Holding attack/defense Holding system

[bbeau22]

I was looking rules and I thought up a new system that might work well in a 4th edition Birthright setting. If people seem even somewhat interested I can expand the idea.

4th edition has a pretty solid system of attack and defense. I was thinking we could apply this to a realm level for the success of actions. Here are my thoughts.

Each holding would have an attack and defense number.

Law (half bloodline score + Law holding + class modifier)
Guild (half boodline score + Guild holding level + class modifier)
Temple (half bloodline score + Temple holding level + class modifer)
Source (half bloodline score + Source holding level + class modifer)
Province (half bloodline score + Province level + half character level)

Defense of each holding would follow a similer pattern

Law (10 + half bloodline score + law holding + class modifier)
- you can follow the pattern for the rest.


Certain classes are better prepared to defend certain holding types. If the class favors the holding type they get a +5 to both attack and defense. If they are neutral to the holding it is 0 modifier. Some classes are ill prepared to handle certain types of holdings and receive a -5 modifier.

Warrior - Favored - Law, Neutral - guild, No relation - Source, Temple
Priest - Favored - Temple, Neutral - Law, No relation - Source, guild
Rogue - Favored - Guild, Neutral - Law, No relation - Source Temple
Wizard - Favored - Source, Neutral - nothing, No relation -Temple, Guild, Law

Many of the domain actions use attack and defense values for success.

Contest Holding - Holding attack vs. Holding defense
Contest Trade route - Holding attack vs. guild defense
Create Holding - Holding attack vs. Base DC
Create Leyline - Source attack vs. Province Defense
Create Trade Route - Guild attack vs. Base DC
Espionage - Guild or holding attack vs. various defense
Rule Holding - Hold Attack vs. Same holding defense
Rule Province - Province Attack vs. Province defense


Regency battle - Once per month a regent can call a regency battle on one of their actions. One that single action they can spend regency to effect the outcome of the roll. Once declared any regent in the area can spend for or against the action. The regent can only focus all of his personal energy to one action. If the regent is doing an action that is effecting multiple provinces then he can choose one province to declare regency battle.

If a regent declares a regency battle against you ... this doesn't count against your decleration and you can spend freely against or for the other regent.

Each of the domain actions would cost a base amount of regency. This should be a static amount. Every time the regent wants to contest holding it will cost 5 regency.


Certainly a much different way to go about it. The numbers above aren't really balanced but wanted to give you a feel for what I was thinking.

-BB

[kgauck]

How are you calculating Bloodline score? By my reckoning Darien Avan has a 70, which gives him a 10 + 35 + 2 + 5 = 52 to defend his law holding in Portage. against attacks from Aeric Boeruine 30 + 0 + 5 =35, 17 required for effect.

Darien is 42 in attack against Aeric's Portage holding, which defends at a 45, 3 for effect. Never mind Alamie or Tournen.

Are you using some other method of calculating Bloodscore?

[stv2brown1988]

Each holding would have an attack and defense number.

Law (half bloodline score + Law holding + class modifier)
Guild (half boodline score + Guild holding level + class modifier)
Temple (half bloodline score + Temple holding level + class modifer)
Source (half bloodline score + Source holding level + class modifer)
Province (half bloodline score + Province level + half character level)

Defense of each holding would follow a similer pattern

Law (10 + half bloodline score + law holding + class modifier)
- you can follow the pattern for the rest.

Many of the domain actions use attack and defense values for success.

Contest Holding - Holding attack vs. Holding defense
Contest Trade route - Holding attack vs. guild defense
Create Holding - Holding attack vs. Base DC
Create Leyline - Source attack vs. Province Defense
Create Trade Route - Guild attack vs. Base DC
Espionage - Guild or holding attack vs. various defense
Rule Holding - Hold Attack vs. Same holding defense
Rule Province - Province Attack vs. Province defense

-BB
In the case of Rule Holding/Rule Province, if your attack rating = your defense rating there is no need to roll. As any # rolled will = success.

Create Leyline is an action that should not be opposable (IMO that is why there are spells to detect leylines.)

Otherwise, I think these rules for contest holdings are good. I like the -5 penalty, specifically as it makes wizard/source regents depend more on other regents.

Steve

[stv2brown1988]

I assumed (I know, my bad) that he was planning on using the 3e/3.5 system for Bloodline scores. (normally 3-18) And that he meant to use the Bloodline Score Modifier in his calculations. (+1,+2, etc...)

For the 4ed are people looking at returning to the 2ed way for computing Bloodline Scores?

[irdeggman]

I assumed (I know, my bad) that he was planning on using the 3e/3.5 system for Bloodline scores. (normally 3-18) And that he meant to use the Bloodline Score Modifier in his calculations. (+1,+2, etc...)

For the 4ed are people looking at returning to the 2ed way for computing Bloodline Scores?

This system was already changed in the 3.5 system.

The sanctioned version of Chapter 2 (the one on the wiki too) went back to the old values.

This switch was done over a year ago, closer to 2.

Chapter 1 was likewise "revised " and sanctioned.

So both are different than what appears in the "playtest" version.

[bbeau22]

In the case of Rule Holding/Rule Province, if your attack rating = your defense rating there is no need to roll. As any # rolled will = success.

Create Leyline is an action that should not be opposable (IMO that is why there are spells to detect leylines.)

Otherwise, I think these rules for contest holdings are good. I like the -5 penalty, specifically as it makes wizard/source regents depend more on other regents.

Steve

Actually if you noticed the defense score is 10+ all of the other modifiers. So in an equal world you would have a 50/50 shot. Now we can include other modifiers to help boost your attack so you are more likely to succeed.

[bbeau22]

This system was already changed in the 3.5 system.

The sanctioned version of Chapter 2 (the one on the wiki too) went back to the old values.

This switch was done over a year ago, closer to 2.

Chapter 1 was likewise "revised " and sanctioned.

So both are different than what appears in the "playtest" version.


Yeah I believe there are two verisons at the moment. I do think bloodline modifier makes the most sense after I slept on it. So an incredibly powerful bloodline will certainly have an advantage over a weak one. But a powerful holding but a weak bloodline might be able to hold its own.

[bbeau22]

Other quick thoughts

There are all types of modifiers we could apply here.

Holding type vs. same holding type would have no modifier. But if law attacks something isn't another law they would have a -2 (or another number) to succeed.

We could include modifiers that others have mentioned. Racial modifier to succeed or even bloodline type modifier. Best part is if you don't want bloodline type modifier don't include it in your campaign.

just tossing out other ideas I thought of ...

Have powers that can interact more with holdings.

