Skill Expansions and Possible New Skills.

[aluman]

For the most part due to the few ways to get new skills I would like to work the existing skills into A). One new Skill or B). Underneath existing Skills

Law, Administration, Siegecraft, Leadership, Strategy - I propose these all fall underneath the new skill Rulership

Rulership (Intelligence)
You are versed in the many aspects of ruling a realm from the adminstration to warfare tatics.

>Administration - DC 10 for every 5 points above the DC reduce the maintence cost for holdings in your realm by 1GB, use of this skill cannot reduce the cost below 1GB

>Law - Not sure really, maybe just allow it to be used for a skill challenge in the event of Matters of Jusitice.

>Leadership - DC 20 (can't take a 20 but can take 10) check 1/domain turn to improve the morale of 1 province per level by 1.

>Strategy - DC 15 usual benifits

>Siegecraft - DC 15+Castle Rating Usual benfits.

I wouldn't mind making it a variable attribute skill just not sure if its adivisable to do so.

Diplomacy - Falls under current Diplomacy

Intrigue - Falls under neath Either bluff or Thievery (I lean to bluff)

[Raesene Andu]

A leader who is a capable administrator is not necessarily a good general.

So I think you would need two new skills to replace the original BR proficiencies.

1. Administration
Would include the following proficiencies.
- Administration
- Law
- Leadership

2. Warfare
Would include the following proficiencies.
- Leadership
- Siegecraft
- Strategy

Note that I have put Leadership under both, as aspects of this proficiency could go under either.

[aluman]

This is true, and allows Warfare to be Charisma driven, and Administration to be Intelligence driven, it is also more likely to produce the 'good general' or 'good king' rather than one generic.

Since there aren't rules for henchmen yet in 4e, I think that part of the old leadership can be discarded for the time being. but with warfare we can add a DC 20 check to change bolster a unit's morale before a battle (The DC is a rough estimate)

[Thelandrin]

I like the idea of a good ruler and a good leader being separate. After all, Sir Winston Churchill was a brilliant war leader, but he was fairly bad as a peacetime Prime Minister.

[bbeau22]

I agree with the two skills. Will work pefectly. Perhaps Leadership falls under Diplomacy.

In 3.5 skills were determined which regency you could gain from which holdings. I think we can go back to the old 2nd edition style of certain classes get full regency from certain holdings and half from others.

If we wanted to keep skills associated with certain holdings .... I would suggest ...

Arcana - Source
Thievery - Guilds
Religion - Temples
Diplomacy - Province
Warfare - Law

-BB

[Wilenburg]

I have to agree with the workup of the skills for they are similar in nature and cover a lot of the gap that are being used, the raesane has combined them.

[kgauck]

Guilds are not about thievery any more than law holdings are. Guilds are about crafting and commerce (unless you imagine Rjuvik to the be the normative realm). That these economic skills don't even exist is telling.

[Thelandrin]

Yes well, 4th Edition is for people who like fighting and combat adventuring, with no thought for what they do off-camera.

[AndrewTall]

Yes well, 4th Edition is for people who like fighting and combat adventuring, with no thought for what they do off-camera.

Which leaves off-camera an open field. We could have skills independent of level (i.e. you can in skill if you use the skill in practice but not simply by going up a level) in which case we can have as many as we like. As long as they don't impact adventure play there should be no issue.

One easy option is to have as skills 'manage people, manage law, manage commerce, manage faith, manage mebhaighl' (but with cooler names) and just figure out an advancement path. All skills are open to all people but with the expectation that spending skill points on one means you don't spend it on another - encouraging people to hold only one holding type until they become very skilled and max out one of the skills.

I'd then look to restrict RP and GB depending on skill - if you can't manage the holding not only do the people look to other leadership they are less efficient.

Bloodline score could then cap the RP generation, and if bloodline is kept as an ability, the modifier could be applied to any of the domain skills.

