War Cards and Provinces

[Landen_Haesri]

Guys~

Well, IMC I have a little bit of an issue and I'm wondering how to resolve it. The elven king of the Erebannien has taken over Abbatuor and has been destroying the humans' habitats and cities, lowering the province level from 3/4 to 1/4. Now, how do I reflect this in game terms? I think the province should still have the ability to get back to its original 7 rating; should I just notate it as 1/4(7)? Or is there another, better way to do it?

Also, I'm reflecting provinces' latter rating in war card terms by allowing the defending player of the province to place that many terrain cards on the field. So, as with Abbatuor being 3/4, the province's owner can place up to 4 Woods terrain cards on the map anywhere he wishes. Has anyone else tried this concept, and did it work? I've yet to see, really, though the elves received a serious benefit from it because of their terrain bonus.

Anyway, these are just random thoughts that I'm having.

Charlie

[Benjamin]

IIRC, the Book of Regency covers this somewhere. Basically, if ALL human presence is removed, a province regains 1 source level each spring. If there is some human presence left (ruins, wells, etc), then the province regains 1 source level every 4th spring. Since there is still some human presence in the province (it is still 1/4), then the sources will regenerate very slowly.

[Lord Rahvin]

> Well, IMC I have a little bit of an issue and I`m wondering how to resolve it. The elven king of the Erebannien has taken over Abbatuor and has been destroying the humans` habitats and cities, lowering the province level from 3/4 to 1/4. Now, how do I reflect this in game terms? I think the province should still have the ability to get back to its original 7 rating; should I just notate it as 1/4(7)? Or is there another, better way to do it?


What about making a realm spell that could raise source levels? I know that
sounds a bit odd, considering source levels power realm spells and all, but
it could sort of be like a long-term investment in regency. And since most
wizard regency comes from other source holdings, it kinda` makes sense. It
would be expensive of course, but would be a solution that would work within
the span of a game. Plus, it could make the whole "take back the human
lands" into a viable agenda, that could be accomplished within the span of a
game.

Any ideas as to how much regency it should cost to restore a source level?

-Lord Rahvin

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Azazel]

This is the closest existing spell to what you want to achieve:

Enhance Source (9th level caster)

By mean of this realm spell, a wizard can improve one source
holding by one level. The base cost of the spell is 2 RP, plus
1 RP per new (boosted) level of the source; thus, a source (5)
increased to a source (6) would cost the wizard 8 RP (2+6).

This spell is only temporary (1 domain turn) and can only be
used once a year. If the spell you want to create is possible,
i would suggest nothing less than a 16th level caster, such as
required to cast the Poison source realm spell, and it would probably
cost an enormous quantity of RP, nothing less than 10 times the
new source rating, and possibly more. You are trying to accomplish in
a single month what would normally take years and you want the
effect to be permanent.

Azazel

[Lord Rahvin]

> Enhance Source (9th level caster)
>
> By mean of this realm spell, a wizard can improve one source
> holding by one level. The base cost of the spell is 2 RP, plus
> 1 RP per new (boosted) level of the source; thus, a source (5)
> increased to a source (6) would cost the wizard 8 RP (2+6).
>
> This spell is only temporary (1 domain turn) and can only be
> used once a year. If the spell you want to create is posible,
> i would suggest nothing less than a 16th level caster, such as
> in Poison source, and it would probably cost an enormous
> quantity of RP, nothing less than 10 times the new source
> rating, and possibly more. You are trying to accomplish in a
> single month what would normally take years.


I`m not sure if I agree with the higher caster level limit, but it should
definitely take lots of RP. Not because of the instantaneous growth rates;
even low level spells do more spectacular stuff than that -- but just
because source levels provide RP, so if RP is going to be used to
permanently expand the source levels, there needs to be some kind of
"investment" strategy to it. Short term, it just shouldn`t be worth it.
But it should be possible, and a realm spell with energy (RP) pulled from
other source holdings seems like the way it should be done. Yeah, 10 times
the new source rating should be a minimum, I think. What do the rest of you
think? Is that a good number? Instead of a month though, I`m thinking
maybe it should be something like the Build action, where you have to
progress toward it...

-Lord Rahvin

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Azazel]

I agree that 16 th level, after second thougts, might be a little high.
I had simply taken the existing realm spell with the highest req.
(Poison source) as a guideline.

[Raesene Andu]

Here is a spell I created about 5 or 6 years ago to do exactly what you require. No one really understood the need for it then, but I thought it was neat. Comments?

Note: This is still is original format, was never converted over to 3E.

Renewal

Alteration
Regency: 10
Gold: 3
Req'd Holding: 1
Character Level: 10+
Duration: Permanent

This spell regenerates the mebhaighl lost from the land when civilization expands. When cast is uses the the caster's own bloodline to power the spell, as well as the regency and gold required. For every level of holding regenerates it drains one point of bloodline strength from the caster. The spell may only be cast once a year a the strain on the wizard is too much to allow more than a single casting within 12 months.
One cast the mebhaighl in the province is completely and instantly regenerated and available once more for wizards to harness. Many wizards are willing to make the sacrifice of their bloodline as it can be restored by spending Regency Points at a latter date.
The spell can not be used to turn a 10/0 province into a 10/10 province, it can only be used to renew land that has been effected by civilization after the people are gone. For example if you have a province 3/2 and it is pillaged and the people leave it then becomes a province 0/2. If the population of a province is removed, the magic potential regenerates naturally at the rate of 1 level per year if no civilization returns to the province. So it would take 3 years to become a 0/5. This spell simply speeds up the process at the cost of 1 bloodline pt for each level renewed.

[Lord Rahvin]

> Azazel wrote:
> I agree that 16 th level, after second thougts, might be a little high.
> I had simply taken the existing realm spell with the highest req.
> (Poison source) as a guideline.


The caster level really has no bearing on the effects of the domain level,
which can already be handled with requirements at the domain level --
required source level and RP costs (which is indirectly tied to the caster`s
bloodline).

The only reason to really apply a minimum caster level to realm spells is to
influence the availability of the spell within the campaign world -- having
a realm spell with a requirement of Caster Level 16+ means that only one or
two wizard regents in all of Anuire will have this realm spell. This is
fairly good for things like Poison Source which you don`t want happening too
often, lest ye have to come up with some sort of explanation why this kind
of thing isn`t happening left and right.

But I think this method of growing a source holding back from its damaged
state once slots are freed up would probably be a fairly common occurance,
especially within the elven lands. Therefore, although the RP cost should
be high enough to make this a costly venture, the caster level should be low
enough that it`s available to most regents that want to use it.

-Lord Rahvin

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Landen_Haesri]

I apologize, but I have to make this one quick (heading out the door).

Thank you for all of the helpful information on the renewal of sources; I like the idea of the yearlong processes of renewal, and the spell information for wizard regents who wish to increase its rate of renewal. I'm definitely going to use that information IMC.

Going back to the war map and terrain card question, does anyone have an opinion on that? I haven't used it yet and don't really want to introduce it if it'll create a lot of problems, but it seems more logical to me that the higher the province's nature rating, the more a battle would take place in that type of terrain. I know I'm one of the few that actually uses the war card system, but I'm hoping there's a number-cruncher or analyst out there that knows how much of an effect this could have on potential battles.

That aside, I'm glad this post produced some useful information regarding the sources. As always, BR.net is a great information source. :)

Charlie

[geeman]

At 05:02 PM 4/28/2003 -0600, Lord Rahvin wrote:

>The only reason to really apply a minimum caster level to realm spells is to
>influence the availability of the spell within the campaign world -- having
>a realm spell with a requirement of Caster Level 16+ means that only one or
>two wizard regents in all of Anuire will have this realm spell. This is
>fairly good for things like Poison Source which you don`t want happening too
>often, lest ye have to come up with some sort of explanation why this kind
>of thing isn`t happening left and right.

Another reason to apply a minimum caster level to realm spells is to
parallel spellcasting at the character/adventure level. I think the best
method of setting caster level is to base it on the level of a comparable
"adventure" level spell. That is, the Legion of Dead realm spell should
have a caster level of 9th because the Animate Dead spell is 5th level (for
sorcerers/mages.)