- Once per season you can boost an attack of one of your holdings by +5.
- Once per year you can save one of your holdings from attack. (Think Tournen trying to defend law holdings vs Avanil. Knowing full well that Avanil can steamroll Tournen's law holdings the regent of Tournen once could auto succeed in defense just once.)
- Once per season you can attack one other holding as a court action instead of a standard action.

-BB

[Rowan]

You're talking about Contest actions? What is deficient about the current system? What are you trying to correct or improve?

[Vicente]

While not 100% related, Contest and Rule were too asymmetric in power in 2e (and they continue to be in 3e, why not reducing 1 level instead of 1d3? Ruling is nor cheap nor automatic).

About this system, I did some tests for something similar in my homemade campaign. It's not balanced as there are other things that affect the power of holdings in general.

Law: = vs Law, + vs Temple, + vs Guild, can't vs Source.
Temple: - vs Law, = vs Temple, - vs Guild, -- vs Source.
Guild: - vs Law, - vs Temple, = vs Guild, can't vs Source.
Source: can't vs Law, can't vs Temple, can't vs Guild, = vs Source.

[Rowan]

Reducing 1 level seems a good fix, though perhaps not very enticing. I haven't played many games where holdings are contested because it's just too costly.

I think anyone should be able to contest any holding. You just can't apply your own holding levels against holdings not of your type, except for Law holdings.

[bbeau22]

You're talking about Contest actions? What is deficient about the current system? What are you trying to correct or improve?

First I was just reading 4th edition and thinking of a way to have Birthright 4th edition match it. Once I thought of this I started to realize the possibilities.

1. For people that have read 4th edition and come to our site, the idea of attack and defense will be instantly familer. They will understand the concept of attack and defense and how to apply it to other holdings. (Need to contest another holding an attack roll vs. a defense roll fits nicely)

2. Having a single number for a holding actions will speed up the game. Need to do a contest ... well my attack is a blah blah. Need to rule ... my attack is blah blah vs. a base defense.

3. Feats and powers can now be applied to those numbers for attack and defense.

There are other reason but that is what I can think of on the top of my head. Certainly the old system wasn't broke at all, but it certain has a 3rd edition feel to it.

-BB

[Vicente]

I think anyone should be able to contest any holding. You just can't apply your own holding levels against holdings not of your type, except for Law holdings.

I agree on this. But on our campaign we changed that rule to force interactions between different regents.

[irdeggman]

2. Having a single number for a holding actions will speed up the game. Need to do a contest ... well my attack is a blah blah. Need to rule ... my attack is blah blah vs. a base defense.

-BB


Don't forget to account for RP expenditures - thus it is no longer a "set number".

IMO RP is not accounted for then there is no point in having holdings at all.

[AndrewTall]

Don't forget to account for RP expenditures - thus it is no longer a "set number".


RP is part of it being an opposed roll - personally I don't see the difficulty in opposed rolls - 'her roll is your DC' sort of thing.

The question is how you deal with RP bidding - silent bids? Refundable deposits? One/Two/etc round only bids? Max bid equal to bloodline modifier per round? Etc.

Without RP bids you get holdings flipping rapidly, not good when they represent certain faction types. Book-keeping vs Simulation maybe a recurrent them e in a 4e conversion...

[Thelandrin]

4E is specifically about balance in all its glorious and flawed aspects. If you really want a "balanced" 4E Birthright, why are you perpetuating the "wizards are useless" stereotype that has hounded them since at least the BRCS?

[bbeau22]

I had a big long rant I was about to post but figured I would keep most of it to myself. Just a bit too negative.

I really respect everyone's opinion and look forward to helping this transition going forward.

My only thought for everyone is that if we are going to make a 4th edition verison of our beloved Birthright lets go for it. If we can fit Birthright mechanics into the new 4th edition system we should be trying to do that first, and not adding layers of different rules and systems. If you don't like the 4th edition mechanics ... well there is always 3.5 edition that will not go away.

I am just afraid that we are going to create a 4th edition system that resembles 4th edition on the outside but the guts will be a mix of 2nd/3rd/3.5/homebrew. Not a single person outside of our group will be interested in it because it will be too unfamiler, and 3-4 years down the road when the only real set of rules is 4th edition, we will look at our bastard edition and realized we missed the boat.

[Vicente]

RP bids on offensive: you just say how many RP you intend to spend and that's it.

RP bids on defensive: in his turn each player states his RP pool to bid and how much she is going to spend in a single action at most. Easy and neutral :) She can make exceptions for some actions, provinces,... but usually the simple rule works very well.

About the useless wizards, not allowing everyone contesting them is a first step to give them more protection (although Rule Province and no-income continue screwing them pretty fast :( ).

[Thelandrin]

That's just status quo, Vicente. The wizards couldn't be contested or even seen except by other wizards, yet they had minimal (if any) income and were completely hosed by Rule Province.

If you wanted to throw wizards a bone, you could allow sources to generate income like laws and allow them to bid regency (but not source levels) against Rule Province.

[irdeggman]

I had a big long rant I was about to post but figured I would keep most of it to myself. Just a bit too negative.

I really respect everyone's opinion and look forward to helping this transition going forward.

My only thought for everyone is that if we are going to make a 4th edition verison of our beloved Birthright lets go for it. If we can fit Birthright mechanics into the new 4th edition system we should be trying to do that first, and not adding layers of different rules and systems. If you don't like the 4th edition mechanics ... well there is always 3.5 edition that will not go away.

I am just afraid that we are going to create a 4th edition system that resembles 4th edition on the outside but the guts will be a mix of 2nd/3rd/3.5/homebrew. Not a single person outside of our group will be interested in it because it will be too unfamiler, and 3-4 years down the road when the only real set of rules is 4th edition, we will look at our bastard edition and realized we missed the boat.


First we have to look at what is setting material versus what is flavor material.

Here is a thread with that subject:

Flavor versus game mechanics:
http://www.dndworlds.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1884&highlight=flavor (http://www.dndworlds.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1884&highlight=flavor)


Now if you want to only play 4th ed and wave your hand over it and say it is Birthright - feel free.

But IMO you will be making a huge mistake.

One of the good things about 2nd ed that was watered down tremendously in 3.5 was the notion of "settings".

In 2nd ed each setting was distinctly different (well a most of them were in any event). Each had componets that defined the setting in a way that separated it from the others.

In 3.5 this line was deliberately blurred due to economics (and IMO this will continue with 4th ed and anything subsequent). The idea being that any book or product created could be used in any setting. This was in direct contrast to the 2nd ed philosophy.

So IMO define what is and what is not Brithright and then work towards using the 4th ed mechancs to explain it. Not do it the other way.

[irdeggman]

RP is part of it being an opposed roll - personally I don't see the difficulty in opposed rolls - 'her roll is your DC' sort of thing.

