Chap 5 for discussion [Archive]

Don E

08-11-2004, 04:02 AM

Just a few random ones I can come up with at the moment.

1) We need to more clearly define what a Lieutenant is capapble of doing. At the moment it appears to me that he is allowed to take any action each round, which with several lieutenants can easily unbalance the game.

2) The Agitate/domain attitude rules should be changed back to follow the general rules for domain actions rather than the ones for attitude of NPCs. While I initially really liked the idea I have found several flaws with it. First the complication of negative agitation, which I think is one of the more interesting aspects of the game. Another problem is that the regent at the moment more or less receives a free agitate action in every province, which easily becomes quite a few dice rolls if there are a number of domains in play. This might be more a matter of taste, bbut I think the domain attitude segmetn fits more naturally at the end of the turn, effectively tallying up with the people think of the turn that just passed.

3) I strongly disagree with the new Build rules where several actions can be taken to speed up contrsuction and that an action is required every turn for any consruction to go ahead. A large domain can now force build a huge fortification in record time, and a small domain will have its court effectively crippled even to get a small constuction finished. I think an action to get the construction started is reasonable, but after this it should be automatic progress, with the necessary master builder etc to oversee the progress to be included in the initital action.

4) INstead of making the Rule Province very difficult to succeed because it is too powerful I think it is a better solution to increase the price to more close reflect the incredible benefit gained. This could proabably be discussed in more detail in another thread,

5) Include a list (similar to the spell lists) for ease of reference on what actions fall under what category.

6) To take account of the possibility of doing sosme advance preparations and planning court actions (in their current version) should perhaps be on a per turn rather than per round basis.

More later.

Don E

08-11-2004, 04:10 AM

Under the paragraph for readying an action the following is written:

Readying: Readying a domain action allows you to take a standard court action later, in response to a specific event. Only standard Court actions can be readied.
Shouldn't this be referring to Standard actions as opposed to Court actions? If not the ability to ready an action is greatly reduced.

Osprey

08-11-2004, 05:11 AM

1) We need to more clearly define what a Lieutenant is capapble of doing. At the moment it appears to me that he is allowed to take any action each round, which with several lieutenants can easily unbalance the game.

I would think the proper [intended] rule is this: "an invested Lieutenant may perform one Domain Action in place of the regent each season. A Lieutenant may also personally oversee his regent's Court Actions at any time."

In discussing this with Raesene some months ago, we had come up with the above clarification for Lts., and an additional role of an Advisor, who can perform Court Actions for the regent, but not domain actions.

IMC (a few house rulings you may or may not like), I ruled that investing a Lt. is still a domain action, but appointing an advisor is only a Court Action, though searching for one may require a Court Action per month to search for talent within the regent's realm, or in allied and friendly realms. I require full Espionage domain actions in neutral and hostile realms; levels of hostile law and guild holdings inflict a penalty equal to their total levels in the province(s) being searched.

Osprey

Don E

08-11-2004, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 11 2004, 06:11 AM
I would think the proper [intended] rule is this: "an invested Lieutenant may perform one Domain Action in place of the regent each season. A Lieutenant may also personally oversee his regent's Court Actions at any time."
This would actually make the Lieutenants close to useless. By no longer giving the regent access to more actions they don't give much back to the domain. They could of course grant a bonus to the action if they perform it as I full action, but in many cases this will be negligible unless the Lt is of a very high level.

What benefit it would be from a Lt overseeing a Court action I cannot see at this time. As most Court actions have an automatic success chance there is little effect in having a character helping on such actions.

In discussing this with Raesene some months ago, we had come up with the above clarification for Lts., and an additional role of an Advisor, who can perform Court Actions for the regent, but not domain actions.
Just as the Lt is of no benefit to a Court action I cannot see what benefit an Advisor (which I don't think there is any mention of in the system at the moment) would have at the moment. If one define them as granting additional Court actions I think this is just a broken way of avoiding the limitations set down on the number of Court actions by the Court expenditure.

I think a reasonable question to ask here is what a Standard action on the domain level actually entails. The current description in the BRCS implies that a Standard actions for all parctical purpouses is an action performed by the court, but with some minimal guidance frmo the regent. "Regents have organized and able assistance to handle day-to-day matters; often a simple message or two is all that is necessary to perform a domain action." This makes me wonder where the Standard action actually arises from. A huge realm with many reatainers have the same single Standard action as a lone wizard with no help except his bat familiar hanging from a beam in the roof.

I would propose to change the terminology used for the various actions to the terms Character action, Court action, Full action and Realm action. The fundamental action would be a Court action, which can be used to take most actions that affects the domain in question, such as agitate, contest or wage war. The number of court actions would be determined by the expenditure of the court, e.g. equal to the number of GB spent per turn or half per round. The regent would have three Character actions per turn (or one per round if one want a more well defined turn resolution), which can be used to take actions that the regent himself are personally involved, such as adventures and magic actions (cast realm spell, forge ley line etc.). In addition a Character action would have to be combined with a Court action for the regent to apply his skill bonus and to use any RP to increase the chance of success. A realm action would require a number of court actions equal to the number of provinces affected, plus a Character action if the regent want to influence the outcome.

To come back to the Lt they could be allowed to take a Character action each per turn to help an action slightly. For actions like Contest, Rule etc. they would be of a minimal effect as they cannot spend any RP (unless the regent have granted them some through a Ceremony), but for actions where straight skill checks are invovled they mght be useful. The best example I can come up with is as the realms general, where they can apply their Warcraft skill to lead the armies. A court action would still be required to sort out the logistics and run the army, but it might benefit from a great leader other than the realm regent.

There you have me rambling again :)

irdeggman

08-11-2004, 09:40 AM

I merged some info from a related topic that should be included here. The questions/comments on creating your own domain.

Raesene Andu

08-11-2004, 10:49 AM

Actually it does give the Regent more actions the way we worked it out. A regent may take a character actions while his lieutenant rules in his place for that action round. It allows PC regents to go off one adventures, conduct diplomacy, etc, while still getting their domain action as well. Also the bonus court action should not be overlooked. It allows a regent without a court at all (e.g. a wizard) to still conduct court actions by getting his chosen lieutenant to do them instead.

This is the info I use...

Lieutenant Abilities:
All of your lieutenants can carry out character actions each game turn, either adventuring, training, leading an army of your soldiers in battle, etc. Most of the time they are looking after their own affairs, perhaps adventuring a little or visiting their families, but in times of crisis (or if you're off on an adventure and need some solid backup) you may specify what each of your lieutenants is up to. Remember that they do have their own minds and may get annoyed if you take up too much of their time.

Lieutenants Actions You may also select a single lieutenant to perform a lieutenant action each game turn (1 lieutenant action / action round). This Lieutenant Action can be any character or court action available to you. So your lieutenant can muster troops, supervise the building of a structure, lead your soldiers to occupy a province, etc. Effectively, this gives you a bonus court action every action round as long as you have at least one lieutenant.

Lieutenants & Domain Actions: If you decide that your regent is urgently needed elsewhere and cannot be in your realm for your domain action you may designate your lieutenant to carry out the domain action in your place. The lieutenant can spend RPs on your behalf, however the success of the domain action is determined by the lieutenants abilities, not yours. So if you have the Master Merchant feat and you get your fighter lieutenant (who doesn't have the feat) to create a trade route, he does not gain the same bonus to the success roll. See the domain action section for more details.

Advisors are a little different as they don't give bonus actions, but you can use their skills to assist with domain actions, court actions and on the battlefield. So a wizard regent could hire a couple of military advisors to lead his armies.

Osprey

08-11-2004, 05:09 PM

Hmmm, where to begin...

IMC I limited Lts. performing Domain Actions in place of the regent to once per season. There's some solid reasoning behind this (besides it being the rule in 2e as I understand things): only an invested Regent really has the power to utilize the full resources of his domain. There's also a very important game balancing factor here too: a single Lt. is prevented from running a realm entirely on a regent's behalf. IMO a Lt. should reflect a limited version of the regent, one who can act in the regent's behalf but not for 3 domain turns per season.

I think there should be a very solid distinction between Lts. and Advisors: Lieutenants are invested with a Ceremony Domain Action; this is in part a mystic ritual, because it imbues a Lt. with the power to act in the regent's name, which means they have the ability to spend both GB and RP when performing a domain action. Moreover, I believe that it should be ONLY an invested Lt. who can perform a standard Domain Action in the regent's behalf, using their Character Action and any applicable synergy bonuses from a relevant skill; Advisors should be limited to Court Actions, not having the invested authority to act with the full power of the regent himself.

So, this leads to several reasons to have invested Lieutenants: their skills may compliment their regent's, making them better suited to certain domain actions than the regent himself. Don E, this should answer your question about why one would bother with Lts. at all. A Spymaster, for instance, could serve an invaluable role performing Espionage actions for his warrior liege. A Fighter regent could use his Chamberlain, a Master Administrator, to Rule a province, while he uses his character action to adventure or train a unit (a Court Action where his Lead skill is important) or just take a break from rulership, perhaps spending time with family or friends (everybody needs a vacation once in a while, even PC's ;) ). If a regent wants to be off adventuring for months at a time, he should then have 3 or more invested Lts. if he wants to fully utilize his domain actions without personally overseeing them. Failing this, his court can direct the actions, but there will be no skill synergy bonuses from an invested character directing the action as there would with a Lt. or the regent running it. RP and GB can be spent normally here, at least using the current BRCS rules.

By contrast, an Advisor is to me nothing more than a glorified courtier, a member of the regent's court singled out for their exceptional abilities in one or more areas, and probably given extra pay/lands (1 or more GB/season) to reflect this. However, as only a Decree Court Action would be necessary to name an advisor, I don't think they should be invested with the same sort of power as a Lt., meaning they cannot perform Domain Actions in the regent's name. Again, only the regent or an invested Lt. would have the necessary authority to coordinate such an action effectively.

Now, as to why would you want an advisor to run Court Actions? Well, by the BRCS rules, there are several areas where such a character would be extremely useful: leading and training units in the regent's or allies' realms, for one thing. It only requires a Domain Action to wage war in neutral or hostile territory. A defensive war requires only Court Actions, or none at all in the regent's own realm; thus, a marshall [advisor] could lead defensive forces, a vital role if the regent happens to be off adventuring, or perhaps waging war elsewhere when the home realm is attacked. However, having a commander capable of leading an offensive campaign (a War domain action) should definitely require an invested Lt. as opposed to an advisor IMO.

Training units with the Lead skill also requires a Court Action and the Lead skill. This is a role where militant advisors have been invaluable IMC. Champions of a realm are often appointed with advsor status IMC to do this, and to act as heroic unit commanders (Hero Units) - well worth a few GB per season if and when war breaks out.

