpowering (at least on the surface).

[RaspK_FOG]

OK, that's still more or less the theme I tried to get the track into (and it might make more sense than Lead granting a bonus on your Leadership score, anyway).

However, I am more ready to go along with other rules as defined; a Leadership score of 5 granting a +2 bonus (which means your average person who takes Leadership will have a +2 bonus on Lead checks by default), but gaining a higher bonus would need a Leadership score higher by 10 for each additional +1 on the bonus.

For example, Ellias, the 2nd-level fighter/4th-level rogue, decides to take Leadership as his 6th-character-level feat. He has a Charisma score of 13, so he has a Leadership score of 7; this grants him a +2 bonus on his Lead skill checks.

Now, Draelor, the 13th-level noble, has already taken the Leadership feat (quite a long time ago, really). His Charisma score has steadily risen to that of 18, and he receives a +2 bonus on his Leadership score for a total of 20 (his Charisma is treated as if it were 20). He now has a +3 bonus on his Lead skill checks.

Under the 1/5 system, he would get a measly bonus he gets the feat (+1 only), but it would increase dramatically; under this system, he gets an important bonus at low levels but needs to try a lot to achieve a much higher score. For example, the two systems give a +5/+4 bonus for Leadership 25, and the difference builds up later on a lot (Leadership 45: +9/+6). Though, and I know that, such high Leadership score are pretty difficult to achieve...

What do you think?

[The Jew]

I'm always for smooth increases in strength. I think 1/5 is a better idea. If the character only has a 7 in leadership, they should only get a +1, they are not all that effective leaders. Then they also get increases in their bonus more frequently.

[irdeggman]

I'm with the Jew here. Simple is better, especially when the intent appears to be to keep the total bonus from leadership score to be about the same in either mechanic.

[Osprey]

Hmmm...

I don't know about you guys, but when I ignore mechanical precedents and examine the logic of the synergies and the actual skill/feat descriptions, I'm not too comfortable with the idea of one's Leadership score granting a synergy bonus to the Lead skill.

Let's examine the one logical argument put forward about this:

Does it make more sense to have the leadership score provide a bonus to any Lead checks made?

Looking at this objectively it does indeed. The things that modify a character's leadership score are the same things that should (or could ) affect how well he leads. Charisma, level, social status, scion and noble class levels (something added to Birthright).

First off: Charisma directly modifies the Lead skill and Leadership score anyways. Likewise, level determines potential ranks in a skill. So these 2 factors already directly modify the Lead skill, no need to have them count both directly and indirectly.

Social status, and bonuses from scion and noble class features: While these things do tend to enhance a person's magnetism and overall ability to attract more followers and more competent cohorts, do they actually improve a person's leadership skill? I'm not so certain they do.

If we are to have a Lead skill, it is important to distinguish it as a skill, an ability that can be trained and improved through experience.

Leadership, OTOH, represents a character's overall attractiveness as a leader, something that is 'possessed' rather than trained. It is the sort of thing in which a lot of different factors can combine and be quantified as a score.

If we look at the DMG modifiers to one's Leadership score as suggestions rather than absolute rules, then it makes a great deal of logical sense that other factors not listed might also be included ina more expanded list of Leadership modifiers - such as "Character possesses 5 or more ranks in Lead: +2."
Or alternatively, "Per 5 ranks in the Lead skill: +1."

Either of these make sense as simple BR additions to the Leadership feat and the factors that can modify the Leadership score.

But the Leadership feat improving one's skill at leading? Nah....

That's my opinion on the matter, anyways.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Jan 25 2005, 02:54 PM

First off: Charisma directly modifies the Lead skill and Leadership score anyways. Likewise, level determines potential ranks in a skill. So these 2 factors already directly modify the Lead skill, no need to have them count both directly and indirectly.

You know that is real similar to the argument I tried to make about the Great feats that give bonuses to skills that they have as prerequisites.