Originally, they would appear to have used this method, but assumed that
access to the realm spell occurred as if the adventure level spell upon
which it were based was one or sometimes two spell levels lower than it
appears in the PHB spell descriptions. That is, if you look at some of the
realm spells regents get access to them at two or four character levels
below when they would normally get access to the adventure level
spell. Legion of Dead has a caster level of 7th rather than
9th. Stronghold (based on the 4th level Leomund`s Secure Shelter?) has a
caster level of 5th where the "base spell" (if that`s it) would require a
7th level spellcaster. Demagogue (based, perhaps, upon the 3rd level spell
Suggestion) has a caster level of 3rd rather than 5th. Monster Summoning
in 2e started off as a 3rd level spell, and the caster level of the
Summoning realm spell is 3rd. I don`t know what the thinking was that went
into making a realm level spell available to regents who were able to cast
spells a spell level below the spell upon which the realm spell is based,
but its done pretty consistently. Dispel Realm Magic is a 1st level realm
spell, though Dispel Magic is a 3rd level spell for both.

A few things to note:

1. The Rulebook actually uses the term "character level" when referring to
the level of the spellcasting regent casting the realm spell. "Character
level" in 3e, of course, means something a bit different than it did in 2e
due to the ease of multi-classing. It seems obvious that they meant
spellcaster level there, but I`m sure somewhere out in the BR community
would contend that if for no other reason than to maintain consistency with
the original text.

2. I think the spellcaster level should be the actual level at which the
character could cast the "base spell" instead of the standard set in the
Rulebook. That has mostly to do with my personal interpretation of what a
realm spell is, however, so YMMV.

3. In the case of a spell meant to rejuvenate the natural environment after
the reduction of a human population I`d suggest the "base spell" would
probably be Plant Growth. Therefore, I`d make the caster level for such a
realm spell 5th level, but if you were going with the quicker pace of
access that characters get to realm level equivalents as presented in the
RB then 3rd or even 1st would make sense.

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]

Speaking of sources renewing themselves every year....

Many moons ago I wrote up a "Harvest Source" domain action that was based
upon the way the source potential of a province increases every year. Here
it is:

Harvest Source
Type: Domain, Realm
Cost: 1RP, 1GB
Success: 10+
Sources may be harvested in order to reap the value of the materials
that they represent. In order to harvest a source, the regent spends 1RP
and 1GB to hire woodcutters, miners, draymen or whatever is required to
bring the materials to market. Harvesting a source yields GB as if the
regent were performing moderate taxation on a province with the same level
as his source holding.
Harvesting a source lowers both it and the source potential of the
province one level, with the following exception. Once every year the
resources of a province may be harvested without damage. For harvesting to
have no effect on source or source potential, the action must take place
during the spring domain turn, when sources naturally renew themselves.
Harvesting during that period cancels the negative effects of the action.

Part of the idea was that if a province`s sources are harvested during that
same Spring domain turn, however, the maximum source levels of the province
will not increase should there be levels available. That is, in Spring
when the source potential of a province would normally increase after the
population level is decreased a Harvest Source action will cancel the
renewal of the source potential of the province.

When I wrote that up way back in the day just about everyone, including the
BR creators, absolutely hated it. (You know you`re on your own when the
guys whose names are on the product chime in to say they hate an
idea....) The thing is, I still think it makes perfect sense, especially
given the way sources renew themselves, but also because of the way trade
routes with sources supposedly work, so there`s no reason it shouldn`t
work, nor any reason why it shouldn`t appear in a d20 conversion....

So without putting too fine a point on it, does everyone still hate the
idea of a Harvest Source domain action, and would suggesting that such a
thing go into a d20 conversion be as dire as including gnomes, monks and
half-dragons? I don`t really want to engage in the debate about the action
itself (though I wouldn`t mind if anyone is interested.) I`m just curious
what people think about including it in a conversion.

The original discussion, BTW, can be found under the various thread titles
for "Harvest Domain Action" available at:
http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A...D=0&H=0&O=T&T=1 (http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A1=ind0005A&L=birthright-l&D=0&H=0&O=T&T=1)

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.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Landen_Haesri

Guys~

Well, IMC I have a little bit of an issue and I'm wondering how to resolve it. The elven king of the Erebannien has taken over Abbatuor and has been destroying the humans' habitats and cities, lowering the province level from 3/4 to 1/4. Now, how do I reflect this in game terms? I think the province should still have the ability to get back to its original 7 rating; should I just notate it as 1/4(7)? Or is there another, better way to do it?

Also, I'm reflecting provinces' latter rating in war card terms by allowing the defending player of the province to place that many terrain cards on the field. So, as with Abbatuor being 3/4, the province's owner can place up to 4 Woods terrain cards on the map anywhere he wishes. Has anyone else tried this concept, and did it work? I've yet to see, really, though the elves received a serious benefit from it because of their terrain bonus.

Anyway, these are just random thoughts that I'm having.

Charlie

Concerning the war card-terrain card issue. IMO this is not a good idea to allow a number of terrain cards per source rating. The reason for this is that using a standard battle map there are only so many really "playable" squares for terrain that this could affect. The point of having the defender place one terrain card where he wishes was to reflect the "homefield" advantage of making use of the terrain to "best" aid him in his defense. An attacker would have had sufficient time to "scout" the area out to negate much more advantage due to terrains.

The terrain comes into play for movement costs when getting troops to the battlefield and that is where the multiple forests come ime into play, in the abstract. Which in many ways would dictate the types of troops present. For example siege engines (artillerists) would be very hard pressed to be present in the scenario you presented, so would knights and other mounted units.

Again that is just my opinion.

[ryancaveney]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Landen_Haesri wrote:

> So, as with Abbatuor being 3/4, the province`s owner can place up to 4
> Woods terrain cards on the map anywhere he wishes.

That seems quite reasonable to me. Certainly I feel that just one card
per battlefield is in general too low. There should be some bias towards
clear areas, since armies prefer to move (or are only able to move)
through relatively clear areas, but I think the fact that even a maximally
wild province would have only 9 terrain cards out of 15 map spaces (rather
than the 15 which might in principle seem more reasonable) handles that
well enough.

> I`ve yet to see, really, though the elves received a serious benefit
> from it because of their terrain bonus.

As well they should, IMO. I think a battlefield setup alternative which
should be considered for a battle involving elves in a wooded province
would have both edges of the map filled entirely by forest terrain, with
the human army strung out along the road (a long, narrow strip of clear
squares down the middle of the map) and attacked from both sides by elven
archers keeping to the woods.

This is another place I think commander`s skill should come into play.
The Strategy skill, and perhaps some blood abilities (e.g., Battlewise
and Direction Sense) should improve each general`s chance of choosing the
battlefield (or avoiding battle completely) -- the amount by which one
side`s strategy roll beats the other`s could, among other things, allow
the winning general to select a battlefield which uses more or less
terrain cards than usual for that province.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
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 Rahvin]

Gary writes:

> Another reason to apply a minimum caster level to realm spells is to
> parallel spellcasting at the character/adventure level. I think the best
> method of setting caster level is to base it on the level of a comparable
> "adventure" level spell. That is, the Legion of Dead realm spell should
> have a caster level of 9th because the Animate Dead spell is 5th level
> (for
> sorcerers/mages.)

I admit you pulled a hell of an example there, because overall it does seem
to make sense that if you can do the realm effect of raising dead armies
then you can do the adventure effect of raising dead minions. But no, I`d
prefer to see "realm magic" as something completely different from the
effects of individual adventure-level magical spells.

In fact, in my opinion, though I don`t really have any BR material that
supports this, the types of realm magic that you can cast should be thought
of as having more to do with the types of source holdings within a wizard`s
domain rather than the types of spells the wizard can cast. So a wizard at
the domain level can do things at that level that he couldn`t do at the
adventure level by virtue of his all-powerful source holdings and the
regency of his bloodline/holding levels, which seems perfectly reasonable to
me.

A wizard who could barely cast out a magic missile might still be able to
make the earth explode under the feat of two hundred soldiers standing in
formation by channelling regency through his source holding and undergoing
the rituals involved in that type of casting. (I think our interpretations
as to what this ritual itself is may be different, but is still more or less
irrelevent to the game mechanics.)