Finally, I use Court Actions to cover all sorts of more minor actions that wouldn't require the main focus of the realm's court and resources. Examples include recruiting other courtiers within the realm or in allied realms, something which I would allow Lead or Diplomacy synergy bonuses to affect; Diplomacy actions to allied nations to work out details of some specific arrangement might only require a Court Action, since a standing alliance already covers the major groundwork required of a full domain Diplomacy action; a Master Engineer is another advisor-type who can maximize Build CA's (Court Actions); and finally, character-led Diplomacy and Espionage actions where a regent has Embassies and Spy Networks respectively are only Court Actions, but these will benefit from a Lt.'s or Advisor's synergy bonuses. The last are also examples where a regent's RP and GB could make a big difference backing up a Lt. or Advisor despite them being only Court Actions, but the characters' synergy bonuses can save the regent some resources by providing a bonus from the beginning.

Osprey

08-11-2004, 05:32 PM

I think a reasonable question to ask here is what a Standard action on the domain level actually entails. The current description in the BRCS implies that a Standard actions for all parctical purpouses is an action performed by the court, but with some minimal guidance frmo the regent. "Regents have organized and able assistance to handle day-to-day matters; often a simple message or two is all that is necessary to perform a domain action." This makes me wonder where the Standard action actually arises from. A huge realm with many reatainers have the same single Standard action as a lone wizard with no help except his bat familiar hanging from a beam in the roof.

I would propose to change the terminology used for the various actions to the terms Character action, Court action, Full action and Realm action. The fundamental action would be a Court action, which can be used to take most actions that affects the domain in question, such as agitate, contest or wage war. The number of court actions would be determined by the expenditure of the court, e.g. equal to the number of GB spent per turn or half per round. The regent would have three Character actions per turn (or one per round if one want a more well defined turn resolution), which can be used to take actions that the regent himself are personally involved, such as adventures and magic actions (cast realm spell, forge ley line etc.). In addition a Character action would have to be combined with a Court action for the regent to apply his skill bonus and to use any RP to increase the chance of success. A realm action would require a number of court actions equal to the number of provinces affected, plus a Character action if the regent want to influence the outcome.

First off, I'm pretty certain more attention is given to describing Domain Actions than you have quoted. The main such definition is that domain actions represent the major focus of a regent's court and resources in that action round (month). Mages in general make a poor comparison here, as they follow their own rules to a certain extent. Also, the ability to affect multiple provinces with a large Court as a Realm Action is a HUGE incentive to build a large court. However, Realm Actions require (in BRCS) a Full Domain Action, meaning either the Regent or his Lt. must personally oversee the realm action with a Character Action in order to coordinate such a large-scale effort.

The main distinction is an easy one: Domain Actions are the main events on the domain scale, Court Actions are minor actions or extensions of the main domain action. Some descriptive text in the revised BRCS could easily clarify this, rather than requiring a complete re-writing of the rules.

Don E, I'm sorry to say I'm completely opposed to your re-arrangement of the Domain Action system, because it turns into a real cluster-f*** and seems to get very unbalanced based on who has the biggest court. I think the BRCS system is pretty decent as is - one of the greatest balancers of the game as I've played it is that each regent only gets 3 Domain Actions per season, 1 per month - extra minor actions, and extended realm actions, are represented by Court Actions. After a year and a half playtesting this, I can attest to this working quite well. It provides a powerful limitation on regents' personal realms just growing and growing and growing. For a regent with maxed-out RP collections and an already-wide reach, the next stage of power is to build alliances and vassals. Coordinated offenses by allied regents is far more powerful than one big regent doing it, because of their ability to Contest multiple times in the same month.

Finally, a question for you: how much have you played with the BRCS sytem of Domain and Court Actions? Are these comments based on experience using that system and not liking it, or are they mainly theoretical criticisms?

Osprey

08-11-2004, 05:48 PM

On a different topic (one thread for Ch. 5 is going to get convoluted):

I propose a slight adjustment to current BRCS rules regarding DC's for action checks:

Rule actions for provinces and holdings should have a DC of 10 + target level, rather than the current BRCS system of DC 10 + current level.

This would effectively add +1 to most Rule DC's compared to the current BRCS system. There are two reasons for proposing this:

1. It makes logical sense: the DC should be based on what is being attempted, not what is already established. This also makes Ruling a holding to level 1 (DC 11) more difficult than creating a level 0 holding (DC 10), instead of them having the same DC's as in the current system.

2. Adding +1 to DC's is the least that can be done to compensate for the bonuses granted by skill synergies from Full Domain Actions, especially with Master X and Regent Focus feats being available.

Don E

08-12-2004, 12:04 PM

First off, I'm pretty certain more attention is given to describing Domain Actions than you have quoted. The main such definition is that domain actions represent the major focus of a regent's court and resources in that action round (month). Mages in general make a poor comparison here, as they follow their own rules to a certain extent..

Of course there is more text describing ther differences, I simply chose to avoid quoting the whole chapter and selected a snippet that I found relatively short and yet describing of the philosophy I though the action system was designed around. Related to this my main argument still stands that the domain system has been changed from 2e to the BRCS, and in doing so has made it more complicated. In the original system anything that required a major effort of the regent OR the court took up on Domain action. The new system have tried to differentiate between those actions that require an effort from the regent and those of the court, and there are two main reservations I have with this system.

The first is the separation of the adventure action into a character action. I agree that this is the most logical way to do things when saying a Standard action is primarily performed by the court, but it raises the question why a tiny court have only three Standard actions in a turn while a huge court have no more resources to perform any more. The issue returns to the discussion on Lts, where it is said that a Lt is useful if the regent is busy elsewhere. As it is written now this is not the case with the regent perfectly capable of travelling of on a great Adventure, passing on a few messages to ensure the Contest, Espionage or Rule action is undertaken at home. At this stage the +1 bonus the Lt has to offer to the action (which is the max he can have if limited to below 7th level, which IMO would be a reasonable assumption unless one bumps up the overall character levels in the campaign relative to 2e) is quite minimal compared to the 10+RP the regent will quickly spend to ensure success.

The second issue is the forced inclusion of magical actions into the Standard action cathegory. Is there really any action the exemplifies the notion of a Character action more than the wizard casting a realm spell? Even the adventure action would probably involve more people and resources frmo the court. The notion that wizardss follow their own rules aren't really a good argument, but a handwave for the current action setup not fitting the description it was based upon.

Also, the ability to affect multiple provinces with a large Court as a Realm Action is a HUGE incentive to build a large court. However, Realm Actions require (in BRCS) a Full Domain Action, meaning either the Regent or his Lt. must personally oversee the realm action with a Character Action in order to coordinate such a large-scale effort.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Both my suggestion and the current BRCS version requires more court actions if you want a realm action to take effect in more provinces. With the current limitations in the BRCS any domain with a court in a province whose level is not very high is severel hampered unless the DM allow the domains to start with significant palaces. I'm not saying this necessarily is bad, but I find that the access to RP/GB often sets enough of a limitation on Realm actions.

Don E, I'm sorry to say I'm completely opposed to your re-arrangement of the Domain Action system, because it turns into a real cluster-f*** and seems to get very unbalanced based on who has the biggest court. I think the BRCS system is pretty decent as is - one of the greatest balancers of the game as I've played it is that each regent only gets 3 Domain Actions per season, 1 per month - extra minor actions, and extended realm actions, are represented by Court Actions. After a year and a half playtesting this, I can attest to this working quite well. It provides a powerful limitation on regents' personal realms just growing and growing and growing. For a regent with maxed-out RP collections and an already-wide reach, the next stage of power is to build alliances and vassals. Coordinated offenses by allied regents is far more powerful than one big regent doing it, because of their ability to Contest multiple times in the same month.

I'm not opposed to the three actions a turn as I see it as a great equalizer between the smaller and larger domains, thus increasing the playability for a wider range od domains to be controlled by the players. On the other hand one have the problem of why a huge court should not have more capability than that of a tiny one. If one is seeking 'realism', which I sometimes get the impression that the BRCS seeks, it is a perfectly valid point to make.

In effect my suggestion will not make the larger courts that much more powerful. With the limitaition that the regent can only use his influence if he actualy takes an active interest in the action the net number actions like Contest and Rule are possible even more limited than in the current version.
Example: Prince Avan has 3 Char actions and his legendary court allow him 6 Court actions each turn. Trying his best to get Archduke Boers influence removed from Tuornen he could potentially make 6 Contest attempts. A lot? Not really considering he would only be able to support the three actions he took part in himself with RP, and most likely the court have other matters at hand like raising more troops and starting yet another grandiose building project.
It is also perfectly possible to set a relative low limit to the number of court actions maximum available, or even require an aritmentic increase in the cost of getting more actions. E.g. each domain have a minimum of one Court action (even a lone regent a his cronies should be able to get somethign done over a three month period) plus: 1GB =1, 3GB =2, 6GB =3 etc. This way the cost of too many actions would quickly outstrip their benefit and the regent would be much better of by setting up a vassal with a separate court in parts of his realm.

I'll write some more on this and even though I can see this is not going into the BRCS it might be some players are interested in trying something different.

Finally, a question for you: how much have you played with the BRCS sytem of Domain and Court Actions? Are these comments based on experience using that system and not liking it, or are they mainly theoretical criticisms?

Is it really relevat? You managed to discount my suggestion without much thought or testing. If you really need to know, yes I have played with the BRCS in various permutations, and in every case found that there is a great need for house ruling (which you and Raesene have showed some good and playable examples of) and that the system does not work as well as it appears when first read.

Osprey

08-12-2004, 04:19 PM

QUOTE
Finally, a question for you: how much have you played with the BRCS sytem of Domain and Court Actions? Are these comments based on experience using that system and not liking it, or are they mainly theoretical criticisms?

Is it really relevat? You managed to discount my suggestion without much thought or testing. If you really need to know, yes I have played with the BRCS in various permutations, and in every case found that there is a great need for house ruling (which you and Raesene have showed some good and playable examples of) and that the system does not work as well as it appears when first read.

Actually, this last question was more one of part curiosity and part relevance: I definitely value playtesting experience over purely conjectural criticism. House ruling to fix problems is really the meat of any game design project, especially a revision; the BRCS was a playtest document, so naturally playtesting should be the primary reason things get changed. I personally believe that experience is the best teacher, so it does help me to know that things are challenged based on that experience rather than just a strong opionion after a read-through.

By that same token, I apologize if I seemed insulting to your proposed system there. Honestly, it just seemed very...confusing. In fact, it still does to be honest. But by all means, continue to post for the sake of sharing ideas. God knows how many of my ideas will never see the BRCS ;) .

Now, to respond the rest of your post:

Are you saying then that a Domain Action should always be headed by the regent or a Lt.? If so, I think this is a fairly reasonable suggestion, at least coupled with the existing BRCS system. It's the role of the Court that has me confused in your version...what's a court good for exactly? How do realm actions work?