Right.

The reason I mentioned RP is the fact that no one had done it earlier.

The discussion was along the lines of a flat out defense number based on character level, bloodline, etc. But no mention of any circumstance modifier (i.e., RP) which is really a core concept in being a regent in BR.

There should be a way to handle it, most likely easily. But it should not be merely dismissed as a "relic" and something that should be thrown away becasue it goes against the 4th ed concepts. I feel that it can fit in with those concepts as long as someone wants it to.

[Vicente]

Right you are there Thelandrin (I just checked the wiki).

We "solved" this problem in another way: sources generate "magic income" that can be used to cast spells (Alchemy for example). And population doesn't reduce source level, but reduce that magic income (so no need to Rule the source back if the population goes down among other things). So Wizards don't have to spend their RP to get income and they continue to have problems with high level populations but not so hard.

[bbeau22]

First we have to look at what is setting material versus what is flavor material.

Here is a thread with that subject:

Flavor versus game mechanics:
http://www.dndworlds.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1884&highlight=flavor (http://www.dndworlds.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1884&highlight=flavor)


Now if you want to only play 4th ed and wave your hand over it and say it is Birthright - feel free.

But IMO you will be making a huge mistake.

One of the good things about 2nd ed that was watered down tremendously in 3.5 was the notion of "settings".

In 2nd ed each setting was distinctly different (well a most of them were in any event). Each had componets that defined the setting in a way that separated it from the others.

In 3.5 this line was deliberately blurred due to economics (and IMO this will continue with 4th ed and anything subsequent). The idea being that any book or product created could be used in any setting. This was in direct contrast to the 2nd ed philosophy.

So IMO define what is and what is not Brithright and then work towards using the 4th ed mechancs to explain it. Not do it the other way.


Totally understand where you are coming from. We are just looking at the same problem with two seperate points of view. I certainly would never sacrifice much of what makes Birthright unique just to shove it into 4th edition, but what I have always said if 4th edition mechanics CAN be used and it doesn't mess up the original intent of Birthright ... then we should.

Seems you aren't too far off from that opinion. I just get scared when people offer up solutions for 4th edition by create new rule sets to go along with 4th edition rules. Too many of those and we might as well not even be using 4th edition at all.

-BB

[kgauck]

First we have to look at what is setting material versus what is flavor material. Here is a thread with that subject:

Good old Ben Franklin.

[Rowan]

For bookkeeping purposes and especially the PBEM community (which we could devise a separate rules set for, but it would be nice if we didn't have to), I prefer to keep the domain actions simple. That's a driving focus of 4e, as well: reduce unnecessary math and die rolls.

So I would like to keep the current Contestation system rather than introducing per-holding calculations of attack and defense and possibly introducing an additional die roll (making it opposed). You could introduce Blood powers and/or feats or assets that provide a bonus to Contest or Resist Contestation, if you wish, but the current system is actually pretty straightforward: base DC = 10+target holding level; you add your own holding level to your action, and then there's RP bidding.

If you'd like to make it a little easier to defend, skill and feat adjustments (if we still have any in 4e) could apply to the defender's side as well. If you want to write down the attack/defend numbers ahead of time for each holding, that's fine, but I'd rather not do that bookkeeping myself.

I also would like to retain the term "Contest" (and, by extension, resisting contestation), because this is a real world term that better applies to the situation and can be explained in any number of ways. "Attack/Defend" takes us out of the political realm and is a distraction making us think of tabletop metagame terms rather than story terms.

As an additional note, in general I think that we should avoid factoring in level or bloodline score into regular calculations. It gives far too much of an advantage to powerful scions. Even using Domain Power (an under-utilized number, IMO) solely as a bonus would give an advantage to large realms and discount the agility factor in smaller ones.



If you wanted to throw wizards a bone, you could allow sources to generate income like laws and allow them to bid regency (but not source levels) against Rule Province.
I would let Source levels apply against Rule Province; the more strongly the magic of the land is controlled, the harder it will be to Rule. However, this works best if Rule Province is made easier and is explained in terms of administrative reforms and divine connection to the land rather (among other things) rather than in population. We've been over those things before in another thread, and I've put forth ideas about making things work within those explanations better.

[Vicente]

That's just status quo, Vicente. The wizards couldn't be contested or even seen except by other wizards, yet they had minimal (if any) income and were completely hosed by Rule Province.

I've just checked the Birthright Campaign Setting at home and any holding can contest any other holding, they don't have to be of the same type, this was changed in the BRCS 3e.

[irdeggman]

I've just checked the Birthright Campaign Setting at home and any holding can contest any other holding, they don't have to be of the same type, this was changed in the BRCS 3e.

Interesting it doesn't specifically state that they have to be the same type - although there is evidence to support that in the color text and other places.

BRRB pg 52
Contest

"A regent can neutralize another regent's holding by contesting his influence." Emphasis on influence.


pg 82 BRRB

"Sources gain the advantage that they are immune to being contested by military force. They can be contested only through the contest action."

Book of Magecraft pg 18

"If another wizard already controls a source within the province, or if the province's ruler objects to the wizard establishing a presence, the wizard may meet opposition in trying to create a holding. (See "Domain, Character, and Free Actions" in the BRRB."

pg 16 of the BoM talks about locating sources. Pretty much only wizards or those with a strong tie to the land in the area itself can locate a source. So if a regent can't locate it how can he "contest" it? Especially since it is immune to being contested by force.


BRRB has an interesting note on barred actions for source regents (pg 82)

A source regent with a 0 level source can only perform the Rule domain action (he can't even contest other sources).

[Vicente]

Probably this is my problem as not been a native english speaker, but I don't see anything in the color text supporting that interpretation :S



BRRB pg 52
Contest

"A regent can neutralize another regent's holding by contesting his influence." Emphasis on influence.

I don't see anything here that supports the same holding type. Why a law regent can't contest the temple regent influence? Can't she deem that religion ilegal for example? (seems a good "contest").



pg 82 BRRB

"Sources gain the advantage that they are immune to being contested by military force. They can be contested only through the contest action."


I think this was related to military occupation of a province (when you conquest an enemy province you can contest/raze everything there, but I'll check when I get home). Again nothing here supports they can't be contested by another holding type.



Book of Magecraft pg 18

"If another wizard already controls a source within the province, or if the province's ruler objects to the wizard establishing a presence, the wizard may meet opposition in trying to create a holding. (See "Domain, Character, and Free Actions" in the BRRB."


If the province ruler can oppose the create holding or rule actions, then that seems to support that she will be able also to contest the source later on if she wishes.



pg 16 of the BoM talks about locating sources. Pretty much only wizards or those with a strong tie to the land in the area itself can locate a source. So if a regent can't locate it how can he "contest" it? Especially since it is immune to being contested by force.


