Ruler levels

[Birthright-L]

In the original ruleset, character ruleset didn`t really affect one`s
talent as a regent. It was more domain power, and occasionally a couple
of proficiencies were used, but most of those could be picked up within a
couple of levels.

3e uses the skill point system, so if you tie any portion of the domain
system to a skill (administration or strategy), high level characters will
be significantly better. Is that good? Or should a 3e version of domain
rules allow 1st level kings to be just as effective as 20th level kings?
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Raesene Andu]

Originally posted by Birthright-L
3e uses the skill point system, so if you tie any portion of the domain
system to a skill (administration or strategy), high level characters will
be significantly better. Is that good? Or should a 3e version of domain
rules allow 1st level kings to be just as effective as 20th level kings?


A very interesting question. I don't like to answer yet as the d20 rules aren't available to everyone yet, but this is one question that will be hotly depated once they are released.

As a related question let me ask you this. If certain skills/feats were required to be a more effective ruler (e.g. administration and strategy) would you spend the points to gain levels in these skills or would you continue to focus on combat, magic, or stealth related skills and feats?

In other words, which would be more important, a powerful, harder to kill character, or a character that could rule his realm more effectivly?

[Peter Lubke]

On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 14:41, daniel mcsorley wrote:

In the original ruleset, character ruleset didn`t really affect one`s
talent as a regent. It was more domain power, and occasionally a couple
of proficiencies were used, but most of those could be picked up within a
couple of levels.

3e uses the skill point system, so if you tie any portion of the domain
system to a skill (administration or strategy), high level characters will
be significantly better. Is that good? Or should a 3e version of domain
rules allow 1st level kings to be just as effective as 20th level kings?
--

1st level kings should be as effective (if not more effective) than 20th
level kings.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 14:41, daniel mcsorley wrote:

In the original ruleset, character ruleset didn`t really affect one`s
talent as a regent. It was more domain power, and occasionally a couple
of proficiencies were used, but most of those could be picked up within a
couple of levels.

3e uses the skill point system, so if you tie any portion of the domain
system to a skill (administration or strategy), high level characters will
be significantly better. Is that good? Or should a 3e version of domain
rules allow 1st level kings to be just as effective as 20th level kings?
--

1st level kings should be as effective (if not more effective) than 20th
level kings.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Raesene Andu]

Originally posted by Peter Lubke
1st level kings should be as effective (if not more effective) than 20th
level kings.


Interesting opinion. Care to explains your reason as to why?

[Birthright-L]

Prestige Class: Monarch??? Sounds good to me. The more a person learns
about being a Monarch, the better they would be at it. There are already
Warlord and such prestige classes, I think this one would be a good one.
Others could be: Guilder, High Priest, Realm Mage, etc.

I like Prestige Classes because they give such variety, and you can just
make them up!



----Original Message Follows----
From: Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

1st level kings should be as effective (if not more effective) than 20th
level kings.

__________________________________________________ _______________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Raesene Andu wrote:
> Originally posted by Peter Lubke
> > 1st level kings should be as effective (if not more effective) than
> > 20th level kings.
>
> Interesting opinion. Care to explains your reason as to why?

Because D&D levels are directly tied to adventuring prowess, and
adventuring has nothing to do with leadership/rulership ability. There`s
been some effort in 3e to make classes (expert, commoner, aristocrat)
which gain levels but have nothing to do with adventuring, but it`s still
a rather bad tack-on to the D&D level system (what`s a 20th level commoner
exactly? And how does he gain all that experience without adventuring,
and if he did adventure, wouldn`t he be picking up some adventurer class
levels?).
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Raesene Andu]

Originally posted by Birthright-L
Because D&D levels are directly tied to adventuring prowess, and
adventuring has nothing to do with leadership/rulership ability. There`s
been some effort in 3e to make classes (expert, commoner, aristocrat)
which gain levels but have nothing to do with adventuring, but it`s still
a rather bad tack-on to the D&D level system (what`s a 20th level commoner
exactly? And how does he gain all that experience without adventuring,
and if he did adventure, wouldn`t he be picking up some adventurer class
levels?).


I'm not entirely convinced (although this was an argument I myself made under 2nd edition rules). With 3rd edition rules, the focus seems to be on skills etc, and that by increasing these skills you gain knowledge and are better at preforming that skill. This seems to me to be the reason for the introduction of the NPC classes (expert, commoner, etc) and thus a ruler in Birthright who focuses on BR related skills and gains more ranks in these skills as he gains in level would possess more knowledge and therefore be better at certain actions etc than a level 1 stay-at-home ruler who did nothing but lounge around his harem.

[Birthright-L]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Raesene Andu wrote:
> As a related question let me ask you this. If certain skills/feats
> were required to be a more effective ruler (e.g. administration and
> strategy) would you spend the points to gain levels in these skills or
> would you continue to focus on combat, magic, or stealth related
> skills and feats?
>
> In other words, which would be more important, a powerful, harder to
> kill character, or a character that could rule his realm more
> effectivly?

Well, the point of BR was to play an adventuring king, so you`d want to be
able to have some of both (probably wouldn`t be optimal at either, which
is fine). The "adventuring->XP->levelling->more skillful" model doesn`t
really work for a non-adventuring king, though, does it? And he should
probably be a more skillful king than the adventuring king, since it`s his
only focus. But he never gets XP, so he`ll never improve his skills, and
the adventuring king will blow by him. Adding XP rewards for kingly
duties is kind of a hack and doesn`t exactly solve the problem either.

What`s really needed, rather than an `expert` class which mysteriously
gains XP and pours all his growth into skill points, is a more direct way
to add skills, probably by spending time practicing them.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 15:44, Raesene Andu wrote:

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1241

Raesene Andu wrote:

Originally posted by Peter Lubke
1st level kings should be as effective (if not more effective) than 20th
level kings.


Interesting opinion. Care to explains your reason as to why?


Character class should be relatively unimportant to rulership ability.
Character class level is therefore even less so. De-coupling character
class from domain activity provides a far more flexible system - and one
which is easier to manage as well. To some extent this is seen in BR by
"any regent can collect RP/DP from provinces" - character class is
unimportant.

A character that spends much of his time gaining level in his character
class is not spending it on his/her domain. Therefore the higher the
character class level of regent, the less experienced and effective they
will be as regent. While D&Ds XP systems do allow a character to reach a
level and then just stay there -- such is not likely in actuality, you
must continually use your skills even to maintain them at their peak.
And some skills will deteriorate as a character ages no matter how hard
they try to hold on to them.

BR (2e) chained character class to a predisposition to rule certain
kinds of domains. But they did it extremely poorly. Warriors were given
a very poor deal even though the expectation was that warriors would
rule most realms - in fact they hold the majority of the realms in
Anuire despite the fact that they are less well suited to do so by 2e BR
rules than other classes.

The introduction of a regent class with levels of increasing ability (a
common 3e theme) therein detracts from core BR -- or would have to be an
alternative to bloodlines and RP. Bloodline and RP are already a
mechanism for dealing with regents and their effectiveness. It`s not
perfect and could be improved - but no need to throw the baby out with
the bathwater just yet. (However such a scheme could be an alternative
to bloodline and RP)

Even in non-BR D&D, character class level should not equate with rank
within an organization. A high level character may be well-respected,
and even given honorary positions within the organization but the more
they spend adventuring, the less political clout they`ll have. This is a
common theme in many fantasy novels. The notion that a 9th level priest
is the high priest should be dismissed -- more likely that the high
priest will be 3rd or 4th level, not totally inexperienced but having
been more active in politics and administration. They will have
authority over far more powerful (by character level) priests.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 16:07, daniel mcsorley wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Raesene Andu wrote:
> Originally posted by Peter Lubke
> > 1st level kings should be as effective (if not more effective) than
> > 20th level kings.
>
> Interesting opinion. Care to explains your reason as to why?

