Rules Clarifications for a BR N

[Bearcat]

>1. Does a thief have to own both guilds to establish a trade route between
>them, or can two different owners set up a trade route?
>
I think that the guilds do not have to be under the same guilder,
otherwise guild domains would be a lot less concentrated in one region than
they are right now.

>2. The RP's derrived from a holding are based upon the class of the regent. If
>a PC priest owns a law holding (therefore gaining 1/2 RP's) and he wanted to
>ally himself with the warrior in the party (who would gain full RP's from the
>law holding), and the warrior agrees to give the priest 1/2 the RP's generated
>from the law holding, how would the 2 PC's go about cementing this
>relationship?
>
Through investiture and then vassalage.

>3. Can a law holding in a province tax every eligible holding in that province
>each turn (i.e. tax the temple, guilds, and the province at the same time)?
>

Yes.

>4. If a warrior regent changes class to become a thief (duel class character),
>does he gain all the benefits of both classes are far as being a regent goes?
>Another words, can he collect full RP's from both law holdings and guilds?
>
I would say that the player would only be able to collect regency from both
after his level as a thief passes that of the fighter, this is because of
the way in which the dual class system works (you can't use the benefits of
your first class until you pass the level of it with the second class.

>5. In our campaing, we have 4 players sharing rule of Roesone. 3 players
>control 1 province each, and 1 player is the Baron of Roesone, controls 1
>province, and has all the other provinces vassaled to him. The characters are
>mosty all good, consisting of a priest (the baron), a warrior, a ranger, and a
>thief. The priest owns quite a few holdings, whereas the other PC's own maybe
>2-3 small holdings each. The first time we played, some players took the
>attitude that BR is a board game, and the goal was to control as much as
>possible, even at the cost of other PC's. Others looked at it as a "collective
>rule under a high king" kinda thing. What stratagies would you recommend in
>order for the players to jointly rule Roesone under the Baron PC, and keep from
>stabbing each other in the back?

I believe that an understanding among the players that if one steps
out of line then he will be crushed by everyone else would probably keep
everyone together.

-

[Darkstar]

James Abbiati wrote:

> 1. Does a thief have to own both guilds to establish a trade route between
> them, or can two different owners set up a trade route?

Depends on the DM. I personally do not require that a thief have a guild
in both provinces, but asking the ruler of the kingdom the guild is
travelling to might be necessary.


> 2. The RP's derrived from a holding are based upon the class of the regent. If
> a PC priest owns a law holding (therefore gaining 1/2 RP's) and he wanted to
> ally himself with the warrior in the party (who would gain full RP's from the
> law holding), and the warrior agrees to give the priest 1/2 the RP's generated
> from the law holding, how would the 2 PC's go about cementing this
> relationship?

A vassalage arrangement would work nicely. The priest could make the
warrior his vassal and as part of the arrangment require the warrior to
pass on half of the collected RP's to the priest.


> 3. Can a law holding in a province tax every eligible holding in that province
> each turn (i.e. tax the temple, guilds, and the province at the same time)?

Yes


> 4. If a warrior regent changes class to become a thief (duel class character),
> does he gain all the benefits of both classes are far as being a regent goes?
> Another words, can he collect full RP's from both law holdings and guilds?

Just glancing through the rulebook it states that Multi-Classed and
Duel-Classed characters collect regency at the most favourable rate (pg
41) So in the case you mentioned the warrior/thief would gain RPs for
law as a warrior, and RPs for guilds as a thief.


> 5. In our campaing, we have 4 players sharing rule of Roesone. 3 players
> control 1 province each, and 1 player is the Baron of Roesone, controls 1
> province, and has all the other provinces vassaled to him. The characters are
> mosty all good, consisting of a priest (the baron), a warrior, a ranger, and a
> thief. The priest owns quite a few holdings, whereas the other PC's own maybe
> 2-3 small holdings each. The first time we played, some players took the
> attitude that BR is a board game, and the goal was to control as much as
> possible, even at the cost of other PC's. Others looked at it as a "collective
> rule under a high king" kinda thing. What stratagies would you recommend in
> order for the players to jointly rule Roesone under the Baron PC, and keep from
> stabbing each other in the back?

Depends on the players. Some just like attacking other players. I would
introduce a common enemy, perhaps a threat from Ghoere. That way they
would have to work together or be conquered one at a time. If you think
one player such as the priest is controlling too many holdings introduce
a temple like the Western Imperial Temple of Haelyn and give it the
backing of Avanil. This should give the priest something to think about.