At this stage the +1 bonus the Lt has to offer to the action (which is the max he can have if limited to below 7th level, which IMO would be a reasonable assumption unless one bumps up the overall character levels in the campaign relative to 2e) is quite minimal compared to the 10+RP the regent will quickly spend to ensure success.

I think this is an example of a rather unimpressive Lieutenant. If I were a regent hiring Lts. who weren't my heirs, I'd be looking for specialists. A specialized 7th level chamberlain, for instance, might be a Master Administrator and Master Diplomat, with some decent relevant ability scores, maxed. ranks in Administrate and Diplomacy, maybe Lead (10 ranks). Say he has a 16 Intelligence and Charisma (quite possible if he's an older fellow). This would give him +15 Administrate, and up to +21 Diplomacy (assuming 5 ranks in Bluff, K/Nobility, and Sense Motive). So in my system he would lend +5 to a Rule Province action (+3 from the skill, +2 from Master Administrator), +6 to a Diplomacy action; neither of these actions can be supported by spending RP in the BRCS rules, making this Lt. even more valuable, especially to say a Fighter regent with no Administrate or Diplomacy skills of note. All of this with a 7th level Lieutenant...

Now, I realize that using the total skill bonus rather than ranks is somewhat controversial, but the above is an illustration of exactly why I prefer this method: relevant skills (including synergystic ones) and natural talents (Int, Cha, etc.) become more significant than just pure experience + feats. Naturally, anything that can be supported with RP is overshadowed by that, but RP can quickly run dry when things like Realm-wide Contest actions go on while a regent or Lt. is able to apply those bonuses to each of 4 or 5 Contest actions.

QUOTE
Also, the ability to affect multiple provinces with a large Court as a Realm Action is a HUGE incentive to build a large court. However, Realm Actions require (in BRCS) a Full Domain Action, meaning either the Regent or his Lt. must personally oversee the realm action with a Character Action in order to coordinate such a large-scale effort.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Both my suggestion and the current BRCS version requires more court actions if you want a realm action to take effect in more provinces. With the current limitations in the BRCS any domain with a court in a province whose level is not very high is severel hampered unless the DM allow the domains to start with significant palaces. I'm not saying this necessarily is bad, but I find that the access to RP/GB often sets enough of a limitation on Realm actions.

Here's the BRCS system as I understand it:

-A standard Domain Action may be performed by the court, and does not require a Character Action to lead it, though a regent or Lt. using a Character Action may apply a relevant synergy bonus to it with the right skill. Each realm has one standard domain action per month.

-A Full Domain Action is one that requires the regent or his Lt. to use a Character Action to lead the standard domain action.

-A Realm Action is a Full Domain Action that requires a Court Action be spent for each additional province targeted beyond the first. Only Rule Holdings and Contest Holdings may be performed as Realm Actions in the BRCS rules.

-Court Actions are available each month [action round] based on the level of the court (1 CA per 2 court levels). These may be spent to support Realm Actions or for other minor court functions (decrees, mustering, building, moving troops and waging war in allied lands).

-RP may be spent to support any of these actions, except Rule Province and Diplomacy. GB may be spent to support a Diplomacy action, though this requires the DM to house rule the bonus each time it is performed.

If I have all of this correct, it seems to me a fairly clear hierarchy of domain actions that require various levels of attention from the regent and his court. I think this is a fairly workable system for all except source regents.

Source regents, I agree, are a much stickier issue, but this derives from their origins in being quite seperate from other regents on the domain level.

IMC I require Full Domain Actions for any and all source-related domain actions. As only blooded arcane spellcasters or druids can affect mebhaighal, there is simply no justification for Courts for pure source regents. Originally I had come up with an idea for an Arcane Court, but I've sinced ditched that idea in favor of blooded mage Lieutenants acting in place of a Court. When Ruling or Contesting Sources, each mage Lt. is able to extend the standard action to one additional source. The Regent and Lts. use their personal synergy bonus in each province they are Ruling or Contesting.

So having apprentices or mage minions is an immense advantage for source regents, though I make them rather hard to come by as true mages are rare.

This was my solution to the problem - it's one I've liked in playtesting for the last six months or so; the Lts. get paid, plus they get access to the source regent's library/spellbooks to advance their own lore when not performing Lt. actions. While it's not a perfect parallel of the other regent's domain setup, I think this is perfectly acceptable with the way the BR domains are set up. Source regents just play by somewhat different rules than everyone else, because manipulating mebhaighal is such an exclusive profession.

Athos69

08-12-2004, 10:18 PM

Osprey, don't forget the Court modifier on any action performed by Lts or the Court itself -- those bonuses are dependant on the Court level as well.

I was discussing this with the local DM the other night. When the subject of using Skill bonus vs. ranks came up, he suggested that instead of using 5 as a divisor, 7 or even 8 should be the divisor for determining the Domain scale bonus, so as not to get the adition of ability scores, synergies and non-domain scale feats will not blow the DCs out of whack, yet still reward the bright and those with supporting skills and feats.

Don E

08-13-2004, 01:17 AM

Are you saying then that a Domain Action should always be headed by the regent or a Lt.? If so, I think this is a fairly reasonable suggestion, at least coupled with the existing BRCS system. It's the role of the Court that has me confused in your version...what's a court good for exactly? How do realm actions work?

For the BRCS I think it a necessary change to require the regent to participate in the standard actions. I don't think it captures the feel of the original rules, or is very balanced, that the regent can perform 3 contest actions AND run of on 3 adventures.

I thin kmy suggested version is more confusing than actually different than the BRCS. If you change any references of Standard action to Court action in the current writeup you are getting very close to what I suggested. The court in my system is in essence the entity that does most of the domain related work. Instead of differentiating between the court performing a Standard action and the court performing a Court action it is all simplifed into one action type, and each action can be supported by one character if one wants skill bonuses and/or RP to be used. Realm actions are not really that much more powerful in my system, as they in essence are a number of regular actions performed in various provinces at the same time. The big advantage is that a character can provinde his bonuses to more province than one.

I think this is an example of a rather unimpressive Lieutenant. If I were a regent hiring Lts. who weren't my heirs, I'd be looking for specialists. A specialized 7th level chamberlain, for instance, might be a Master Administrator and Master Diplomat, with some decent relevant ability scores, maxed. ranks in Administrate and Diplomacy, maybe Lead (10 ranks). Say he has a 16 Intelligence and Charisma (quite possible if he's an older fellow). This would give him +15 Administrate, and up to +21 Diplomacy (assuming 5 ranks in Bluff, K/Nobility, and Sense Motive). So in my system he would lend +5 to a Rule Province action (+3 from the skill, +2 from Master Administrator), +6 to a Diplomacy action; neither of these actions can be supported by spending RP in the BRCS rules, making this Lt. even more valuable, especially to say a Fighter regent with no Administrate or Diplomacy skills of note. All of this with a 7th level Lieutenant...

I agree the Lt you present is a much more useful one and the Lt I suggested was rather unimpressive, but it was based on the following assumpitions:
1) Lts are in essence Cohorts, and follow the rules set down in the DMG (which I think is the natural thing to do after the rules was included in 3e), including the rule for maximum level relative to PC level.
2) The regents have character levels comparable to those in the original material, which in most cases is very low.
3) Domain action bonuses are caluculated from the number of skill ranks a character hav, as this is the current BRCS rule

Following these guidelines good old Heirl Diem would not be able to have anything higher than a 5th level cohort, who can max out at 8 ranks and don't possess any of the Domain related feats. Thus netting him a total of +1 for whatever actions he would support. You Lt is much more down the lines of a player character, unless you intend to have a lot of high level NPCs running around with those feats. If you say that an LT have them, you are more or less opnening up for every regent in Cerilia having access to such high level advisors with powerful feats. Is this something that is intended in this conversion? Perhaps, but it makes the Master feats much less of a unique ability and rather something more standard like weapon focus.

Now, I realize that using the total skill bonus rather than ranks is somewhat controversial, but the above is an illustration of exactly why I prefer this method: relevant skills (including synergystic ones) and natural talents (Int, Cha, etc.) become more significant than just pure experience + feats. Naturally, anything that can be supported with RP is overshadowed by that, but RP can quickly run dry when things like Realm-wide Contest actions go on while a regent or Lt. is able to apply those bonuses to each of 4 or 5 Contest actions.

Hey hey, here i thought I was only one who wanted domain bonuses to be calculated from the skill total :D
In addition to this would you allow one Lt or advisor to actually help the regent perform an action, and give him a +2 bonus from cooperation? This is hardly a game breaking rule, but does allow for the advisor actually advising the regent on various actions.

Here's the BRCS system as I understand it:

-A standard Domain Action may be performed by the court, and does not require a Character Action to lead it, though a regent or Lt. using a Character Action may apply a relevant synergy bonus to it with the right skill. Each realm has one standard domain action per month.

-A Full Domain Action is one that requires the regent or his Lt. to use a Character Action to lead the standard domain action.

-A Realm Action is a Full Domain Action that requires a Court Action be spent for each additional province targeted beyond the first. Only Rule Holdings and Contest Holdings may be performed as Realm Actions in the BRCS rules.

-Court Actions are available each month [action round] based on the level of the court (1 CA per 2 court levels). These may be spent to support Realm Actions or for other minor court functions (decrees, mustering, building, moving troops and waging war in allied lands).

-RP may be spent to support any of these actions, except Rule Province and Diplomacy. GB may be spent to support a Diplomacy action, though this requires the DM to house rule the bonus each time it is performed.

If I have all of this correct, it seems to me a fairly clear hierarchy of domain actions that require various levels of attention from the regent and his court. I think this is a fairly workable system for all except source regents.

I think we read the rules very much the same way (except I think the Rule Province action can be supported by GBs in the current version). To sum up my main issues with the current system:
- A regent can perform 3 character actions in addition to the 3 standard actions
- The limitations of the Court actions cripple medium and small domains, specially through the requirement of continuously using court actions to get building done.
- A wizard can do 3 character actions, while his COURT cast realm magic left right and centre
- The agitate system worked much more smoothly with the rest of the domain actions in the original version

Source regents, I agree, are a much stickier issue, but this derives from their origins in being quite seperate from other regents on the domain level.

IMC I require Full Domain Actions for any and all source-related domain actions. As only blooded arcane spellcasters or druids can affect mebhaighal, there is simply no justification for Courts for pure source regents. Originally I had come up with an idea for an Arcane Court, but I've sinced ditched that idea in favor of blooded mage Lieutenants acting in place of a Court. When Ruling or Contesting Sources, each mage Lt. is able to extend the standard action to one additional source. The Regent and Lts. use their personal synergy bonus in each province they are Ruling or Contesting.

