Ch. 5 Key Skills for Domain Actions

[tcharazazel]

This is a topic that needs to be decided upon to finish up work on the Ch 1 Master feats.


To sum them up:

Create/Contest/Rule Province: Administrate.

Create/Contest/Rule Guild Holdings: Profession (Merchant)

Create/Contest/Rule Law Holdings: Lead or Knowledge (Law) or Warcraft. Ideas?

Create/Contest/Rule Temple Holdings: Diplomacy, Lead or Administrate. Ideas?

Create/Contest/Rule Sources: Knowledge (Nature)

Create ley lines: Knowledge (Arcana)

Coronation and Invest Province: Lead

[Benjamin]

For temples, I think something with Knowledge (Religion) should be used. This way we can keep all the Rule X based upon some Knowledge.

[Athos69]

Guilds do not rely on the Knowledge skill, so your attempt at forcing symmetry is broken. If the Rule action for Temples is switched to Knowledge (Religion), it would make some sense....

I'd also like to see Appraise get some use in there. Currently, it's one of the skills that Guildmasters need to have, but there is no appreciable use of value to the skill outside of RP collection.

[Osprey]

I don't think K/Religion does make much sense for ruling temples. This is essentially Theology, renamed for the sake of a modular skill system.

Tell me: is Theology really the primary measure of how politically powerful a temple can become? Does a good theologian necessarily make a good High Priest? While I'm fine with this skill being a requirement to measure actual regency collection (as in, yes, a High Priest needs a good theological grounding, especially to be respected by other clergy), I don't think it an accurate reflection of how well a priest regent could expand a temple's holdings. If it were, then why aren't our modern-day churches all led by academic theologians with Masters of Divinity and Ph.D's in theology? Could it be...lack of necessary charisma? Lack of ambition even? Often those with extreme theological knowledge simply become divorced from the masses of the church they're attached to (if any), making them if anything worse leaders, and certainly not the type to gain widespread popular appeal, let alone even a large following within a church's clergy.

The one exception is Contest Temple Holdings: here an excellent argument could be made for K/Religion being the primary tool, as theological debate is often a key part of temple rivalries acted out to sway the populace.

Nevertheless, I'd say Lead is probably the single best representative skill here. Charismatic speaking, swaying the masses, influencing one's peers...these are the hallmarks of successful religious leaders, the ones whose names go down in history. And the skill is broadly applicable enough to apply to influencing the necessary elements that measure the power of a church: the masses, the clergy, and the nobility being the 3 main groups that provide a temple's political power.

[Osprey]

I'd also like to see Appraise get some use in there. Currently, it's one of the skills that Guildmasters need to have, but there is no appreciable use of value to the skill outside of RP collection.

Hmm, I think it's good it factors into RP collection, but how important is it for a guild regent as opposed to a regular merchant? For the merchant on the street, this is of course an invaluable skill, as he uses it every day, in every transaction. But a guilder could as easily have professional appraisers on hand to take care of the really high-end stuff, having perhaps half of his own max. ranks in the skill - enough to make certain his employees and trade partners aren't pulling the wool over his eyes. But I don't think it applies very well to running a guild network, at least not as the primary skill.

However, Athos, I agree with you: Appraise gets little notice, and like many skills is one of those specialties that in all realism should probably be folded into Profession (Merchant) as the two go so closely hand in hand, and P/Merchant would invariably include appraisal skills.

If D&D gave more credit to those Profession skills, it might be amazing how many other skills like Appraise, Heal, and some Knowledge skills would simply disappear and fold into the larger groupings of Profession. Not the greatest division of skill sets IMO.

So if you have a nice DM, or are a nice DM, maybe you can talk them (or yourself ;) ) into combining the two, leaving those precious skill points for a more diverse skill set.

[Osprey]

and what about Law holdings? here's the real stickler - while I think Lead may also best represent the primary skill that's useful here, I hate to have Law and Temple holdings use the same skill while we use a different one for guilds.

If there's a single place I'd be okay with using a Knowledge skill, it would be Knowledge (Law). Maybe this is because setting up a functional legal system is such a brain-twister (and hence Intelligence-based skills would make sense), and really does require a firm grounding in legal precedence, history, and the laws of other realms, especially within one's own culture. What the people will accept as "fair" or "just" might be very relative to what they know already, or what they've heard about, or their parents and grandparents and so on have always lived by.

The only drawback here is that this is a somewhat sophisticated view of Law holdings, and one that may or may not be appropriate for a medieval/early Renaissance-era setting. Some medieval legal systems were amazingly complex (and I'd say these were examples of bumbling attempts at a fair legal system more often than not; just look at English Common Law sometime, at least for as long as you can stand it :P ), others brutally simple and oppressive, but which ones represent high level Law holdings within the setting?

Probably in the end I favor K/Law as a key skill because it hearkens back to the original game, where Law was a seperate and essential skill for any serious law regent. At the very least, I very strongly believe it should account for at least one of the 2 key skills for regency collection from Law holdings, the other one probably being Lead.

Hmmm....will post ideas about this in the other thread on collections (Ch. 5 ideas).

Oh yeah, and I was reminded: Knowledge (Law) would be a class skill for all warrior-type classes, except Barbarians.

[tcharazazel]

The only drawback here is that this is a somewhat sophisticated view of Law holdings, and one that may or may not be appropriate for a medieval/early Renaissance-era setting. Some medieval legal systems were amazingly complex (and I'd say these were examples of bumbling attempts at a fair legal system more often than not; just look at English Common Law sometime, at least for as long as you can stand it* ), others brutally simple and oppressive, but which ones represent high level Law holdings within the setting?

Aye, K/Law seems very appropriate for Law holdings, especially considering what was written in the Book of Regency about higher level law holdings, page 31. Basically, that level 4 law the bureaucracy begins, level 5-6 the bureaucracy spreads and the holding consists of many law-keepers/makers/interpreters, level 7 the Law defines the nature of the province and may effect the province ruler.
This goes to show that a more sophisticated view of Law holdings was originally intended, especially for the higher level holdings.

So, what would this mean... well wouldnt really change much for fighters, palis, rangers, ect who dont have administrate as a class skill (as admin was the key skill to create/contest/rule law before). It will change Clerics and Rogues ability to rule law as they do have admin as a class skill, which makes sense really because so far we seemed to agree that clerics and rogues shouldnt be the best classes to rule law holdings. Finally, it would open up the door for bards and wizards who have all Knowledge skills as class skills to be better Law regents.

[irdeggman]

Making K/Law one of the key skills for RP collection from Law holdings would penalize fighters who don't have any Knowledge skills as class skills. We need to keep in mind that fighters, as a class, should be best at something and that comes down to law holdings. So making it multiple skills and including skills that are cross-class for them will definitely penalize them due to their poor selection of class skills and low skill point accumulation.


For Temples, instead of Lead (which IMO does fit for temples) perhaps Diplomacy or Perform (oratory). Diplomacy has a synergy bonus for 5 ranks in Knowledge (royalty and nobility). On the surface this would seem to benefit rogues and bards who have diplomacy as a class skill but there is the one extra caveat - the regent must be capable of casting divine spells.

I think the more we look at this the more we see the problem that people have brought up before - that using skills as a basis for RP collection favors classes with large skill point gains, rogues/bards/rangers. It can work but this is a legitamte concern and the skill selection should definitely address cross-class and class skills for classes that are favored for the type of holding.

[tcharazazel]

heh, well currently the administrate skill is used to create/contest/rule Law so doesnt this make fighters already not that good as Law regents? I mean, fighters already are shafted for create/contest/rule Law and if you read what I said again only clerics and rogues would loose their ability to more effectively create/contest/rule Law as they have administrate as a class skill.

And now if we change it to K/Law then it maybe more justified to allow the BR fighter class to get K/Law as a class skill, as they surely wont get administrate as a class skill and that let them become better Law regents.