Because D&D levels are directly tied to adventuring prowess, and
adventuring has nothing to do with leadership/rulership ability. There`s
been some effort in 3e to make classes (expert, commoner, aristocrat)
which gain levels but have nothing to do with adventuring, but it`s still
a rather bad tack-on to the D&D level system (what`s a 20th level commoner
exactly? And how does he gain all that experience without adventuring,
and if he did adventure, wouldn`t he be picking up some adventurer class
levels?).
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu


Yes pretty much.
AD&D (1e) had pretty much the same attempt with specialist NPC classes
-- characters with levels that didn`t gain them through adventuring. NPC
classes being denied to players. Quite apart from the inconsistency of
the approach, it suffered from the same questionable logic.

The difficulty is that the problem is not stated correctly. When player
character reach high enough levels - ordinary people seem rather, ...
insignificant ...
The solution that has been taken is to try to power-up the NPCs - which
has (and always will) fail.

A better way to look at things is in relative terms - rather than in
absolutes.

One reason that it was perceived this way was that character level was
equated with social level, or social/organizational rank. This came to
happen over time - during the development of fantasy role-playing.

e.g. In AD&D - a character reaching 9th level gained the class level
title of "Lord", and, IF (big IF), they cleared a previously
inhospitable area of monsters/enemies, built a castle, and people came
to live there --- THEN they gained an income and social rank. By 2e,
there was no longer an IF.

^^ this whole concept (of life beyond 9th level whether as adventuring
or as lord) is IMO flawed. But the idea of ruling a realm is a good one
-- hence, I love the BR approach.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[doom]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 12:07:47AM -0500, daniel mcsorley wrote:
> > > 1st level kings should be as effective (if not more effective) than
> > > 20th level kings.
> > Interesting opinion. Care to explains your reason as to why?
>
> Because D&D levels are directly tied to adventuring prowess, and
> adventuring has nothing to do with leadership/rulership ability. There`s
> been some effort in 3e to make classes (expert, commoner, aristocrat)
> which gain levels but have nothing to do with adventuring, but it`s still
> a rather bad tack-on to the D&D level system (what`s a 20th level commoner
> exactly? And how does he gain all that experience without adventuring,
> and if he did adventure, wouldn`t he be picking up some adventurer class
> levels?).

You have legitimate concerns about the rationale and flaws inherent in
the current D&D skill system, but that seems to be a seperate
question. Given that D&D _is_ a class-based system, and that maximum
skill ranks in any skills (not just adventuring skills) are tied to
class level, I don`t think that I can avoid the conclusion that in D&D,
a 20th level king certainly has the POTENTIAL to be a far better ruler
than a 1st-level king.

I actually like it this way, as I disagree with your concern at a
conceptual level. I don`t buy the arguement that XP requires
adventuring. Gaining XP requires overcomeing challenge. For a
commoner, that might be working hard enough to pay the taxman, getting
the best deal out of the miller, or arranging a good marriage for one`s
daughter. After a few years of toughing it out, the commoner may rise a
few levels; his experience makes it that much easier for him to
overcome similar challenges in the future, and might make it possible
for him to consider challenges that were COMPLETELY beyond his ken a
few years before. The same is true for a king. The King might
adventure, or might meet a challenge to personal combat, but he may
also face challenges in foiling a rival`s plot, using blackmail to
force the support of a local guilds to his rule, or ANYTHING else that
is a suitable challenge to the character`s skills, be they combat or
not.

But that`s just my opinon. I`ve played may gains in level-free
systems and have as many pros as cons IMHO. Neither system is perfect,
neither is inherently flawed. In a level-based system, however,
high-level is usually a plus (often literally ;) )

________
/. Doom@cs.wright.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

Personally, I disagree that character level should have no effect on the
ability of a regent to perform domain actions. From time to time I`ll post
some sort of rules tweak or point-based analysis of some system and someone
will respond that what I`m _really_ doing is tossing out the entire
character class system--which always surprises me because that`s the
furthest thing from what I have in mind. I suppose if one dissects a
system down to its components far enough it begins to look like those
components are no longer part of a conclusive whole, despite the fact that
I still see them as interlocked. My point in bringing this up here is that
a system of rules at the domain level in which character level had no
influence really would be tossing out the character class system and most
of the rest of the basis of D&D. D&D is a level-based system and those
levels are based on character classes. While there are a few folks in the
BR community who use other RPG systems, BR is still based on D&D even now
that we`re an edition (and a half) away from the original rules set. While
I haven`t done a poll, I feel confidant saying that the majority of gamers
in the BR community still use D&D as the basis of their BR
campaigns. Coming up with a system of domain rules that ignored character
level _would_ be doing away with the character class system, at least as
far as the domain rules go. There needs to be certain differences at the
domain level of play, but totally ignoring the adventure level of play
seems like a bad idea.

Another thing people sometimes mention is that a proposed house rule will
somehow interfere with role-playing. Usually that objection gets little
merit in my book because it doesn`t apply to the particular house rule, and
generally isn`t true in the first place. Actual role-playing can take
place around just about any set of rules, and it isn`t the rules themselves
that oppose role-playing. I`ve role-played over a game of checkers played
at a coffee house. Seriously:

Gary: Huzzah! I have reached the summit of achievement and claim my
crown. Henceforth I am King Black, Lord of the Checkered Tiles!

Opponent: What?

Gary: Oh, just king me. Sheesh....

My point here is that a system of domain rules that ignores character level
might just do exactly what people seem to evince such anxiety over when it
comes to a few house rules; it could interfere with role-playing. A system
of domain rules that ignores character level would probably also need to
ignore character class (one could, at least, apply the same logic) and
would represent a shift in the emphasis of stats, abilities and basic game
mechanics. I play a highly adventure oriented BR campaign. As often as
not the PCs aren`t regents. They may be regents, their subordinates or
just hired agents, but much of the time the adventures they participate in
are performed in lieu of a die roll for the domain level action or
event. Success in the adventure means success or a bonus on the success
roll for the equivalent domain action or random event. I find this a more
satisfying way of resolving events at the domain level, and I`m honestly
surprised that I don`t hear more people espousing it--especially those
folks who seem to idolize role-playing over rules. It seems like the same
people who have argued that certain house rules at the domain level will
interfere with role-playing would adventure out their domain level events
because it would involve more actual role-playing... but I digress.

A system of domain rules that ignores character level (and/or character
class) could make the transition from the adventure level to the domain
level less subtle and, therefore, interfere with role-playing. If one
adventures out, for example, a Diplomacy action a PC with a higher
diplomacy skill would have more success performing the individual,
adventure level diplomacy skill checks than would another character with a
lower skill. If the domain level of play does not reflect that skill in
any way then the transition between adventuring out the domain action and
performing that domain action without an adventure is
disconnected. Depending on the chances of success on particular domain
actions a player could rightly assess his chances of success are better by
performing the domain action with a simple die roll--not adventuring out
the action. Thus, less actual role-playing would take place. One could
certainly role-play that die roll, but a single die roll represents less of
an opportunity for role-playing than does an entire, month-long adventure.

As for the system of XP and regents not earning experience for domain
actions, I again disagree. The CR/XP award system of 3e (and previous
editions) is simply one set of guidelines for how experience is
determined. There`s no reason to assume that the only way one can earn XP
is by defeating monsters. There are guidelines for XP awards that have
nothing to do with combat, and that`s the kind of thing that occurs at the
domain level. Successfully performing domain level effects should earn a
character XP, increasing his character level and making him a more
effective ruler. Aside from that being the basis of a level-based system,
it will support the transition from adventure level to domain level by not
disembodying the two levels of play. Actual awards should IMO be less for
resolving domain actions rather than resolving them through play or,
rather, the XP award for successfully completing a domain action should be
in addition to the XP awards for various adventure level CR
encounters. The domain action awards would, therefore, represent a kind of
story award system and could be determined whether or not the PCs were
regents. It could, in fact, be part of the XP award system with or without
the domain rules as a way of rewarding PCs for successfully completing
adventures that have a broader impact than their treasure
hoard. Hm. Interesting. A system of story awards based on the
adventure`s relation to accomplishing domain level effects.... I kind of
like that. I`ll have to give it some thought....