Since I lost that argument I figured that consistency was the way to go.

Regardess having a skill give bonuses to a straight score just doesn't make any sense. As I said earlier it is like adding to an ability. Skills are supposed to provide the mechanics for things that have a chance to fail or succeed. Scores are numbers that translate into set conditions or results. A Strength score of 16 gives a +3 to checks based on that ability (always) and a +3 to hit and damage for melee attacks. These are flat unchanging things.

If one really wants to analyze things then the Lead skill is the game mechanic for the leadership score since a score has no variation. That is the Lead skill is the game mechanics way if introducing a variable check to something that had no variable.

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by Irdeggman
If one really wants to analyze things then the Lead skill is the game mechanic for the leadership score since a score has no variation. That is the Lead skill is the game mechanics way if introducing a variable check to something that had no variable.
If you want to put it that way, might I remind you that I proposed that the Leadership feat was made obsolete and the Lead skill was expanded upon as more suitable for the job?

A simple reason why I said that back then was the fact that just about anyone who has a high enough level and Charisma score can pick up Leadership and attract followers, whether that is really very logical or not; on the other hand, a Lead skill distinguished between character classes and needs to be built up separately: you have to work on it.

I don't know what the best way to go is, but I suggest something is done with it; I suggested it in the past in a more radical way and it was dismissed, but this more subtle theme seems to fit both ends... Which will we use if we do use it at all?

[irdeggman]

More things to think about concerning the Lead/leadership score relationship:

When we updated Ch 1 from 3.0 to 3.5 technically we should have rolled Lead into Diplomacy. This would follow the pattern set during the conversion, i.e., to combine skills to make sp use more efficient.

The description of the Lead skill in effect results in influencing others (e.g., changing domain attitude {through agitate domain action} or adjusting the result of great heresy/Great Captain random events.

The original reason this skill was created was to feed the domain level of play such that warrior types would have something they could be good at, since warrior types generally don’t have diplomacy as a class skill. Specifically applying to troops and actions traditionally related to Law holdings in 2nd ed.

Changing a core game mechanic (i.e., by allowing ranks in skills to change a score {whether it is an ability score or leadership score}) for no specifically Birthright reason is just wrong IMO.

We have already inserted a number of things that affect a character’s leadership score (effectively making them circumstance modifiers which is pretty much what all of the ones listed in the DMG are when simplified) so adding another just doesn’t make any sense to me.

If this was an entirely new mechanic necessary to incorporate a 2nd ed Birthright concept it could be justified, IMO – but I just don’t see it here. The entire leadership mechanic didn’t exist in 2nd ed, nor in Birthright itself.

If one looks at the 3.5 game mechanics it is pretty obvious (at least to me) that leadership is a close function of diplomacy. But WotC did not give any benefits to leadership score for any ranks in a skill, whether it is diplomacy or any of the knowledge skills (which could also reasonably apply).

Personally I don’t see a concrete reason to tie leadership score to a certain skill, but if that is actually necessary (based on public opinion) then the consistent game-mechanic method would be to have the score modify the skill (i.e., a bonus due to synergy). If one is concerned that this will give a huge bonus to Lead checks let’s check the numbers: Assuming a 1 to 5 bonus to leadership score formula the max bonus would be +4 using the existing table from the DMG without going epic. Now Cha does affect both things so it could be rationalized that it is double dipping to do it this way but its influence on leadership score is really small in comparison to the others. Leadership score is affected by character level (the major contributor), Cha bonus, circumstance bonuses (including those newly added by the BRCS, e.g., scion class levels, noble class ability, etc.) Cha modifier as I have said is small compared to the others – an increase in Cha modifier happens around every 8 levels (an ability score increase every four levels and modifiers change at even numbers) without any outside influence (e.g., magic etc.)

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Jan 26 2005, 05:51 AM

If you want to put it that way, might I remind you that I proposed that the Leadership feat was made obsolete and the Lead skill was expanded upon as more suitable for the job?