So having apprentices or mage minions is an immense advantage for source regents, though I make them rather hard to come by as true mages are rare.

This was my solution to the problem - it's one I've liked in playtesting for the last six months or so; the Lts. get paid, plus they get access to the source regent's library/spellbooks to advance their own lore when not performing Lt. actions. While it's not a perfect parallel of the other regent's domain setup, I think this is perfectly acceptable with the way the BR domains are set up. Source regents just play by somewhat different rules than everyone else, because manipulating mebhaighal is such an exclusive profession.

I don't think the wizards have to be a very sticky issue if one is willing to change the rules to fit what is actually going on. By changing the wizard actions to Character actions one more or less avoids the issue of the court getting involved. This does of course require that one also changes the rules so the regent have to use one of his character actions to perform actions like contest and rule, but I don't see this as a major problem.

Here is one possible setup of the actions:
Character action: Actions the regent can perform on his own. One each round
Adventure, Training, Magic actions
Standard action: The main focus of the court. Half of court level available each round.
Construction (continuing construction free action), Decree, Muster Troops, Wage War (but without a designated general the army has any effective warcraft skill equal to total quort level)
Full action: Requires the attention of both the regent and the court, one can be taken each round taking up one character and one standard action
Agitate, Contest, Creat, Rule, Diplomacy, Espionage, Ceremony

I know this is more a move back to the rules in the original system, but in many ways I think it avoids some of issue that I feel is a problem at the moment. The main change is of course that magic actions no longer require the attention of the court, which leaves them free to attend to mundane affairs or for non-landed wizards they can avoid having a court at all. It also plays down the role of Lts and advisors, as they now become more of a supporting cast.

Athos69

08-17-2004, 06:43 AM

Proposed rewrite of the Ceremony Action

Ceremony [Court / Standard; Administrate; 1GB]

This action allows a regent to arrange for current, future or on-going transfers of domain assets to another character. Ceremonies help to fix the minds of a domain’s populace and ease the acceptance of a new regent or heir. This action is often combined with the casting of a Bloodline investiture realm spell.

Coronation: You become the lawfully (and spiritually) recognized regent of an unclaimed domain or a domain that you currently hold temporarily through designation. This Standard action requires a domain action check with a DC of 10 + the size of the domain that you are attempting to invest and also requires a character action from a temple regent capable of casting realm spells in the province in which the ceremony is performed. All regents that have holdings in any province in which the invested domain has holdings and any regents that have a seemingly legitimate claim to the domain may bid regency to support or oppose the ceremony.

Designation: A regent may designate an heir for his domain (or heirs for multiple portions of his domain). If the regent later perishes, the heir(s) automatically assume temporary control of the domain. The new regent gains half of the RP that they would normally collect until they undergo a Ceremony of Coronation. If a regent does not designate an heir, then any character with a reasonable claim to the domain can attempt to claim it; folk legends speak of the land itself choosing its next guardian in some instances. A non-designated regent that claims a domain does not gain any regency until all other claimants are defeated and a Ceremony of Coronation is performed. This Standard action requires no action check, but requires a character action from a temple regent capable of casting realm spells in the province in which the ceremony is performed.

Divestiture: You attempt to claim a province that is currently claimed by another regent. This action can only be performed on a single province per action unless the realm’s current regent is physically present at the ceremony (willing or not). In order to perform this action, the target province or provinces must be occupied by your troops or in rebellion against their current regent. This action requires an action check with a DC of 10 + the total level of provinces that you are attempting to claim by conquest. All regents that have holdings in the province(s) may bid regency to support or oppose the ceremony. Temple regents may also use their temple holding levels in the province(s) to support or oppose the ceremony. This ceremony is a Standard Action.

Lieutenancy: You declare a character as having the authority to speak on the domain’s behalf. A recognized lieutenant can stand in for the regent in almost any domain-level matter and is recognized as wielding the same authority as the regent himself. A domain’s heir is often a lieutenant first, but this need not be the case. A lieutenant character may spend character actions to provide bonuses to domain actions in the same way that the domain’s regent can. There is no limit to the number of lieutenants that a realm can have, but a clear system for determining the responsibilities and resolution of conflicts between them must exist. This ceremony is a Standard action.
Grant: You willingly bestow titles, grants of land, monies or other such rewards to loyal subjects or those who have done great service to you. This Court action requires no action check.

Transfer: You willingly transfer one or more provinces, holdings, or other domain assets to another regent. Both regents must be physically present at the ceremony and willing participants. Physical coercion, magical compulsion, or other leverage may be used to create such “willingness” so long as the general public is unaware of the activity. This Court action requires no action check.

Vassalage: You accept the sworn vassalage of another regent. This ceremony requires a character action from a temple regent capable of casting realm spells in the province in which the ceremony is performed. Once sworn, this Standard action provides the liege with the mutually agreed upon seasonal tribute of regency and/or GB from the vassal subject. This tribute can be any amount, but does not generally exceed 1 RP per province or holding that the vassal holds in the liege’s name. This ceremony is binding but either can revoke it by issuing a decree of independence.

*****
What I did here was to make some of the lesser functions of this Action into Court actions, able to be performed with only a day's imput on the part of the Regent himself, yet require some of the heavy-duty functions to have an allied Temple regent spend a Character action to assist. The reasoning behind this is that the support of the Church is a prerequisite for many of the functions of Feudal succession, yet some of the actions, like a Transfer of responsibility for assets, or Granting Titles and lands are mostly done behind the scenes by the court, capped with a ceremony to make it 'official'.

It is my intent though, that the recipient of a Court Action Ceremony need not spend any character action, since it is a 1-day affair for them.

Osprey

08-17-2004, 01:44 PM

A couple things, Athos:

I would make Transfer a Standard domain action, since it is in essence as willing investiture of a regent. Swapping regents of domain assets should never be a simple Court action IMO.

Also, I think Grant is pretty well covered by Decree already - its description could easily be listed as one form of Decreee in that action's description.

Following these two suggestions, all Ceremonies would once again become Standard domain actions, which might help keep things uniform and unambiguous.

Is it necessary to say "a temple regent who can cast realm spells?" Why not simply a temple regent in the relevant domain? With Investiture in particular, I'm not sure it should be necessary to have a temple in the capital province - any recognized temple regent of the realm should be adequate (giving more room for temple competition and "playing favorites").

Otherwise, it looks pretty good.

The Jew

08-21-2004, 03:18 PM

To focus on one point of particular importance, who out their is opposed to using total skill modifier to determine synergy bonus for domain actions, and why?
The point which is most obvious to me is that it goes against the grain of standard 3.5 synergy bonuses. This is true, yet it seems to me that the gain from realism is worth it.

Athos69

08-21-2004, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by The Jew@Aug 21 2004, 08:18 AM
To focus on one point of particular importance, who out their is opposed to using total skill modifier to determine synergy bonus for domain actions, and why?
The point which is most obvious to me is that it goes against the grain of standard 3.5 synergy bonuses. This is true, yet it seems to me that the gain from realism is worth it.
For Synergy bonuses? I have to say that I would oppose it for the reasons you state.

For Domain bonuses, I would like to see the ttal skill ranks used, but we would have to come up with a larger divisor than 5 to keep the DCs in line. This would reward people with superior natural abiities (high attribute scores) and supporting skills (synergy bonuses and feats that provide skill bonuses). Otherwise a total slob with an 8 CHA could do exactly the same quality job of diplomacy as a 20 CHA character with many supporting synergy bonuses and skill focus feats -- if they have the same number of ranks in the skill. Both could have a +2 bonus to domain checks, yet the CHA 8 person would have a +8 overall to his skill check, and the CHA 20 person could be in excess of +20.

irdeggman

08-21-2004, 07:13 PM

I am opposed to changing the core rule concept in this manner. The logic of saying it is for better realism just doesn't wash since this is a fantasy game in the first place and most things don't make concrete sense as far as realism goes - otherwise there would be no such thing as a fireball spell.

Synergy bonuses are soley based on the number of ranks in the core rules for a specific reason. That is to not overly reward those with natural abilities but instead to show a bonus for related knowledge (i.e., ranks). What natural ability does is to reflect how a character can force a success even if he has no real understanding of what he attempting to do.

The natural ability bonus comes into play when making a check for the various skill success. Hence the success of various domain actions is the result of a skill check and that is when the natural ability comes into play.

Now as far as gaining RP goes I also feel that accounting for natural ability skews the result. Part of the breakdown for determining RP based skill ranks was to reflect how much effort a regent put into becoming a good ruler and reward him for that. This is to oppose those with natural ability who put in no effort to get better. Those with natural ability can still gain an advantage on success of domain actions but IMO shouldn't be rewarded with RP just because of it, they should have to focus on becoming a good regent and that should give them the benefit.

Athos69

08-21-2004, 07:41 PM

So, to clarify things Duane, you aren't opposed to the concept of including the entire skill bonus into the calculations for Domain Bonus.

I am in agreement that only ranks should be used for calaculating synergies and RP collection.

One topic that was previously discussed was a tweaking of the RP collection table, to be instead based on the average of the skills. Had you or anyone else given that idea much thought?

irdeggman

08-21-2004, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by Athos69@Aug 21 2004, 02:41 PM
So, to clarify things Duane, you aren't opposed to the concept of including the entire skill bonus into the calculations for Domain Bonus.

I am in agreement that only ranks should be used for calaculating synergies and RP collection.

One topic that was previously discussed was a tweaking of the RP collection table, to be instead based on the average of the skills. Had you or anyone else given that idea much thought?
To clarify my stand - all synergy bonuses should be based on ranks alone. Whether this is for synergy bonuses to domain actions or for RP collection. That is the way the core system works and I see no real reason to change it.

When a check is being made, like for the success of a domain action, then all modifers should be used, ability mod, ranks, any applicable synergy bonuses, etc.

As far as the RP gaining table goes, well that is why this chapter is up for discussion. As I have said before I am going on sabbatical (it was supposed to start today, but there is one poll left that has to run its course before I feel I can go). Because of this I won't be available to do the tweaking and changes, that will be up to those on the boards/mailserv.

Athos69

08-22-2004, 12:45 AM

To clarify my stand - all synergy bonuses should be based on ranks alone. Whether this is for synergy bonuses to domain actions or for RP collection. That is the way the core system works and I see no real reason to change it.

When a check is being made, like for the success of a domain action, then all modifers should be used, ability mod, ranks, any applicable synergy bonuses, etc.

I am in full agreement with you on this Duane. The only thing that we will have to work on is gettign the right balance point for the divisor from Skill bonus to Domain Bonus.

5, as it currently sits will result in an inflation of domain skill bonuses, and the net result will be to make DCs of domain actions easier to achieve.

10, while it is easy to calculate, is going to make the domain DCs too difficult.