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Birthright-L

Prestige Class: Monarch??? Sounds good to me. The more a person learns about being a Monarch, the better they would be at it. There are already Warlord and such prestige classes, I think this one would be a good one. Others could be: Guilder, High Priest, Realm Mage, etc.
Really funny. Prestige class: High-Priest. That's good. No, being a high-priest is given by a god, not a PrC. Naturally the same you can say for monarch etc. ...
Fun to the side: What you you think are the prequisites for those PrC's? A bloodline, a level? If nearly everyone can take this PrC, it will be useless, I fear. Further for "monarch" you can take "aristocrat" instead...

Otherwise it is right, being a monarch shouldn't be related to the level, but maybe you can say: Higher level = more experience and that's why a wiser regent. And naturally a 20th level regent needn't to hide himself from anyone...

[Birthright-L]

Nitpicking is my least favorite thing.....but I`ll go along and do some of
my own if ya insist ;-)

A person can take any prestige class they want as long as they meet the
prerequisites right? Since I didn`t include any, don`t assume just anyone
can take it. A prerequisite for the High Priest (which I was just
blathering about and making no attempt to seriously describe) may be
required to have a great and holy experience with the Avatar of the Deity
eh?

NOTHING is useless here since there was no description at all. As for one
of the prerequisites for any of these prestige classes, you could say a
character must: Monarch=rule a province, Guilder=rule a guild holding,
etc...

These were just ideas...just ideas. I wasn`t trying to make anything Canon
eh? JUST IDEAS...nothing to be critical over. Now I`ll bow down to
superior thinkers.......wouldn`t want to challenge anyones brain.

Tony


----Original Message Follows----
From: Ariadne <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Ariadne wrote:

Originally posted by Birthright-L

Prestige Class: Monarch??? Sounds good to me. The more a person learns about
being a Monarch, the better they would be at it. There are already Warlord
and such prestige classes, I think this one would be a good one. Others
could be: Guilder, High Priest, Realm Mage, etc.


Really funny. Prestige class: High-Priest. That`s good. No, being a
high-priest is given by a god, not a PrC. Naturally the same you can say for
monarch etc. ...
Fun to the side: What you you think are the prequisites for those PrC`s? A
bloodline, a level? If nearly everyone can take this PrC, it will be
useless, I fear. Further for "monarch" you can take "aristocrat"
instead...

Otherwise it is right, being a monarch shouldn`t be related to the level,
but maybe you can say: Higher level = more experience and that`s why a
wiser regent. And naturally a 20th level regent needn`t to hide himself
from anyone...

__________________________________________________ _______________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Malice3679]

> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Raesene Andu wrote:
> > As a related question let me ask you this. If certain skills/feats
> > were required to be a more effective ruler (e.g. administration and
> > strategy) would you spend the points to gain levels in these skills or
> > would you continue to focus on combat, magic, or stealth related
> > skills and feats?
> >
> > In other words, which would be more important, a powerful, harder to
> > kill character, or a character that could rule his realm more
> > effectivly?
>
> Well, the point of BR was to play an adventuring king, so you`d want to be
> able to have some of both (probably wouldn`t be optimal at either, which
> is fine). The "adventuring->XP->levelling->more skillful" model doesn`t
> really work for a non-adventuring king, though, does it? And he should
> probably be a more skillful king than the adventuring king, since it`s his
> only focus. But he never gets XP, so he`ll never improve his skills, and
> the adventuring king will blow by him. Adding XP rewards for kingly
> duties is kind of a hack and doesn`t exactly solve the problem either.

I don`t see why being a good monarch shouldn`t give you XP. The mentality
that adventuring is the only XP source is just the kind of thinking that
makes D&D a joke to other gamers, who feel that a D&D game is all about
saddling up, sacking a monster and his lair, dividing up the treasure and
moving on.

Now me, personally, I think that gets old very fast.

Tommy

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Tommy Brownell wrote:
> > Well, the point of BR was to play an adventuring king, so you`d want to be
> > able to have some of both (probably wouldn`t be optimal at either, which
> > is fine). The "adventuring->XP->levelling->more skillful" model doesn`t
> > really work for a non-adventuring king, though, does it? And he should
> > probably be a more skillful king than the adventuring king, since it`s his
> > only focus. But he never gets XP, so he`ll never improve his skills, and
> > the adventuring king will blow by him. Adding XP rewards for kingly
> > duties is kind of a hack and doesn`t exactly solve the problem either.
>
> I don`t see why being a good monarch shouldn`t give you XP.

It could at low levels but will slow and stop as you reach higher levels.
Say all your domain actions are based on some skill (Knowledge-kingliness
or whatever). A domain action has a DC, typically between 10 and 20.
There are straightforward rules for assigning experience for encounters
based on skill checks, but DCs for domain actions top out around 20.

I don`t have the chart handy, but basically a DC 15 skill check is a CR 1
or two encounter, and a DC 20 check might be 3 or 4. You gain experience
based on CR, so if you make a DC 20 domain action at level 1, great, lots
of XP, but by the time you get to level 12 you will never earn experience
from domain actions again. And since domain actions are the vast majority
of what BR regents do, they`ll advance very slowly from that point on, if
ever.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Lord Grave]

>
> In the original ruleset, character ruleset didn`t really
> affect one`s talent as a regent. It was more domain power,
> and occasionally a couple of proficiencies were used, but
> most of those could be picked up within a couple of levels.
>
> 3e uses the skill point system, so if you tie any portion of
> the domain system to a skill (administration or strategy),
> high level characters will be significantly better. Is that
> good? Or should a 3e version of domain rules allow 1st level
> kings to be just as effective as 20th level kings?


It should depend on skills and feats, I think.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

What I used was similar to the skill synergy bonuses - if tyou had 5 ranks
is certain skills, you get a +2 bonus on that kind of action. Each domain
action has a list of four associated skills. Has worked fine for me!

/Carl


__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 08:31, Tommy Brownell wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Raesene Andu wrote:
> > As a related question let me ask you this. If certain skills/feats
> > were required to be a more effective ruler (e.g. administration and
> > strategy) would you spend the points to gain levels in these skills or
> > would you continue to focus on combat, magic, or stealth related
> > skills and feats?
> >
> > In other words, which would be more important, a powerful, harder to
> > kill character, or a character that could rule his realm more
> > effectivly?
>
> Well, the point of BR was to play an adventuring king, so you`d want to be
> able to have some of both (probably wouldn`t be optimal at either, which
> is fine). The "adventuring->XP->levelling->more skillful" model doesn`t
> really work for a non-adventuring king, though, does it? And he should
> probably be a more skillful king than the adventuring king, since it`s his
> only focus. But he never gets XP, so he`ll never improve his skills, and
> the adventuring king will blow by him. Adding XP rewards for kingly
> duties is kind of a hack and doesn`t exactly solve the problem either.

I don`t see why being a good monarch shouldn`t give you XP. The mentality
that adventuring is the only XP source is just the kind of thinking that
makes D&D a joke to other gamers, who feel that a D&D game is all about
saddling up, sacking a monster and his lair, dividing up the treasure and
moving on.

So what you are saying is that good domain stewardship should make a
regent a "better" regent. And that you`d like this to be reflected with
XP (instead of RP, BP or DP)

But gaining XP for adventuring does not make you a better regent. Nor
does being a better regent make you better at adventuring.

To be best then you`d need a separate pool of XP for regents - and a
Regent class that this correlated to.


Now me, personally, I think that gets old very fast.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Peter Lubke wrote:
> But gaining XP for adventuring does not make you a better regent. Nor
> does being a better regent make you better at adventuring.