So, overall if we do both these changes then the fighters will become better Law regents because they will finally have the skill to create/contest/rule Law as a class skill. And with you're strong advocation of fighters being the ultimate Law regents, irdeggman, doesnt it make sense that fighters should have this as a class skill? because otherwise your argument seems a little undermined by the fact that fighters may be good at collecting RP from Law holdings, however, they dont compare to clerics or rogues when it comes to creating/contesting/ruling Law unless they spend more RP...

Finally, as for having too few skill points... well for a landed fighter regent to also rule the law he needs to have 4 skills maxed then: Diplomacy, K/Law, Lead, and Warcraft. So, just 4 skills... means that a human fighter would need to have an Int of 12+ to make sure that he can effectively keep these 4 skills maxxed. Heh, should a fighter with a average Int be as good a ruler as a more inteligent one? Obviously not.

Dont forget he only needs to get 5 ranks in each to get full RP collections, so after level 2 he wouldnt even need to put any more skill points into the K/Law and Lead to gain full RP collection from his Law holdings, however, he would still need to wait until Level 4 to gain full collection from the Province. (as Diplomacy as its a crossclass skill). And if he really wanted to become a better ruler, he would likely start with and/or pick up a few levels of noble.

As classes can multiclass now, its not such a big issue for fighters really. It seems like this is probably one of the major reasons we shouldnt even bother to talk about fighters being the ultimate Law regents, because most fighters will be multiclass now. So, they will likely get more skill points from their other class(es) and if they actually want to be good rulers they will multiclass with a class with more skill points and social class skills really.


Ok Temple holdings, yeah I agree that Lead makes sense. However, Diplomacy makes more sense in a polytheistic world as they need to find ways to politically deal with their opponents and not just convince people to follow them. And this is crutial to the creation/contesting/ruling of Temple holdings.

(side note: I called it Osprey, you owe me $20, heheh)

[irdeggman]

I'm not against adding an additional class skill for some clases to balance things out.

One thing to keep in mind is that the core classes (fighter, cleric, wizard and rogue) should all be best at something on the domain level of play.

Nobles are assumed to be the best at ruling provinces. That should be their specialty then - the broader scheme of ruling empires.

Bards, rangers and barbarians are all too diverse to be the best at anything but their diversity could be used to spread out their places of collection among the various types of holdings. Sorcerers are in this case functionally the same as wizards.

Nobles just don't exist in all societies, regardless of what Gary wants to think. Vos nobels? Yeah right like that is going to happen. Rjurik nobles? - only slightly more likely than Vos ones, but still not very likely. Dwarf nobles - they as a race are too busy working and fighting to defend their lands from the Orogs too have the leasure time necessary to support the noble class. It is designed to take advantage of the time allowed by having privilege. Dwarven society would pretty much condemn those taking the time off of serious work as slackers. Elves are not so concerned with the value of property to support a class that is based on income and privilege. Whether or not they ahve princes (and not all elven domains do) their leaders (see Tuarhivel) are chosen by an outside force - The Thorn Throne and not what is considered the right of ascension.

So even though nobles are better at ruling large areas of population (i.e., provinces) they are limited by culture. With the the most likely cultures being the ones that ruled the largest amount of Cerilia (i.e., Anuire and Khinasi) so it works on a logic standpoint.

[Osprey]

Actually I'm far more inclined to agree with Gary on this one...just about every historical culture that lasts more than a few generations has developed a ruling class of some sort, and except for some rare exceptions these were nearly always hereditary. Including the boyars of the Russian steppes, for instance, who would make an excellent model for fighter/nobles of the Vos.

Same with the Norse and Celts that the Rjurik are modeled after...plenty of hereditary nobility there, too, and plenty of refined culture if you look beyond the classic "barbarous" stereotypes at the art, poetics, and and other displays of social refinement.

Irdeggman, I think your view of the Noble may be a very stereotypical one. I think Gary's arguing for a broader, more variable view of the noble, and moreover I've heard a lot of other voices in the Ch. 1 forum asking for a more flexible version of the Noble class, too. So I wouldn't treat this like it's all coming from left field, you may in fact be ignoring a chorus of voices who simply disagree with your view of "what is a noble."

As for elves and dwarves, I think Gary's arguments were quite convincing. Elven nobles are mentioned everywhere in the 2e materials, and in fact I think there would be a plethora of liesured gentry amongst the elves - how many of these hi-tech immortals do you think actually work for a living, when there's all this wondrous arcana and technology to make their lives easier?

As for dwarves, I have my own views on that: I think waht Gary said is right (though maybe a bit jargon-ish?). I can't imagine that many dwarven commoners have been Overthanes in the history of Baruk-Azhik. If they are so clannish, how do you believe clans are typically led? Would anyone vote for a leader who has a complete lack of leadership skills? Not likely. And who is most likely to have those skills? The ones who are born and raised to it, of course. Which means that inevitably the children and relatives of thanes will always have an advantage when election-time rolls around for their generation, because they've been groomed for positions of power and leadership from day 1. Not that this necesarilly means that the grooming was some fluffy Anuirean-style court training, but rather a combination of warfare, the arts of diplomacy and leadership, (I reckon that the Overthane must in fact be a wise master of mediation and diplomacy to keep the various clans from killing each other), and sound management of resources (Administrate). Stolid, fierce when roused, level-headed in judgement, and frugal - those are the ideal qualities I'd ascribe to a dwarven noble.

Osprey

[Osprey]

Whether or not they ahve princes (and not all elven domains do) their leaders (see Tuarhivel) are chosen by an outside force - The Thorn Throne and not what is considered the right of ascension.


Correction: the regent of Tuarhievel is chosen by the Thorn Throne. That says nothing about a noble class within the society. Two totally different things. There is no requirement for nobles to be regents, nor even blooded, simply to be a hereditary aristocracy of wealth and privelage. Really, can you think of a society where such a class doesn't exist, in one form or another? Hence the reason people have been asking for a more flexible version of the Noble class, I think; they want to fit it into their own versions of nobility in different regions and cultures.

[Osprey]

After a lot of dscussion with some other BR players, and considering stuff from other posts, here's a very simple possibility for altering the existing Noble class without too much fuss.

Leave most things as they are, with the following exceptions (I'm not dealing with the flavour text at the moment, that's the last thing to be re-written):

1. Drop the Resources class feature. This is rather redundant with the Wealth class feature anyways. Let PC's curry favor through diplomacy and good roleplaying, not because their class descriptions say they can.

2. Drop the Coordinate class feature. While I like the theme, I think its one of those abilities that is worthless 90% of the time, and brokenly overpowered where it can be applied. Consider that this bonus applies to each contributing member of a team-based task...at higher levels, a +6 per person with say 4-6 people contributing, gets really out of control. And in many cases, when the resources of a domain can be called upon, thre's no decent guidelines limiting the number of contributors. Broken.

3. With those 2 dropped, there is now room to allow for occasional Bonus Feats, allowing for a degree of flexibility that is totally lacking in the current incarnation of the 3.5 Noble. The feats can add that bit of flavor, culture, and character individuality that seems to be desired by many (most?) BR fans.

I would recommend one bonus feat per five levels, starting at 2nd level. So bonus feats at levels 2/7/12/17. This would place it nicely in-between Favored Regions (at 1/5/10/20) and [at higher levels] Presence (at 9/14/19) - the 2 best and strongest features of the class IMO.

As nobles are so broadly possible, in truth nearly any non-magical feat could be appropriate, so I would put very few if any restrictions on this. Combat feats (except exclusive Fighter feats, of course), skill-enhancing feats, and regent feats are all justifiable for the Noble.


Short, simple, quite effective, and hey, whaddya' know - still almost perfectly balanced with the 3.5 Ranger template, except with only 1 strong save [Will]. If anything, Rangers are still slightly stronger, but Nobles are compensated by a greater variety of class skills and bonus feats.

What do you think, BR folks?