"Those with a strong tie to the land" can easily mean the province ruler or other regents in that province (they are tied to the province more than anyone). But it would make normal people living there incapable of stumbling upon the source (except by chance).



BRRB has an interesting note on barred actions for source regents (pg 82)

A source regent with a 0 level source can only perform the Rule domain action (he can't even contest other sources).

I don't think this is related, it just means several actions are prohibited to source regents because they don't have enough political weight (another problem for the poor guys).

Again, I don't think this rule change is a bad change at all (although I would only make it for source holdings, I would let the rest holdings contest each other).

Also, the problem it could be also the understanding of what a contest action means. While in the BRCS 3e says contest is nearly the same as a war declaration, I don't understand contest as such a terrible thing. It's more political infighting behind the curtains trying to gain more influence over a subject than other regents. If contest is like a war declaration, then create holding or rule is the same most times, and I understand them also as political moves more than war moves.

[AndrewTall]

Totally understand where you are coming from. We are just looking at the same problem with two seperate points of view. I certainly would never sacrifice much of what makes Birthright unique just to shove it into 4th edition, but what I have always said if 4th edition mechanics CAN be used and it doesn't mess up the original intent of Birthright ... then we should.

Seems you aren't too far off from that opinion. I just get scared when people offer up solutions for 4th edition by create new rule sets to go along with 4th edition rules. Too many of those and we might as well not even be using 4th edition at all.

-BB

well, to a degree we are stuck in that we are trying to create rules to model the interaction of domains, and 4e is built on the interaction of people - some stuff will jar.

But using a skills approach to determining action success seems fine for 4e - if you want to have it level/2 rather than points based it would be easy enough to keep point based as an optional system for more experienced players - saying that 'you can spend RP up to your ability modifier on any domain action to improve the chance of success' should make it too hard for anyone. Unless 4e has done away completely with opposed rolls I'd keep it as an opposed roll is easy to handle than tables for defense values.

Bloodline modelled on an ability score worked fine in 3e and that should translate without a problem

Bloodline powers can fit around feats/abilities for combat powers or be 'per action, seasonal, yearly' for domain affecting powers - with the latter being add-ons not swaps to retain adventure level parity.

Domain income should be 3e non-random rather than 2e dice based, but perhaps updated by going decimal to simplify the book-keeping.

RP generation could stay skill focused - if you choose the rule province and rule law' skills on your 'ruler class' then you get RP from them, you can get feats to get up to your bloodline score modifier from other holdings, etc.

Our 4e additions therefore are:
* a new ability score
* a new class - with no adventure level impact, just a choice of 2 or 5 skills
* some new adventure abilities and feats
* some domain abilities and feats
* domain ruleset

None of these require a new mechanic, only the last would take more than a few minutes to understand how to use.

* class to monster conversion (I haven't checked this area of 4e yet, it may be easy enough) for awnies
* opposed rolls (Can't actually see anything in phb stopping this at the moment anyway)

Possibly new but again fairly simple.


The book-keeping is:
* track regency
* track domain gold
* track domain expenses

Anyone who can track hitpoints and gp can track these. Anyone who can't must have someone in their group able to handle primary school math and a spreadsheet who can.

The alternative to domain GB book-keeping is to have 'wealth levels' for realms to avoid tracking gold at all but this in my view causes more problems than it solves.


Overall we don't have much new that doesn't need to be done anyway - the 'outside combat' skills, interactions and economics basically. Frankly if we get new 4e players coming along and saying 'hmm, this is all 4e' I'd be disappointed, 4e is at best the start of a game, if it was the be-all-and-end-all then I'd be converting to herosystem, earthdawn, etc.

[irdeggman]

Probably this is my problem as not been a native english speaker, but I don't see anything in the color text supporting that interpretation :S

Quite possibly.




I don't see anything here that supports the same holding type. Why a law regent can't contest the temple regent influence? Can't she deem that religion ilegal for example? (seems a good "contest").


This is where I think knowledge of English language usage comes into play.

Influence in general refers to influence over something.

A temple regent has influence over the religious beliefs of the population.

A guild holding has influence over the economic patterns of the population.

A law holding has influence over the "behavior" of the population. As in "safety" and "order". Taxes also frequently fall under this category.

Sources have influence over no one. They are independent of population and a source holding is really a measure of the regent's influence over the "land" itself.


Now this opinion is reinforced by the ruling in 2nd ed that uses the difference between holding levels as a modifier for the contest action.

In a level 4 province there can be a level 4 law, level 4 guild and a level 4 temple holding, but the source holding level is not based on the same number. It depends on the pravince land type and subtracts the province rating to dtermine what is left.

It is clear that all holding of the same type are on a similar footing and competing for the same resources while holdings of different types are not competing for the same resources.

Regents are competing for influence over these resources (those of a similar type) and not over the total province (that is under the contest province action, which is vastly different).


I think this was related to military occupation of a province (when you conquest an enemy province you can contest/raze everything there, but I'll check when I get home). Again nothing here supports they can't be contested by another holding type.

Right - but a regent can use troops (could in 2nd ed) to target specific holdings. This emphasizes that sources are quite different than other holdings in the fact that there is generally nothing physical to destroy, no buildings, no assets, no population to disperse, etc.



If the province ruler can oppose the create holding or rule actions, then that seems to support that she will be able also to contest the source later on if she wishes.

Note that the BRCS has the word "generally" in the description of contest actions. It does not say only similar types.




"Those with a strong tie to the land" can easily mean the province ruler or other regents in that province (they are tied to the province more than anyone). But it would make normal people living there incapable of stumbling upon the source (except by chance).

Have you read the Book of Magecraft?


I recommend it strongly as it contains lots of description of what a source holding really is. It is a "manifestation" of the magic potential. This marks a distinction in understanding what the holding represents as compared to a guild or temple.

Landed regents still have a means of "contesting" source holdings.

The rule province action effectively lowers the magic potential of the land and while a specific manifestation can't be targeted - all source holders are penalized by this action.

Only landed regents can use this action.



I don't think this is related, it just means several actions are prohibited to source regents because they don't have enough political weight (another problem for the poor guys).

But if you are using the words as written in the BRRB as a basis without comparing other text, then the words as written here are very specific and do not address interactions with other holding types but all domain actions in general.



Also, the problem it could be also the understanding of what a contest action means. While in the BRCS 3e says contest is nearly the same as a war declaration, I don't understand contest as such a terrible thing. It's more political infighting behind the curtains trying to gain more influence over a subject than other regents. If contest is like a war declaration, then create holding or rule is the same most times, and I understand them also as political moves more than war moves.


Yes and no.