A simple reason why I said that back then was the fact that just about anyone who has a high enough level and Charisma score can pick up Leadership and attract followers, whether that is really very logical or not; on the other hand, a Lead skill distinguished between character classes and needs to be built up separately: you have to work on it.

The problem with eliminating the leadership feat is that it removes many options in the game. If a player chooses not to be a leader (i.e., have followers and cohorts) then he doesn't spend the feat. It is that not getting something for nothing concept.

Also a skill just doesn't translate into an absolute score/value. There is always some randomness in using a skill, while an absolute score/value has no randomness. It is this absolute score (i.e., leadership score) that determines many things (number and level of followers and level of cohort or Lts).

Personally I just don't see the real urgency in this issue. Why is it necessary to create a tie between leadership score and any skill? If so then what skill(s)? Lead, Diplomacy, Knowledge (regional/local), Bluff, Warcraft? Once this can of worms gets opened I can see it spreading ad infinitem.

[Angelbialaska]

If lead becomes diplomacy, then I think it's important to give diplomacy to the fighter. They are supposed to be the best landed rulers (after Nobles).

[RaspK_FOG]

I think you entirely misinterpreted my last post...

I generally found that your idea of using Leadership to provide a bonus on Lead checks might well work better than the other way around.

However, you still forget something and I don't understand why; a skill has 3 important role to play: a number of ranks, which signify how devoted you are in getting the skill going, your skill modifier which signifies how good you are at it, and a skill check, which signifies how good you did!

The randomness applies only on the latter, and I find it a bit awkward of you to say that "a skill is random" per se. What do you make of Speak Language then, the only skill that has no randomness in its usage at all?

If Lead was used in a similar manner for some of the things it does (which it does, provided you can effectively lead a specific number of troops according to your ranks in the Lead skill), it wouldn't matter really, would it?

The redundancy in this whole issue is that a sorcerer can have more followers than a general, which tends to be at fault...

For example, we could say that your Lead modifier replaces the Leadership score one might have got; this is not necessary but, since you seem to be confused of how this could mechanically work, I offer you an example...

No need to go that far, though... The idea of having Leadership grant a bonus on Lead checks or vice versa works for me just fine; it's just that the Lead skill is important to Birthright for various reasons, and I don't see at as a weak point of the setting (more of a weak point of how skill points characters get can be allocated).

[Osprey]

So perhaps the best solution here is to leave the Lead/Leadership synergy a house rule rather than a BRCS rule. It really doesn't seem worth the trouble in the end - and I'd like to see things move on.

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by Osprey@Jan 26 2005, 07:25 PM
So perhaps the best solution here is to leave the Lead/Leadership synergy a house rule rather than a BRCS rule. It really doesn't seem worth the trouble in the end - and I'd like to see things move on.
I think the whole issue is worth the trouble, but I know pretty much that there is not much time left: the BRCS must be released, as is the Atlas!

Thus, I can still accept this not being published on the BRCS; still, I will write an article on the subject that will address various aspects of the issue AFTER the BRCS is released. This will allow people to see if they want to insert a variant in their campaigns without clogging the BRCS any further. How's that?

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Jan 27 2005, 04:26 AM
I think the whole issue is worth the trouble, but I know pretty much that there is not much time left: the BRCS must be released, as is the Atlas!

Thus, I can still accept this not being published on the BRCS; still, I will write an article on the subject that will address various aspects of the issue AFTER the BRCS is released. This will allow people to see if they want to insert a variant in their campaigns without clogging the BRCS any further. How's that?
I think that is a good idea. I encourage people to write articles with house-rules and variants. It is a great fellowship concept, keeps the setting alive and helps those looking for something new to try.