We could have some bloodline abilities then give bonuses to ruling provinces or one type of holding, encouraging scions of Anduiras & Reynir to rule law, Brenna to rule guilds, Vorynn&Azrai Source, Basaia & Masela temples (say).

[kgauck]

One easy option is to have as skills 'manage people, manage law, manage commerce, manage faith, manage mebhaighl' (but with cooler names)

Human Resources
Razzle Dazzle 'Em
Masters of Business Administration
Televangelism
and
Hocus Pocus

and Hydrakin should be skilled in all of them as a racial feature.

[bbeau22]

Which leaves off-camera an open field. We could have skills independent of level (i.e. you can in skill if you use the skill in practice but not simply by going up a level) in which case we can have as many as we like. As long as they don't impact adventure play there should be no issue.

One easy option is to have as skills 'manage people, manage law, manage commerce, manage faith, manage mebhaighl' (but with cooler names) and just figure out an advancement path. All skills are open to all people but with the expectation that spending skill points on one means you don't spend it on another - encouraging people to hold only one holding type until they become very skilled and max out one of the skills.

I'd then look to restrict RP and GB depending on skill - if you can't manage the holding not only do the people look to other leadership they are less efficient.

Bloodline score could then cap the RP generation, and if bloodline is kept as an ability, the modifier could be applied to any of the domain skills.

We could have some bloodline abilities then give bonuses to ruling provinces or one type of holding, encouraging scions of Anduiras & Reynir to rule law, Brenna to rule guilds, Vorynn&Azrai Source, Basaia & Masela temples (say).


This sounds pretty good. I just came up with a good idea ...

Have a skill for each holding type. Actions that involve the holding you use the skill as the check.

The good part is for holdings that you receive 100% regency from, your skill check matches that of a skill you are profient in (half-level/+5/ability modifer.) Holdings you receive 50% regency your skill is non-profient (no +5.) If you can't receive regency from the holding you can't use the skill.

Which holdings can you receive regency from? 2nd Edition style.

What do you think?

-BB

[kgauck]

We could have some bloodline abilities then give bonuses to ruling provinces or one type of holding, encouraging scions of Anduiras & Reynir to rule law, Brenna to rule guilds, Vorynn&Azrai Source, Basaia & Masela temples (say).

Basaia gave the mantle of Law to Avani, so I'd make Anduiras and Basaia the Law.
Masela was goddess of the sea is mainly patronized by fishermen and sailors, suggesting guilds.
Then I'd move Reynir to Temples (but only because Sources is crowded and Temples are empty).

[AndrewTall]

Avani seems fairly likely to have paladins - several are noted in both RoE and Cities of the Sun. Also the ties of king over land (outside the cities anyway) seem weak, so I'd keep Avani as temple focused (this may of course simply be prejudice reading in a RL cultural trait).

Erik's two druid orders have near total control over the culture in the highlands indicating to me that he should identify with law - sources being a possibility for the more traditional druid approach to life.

I saw Masela as more sea = subsistence/survival than sea = trade. Nesirie's droopiness since Deismaar fits in my mind with the priesthood as I find clerics depressing, I also struggle to see Haelyn's wife as a wheeler-dealer type. That said what fits Nesirie's priests now and what fitted Masela may be two very different things.

Of course we haven't mentioned Manors, awnmebhaighl and other non-standard holding types.

[irdeggman]

Erik's two druid orders have near total control over the culture in the highlands indicating to me that he should identify with law - sources being a possibility for the more traditional druid approach to life.



Except that "law" is not something inherently part of the Rjurik culture. Individualism is and that at its core is in direct conflict with law.

So I would not have Erik identified with law at all.

Temples and sources sure (sources because they are "nature" related - not because of any special arcane magic connection via Erik, which there shouldn't be).

[kgauck]

Though I disagree with Andrew, I only disagree in degree. Avani is more law than Erik. But aside from that, I think Andrew has the better argument than irdeggman.