This topic has been around for a long time.

Contesting is like attacking someone's assets. This very action is similar to declaring war since a regent is using his influence against someone. Different holding regents view "war" as different things. Temple regents view religious contests as a war against their god and beliefs, guild regents view it as "stealing" from them, while law regents (and landed ones) tend to view war in the more traditional terms.

Creating a 0-level holding is viewed quite differently.

A 0-level holding (other than sources) allows a regent to establish a place to conduct political dealings - an embassy if you will. What the regent does with that base is something else.

So creating a holding can (and usually would be) viewed with suspician.

[Vicente]

This is where I think knowledge of English language usage comes into play.

Influence in general refers to influence over something.

A temple regent has influence over the religious beliefs of the population.

A guild holding has influence over the economic patterns of the population.

A law holding has influence over the "behavior" of the population. As in "safety" and "order". Taxes also frequently fall under this category.

Sources have influence over no one. They are independent of population and a source holding is really a measure of the regent's influence over the "land" itself.

Now this opinion is reinforced by the ruling in 2nd ed that uses the difference between holding levels as a modifier for the contest action.

In a level 4 province there can be a level 4 law, level 4 guild and a level 4 temple holding, but the source holding level is not based on the same number. It depends on the pravince land type and subtracts the province rating to dtermine what is left.

It is clear that all holding of the same type are on a similar footing and competing for the same resources while holdings of different types are not competing for the same resources.

Regents are competing for influence over these resources (those of a similar type) and not over the total province (that is under the contest province action, which is vastly different).


I know regents compete for influence over one type of resource, but nothing says that they can't try to deny other regents their influences. I think it's very easy to imagine a law regent trying to contest a guild (raid warehouses, declare some types of trade ilegal, putting too high taxes,...). It's not strange either to imagine a law regent (and province owner) contesting an opposing temple regent to allow his own puppet temple to grow in the province.

I think sources are harder to imagine because we don't have sources in real life so we can't make paralels with real life examples (where economic, politic and religious powers have clashed a lot with each other).



Right - but a regent can use troops (could in 2nd ed) to target specific holdings. This emphasizes that sources are quite different than other holdings in the fact that there is generally nothing physical to destroy, no buildings, no assets, no population to disperse, etc.


Yeah, agreed, but a contest doesn't have to mean only actions over physical properties. Debates in a senate where you ridicule an enemy faction could mean a contest over law for example. Nothing physical was involved. A price war is also an explanation for a contest between guilds. A temple denying the right to rule to the owner of the province could be another contest.

Making sources inmune to direct military actions is just an inmunity they have given their "no physical assets" status, but it's not related to the contest action.



Note that the BRCS has the word "generally" in the description of contest actions. It does not say only similar types.


Yeah, you are right, but to be honest the current wording in the BRCS 3e is pretty bad:

"Generally, holdings can only be contested by other holdings of the same type. Law holdings are also able to contest guild and temple holdings (but not source holdings)."

Rules should be concise and clear.



Have you read the Book of Magecraft?

I recommend it strongly as it contains lots of description of what a source holding really is. It is a "manifestation" of the magic potential. This marks a distinction in understanding what the holding represents as compared to a guild or temple.


I only browsed over it. I got it much later than the time I got the Campaign Setting, so the game was already heavily modified by that time.



Landed regents still have a means of "contesting" source holdings.

The rule province action effectively lowers the magic potential of the land and while a specific manifestation can't be targeted - all source holders are penalized by this action.

Only landed regents can use this action.


I have no problems either with a temple starting a witch hunt against a wizard regent (another contest). Or guilds stopping the trade with the wizard so she won't be able to get those expensive and rare materials needed for her nice realm spells.



Yes and no.

This topic has been around for a long time.

Contesting is like attacking someone's assets. This very action is similar to declaring war since a regent is using his influence against someone. Different holding regents view "war" as different things. Temple regents view religious contests as a war against their god and beliefs, guild regents view it as "stealing" from them, while law regents (and landed ones) tend to view war in the more traditional terms.


If by assets you mean physical things I disagree, contest can have many more representations than a physical attack.



Creating a 0-level holding is viewed quite differently.

A 0-level holding (other than sources) allows a regent to establish a place to conduct political dealings - an embassy if you will. What the regent does with that base is something else.

So creating a holding can (and usually would be) viewed with suspician.


To establish an embassy you could send also a lieutenant or any other agent to the kingdom court. Creating a new holding means you want a part of the cake, not that you want to have nice relations.

But again, I think that the BRCS 2e is pretty clear in that anyone can contest anyone. And I also agree that changing this for wizard regents is a good move (as they need it badly).

[kgauck]

While in the BRCS 3e says contest is nearly the same as a war declaration, I don't understand contest as such a terrible thing. It's more political infighting behind the curtains trying to gain more influence over a subject than other regents. If contest is like a war declaration, then create holding or rule is the same most times, and I understand them also as political moves more than war moves.

War is politics by other means. I'm not so sure is any worse than political infighting, most of the time. The question is, is most war total, drawing on the full resources of the nation, or is most war fight for limited purposes? Cerilia is supposed to be at war a lot, and that requires mostly limited wars in which the scope and size of the war is limited. Supposedly, for example, Ghoere tests its boundary with Roesone quite a bit. I imagine its mostly a single unit, or so, to literally test the state of Roesone's army. If they give better than they get in a series of encounters, then two things are established, a larger war will probably be successful and we both know it, and Ghoere's already done a bit of hurt to Roesone.

[kgauck]

Yeah, you are right, but to be honest the current wording in the BRCS 3e is pretty bad:

"Generally, holdings can only be contested by other holdings of the same type. Law holdings are also able to contest guild and temple holdings (but not source holdings)."

Rules should be concise and clear.

Vicente's right, this does sound like guilds can only contest guilds. Which would be silly.

[Vicente]

War is politics by other means. I'm not so sure is any worse than political infighting, most of the time. The question is, is most war total, drawing on the full resources of the nation, or is most war fight for limited purposes? Cerilia is supposed to be at war a lot, and that requires mostly limited wars in which the scope and size of the war is limited. Supposedly, for example, Ghoere tests its boundary with Roesone quite a bit. I imagine its mostly a single unit, or so, to literally test the state of Roesone's army. If they give better than they get in a series of encounters, then two things are established, a larger war will probably be successful and we both know it, and Ghoere's already done a bit of hurt to Roesone.

Good aclaration, I was referring more to total war as you say, where you just come fight, conquer, plunder and destroy a lot of assets and infrastructures in the whole process (as reflected by contesting all the physical based holdings). I agree that total war is the rare extreme and that small tests (may it be politics, raids/incursions, covert operations,...) are the norm around Cerilia.