> Originally, they would appear to have used this method, but assumed that
> access to the realm spell occurred as if the adventure level spell upon
> which it were based was one or sometimes two spell levels lower than it
> appears in the PHB spell descriptions. That is, if you look at some of
> the
> realm spells regents get access to them at two or four character levels
> below when they would normally get access to the adventure level
> spell. Legion of Dead has a caster level of 7th rather than
> 9th. Stronghold (based on the 4th level Leomund`s Secure Shelter?) has a
> caster level of 5th where the "base spell" (if that`s it) would require a
> 7th level spellcaster. Demagogue (based, perhaps, upon the 3rd level
> spell
> Suggestion) has a caster level of 3rd rather than 5th. Monster Summoning
> in 2e started off as a 3rd level spell, and the caster level of the
> Summoning realm spell is 3rd. I don`t know what the thinking was that
> went
> into making a realm level spell available to regents who were able to cast
> spells a spell level below the spell upon which the realm spell is based,
> but its done pretty consistently. Dispel Realm Magic is a 1st level realm
> spell, though Dispel Magic is a 3rd level spell for both.

I agree with this, both in your estimations of the original formula and in
the confusion behind the rationale. I still hold to my opinion though that
despite the attempt at a parrellel between adventure-level and domain-level
spells in the original BR materials, such a parrellel is unnecessary, and
has odd consequences regarding the rarity of some of these realm effects.
Basing the rarity of a realm spell based on how often it would be used at
the domain level seems a better strategy than basing it on how often a
similiar effect might be used at the adventure level in completely different
circumstances.


> 1. The Rulebook actually uses the term "character level" when referring to
> the level of the spellcasting regent casting the realm spell. "Character
> level" in 3e, of course, means something a bit different than it did in 2e
> due to the ease of multi-classing. It seems obvious that they meant
> spellcaster level there, but I`m sure somewhere out in the BR community
> would contend that if for no other reason than to maintain consistency
> with
> the original text.

I`d be more inclined to base it on "bloodline strength" rather than
"character level", but let`s not get too radical here...

> 2. I think the spellcaster level should be the actual level at which the
> character could cast the "base spell" instead of the standard set in the
> Rulebook. That has mostly to do with my personal interpretation of what a
> realm spell is, however, so YMMV.

I addressed this above -- I just don`t think the domain level effect and the
adventure level effect have anything to do with one another. The use of
these effects are different, the requirements suit different purposes
(challenge level to adventures vs rarity at domain level), and the origin of
this power is radically different (depending on how important you feel
source holdings are to the casting of realm spells, I guess).


> 3. In the case of a spell meant to rejuvenate the natural environment
> after
> the reduction of a human population I`d suggest the "base spell" would
> probably be Plant Growth. Therefore, I`d make the caster level for such a
> realm spell 5th level, but if you were going with the quicker pace of
> access that characters get to realm level equivalents as presented in the
> RB then 3rd or even 1st would make sense.

Again, because I feel that this would be a fairly common spell at the domain
level, I`m inclined to lower the caster level required. (I`d probably even
make it more complicated and say it`s only lowered for elves.) Raising your
source level is a completely different consideration than whether or not you
can make plants grow in impressive ways and so a parrellel in requirements
just shouldn`t be made.

Also, I`d have to argue that raising a soruce level is not just a simple
matter of making plants grow and summoning a few animals into the
environment. Source levels may grow in wild, untouched areas but I don`t
think that wild, untouched areas necessarily equals new or better source
holdings -- I don`t think there`s an adventure level equivilent. (Maybe, if
you want to stretch it, those little pearl of power magical items... what
are the spell`s associated with that item?)

-Lord Rahvin

************************************************** **************************
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.

[ryancaveney]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Lord Rahvin wrote:

> source levels provide RP, so if RP is going to be used to permanently
> expand the source levels, there needs to be some kind of "investment"
> strategy to it.

True. However, since the max source level will slowly grow back on its
own anyway, the investment required should not be too much -- at least it
should be no more than the total number of extra RP you could potentially
gain from the action.

For example, if it takes one year to grow a level back without the spell,
and a province is down only one level, you only get at most 4 extra RP
income out of the deal. If on the other hand the max source level is down
five from the terrain usual, it takes four years for a level to grow back
on its own, and you can increase the level as often/much as you have RP
for, you could in principle get almost 240 RP out of the deal. These
numbers would be lessened by the cost of the realm spell itself.

Thus, if it cost 10 RP per level, in the first instance it wouldn`t ever
make sense, short or long term. In the second, the 50 RP investment could
pay for itself in as little as ten domain turns (2.5 years); this ignores
the RP investment costs of ruling up the actual source holding, but here
it seems reasonable to assume for the sake of comparison that they are
roughly the same regardless of whether you have increased the source
potential with a spell or waited for it to recover on its own.

> But it should be possible, and a realm spell with energy (RP) pulled
> from other source holdings seems like the way it should be done.

I agree.

> Yeah, 10 times the new source rating should be a minimum, I think.
> What do the rest of you think? Is that a good number?

It seems like a pretty good first approximation to me.

One wrinkle it might be fun to throw in is a modifier based on the
difference between the old and new source potential levels -- it might be
argued that provinces that have higher new maxima grow levels back more
easily, or that provinces which are far from their maxima are more badly
damaged and thus recover more slowly. This option is not just recommended
for those of us who think increased complexity can be inherently more
entertaining -- the second of these two mechanisms could be a balance
thing based on the payoff numbers calculated above.

Now, the 2.5 year time to pay for itself comes directly from the per-level
RP cost -- any cost N/level would pay for itself in exactly N domain
turns, assuming you immediately rule up your holding to the new max you`ve
enabled. If the cost exceeds the number of domain turns you`d need to
wait for the level to have come back on its own (4 or 16 for the first
level), it can never pay off (in RP -- it might still make sense to do it
if you desperately needed the extra source level(s) right now to cast a
particularly spiffy realm spell).

The 240 - 50 = 190 profit comes from the fact that the province was down
*several* levels; that is, that the first level would grow back in 4
years, but the second would take 8, the third 12, and so on. The max
number of RP extracted is then 4 (domain turns per year) times 4 (years
for one level to recover) times 1+2+3+4+5 (number of regrowth cycles
needed by a particular level). If 190 RP profit strikes you as too high,
the thing to do is not make the RP cost per level higher (since that would
make it foolish to ever try to hasten the regrowth of any province that
wasn`t cut almost to zero), but rather make each additional level regrown
cost more than the last. In this case, you could make the cost 10 RP
times the sum from 1 to the number of levels regrown, which means 6 RP per
regrown level would be the highest possible RP profit from expending the
action to cast the spell. Note that regrowing one level in each of a
number of successive castings (on any time separation less than the
natural recovery time) has the same kind of square-root-of-N growth, so
you might have to keep track of the difference between the current maximum
source potential and what it would have been without any interference,
which could be too complicated to use in practice.

> Instead of a month though, I`m thinking maybe it should be something
> like the Build action, where you have to progress toward it...

Possibly. However, since this is an activity which progresses slowly on
its own even without any action by a regent, I think it is probably better
to see a restorative realm spell as akin to Stronghold, which completes a
normally slow process in a single action round.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
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.

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Lord Rahvin wrote:

> I`d be more inclined to base it on "bloodline strength" rather than
> "character level", but let`s not get too radical here...

I like that particular radicalism, as I`ve mentioned in previous posts
about how to play BR as a boardgame without any underlying RPG system at all.

> I just don`t think the domain level effect and the adventure level
> effect have anything to do with one another. The use of these effects
> are different, the requirements suit different purposes (challenge
> level to adventures vs rarity at domain level), and the origin of this
> power is radically different (depending on how important you feel
> source holdings are to the casting of realm spells, I guess).

Though I sympathize with what Gary`s trying to do, I think you are correct
here -- the domain game and the adventure game are different enough that
balance does indeed need to be implemented independently.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
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]

Lord Rahvin wrote:

>> Well, IMC I have a little bit of an issue and I`m wondering how
>> to resolve it. The elven king of the Erebannien has taken over
>> Abbatuor and has been destroying the humans` habitats and cities,
>> lowering the province level from 3/4 to 1/4. Now, how do I reflect
>> this in game terms? I think the province should still have the
>> ability to get back to its original 7 rating; should I just notate it
>> as 1/4(7)? Or is there another, better way to do it?
>
> What about making a realm spell that could raise source levels? I
> know that
> sounds a bit odd, considering source levels power realm spells and
> all, but
> it could sort of be like a long-term investment in regency. And since
> most
> wizard regency comes from other source holdings, it kinda` makes
> sense. It
> would be expensive of course, but would be a solution that would work
> within
> the span of a game. Plus, it could make the whole "take back the human
> lands" into a viable agenda, that could be accomplished within the
> span of a
> game.
> Any ideas as to how much regency it should cost to restore a source
> level?
> -Lord Rahvin

Simply copy the priest realm spell population growth´s mechanics and use
them for
possible source level instead of province level and source level of the
caster instead of temple level.
It´s in the Book of Priestcraft p. 109
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.