"Except that "law" is not something inherently part of the Rjurik culture."

Law is a huge part of Rjurik culture and its managed by the skalds, who are established and protected by the temples. The skalds memorize the law and adjudicate the law. The druids themselves advise the rulers on matters of law and justice. Many of the Rjurik festivals are organized around legislative assemblies. Both of the cultures that the Rjurik are based on take the law very seriously, though neither established a state until late in their histories.


"Individualism is at its core is in direct conflict with law."

If by "individulism" you mean "anarchy" then I agree, but if you mean "liberty" then you are absolutely wrong. Liberty require the rule of law to restrain the powerful who both have the capability and the desire to subjugate others. While the law can be used to impose tyranny, liberty cannot be achieved without the law for any group larger than a single person. Rjurik culture is not an example of lawlessness in which the strong dominate the weak by force. You're thinking of the Vos.

[Rowan]

"Administration" speaks to me of paper-pushing and logistics, management of fiscal resources. I think it would be worthwhile to distinguish it from "Rulership" as the skill of making wise decisions, arbitrating/mediating disputes, organizing people, leading and inspiring, resolving conflicts, and making prudent decisions about matters of justice. I believe that for most of history, monarchs have left much of the administration to aides, councilors, and cronies. The best may be masterful administrators themselves, but even very good ones (like Winston Churchill) may not be gifted at administration. They can still be so good at ruling and organizing that they will be very effective.

So I see a suite of three skills still appropriate as additions to the skill list: Administrate (INT), Rulership (WIS or CHA), Warcraft (an argument could be made for any of mental ability scores).

In 4e add these three skills and let Scions choose one of them as a trained skill (possibly appropriate to derivation). I do think there needs to be some sort of Regent or Ruler class, template, or other mechanism apart from adventure class level to determine how effective a character is at Domain rule. This mechanism should include access to these skills and possibly allow extra feats that play off of them or just Skill Focus on them.

[kgauck]

The Renaissance is the beginning of actual administration where more than a handful of scribes were required to conduct the business of the state. Many kings got by with a single secretary.

In the condensed 4e skill set, all the skills associated with running stuff can be rolled into one skill.

War is a different business that government, of course.

[bbeau22]

"Administration" speaks to me of paper-pushing and logistics, management of fiscal resources. I think it would be worthwhile to distinguish it from "Rulership" as the skill of making wise decisions, arbitrating/mediating disputes, organizing people, leading and inspiring, resolving conflicts, and making prudent decisions about matters of justice. I believe that for most of history, monarchs have left much of the administration to aides, councilors, and cronies. The best may be masterful administrators themselves, but even very good ones (like Winston Churchill) may not be gifted at administration. They can still be so good at ruling and organizing that they will be very effective.

So I see a suite of three skills still appropriate as additions to the skill list: Administrate (INT), Rulership (WIS or CHA), Warcraft (an argument could be made for any of mental ability scores).

In 4e add these three skills and let Scions choose one of them as a trained skill (possibly appropriate to derivation). I do think there needs to be some sort of Regent or Ruler class, template, or other mechanism apart from adventure class level to determine how effective a character is at Domain rule. This mechanism should include access to these skills and possibly allow extra feats that play off of them or just Skill Focus on them.

I am of the other camp that you don't need a different class for to see how effective a character is at Domain rule. The question I have is why wouldn't an experienced level 20 wizard be better at controlling his realm than a level 1 wizard. Why wouldn't a level 10 cleric be better at running a temple system than a level 3.

If we have a system of feats and powers that blooded characters can take that give different bonuses to ruling their chosen domain, they can take them while they level up to be more effective leaders. Its like being a specialist in some ways. Some rogues are good influencing a group of people while others are good at dungeon survival. Why not include another rogue type that is good at running a guild operation. Instead of taking feats that allow them to remove traps better they take feats that let them make more money with each guild they control. Lets be honest, how many traps have many rogue guilders disarmed while running a guild operation?