[irdeggman]

Just to throw another monkey at the wrench ;) here is a recent reply I got from the WotC coustomer serv concerning leadership and cohorts. The discussion has been ongoing for a long time on the WotC boards and EnWorld borads as to how many cohorts a character can have. I've sent at least 3 e-mails to the sage ( one to Skip and 2 to Andy) and haven't gotten a response yet (that's the one I'm waiting for as I weigh the sage as a superior source to the customer serv at WotC). A similar answer to what I got was received by at least one other person on the WotC boards - so it looks to be at least somewhat consistent. I personally don't agree with what they are saying, but hey the rules are what the rules are :huh:

An more detailed explanatin of leadership, cohorts and lieutenants will go in Cha 8 (some of it is already there) since it is too broad to be includied in any one chapter with aspects showing up in Ch 1 and Ch 6. I also don't believe that people want (or that there should be) a limit of 1 lieutenant at a time.


We'll deal with that discussion in more detail in the future but itreally doesn't imediately affect Ch 1 (the number of military cohorts limited to GB equivalent of level would still work in any scenario, IMO). It is only the totalnumber of cohorts that would be affected and we can discuss that one later on.

I'm going to spend the weekend trying to incorporate the comments/suggestions on Ch 1 and then put it up for a vote next week.

__________________________________________________ ________________

Man. This just isn't my mail :) I did intend to say that the cohort does NOT cause them to take an extra cut out of their experience. You write in for an answer and I just go making it more confusing.

It is possible to have multiple cohorts, just not at the same time. So if you have a cohort, and then your cohort dies, you can then get another cohort. At this point you have had multiple cohorts and that is the plural that the section on page 104 is referring to. I can definitely see how it can be confusing. But the intention is for 1 cohort. Good gaming!

Trevor
Customer Service Department
Wizards of the Coast
dtd 1/13/105

-----Original Message-----

Thanks again for the reply and the time you are taking with me. When I looked over my original response I noticed it was rather brash and insulting. I didn't mean it to be that way, sorry for the wording.

I assume you meant to say ".. .does not cause them to take an extra cut out of their experience." (Stupid computers not keeping up with our hands/minds.) Since the method written states not to count them (cohorts) when determining XP awards for individual characters. The 3.5 formula has the individual award determined on an individual character basis (using their level and the CR of the opponent/trap and then dividing by the total number of characters present. It is this last number (the one in the denominator) that is not to include any cohorts present, so they never detract from the amount of XP awarded to characters they only allow a greater amount of XP to be awarded. Still seems kind of broke to me, but what the heck. I thought the method in 3.0 was better for this issue (cohorts counted as a half character when determining XP awards).

As far as only gaining 1 cohort, I can understand the logic but it still seems to be a gut-feeling call that is repeated whenever the question is asked. I guess the real question is then what is meant by the statement on pg 104 of the DMG "There are no limitations on the class, race, or gender of a character's cohorts, nor limits to the number of cohorts who can be employed by a character."? This is the same text that was in 3.0. It is a very clear, concise and complete statement and there are no other statements in the DMG that contradict this when referring to cohorts. As far as reading this out of context, I don't see how that can be done since it is 1/3 (one sentence out of three) of the paragraph it comes from and paragraphs are supposed to divide separate thoughts/concepts when writing. But there might have been something that was intended to be said that didn't make it into print, which would expound on this statement and help clarify the intent.



Again thanks for the time and effort you are putting into this.
dtd 1/13/05


-----Original Message-----
From: Wizards Customer Service [ mailto:custserv@wizards.com


Yeah, totally forgot about the weird cohort experience rules, you're right. And the method is what was intended. The party's level goes up for determining encounters, but the cohort does cause them to take an extra cut out of their experience. Again, it is written as intended. Sorry about the confusion.

Trevor
Customer Service Department
Wizards of the Coast
dtd 1/12/05

-----Original Message-----

Thanks for the reply.

I don't think you read the wording in the DMG under experience for cohorts.