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Michael Romes wrote:

> Simply copy the priest realm spell population growth [...]
> It`s in the Book of Priestcraft p. 109

And it`s the single worst realm spell ever written, IMO.

The Rule action as written, if province level is taken to be population,
is impossible -- this spell, with the same understanding, is just silly.
Even with the various other interpretations of Rule, this spell needs to
be completely redesigned or junked entirely.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
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]

I take the opposute view; to me, all realm spells are simply beefed up
version sof regular spells. If you can cast Animate Dead as a regular spell,
you can cast it as a realm spell (provided you ´have the resources).

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
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.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman


Speaking of sources renewing themselves every year....

Many moons ago I wrote up a "Harvest Source" domain action that was based
upon the way the source potential of a province increases every year. Here
it is:

Harvest Source
Type: Domain, Realm
Cost: 1RP, 1GB
Success: 10+
Sources may be harvested in order to reap the value of the materials
that they represent. In order to harvest a source, the regent spends 1RP
and 1GB to hire woodcutters, miners, draymen or whatever is required to
bring the materials to market. Harvesting a source yields GB as if the
regent were performing moderate taxation on a province with the same level
as his source holding.
Harvesting a source lowers both it and the source potential of the
province one level, with the following exception. Once every year the
resources of a province may be harvested without damage. For harvesting to
have no effect on source or source potential, the action must take place
during the spring domain turn, when sources naturally renew themselves.
Harvesting during that period cancels the negative effects of the action.

Part of the idea was that if a province`s sources are harvested during that
same Spring domain turn, however, the maximum source levels of the province
will not increase should there be levels available. That is, in Spring
when the source potential of a province would normally increase after the
population level is decreased a Harvest Source action will cancel the
renewal of the source potential of the province.

When I wrote that up way back in the day just about everyone, including the
BR creators, absolutely hated it. (You know you`re on your own when the
guys whose names are on the product chime in to say they hate an
idea....) The thing is, I still think it makes perfect sense, especially
given the way sources renew themselves, but also because of the way trade
routes with sources supposedly work, so there`s no reason it shouldn`t
work, nor any reason why it shouldn`t appear in a d20 conversion....

So without putting too fine a point on it, does everyone still hate the
idea of a Harvest Source domain action, and would suggesting that such a
thing go into a d20 conversion be as dire as including gnomes, monks and
half-dragons? I don`t really want to engage in the debate about the action
itself (though I wouldn`t mind if anyone is interested.) I`m just curious
what people think about including it in a conversion.

The original discussion, BTW, can be found under the various thread titles
for "Harvest Domain Action" available at:
http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A...D=0&H=0&O=T&T=1 (http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A1=ind0005A&L=birthright-l&D=0&H=0&O=T&T=1)

Gary


I just don't see the point of this domain action. There are already mechanics present to accomplish this. Rule and using troops to raze the forests would both accomplish essentially the same action only are more restrictive (i.e., slower to get the results since more than one action would be required to gain a benefit from it) and deservedly so. It should not be a really simple matter to destroy or regrow a forest. Just my opinion.

[geeman]

At 12:00 PM 4/30/2003 +0200, irdeggman wrote:

>I just don`t see the point of this domain action. There are already
>mechanics present to accomplish this. Rule and using troops to raze the
>forests would both accomplish essentially the same action only are more
>restrictive (i.e., slower to get the results since more than one action
>would be required to gain a benefit from it) and deservedly so. It should
>not be a really simple matter to destroy or regrow a forest. Just my opinion.

I think I`m missing how that would work. Rule only increases province
population level or holding level, so how is that accomplishing what the
Harvest Source action does?

In the original domain rules, an occupying force could reduce any and all
holdings to level 0 simply by deciding to, except sources which could only
be reduced one level (per domain) at a time. That is, if two regents
controlled source(3) holdings in a province(1/6) an occupying regent could
reduce each of their sources by 1 level per action round. In the d20 BR
document this would appear to have been replaced with a sort of
compromise/blend of that. That is, each unit of troops can reduce any
holding one level per action round, regardless of type. That`s similar to
what this action does, but there are several major differences why one
would want to make a distinction between the action and someone using
troops to occupy/pillage their way through the source holding.

1. There need not be an "occupying force" per the occupation/pillage rules,
since the activities are not a war action. There`s some information about
hiring loggers, etc. in that description but that`s pretty much just color
text. I didn`t really mean that it would represent a significant amount of
"troops." The Harvest Source action then gives the ability to raise some
income directly to the source regent rather than to a source regent who
also has a unit or two of troops to command.

2. The regent in charge of the source holding gets an income from the
action directly. An occupying force gets income as a law holding... but
since sources don`t earn income it wouldn`t make a lot of sense that one
could use the law claims function of the original system (or the "seizure"
rules from the d20 BR playtest) to get GB from holdings that don`t by
themselves generate any. If one were to use this action to generation
income, however, it would then make some sense that a law holder could then
garnish the income of a source holder, but that`s a bit different from
equating the two functions.

3. There is no shift in loyalty.

Aside from how the action fits into the game mechanics of the original
domain system (it works well with the way source potential increases once
per year after population levels decrease, the way source potential
decreases due to civilization encroaches upon the natural environment of a
province, and strikes me as a better way of handling the issue of income
from sources better than the source 7+ trade route) it really is a pretty
simple matter to destroy a forest (or whatever terrain) to get at the short
term monetary value of the natural environment. Logging is probably the
most obvious example of this kind of thing; with slash and burn techniques
being one of the oldest techniques known to man, but one could just as
easily interpret the specifics of the action by describing it as engaging
in strip mining or hunting the region out. Of course the role-playing
description need not be all that dire; it`s a single level lost by the
action, but that kind of thing would be plausible.

Further, the action could be interpreted not so much as taking things from
the natural environment as simply destroying it for monetary gain by doing
things like using the area as a dumping grounds for the products of nearby
populations. One could even take the concept a bit further and interpret
the action as performing all the things that one does when one raises the
population--but without the people. That is, roads build, landscapes
modified, dams built, etc. with the regent who controls the source holding
getting a one time payment from those who will occupy those areas in the
near future.

That domain action description is probably a bit too specific in regards to
its description of what is being done to the holdings (domain actions don`t
generally describe what the GB is actually being spent on) but regardless
of such considerations it would very easily fit into the domain system.

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.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 12:59 PM


> > I`ve yet to see, really, though the elves received a serious benefit
> > from it because of their terrain bonus.
>
> As well they should, IMO. I think a battlefield setup alternative which
> should be considered for a battle involving elves in a wooded province
> would have both edges of the map filled entirely by forest terrain, with
> the human army strung out along the road (a long, narrow strip of clear
> squares down the middle of the map) and attacked from both sides by elven
> archers keeping to the woods.

Another bonus for elves is to allow greater stacking bonus in forest spaces.
Humans can be easily overwhelmed when they need to spread out to move
through the woodlands, while the elves need make no such adjustment. Since
combining arms is generally a way to overcome a unit (elven spears hold off
human horse while archers unleash a full attack, all the while using their
forest move bonus to keep the horse from escaping), a higher stacking limit
can be all the difference.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
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 12:36 PM 4/29/2003 -0600, Lord Rahvin wrote:

>In fact, in my opinion, though I don`t really have any BR material that
>supports this, the types of realm magic that you can cast should be
>thought of as having more to do with the types of source holdings within a
>wizard`s domain rather than the types of spells the wizard can cast.

I like the idea of the types of sources (or the terrain type of the
province in which they originate) affecting the realm spells that can be
cast from them. I`d analogize the concept to a sort of "school" (or
"domain" if one wanted to extend the thinking to realm spells cast from
temple holdings) of magic. It would make sense, for instance, that regents
who control sources in mountainous provinces might have an advantage when
casting the Stronghold realm spell, for instance, or certain races (like
elves) might have a greater ability to use a realm spell that reconstituted
the natural environment of a province and thereby increased the potential
source.