- --
Ian Hoskins

e-Mail: hoss@box.net.au
ICQ: 2938300
Home Page: http://www.box.net.au/~hoss/birth.html

From the Darkness we came.
And to the Darkness we will return.

[Morten Helles]

> Hi folks,

Jim Abbiati! :)


> I have a million questions...

Now we are down 999.995 :)



> 1. Does a thief have to own both guilds to establish a trade route
> between them, or can two different owners set up a trade route?

That has been discussed a lot on this list. I think we agreed (everyone,
correct me if I'm wrong), that a guilder needs a holding in both
provinces UNLESS he wants to split the trade route income with another
regent.

> 2. The RP's derrived from a holding are based upon the class of the
> regent. If a PC priest owns a law holding (therefore gaining 1/2 RP's)
> and he wanted to ally himself with the warrior in the party (who would
> gain full RP's from the law holding), and the warrior agrees to give
> the priest 1/2 the RP's generated from the law holding, how would the
> 2 PC's go about cementing this relationship?

They cannot. But, the priest may hand over the law holding to the
warrior and then let him/her become part of a vassalage agreement.

> 3. Can a law holding in a province tax every eligible holding in that
> province each turn (i.e. tax the temple, guilds, and the province at
> the same time)?

Yes. But no one will be happy about this (except for the taxator, of
course). Make the taxated regents unite in anger if the taxator taxes
too roughly.

> 4. If a warrior regent changes class to become a thief (duel class
> character), does he gain all the benefits of both classes are far as
> being a regent goes? Another words, can he collect full RP's from both
> law holdings and guilds?

When (thief level >= fighter level) yes, otherwise no.

> 5. In our campaing, we have 4 players sharing rule of Roesone. 3
> players control 1 province each, and 1 player is the Baron of
> Roesone, controls 1 province, and has all the other provinces
> vassaled to him. The characters are mosty all good, consisting of a
> priest (the baron), a warrior, a ranger, and a thief. The priest owns
> quite a few holdings, whereas the other PC's own maybe 2-3 small
> holdings each. The first time we played, some players took the
> attitude that BR is a board game, and the goal was to control as much
> as possible, even at the cost of other PC's. Others looked at it as a
> "collective rule under a high king" kinda thing. What stratagies would
> you recommend in order for the players to jointly rule Roesone under
> the Baron PC, and keep from stabbing each other in the back?

Perhaps by letting Baron Ghoere taking advantage of this squabbling
southern kingdom and attack it. If the players do not unite, they all
perish.

Yours truly,

Morten.

+

[David Sean Brown]

Glad to have you on the list. As you will no doubt find out, everyone has
their own variations on rules interpretations. Some of the questions you
asked haev already been discussed, so I'll try to give the answers we
seemed to have had a consensus on..as fo the other, I'll give you my slant
:)
> 1. Does a thief have to own both guilds to establish a trade route between
> them, or can two different owners set up a trade route?

An regent only needs a minimum of a level 0 guild in one of the provinces
to set up a trade route. The route only makes money for the regent who
set it up, not the terminus (Unless something was worked out with the
ruler/guilder of the terminus..ie..give me 1GB/turn, and I won't close
down that trade route..)

>
> 2. The RP's derrived from a holding are based upon the class of the regent. If
> a PC priest owns a law holding (therefore gaining 1/2 RP's) and he wanted to
> ally himself with the warrior in the party (who would gain full RP's from the
> law holding), and the warrior agrees to give the priest 1/2 the RP's generated
> from the law holding, how would the 2 PC's go about cementing this
> relationship?

There really isn't an y decisive way of doing this. They could have a
vassalage agreement (warrior vassal to the priest), but even then the
warrior can refure to pay up when the time comes. Otherwise, a formal
agreement as for anything between two rulers can be used. I believe
someone on this site posted an idea of a blood oath to seal a deal, but I
don't have the particulars here (it was an original idea..not from the
game creators)


> 3. Can a law holding in a province tax every eligible holding in that province
> each turn (i.e. tax the temple, guilds, and the province at the same time)?

Yes.


> 4. If a warrior regent changes class to become a thief (duel class character),
> does he gain all the benefits of both classes are far as being a regent goes?
> Another words, can he collect full RP's from both law holdings and guilds?