3. Actually, if you look under the subheading "Attracting Cohorts" on page 106 of the 3.5 DMG, it states that Cohorts is effectively another PC under that player's control, "one who share of xp, treasure, and spotlight time is bound to take something away from the other players' characters." So the cohort does take his share of the xp and does raise the party's level.

1 - under experience points on pg 104 "Don't include a cohort as a party member when determining the XP awards for individual characters." It then goes into the formula for awarding a cohort experience, but they do not count in the awarding of PCs experience while they do raise the party's level for determining encounters.


dtd 1/12/05
-----Original Message-----
From: Wizards Customer Service [ mailto:custserv@wizards.com


1. You can only have one cohort at a time with the leadership feat. You can have a number of other followers as detailed on page 106 of the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide, but you only ever have one cohort.

2. You only gain the benefits from the leadership feat once, so if you take it multiple times, the effects would not stack. There is no reason to take the feat more than once.

3. Actually, if you look under the subheading "Attracting Cohorts" on page 106 of the 3.5 DMG, it states that Cohorts is effectively another PC under that player's control, "one who share of xp, treasure, and spotlight time is bound to take something away from the other players' characters." So the cohort does take his share of the xp and does raise the party's level.

I hope that clears things up. Have fun and good gaming!

Trevor
Customer Service Department
Wizards of the Coast
dtd 1/12/05

-----Original Message-----

Based upon some quite energetic discussions with some fellow gamers, I have some questions on cohorts and the Leadership feat. I haven’t seen any clarification on these topics in the past so any guidance/advice/ruling would be greatly appreciated.


1. How many cohorts can a character with the leadership feat have at one time?

The DMG pg 104 seems to imply that there is no limit, although some are reading it as a character can replace cohorts who leave or die an unlimited number of times but can only have one cohort at a time. There are no limitations on the class, race, or gender of a characters cohorts, nor limits to the number of cohorts who can be employed by a character. This seems to echo the 2nd ed rules that had henchmen precursor to cohorts and the number allowed based on the characters charisma score while followers replaced men-at-arms I think that is what they were called as listed under fighter, thief and cleric classes

2. Can this feat be taken more than once?

This is not included in the description of the feat, which is the norm. If a character is limited to only one cohort at a time can this number be increased by repetitive acquisition of the Leadership feat?


3. Is the method for determining experience for cohorts and factoring them into the experience distribution as written in the DMG really what was intended by the rules or did something get messed up during the final editing/compilation of the book?

Cohorts are counted when determining the party level for encounters. They are not counted when awarding experience, they get a different rate that doesn’t detract from the experience point awards. pg 104/105 Don’t include a cohort as a party member when determining the XP awards for individual characters. A cohort gains XP equal to cohort level/leaders level times the leader’s XP award. So what essentially happens is that by bringing along cohorts the party can survive encounters of higher levels, gaining higher experience point awards with no additional risk involved. In 3.0 the cohort did take from the XP pool available, but at 1/2 the rate a normal player character would. This really gets distorted if there is no limit to the number of cohorts a character can have see question 1 above. This seems to be a broken game mechanic and is, at least on the surface, unbalanced.

dtd 1/12/05

[void]

Do dwarven crafted(races of stone p 159) items exist in Birthright ?

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by void@Feb 2 2005, 06:45 PM
Do dwarven crafted(races of stone p 159) items exist in Birthright ?
The BRCS is making it a point to not reference books other than the core 3 (PHB/DMG/MM) so that people don't need to have any other books in order to play.

Now as far as whether or not you want to incorporate items from Races Of Stone into your game - that is up to you. The book had some interesting things, as does almost all of the 3.5 WotC books IMO, that could easily be incorporated into a BR game.

[RaspK_FOG]

Might I add here that the DMG said that there is no limit to the number of cohorts you can have? I certainly don't think this was referring to your previous cohort actually dying and then getting another; let us keep in mind that cohorts with different alignments affect your Leadership score!