Gaining XP makes you a better regent if regency is skill-based. You gain
xp, you level, you put the new skill points into skills used for ruling.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 23:32, Gary wrote:

Personally, I disagree that character level should have no effect on the
ability of a regent to perform domain actions. From time to time I`ll post
some sort of rules tweak or point-based analysis of some system and someone
will respond that what I`m _really_ doing is tossing out the entire
character class system--which always surprises me because that`s the
furthest thing from what I have in mind. I suppose if one dissects a
system down to its components far enough it begins to look like those
components are no longer part of a conclusive whole, despite the fact that
I still see them as interlocked. My point in bringing this up here is that
a system of rules at the domain level in which character level had no
influence really would be tossing out the character class system and most
of the rest of the basis of D&D.

<snip>

As for the system of XP and regents not earning experience for domain
actions, I again disagree. The CR/XP award system of 3e (and previous
editions) is simply one set of guidelines for how experience is
determined. There`s no reason to assume that the only way one can earn XP
is by defeating monsters. There are guidelines for XP awards that have
nothing to do with combat, and that`s the kind of thing that occurs at the
domain level. Successfully performing domain level effects should earn a
character XP, increasing his character level and making him a more
effective ruler. Aside from that being the basis of a level-based system,
it will support the transition from adventure level to domain level by not
disembodying the two levels of play. Actual awards should IMO be less for
resolving domain actions rather than resolving them through play or,
rather, the XP award for successfully completing a domain action should be
in addition to the XP awards for various adventure level CR
encounters. The domain action awards would, therefore, represent a kind of
story award system and could be determined whether or not the PCs were
regents. It could, in fact, be part of the XP award system with or without
the domain rules as a way of rewarding PCs for successfully completing
adventures that have a broader impact than their treasure
hoard. Hm. Interesting. A system of story awards based on the
adventure`s relation to accomplishing domain level effects.... I kind of
like that. I`ll have to give it some thought....

The issue of "Adventuring XP makes you a better ruler" becomes clouded
and murky when you use an example of adventuring to resolve a domain
action.

Because it LOOKS like you are being kingly/regent-ly. BUT, appearances
are deceptive. The leadership style of Captain Kirk (Star Trek) was to
be very hands-on, he involved himself personally and heroically in
almost every episode. Such a style is flamboyant , but is poor
stewardship - the risk to the crew was extreme at every turn. A king -
even if he is a good general or powerful warrior - usually has duties
beyond that of leading troops - and should send a general instead.

There are however situations where being the best (e.g. warrior) makes
you the ideal choice to lead = i.e. Vos tribes living in a state of
constant warfare need a strong warrior to lead their tribe.

But this doesn`t validate "XP makes you a better ruler". The TRIBE must
win its battles and prosper for the leader to be seen as better.
Individual achievements by the regent may make him/her a better CHOICE
for tribal leader.


Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 11:55 AM 1/31/2003 +1100, Peter Lubke wrote:

> I don`t see why being a good monarch shouldn`t give you XP. The
> mentality
> that adventuring is the only XP source is just the kind of thinking that
> makes D&D a joke to other gamers, who feel that a D&D game is all about
> saddling up, sacking a monster and his lair, dividing up the
> treasure and
> moving on.
>
>So what you are saying is that good domain stewardship should make a
>regent a "better" regent. And that you`d like this to be reflected with
>XP (instead of RP, BP or DP)

"In addition to" would be more accurate than "instead of."

>But gaining XP for adventuring does not make you a better regent. Nor
>does being a better regent make you better at adventuring.

Sure it could. Being a better diplomat in an adventure would certainly be
the kind of experience that could lead to better diplomatic skills at the
domain level. Gaining XP by killing monsters isn`t the kind of thing that
one would normally ascribe to good rulership skills, but the experience of
various political leaders in war is almost always described by them as
valuable, and considered an asset to those they lead. Similarly, if one
can negotiate a trade agreement across the continent with a greedy Anuirean
guilder then one can negotiate one`s way past a band of surly goblins. I`m
all for inventing a whole new game if one wants, but aside from the domain
level being an extension of a level-based game expressed in a level-based
system it isn`t quite the disconnect you`re suggesting.

>To be best then you`d need a separate pool of XP for regents - and a
>Regent class that this correlated to.

That`s reflected by the player choices made when levelling up. If the
player decides to take levels in class(es) that are better suited to the
skills and abilities he needs as a regent then he does so at the cost of
spending points on the jump skill that could aid him in an
adventure. Awarding XP for domain actions isn`t any more different than
giving a story award at the end of an adventure. When the players level up
they choose what to level up in and how to allocate the skill points, feat
slots, etc. that they earned. It doesn`t matter at any other point in the
game whether they actually used the skills they spend points on when
levelling up during the adventures in which they earned the XP that
levelled them up, so why should it matter for domain level effects?

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 05:31 PM 1/30/2003 -0500, Daniel McSorley wrote:

> > I don`t see why being a good monarch shouldn`t give you XP.
>
>It could at low levels but will slow and stop as you reach higher levels.
>Say all your domain actions are based on some skill (Knowledge-kingliness
>or whatever). A domain action has a DC, typically between 10 and 20.
>There are straightforward rules for assigning experience for encounters
>based on skill checks, but DCs for domain actions top out around 20.
>
>I don`t have the chart handy, but basically a DC 15 skill check is a CR 1
>or two encounter, and a DC 20 check might be 3 or 4. You gain experience
>based on CR, so if you make a DC 20 domain action at level 1, great, lots
>of XP, but by the time you get to level 12 you will never earn experience
>from domain actions again. And since domain actions are the vast majority
>of what BR regents do, they`ll advance very slowly from that point on, if
>ever.

I don`t know how the domain level "DC system" is going to work in the
coming text, but it does depend a bit on whether or not those DCs will be
flat or have the possibility of reaching any level in the same way that 3e
skill checks do. In the original, 2e BR system "skills" were proficiency
slots and had a pretty limited range, so success numbers in the 10-20 range
were the standard. Given the more versatile and open-ended 3e skill system
the DC for a domain action could be similarly open-ended. Let`s say an
"average" PC regent wanted to perform a Diplomacy domain action. It could
be given DCs based on character level of the "opposing" regent with various
modifiers for attitude, alignment, race, whatever. The DC for a diplomacy
check with sweet, gentle Rogr Aglondier could be 10 while Prince Avan would
be DC 25 and the Gorgon DC 50.

If that were the case then the equivalent CR awards for domain actions
would scale the same way CR awards for defeating monsters does.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 12:13 PM 1/31/2003 +1100, Peter Lubke wrote:

>The issue of "Adventuring XP makes you a better ruler" becomes clouded
>and murky when you use an example of adventuring to resolve a domain
>action.
>
>Because it LOOKS like you are being kingly/regent-ly. BUT, appearances
>are deceptive. The leadership style of Captain Kirk (Star Trek) was to
>be very hands-on, he involved himself personally and heroically in
>almost every episode. Such a style is flamboyant , but is poor
>stewardship - the risk to the crew was extreme at every turn. A king -
>even if he is a good general or powerful warrior - usually has duties
>beyond that of leading troops - and should send a general instead.

Very few BR regents are actually kings as you`re describing them--in fact,
none--even those few who have that title. The domain level is much smaller
than the standard you`re comparing it to. Those regents in the BR
materials that approach that level (Bouruine and Avan) are supposed to be
NPC regents. I`d like to see a level of rules that somehow reflected the
size of kingdoms where a regent would delegate something liking going to
war, but it`s a lot larger than that presented in BR. You have to get to
an "Empire Level" if you will before that kind of thing happens.