I`d hesitate, however, to completely restrict the realm spells of a regent
to the types of source holdings he controlled. First of all, it seems a
rather heavy-handed restriction given the actual realm spells, a look at
which doesn`t really show many that would be particularly more apt for
"forested" terrain over "swamp" terrain. Secondly, the scale and scope of
source holdings would seem to be more inclusive rather than restrictive
when it comes to magic since they cover a large area of land and, in
effect, tap into the general aspect of magic for the campaign setting.

Maybe the best way to do this sort of thing would be to incorporate it into
the "Specialty Holding" concept tossed around a while back. That is, one
type of specialty holding that might be possible for source holdings might
allow regents to access certain realm spells more easily than other
sources. In fact, one could use this as the basis for articulating how the
elven capacity to increase population level without decreasing the source
potential of their provinces works. That is, if only elves have access (or
know the secret of) realm magic that rejuvenates the source potential of a
province that was written up like this:

Rejuvenate Forest
Regency: Special
Gold: 1GB
Duration: Permanent
Req`d Source: 1
Character Level: 5
By casting this realm spell the potential source level of a province is
increased by +1 up to the maximum for it`s terrain type. This spell may
only be cast in forested provinces. The RP cost of this realm spell is the
target level of the potential source for a province.

Using such a realm spell the population level of an elven province is still
reduced by increasing the population level, they just have access to a
realm spell that raises it back up. To accompany that realm spell they
could also have specialty source holdings like:

Replenishing Forest
Minimum level: 2
Tech: 0
Modifier/cost: +4 DC. +2 RP.
Special: Forested provinces only.
Effects: The regent who controls a source with this specialty effect may
cast Rejuvenate Forest spell at half the RP cost.

>I still hold to my opinion though that despite the attempt at a parrellel
>between adventure-level and domain-level spells in the original BR
>materials, such a parrellel is unnecessary, and has odd consequences
>regarding the rarity of some of these realm effects.

What realm effects would be rare if realm spells are based on adventure
level spells?

>>2. I think the spellcaster level should be the actual level at which the
>>character could cast the "base spell" instead of the standard set in the
>>Rulebook. That has mostly to do with my personal interpretation of what a
>>realm spell is, however, so YMMV.
>
>I addressed this above -- I just don`t think the domain level effect and the
>adventure level effect have anything to do with one another. The use of
>these effects are different, the requirements suit different purposes
>(challenge level to adventures vs rarity at domain level), and the origin of
>this power is radically different (depending on how important you feel
>source holdings are to the casting of realm spells, I guess).

Source holdings strike me as pretty vital to the casting of realm
spells.... Is there some other interpretation you`re basing this on?

>>3. In the case of a spell meant to rejuvenate the natural environment after
>>the reduction of a human population I`d suggest the "base spell" would
>>probably be Plant Growth. Therefore, I`d make the caster level for such a
>>realm spell 5th level, but if you were going with the quicker pace of
>>access that characters get to realm level equivalents as presented in the
>>RB then 3rd or even 1st would make sense.
>
>Again, because I feel that this would be a fairly common spell at the domain
>level, I`m inclined to lower the caster level required. (I`d probably even
>make it more complicated and say it`s only lowered for elves.) Raising your
>source level is a completely different consideration than whether or not you
>can make plants grow in impressive ways and so a parrellel in requirements
>just shouldn`t be made.
>
>Also, I`d have to argue that raising a soruce level is not just a simple
>matter of making plants grow and summoning a few animals into the
>environment. Source levels may grow in wild, untouched areas but I don`t
>think that wild, untouched areas necessarily equals new or better source
>holdings -- I don`t think there`s an adventure level equivilent. (Maybe, if
>you want to stretch it, those little pearl of power magical items... what
>are the spell`s associated with that item?)

First Quibble: It`s not the source holding that is the subject here, but
the potential source level of a province. The vocabulary is a bit
confusing here, and in several places in the above the terms used would
seem to mix the two different concepts, or to have equated them. A realm
spell meant to rejuvenate the potential source level of a province after
the population level had been decreased somehow would have no effect on the
source holdings of the casting regent. At least that`s how the idea seems
to have been presented.

Second Quibble: Since the only campaign setting in D&D that uses source
holdings is BR it`s not very surprising that there aren`t a lot of
adventure level magic items that equate to magical items that empower realm
magics in the core texts. However, in the BR materials there are several
magic items and several adventure level effects that interact with the
domain level. Regarding sources the most notable are Mebhaighl Stones (BoM
75-76) which are about the size of a melon and can be used as a sort of
wandering source(1). The various Rings of Ley (72-75) are very definitely
adventure level items that have utility based on the domain
level. Adventure level effects are too many to really count, but if
nothing else the existence of a whole book (LotHK) dedicated to adventures
based on the domain level random events seems like a good example of how
the two "systems" are intertwined.

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.

[Lord Rahvin]

>> I still hold to my opinion though that despite the attempt at a parrellel
>> between adventure-level and domain-level spells in the original BR
>> materials, such a parrellel is unnecessary, and has odd consequences
>> regarding the rarity of some of these realm effects.
>
> What realm effects would be rare if realm spells are based on adventure
> level spells?

Rejuvinate forest!!! The realm spell we`re talking about!
My original argument is that since it`s a wildly "popular" realm spell
(assuming it existed) in Cerelia, that it should have a really low caster
level, like maybe caster level 1+, instead of 16+ like someone suggested or
basing it on Plant Growth like you suggested.



> First Quibble: It`s not the source holding that is the subject here, but
> the potential source level of a province. The vocabulary is a bit
> confusing here, and in several places in the above the terms used would
> seem to mix the two different concepts, or to have equated them. A realm
> spell meant to rejuvenate the potential source level of a province after
> the population level had been decreased somehow would have no effect on
> the
> source holdings of the casting regent. At least that`s how the idea seems
> to have been presented.


Okay, I *want* to respond to the rest of this post, but I need help here
because I`m horribly confused. Since when was the potential source level of
a province the issue here? All the arguments I made, and those that you`re
responding to have to deal with how to assign Minimum Caster Level
requirements to realm spells which has nothing at all to do with any of the
stuff you`re talking about in the above quoted paragraph. How can I
respond?!

And the original subject didn`t have anything to do with raising the source
potential, it had to do with how a source holding regrows back to its
potential after being destroyed by rule actions. Not knowing the Book of
Regency rule, I suggested a realm spell to do it, people suggested some
Regency and Caster Level requirements, and then somehow, I`m not quite sure
how, we ended up here but I don`t know where here is. It doesn`t look like
we`re on the same page at all.

> Second Quibble: Since the only campaign setting in D&D that uses source
> holdings is BR it`s not very surprising that there aren`t a lot of
> adventure level magic items that equate to magical items that empower
> realm
> magics in the core texts. However, in the BR materials there are several
> magic items and several adventure level effects that interact with the
> domain level.

I`m not suggesting that adventure level effects shouldn`t interact with the
domain level. Ryan is. :) I`m suggesting that in this particular case,
while your Rejuvinate Source and Plant Growth spells might be similiar in
theme, the requirements shouldn`t be similiar because of game mechanical
issues: (1) the "level" at which you should make plants grow (at the
adventure level), and (2) the amount of spellcasting regents in Cerelia
capable of ruvinating source holdings.

>Regarding sources the most notable are Mebhaighl Stones
> (BoM
> 75-76) which are about the size of a melon and can be used as a sort of
> wandering source(1).

This sounds cool. Could you give me more information about this (maybe in a
different thread.) Thanks.