[AndrewTall]

Vicente's right, this does sound like guilds can only contest guilds. Which would be silly.

A half-way-house would be to allow contests between the various landed holdings, but only allow the bonus from your holding size to affect holdings of similar types. So temple 6 vs Guild 4 is not at +2, but at -4. Law holdings which have a more pervasive impact get to apply their size bonus against any other landed holding type.

We could allow temples of at least Azrai, Erik, Ruornil and Moradin to contest source holdings, possibly at 1/2 size impact, but otherwise keep sources impervious. In this case I'd want to give the wizards some way of striking back - say by denying the priests access to magic on a successful contest...

Sources should otherwise only impact the various landed types to remove various random events (such as natural disaster and magical event). and possibly to oppose province rule actions.

[irdeggman]

But again, I think that the BRCS 2e is pretty clear in that anyone can contest anyone. And I also agree that changing this for wizard regents is a good move (as they need it badly).


Except for sources.

See the rule I referenced earlier.

0-level sources can only rule but not contest.

This restriction does not apply to any other holding type.

[Vicente]

Except for sources.

See the rule I referenced earlier.

0-level sources can only rule but not contest.

This restriction does not apply to any other holding type.

That's an exception for level 0 sources, that's it, no more, no less. The 2e rule continues to be pretty clear. What I fail to see if you like the 2e version, you like more the new 3e not so clear wording, you would change anything or what is your opinion about the subject in general :)

[AndrewTall]

I have to admit, until quite recently it never occurred to me that anyone would even consider trying to contest a source holding with a landed holding or vice versa - the two types of holding appeared so fundamentally incompatible that the question could never arise.

The 2e rule that only a wizard could do anything with a source beyond simply hold it seemed to make specifically prohibiting cross-influences fairly redundant - how could a regent contest a wizards influence over something (mebhaighl) that was fundamentally beyond the first regents influence?

The BoM makes reference to the impotence of non-wizard regents in respect of sources, the only suggestion made that non-wizards can affect the sources is temporary reduction via force, as a result various spells allowed the source manifestation to be protected. The BoM never even seems to consider the possibility of a wizard vs non-wizard series of actions, a fairly significant omission in my view. Particularly when added to comments in many sources about regents hostile to wizards (Firosk Slecktra being a notable example) being unable to do anything about the wizard; comments are also made that other regents don't even know about the wizard until the wizard acts against the (Mour El-Sirad, etc) I'd definitely read the rules as treated sources as a holding apart from other types.

Overall I'd say that reading 'landed holdings can affect source' as taking a 'mechanic over story' approach to an unhealthy extreme. What justification is there for saying that rocks, trees, rivers etc are swayed by oratory or force of arms? King Canute springs to mind! (In both actual and mythical sense.) I'd note that even the regent's 'tie to the land' seems far more a 'tie to the people' than it is to the land - including the 'land's choice'.

One point I note is that 2e in general seems to have assumed that everyone stuck to their class role - fighters ruled, priests preached, thieves traded, wizards mediated on the cosmos. With such an underlying assumption there would be no need to specifically say that holdings could only contest similar holdings etc - it would hold true for all holding types unless stated otherwise. That said re-reading the 2e create holding and rule actions they specifically mention that only regents with a 'similar holding' can oppose the actions and these are comparable actions to contest which makes no such statement (although the example is guild:guild) indeed contest talks about the province ruler using the province rating to contest other holdings so I can see where the confusion arises.

[Vicente]

From the BRCS 2e (page 82).

"Sources and Actions

In addition to providing a wizard with the power to cast realm spells, a source also stands for the wizard's ability to affect the events in a province and his connection to the powers of that area. Unlike other characters, wizards may be prohibited from some undertakings if they have insufficient presence in a province."

That's not about rocks and springs, it's about political influence and connections. That's what get contested. That's why until they get a level 4 source they can't agitate, because the population doesn't recognize them as a political figure until they have gained a high level enough source. When they do, everyone whispers about the old mage that lives on the dark forest who appeared in front of the castle and announced that the king was cursed, making people more reluctant to follow him (agitate).

It's pretty clear in the BRCS and it makes a lot of sense (witch hunt again for example, it's not like is new for humans to be superstitious and things like that...).

[Rey]

The province's ruler can always try to oppose to the wizards source holding creation. She may even not allow a wizard to tap into source. Example: Savanne of Mhoried is Prince Fhileraene's consort (in Tuarhievel) and is invested with his blood. She "controls" the sources, but she cannot use them since she's not a wizard. If she permits, the Sidhe wizards can tap into sources and do their thing.

Regents are connected to the land and the sources are too. So, like a ruler can oppose the wizard trying to create a holding or tapping into, the wizard should be able to oppose him through the power of the land (when he has created a holding). Since the wizard may not be native to the province or a domain, he should suffer some penalties, like the ruler of more provinces should have a bonus based on his widespread power.

Other holdings are more "physical" so they can more easily influence each other. Guilds would always try to earn some extra money by bending the law and churches will preach against the lord or a ruler if he works against the people. It's something we see in a modern world. The law is passed that there shall be a death penalty for heavy crimes, and moralists (usually churches) will try to oppose this, just like a ruler will try to ban a faith that does not concur with hers and her people's beliefs.

From this point of view, the ruler has his hands full with holdings trying to sway her rule and take charge of the province. This is where diplomacy comes to play.

[irdeggman]

That's an exception for level 0 sources, that's it, no more, no less. The 2e rule continues to be pretty clear. What I fail to see if you like the 2e version, you like more the new 3e not so clear wording, you would change anything or what is your opinion about the subject in general :)

But you keep insisting that the rules allow any holding to contest any other holding. When I pointed out a rules text that is in specific contrast and you say it is a singular exception.


I try to point out that this "singular exception" when combined with the other material in the BoM (a book which you said you had not fully embraced efore) points out that "sources are different".


I really don't know what you are trying to accomplish, but it comes across as using a single point (or a general rule) to prove a far reaching one (or apply it to a specific one - namely how to handle sources).

Now, most long-term BR fans readily admit that there are a lot of editorial inconsistencies in the 2nd ed material and that almost everyone has developed large amounts of "house-rules" to make adjustments for them.

This poor editing is something that must always be kept in mind when looking for "absolutes" when it comes to BR.

I will only say that there is a large amount of "evidence" that points to sources being handled vastly different than other holdings.

[Vicente]

But you keep insisting that the rules allow any holding to contest any other holding. When I pointed out a rules text that is in specific contrast and you say it is a singular exception.

There is a rule: holdings can make actions. And there's another rule that makes an exception to the general rule: source holding actions are limited by their level. That's it, no more no less. The game is full of general rules that get specific exceptions, not sure what's the problem there (contested holdings can't take actions too except rule, that's another exception).