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Feb 3 2005, 03:55 AM
Might I add here that the DMG said that there is no limit to the number of cohorts you can have? I certainly don't think this was referring to your previous cohort actually dying and then getting another; let us keep in mind that cohorts with different alignments affect your Leadership score!
Read my entire post and you will see that was specifically my point. But as I said, while I don't personally agree. . . .

[RaspK_FOG]

I read it in its entirety, and I feel like this guy is actually pointing out the way HE feels the whole thing works... :bleh:

[The Jew]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Feb 3 2005, 09:47 PM
I read it in its entirety, and I feel like this guy is actually pointing out the way HE feels the whole thing works... :bleh:
His repeated confusion and misunderstandings do not exactly inspre confidence ;)

[Osprey]

I read it in its entirety, and I feel like this guy is actually pointing out the way HE feels the whole thing works... :bleh:


His repeated confusion and misunderstandings do not exactly inspre confidence

Aye and Aye. <_<


My own opinion on multiple cohorts is that it works fine for lieutenants on a domain level, but gets broken to allow more than one cohort on an adventure - even one can be a real pain in the **?&#33;

[RaspK_FOG]

I prefer considering them as half characters and as lower-level PCs that contribute to the party level; this has worked for me best, since the cohort is usually cold upon when there is need to do so, and not every now and then.

In any case, we should wait for a responce from people who are more trustworthy in their answers, though if things go way out of context, we could well change the feat and make it work in a specific manner under the BRCS; I don&#39;t think we should take a step back for the rules in such an occasion...

[irdeggman]

First off let me say I agree with you all for the most part. I still feel the way the DMG is written is very clear and concise. I have also found (via Sage advice) that the rules are supposed to be used as written I have found that once Skip (I&#39;m still not too sure about Andy&#39;s version of Sage yet, but I&#39;l give him the benefit of the doubt for now) explained things then the text ususally became crystal clear and except for typos/editorials the intent and actual text were not in contrast.

I liked the 3.0 of leadership version much better. The major problem I have with the cohorts rule is how they divvy up exp. They count towards the party&#39;s EL but not towards any split in exp. Playing devil&#39;s advocate here - in a bizarro sort of way this works if a character is limited to only one cohort - they are treating the cohort like a paladin&#39;s mount or a wizard&#39;s familiar (it&#39;s part of the package for the character).

Now both the 3.5 and 3.0 version pointed out that this feat can be unbalncing so a DM is cautioned on how (and if) he applies it.

Regardless of what the Sage publishes (if ever) it will not affect Ch 1 or Ch 2. The only real reference to cohorts in Ch 1 is the military cohorts and the limit of number tied into the level of allowed cohort can still work - although when we finalize the BRCS I am not opposed to having a single militay cohort but that is not something we really need to deal with at this time, IMO.

Oh and there was this part of my other post
A similar answer to what I got was received by at least one other person on the WotC boards - so it looks to be at least somewhat consistent.

I didn&#39;t cut and past that post (from the WotC boards) but it was pretty much the same about only having 1 cohort at a time and the cohorts referring to replacing the existing cohort. It was from a different representative from the Customer Service at WotC - so it is not just one person&#39;s opinion but what appears to be the party line (at least from the Customer Service Dept).

All of this stemmed from several agressive discussions I have participated in on both the EnWorld boards and WotC boards. People are generally split on how they view the requirements, I think more side with the no limit interpretation - but I&#39;m not sure. I think you get the feel of which side I was one. It is pretty amazing how many people feel that my parents were never married. ;)

[irdeggman]

I&#39;ve mostly finished working on the last :rolleyes: version of Ch 1 for sanctioning. I&#39;ve been going over things with Osprey (thanks again) and I think we&#39;ve come to agreement on how to best present things. I should have the whole chapter up this weekend. But here is somethng that is "new" and I&#39;m posting it early for some discussion. It is basically an add on to the Inspire Loyalty ability that covers how to use it in the field of battle. It seemed to be something missing and an earlier hidden comment by Osprey got me thinking that something should be there.