Also, the rules are designed to reflect a system of _heroic_
leadership. Accurately portraying what good stewardship is (a highly
debatable phrase, I must say) should take a back seat to player
participation. I have had a very large cast of characters in past BR
campaigns, with players taking on the role of sometimes as many as six or
ten characters in a particular session because the adventure level of
events go delegated out all over the place, but the regent is still
involved in the events, more often than not directly. PC regents *are* the
crew of the Enterprise for the purposes of play, and for the purposes of
how the game mechanics should be developed. Playing a game in which
regents delegate every action in a sort of hands-off manner could be
interesting, but it`s demonstrably different from the current system of rules.

>There are however situations where being the best (e.g. warrior) makes
>you the ideal choice to lead = i.e. Vos tribes living in a state of
>constant warfare need a strong warrior to lead their tribe.
>
>But this doesn`t validate "XP makes you a better ruler". The TRIBE must
>win its battles and prosper for the leader to be seen as better.
>Individual achievements by the regent may make him/her a better CHOICE
>for tribal leader.

What about a wizard? Isn`t the best wizard for the job the one with the
most experience and, therefore, access to higher level spells? How about
the best temple regent? Wouldn`t he be the one with the most experience
and spell casting ability? Surely the best guilder is the one with the
highest skills in a variety of activities ranging from administration to
espionage.

I would contend your position that character levels don`t reflect ability
at the domain level. Characters don`t level up in some sort of way that is
exclusive to the adventure level. Character class and level does not
reflect adventure level ability alone. A character`s BAB might not be
terribly useful at the domain level--unless one uses it as an extension of
his ability to think quickly in combat and, therefore, the basis of his
initiative in large scale combat, or apply some similar analogy to the
concept. Other aspects of character improvement (most obviously skill
points/max ranks, but also some feats and a few things that _should_ be
part of the character class system in BR like a reputation score)
definitely are.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Gary wrote:
> Let`s say an "average" PC regent wanted to perform a Diplomacy domain
> action. It could be given DCs based on character level of the
> "opposing" regent with various modifiers for attitude, alignment,
> race, whatever. The DC for a diplomacy check with sweet, gentle Rogr
> Aglondier could be 10 while Prince Avan would be DC 25 and the Gorgon
> DC 50.
>
> If that were the case then the equivalent CR awards for domain actions
> would scale the same way CR awards for defeating monsters does.

I think Diplomacy is a bad example of the problem, because if it`s just
made into an opposed check, then it becomes roughly CR= level of opponent.

A bigger problem would be exemplified by Rule. The Rule DC is 10 + target
level. An encounter of appropriate CR is supposed to take a given portion
of a party`s resources (I think it`s a quarter). So an appropriate CR for
a domain action like Rule would probably be based on the amount of domain
resources it takes up. Maybe it should be RP cost/ domain power? So if
an action takes (base cost, not extra RP you spend) 1/4 your domain power
in cost, it is a CR equal to your level. Those typically give 75 XP per
level.

Hrm. Need to do some math.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Malice3679]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] Ruler levels [2#1241]


> On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 08:31, Tommy Brownell wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Raesene Andu wrote:
> > > As a related question let me ask you this. If certain skills/feats
> > > were required to be a more effective ruler (e.g. administration
and
> > > strategy) would you spend the points to gain levels in these
skills or
> > > would you continue to focus on combat, magic, or stealth related
> > > skills and feats?
> > >
> > > In other words, which would be more important, a powerful, harder
to
> > > kill character, or a character that could rule his realm more
> > > effectivly?
> >
> > Well, the point of BR was to play an adventuring king, so you`d want
to be
> > able to have some of both (probably wouldn`t be optimal at either,
which
> > is fine). The "adventuring->XP->levelling->more skillful" model
doesn`t
> > really work for a non-adventuring king, though, does it? And he
should
> > probably be a more skillful king than the adventuring king, since
it`s his
> > only focus. But he never gets XP, so he`ll never improve his
skills, and
> > the adventuring king will blow by him. Adding XP rewards for kingly
> > duties is kind of a hack and doesn`t exactly solve the problem
either.
>
> I don`t see why being a good monarch shouldn`t give you XP. The
mentality
> that adventuring is the only XP source is just the kind of thinking
that
> makes D&D a joke to other gamers, who feel that a D&D game is all
about
> saddling up, sacking a monster and his lair, dividing up the treasure
and
> moving on.
>
> So what you are saying is that good domain stewardship should make a
> regent a "better" regent. And that you`d like this to be reflected with
> XP (instead of RP, BP or DP)
>
> But gaining XP for adventuring does not make you a better regent. Nor
> does being a better regent make you better at adventuring.
>
> To be best then you`d need a separate pool of XP for regents - and a
> Regent class that this correlated to.
>
>
> Now me, personally, I think that gets old very fast.

Well, if being a good Regent is rewarded in other ways, ways that improve
his Kingdom and his ability to rule, then I don`t have a problem with their
XP rewards being minimal at best. That being said, if a Regent solves a
crisis in his domain through sheer leadership, I think he deserves some XP
just as if he managed to outsmart a monster in its lair.

RP, BP and DP awards are things I`m a tad shaky on...it`s been YEARS since I
owned Birthright, much less played it...=)

Tommy

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 12:55, Gary wrote:

At 12:13 PM 1/31/2003 +1100, Peter Lubke wrote:

>The issue of "Adventuring XP makes you a better ruler" becomes clouded
>and murky when you use an example of adventuring to resolve a domain
>action.
>
Very few BR regents are actually kings as you`re describing them--in fact,
none--even those few who have that title. The domain level is much smaller
than the standard you`re comparing it to.

oh I think I disagree here. While I by no means assume Empire or even
Kingdoms standards in modern terms (my BR realms are more like Mercia
for the larger ones), I still think that domain actions are a step
beyond the adventure level - even if only a baby step.

Also, the rules are designed to reflect a system of _heroic_
leadership. Accurately portraying what good stewardship is (a highly
debatable phrase, I must say) should take a back seat to player
participation.

I should not have appeared to be completely against the idea that
personal leadership was not in any way regent-like -- it`s more a matter
of style.

Who is the better starship commander - Kirk or Picard? I`d argue that
Picard is a better starship commander - unless perhaps there`s a war on.


What about a wizard? Isn`t the best wizard for the job the one with the
most experience and, therefore, access to higher level spells?

Wizards are, in most cases an exception to generalizing BR rules. A
wizards power is personal rather than derived from being the head of an
organization. As such it is not the size of the organization, but the
wizards personal power that is important.

How about
the best temple regent? Wouldn`t he be the one with the most experience
and spell casting ability?

No, not necessarily. The disposition of faith regencies is potentially
the most complex and interesting of all the domain regents. Just as the
best warrior is not necessarily the best choice of king, the criteria
for choosing the best person for the job of faith regent could be almost
anything.

Unlike wizards where the power is personal, a temple has many priests.
The power of the temple is derived from its size (temple level
reflecting proportionate faith of the population of the province) rather
than the level (rank or power) of its regent.

A temple may find it far more useful to be connected through family
relations with the ruling regent - and it was very common for younger
nobles to enter the priesthood. Regal favor is just one of many possible
motives for selecting a new priest regent.

Surely the best guilder is the one with the
highest skills in a variety of activities ranging from administration to
espionage.

Administration and espionage are skills only peripherally related to
personal adventuring (and character class levels). The best guilder is
the one with the largest domain - or even more accurately the largest
nett income. For a guilder, money is power.


I would contend your position that character levels don`t reflect ability
at the domain level. Characters don`t level up in some sort of way that is
exclusive to the adventure level. Character class and level does not
reflect adventure level ability alone.

Well, then I defer to allowing you your opinion. I however take the
complete opposite opinion.