There is no reason to create a seperate system for holding feats. The only thing I can see that isn't attached to regular levels might be blood powers that effect domains.

-BB

[kgauck]

I am of the other camp that you don't need a different class for to see how effective a character is at Domain rule.

Why do you suppose that one who spends 20 years swinging a sword as a fighter has the same ability to command an army as someone who spent 20 years commanding soldiers? Doing a task and supervising a task are entirely different skill sets.

[Vicente]

Why do you suppose that one who spends 20 years swinging a sword as a fighter has the same ability to command an army as someone who spent 20 years commanding soldiers? Doing a task and supervising a task are entirely different skill sets.

Probably both examples are going to end translated as the same level fighter in the end (or roughly similar).

[kgauck]

You're probably right. Which makes my 3.5 library a great comfort to me.

[bbeau22]

Why do you suppose that one who spends 20 years swinging a sword as a fighter has the same ability to command an army as someone who spent 20 years commanding soldiers? Doing a task and supervising a task are entirely different skill sets.

I see what you are saying, that is why we need to find a way to have a soldier have the option to become a more leader type.

In 4th edition they come as Paragon Paths where the fighter has access to different abilities. We could have a Paragon Path called Noble Ruler that would give different feat options that have to do with ruling more than fighting. They would still be leveling up as a warrior and get some warrior abilities, but many more that had to do with realm rulership or more specifily law rulership.

Not to mention that being blooded we could also have feats and powers they have access to that allow them to rule a realm more effectively starting at level 1 instead of level 10.

This can be applied to every class.

I also don't like to pigeonhole noble as a certain type of class. Nobles can be warriors or priests, rogues ... they can all be noble. Why force them into one class type when we can have a set of feats that any class can take from. Some feats will have pre-req's for certain classes, but mostly any noble born ruler can pull from.

-BB

[kgauck]

I see what you are saying, that is why we need to find a way to have a soldier have the option to become a more leader type.

No problem there, at some point most leaders have to make the transition from a doer of things to a leader of those who do.


In 4th edition they come as Paragon Paths where the fighter has access to different abilities. We could have a Paragon Path called Noble Ruler that would give different feat options that have to do with ruling more than fighting. They would still be leveling up as a warrior and get some warrior abilities, but many more that had to do with realm rulership or more specifily law rulership.

This is a fine explanation for people who started as doers and then transitioned, but it offers too little for those who always lead and never did. In fact its worse than that, because it presumes that everyone is an adventurer. The DMG gives you what, two pages on NPC's? It may be worth pausing here to note that I expect PC's to be adventuring classes and to dabble in leadership. I expect their bloodlines to give them some capacity to rule. I don't think most characters ever get a chance to reach paragon paths, but that's not a hard fix. But NPC's don't adventure necessarily. That doesn't mean they're not formidable, but it does mean that they are formidable as scholars, diplomats or administrators. How does one take a character like Brulan Broweleit and build him in 4e? Invent all new encounter, daily, and at will powers? This is a character whose purpose is to make Talinie's administration produce more GB per realm turn and to add bonuses to certain realm actions.

To think for a minute that by taking Administration as a skill is the same as being Brulan is enough for me to put 4e back on the shelf. Here's a 4th level character optimized for domain play. Domain play is what sets BR apart. You can't optimize characters for domain play, if everyone does everything equally well, just differently, I don't even see the point in naming characters.


I also don't like to pigeonhole noble as a certain type of class. Nobles can be warriors or priests, rogues ... they can all be noble. Why force them into one class type when we can have a set of feats that any class can take from. Some feats will have pre-req's for certain classes, but mostly any noble born ruler can pull from.-BB

Opportunity costs for one, transportability of skills for two. Once a person knows how to manage people, handle money, and negotiate, it doesn't matter whether they do so for a state, guild, or temple. Its a separate thing, not part being a fighter, priest, or rogue. And do a considerable extent, people who are good at running things, its because they were not out slaying dragons, but taking care of things back at the castle/guildhall/temple. Especially if one wants to see BR remain a lower level setting, being good at running a realm can't mean that I need to have paragon paths, or get loaded up with a bunch of powers I never actually acquired.