Application of this ability to units in battle is slightly different. At 8th level a noble can grant a +1 morale bonus to attacks, damage and morale saving throws to a unit he personally commands (i.e., the unit he is physically present in) with a successful Lead check against a DC of 20. The DM can apply circumstance bonuses to this check depending on the nature of the battle, for instance in a war against a traditional enemy a circumstance bonus of +2 to +4 would not be inappropriate. The bonus to attack and damage applies to the first attack made by the unit so affected while the morale saving throw bonus applies as long as the noble is present on the field of battle (i.e., not in the reserve). At 13th level the noble can inspire all units located on the same area of the battle field granting them the same +1 morale bonus. At 18th level the noble can inspire all of his troops that start the battle located on the battlefield but not in the reserve with the same +1 morale bonus with a successful Lead check against DC 20 + 3 for every additional unit being targeted.

The logic in this mechanic is that the normal ability grants a +1 to att/damage/saves (as specified) and skill check and then increases this benefit to +2/+3. At the battlefield level of play skill checks don&#39;t really factor in and the damage benfit can get quickly out of hand. A +1 is doable but a +2 or +3 is really powerful when units have between 1 and 4 hits total. As far as the first attack limitation I saw this as more of a spirited charge type of thing.

[Osprey]

Duane,
I think the damage bonus on a tactical vs. army level becomes negligible. Adding +1 damage per hit to army units isn&#39;t equivalent to every soldier in the unit having +1 morale bonuses to attack and damage. It is equivalent to every soldier doing x2 damage, as if they scored a crit on every hit&#33;

What I&#39;ve figured for most tactical->army conversions is that both attack and damage tactical bonuses should generally convert to unit attack bonuses, not damage bonuses. The exception IMO (and this is only my opinion for the time being) should be when every soldier can do x2 or more damage - such as lance-wielding cavalry in a charge. Anuirean Knights would be a lot more devestating if their charge did 2 hits of damage, wouldn&#39;t they?

These were the reasons why I made my original suggested revisions (see below)- just grant the affected units +1/2/3 Attack and Morale ratings, but drop the extra damage on a unit level. Also, affecting whole units is a much larger scale than the tactical use of the power, so it should be entirely OK if the army-scale use of the power gets slightly diluted. This actually helps it keep balance.

This was the proposed revisions I brainstormed in response to Duane (so people know what I&#39;m talking about here).

1st, the Noble must be in command of the unit(s)
affected to inspire it. This is a leadership ability,
so it makes sense he must be personally leading those
troops, not just acting as a glorified cheerleader.
8th level, the basic ability is gained. The baseline
effects seem quite reasonable as written, including
the DC’s. The only thing I would change is the
duration. Unify these affects, perhaps like this: the
inspired unit gains a +1 bonus to its Attack and
Morale ratings for the first Battle Turn. Each
subsequent battle turn the noble, so long as he is
alive and visible to the unit, may continue to inspire
and drive his troops, granting them these bonuses .
Doing so requires another use of the ability and a
successful Lead check at DC 20.*

13th level: Not only does the morale bonus increase to
+2, but the noble gains the ability to extend his
inspiring leadership to other units under his command.
The noble may now attempt to extend the morale bonus
to other units under his command. If the noble makes
his inspiring speech before the battle begins, he may
attempt to inspire any unit that begins on the field
(not in the reserve), granting the morale bonus to
attacks and morale for the first turn of battle. This
requires a Lead check at DC 20 + 3 per additional unit
targeted. Thus, inspiring 5 units would require a DC
32 Lead check to succeed. A failed check grants no
bonus, and expends one of the character’s uses
of this ability for the day. If inspiring units during
the course of a battle, the character may attempt to
inspire the company he is leading, and any nearby
units under his command. These units must be either in
the noble’s own or an adjacent space on the
field. As usual, each use of this ability grants the
morale bonus to attack and morale for 1 battle turn.