My gut feeling is to make 8 the magic number, unless we want to play with altering the DCs a bit in the Ch. 5 rewrite...

Osprey

08-22-2004, 05:29 AM

The only thing that we will have to work on is gettign the right balance point for the divisor from Skill bonus to Domain Bonus.

5, as it currently sits will result in an inflation of domain skill bonuses, and the net result will be to make DCs of domain actions easier to achieve.

10, while it is easy to calculate, is going to make the domain DCs too difficult.

My gut feeling is to make 8 the magic number, unless we want to play with altering the DCs a bit in the Ch. 5 rewrite...

There is a different way to go about this besides changing the divisor - which is adjusting the base DC's for Domain Actions. Possibly raising base DC's to 15 instead of 10. The reason I prefer this approach is because it gives slightly more power to skills vs. RP. If you increase the divisor (especially to something as high as 8!), it makes RP even more powerful than in the BRCS. As it is, RP will always remain the utterly dominant power in domain actions, but this way skills will have slightly bigger effects seperate from RP - which I think makes for a more interesting game where the competence of regents remain significant factors.

Also keep in mind, general skill bonuses tend to be less than actual ranks, especially for higher level characters, so don't get too carried away by over-compensating for fear of skill bonuses making things too easy.

Osprey

Don E

08-22-2004, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by irdeggman@Aug 22 2004, 12:43 AM
To clarify my stand - all synergy bonuses should be based on ranks alone. Whether this is for synergy bonuses to domain actions or for RP collection. That is the way the core system works and I see no real reason to change it.
I would personally much prefer to see the whole skill bonus applied to domain checks. I think the main difference in our point of view is that you only think of it as a synergy bonus, being godd at one think helps doing something else, while I see it as an application of the relevant skill. IMO it is not so much that the Administreate skill can have a synergy bonus on e.g. the Rule Holding action, but rather that it is the skill being used mutliple times during said action. The same action could be played out 'adventure' style with the Administration skill being used repeatedly, and hence the whole skill bonus should be applied.

Athos69

08-22-2004, 07:47 AM

Don, I don't think that Duane was arguing that Domain scale skill bonuses were synergy at all. I think that you two are on the same side with this one.

What Duane was saying (as far as I can see) is that Synergy bonuses must always be determined by ranks in a skill, not modified by anything else. Domain skill bonuses are a seperate beast that should take into accountsynergies, feats and raw ability.

Don E

08-22-2004, 07:55 AM

Quite interesting that we should be discussing what another poster actually means :)

At the moment the BRCS writeup have domain action bonuses derived from ranks only, and as Duane and others have argued this is a synergy bonus and should be kept in line with the core rules. I don't see this as a good comparison, and would like this changed so all domain actions gain a bonus from the whole skill total as opposed to the current situation where we have some action gaining a synergy bonus from ranks and other actions that can be influenced by straight skill checks. IMO unnecessary complication.

irdeggman

08-22-2004, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Don E@Aug 22 2004, 02:55 AM
Quite interesting that we should be discussing what another poster actually means :)

At the moment the BRCS writeup have domain action bonuses derived from ranks only, and as Duane and others have argued this is a synergy bonus and should be kept in line with the core rules. I don't see this as a good comparison, and would like this changed so all domain actions gain a bonus from the whole skill total as opposed to the current situation where we have some action gaining a synergy bonus from ranks and other actions that can be influenced by straight skill checks. IMO unnecessary complication.
All right these seem to be the sections of the BRCS-playtest that are inquestion:

Resolving actions (BRCS-playtest pg 103)

“Many require a domain action check. A domain action check is the roll of a 1d20 plus any modifiers.”

Skill modifier (pg 103)

“(Full domain actions only) +1 for every 5 ranks that the regent has in the relevent skill.”

The bonus to domain actions is indeed a synergy bonus. I don't see how that can be read in any other manner.

The actual action check roll being made counts all modifiers, including appropriate ability modifier.

If the synergy bonus includes all modifiers, then natural ability (as well as feats) are being counted twice. This is against the concepts of the core rules.

The reason that this bonus was inserted was to make some sort of synergy bonus when using a skill at the domain level. Since the skills in question are intended for personal use level in the first place.

An alternative, that would meet all the rules' intent is to just drop the skill rank synergy bonus entirely from the situation. That is to delete the latter paragraph.

Either version works for me since they are both in line with core rules. Either being to have the synergy bonus be a synergy bonus (i.e., ranks only) or to drop the domain level synergy bonus entirely.

RaspK_FOG

08-22-2004, 12:47 PM

This is not the first time such a thing has cropped up, and it has already been proven that core rules do not go along with this way of thinking for a number of reasons (Irdeggman layed it out quite as good as any could have), so I say we drop it, OK?

Any art teacher can tell you that talented people only have a gift to BECOME better; a student with little talent who has given everything to his exercise can be better than another student with lots of talent who has never exercised.

Osprey

08-22-2004, 02:32 PM

The actual action check roll being made counts all modifiers, including appropriate ability modifier.

Where do you derive this from? If the synergy bonus is based only on ranks, at what point does an ability modifier, for ex. the regent's Intelligence, play into the current BRCS system? Not at all, as far as I can tell (and I just double-checked that to be certain).

The way you're describing it, it sounds like a character with 18 intelligence and 12 ranks in Administrate would get +6 to Rule Province: +4 his Intelligence modifier, +2 from his Admin. synergy bonus...
I have a feeling this isn't what you're getting at, but this is what it sounds like.

If the synergy bonus includes all modifiers, then natural ability (as well as feats) are being counted twice. This is against the concepts of the core rules.

Here again your argument breaks down when there never was a system to include ability modifiers in the first place.

Regarding domain actions, core rules, and alternatives, I'd like to make a few points:

1. There are NO core rules regarding Domain Actions - the closest thing to core rules are from 2e Birthright. Applying a 3e action template to them was a BRCS invention, which means it was playtest material, not dogma. We are discussing the merits and flaws of this system and what changes we think could improve domain rules for the revision. I for one am glad to not be beholden to a set of core rules here.

2. In the core rules synergy bonuses are ONLY applied as a bonus from one skill to another. Furthermore, this system is rather strict in its application: 5 ranks gives a +2 bonus to another skill, and an additional +2 bonus per 20 ranks in the epic system (so 25 ranks = +4 synergy bonus).

3. My opionoin is that the concept of synergy bonuses are excellent, the actual system not so hot - +1 per 5 ranks would have been a much better skill synergy system. However, since we can't change the core rules for the BRCS revision, I propose we scrap using the term "synergy bonus" in any way shape or form in
Ch. 5.

4. Instead we should call the relevant skill bonus something else: perhaps we could call it a Character Bonus, referring to the fact that a Character Action must be used to gain any skill/feat bonuses in the action. This way we are free to create the mechanic we think is most appropriate for the situation, as skill synergy bonuses are obviously inadequate for the job.

5. I'll reiterate: +1 per +5 skill bonus is a reasonable (and easy to calculate) bonus from skills if the DC's of domain actions are a little higher than current: DC 15 + target level will make things pretty challenging.

The one exception here is ruling provinces: DC 15+ will make things almost impossible for upper levels, and those upper levels will still only be reachable by regents with every possible feat (Regent Focus, Master Administrator, Skill Focus: Administrate), maxed out skill, and a lot of luck and GB to boot! I guess it depends just how slow you like growth to be, and how much you prefer the game be based on the luck of the d20... me, I'd rather keep Rule Province at DC 10 + target level, since only province attitude, skill bonus, and feat bonus apply here, and you only get one chance per season.

Osprey

Don E

08-22-2004, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by irdeggman@Aug 22 2004, 12:39 PM
The bonus to domain actions is indeed a synergy bonus. I don't see how that can be read in any other manner.

Agree, that is absolutely the way the rules are currently written. IMO this is a bed writeup as I think more of a domain action as an abstracation of several skill checks.

The actual action check roll being made counts all modifiers, including appropriate ability modifier.

If the synergy bonus includes all modifiers, then natural ability (as well as feats) are being counted twice. This is against the concepts of the core rules.
Eh, this is not in line with the current writeup of the rules. As things stand now the ability modifier does not come into the equation at all (unless it is in some other chapter that I'm not currently reading). If the rules were rewritten to include the ability modifier I would take this as an argument for making the domain action modifier dependent on the total skill bonus instead of giving a greater imporance on the abilities than skill ranks.

When it comes to feats the change to using total skill instead of ranks could remove the actual need for any domain specific skills, as the skill focus (and possibly greater skill focus) feats could be used instead.

ConjurerDragon

08-22-2004, 04:50 PM

Osprey schrieb:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2784

>

> Osprey wrote:

>...

>There is a different way to go about this besides changing the divisor - which is adjusting the base DC`s for Domain Actions. Possibly raising base DC`s to 15 instead of 10. The reason I prefer this approach is because it gives slightly more power to skills vs. RP. If you increase the divisor (especially to something as high as 8!), it makes RP even more powerful than in the BRCS. As it is, RP will always remain the utterly dominant power in domain actions, but this way skills will have slightly bigger effects seperate from RP - which I think makes for a more interesting game where the competence of regents remain significant factors.Also keep in mind, general skill bonuses tend to be less than actual ranks, especially for higher level characters, so don`t get too carried away by over-compensating for fear of skill bonuses making things too easy. Osprey

>

A way to prevent too much bonuses to domain actions without changing the

DC and without changing the divisor would be to use a rule similar to

the AC bonus of the Duelist class (can add 1 point of his Intelligence

bonus to his AC - but only 1 per his duelist class level). If a regent

can add 1 point of statbonus, synergybonus or whatever bonus but only 1

/ characterlevel it will not be unbalancing.

bye

Michael

Athos69

08-22-2004, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by irdeggman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (irdeggman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Skill modifier (pg 103)

“(Full domain actions only) +1 for every 5 ranks that the regent has in the relevent skill.”

The bonus to domain actions is indeed a synergy bonus. I don't see how that can be read in any other manner.

The actual action check roll being made counts all modifiers, including appropriate ability modifier.[/b]
Duane, nowhere in that text does it specify that the Domain scale skill bonus is a Synergy modifier. I have always read 1/5 as being a scaling factor from character scale play to Domain scale play.

Further, as this is strictly dependant on ranks, there is no adjustment based on ability, supporting synergistic skills or supporting feats, save where a feat specifies that it has a Domain level effect. The word 'ranks' in the quoted section exclude all of these influences.

<!--QuoteBegin-RaspK
Any art teacher can tell you that talented people only have a gift to BECOME better; a student with little talent who has given everything to his exercise can be better than another student with lots of talent who has never exercised.[/quote]

Yes, but that student who outperformed the 'natural' has placed enough skill ranks into the Art skill to produce a better overall skill modifier than the 'natural'.