-Lord Rahvin

************************************************** **************************
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 12:06 PM 5/1/2003 -0600, Lord Rahvin wrote:

>>It`s not the source holding that is the subject here, but
>>the potential source level of a province. The vocabulary is a bit
>>confusing here, and in several places in the above the terms used would
>>seem to mix the two different concepts, or to have equated them. A realm
>>spell meant to rejuvenate the potential source level of a province after
>>the population level had been decreased somehow would have no effect on
>>the source holdings of the casting regent. At least that`s how the idea
>>seems
>>to have been presented.
>
>Okay, I *want* to respond to the rest of this post, but I need help here
>because I`m horribly confused. Since when was the potential source level of
>a province the issue here? All the arguments I made, and those that you`re
>responding to have to deal with how to assign Minimum Caster Level
>requirements to realm spells which has nothing at all to do with any of the
>stuff you`re talking about in the above quoted paragraph. How can I
>respond?!
>
>And the original subject didn`t have anything to do with raising the source
>potential, it had to do with how a source holding regrows back to its
>potential after being destroyed by rule actions. Not knowing the Book of
>Regency rule, I suggested a realm spell to do it, people suggested some
>Regency and Caster Level requirements, and then somehow, I`m not quite sure
>how, we ended up here but I don`t know where here is. It doesn`t look like
>we`re on the same page at all.

The original question (http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1615) was
about raising the magic potential of a province (3/4) taken over by an
elven ruler who is reducing the human population.

Here`s the distinction just to make sure everyone`s on the same page:

When population level goes up the potential source level of a province goes
down. A (1/6) province ruled up becomes (2/5). That second number there
is the "magic potential" of the province. Magic potential is from the
realm magic section of the RB. IIRC I`ve heard it also referred to as
"maximum source level" and "source potential" from time to time. (I
usually use "source potential".) Source holdings in the province do not
necessarily go down, unless all the source holdings available are taken
up. For instance, if there is a source(6) in the aforementioned province
(1/6) then it also decreases when population level increases. If there is
only a source(5), however, it does not decrease when the population level
of the province is increased because it is still possible to have a
source(5) in a province (2/5).

However, let`s say the population level of a province decreases. The
potential source level of a province does not automatically return to its
maximum level. The (2/5) province that has its population reduced becomes
a (1/5) province, even though the source potential of that province as
determined by its terrain type (and the occasional special feature) should
allow for 6 levels of sources. According to the BoR, one level of source
potential for the province returns per year (in the Spring domain
turn.) So our (1/5) province becomes (1/6) at that point, and a source(5)
holding in that province could then be increased to a source(6) by using
the Rule action.

A few realm spells were brought up. The first was Enhance Source (from the
BoM) which I think is what is causing the confusion. That realm spell
reads kind of like it raises the level of a source holding, but what it
really does is increase the "effective level" of a source holding +1 for
three action rounds. It doesn`t really spell this out very well in that
spell description, the point in that realm spell is to temporarily increase
a source level for the purpose of casting later realm spells so the wizard
could cast realm spells for which he does not control a powerful enough
source holding. For instance, a wizard who controlled a source(2) could
use the Enhance Source spell to temporarily boost it temporarily to a
source(3) for the purpose of spellcasting, so he could cast Legion of Dead,
or any other realm spell that needed a source(3). Enhance Source could
also raise the level of a source (for the purpose of spellcasting) beyond
that available for the province. If the aforementioned wizard`s source(2)
were in a province (3/2) he could still use Enhance Source to get the
effects of a source(3) in that province and cast any spell that required a
3+ source.

The second realm and third realm spell were entirely new and were meant to
rejuvenate a province`s magic potential permanently.

>I`m suggesting that in this particular case,
>while your Rejuvinate Source and Plant Growth spells might be similiar in
>theme, the requirements shouldn`t be similiar because of game mechanical
>issues: (1) the "level" at which you should make plants grow (at the
>adventure level), and (2) the amount of spellcasting regents in Cerelia
>capable of ruvinating source holdings.

I`m not understanding why that should that be significant.

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.

[Lord Rahvin]

>> I`m suggesting that in this particular case,
>> while your Rejuvinate Source and Plant Growth spells might be similiar in
>> theme, the requirements shouldn`t be similiar because of game mechanical
>> issues: (1) the "level" at which you should make plants grow (at the
>> adventure level), and (2) the amount of spellcasting regents in Cerelia
>> capable of ruvinating source holdings.

> I`m not understanding why that should that be significant.

Well. It`s my only point. The only argument.
I think a realm spell could be used to raise potential source level back to
its terrain maximum. I think it`s Caster Level should be one. I`m not sure
what the Regency point cost would be.

As for your specialized source holding idea, I like it.

-Lord Rahvin

************************************************** **************************
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.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman


At 12:00 PM 4/30/2003 +0200, irdeggman wrote:

>I just don`t see the point of this domain action. There are already
>mechanics present to accomplish this. Rule and using troops to raze the
>forests would both accomplish essentially the same action only are more
>restrictive (i.e., slower to get the results since more than one action
>would be required to gain a benefit from it) and deservedly so. It should
>not be a really simple matter to destroy or regrow a forest. Just my opinion.

I think I`m missing how that would work. Rule only increases province
population level or holding level, so how is that accomplishing what the
Harvest Source action does?
Gary


Well in in the BRRB, pg 59 under Rule action it allows for the province to be ruled "up", as you pointed out in follow discussions. This will allow holding rulers to rule up their holdings so that they can gain more GBs. The playtest document has Rule Province (pg 110) as a domain action that accomplishes the same thing. Slow, but organized.

The Realm spell Alchemy (BRRB pg 82 and the playtest doc pg 156) allows a wizard to convert RP into GB.

So between these two actions (and a long term investment in ruling) a land's source potential can be converted into resources. This is why I questioned the need for a spell that basically speeds up the process. Since the spell would be cast by a wizard who is effectively cutting his own throat by reducing his source potential/holdings why would it ever be done? Elves would never do it.

[Landen_Haesri]

Originally posted by irdeggman

Concerning the war card-terrain card issue. IMO this is not a good idea to allow a number of terrain cards per source rating. The reason for this is that using a standard battle map there are only so many really "playable" squares for terrain that this could affect. The point of having the defender place one terrain card where he wishes was to reflect the "homefield" advantage of making use of the terrain to "best" aid him in his defense. An attacker would have had sufficient time to "scout" the area out to negate much more advantage due to terrains.


Originally posted by ryancaveney

This is another place I think commander`s skill should come into play.
The Strategy skill, and perhaps some blood abilities (e.g., Battlewise
and Direction Sense) should improve each general`s chance of choosing the
battlefield (or avoiding battle completely) -- the amount by which one
side`s strategy roll beats the other`s could, among other things, allow
the winning general to select a battlefield which uses more or less
terrain cards than usual for that province.


Ryan Caveney



Guys~

I see both of your points, and I'm seeing something in there that I might combine to make for a good strategy proficiency roll- by opposing rolls per commander, and a certain setup, maybe each could have control of a # of said terrain cards and place them where they wish, with the attacker having the option of discarding each card he won to reflect his scouts choosing the battlefield. Not sure how to set that up (I'm thinking about transferring The Riddle of Steel into MC), but do either of you have opinions on this? It would read like this:

Attacking commander and defending commander do opposed skill rolls of Strategy or Tactics; based on their rolls, each would gain a # of area's terrain cards (up to the maximum level of the Source rating) and place them; defender placing first, attacker next, continuing until each runs out of cards. Attacking commander has the option to discard his Terrain Cards (one at a time) if he chooses.

This might balance the source rating; the attacking commander, with his intelligence and scout forces, can somewhat choose the battlefield, while the defending commander (having at least one terrain card as home field advantage) gets to do the same. Sound good?

Charlie

[edit] P.S. I'm not too sure of the differences between Strategy and Tactics skills, so feel free to edumicate me.

[geeman]

At 02:02 PM 5/1/2003 -0600, Lord Rahvin wrote:

>>>I`m suggesting that in this particular case, while your Rejuvinate
>>>Source and Plant Growth spells might be similiar in theme, the
>>>requirements shouldn`t be similiar because of game mechanical
>>>issues: (1) the "level" at which you should make plants grow (at the
>>>adventure level), and (2) the amount of spellcasting regents in Cerelia
>>>capable of ruvinating source holdings.
>>
>>I`m not understanding why that should that be significant.
>
>Well. It`s my only point. The only argument.
>I think a realm spell could be used to raise potential source level back
>to its terrain maximum. I think it`s Caster Level should be one.

I gotcha. You`re saying there should be no connection between realm level
effects and adventure level effects, and that the realm spell should be
available to pretty much anyone with a source. What I`m asking is for more
elucidation on "why?" You`ve gone into this a bit, with the information
about tying realm spells more to the specific nature of the source holding
rather than the regent who controls it, but what I`m still not fully
understanding is why there should be no connection between level of the
caster of the adventure level spell and the realm level version.