Osprey

[Athos69]

Osprey, I thik you've hit the nail on the head, but we may want to restrict the list f feats that the Noble can take as bonus feats. Otherwise we have a feat-monster like the fighter with alot more charm..

[Osprey]

Osprey, I thik you've hit the nail on the head, but we may want to restrict the list f feats that the Noble can take as bonus feats. Otherwise we have a feat-monster like the fighter with alot more charm..

Fighters are feat monsters because they get a bonus featat 1st, 2nd, and every 2 levels thereafter, ad infinitum...that's why they're feat monsters: because they have so many feats, rather than an overly huge range of choices. At one feat per 5 levels (and I even bucked the norm slightly in favor of less feats; if I followed the more typical 3.5 progression, they'd have feats at levels 2/6/11/16, and then another at 21 in epic levels!), they're hardly going to become "feat monsters." I think a wide list of possible feats only makes them more diverse and interesting, not more powerful.

Oh, and almost forgot: I think Coordinate +2, by itself, would serve fine as a one-time class ability or bonus feat. By itself it seems okay, it's the stacking at higher levels that broke it. However, I have a feeling that as a bonus feat it would never get chosen anyways, because it simply has too specialized of a use. Just a further reflection on that matter.

[irdeggman]

I still think that people are reading the noble way wrong. Check out the aristocrat (from the DMG) - the initial basis for the class, the Noble from Star Wars d20, the Noble from Wheel of Time and the Noble Power Class from Mongoose Pub (for jsut some likely sources) and you (plural not anyone in specific) will see a very common theme here and that is the one that was being drawn from.

The Vos will have no equivalent for the noble. The class is based on leasure time spent under education and tutoring. The Vos can't read and despise and distrust those that do. They are more nomadic than are even the Rjurik and their domains are very unstable and changing (gosh could be a lack of true leadership from either a noble class or a fighter class).

Dwarves using any description given to the race in pretty much any WotC (or related) source are not the kind to go in for leasure styled activities. They are notorious for their work ethic. Clans tend to be family oriented and focus around a specific craft. Dwarves are very craft oriented, which they learn from their clans and apprenticeships. So how well can that translate into a knowedge/formal education heavy class.

Dwarven culture (in 3.0) had a pretty good write up in a Dragon Magazine (When I get home I'll check and post the issue number). In most aspects Cerilian dwarves don't differ all that much from the standard dwarf, usually only in their physical attributes.

Rjurik culture revolves around druids primarily as their leaders. Check out the 2nd ed Celtic Handbook for some really good info that it can be readily seen where BR got its info from. Rjurik cities are a fairly recent development and their culture has historically relied on bards to pass info on to the different clans (and now cities). Rjurik culture also has been portrayed as a heavy work-ethic oriented culture and not near the leasure oriented one that the noble class comes from (the class is based on the rites of priviledge).

If we go the way people are suggesting then Nobles really aren't based on this priviledge and hence should have far less skill points and options since these were based on having the time and resources to acquire them.

As far as elves I don't see a reall difference in how the average elf is treated in regards to having access to tutors and skills to make the distinction of the noble class.

[Osprey]

If we go the way people are suggesting then Nobles really aren't based on this priviledge and hence should have far less skill points and options since these were based on having the time and resources to acquire them.


Noble skills are reflective of only leisure time and book learning? Oral traditions can't tutor a person as fully as a literate one? I see no reasons the Rjurik druids and skalds couldn't be just as effective teachers as an Anuirean's tutors, or a University scholar. If skill points came only from privelage and book learning, Rangers wouldn't get 6 skill points a level, would they?

Why in the world, then, do nobles have Survival as a class skill? or Ride? or the Base Attack Bonus of a fighter, if they spend so much time studying?

I think WOTC, Wheel of Time, Star Wars, and everything else you mention are as guilty of falling prey to stereotypes as everyone else. I've found little proof that these versions of the Noble are very well researched based on any historical cultures. On the other hand, I've seen massive evidence of cliche class descriptions and world settings in many D20 products.

I just want Birthright to be better.


The Vos will have no equivalent for the noble. The class is based on leasure time spent under education and tutoring. The Vos can't read and despise and distrust those that do. They are more nomadic than are even the Rjurik and their domains are very unstable and changing (gosh could be a lack of true leadership from either a noble class or a fighter class).


I'm actually OK with this, as the Vos are definitely described as a very un-advanced culture. They are, in fact, the one culture where Fighters actually make sense to be the dominant regents in more civilized areas, though the Boyars of Earth still make an excellent cultural model for them.


Dwarves using any description given to the race in pretty much any WotC (or related) source are not the kind to go in for leasure styled activities. They are notorious for their work ethic. Clans tend to be family oriented and focus around a specific craft. Dwarves are very craft oriented, which they learn from their clans and apprenticeships. So how well can that translate into a knowedge/formal education heavy class.

Dwarven culture (in 3.0) had a pretty good write up in a Dragon Magazine (When I get home I'll check and post the issue number). In most aspects Cerilian dwarves don't differ all that much from the standard dwarf, usually only in their physical attributes.


Well, sorry, I don't get Dragon magazine, but feel free to take inspiration from there if you think it is actually a good argument. Just because it's published by WOTC doesn't make it any higher quality in my book.

I'm all for craft-orientation for the dwarves, same argument as above applies here. Why not Nobles with Craft skills for Cerilian Dwarves? Makes sense to me.


Rjurik culture revolves around druids primarily as their leaders. Check out the 2nd ed Celtic Handbook for some really good info that it can be readily seen where BR got its info from. Rjurik cities are a fairly recent development and their culture has historically relied on bards to pass info on to the different clans (and now cities). Rjurik culture also has been portrayed as a heavy work-ethic oriented culture and not near the leasure oriented one that the noble class comes from (the class is based on the rites of priviledge).


Again, I'm not deeply attached to this one, as I think Rangers and Fighters work fine for the Rjurik aristocracy as long as they're allowed to be functional landed and law regents. Again, Rangers have as many skill points as nobles, but are more focused on physical skills, which makes sense for their culture. And yes, scholarship was typically in the hands of the Druids (Celtic) and Skalds (Norse) - makes me wonder about the Druids skill set for BR, but I won't get into that here. Anyways, that's why they were the teachers for one another and for the aristicracy.


As far as elves I don't see a reall difference in how the average elf is treated in regards to having access to tutors and skills to make the distinction of the noble class.

And I would say the opposite - that the Noble class is quite common among the affluent elves. See last post on subject concerning elven affluence - I don't want to repeat myself. Suffice to say that elves should be given the freedom to choose if they want to pursue a social/leadership path without becoming sneak-attacking rogues. Though Bards are also an excellent choice for elven socialites.

In the end, every single character has the same amount of time growing up. Everyone recieves training. And every culture has a privelaged class, it's just a question of what their culture believes are the best ways to raise their aristocracy. I think nobles of any culture could have 6 skill points a level, the differences would be what class skills they have available. Which is why I like Rangers as nobles in more physical cultures like Rjurik and Vosgaard.


Rather than seeing this issue as people reading it "way wrong," perhaps it would be useful to see what people want, and ask why they want it, instead of assuming that published materials must be more correct because somebody managed to get it in print and sell it. More often than not, that just means it appeals to the masses, and has little reflection on the quality of the product. Star Wars and WoT are popular because they're based on popular genres, and then were made into RPG's, not the other way around. Haven't read Mongoose, so no opinion there.

Lucky for us, we're not trying to sell our Birthright revision to anyone, so we don't have to gear the product toward selling as many copies as possible. I'd rather create something that leads the way, heck maybe even teaches people a few things about what a mature setting can look like while we're at it. That would be nice.

Osprey

[The Jew]

Rjurik culture revolves around druids primarily as their leaders. Check out the 2nd ed Celtic Handbook for some really good info that it can be readily seen where BR got its info from. Rjurik cities are a fairly recent development and their culture has historically relied on bards to pass info on to the different clans (and now cities). Rjurik culture also has been portrayed as a heavy work-ethic oriented culture and not near the leasure oriented one that the noble class comes from (the class is based on the rites of priviledge).