I try to point out that this "singular exception" when combined with the other material in the BoM (a book which you said you had not fully embraced efore) points out that "sources are different".


Yeah, they are different, they don't have the same political power (limited actions) and important physical assets (no military contest) as other holdings. And several other things.

The BoM tells the same as the BRCS in page 19 regarding sources and their non-magical side.



I really don't know what you are trying to accomplish, but it comes across as using a single point (or a general rule) to prove a far reaching one (or apply it to a specific one - namely how to handle sources).


General rules prevail unless there's an exception. The general rule is that anything can contest anything. There's no rule exception anywhere about a holding not been able to contest another holding type, let it be sources, temples, guilds or law.



Now, most long-term BR fans readily admit that there are a lot of editorial inconsistencies in the 2nd ed material and that almost everyone has developed large amounts of "house-rules" to make adjustments for them.

This poor editing is something that must always be kept in mind when looking for "absolutes" when it comes to BR.


Agreed.



I will only say that there is a large amount of "evidence" that points to sources being handled vastly different than other holdings.


Agreed in some things. They are different in the parts they are different and they are equal in the ways they are equal. A Rule action moves a law holding up equally than it moves a source holding up (given there's space for a new holding level). Same happens with contest.

Again, I repeat, I don't see any problem house ruling that sources can't be contested by other holdings (as I posted, I house ruled that myself for law and guilds, and put severe penalties to temples).

This conversation was just a remark about the difference in the 2e and 3e contest wording. Several people have expressed their opinions about how to update the 2e rule (anyone can contest anyone): holdings can only contest the same holding type, sources are the exception and can only be contested by sources, sources can be contested by other holdings with a penalty,...

So if we are going to transform the contest action to 4e, we need to reach an agreement here.

[Thelandrin]

You could always solve in the typical BR.net fashion - form a committee by setting up a poll!

[bbeau22]

Two men enter ....

One man leaves ...

Two men enter ...

Opps sorry. Do up a poll. I was playing it as only like holdings could contest each other and law could contest all the others but source. Source can't contest anything but source.

Across the board I like the idea of either letting other holdings contest each other but at negatives.

Source I like being isolated. I would be up for certain temples to be able to contest source like Rournil. I also have already talked about at length before that Druids certainly be able to control and challenge source. They are tied very closely to the land and know the source as well as any wizard.

-BB

[Rey]

I'm only for a ruler's right to contest the wizard's sources. Rulers are tied to the land and they should have the ability to control and contest. Regents already can "control" sources, although they can not directly benefit from them.

Priests and wizards derive their magic power differently, so I wouldn't mix them and let them contest each other.
Druids could have the knowledge of sources, but still, the magic is different.

[Sorontar]

So under that scheme, The Spider (law holding 0 or1) could contest Caine's sources (source potential 6 or 7) in the Spiderfell?

On that point, if the Spider has law holding 0, but is the province regent, can he actually contest anything launched against him (with other than military might)?

Sorontar

[Rey]

Law (0) means contesting an existing law holding or creating a new one, as I understood it. With it, you don't technically control any law, nor have any gains from it (well, you can wrest a gold bar from severe taxation, if you're lucky and the only regent in a province).

And when you have law (1) or higher, why not contest a source (6)? Wizard controlling the source holding will be awarded bonus for higher holding level and some things stay the same: invest some RP and GB to boost your bonus/decrease the chance of the opponent.

[Vicente]

I like the poll idea to see if we can gather the community feeling about the subject, but there are so many interpretations posted so far with quite subtle differences that is going to end as a pretty strange pool :p

Either way I'll post it on the evening and we can keep the talk about contest there.

[Rey]

People of community should appoint a group of devoted members in charge of gathering information and giving ideas on a subject (very small subject), closed for public. When they think it over and discuss all the possibilities, they would choose the best solution(s), write it and present it. Open a thread, explain how it works, set up a poll and see if it needs adjusting or is it accepted by a majority of the community.

Getting large number of people in discussion on forum and presenting every single idea could take a lot of time, especially if you want to include all the wishes.

In that case, when there are no solutions to the problem, everyone can have her or his idea presented through a PS or article on wiki and say "It's like that, because I'm right and I know the best way how it should be."

[Wilenburg]

True Rey you could do that but if the committee falls apart like it did with the atlas project it may never be completed at some point a person can go through the threads and close them and them come up with a just of information and then represent it in a different thread as test rules for the 4th edition.

[Rey]

That work group would be easily abandoned by any person who chooses so, and also joined by any other person who chooses so (perhaps re-joined by person who left due to family or business). The point here is an active group with a discussion leader and rules for discussing items on agenda.

Small steps in solving small problems lead to improvements in gaming system, no one guarantees that the work group would solve each and every of BR's issues, but would nonetheless mean a step forward.

It's like putting together a constitution. If you try to pass the whole constitution, because of a several things, you'd have to drop it and begin from the scratch. Instead of doing completely new constitution, you'd add the amendments, because they can easily just be implemented into existing shell.

[kgauck]

It doesn't need to be done in secret. It can be done on the boards with the full participation of everyone. We don't have enough active posters that we need to set up committee. What does help in situations like this is having a proper chair person or moderator who keeps things productive, sets the agenda, and decides when to move along, table things, come back to things, and so on.

[Rey]

It's not about being secret, but rather active and interactive and also keeping things on track with flow and not backtracking when someone accidently stumbles in after progress has been made. Time is not of the essence here but helps keep things have a definite period for resolve. It can be done on the forum, but there are reasons for not doing it on the forum.

[kgauck]

I understand, but I've seen this before. Its not that much better than operating in the open, but you lose all the investment that you get from being inclusive. You risk coming back with the product of the committee and having the forum turn its collective back.

A thread moderator could deal with latecomers who go off topic, even including moving their posts to a separate thread.

[Vicente]

I think also that a public talk on the boards with a moderator or moderators who focus the topics to discuss is the best way to move the conversion forward.

Also, it's not good to aim to do the conversion perfectly at the first try, but better to do it in an iterative way. Moderators say: we are going to talk about this subject for a week, we talk, opinions are noted a resolution achieved and we move to the next subject. Once we have covered more or less all the points, we can start again and review them because for sure new ideas will have appeared during the whole process (let it be new books with new mechanics, earlier ideas that doesn't fit with later ideas,...).

[Rey]

I know a lot of people remember how this ended before. It's pretty hard for someone new like me to get in and try to propose something similar with a promise that things won't end like that again.
Forum just seems inappropriate for what I have in mind so far, I think.

But nevermind, I won't press it. I'm leaving things the way they are, people are content with how it goes so there's no need to change that.