I don`t mind being able to:
(a) Have a wizard that is the richest guilder in the land (and thus
highly respected by all guilders regardless of character class)
(B) Have a Paladin (or Warrior or whatever) as head of a faith. (cf the
Queen of England) Being pious and respected can be down to even the
belief that the head of state is descended from divine origins. There
are still plenty of priests around to cast realm spells for their boss.
&copy; Have a first level (insert character class here) boy king rule a
realm as the most powerful known monarch.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

> So what you are saying is that good domain stewardship should make a
> regent a "better" regent. And that you`d like this to be reflected with
> XP (instead of RP, BP or DP)
>
> But gaining XP for adventuring does not make you a better regent. Nor
> does being a better regent make you better at adventuring.
>
> To be best then you`d need a separate pool of XP for regents - and a
> Regent class that this correlated to.
>

No, you don`t. If you did, then you`d have to record separate rogue, mage
and fighter XP as well, and we don`t. A player that thinks it is important
to be a good regent will put his levels into suitable classes. Those who
don`t, wont. Presumably, this will be the same players doing and not doing
the ruling.

The only problem here is if the regent class is over-specialized. If the
player who played the setting and got a lot of regent levels is punished
with being a uselsess weakling on the adventures that the DM does run, that
is a bad thing because everyone will have less fun. Of course, if your
specialization is not adventuring, you ought to be less proficient at it -
but not helpless. Say that you fight like the NPC noble class, while having
regent-specific abilities to make up for it. And sometimes, those
regent-specific abilities might even be useful on adventures. But as usual
for DnD, non-combat abilities should be a lot cheaper than combat abilities
when building your class.

Then again, I think a specific regent class is a little against the paradigm
of DnD and 2ed under which Birthright was developed. I am the guy who
actually likes the division of labor built into the classes in the original
domain system. So I`m not really fond of a regent class either, just for
completely different reasons.

/Carl



__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

> (B) Have a Paladin (or Warrior or whatever) as head of a faith. (cf the
> Queen of England) Being pious and respected can be down to even the
> belief that the head of state is descended from divine origins. There
> are still plenty of priests around to cast realm spells for their boss.
>

While I`m sure Henry VIII would have been flattered by beeing called a
paladin (NOT!), I think this is a very poor comparison. Various heads of
state made themselves heads of the church as a part of the reformation. But
this was not the kind of states and churches we have in Birthright, but
nation-states and national churches, and represents a much later
development.

A better comparison is the knightly orders (Templars, Hospitaliers, Teutonic
Knights) who actually ruled states. These were (supposed to be) true
warrior-clerics and are the closest anology to a paldin you will find in
European history. And paladins can rule temple holdings and colletc RP from
them under the normal rules. Warriors can rule temple holdings, but won`t
get any RP - it is not their calling. This seems just right and medieval to
me. But then again. I`ve always been a proponent of the class/regency
system.


/Carl


__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Peter Lubke

How about the best temple regent? Wouldn`t he be the one with the most experience
and spell casting ability?
I think so. The blooded priest with the highest level (and the mightiest realm [and other] spells) should be high priest of an order (O.K., the god has to say a word, but mostly this should be no problem). The higher level (and spell casting ability) he has, the more impressive is he for commoners (and other priests). Naturally a priest, who can cast "excommunicate" will be regarded with respect...
A regent like Taril Herad of Aftane is something like a toothless tiger: His temple is powerful, but in the hand of a powerful regent the temple could be enormous.



A temple may find it far more useful to be connected through family relations with the ruling regent - and it was very common for younger nobles to enter the priesthood. Regal favor is just one of many possible motives for selecting a new priest regent.
In the middle age noble families automatically put their second or third born children to the regional temple. O.K., if they are blooded, there will be a CHANCE to become a regent, but talent should be the dominant quality...



(B) Have a Paladin (or Warrior or whatever) as head of a faith. (cf the Queen of England) Being pious and respected can be down to even the belief that the head of state is descended from divine origins. There are still plenty of priests around to cast realm spells for their boss.
I don't think, any one priest can cast realm spells for a temple regent (but a temple regent for the realm regent). A powerful temple regent (who works hand in hand with the realm) should be preferred by the realm regent too. Good realm spells are good for both: The temple AND the realm...

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Birthright-L

A person can take any prestige class they want as long as they meet the prerequisites right? Since I didn`t include any, don`t assume just anyone can take it. A prerequisite for the High Priest (which I was just blathering about and making no attempt to seriously describe) may be required to have a great and holy experience with the Avatar of the Deity eh?
Yes, that's right, you can take any PrC, if you meet the prerequisites, but there should be a limit. PrC's are a good thing of 3rd edition, but sometimes it is a little bit much...

There is already a PrC, where the prerequisite is meeting an Avatar: I don't know actually the name, but it is in the "Manual of the Planes" 3rd edition book...



These were just ideas...just ideas. I wasn`t trying to make anything Canon eh? JUST IDEAS...nothing to be critical over. Now I`ll bow down to superior thinkers.......wouldn`t want to challenge anyones brain.
O.K., O.K., I understood: Just ideas... You needn't to be too sour about my little joke ;)

[ConjurerDragon]

Tommy Brownell wrote:

>>On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Raesene Andu wrote:
>>
>>Well, the point of BR was to play an adventuring king, so you`d want to be
>>able to have some of both (probably wouldn`t be optimal at either, which
>>is fine). The "adventuring->XP->levelling->more skillful" model doesn`t
>>really work for a non-adventuring king, though, does it? And he should
>>probably be a more skillful king than the adventuring king, since it`s his
>>only focus. But he never gets XP, so he`ll never improve his skills, and
>>the adventuring king will blow by him. Adding XP rewards for kingly
>>duties is kind of a hack and doesn`t exactly solve the problem either.
>>
>
>I don`t see why being a good monarch shouldn`t give you XP. The mentality
>that adventuring is the only XP source is just the kind of thinking that
>makes D&D a joke to other gamers, who feel that a D&D game is all about
>saddling up, sacking a monster and his lair, dividing up the treasure and
>moving on.
>Now me, personally, I think that gets old very fast.
>Tommy
>
And to support Tommys opinion I advise to read DMG p. 168 "Variant:
Story Awards".
Not all XP must be earned by slaying monsters and this variant can
easily be used when you see the domain level as part of the story.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

daniel mcsorley wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Tommy Brownell wrote:
>
>It could at low levels but will slow and stop as you reach higher levels.
>Say all your domain actions are based on some skill (Knowledge-kingliness
>or whatever). A domain action has a DC, typically between 10 and 20.
>There are straightforward rules for assigning experience for encounters
>based on skill checks, but DCs for domain actions top out around 20.
>
>I don`t have the chart handy, but basically a DC 15 skill check is a CR 1
>or two encounter, and a DC 20 check might be 3 or 4. You gain experience
>based on CR, so if you make a DC 20 domain action at level 1, great, lots
>of XP, but by the time you get to level 12 you will never earn experience
>from domain actions again. And since domain actions are the vast majority
>of what BR regents do, they`ll advance very slowly from that point on, if
>ever.
>
Is the DC only the BASE DC of the domain action? If not, and if the DC
is used, after the opponents have bid RP and/or gold to raise the DC
then the DC can be considerably higher - consider an espionage action,
according to Doomes 3E manual DC of 20 + opposed law holdings + RP/GB
bid. If you try to spy in the backyard of a mighty ruler, he might make
it a DC 40 or DC 50 for you...
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Stephen Starfox wrote:

>What I used was similar to the skill synergy bonuses - if tyou had 5 ranks
>is certain skills, you get a +2 bonus on that kind of action. Each domain
>action has a list of four associated skills. Has worked fine for me!
>/Carl
>
So from your skills you as a regent could get a bonus of +8 to domain
actions having 5+ ranks of 4 certain skills?
Could you publish the list, please?
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 11:18 AM 1/31/2003 +0100, you wrote:

>There is already a PrC, where the prerequisite is meeting an Avatar: I
>don`t know actually the name, but it is in the "Manual of the Planes"
>3rd edition book...

There`s a few prestige classes with this kind of requirement. Personally,
I find prereqs like that a little annoying. They`re not something that one
really has happen in an adventure with much specificity, so when it appears
as a prereq for a prestige class it winds up being something of a zinger
for the DM. A simple set of stats in a prereq is much better. It`d be
nice if those prereqs actually had some relationship to the power of the
class features for the prestige class too, along with a nice method of
rating those things, but we`ll have to wait and see.