The Jew

08-22-2004, 08:33 PM

I believe that I, Duane and others were calling it a synergy bonus since iyt is a bonus based upon 5 ranks in a skill, extremely similar to a synergy bonus. Still, I must agree with Osprey and Athos that it need not be considered a synergy bonus.

One recieves a synergy bonus because you have training in an area that is related to another skill. With the skills that are being used as a base for Domain actions, the skills are not related, they are the skill that is required for the Domain action. The +1 for every 5 ranks is a way to integrate the skill rules from 3.5 with domain action rules, using rules similar to the synergy bonus. What Osprey, Athos and I want to do is make to make it closer to a skill check with the total skill modifier being divided by X and then modified by a d20 to determine success of a domain action.

Neither method is contradictory to 3.5 rules. Each is just a different method for translating skills into modifiers for a domain action check.

RaspK_FOG

08-22-2004, 10:46 PM

Actually, there is no such thing as a synergy bonus under 3.5e; the term was deemed obsolete.

irdeggman

08-22-2004, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Aug 22 2004, 05:46 PM
Actually, there is no such thing as a synergy bonus under 3.5e; the term was dimmed (spelling?) obsolete.
Not exactly true. The term is not classed a synergy bonus in the description of each skill but pg 66 of the PHB talks about skill synergies.

The reason they are not specifically called synergy bonuses is so that they do not fall into the "no two same type of bonuses stack" except for dodge, circumstance and racial bonuses (unless specifically detailed in the description). Hence bonuses from synergies will stack.

RaspK_FOG

08-22-2004, 11:12 PM

That's what I meant in the first place.

irdeggman

08-22-2004, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Don E@Aug 22 2004, 09:36 AM

The actual action check roll being made counts all modifiers, including appropriate ability modifier.

If the synergy bonus includes all modifiers, then natural ability (as well as feats) are being counted twice.* This is against the concepts of the core rules.
Eh, this is not in line with the current writeup of the rules. As things stand now the ability modifier does not come into the equation at all (unless it is in some other chapter that I'm not currently reading). If the rules were rewritten to include the ability modifier I would take this as an argument for making the domain action modifier dependent on the total skill bonus instead of giving a greater imporance on the abilities than skill ranks.

Actually it is pretty much what is written.

From pg 102 of the BRCS-playtest under Resolving Actions

“Domain actions, like many combat actions, are not automatically successful. Many require a domain action check. A domain action check is the roll of 1d20 plus any modifiers. The base Difficulty Class of a domain check is dependent on the specific action attempted. The following modifiers commonly apply to success rolls for domain actions:”

The BRCS then goes on to list some other modifiers that can apply. It leaves off the ones from the PHB (ability modifiers and total ranks) since they always apply to skill checks and these are given as skill checks.

As a rule of thumb if the BRCS doesn't specifically state otherwise then the mechanics are exactly as they are in the PHB. I guess that statement should have been included in the Intro but I know it has been frequently been stated by myself and others since the BRCS-playtest was issued.

The Jew

08-22-2004, 11:31 PM

This really needs to be spelled out in the revised version if it remains. I played in Raesene Andu's short lived game and with a couple other DM's, and none of them new of this rule.

irdeggman

08-22-2004, 11:42 PM

Let's look at this Domain Action Check thing again. I think people are getting confused here. The present wording doesn't help.

With some exceptions all domain actions involve a skill check. {Keep this in mind it is a real important concept}. There is a base DC associated with the check. This check can be adjusted via the use of RP (essentially raising or lowering the DC of the action, call these situational modifiers).

I have already quoted the section that says to make 1d20 roll:

“Domain actions, like many combat actions, are not automatically successful. Many require a domain action check. A domain action check is the roll of 1d20 plus any modifiers. The base Difficulty Class of a domain check is dependent on the specific action attempted. The following modifiers commonly apply to success rolls for domain actions:”

Keep in mind this is actually a skill check. There are only so many different types of checks available in d20 - combat rolls, skill checks, saving throws, ability checks. I can't think of any others. Some results are determined by random rolls but those aren't rolls that determine the success or failure of an action.

Rereading the section in the BRCS-playtest talking about the bonuses:

"Skill modifier: (Full domain actions only) +1 for every 5 ranks that the regent has in the relevant skill. Each domain action is dependent on a specific skill listed in its description. If the regent sacrifices his character action to take a personal hand in the implementation of the domain action, then the domain action receives a bonus proportionate to the regent's skill."

What this is really saying is that if the regent performs the action himself he uses his personal skill check, otherwise only the +1 for every 5 ranks can be used. This is less than what the regent would be using since his ability score as well as the full value of his ranks are taken into effect. It was set up to capture some basic amount of simple direction that the regent is giving to those carrying out the action. If a Lt is performing the action his check value is likewise substituted for the +1/5 ranks since he is personally overseeing the action.

What is actually happening if the regent isn't doing the action himself is that an untrained skill check is being made by someone without any ability score or feat bonuses to apply. That is some unnamed, unknown beurocrat (spelling).

If one keeps in mind that this is indeed a skill check then everything starts to fall into place. The more I look this over I think the +1/5 ranks bonus should just be eliminated - it causes more confusion and straying from the core rules than it is worth, IMO.

The Jew

08-23-2004, 12:03 AM

I think these rule are getting pretty (place expletive here). A 5th level regent can have 8 ranks in administrate. Throw in a +3 for a 16 int and a +3 from a skill focus and he ends with a +14 modifier. This means he can raise a 6th level province to 7th level while only needing a 2+ on his role. This is not even counting the master administrator feat which would allow him to to raise an 8th level province to 9th level with just a 2+ role.

Well Osprey you got what you wanted. Skills play a MUCH bigger role than regency or gold does now. :P

RaspK_FOG

08-23-2004, 12:11 AM

It is bureaucrat, since you asked, Irdeggman.

Athos69

08-23-2004, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by irdeggman@Aug 22 2004, 04:42 PM
What is actually happening if the regent isn't doing the action himself is that an untrained skill check is being made by someone without any ability score or feat bonuses to apply. That is some unnamed, unknown beurocrat (spelling).

If one keeps in mind that this is indeed a skill check then everything starts to fall into place. The more I look this over I think the +1/5 ranks bonus should just be eliminated - it causes more confusion and straying from the core rules than it is worth, IMO.
OK, if we get rid of the +1 per 5 ranks, then for actions that are left to the Court as well as Court actions (even if part of Realm actions) can we instead limit the bonus to an action to the Court's Base Reputation Modifier, to represent the increased skill available to a larger Court?

Athos69

08-23-2004, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by The Jew@Aug 22 2004, 05:03 PM
I think these rule are getting pretty (place expletive here). A 5th level regent can have 8 ranks in administrate. Throw in a +3 for a 16 int and a +3 from a skill focus and he ends with a +14 modifier. This means he can raise a 6th level province to 7th level while only needing a 2+ on his role. This is not even counting the master administrator feat which would allow him to to raise an 8th level province to 9th level with just a 2+ role.

Well Osprey you got what you wanted. Skills play a MUCH bigger role than regency or gold does now. :P
Jonah, I can see where this is getting a bit overpowered.

My proposal would be to use the total Skill bonus, divided by 5 and rounded down as the Regent's personal bonus to performing a Domain action. This reflects all of the ability, feats and skill that he has to accomplish the task.

In the case of any Court actions, including those that are melded to Domain actions to form Realm Actions, the total Domain skill bonus should be limited to the same level as the Court reputation bonus.

A good example would be Agitate. Duke Alam wishes to Agitate his provinces to greater loyalty. He will personally oversee the most difficult province, and assign the other provinces to trusted members of the Court. The Duke has a toal Skill bonus of +12 to his Lead skill, which translates to a +2 to his Action check. The Duke is maintaining a Level 4 Court, granting him 2 Court actions, and a +1 Court modifier.

The Duke's Agitate attempt will have a +2 bonus to the roll, and the other 2 actions will only have a +1 to the roll.

What this does is to make higher level courts more valuable, and abilities of a high-level Court may even outstrip the Regent himself.

It only makes sense that a higher level court will be able to afford a higher skill level of bureaucrat, advisor and servant.

The ripple effect of this would be to reduce the role of Lieutenants, but it is then possible to have some extremely specialized skill sets in the Lt corps to deal with specific issues.

Osprey

08-23-2004, 04:44 AM

My proposal would be to use the total Skill bonus, divided by 5 and rounded down as the Regent's personal bonus to performing a Domain action. This reflects all of the ability, feats and skill that he has to accomplish the task.

And this is all I have ever advocated from the start. I'm happy with this system, it is in fact the way I've been running my own BRCS campaign for a long time now, and I find it works pretty well.

Jonah, I want skills to play a significant role, which this version does just fine in my book - as I said earlier, I still think RP (and maybe GB) should be the ultimate "big guns" of political power.

In the case of any Court actions, including those that are melded to Domain actions to form Realm Actions, the total Domain skill bonus should be limited to the same level as the Court reputation bonus.

I would rather stick with the BRCS version, in that the Court's Reputation modifier only applies to Diplomacy actions.

One option, which I've used for source regents but which could be extended to all regents, is that an invested Lt. (and ONLY an invested Lt.) can be assigned to each additional holding affected by a Realm Action. This would significantly raise the value of having gifted Lts.

However, limiting regent skill bonuses to one province per action round, while perhaps the most realistic, would also severely limit the advantage of having high rulership skills for most domain actions except Rule Province. Here my feeling is that for the sake of keeping the regents in the starring roles on the political stage, I would prefer that regents be allowed to apply their skill bonuses to entire realm actions. This allows PC regents (and NPC competitors) to remain personally important, if not vital, to the rise and fall of their domains. Dramatic emphasis, if you will, for the sake of the game.

Osprey

08-23-2004, 05:26 AM

Irdeggman,

I feel I need to respond here because I am 99.9% certain of how the BRCS rules intended things - I imagine if we got Doom on the boards he could resolve it for us, as I assumed he wrote this chapter originally.

But lacking this luxury, please bear with me. You once warned me of the danger of assuming long-used rules interpretations and house-rules are doctrine; since then I have asked myself that question every time I get into a discussion about the BRCS revision project. Now I ask you to take a step back and do the same, and consider if perhaps you might not be reading these rules based on some long-standing assumptions of your own. I believe I have some very sound reasons for disagreement here. So if you would, bear with me while I walk through my reasoning here.

First, let's review this definition from the BRCS document:

Full domain action: Some standard domain actions are so important that the regent chooses to (or must) personally oversee the action. A full domain action consists of both the standard domain action that is the focus of the regent's mechanism of governance and the regent's character action. A regent can spend regency to support full domain actions. A regent that personally oversees the affairs of his realm is eligible to gain bonuses to domain action checks due to skill synergies.