[kgauck]

I know a lot of people remember how this ended before.

Its not just experience with the 3rd edition conversion at work here. Its watching any group that has a stake in the outcome of a decision excluded from the decision making. They don't like it.

[Rey]

Well, my wish is to keep them all in. But they'd have to be active and quick. You can't wait for someone to call a shot a year from now when everyone has agreed and moved on. Also, possibility is that not 100% of community will agree to all. And this is not about compromise and making everyone happy, it's about results that work and that a majority agrees to.

If I'd say that I like drinking wine, someone would say that beer is better. And this is only a simple one. What will happen if you ask: Should all holdings be able to contest all others? That one will grow branches no one will be able to follow. I'd be the first one lazy enough not to keep track of it. And there are much more open issues all over forum, simultaneously. Too much thinking for my little brain.

Bah, look at me. I said I'm giving up on that idea and I'm still blabbering about it.

[Wilenburg]

That ok Rey on last vent is always good besides I have been looking over it and was going to start to make a summary of what has been discuss into a usable form with all the arguements and come up with a solid structure of what was discuss.

Besides with 4th it will be easier, I was playing second and third and it was confusing because some of the rules conflicted in certain situations. With that said, the rules of doing this should not be as big as it was in third edition, and a lot simplier, was very complex they had rules and then they had rules for each and every situations. second edition had rules and systems abd each of them were variations and/or different complexities. That why I hope we can make a 4th edition just as complex for veteran players but simplier for the new players with out making it wordy and confusing as other editions.

with holding actions to be completely worked out we also need to look for the following 3 things that goes with it
1) RP
2) Domain actions
3) costs involved in military or other expenses (level maintenance nd so on).

[Vicente]

Rey, both approaches to the conversion work need a core group of people to be active and quick. But doing things openly you allow the rest of the community to have input on the work that is been done, so people with less time or less involved can feel that even if they can't spend X time on the conversion, their voice carries a certain weight.

Think about open source development, usually there's a core group of people who work on the project, but nothing stops a new outsider to make input to the team and the community in general. Ultimately, the decision of what gets added and how is up to the core team, and of course is impossible to please everyone, but it's not so hard to find a compromise or a good enough solution for the majority.

[Rey]

The idea is not about isolation. Forum can be just fine, but a bit tougher to execute certain steps, and again, it could be just perfect for some other.

[irdeggman]

Both methods were actually done with relation to the BRCS.

The "playtest" version was done by a core group and sent out for comment.

There was a lot of grief and pretty much defamation and personal attacks being leveed at "us" when we didn't get the "product" out promptly.

When Chapter 1 and 2 were revised to become the sanctioned products they are now - pretty much the entire process was run by polls. I tried to keep things on topic and focused but there is only so much you can do. During that process there were a few people who pretty much insulted and dissed me all along the way too.

Again, there was a lot of criticizm over taking so long because of the polls. IIRC it took about 1 year and a half to get both chapters "finalized".

So either method has disadvantages and you can pretty much guarantee that there will be a faction that will diss whatever is being done.

[Sir Tiamat]

I was looking rules and I thought up a new system that might work well in a 4th edition Birthright setting. If people seem even somewhat interested I can expand the idea.

4th edition has a pretty solid system of attack and defense. I was thinking we could apply this to a realm level for the success of actions. Here are my thoughts.

Each holding would have an attack and defense number.

Law (half bloodline score + Law holding + class modifier)
Guild (half boodline score + Guild holding level + class modifier)
Temple (half bloodline score + Temple holding level + class modifer)
Source (half bloodline score + Source holding level + class modifer)
Province (half bloodline score + Province level + half character level)

Defense of each holding would follow a similer pattern

Law (10 + half bloodline score + law holding + class modifier)
- you can follow the pattern for the rest.


Certain classes are better prepared to defend certain holding types. If the class favors the holding type they get a +5 to both attack and defense. If they are neutral to the holding it is 0 modifier. Some classes are ill prepared to handle certain types of holdings and receive a -5 modifier.

Warrior - Favored - Law, Neutral - guild, No relation - Source, Temple
Priest - Favored - Temple, Neutral - Law, No relation - Source, guild
Rogue - Favored - Guild, Neutral - Law, No relation - Source Temple
Wizard - Favored - Source, Neutral - nothing, No relation -Temple, Guild, Law

Many of the domain actions use attack and defense values for success.

Contest Holding - Holding attack vs. Holding defense
Contest Trade route - Holding attack vs. guild defense
Create Holding - Holding attack vs. Base DC
Create Leyline - Source attack vs. Province Defense
Create Trade Route - Guild attack vs. Base DC
Espionage - Guild or holding attack vs. various defense
Rule Holding - Hold Attack vs. Same holding defense
Rule Province - Province Attack vs. Province defense


Regency battle - Once per month a regent can call a regency battle on one of their actions. One that single action they can spend regency to effect the outcome of the roll. Once declared any regent in the area can spend for or against the action. The regent can only focus all of his personal energy to one action. If the regent is doing an action that is effecting multiple provinces then he can choose one province to declare regency battle.

If a regent declares a regency battle against you ... this doesn't count against your decleration and you can spend freely against or for the other regent.

Each of the domain actions would cost a base amount of regency. This should be a static amount. Every time the regent wants to contest holding it will cost 5 regency.


Certainly a much different way to go about it. The numbers above aren't really balanced but wanted to give you a feel for what I was thinking.

-BB

Your post gave me some ideas and I am thinking along the same line, but I am currently expanding on the thought that it might be nice to have various attacks and defences. My line of thought is still extremely crude, but I would like to share them in order to improve these thoughts. Attacks could rely on a) holding type and size b) the leader/agent type and experience and c) regency. There should also be three or four types of defence that these attacks can target, like in 4th:

-Loyalty (straightforward)
-Fortification (of buildings and simple armed power)
-security (how well one can defend against subterfuge.

The actual defence scores depend on holding type and level, special modifiers and regency.


So one might attack a holding by assassinating a key figure, which is a special attack available to a certain level and leader type (the Fox for example):

*Assassinate key figure: You make a guild attack vs the security of a holding.

Other examples:
*Bribe: you make a guild, temple or law attack against loyalty

*Blackmail: you make a guild attack against loyalty

*Arrest: you make a guild attack vs fortification

*Reveal heresy in key figure: you make a temple attack vs security?

These attacks are now called temple/guild etc. but perhaps these attacks should only be based on the type of leader?

Because combat is so well balanced in 4th, we should perhaps leave that part alone and make separate leadership paths… one might think Fox and lion of Machiavelli, but perhaps we could have more… So even a 1st level fighter would be able to rule an empire as a 13th level fo?

just wanted to share my thoughts