[Vicente]

I think you can work over those problems Kenneth. First, on 4e that character should pick Skill Training and Skill Focus feats (for a +8 for that skill). With a high score in the relevant attribute your NPC will have around +10 to +12 to Administration at level 1. That's more than the Administration skill from Brulan Broweleit (4th level) in the wiki. And probably more than most PCs.

Secondly, you can allow several uses of the Administration skill only to be allowed to Trained users. So, even if a level 10 warrior would get also get +5 from his level to Administration, it's less worth than the +5 from the Skill Training your NPC gets.

Even in 3e, if your NPC is a level 3-4 guy he is not going to have his skill bonuses much better than the level 3-4 4e NPC (I'm pretty sure they end more or less the same).

[bbeau22]

Another way to handle NPC's is to just make them completely seperate. Just some thoughts on the top of my head.

- Make administrators and the like have 1 hp which means they die very easily. Heck they never picked up a sword their whole life, they should drop almost instantly. 4th edition would call them minions.
- Have three levels of administrators. Novice, Experienced, Expert. Just to toss numbers out there have novice have a +5 on one skill. Let have Experts have one skill at +10 and another at +5. Make a true expert have a +15 on one check, +10 on another and +5 for a third.
- This can be part of a characters court and each expert can be listed with which level they are at and what their skills are. Would not need any other information.
- I would assume more powerful luitenants would have adventuring levels and possibly more skills to assist in rulership.

-BB

[Rowan]

I'm still reading my 4e books (just came in a few days ago due to Amazon's poor pre-order policy), but I think there are a couple of ways to handle rulership skills and so forth.

Beau, you've mentioned Novice, Experienced, and Expert guidelines for NPC creation. Well, the DMG has Templates designed to apply quickly to NPCs or monsters to make them fill a role well, and to bump standard ones up to elite or solo. Your idea could be translated into templates to do something similar.

If we want templates that can be applied to player characters with no effect on adventuring ability, we would just need to have the template focus on domain-level only skills and feats and so forth, with no bonuses to powers or hp or level-based stats.

Something else occurred to me that might prove even easier and more freeform:
--Create a suite of skills (Administrate, Warcraft, Rulership, per holding, whatever), feats, even powers (weekly, monthly, seasonally/per turn, annually) that have to do with rulership and domain level play with no adventure impact.
--Give NPCs access to a number of these based on a basic NPC level you assign, using the PC generic class chart to determine how many they would get. This allows all NPCs to be freely customized into any specialist you wish--scholar, ruler, magistrate, bandit lord, merchant, etc. It also keeps stat detail focused on only what is needed and allows mid- to high-level NPCs who are not incongruously devastating fighters (of course, you could just ditch even this and say that NPC X just has a +10 modifier to Administrate and leave it at that, but for the Chamberlain and others it would be good to know a little more)
--Give PCs access to these skills through their bloodline, gaining a certain number in addition to their adventure abilities as they go up in level, sort of like Paragon paths but starting at level 1
--Give PCs the ability to freely swap any of their other powers, feats, or skills with those in the Domain Rulership suite if they wish to focus their characters even more on rulership

NPCs should be pretty easy this way, even easier in the absence of Powers. Just assign a basic level and you know almost all you need to know; you do need to pick the skills and feats that matter you want to focus on, but the level basically calculates on its own the modifier for the skill. In this level-dependent system, you could even derive hit points, attack abilities, and defenses in a pinch if you needed to, without having to list them ahead of time, if we had a fallback NPC template for this.