From what little I've read about 2ed Rjurik I found that their is a clear distinction between the wild parts of Rjurik realms and the large urban areas of the richer realms. With the latter I would fully agree with you, but with the former it is entirely possible that a noble class could have developed. As Osprey pointed out, the probably would still have a different list of skills, but that points to the argument of having a more flexible noble class rather than a rigid one.

I think that the noble class that Osprey is proposing would exist in every part of Cerilia, it is just a question of how common it is. In Anuire it would be the most comman, in Vos and Rjurik realms it would be the least. Any body here ever read Trinity or Ivan Hoe (two historical novels) or seen braveheart. The main characters here were exceptional. They were much rarer in their societys than the same skill sets (excluding the fighting abilities) would have been found in England. Still they existed.

The one alteration I would make to Ospreys class is a different skill set for each race or culture. Obviously a dwarven Noble would have the Craft skill.

[Osprey]

The one alteration I would make to Ospreys class is a different skill set for each race or culture. Obviously a dwarven Noble would have the Craft skill.

Rather than make a dozen variations of the Noble class, which is a messy proposition, I would instead recommend making those skills that apply to that race/culture be racial class skills.

For instance, it seems like absolutely no big deal to add to the dwarven racial traits that Craft is a class skill for all dwarves, regardless of class. Because really, what dwarf wouldn't have at least the opportunity to learn a Craft skill? It wasn't even an issue previously, as every other PC class in BR besides the Noble already had Craft as a class skill. Heck, even Fighters have it! Thus, this should mean no real effect on the dwarven racial type's game balance, as it affects only a single PC class (and Aristocrats are a class I'd just leave out of dwarven society - they're too fluffy for dwarves).

I can't really think of any for elven nobles not on the base class list except perhaps Spellcraft, which could also be an elven racial skill, though I personally feel that K/Arcana, already a noble class skill, is sufficient to cover this - a theoretical rather than procatical/experiential knowledge of arcane magic. If they want experience with magic, take a few levels of an arcane class, as they're favored classes for elves anyways.

There are already racial background skills for the human cultures, which I believe will pretty well cover the skills considered most appropriate for a noble from a given human culture (if they're not already noble class skills).

And really, what other skills would need to be added besides the one for dwarves? Nobles have a pretty broad set of class skills as it stands, which is one of the reasons I'm led to believe the class was originally designed for a broader array of cultures. As I mentioned earlier: why else would they have Survival as a class skill? Only rural nobility could possibly be believed to possess this, yet the urbane portrait of the noble, the class "as is", still has it as class skill.

In general, it's much easier (and "DM-friendly") to have more class skills rather than less, as the DM can always say "no, that's not appropriate to your background," but it's less likely the same DM would allow a class skill that's not on the list. And DM's who are flat-out "by the book" without allowing for circumstance, are well...not very good DM's.

In general, any PC's actual list of skills with ranks in them should be reflective of their background and experience. So a big list of class skills doesn't really mean the typical noble will have ranks in every skill, just that they have that option without blowing those precious skill points on cross-class skills (generally a real waste of skill points compared to an occasional level of multiclassing).

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Some history on the subject of nobles and skill based RP collection:

Past thread on Noble class:

The noble class:
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1366



This thread also references SS's noble, which ia another one similar to the ones I previously mentioned.

The noble’s class skills as presented in the revised chap 1:

The noble's class skills (and the key ability for each) are Administrate (Wis), Appraise (Int), Bluff (Cha), Diplomacy (Cha), Disguise (Cha), Forgery (Int), Gather Information (Cha), Handle Animal (Cha), Lead (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (all skills taken individually) (Int), Listen (Wis), Perform (Cha), Ride (Dex), Sense Motive (Wis), Speak Language, Spot (Wis), Survival (Wis), Swim (Str), and Warcraft (Int).


Learning by doing works for most of the skills but definitely not for the following: Administrate, Diplomacy, Knowledge, Speak Language. Perform works best if acquired via the leisure and tutoring concept. And since Administrate was pointed out as one of the key skills available for the noble and one of the main reasons that they are so good at rulership the rationalization for how this skill can be so readily acquired to a class that doesn’t revolve around privilege and the assets available to hire the best tutors.





Past discussion on the skill based RP collection system:


http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1268

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1492

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1516

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1989

[The Jew]

I recognize it would make it more complex, but I think it would be useful. I don't mean a full skill list for each culture or race, just a line detailing a few changes.
for example.
Vos: lose disguise and forgery. gain climb and profession oratory.
Dwarves: lose disguise and forgery. gain climb and craft
Brecht: lose survival. gain profession merchant

While off the top of my head those seem like reasonable skills for each group to lose and gain, i'm not making an argument for the particular skills, just the formula.

[irdeggman]

Vos hate bards (or at least have almost disrespect for them as do the Khinasi) - so profession (oratory) wouldn't work there either. The Vos are people of action, barbarians/rangers primarily with a few fighters. IMO most of their great leaders in history were actually fighters vice barbarians but their domains quickly fell apart because of their inherent lack of structure in their society. Somethng about leaning towrds the chaotic and definitil awar from the lawful side.

I am absolutely against having a separate noble class for every culture, which is the way things are going here. It makes the process and product far too complicated. Heck we are already adding a variant for separate paladin classes - this book will end up being 500+ pages just trying to account for what everyone wants in there.

[Osprey]

I am absolutely against having a separate noble class for every culture, which is the way things are going here. It makes the process and product far too complicated. Heck we are already adding a variant for separate paladin classes - this book will end up being 500+ pages just trying to account for what everyone wants in there.

Which is why I favored multiclassing for paladins and left it at that. Generally, I'm more in favor of tweaking and fine-tuning than trying to redesign everything from the ground-up. So in this we can definitely agree. Keep it simple.

Same goes here for the noble: I'm opting for a slightly more freeform version than is in the revised Chapter 1, something of a combination of the BRCS noble and the new 3.5 proposed noble, which I think is mostly dead cool but I really miss a few bonus feats now and again for some character individualization and fine tuning reflected in character abilities. There are more cool feats than ever, I personally enjoy the flavor they add, and thus I'm generally against being stingy with bonus feats. I also like the flexibility of bonus feats you can choose vs. bonus feats that are ascribed by class descriptions, especially if balanced with some unique class abilities.


I read through the Noble postings, but found that the discussion isn't as applicable now as perhaps it once was since much of the discussion focused around balancing a classs for 3.0 rather than 3.5. It is apparent to me that all of the primary magical classes were powered down in 3.5, while the others were cranked up a notch (with the sad exception of the fighter, who got...Intimidate...woohoo! One little consolation prize for the 3.5 fighter).

There is an obvious comparison between the 3.5 Noble and Ranger, and this is the basis I have been using, except that I consider the Ranger to still be higher-powered overall than my proposed Noble - the only advantage for the Noble is the broader range of feat choices for the Noble, while the Ranger is quite narrowly consigned as far as class abilities go. But he gots a lot of goodies and 2 strong saves to boot, so there no slouches overall. If there were "point values" for characters I bet the Ranger and high-level Rogues (who get special abilities or bonus feats at 10th level and every 3 levels thereafter) in 3.5 would be the highest point characters around.

************************************************** **************

Personally, I wouldn't care if Disguise was stripped off the noble list entirely. It seems far more a rogue than noble skill, I think it was added simply because it is Charisma-based and socially oriented.

I think Survival in some ways very appropriate to the Brecht, as part of what they do is Exploration - a big part of what they do, in fact. There seems to be this notion that since the Brecht are fast and fencers, they must be skinny and frail and have poor fortitude. I find this a silly steroetype. A race from a place as harsh as the Great Bay, and who spends a lot of time at sea and exploring the wilds, will be a hardy lot for certain.