Once his thief level equals or passes his warrior level he can use both
classes abilities. I would think only then can he collect full regency
for his law holdings (This is a new question, so anyone can jump in on
this..this is IMHO)

> 5. In our campaing, we have 4 players sharing rule of Roesone. 3 players
> control 1 province each, and 1 player is the Baron of Roesone, controls 1
> province, and has all the other provinces vassaled to him. The characters are
> mosty all good, consisting of a priest (the baron), a warrior, a ranger, and a
> thief. The priest owns quite a few holdings, whereas the other PC's own maybe
> 2-3 small holdings each. The first time we played, some players took the
> attitude that BR is a board game, and the goal was to control as much as
> possible, even at the cost of other PC's. Others looked at it as a "collective
> rule under a high king" kinda thing. What stratagies would you recommend in
> order for the players to jointly rule Roesone under the Baron PC, and keep from
> stabbing each other in the back?

In my campaign, the PCs are doing much the same thing (split up Roesone).
Basically, I made sure there was always some sort of outside pressure that
they had to at least nominally work together to come out ahead. AS well,
if you are using the adventuring part of the game, hte regent PCs really
shouldn't feel comfortable wandering around with the fighter they just
politically screwed..he might have a new use for that sword....this means
they are stuct solo adventuring, and at least in my world, solo
adventurers generally don't last long..Cerilia is a tough place to be
without friends.

Sean Brown

[Tripp Elliott]

James Abbiati wrote:

> 1. Does a thief have to own both guilds to establish a trade route between
> them, or can two different owners set up a trade route?

First of all, not only thieves can create Trade Routes. A mage with a
big source, umm, 7 I think, can do it. Anyways, I say you only need to
have a holding at one end of the trade route.

> 2. The RP's derrived from a holding are based upon the class of the regent. If
> a PC priest owns a law holding (therefore gaining 1/2 RP's) and he wanted to
> ally himself with the warrior in the party (who would gain full RP's from the
> law holding), and the warrior agrees to give the priest 1/2 the RP's generated
> from the law holding, how would the 2 PC's go about cementing this
> relationship?

This is done through the vassalage version of investiture. The Warrior
becomes invested with the law holdings, say it's a law(4), and he agrees
to pay hsi Liege(the priest) 2RP per turn in vassalage. This is not a
binding contract, the Warrior can break it at any moment and suffer no
direct consequences from it other than those the Priest may choose to
bring to bear.

> 3. Can a law holding in a province tax every eligible holding in that province
> each turn (i.e. tax the temple, guilds, and the province at the same time)?

Yes

> 4. If a warrior regent changes class to become a thief (duel class character),
> does he gain all the benefits of both classes are far as being a regent goes?
> Another words, can he collect full RP's from both law holdings and guilds?

I would say yes, but he can't collect as a Warrior until his Thief level
equals his warrior level. Just like his other Warrior abilities, we
forget about them until his thief side catches up.

> 5. In our campaing, we have 4 players sharing rule of Roesone. 3 players
> control 1 province each, and 1 player is the Baron of Roesone, controls 1
> province, and has all the other provinces vassaled to him. The characters are
> mosty all good, consisting of a priest (the baron), a warrior, a ranger, and a
> thief. The priest owns quite a few holdings, whereas the other PC's own maybe
> 2-3 small holdings each. The first time we played, some players took the
> attitude that BR is a board game, and the goal was to control as much as
> possible, even at the cost of other PC's. Others looked at it as a "collective
> rule under a high king" kinda thing. What stratagies would you recommend in
> order for the players to jointly rule Roesone under the Baron PC, and keep from
> stabbing each other in the back?

I am about to start a game in Muden, and will have 6 players. One of
them will be the new Count of Muden(land ruler), another willbe the
Admiral of the fleet(naval ruler), I will have two guilders(land vs
water), a priest, and a mage. This does several things, it gives each
character a natural constituency which does not overlap all that much
with others. Of course the mage wants provinces to stay rural, but the
regents want to rule them up. Maybe some guild competition, but my
story line will have a war on the horizon, and my setup will make it
clear that the PC's must work together, or they will fall. I've changed
the starting Holdings levels in Muden to something I find more
appropriate, but that's GM's prerogative anyways. Muden is a powerful
domain, so they will need powerful adversaries. Will give them
Grabentod to deal with first, then maybe Massenmarch, with adventures
thrown in too.

What yours is doing is pitting them against one another on day one. If
you want that give them separate countries, not the provinces of Medoere
to play with. That way they can each be a law unto themselves. And
remember, whenever they get too big for their britches, it's time for
the Spider to come play, or maybe even the Gorgon, but you may never
need those to present good challenges, the NPC Realms of Ghoere, and
Avanil are plenty nasty to smoke a cocky group of PC's who have nothing
better to do than weaken themselves by infighting.

I hope I helped a little.

Tripp