18th level: +3 bonus is pretty hefty already…and
an ever-greater Lead skill will allow more units to be
inspired with this larger bonus. Perhaps the one
change that could be made is that the noble may now
target allied units on the battlefield as well as
those under his direct command. The ability grows in
its scope, reflecting the more universal charisma and
status of such a high level noble.

Osprey

[RaspK_FOG]

That reminds me... I have some ideas or two regarding tactical unit statistics that I have to write down.

[Osprey]

That reminds me... I have some ideas or two regarding tactical unit statistics that I have to write down.

And that reminds me, I was thinking it would be good to standardize our terms both for the wording of this noble class ability, and for Ch 6 in the future.

I used the term "tactical" to apply to personal and small group scale of combat - essentially anything that happens on the adventure scale, using the normal D&D combat rules.

I used the term army or battlefield scale to apply to units on the battlefield.

"Strategic" applies to armies on the march as per the BRCS, broken into week-long war moves. This includes all of the maneuvering of companies until a battle begins.

Should "tactical" be used instead to describe battlefield maneuvers and combat? How then do we distinguish personal-scale combat? "Adventure" scale? "Personal" scale?

I&#39;d just like to have some standardized terminology so we&#39;re all talking about the same thing. Any thoughts?

[The incredible, edible Phil]

Skirmish perhaps?

[Osprey]

Skirmish perhaps?

For which scale?

[The incredible, edible Phil]

I&#39;m thinking either for the "adventuring" level or the war card level.

[Osprey]

I think of a skirmish scale as squad-level combat: something that is not really covered in BR. Ever tried to run a battlefield skirmish scenario with a bunch of PC&#39;s, allies, soldiers, plus all of the enemies? It&#39;s hell. Without squad-level rules, it&#39;s only possible with a whole lot of DM fiat about what&#39;s happening in the battle beyond the PCs&#39; immediate perceptions.

Tho for all the DMing chaos, I still enjoyed it when I did this for a PC-led coalition army Spiderfell invasion - day after day of ambush, counter-ambush, hit and run skirmishing between strung-out groups of allied troops and defending humanoids. Each day it got worse, tho for the PC&#39;s it was more like a steady stream of messengers and reports about a rapidly shifting series of fights at random intervals and locations.
The Spider is a mad genius and ancient warchief...and his incredible leaping abilities allow him unmatchable mobility through the Spiderfell, letting him personally spearhead various scattered ambushes against the enemy. Throw on incredible regenerative powers, and he can keep it up almost indefinitely...once or twice every hour he strikes again, and what are mere soldiers to him? Vicious.

Heh, sorry for tangent, I couldn&#39;t resist. :ph34r:

[irdeggman]

Why don&#39;t we wait until the mass combat rules from WotC come out later and be consistent with them?

I haven&#39;t read the minatures&#39; rules so maybe there is something in there.

But for now let&#39;s see:

Strategic - corresponds to planning. As Osprey said it is the movement and set-up of troops (domain level play)

Tactical is indeed the personal scale in the PHB but equally works for battle resolution. That is moving the units during the battle itself. Should we change this to tactical-battlefield or just battlefield?

I agree it is important to distinguish between domain, battlefield and adventuring (or personal) scale.

You know it might just be best to add on the scale to to the type of movement/action. I mean the basic concepts still apply whether or not the scale is different. It might help people keeping things in consistent terminology.

For example there is a strategic level of personal play. That is when moving cross country. It is just not really referring as anything. The rules basically only address tactical as it applies once a combat or situation is set.

But again looking over the past discussions I don&#39;t think there has been any real confusion over when we are referring to battlefield or domain level movement, etc. If I am wrong please point it out, but if I&#39;m right then why bother introducing something new that might just add confusion?

[The incredible, edible Phil]

I have been told the D20 Miniatures game is fairly sturdy rules wise for skirmishes or squad level combat.