I`m very curious to see what is going to happen with the concept of
prestige classes in 3.5e. The game designers have described it in 3e as a
sort of first shot at the concept that has a whole lot of problems, and
they say they are going to make a lot of changes. I`ve been complaining
about several aspects of the prestige class system (and the core classes
too, for that matter) for a long time, so it will be interesting to see
what kinds of things they alter.

Here are a few previews from the ENWorld site about the changes that will
be made in 3.5e relavent to this discussion:

I know people want to know character classes; four of them will have some
major changes. Those playing Bards, Druids, Monks, and Rangers will want to
see what happens.

Rangers will definitely no longer be front loaded with their feats. However
their spell selection and abilities will be beefed up for mid and high
levels of play.

Underdeveloped rules. Prestige classes were originally just a small
section. This has ballooned into something that practically every D20
supplement has as content. The rules for creating them will be expanded.

And:

Prestige classes. Will include the Spellsword, an updated Dragon Disciple,
and a few world-specific classes (just as examples of how to do them)
including the Red Wizard. All the current ones will return, but it sounds
like they might be considering some changes. They`ve separated PrCs into
seven roles: race, party role, situational, iconic, game function (does
things other characters can`t, like the Spellsword), transformation (turns
into something else), and world-specific."

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

From http://my.homeip.net/abbe/birthright/domai...ainactions.html (http://my.homeip.net/abbe/birthright/domainactions/domainactions.html)


Domain Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Table 20: Master List of Actions Action Type Cost Difficulty Modifiers
Synergy Result
Adventure Character - - - - More than then days, up to four weeks.
Agitate Domain/Realm
Free for cleric
1GB
1RP 15 RP
GB
Temple
Law
Diplomacy
Forgery
Intimidate
Knowledge (local) Alter loyalty one step, success 10 adds two steps
Build or Fortify Initial Domain
Later Free Varies 15 (initial)
0 (later)
RP
Craft (stonemason)
Knowledge (architecture)
Profession (bookkeeper)
Profession (siege engineer) 1 + Outcome/5 GB
(round down)
Contest Province Domain 1RP 15 RP
Diplomacy
Know (local)
Know (nobles)
Intimidate Morale most be poor and no Law present
Contest Law Domain/
Realm 1RP 15 RP
Law
Base Attack Bonus +5
Intimidate
Knowledge (local)
Knowledge (nobles) First success Contests, second success Destroys.
Contest Temple Domain/
Realm 1RP 15 RP
Temple
Turning level 5
Diplomacy
Heal
Know (religion)
Contest Guild Domain 1RP 15 RP
Guild
Appraise
Bluff
Knowledge (local)
Profession (bookkeeper)
Contest Source Domain 1RP 15 RP
Source
Knowledge (arcana)
Know (nature)
Scry
Spellcraft
Create Holding Domain
Free for Sorcerers with source holdings
1 GB 15 As corresponding Rule action
As corresponding Rule action Create holding 0
Declare War Realm
Free for fighter, barbarian
None Auto - - Move troops into hostile territory.
Decree Free 1 GB Special Any - Random acts of management.
Diplomacy Domain
Free for bard
1GB, 1RP 15 RP
court
capital province#
interest
Bluff
Diplomacy
Knowledge (nobles)
Sense Motive Special
Disband Free Free Regulars: Auto
Mercenaries: 5 RP Brigands on failure
Espionage Domain
Realm (troops)
Free for rogue, magician
1GB 20 -Province# RP
Guild
Law Bluff
Forgery
Gather Information
Intimidate Revealed on fail by 10
Finances 1 Free 1GB 15 RP
Guild
Province# Bluff
Diplomacy
Intimidate
Profession (bookkeeper) Loan outcome GB at interest 1 GB per turn.
Forge Ley Line Domain
Free Sorcerer
1GB, 1RP
(per province) 10 RP
Source Concentration
Knowledge (arcana)
Knowledge (nature)
Knowledge (planes) 1 RP to maintain
Grant Free Varies +GB
+RP
+2.Holding#
+4.Province# RP Diplomacy
Know (history)
Know (local)
Know (nobles) Give away stuff. Failure costs morale
Hold Action Free None Auto - - Can act on information
Lieutenant Action Free +1GB Once per turn, a lieutenant can try a
normal domain action in your stead. This allows an extra action that turn.
No extra RP may be spent (unless lieutenant is blooded) and actions outside
competence has 50% chance to fail regardless.
Lieutenant Recruiting Domain 1GB 15 RP Charisma 15+
Diplomacy
Knowledge (nobles)
Sense Motive
Result/5 =level
Move Court Domain
Free ranger, druid.
1GB Auto - - Move the center of attention. Any action in this province
gets a +2 bonus.
Move Troops (land) Free 1GB/10 Mp
Double in hostile Auto - -
Move Ships Free 1 GB/unit Areas moved RP Profession (boatman)
Profession (sailor)
Knowledge (geography)
Knowledge (nature) Fail by 10 and sink
Muster Free Special Auto - -
Realm spells Domain
Free Wizard
Special Auto - -
Research Domain 1GB 15 + level RP

Source Alchemy
Knowledge (arcana)
Knowledge (planes)
Spellcraft Learn new domain spell
Rule Province Domain Province# GB, RP 15 RP Knowledge (architecture)
Knowledge (history)
Knowledge (local)
Knowledge (nature) Increase Province level
Rule Law Domain/
Realm 1GB, # RP 15 RP Base Attack Bonus +5
Intimidate
Knowledge (local)
Knowledge (nobles) Removes problem or increases level
Rule Temple Domain/
Realm 1GB, # RP 15 RP Turning level 5
Diplomacy
Heal
Know (religion)
Rule Guild Domain/
Realm 1GB, # RP 15 RP Appraise
Bluff
Knowledge (local)
Profession (bookkeeper)
Rule Source Domain/
Realm 1GB, # RP 15 RP Knowledge (arcana)
Know (nature)
Scry
Spellcraft
Trade Route Domain/
Realm 1GB, 1RP 15 RP
Guild
Law Appraise
Bluff
Diplomacy
Knowledge (geography) Need guild at each end.
Need ships for sea route.




Action: The name of the action. Most are described in the rule book, p. 50
and on. Those with hyperlinks are described on this site.

Type: The type of action, as explained on p. 50. You can attempt one free
action of each type with each domain/realm action

Cost: The costs involved in the action, usually Regency Points (RP) or Gold
Bars (GB)

Difficulty: The base difficulty of the action.

Modifiers: They types of things (usually RP, GB, holdings) that can
influence the action. Add or subtract each from the die roll (at owners
option). A holding type in italics can only be used to hinder the process.

Synergy: This is normally skills, but can be other things as well. Each
requirement filled gives a +2 modifier on the die roll. It takes five ranks
to fill a skill requirement.

Result: A summary of the rules for or results of the action.

Entries in boldface indicate a new or changed rule.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: Ruler levels [2#1241]


> Stephen Starfox wrote:
>
> >What I used was similar to the skill synergy bonuses - if tyou had 5
ranks
> >is certain skills, you get a +2 bonus on that kind of action. Each domain
> >action has a list of four associated skills. Has worked fine for me!
> >/Carl
> >
> So from your skills you as a regent could get a bonus of +8 to domain
> actions having 5+ ranks of 4 certain skills?
> Could you publish the list, please?
> bye
> Michael Romes
>
>
************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives:
http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.