Now review this section (the one you posted), in which it references skill bonuses to domain actions. Once again, it emphasizes that skill bonuses may only be applied when a Full Domain Action is taken.

Skill modifier: (Full domain actions only) +1 for every 5 ranks that the regent has in the relevant skill. Each domain action is dependent on a specific skill listed in its description. If the regent sacrifices his character action to take a personal hand in the implementation of the domain action, then the domain action receives a bonus proportionate to the regent's skill.

To me, this says very specifically: the skill bonus a regent gains from using a character action to direct a domain action equals +1 per 5 ranks in the key skill for that domain action.

The last sentence of the quoted paragraph is really just rephrasing the main idea of the skill synergy bonus. A bonus proportionate to the regent's skill does not mean the same as the regent's skill, but rather that it is in proportion to the regent's skill; i.e., a fraction of the total skill. Hence, it is saying in words what the first sentence already said. Not the best writing for certain, but I think if you read this very carefully you'll find that there is no specific mention of ever including a regent's total skill bonus in resolving a domain action.

I believe you have made the assumption that BRCS domain actions are just like skill checks because you assume the 3.0 core rules were used as a basis. In fact, consider the BRCS rules as a "new and improved" version of the original 2e BR domain rules adapted to 3.0, and it makes a bit more sense that these rules were always meant to be their own set of rules (for instance, the DC's for domain action checks are nearly identical to the original 2e values). The skill synergy bonus was, I believe, a general concept borrowed from 3.0 skill rules because it made a degree of logical sense - but it should also be obvious that the core rules were not adhered to - the actual synergy bonus is calculated differently, and there are all sorts of other modifiers to domain action checks specific to domains: attitudes, holding levels, RP, and occasionally GB. If you consider that the BRCS rules were intended to try and maintain the pre-existing domain levels of balance, it should be easy to understand why the skill synergy bonus was limited to +1 per 5 ranks: it kept things close to the original values and themes, where RP was the overwhelmingly dominant power in most cases. Allowing total skill bonuses to add to domain action checks would have made RP and GB FAR less significant, seriously upsetting the balance of Birthright as anyone knows it. I don't believe the BRCS writers had any intention of upsetting the original game that badly - they were writing a 3e conversion of the 2e game, not a complete revision.

Convinced yet? I hope so, I'd ike us all to be on the same page on this one, it's pretty basic to working from the same place if we are to use the BRCS at all as a launch point for the 3.5 revision project.

Cheers! :)

Osprey

Don E

08-23-2004, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Athos69@Aug 23 2004, 02:06 AM
My proposal would be to use the total Skill bonus, divided by 5 and rounded down as the Regent's personal bonus to performing a Domain action. This reflects all of the ability, feats and skill that he has to accomplish the task.
Yup, I think this is the system most people are in favour of, and some of us have already played with. While the divisor might be any number, I thikn 5 is suitable both for simplicity and to give a dedent range off modifiers, even for low and mid level characters.

Don E

08-23-2004, 09:23 AM

I think the issue of total skill bonus or ranks only on action modifiers is a relatively straight forward case that might easily be settled by a poll. There shouldn't be much ambiguity in a poll with the options: Total bonus, ranks and abstain.

irdeggman

08-23-2004, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Don E@Aug 23 2004, 04:23 AM
I think the issue of total skill bonus or ranks only on action modifiers is a relatively straight forward case that might easily be settled by a poll. There shouldn't be much ambiguity in a poll with the options: Total bonus, ranks and abstain.
Before you get to a poll on this issue, first how domain action skill checks needs to be resolved. That seems to be at the crux of the matter.

irdeggman

08-23-2004, 12:51 PM

I feel I need to respond here because I am 99.9% certain of how the BRCS rules intended things - I imagine if we got Doom on the boards he could resolve it for us, as I assumed he wrote this chapter originally.

I am 100% sure, since Doom, Mark_Aurel and I had these discussions when the chapter was being written, that the domain action checks were supposed to be skill checks. This was based on the fact that the 2nd ed Domain check system was the single closest thing to 3.0 mechanics there was at the time. The part that got mucked up was the +1/5 ranks issue.

But lacking this luxury, please bear with me. You once warned me of the danger of assuming long-used rules interpretations and house-rules are doctrine; since then I have asked myself that question every time I get into a discussion about the BRCS revision project. Now I ask you to take a step back and do the same, and consider if perhaps you might not be reading these rules based on some long-standing assumptions of your own. I believe I have some very sound reasons for disagreement here. So if you would, bear with me while I walk through my reasoning here.

First, let's review this definition from the BRCS document:

QUOTE
Full domain action: Some standard domain actions are so important that the regent chooses to (or must) personally oversee the action. A full domain action consists of both the standard domain action that is the focus of the regent's mechanism of governance and the regent's character action. A regent can spend regency to support full domain actions. A regent that personally oversees the affairs of his realm is eligible to gain bonuses to domain action checks due to skill synergies.

Now review this section (the one you posted), in which it references skill bonuses to domain actions. Once again, it emphasizes that skill bonuses may only be applied when a Full Domain Action is taken.

QUOTE
Skill modifier: (Full domain actions only) +1 for every 5 ranks that the regent has in the relevant skill. Each domain action is dependent on a specific skill listed in its description. If the regent sacrifices his character action to take a personal hand in the implementation of the domain action, then the domain action receives a bonus proportionate to the regent's skill.

To me, this says very specifically: the skill bonus a regent gains from using a character action to direct a domain action equals +1 per 5 ranks in the key skill for that domain action.

The last sentence of the quoted paragraph is really just rephrasing the main idea of the skill synergy bonus. A bonus proportionate to the regent's skill does not mean the same as the regent's skill, but rather that it is in proportion to the regent's skill; i.e., a fraction of the total skill. Hence, it is saying in words what the first sentence already said. Not the best writing for certain, but I think if you read this very carefully you'll find that there is no specific mention of ever including a regent's total skill bonus in resolving a domain action.

Actually I think you have made my point exactly. The skill bonuses only apply to Full Domain Actions. And that a Full Domain Action consists of both a standard domain action and a character action. This means that when a regent uses the Full Domain Action, he must use both a standard and character action to accomplish it. He can then apply RP to the action and his full modifiers, since it is a character action. The wording in the skill modifier paragraph implies that there is a difference when the regent performs the action himself (i.e., uses a character action). This by the first part of the sentence “If a regent sacrifices his character action. . . .” Otherwise there is no difference with respect to skills if the regent takes a personal hand or not.

I believe you have made the assumption that BRCS domain actions are just like skill checks because you assume the 3.0 core rules were used as a basis. In fact, consider the BRCS rules as a "new and improved" version of the original 2e BR domain rules adapted to 3.0, and it makes a bit more sense that these rules were always meant to be their own set of rules (for instance, the DC's for domain action checks are nearly identical to the original 2e values). The skill synergy bonus was, I believe, a general concept borrowed from 3.0 skill rules because it made a degree of logical sense - but it should also be obvious that the core rules were not adhered to - the actual synergy bonus is calculated differently, and there are all sorts of other modifiers to domain action checks specific to domains: attitudes, holding levels, RP, and occasionally GB. If you consider that the BRCS rules were intended to try and maintain the pre-existing domain levels of balance, it should be easy to understand why the skill synergy bonus was limited to +1 per 5 ranks: it kept things close to the original values and themes, where RP was the overwhelmingly dominant power in most cases. Allowing total skill bonuses to add to domain action checks would have made RP and GB FAR less significant, seriously upsetting the balance of Birthright as anyone knows it. I don't believe the BRCS writers had any intention of upsetting the original game that badly - they were writing a 3e conversion of the 2e game, not a complete revision.

I know for a fact that domain action system was based on the 3.0 skill system and was supposed to follow it as closely as possible. I was part of those discussions. Some things got slipped in that weren’t specifically discussed, like the +1/5 ranks bonus issue which caused a lot of confusion.

Convinced yet? I hope so, I'd ike us all to be on the same page on this one, it's pretty basic to working from the same place if we are to use the BRCS at all as a launch point for the 3.5 revision project.

Regardless of what the BRCS-playtest’s (and Doom’s) intention was it is time to revise this chapter. I’m convinced that this is a confusing issue and the group (i.e., everyone out there) should look at how the domain action system should work.

Start with what the check is and how it is resolved and then figure out what bonuses should apply and not the reverse. IMO the base DC of the domain successes are too low, but this is subjective and the appropriate DC can be determined after the overall process is decided on. Do not assume that the BRCS-playtest is good to go as written, there is a lot of room for changes here and this needs to be the basis of work.

Too date none of the chapters that have been sanctioned or had portions sanctioned have been an easy ‘fix’, I see that as the norm. It is just a matter of dedication to the process, running several mini-polls to see what people want. Always keeping mind that the system should do its best to conform to the 3.5 mechanics. There are times when this is not possible, but so far I haven’t been convinced this is one of them.

Osprey

08-23-2004, 07:10 PM

I am 100% sure, since Doom, Mark_Aurel and I had these discussions when the chapter was being written, that the domain action checks were supposed to be skill checks.
Well, OK, I guess I have to take your word for it since I wasn't there. Just seems odd that it was never explicitly stated that a regent added his entire skill bonus to a full domain action check, while the +1 per 5 ranks bonus was quite explicit. If this was meant to be a skill check, the writing is then (no offense) extremely poor. I read over this chapter about 10 times before using the BRCS rules in my playtest campaign, just to make sure I got them down, and I never found anything stating that a regent could add his full skill bonus to any domain action.

Anyways, I'm going to move on from here, as I wanted to voice some playtesting comments based on using the rules as I had understood them, which is the +1 per 5 ranks synergy bonus ONLY on full domain actions. After a short time I converted to a +1 per +5 system, as is being proposed. Since I've been playtesting with that system for over a year now, I may be able to shed some light on a re-worked system that uses a +1 per +5 skill bonus to full domain actions.

In comparison to the original 2e system, which had almost identical DC's to the BRCS, I found that all actions became extraordinarily easier once a regent had acquired some key skills and feats. As we already know, Master Administrator was an uber-feat, that has been rectified by re-working different key skills for different manipulating different holding types (Province: Administrate; Law: Lead; Temple: Diplomacy; Guild: P/Merchant; Source: K/Nature). Also, now that low-level characters can't get Master feats, the problem of high domain skill bonuses at low levels has also been rectified.

With these fixes in place, the low-level game works fairly well. However, once characters start hitting mid-levels, skill bonuses can mount up significantly. This becomes extremely important for the Rule Province action, where the skill bonus is everything. Attitudes also have an effect, but at best grant only a +1 bonus.

In the original game, Rule Province was DC 10 + target level. So DC 14 to rule a province from level 3 to 4. However, RP could be spent to support the action, virtually guaranteeing success unless another regent with a holding in the province opposed the action. Also, a different province could be ruled each month if a regetn so desired. In the BRCS, RP could NOT be spent, making the action somewhat more challenging. Also, only one province could be Ruled per season, another move to limit province growth. Both good moves in the right direction [toward game balance] on the part of the BRCS, IMHO.