For easy reference, here are the listed racial background skills for humans in the rev. Chapter 1:

Anuirean Background skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Knowledge (Nobility).

Brecht Background skills: Balance, Craft (Any one), Diplomacy, Profession (Any one), Sleight of Hand.

Khinasi Background skills: Diplomacy, Knowledge (Any), Ride, Spellcraft.

Rjurik Background skills: Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Survival.

Vos Background skills: Handle Animal, Intimidate, Spot, Survival.


I think this covers the human ones aptly: P/Merchant is covered for Brechts if they choose it, Noble or otherwise; Oratory is actually a Perform skill, which is a Noble class skill anyways; and Climb hardly seems like a "noble endeavor." That's what scouts and rangers are for. heck, even Fighters have climb, but nobles rarely live on high mountain peaks and have to climb there. They are the privelaged ones after all.

Dwarves are stickier: I definitely agree with the idea of dropping Disguise and Forgery from their lists, i just don't think it's worthwhile to tweak the noble for each race. It is enough to allow Craft as a class skill for dwarves, I think. Few if any PC's are going to give their dwarven nobles Disguise and Forgery anyways, wouldn't you agree?

Osprey

[The Jew]

I must cave to Ospreys argument. The cultural background skills do seem a good enough list as far as additional skills for each cultures nobles. It won't provide any additional benefit to Anuireans or Vos, but the Noble class is really built for Anuireans anyway and Vos are the least likely to take the class. As long as dwarves get Craft and since the Khinasi are getting spellcraft it seems only fair that elven nobles get spellcraft, though I guess its not really that big of a deal.

[tcharazazel]

Just a small point here, yall mean perform (oratory) not profession (oratory), heheh. Technically someone who practices oratory (the art of public speaking) is called an orator or public speaker. If you mean what the PBH calls oratory (epic, ode, storytelling) then prob the best equivalent is profession (storyteller or poet).

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 13 2004, 05:44 PM
Just a small point here, yall mean perform (oratory) not profession (oratory), heheh. Technically someone who practices oratory (the art of public speaking) is called an orator or public speaker. If you mean what the PBH calls oratory (epic, ode, storytelling) then prob the best equivalent is profession (storyteller or poet).
Absolutely correct I had meant to type perform (oratory) not profession (oratory) - the rest of the logic was sound though.

I have previously covered that being old thing right ;) ?

[tcharazazel]

heheh, old? Old is when you start recounting the good old days and the only people who know what you're talking about can't remember what day today is.

You're not that old, bro.

[tcharazazel]

Ok, to get us back on track to what the thread was intended for do we all agree that these should be the key skills for the following domain actions?


Create/Contest/Rule Province: Administrate.

Create/Contest/Rule Guild Holdings: Profession (Merchant)

Create/Contest/Rule Law Holdings: Knowledge (Law)

Create/Contest/Rule Temple Holdings: Diplomacy

Create/Contest/Rule Sources: Knowledge (Nature)

Create ley lines: Knowledge (Arcana)

Coronation and Invest Province: Lead


Additionally, Fighters in BR would now have K/Law as a class skill to make them better law regents.

We all like these proposed changes? If so, then we can get back to finishing up the Master feats for Ch 1 :)

[Benjamin]

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 14 2004, 06:49 AM
We all like these proposed changes?
Hmmm. Well, uhm.... yeah. I'll live with that. Perhaps not what I would choose, but I agree that they work well. I like the diversity. You get my vote.

[Don E]

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 14 2004, 12:49 PM
Create/Contest/Rule Province: Administrate.
Create/Contest/Rule Guild Holdings: Profession (Merchant)
Create/Contest/Rule Law Holdings: Knowledge (Law)
Create/Contest/Rule Temple Holdings: Diplomacy
Create/Contest/Rule Sources: Knowledge (Nature)
Create ley lines: Knowledge (Arcana)
Coronation and Invest Province: Lead

While I haven't playtested using the listed skills, it appears from my experience in other campaigns that the temple regent comes out much 'easier' than the other holdings' regents. In a political and/or mostly social interaction based campaign it is my experience that diplomacy is one of the most useful skills to have. Great for the cleric, but the other regents' holdings now require skills that most likely would not be used nearly as frequently. I also see diplomacy as just as relevant for all the other holdings (bar sources) as it is for temples.

While people have made good arguments for not using knowledge (religion) as the deciding skill for temple holdings, I think it might be fair to choose this one instead. Perform (oratory) might be another choice, but like lead and/or diplomacy it can be seens as useful for all holdings. Depending on how much one see rule/contest temple as a function of proselytizing rather than politicking, it might be appropriate.

And will it be the same skills used for RP collection?

Cheers,
E

[Don E]

To answer my own question. It might be an option to assign a more widely used skill for each of the holdings. While these might not be as 'appropriate' or 'realisitc', they will prevent an accumulation of skills that are rarely used, and won't penalize classes with few skills as much.

Create/Contest/Rule Province: Administrate.
Create/Contest/Rule Law Holdings: Warcraft
Create/Contest/Rule Temple Holdings + Investiture: Lead
Create/Contest/Rule Guild Holdings: Diplomacy
Create/Contest/Rule Sources + Ley lines: Spellcraft

Alternative:
Temple: Diplomacy
Guild: Bluff

Cheers,
E

[irdeggman]

As far as RP collection, it would be best to use a multiple skill format (similar to the BRCS-playtest), this helps balance out the classes with large amounts of skill points by requiring them to have high (or relatively high) ranks in multiple skills (most of which should be class skills) in order to gain the most RP from holding types most associated with the class.

So, while the key skills for performing the domain action would most likely be included in the list of skills necessary to draw RP for that type of holding it wouldn't be the 'only' skill in the list.

[tcharazazel]

I was going off the same skills used to collect RP as the BRCS actually.

Province RP = Diplomacy + Warcraft

Guild = appraise + bluff + craft + diplomacy + gather info + intimidate + profession + sense motive

Law = Lead + Warcraft

Source = K/arcana + K/nature

Temple = K/Religion + Lead

[Osprey]

To answer my own question. It might be an option to assign a more widely used skill for each of the holdings. While these might not be as 'appropriate' or 'realisitc', they will prevent an accumulation of skills that are rarely used, and won't penalize classes with few skills as much.

Create/Contest/Rule Province: Administrate.
Create/Contest/Rule Law Holdings: Warcraft
Create/Contest/Rule Temple Holdings + Investiture: Lead
Create/Contest/Rule Guild Holdings: Diplomacy
Create/Contest/Rule Sources + Ley lines: Spellcraft

Alternative:
Temple: Diplomacy
Guild: Bluff


Something to keep in mind for guilds, however, is that Rogues get 8 base skill points per level. So requiring them to focus in Profession (Merchant) isn't such a big deal compared to requiring Fighters to take Knowledge (Law). Not to mention the realism factor, and the fact that Diplomacy is a key skill for Creating and Contesting Trade Routes as things stand in the BRCS. Which is why I'm still leaning toward our original writeup, with the notable exception that I think Lead would be fine for Law Holding synergies (though K/Law + Lead would make an excellent set for determining collections from Law, while Warcraft + Diplomacy would still work for Province Collections).

So here's a complete list of my latest set of revisions. These now include a minimal set of class-based qualifiers where appropriate (as the polls seem to indicate this is acceptable to a limited extent):

KEY SKILLS FOR SYNERGY BONUSES:

Agitate: Lead

Create/Contest/Rule Province: Administrate.