__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Gary wrote:
> >I don`t have the chart handy, but basically a DC 15 skill check is a CR 1
> >or two encounter, and a DC 20 check might be 3 or 4. You gain experience
> >based on CR, so if you make a DC 20 domain action at level 1, great, lots
> >of XP, but by the time you get to level 12 you will never earn experience
> >from domain actions again.
>
> I don`t know how the domain level "DC system" is going to work in the
> coming text, but it does depend a bit on whether or not those DCs will
> be flat or have the possibility of reaching any level in the same way
> that 3e skill checks do. #snip# The DC for a diplomacy check with
> sweet, gentle Rogr Aglondier could be 10 while Prince Avan would be DC
> 25 and the Gorgon DC 50.
>
> If that were the case then the equivalent CR awards for domain actions
> would scale the same way CR awards for defeating monsters does.

By the way, I found the chart I was thinking of, in d20 modern (it will
probably make its way into 3e revised, along with a lot of things from
that book). An important skill check has a CR based on its DC.
Less than 15 is CR 0.
15-19 is CR 1
20-24 CR 2
25-29 CR 3
30-34 CR 4
35-39 CR 5
40+ CR 6.

So even the most difficult domain actions, if they`re done as DCs, should
top out around CR 6. An opposed check (the Diplomacy or Contest actions
maybe) would be CR based on the opponent.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Raesene Andu]

I should point out that the domain rules presented in Travis Doom's conversion at not the same as the rules in the d20 Birthright Rulebook. They are as similar to the conversion as the conversion was to the original rules (if that makes sense).

As I read the rules, to do an action like say Create Holding, the DC is 10. This DC is then modified by several things. One is the levels of allied or opposed holdings of the same type. Another is the atitude of the people of the province. Then there are the levels of the appropriate skill (administrate in the case of Create Holding), which gives the regent a +1 bonus for each 5 ranks, and finally there are RPs, which can be the largest influence depending on how many the regent and his opponents wish to spend.

I'm certain the rules will cause much discussion and perhaps even need some changes to clarify certain sections, but that is the basics of how it works under the new rules. For the actual rules you'll have to wait until the book is released.

[Birthright-L]

On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Raesene Andu wrote:
> I should point out that the domain rules presented in Travis Doom`s
> conversion at not the same as the rules in the d20 Birthright
> Rulebook.

I`m not sure why you think you have to point that out.

> As I read the rules, to do an action like say Create Holding, the DC
> is 10. This DC is then modified by several things. One is the levels
> of allied or opposed holdings of the same type. Another is the atitude
> of the people of the province. Then there are the levels of the
> appropriate skill (administrate in the case of Create Holding), which
> gives the regent a +1 bonus for each 5 ranks, and finally there are
> RPs, which can be the largest influence depending on how many the
> regent and his opponents wish to spend.

A better way to do that, if you wanted skills to be included in domain
actions (they weren`t before), is a skill check DC 20 or so to give a
bonus to the domain action (probably +2). That makes individual skill
ranks useful, rather than only in aggregate.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 07:09 PM 2/2/2003 -0500, Daniel McSorley wrote:

>Less than 15 is CR 0.
>15-19 is CR 1
>20-24 CR 2
>25-29 CR 3
>30-34 CR 4
>35-39 CR 5
>40+ CR 6.
>
>So even the most difficult domain actions, if they`re done as DCs, should
>top out around CR 6. An opposed check (the Diplomacy or Contest actions
>maybe) would be CR based on the opponent.

I don`t think the CR equivalents for that table very accurately reflect the
actual challenge ratings very well. At least not in comparison to how CR
works in other aspects of the system and how the awards are normally
determined. That table would appear to be written without much actual
thinking as to what the numbers represent--part of the problem with much of
the D&D stuff that differs from previous editions, I`m afraid. 3e/D20
includes a skill system that in many ways the rest of the game mechanics
haven`t caught up with, and that table exemplifies the issue in several ways.

For example, if one wants to come up with a CR for skill checks then DC is
for all intents and purposes equivalent to AC in combat. The source of the
modifiers differ but they essentially come from similar level-based
increases that are little different from BAB, ability score modifiers,
feats and class abilities plus a d20. The results of a successful skill
check tends to be a binary success/failure but since we`re talking about
key skill checks and there isn`t the same magic system for skill checks in
D&D as there is for combat, so that consideration may balance out. (There
_should_ be degrees of success in 3e/D20, but that`s another issue.) CR
awards for successfully performing the significant skill checks in an
adventure can be just as important as defeating the proper monsters, so if
one`s going to use a CR award for performing those critical checks making
it so out of whack with the rest of the CR system seems like a "bias
against skills" (or a "killing things reward system preference" if you
will) rather than a well articulated XP award system for something other
than combat.

Also, the 5 point increments per CR are amazingly broad, leading to CR
equivalents that are completely out of whack. An "average" CR 1 skill
check (DC 17) is about right for a level 1 character. It gives him about a
25% chance to successfully perform a skill check for a cross class skill in
which he has a +2 ability score modifier. The rank and feat modifiers for
lower level characters, of course, are much more significant at that point
because ability scores modifiers don`t increase at the same rate as skill
ranks, so character level is much less important, but that rapidly
changes. An "average" CR 5 skill check on that table is DC 37, which needs
a character level of around 20th for a 25% likelihood of success. That`s a
skill check that no actual 5th level character could successfully
complete. (Unless one includes some sort of "Take 21+" rule.) So those CR
numbers are horribly skewed against actual character levels required, and I
haven`t even reached the weirdness of that "40+" entry.... That table
would appear to be something thrown in without much actual thought as to
what those numbers represent.

Trying to make an award system for individual skill checks straight to CR
probably isn`t going to work very well since the CR system assumes things
like using up resources and represents the results of several d20 rolls,
plus damage, etc. One might be able to use a system of CR awards in a
slightly more holistic way, though. If one were to take the CR equivalents
from the table above and add ALL the skill checks performed during an
adventure up in the same way that CRs are added up on the EL table then one
might be able to use that table as the basis of an award system. Because
that table is skewed in favor of lower levels, however, it would make those
awards much more significant for low level characters.

A domain action represents a month`s worth of skill checks, activities and
supervision on the part of the regent, so a straight DC to CR equivalent
probably isn`t the way to go. Right now I`m thinking a "story award"
system that had modifiers for the effect and influence of the event makes
more sense. In BR terms, a Rule action that raised a holding from level 7
to level 8 would be worth more than the same action that raised a holding
from level 1 to 2.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Gary wrote:
> >So even the most difficult domain actions, if they`re done as DCs, should
> >top out around CR 6. An opposed check (the Diplomacy or Contest actions
> >maybe) would be CR based on the opponent.
>
> I don`t think the CR equivalents for that table very accurately reflect the
> actual challenge ratings very well. At least not in comparison to how CR
> works in other aspects of the system and how the awards are normally
> determined.

I disagree. I think the table makes a good point. CR is based on both
expenditure of resources, and risk. Combat has both, and gets a high CR
progression. Story skill checks, and domain actions (in my view) have
expenditure of resources, but not much risk, and the risk is the more
important part, so they don`t go up as rapidly as the DC might suggest.


> The results of a successful skill check tends to be a binary
> success/failure but since we`re talking about key skill checks and
> there isn`t the same magic system for skill checks in D&D as there is
> for combat, so that consideration may balance out. (There _should_ be
> degrees of success in 3e/D20, but that`s another issue.)

There are degrees of success for combat (criticals), and I think that will
eventually make its way over to skill checks. I`ve tried to unify the BAB
and skill systems, making melee attack a str skill for instance, but it`s
a monstrous pain in the ass.


> Right now I`m thinking a "story award" system that had modifiers for
> the effect and influence of the event makes more sense. In BR terms,
> a Rule action that raised a holding from level 7 to level 8 would be
> worth more than the same action that raised a holding from level 1 to
> 2.

The story awards still need to scale based on risk and expenditure of
resources, like CR. For a large wealthy domain, like Muden or Ghoere,
there isn`t much difference between that Rule ->8 and Rule ->2; they have
enough RP to succeed every time without it really being a drain on their
resources.

So maybe a CR system for domain actions, with the character level of the
regent modified by domain power. Hmm.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.