As for the caster level of this particular spell, since I think it should
be based on the adventure level equivalent, I`d make it 5th. In the
original system, however, regents got access to realm level spells before
the same characters would get access to similar adventure level spells,
which in this case would make such a spell (based on the 3rd level Plant
Growth) available to 1st or 3rd level casters... though it`s not actually
an arcane spell in 3e, so that`d have to be dealt with somehow. (But
that`s another issue, I guess.)

Making caster levels equate to adventure level spellcaster levels has
several merits, probably the best of which is that it is a very easy
transition to make. The magic system of 3e is, of course, something of a
black hole of gaming imbalance, but ignoring that little tidbit, using
"realm versions" of the adventure level spells provides something of a
framework for how they might be situated and written up. That is, one
could assign point values and effects based on the equivalent character
level and power of the base spells. If one wanted to come up with new
realm spells then there`s some sort of guidelines in place, making it
relatively easier than doing it on the fly.

>I`m not sure what the Regency point cost would be.

I`ve found that a good general guideline is 1RP per level of the base
spell, or the target level if the function of the spell is on a holding or
province. A Rejuvenate Forest realm spell might then have a cost of 3RP
(since Plant Growth is 3rd level) or 1RP per the target level of the magic
potential of the province the spell is targeted upon. In this case the
latter option seems the most sensible.

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.

[Lord Rahvin]

>> Well. It`s my only point. The only argument.
>> I think a realm spell could be used to raise potential source level back
>> to its terrain maximum. I think it`s Caster Level should be one.
>
> I gotcha. You`re saying there should be no connection between realm level
> effects and adventure level effects, and that the realm spell should be
> available to pretty much anyone with a source.

Ummm... yes, both of those are fair exptrapolations as to what I said. But
just to be more specific: I`m saying that there should be no connection
between the realm level REQUIREMENTS (as opposed to effects) and that this
particular realm spell should not have a minimum caster requirement, as
opposed to should be available to anyone with a source. I stress the
AVAILABLE part... I`m not saying every realmcaster should have this realm
spell.

>What I`m asking is for
> more
> elucidation on "why?"

Okay. I don`t have very many points here, so I`m just trying to repeat
myself in clearer terms. If that`s not the answer you`re looking for, you
need to let me know, okay?


>You`ve gone into this a bit, with the information
> about tying realm spells more to the specific nature of the source holding
> rather than the regent who controls it,

This was not actually one of my points, just the campaign justification
involved. My actual points are purely game mechanical, as below. They
don`t have much to do with the specific nature of the source holding at all.

>but what I`m still not fully
> understanding is why there should be no connection between level of the
> caster of the adventure level spell and the realm level version.

Okay. I`m using this specific case of some kind of Rejuvinate Source realm
spell (not necessarily the one you wrote up) that cost X regency to raise
the source level potential by one up the maximum terrain value. I feel that
this is a very common realm spell used in Cerelia. This view is based on my
view of the way this realm spell interacts with the campaign setting -- that
is to say that it is a very common realm spell and thus used often, meaning
most provinces are currently at their maximum source potential allowed for
terrain maximum minus civilization, even in provinces where there might once
have been once mightier cities. Because this realm spell is so useful, so
common, and so often used throughout Cerelia`s (at least recent) history,
I`m assuming that almost anyone who has a source has the possibility to
learn and cast this realm spell.

At the domain level of play, the minimum caster level of realm spells really
only effects who can cast it. If this realm spell had a minimum caster
level of 16+ as someone previously suggested, this realm spell is limited to
mages as powerful as the High Mage Aelies -- meaning most source regents,
including humans, elves, and awnsheighlein would not have access to this
spell making it very uncommon. Lowering the caster level down to, say, five
as you suggested would result in this realm spell being available to many
more casters. There are still certain source regents that would not be able
to cast this spell though... I don`t have my books with me at the moment so
only the regent of Ilien comes to mind right now, being only 3rd level, but
I`m sure there are others. By lowering the caster level, you`ve increased
the percentage of source regents capable of using this realm spell. That`s
the only effect of lowering or raising the caster level -- the percentage of
source regents in the world capable of casting the spell.

At the adventure level, minimum caster requirements are a whole different
story. Yes, you are also deciding the percentage of casters capable of
casting the spell based on the spell`s level and the level of spellcasters,
but that`s rarely a consideration when assigning spell level to spells at
the adventure level. Adventure-level spell-level design has more to do with
the effects of a spell, and what kind of challenges a player is facing at a
given character-level. The level of Plant Growth, for example, is based on
things like its versatility, its ability to hinder targets, whether its
offensive or helpful, how many targets it can be applied to in a single
casting, what the range is, and how long its duration lasts. None of this
is relavent to the realm effect of raising source potential so that you can
rule your holdings back up and collect regenecy and cast more powerful realm
spells again.

Also, it`s important to note that at the domain-level caster levels tend to
be rather fixed. Although PCs might level up over the course of a
domain-adventure, depending on your playing style, for the most part Aelies
remains 16th level and Aglondier remains 3rd. Thus, distributing the caster
level decides which domains have access to the realm spell, as explained
before. But at the adventure level, your PCs are expected to level up as
you play. Not only that, but the spellcasters that your PCs meet are
expected to be of increased level. Thus, at the adventure-level, your
spell-level does not determine whether or not the spell is available to you
or to other NPCs, but only when that spell eventually becomes available.
Completely different story.

So, in conclusion, the mentality that goes into designating the caster-level
requirements for adventure-level spells is completely different from the
concerns that go into designating the caster-level requirements for
domain-level realm spells. Deciding which domains should have access to a
given realm spell should not be dependant on the decisions as to when you
want to introduce an adventure-level effect in your game and how often you
want it to be used. The two game-mechanical effects of the spells have
nothing to do with oneanother, and the requirements have completely
different criteria for their establishment.


> Making caster levels equate to adventure level spellcaster levels has
> several merits, probably the best of which is that it is a very easy
> transition to make.

I don`t know that there`s much of a transition. Minimum caster level has
very little effect at the domain level and usually can just be discarded
unless you want the realm spell to be particularly rare.

>The magic system of 3e is, of course, something of a
> black hole of gaming imbalance, but ignoring that little tidbit,

Ignored.

>using
> "realm versions" of the adventure level spells provides something of a
> framework for how they might be situated and written up. That is, one
> could assign point values and effects based on the equivalent character
> level and power of the base spells.

Actually I want to do this. Point-based spell design should be a little
easier at the domain-level than at the adventure-level. The final effects
of all spells could be abstracted to domain effects. You could make a
powerful spell that invaded the dreams of every person in a province,
confusing them, making them unsure at any given moment whether they were
awake or asleep... but if the overall final effect of the realm spell is a
minor downgrade in loyalty and a small loss in regency collection, then
that`s pretty easy to designate point-wise and to assign levels to and such.
I don`t see any need to base it on an actual "base spell". I`d throw in
minimum caster level based on how much interupted the theme of the low-magic
birthright game -- the more "showy" the spell, the higher the caster level
required. Other than that, there`s no reason to tie domain-level effects to
anything other than domain-level requirements: regency points and source
holdings.

Realm spells should probably scale somehow, too....

>If one wanted to come up with new
> realm spells then there`s some sort of guidelines in place, making it
> relatively easier than doing it on the fly.

I`d rather just have domain level guidelines. Weird cross-referencing to
base spells and interpreting domain level effects based on adventure level
requirements seems much less streamlined, especially considering the
innumerable sources of adventure-level spells. Most often, you`d probably
end up making a base spell from scratch and then doing the odd conversion
thing. I just don`t see any point to it.

I think it would be cool if having the realm spell (say, Rejuvinate
Province) helped somehow with an adventure-level spell (say, Plant Growth),
but I`m not sure how. It should definitely not work the other way around,
though.


>> I`m not sure what the Regency point cost would be.
>
> I`ve found that a good general guideline is 1RP per level of the base
> spell, or the target level if the function of the spell is on a holding or
> province. A Rejuvenate Forest realm spell might then have a cost of 3RP
> (since Plant Growth is 3rd level) or 1RP per the target level of the magic
> potential of the province the spell is targeted upon. In this case the
> latter option seems the most sensible.