Create/Contest/Rule Law Holdings: Lead

Create/Contest/Rule Guild Holdings: Profession (Merchant)

Create/Contest Trade Route: Diplomacy

Create/Contest/Rule Temple Holdings: Diplomacy
-(divine spellcasters only)

Create/Contest/Rule Source Holdings: Knowledge (Nature)
-(wizards, sorcerers, or druids only)

Create Ley Lines: Knowledge (Arcana)
-(wizards and sorcerers only)

Coronation and Investiture: Lead

Diplomacy: Diplomacy

Espionage: Gather Information


KEY SKILLS FOR REGENCY COLLECTIONS:

Provinces: Diplomacy + Warcraft

Law Holdings: Lead + Knowledge (Law)

Guild Holdings: Appraise + Bluff + Craft (any one) + Diplomacy + Gather Information + Intimidate + Profession (Merchant) + Sense Motive

Temple Holdings: Lead + Knowledge (Religion)
-Special: must be able to cast divine spells.

Source Holdings: K/Arcana + K/Nature
-Special: must be a wizard, sorcerer, or druid.

Troops: Barbarians gain 1 RP per unit under their command and maintenance, up to their normal bloodline limit.

I think looking at the combinations of Collection + Synergy skills can help show us what a given regent character would need to run an effective domain. Key skills help them do things well without regency, collection skills help them gain regency, which in turn also helps to do most actions (with the exception of Diplomacy and Create/Rule Province) more effectively.

In my system, clerics seem to have it kind of tough, in that they need three skills for full temple collections + synergy bonuses. However, temple regents are very powerful in that they have high-collection holdings (2/3 x level in GB) AND can cast realm spells. So making it a bit tougher for them in skill requirements isn't out of line IMO. Not to mention the obvious double bonus of Diplomacy in the Diplomacy domain actions (as Don E alluded to). However, Diplomacy has always been a clerical specialty, so I still like it as a central skill and one that will reflect well on the regent clerics of Cerilia being notable diplomats more often than not.

Fighters need only 2 skills to be excellent Law regents, which seems fitting for their regent specialty, and add in Warcraft to give them a good leg up as province regents (yes, they do need to be smarter than the average bear to be good at both ;) ). To be better landed and law regents, they should multiclass, but Diplomacy is a common enough class skill to allow plenty of variety for that (clerics, rogues, nobles, and bards are all eligible here). And K/Law remains a class skill for all warrior classes except barbarians.

Rogues -already said my piece on them. Plenty of skill points, they should have no worries about being good guild regents, so long as they're not too physical/ adventure-focused.

I still strongly advocate my original setup for ruling sources and creating ley lines. Spellcraft is so immensely useful already (especially for learning realm spells and wizard spells), I see no need to include it at a domain level.

Osprey

[tcharazazel]

I agree with changing the K/Law to an RP collection skill as its not really important for fighters to have very high K/Law, while having a suffiecent level of competence in K/Law makes sense.

[Don E]

Originally posted by Osprey@May 14 2004, 10:31 PM
Something to keep in mind for guilds, however, is that Rogues get 8 base skill points per level. So requiring them to focus in Profession (Merchant) isn't such a big deal compared to requiring Fighters to take Knowledge (Law). Not to mention the realism factor, and the fact that Diplomacy is a key skill for Creating and Contesting Trade Routes as things stand in the BRCS. Which is why I'm still leaning toward our original writeup, with the notable exception that I think Lead would be fine for Law Holding synergies (though K/Law + Lead would make an excellent set for determining collections from Law, while Warcraft + Diplomacy would still work for Province Collections).

While the argument that the number of skills required should match the number of skill points of the respective 'base' classes, this logic breaks down when including the other classes availble. Instead of putting a small penalty on only the classes with many skill points, why not remove it completely?


Create/Contest/Rule Source Holdings: Knowledge (Nature)
Create Ley Lines: Knowledge (Arcana)


One can say that taking Knowledge (Nature) is not the worst for wizards as one can expect them to have high Int, Sorcerers basically gets shafted with this skill requirement. With 2 skill points per level there is little chance he will have any to spare for this skill.


KEY SKILLS FOR REGENCY COLLECTIONS:
Provinces: Diplomacy + Warcraft
Law Holdings: Lead + Knowledge (Law)
Guild Holdings: Appraise + Bluff + Craft (any one) + Diplomacy + Gather Information + Intimidate + Profession (Merchant) + Sense Motive
Temple Holdings: Lead + Knowledge (Religion)
Source Holdings: K/Arcana + K/Nature
Troops: Barbarians gain 1 RP per unit under their command and maintenance, up to their normal bloodline limit.

As I said above the number of skill points <=> number of skills required might not work for the expanded list of classes available. An example here would be the ranger. In the original rules he is granted full RP from guilds (altough there is a great variation in what people think they should receive now) and provinces. While the rogue have 8 skill points per level, and all the skill listed on the class list, the ranger only got 6, and


Fighters need only 2 skills to be excellent Law regents, which seems fitting for their regent specialty, and add in Warcraft to give them a good leg up as province regents (yes, they do need to be smarter than the average bear to be good at both ;) ). To be better landed and law regents, they should multiclass, but Diplomacy is a common enough class skill to allow plenty of variety for that (clerics, rogues, nobles, and bards are all eligible here). And K/Law remains a class skill for all warrior classes except barbarians.

From the sound of it you are saying fighters should be the default class for Law holdings, as you allow for them to have K(Law). If this is the case one should perhaps allow for a fighter to actually work relatively well as the regent of a typical realm. With the skills suggested he will require: Administrate, Diplomacy, Lead, Knowledge (Law) and Warcraft, a total of 5 skills, for him to be fully efficient. IMO that is rather harsh.


Rogues -already said my piece on them. Plenty of skill points, they should have no worries about being good guild regents, so long as they&#39;re not too physical/ adventure-focused.

Most other classes will retain their adventuring capabilities quite well despite buying realm related skills. The fighter&#39;s combat capability is not affected at all, clerics and wizards keep their spells. The rogue is the one class that usually relies heavily on skills for adventuring, as is thus the only class really affected. This is not very fair IMO.


I still strongly advocate my original setup for ruling sources and creating ley lines. Spellcraft is so immensely useful already (especially for learning realm spells and wizard spells), I see no need to include it at a domain level.

Will it really be that much more powerful than Diplomacy? That skill got three actions and a could of holdings for RP collection.

Cheers,
E

[Osprey]

One can say that taking Knowledge (Nature) is not the worst for wizards as one can expect them to have high Int, Sorcerers basically gets shafted with this skill requirement. With 2 skill points per level there is little chance he will have any to spare for this skill.


Most Sorcerers will probably have Intelligence as a decent ability if they plan to be competent at magic, mainly because all arcane skills are INT-based. Which suggests that D&D itself really favors wizards over sorcerers to be the "best" arcane spellcasters, or at least the most lorewise and skillful. Agree or not, things are pretty well set up that way.

Also, I&#39;m not sure I agree that sorcerers should be equally good source regents compared to wizards. An intuitive approach to magic doesn&#39;t seem as appropriate for realm-level magics, which are primarily ritualistic and repetitive. I think it&#39;s pretty reasonable to assume that wizards will in fact be the best source regents.

The reasons for the key skill assignments are heavily based on the actual BR setting material, which is why I like them so much. K/Nature is so closely tied to understanding mebhaighl, what makes for healthy sources, how sources can grow and flourish...how can this skill be ignored? Now if there were many voices saying "Spellcraft or K/Arcana seems like the most important skill for manipulating sources" I could live with that, but I would never take away K/Nature as a primary source collection skill - it&#39;s just too integral to the nature of mebhaighl and arcane magic in BR. Which means realm-sorcerers will just have to suck it up.

Besides, needing only 3 skills to be a competent regent isn&#39;t really a tall order, is it? I&#39;d laugh my butt off at the sorcerer with a measly 10 Intelligence.



As I said above the number of skill points <=> number of skills required might not work for the expanded list of classes available. An example here would be the ranger. In the original rules he is granted full RP from guilds (altough there is a great variation in what people think they should receive now) and provinces. While the rogue have 8 skill points per level, and all the skill listed on the class list, the ranger only got 6, and


Eh? I don&#39;t even follow you here.