This is kind of my point. You`re basically assigning a domain-level
requirement (RP) to the cost of a realm spell based on the area of effect
and duration and such of an adventure-level spell that shared a common
theme, but has nothing to do with being able to rule your holdings again for
the final effect of collecting more RP and casting more powerful spells --
the effects of Plant Growth have nothing at all to do with that and have to
do rather with reducing movement rates of a small army.

Yes, the second option is far more sensible because you`re tying a domain
level requirement with a domain level effect -- which is what should always
be done. There`s going to be a massive and unnecessary and overly
complicated discontinuity with spells that have domain-level effects but
adventure-level requirements.

-Lord Rahvin

************************************************** **************************
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.

[ryancaveney]

On Fri, 2 May 2003, Landen_Haesri wrote:

> by opposing rolls per commander, and a certain setup, maybe each could
> have control of a # of said terrain cards and place them where they wish,

Yes, that`s what I had in mind.

> with the attacker having the option of discarding each card he
> won to reflect his scouts choosing the battlefield.

I don`t think attacker/defender is a useful distinction here. For
example: whether on attack or defense, dwarves will try to place mountains
and elves forests, since they have big advantages there; for the same
reason, humans facing those races, whether on attack or defense, will try
to place clear. In any case, it is the side with the better scouts and
the faster movement rate which chooses the battlefield. The province
"defender", if it consists of elves in forests, dwarves in mountains, or
human cavalry in plains, will generally get to choose the location of the
battle (or even whether a battle happens at all) if the invader is move-1
human infantry. Think "ambush", at the very least.

In any case, I think "I choose this space to be clear" is a perfectly fine
"placement of a terrain card". If the commander with the choice wishes to
state that no card can go in the space, that`s fine -- so long as the
total number of terrain cards placed works out to the right number,
calculated by whatever formula you use. For example, if you use the rule
that a forest province with source potential 9 should have 9 forest
terrain cards on the battlefield, and the generals take turns placing
where they go, you might have one general say "this forest goes here" and
the other "no forest will go here" six times each, and then the remaining
three squares must be forest (because that`s all that`s left). In this
case, what you might want to do is make cards that say "Clear terrain" on
them, and place them out to indicate which spots are taken.

Note that the generals might *agree*, in which case their rolls should be
added, not subtracted. For example, two human generals leading armies
consisting mostly of cavalry meet in a thick forest. It may happen that
both generals prefer to fight in clear terrain, so any adjustments each is
allowed to make to the total number of forest cards present on the
battlefield might go in the same direction. For example, if the province
says 7 forest cards are supposed to be placed, and one general gets to
adjust two cards and the other three, the actual number of forest cards
placed could be 2 or 12 (if both wanted clear or both wanted forest) or 6
or 8 (if they disagreed). IMO, this is the reason the battlefield default
is clear -- human generals tend to collude in choosing them that way.

> I`m thinking about transferring The Riddle of Steel

What`s that?

> Attacking commander and defending commander do opposed skill rolls of
> Strategy or Tactics; based on their rolls, each would gain a # of
> area`s terrain cards (up to the maximum level of the Source rating)
> and place them; defender placing first, attacker next, continuing
> until each runs out of cards. Attacking commander has the option to
> discard his Terrain Cards (one at a time) if he chooses.

I think having both choose from the same pile, some of which are marked
"clear", is a bit better. That way, the side which doesn`t want terrain
gets the same influence as the side that does -- both how much of that
type of terrain there is, and where specifically it is placed. I`d
actually do it in three steps: first, start with the number and kind of
cards usual to the province`s terrain type (recall that some may have
mountains and forests and a river!); second, the commanders roll to see
how many cards each of them gets to change, and alter the mix of cards
accordingly; third, they take turns choosing and placing cards from the
single pile defined in the previous two steps. If the strategy rating
plus roll difference in step 2 is big enough, in step 3 one general might
be choosing 2 or even 3 cards for each one the opponent does.

> This might balance the source rating; the attacking commander, with
> his intelligence and scout forces, can somewhat choose the
> battlefield, while the defending commander (having at least one
> terrain card as home field advantage) gets to do the same. Sound good?

Again, attacker/defender is not the best way to see it. Both sides have
some choice of where to bring the other to battle, as both will be
constantly scouting for the other and moving to improve their own
position; a 1250 square mile province gives an awful lot of room for two
forces of 200-3,000 soldiers to blunder around looking for each other.
If one side is both faster and has better scouts, they can meet their
opponents basically wherever they like, regardless of which side owns the
province. Note also that the "attackers" (aka "invaders") on the province
scale may well end up being the "defenders" on the battlefield, especially
if their enemy has outmaneuvered them.

The one place where the two sides don`t have essentially equal influences
(except for the defender`s generally greater knowledge of local terrain)
is in the defense of fixed points (cities, castles, bridges, etc.) -- in
that case, the defender should get to pick almost every terrain card! At
the very least, at any fortification which is built during play, the
builder should have near-total control of the surrounding terrain. This
could extend even to things like "in this plains province, there is
exactly one large hill; therefore, I chose to build my castle upon it."


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Landen_Haesri]

Ryan~

Well stated. I was locked into the attacker/defender mode because the only battle I've had to run so far was with a group of elves defending the province of Abbatuor from humans, and the terrain benefitted the defenders (which is why I thought the distinction important). I do see what you're saying now, with the attacker/defender position being irrelevant, and I agree with you.

Also, you have a great point with fixed defended positions! I love the idea; I'm going to have my PCs tell me the position their castles and fortified holdings and preplace the terrain cards because it makes total sense. The one question I would have is how to attack fortified holdings in the cities themselves; from what I understand most of my player's temples or Guild holdings are located in the heart of large cities. That'd be interesting to run.

Thanks for the corrections on viewpoints and the good ideas; with your permission I'd like to rip them off and use 'em IMC. ;)

Two ales for the strategist an' me! ([_] ([_]

Charles

[edit]


>> I`m thinking about transferring The Riddle of Steel

>What`s that?

The Riddle of Steel is an RPG published by Driftwood Publishing and a great game for realistic combat. The emphasis is on humanoid vs. humanoid fighting and is very "gritty"; mundane weapons (swords, daggers, heck, even a quarterstaff) can be deadly in the right hands. I like the system myself (though the magic in TROS is too powerful to be transferred as-is into a setting like BR) and so does my gaming group (half of them anyway). You should check out their website for more info.

www.theriddleofsteel.net

(if this is in any way breaking forum rules, please take it off and inform me! I mean no harm!)

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 6 May 2003, Landen_Haesri wrote:

> I do see what you`re saying now, with the attacker/defender position
> being irrelevant, and I agree with you.

Glad to hear it! Remember, though, that while the above is a good first
principle, troops in their home province should probably have some small
scouting advantage, due to familiarity with the local terrain. Even so,
don`t make this an attacker/defender thing, because the "attacker" could
be trying to retake a province that was theirs for centuries and the
current "defender" just occupied last month; also, even if the local
humans have lived in the mountains/forests for a long time, an invading
army of dwarves/elves will still probably be able to out-scout them.

> Also, you have a great point with fixed defended positions!

Glad you like it. =)

> The one question I would have is how to attack fortified holdings in
> the cities themselves; from what I understand most of my player`s
> temples or Guild holdings are located in the heart of large cities.
> That`d be interesting to run.

Urk. Battles in cities are even more dangerous, confusing, and hard to
control than battles usually are. They degenerate into looting really
easily; even if you can avoid that, it is extremely difficult to figure
out what is going on, much less command it. In fact, when cities were
walled, one generally attacked the walls just like a big castle, and upon
breaking in the city was often, perhaps usually, sacked. Cities, knowing
this, tended to surrender as soon as an opposing army approached, unless
they were really well defended or expected to be sacked anyway. I know of
very few medieval battles *inside* cities that were really battles -- most
generals of the time tried to avoid it. Siege or open field was the rule.

> Thanks for the corrections on viewpoints and the good ideas; with your
> permission I`d like to rip them off and use `em IMC. ;)

Go right ahead! That`s why I post them. =) All I ask is that you write
back at some point with a description of how it went and what you learned,
and what changes you made to it as you played. I crave more data! ;)

> www.theriddleofsteel.net

Thanks for the pointer! What rules would you think you might be breaking?


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
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.