Personally, I&#39;ve never seen much logic behind rangers getting full RP from guilds - or much of anything else for that matter. I think only barbarians would rate as more poorly suitable to be regents. What the heck should a hunter/survivalist know about running a domain? If Rangers want to be competent regents, I think it&#39;s completely fair to presume they should multiclass to represent a shifting focus to more worldy pursuits. Noble/Rangers and Rogue/Rangers are excellent character combinations, and would make fine regents for land, law, and/or guilds.

Related to this issue are bards. While traditional 2e BR says bards are bad regents, I can&#39;t help but think that&#39;s just poorly thought out. Bards are often excellent politicians and courtiers, they are great at inspiring people, and their heads are stuffed with useful knowledge. Their main drawback as regents is their lust for personal freedom, cultural restrictions in some places (esp. Rjurik skalds, who are bound to a service/support role, and would probably have to give up their official positions as skalds to become regents), and general wanderlust.

Which means bards are perfectly capable of being good regents in terms of necessary skills and competence, they just don&#39;t tend to have the best psychology and social position for it. To me this is a roleplaying issue, the kind of thing that should be written in under the class description in Chapter 1 rather than having rules imposed on them to keep them from doing what is possible, just not likely. The other place this should be reflected is, of course, in the Atlas - where there is only 1 Bardic regent in Anuire, Laela Flaertes (and I made her a Noble/Bard as she leveld up in my own campaign to reflect her growing competence as a Duchess).



From the sound of it you are saying fighters should be the default class for Law holdings, as you allow for them to have K(Law). If this is the case one should perhaps allow for a fighter to actually work relatively well as the regent of a typical realm. With the skills suggested he will require: Administrate, Diplomacy, Lead, Knowledge (Law) and Warcraft, a total of 5 skills, for him to be fully efficient. IMO that is rather harsh.


I think any warrior class makes for excellent Law regents, not just fighters, while Nobles are going to be the best at being landed regents. Maybe Paladins, too, but they tend to be short on skill points, making it a little tougher (which is appropriate I think).

As landed regents with land and law, Fighters and Rangers (with Lead and Warcraft as class skills, which I proposed in the Chapter 1 thread) can be fair landed and excellent Law regents - which I think is just about right. If Fighters want to be great landed regents, then it&#39;s quite reasonable for them to multiclass as Noble/Fighters to reflect their indoctrination into the ranks of the nobility.


Most other classes will retain their adventuring capabilities quite well despite buying realm related skills. The fighter&#39;s combat capability is not affected at all, clerics and wizards keep their spells. The rogue is the one class that usually relies heavily on skills for adventuring, as is thus the only class really affected. This is not very fair IMO.


Keep in mind that the orignal 8 in BRCS were divided by 4, so that a rogue need only take 4 of the 8 possible skills to maximize collections, or he could take lesser ranks in all 8 skills to get the same effect. The actual result was that a competent guilder needed a decent selection of relevant skills, but didn&#39;t necesarily have to go all-out and be wholly focused on commerce and social skills. Which leaves plenty of room for several good adventuring skills for those who want them, and at higher levels there will be complete freedom in this matter once collections are at 100%. Administrate and P/Merchant would be the only 2 skills a guilder would want to keep maximized, leaving 6+Int ranks of skills per level for whatever he wants to focus in. Which means the rogue still makes out better than most other classes, and has plenty of room to be a decent adventurer.

And this principle holds tru for every class: collection skills are going to be important only up to a certain level (@ 100% RP collection), after which the regent need no longer keep spending ranks in those skills. Hence, there&#39;s only one skill per holding type that actually benefits the regent in keeping it maximized. So more experienced regents will eventually make good adventurers at higher levels if they so choose that path.

Besides, no regent should be as good of an adventurer as a dedicated full-time adventurer. That&#39;s just ridiculous. Running a realm and adventuring are simply 2 different worlds and skill sets, there&#39;s hardly any way around that.

All of the skill sets for synergies and collections are one of the major factors that will help those non-blooded characters shine, as they are free to focus their skills on purely adventure or career-related pursuits.

In general, every class has certain skills that are very useful for adventuring. Spellcasters and Concentration for example, a skill that&#39;s far more useful in the heat of battle than in the "take your time" atmosphere of domain-level play. Many temple and source regents may have to scale down this skill for the sake of being good regents.

Fighters, as you pointed out, are almost completely unaffected in their combat effectiveness, though they might suffer a bit in being poorer riders or jumpers or swimmers. But yes, they tend to stay extremely competent as adventurers even when they&#39;re regents - which is a reflection of their martial focus, and one of the reasons I don&#39;t think they should be as good at ruling land as nobles are, and generally should have a hard time being good regents period without multiclassing into a more regent-appropriate class.

My experience is that Fighter regents in 3.x D&D BR are nearlys always a multiclass combination - pure fighters as competent regents strikes me as a little immature in its logic. I want a believable setting, not a cookie-cutter one.


Will it really be that much more powerful than Diplomacy? That skill got three actions and a could of holdings for RP collection.


I think Diplomacy figures so prominently because let&#39;s face it: Diplomacy IS one of the most important skills a ruler can possess. In fact, I&#39;d argue that Diplomacy, Lead, and Administrate represent the three most generally useful regent skills for all but source regents, and their is sound logic behind that. Administrate to delegate and finance efficiently, Diplomacy to maintain good relations in the very social setting of politics, and Lead to inspire the people to follow you. One could say these are the Three Pillars of Leadership.

Osprey

[tcharazazel]

heh, ok now thats been settled, the new list of key skills is:

KEY SKILLS FOR SYNERGY BONUSES:

Agitate: Lead

Create/Contest/Rule Province: Administrate.

Create/Contest/Rule Law Holdings: Lead

Create/Contest/Rule Guild Holdings: Profession (Merchant)

Create/Contest Trade Route: Diplomacy

Create/Contest/Rule Temple Holdings: Diplomacy
-(divine spellcasters only)

Create/Contest/Rule Source Holdings: Knowledge (Nature)
-(wizards, sorcerers, or druids only)

Create Ley Lines: Knowledge (Arcana)
-(wizards and sorcerers only)

Coronation and Investiture: Lead

Diplomacy: Diplomacy

Espionage: Gather Information


KEY SKILLS FOR REGENCY COLLECTIONS:

Provinces: Diplomacy + Warcraft

Law Holdings: Lead + Knowledge (Law)

Guild Holdings: Appraise + Bluff + Craft (any one) + Diplomacy + Gather Information + Intimidate + Profession (Merchant) + Sense Motive

Temple Holdings: Lead + Knowledge (Religion)
-Special: must be able to cast divine spells.

Source Holdings: K/Arcana + K/Nature
-Special: must be a wizard, sorcerer, or druid.

Troops: Barbarians gain 1 RP per unit under their command and maintenance, up to their normal bloodline limit.


So now we can check on those Ch 1 Master feats and make sure they are for the appropriate skills now.

[Osprey]

I just thought of one very important issue regarding key skills for domain actions:

When Contesting a holding, does a regent use his key skill in the holding he is using to contest, or does he use the synergy based on the target holding? Or may he choose whichever is most advantageous?

This is mainly relevant when Law holdings are used to Contest Guild and Temple holdings.

What do you think?

Osprey

[Don E]

Originally posted by Osprey+May 15 2004, 09:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Osprey &#064; May 15 2004, 09:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The reasons for the key skill assignments are heavily based on the actual BR setting material, which is why I like them so much. K/Nature is so closely tied to understanding mebhaighl, what makes for healthy sources, how sources can grow and flourish...how can this skill be ignored? Now if there were many voices saying "Spellcraft or K/Arcana seems like the most important skill for manipulating sources" I could live with that, but I would never take away K/Nature as a primary source collection skill - it&#39;s just too integral to the nature of mebhaighl and arcane magic in BR. Which means realm-sorcerers will just have to suck it up.[/b]

While I think most people will agree that sources are inherently linked to the nature, I would also say that K(Arcana) is a more fitting category for them to fall under. If one see lay lines as something under this skill, there is little reason to give sources a different skill.


Besides, needing only 3 skills to be a competent regent isn&#39;t really a tall order, is it? I&#39;d laugh my butt off at the sorcerer with a measly 10 Intelligence.

Competent regent is one thing, but at the expense of being a decent spellcaster in general? IMO any wizard or sorcerer requires a decent level in both Spellcraft, Concentration and K(Arcana). Throw K(Nature) onto this and the sorcerer is required to have a significant int to operate at a &#39;normal&#39; level. Add the fact that the sorcerer doesn&#39;t have K(Nature) as a class skill, and I think he is shafted pretty badly indeed.


Personally, I&#39;ve never seen much logic behind rangers getting full RP from guilds - or much of anything else for that matter. I think only barbarians would rate as more poorly suitable to be regents.
Related to this issue are bards. While traditional 2e BR says bards are bad regents, I can&#39;t help but think that&#39;s just poorly thought out.

I think this is a fundamental issue that should be clarified before one goes on to decide what skills are required. It is quite important wheter one go by the principle that all classes are usable as regents of on form or another, or if there are some classes that are inheretnly unsuitable. Another issue is whether classes should have their competency based upon their skill selection, or wheter the skill selection should be defined so as to suit a set of predetermined roles given to verious classes. So far it seems to be going a bit both ways.

<!--QuoteBegin-tcharazazel@May 18 2004, 11:28 PM
heh, ok now thats been settled, the new list of key skills is:[/quote]

hehehe, who said it was settled? ;)

Cheers,
E

[Athos69]

Originally posted by Osprey@May 19 2004, 02:09 PM
I just thought of one very important issue regarding key skills for domain actions:

When Contesting a holding, does a regent use his key skill in the holding he is using to contest, or does he use the synergy based on the target holding? Or may he choose whichever is most advantageous?

This is mainly relevant when Law holdings are used to Contest Guild and Temple holdings.

What do you think?

Osprey
I would say that the character&#39;s ability in the skills associated with Law would be paramount, since it is through this holding that he is enforcing his will against the other Regents.

The other Regents can use their ability in the relevant skills for their own holding, since that is the only way that they can effectively &#39;fight back&#39;, so to speak.

so a Law regent who wishes to contest a Guild would use his Lead skill, whereas the Guldmaster would use his Profession (Merchant) to counter.

It could be said that the Law Regent is inspiring his constabulary or trained thugs to bust up the guilds&#39; shops, or at least restrict trade, whereas the Guild Regent is trying to either prevent supplies from being sold to the same regent&#39;s organization, or inflating the prices to make up for his losses.

[Athos69]

Don:

I agree that in this setting, K/Arcana and K/Nature are inextricably linked. The biggest question that we have at this point is if they are so tied together that they really are the same skill.

If we do decide to keep them seperate, then we at least need to make them synergistic, in one direction. 5 or more ranks of K/Nature will give a synergy bonus to K/Arcana. I can&#39;t see it the other way around though...

[Osprey]

While I think most people will agree that sources are inherently linked to the nature, I would also say that K(Arcana) is a more fitting category for them to fall under. If one see lay lines as something under this skill, there is little reason to give sources a different skill.

Competent regent is one thing, but at the expense of being a decent spellcaster in general? IMO any wizard or sorcerer requires a decent level in both Spellcraft, Concentration and K(Arcana). Throw K(Nature) onto this and the sorcerer is required to have a significant int to operate at a &#39;normal&#39; level. Add the fact that the sorcerer doesn&#39;t have K(Nature) as a class skill, and I think he is shafted pretty badly indeed.


I would far rather add K/Nature as a Sorcerer class skill than eliminate it from the required set of source regent skills. It seems so necessary to the nature of arcane magic in the BR setting, there&#39;s no reason sorcerers shouldn&#39;t be knbowledgable about hwere their magic comes from. If not, then they really don&#39;t deserve to be source regents at all.

One of the reasons it is particularly appropriate to sources is the fact that mebhaighal itself is directly related to the strngth of nature, and thus manipulating sources is really manipulating the power of nature. Also, if Druids are capable of manipulating Sources but not Ley Lines, the different skills help distinguish which is a particularly arcane thing, and which is more tied to mebhaighl itself.

It is extremely debatable how important Concentration is as a "necessary" skill ofr sorcerers. If they&#39;re frequently getting involved in combat, especially melee combat, then yes it&#39;s important. But otherwise? Nigh-useless. So it goes back to adventure vs. domain, and which is more important to the regent.



QUOTE
Personally, I&#39;ve never seen much logic behind rangers getting full RP from guilds - or much of anything else for that matter. I think only barbarians would rate as more poorly suitable to be regents.

QUOTE
Related to this issue are bards. While traditional 2e BR says bards are bad regents, I can&#39;t help but think that&#39;s just poorly thought out.



I think this is a fundamental issue that should be clarified before one goes on to decide what skills are required. It is quite important wheter one go by the principle that all classes are usable as regents of on form or another, or if there are some classes that are inheretnly unsuitable. Another issue is whether classes should have their competency based upon their skill selection, or wheter the skill selection should be defined so as to suit a set of predetermined roles given to verious classes. So far it seems to be going a bit both ways.


In general I have no qualms with tinkering with the class skills a bit to suit some of the BR-specific themes. It is not necesarily realistic to assume that we can cut and paste PHB character classes without at least minimal tinkering for appropriate adaptation to the BR setting.

Osprey

[Osprey]

Originally posted by Athos69+May 19 2004, 05:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Athos69 @ May 19 2004, 05:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Osprey@May 19 2004, 02:09 PM
I just thought of one very important issue regarding key skills for domain actions:

When Contesting a holding, does a regent use his key skill in the holding he is using to contest, or does he use the synergy based on the target holding? Or may he choose whichever is most advantageous?

This is mainly relevant when Law holdings are used to Contest Guild and Temple holdings.

What do you think?

Osprey
I would say that the character&#39;s ability in the skills associated with Law would be paramount, since it is through this holding that he is enforcing his will against the other Regents.

The other Regents can use their ability in the relevant skills for their own holding, since that is the only way that they can effectively &#39;fight back&#39;, so to speak.

so a Law regent who wishes to contest a Guild would use his Lead skill, whereas the Guldmaster would use his Profession (Merchant) to counter.

It could be said that the Law Regent is inspiring his constabulary or trained thugs to bust up the guilds&#39; shops, or at least restrict trade, whereas the Guild Regent is trying to either prevent supplies from being sold to the same regent&#39;s organization, or inflating the prices to make up for his losses. [/b][/quote]
Athos,
I would tend to agree that the holding being used to Contest should determine the key synergy skill involved. I was leaning that way, but was curious as to what other opinions were out there.

Currently, however (in the BRCS), there doesn&#39;t seem to be any provisions to actively defend holdings with synergy skills. As it requires a Character Action to gain the synergy bonus to a domain action, defense vs. Contest is entirely passive, meaning only RP and the level of holding being contested can be used to oppose the contesting regent&#39;s action check.

On the other hand, I think it would be an excellent addition to add such a system, though it will take some work to hammer out a workable system that isn&#39;t too complex. Off the top of my head, if a Character Action is required, then it would likely require the defending regent to have delayed their domain action, unless we rule that active defense is still possible if the defending regent goes later in the order of domain initiative. However, those who can delay longest (i.e., those with higher domain initiative who delay) still would have the chance to Contest without the other regents being able to actively defend against it.

Second, it would have to be decided: Does the active defense synergy bonus simply modify the contesting regent&#39;s DC, or is this a case where opposing domain action checks would be made? Contested rolls equal massive variability in the result, but also add a level of uncertainty and excitement to such actions. Which way we goes depends in part how predictable we want such things to be.

Osprey