Nonetheless, in my campaign I found province growth still hit runaway levels very quickly. One of the reasons for this is how skill bonuses can mount up, while the DC's for actions don't increase nearly as quickly.

For instance while a 3rd level noble, with 6 ranks in Administrate and a 15 Intelligence (+8 Admin) gains only a +1 bonus to the action, the same regent at 12th level now has +20 Administrate (15 ranks, +2 Master Administrator, +3 for 16 Int) and the feat Regent Focus: Rule Province. This gives him a total of +10 to Rule Province (+4 skill bonus, +4 Regent Focus, +2 Master Admin). At DC 10 + target level, he is highly likely to succeed on any rule province action, and even ruling a province to level 10 (DC 20) he has a 50% chance of success - 55% (+11 bonus) if the province is Helpful in attitude. These are extremely good odds for such a monumental accomplishment.

Now, if all of the same rules are maintained, but the base DC for most domain actions is raised to 15 + target level, ruling a province to level 5 is DC 20 but ruling it to level 10 is DC 25 - still a 30% chance for a Helpful province with a dedicated, accomplished regent like the 12th level noble above (a roll of 14+ on a d20 would succeed). And of course higher level regents can even get a few more bonuses from having the Skill Focus feat, ability-enhancing items (like a Headband of Intellect), and higher ranks in the skill.

Making Rule Province a more difficult action will, IMO, go a long way toward maintaining the lower-level balance that is presented in Ruins of Empire, and keeping those high level provinces as the exception rather than the rule even in a long (5+ years) campaign. In the current rule system, the RoE setup becomes pretty unbelievable once PC and NPC regents with any degree of competence start ruling up one province after another to high levels. One wonders why Anuire (or an place in Cerilia) isn't filled with level 8-10 provinces in every realm with a competent regent.

A higher DC, coupled with my earlier proposal limiting the speed of province growth (one province per season ruled, one level per province per year limit), will go a long way toward slowing the runaway pace of high level province growth, and help preserve the feel of the original setting, where a level 6+ province is a rare and valuable commodity, and the Imperial City is the only level 10 province for good reason. Let's make the rules reflect the map, and the themes implied therein.

Osprey

Athos69

08-23-2004, 07:58 PM

I really hat 'me to' posts, but: Hear, Hear Osprey...

I especially like the differing Key Skills for the holding types. It realy gives value to P/Merchant, which for most rogues was a throw-away skill, and it really forces source regents to put ranks into K/Nature, instead of focusing on Spellcraft, K/Arcana and Concentration.

A higher DC for Rule Province is one thing, but how much more challenging are we going to make other actions?

We also need to watch out for 'RP creep' too... It's the tendancy for people to amass huge amounts of RP because they don't have anything to spend it on.

irdeggman

08-23-2004, 08:08 PM

I agree with Athos69.

IMO the simplest fix would be to raise the DC of all domain actions This would allow for a more direct usage of the skill bonuses without adverse or complicated modifications. It would also make it much harder for these actions to be performed successfully without the use of RP. A side benefit being that non-blooded regents (they are currently allowed per the BRCS) are even less effective since they would have to have high skill ranks (or a lot of positive modifiers) to come close to being successful on domain actions.

Without checking or running the numbers perhaps a base of 20 for the DC might not be too difficult.

It doesn't have to be as low as the original numbers from 2nd ed since there are more ways to increase the roll for character then there was in 2nd ed.

Note Osprey, I never said that the writing in the BRCS was good, especially not the final chapters that were rushed out to meet the deadline (this was one of them).

But back to my earlier statement.

How do people want the domain action checks to work?
Like skill checks?
Something entirely different?
Something else?

Again don't get locked into what was written in the BRCS-playtest. With the issuance of 3.5 many things have changed mechanics wise.

Athos69

08-23-2004, 08:18 PM

Personally, I'd like to have a domain-scale skill check.

The concept is that we use the entire skill bonus with all modifiers added in, *then* divide by 5 to determine the Domain-scale skill bonus.

That way, there is a reasonable chance that Court actions will be successful, and we don't throw out the delicate balance between Court and Domain actions. I would also stipulate that a Domain action automatically involves either the Regent or a Lt., and negates the possibility of that character performing a Character action in that month. Court actions should have the skill bonus calculated in the same fashion as the current BRCS -- +1 per 5 RANKS the Regent has, since he is only giving advice and direction, not actively seeing to the execution of the tasks.

I see a Domain skill check as being an amalgam of multiple uses of the skill in question, only simplified into one roll.

irdeggman

08-23-2004, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Athos69@Aug 23 2004, 03:18 PM

I see a Domain skill check as being an amalgam of multiple uses of the skill in question, only simplified into one roll.
An example of a single skill check covering a period of time is the profession skill check. The check is made once a week and covers what the character has been doing the entire week.

So there is a correllary between a monthly skill check and an existing skill check (i.e., profession - 1/week).

Osprey

08-24-2004, 03:37 AM

In setting DC's for Domain Actions, one question I must ask is whether or not we want to keep the general format of the original system, in that non-landed holdings were always of equal difficulty with provinces, but far cheaper and could be manipulated en masse with realm actions. In other words, holdings are far easier to rule and contest, especially given that they can be supported or opposed by other holdings in most cases.

I would be in favor of setting base DC's at 15. From my last post, it's obvious this was determined by working out a reasonably challenging (but not impossible) DC for the Rule Province Action. In part because it keeps things standardized, in part because it's still echoing the original 2e domain rules, I would keep the base DC's for manipulating other holding types at DC 15 + Target Level also. Since Rule Holding is based on pure skill, then we can reason that it should be equally challenging to rule a holding without the use of RP. RP, of course, will make it easy unless the action is opposed by other regents or holdings - something that can't be done to a regent ruling a province. With this in mind, one should consider RP to be the flexible capital that can be equally opposed - which is why I don't favor raising DC's for Holdings just to force regents to spend RP to raise their holdings. What should force regents to spend RP is competing with rival regents - this is to me what is at the heart of the BR domain game.

So, I propose that DC 15 + Target Level should be the base DC for all Create, Contest, and Rule actions (both province and holding). Active competition and rivalry should take care of the rest of the balancing act, as most of Cerilia is heavily interlaced with mixed-regent holdings in all of the larger provinces.

The concept is that we use the entire skill bonus with all modifiers added in, *then* divide by 5 to determine the Domain-scale skill bonus.

Agreed - this is another way of stating the system we have been advocating from early on.

I would also stipulate that a Domain action automatically involves either the Regent or a Lt., and negates the possibility of that character performing a Character action in that month.

This is a rather dramatic departure from the original rules, where a regent could give general directions to his court while being off on an adventure or what not. Can you make a convincing case for why such a drastic change is necessary or desirable?

Court actions should have the skill bonus calculated in the same fashion as the current BRCS -- +1 per 5 RANKS the Regent has, since he is only giving advice and direction, not actively seeing to the execution of the tasks.

I'm not really convinced that a regent's skill bonus should be applied to any domain action at all unless a Character Action is used. I mean, just how far should a regent be allowed to spread his time and attention? Also, I think having your idea of +1 per 5 ranks will confuse things a lot, which I'd prefer to avoid. Better to use the same system of calculation but on a lesser scale to represent the concept you're describing - like +1 per +10 total skill bonus. Honestly, most Court Actions have no DC at all, so this is mainly a non-issue. The only exception are Court Actions used to extend a Standard Domain Action into a Realm Action, but these are something of a special use of court actions that are being used to extend the effects of a full domain action. Realm Actions should, I think, be discussed as a system seperate from other Court Actions.

Osprey

RaspK_FOG

08-24-2004, 03:50 AM

I believe that the use of actions should be handled this way, now that things are coming around: either use a long-term check (like the weekly check for Craft and Profession checks), or
someone does the dirty work for you.
I believe it would be best if someone else did the work for you when you did not participate in the action personally (no skill check). However, there is the issue of determining ones statistics.

Don E

08-24-2004, 12:16 PM

I would personally see Domain Action checks separate from chracter level skill checks. The reasons are many, but I'll list the ones that come to mind at the moment:

1) While there were no skills in 2e similar to what we have now, changing the rules to make them in line with the skill rules in the PHB will change the game drastically. No longer are domains something large and abstarct, but rather a simple 'item' that allows the regent to use skills on a much larger scale unheard of in regular skill use.

2) It opens the can of worms where one ideally should keep track of the highest skill level of all relevant skills in each court for those cases when the regent does not personally perform the action, but instead leaves it to is underlings. Saying that the court won't have the necessary skill is a rather unrealistic handwave here.

3) The issue of using RP to support other skills also comes up. If RP can be used one some skills. i.e. those select few that have domain actions associated with them, why can't they be used with the other skills?

4) Other skills check are all representations of a character doing something on his own. A domain action, according to the current description, is more or less fully performed by other people. Following this reasoning a master smith should then be allowed to make a skill check if his journeymen and apprentices are doing some work under his instructions.

I think the easiest option, and one most in line with 2e, would be to not allow any character bonus to domain actions. I know that the feats have already been 'sanctioned', but I wanted to say it anyway :)

Cheers.

Arius Vistoon

08-24-2004, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Don E@Aug 24 2004, 01:16 PM
4) Other skills check are all representations of a character doing something on his own. A domain action, according to the current description, is more or less fully performed by other people. Following this reasoning a master smith should then be allowed to make a skill check if his journeymen and apprentices are doing some work under his instructions.

i agree with :)
and it's exactly my opinionn too

Osprey

08-24-2004, 02:10 PM

Don,

I think your reasons refute equating domain actions to skill checks quite well, and I agree on those grounds.

However, I don't think they refute a regent's (or Lt's) personal skills having some effect on a domain action.

4) Other skills check are all representations of a character doing something on his own. A domain action, according to the current description, is more or less fully performed by other people. Following this reasoning a master smith should then be allowed to make a skill check if his journeymen and apprentices are doing some work under his instructions.

The "current" (BRCS) description of a full domain action very much includes a regent's personal participation. However, he participates by leading and directing the resources of his court. The domain skill bonus (as we have proposed it) represents the regent's expertise in the action being performed. The reason, however, that it should be scaled is as you say: it's never JUST the regent in action. And even if it were, the average of a month's worth of d20 rolls would be more like a Take 10 result than an actual roll. Finally, the sheer scale of the effects of a domain action, even ruling a source (which is arguably a solo character action), defy the scope of any single character skill. Doesn't matter how busy a person is, no normal skill check, even if performed over the course of a month, should be capable of having domain-scale effects.

To this end, I would vote to keep the original wording/terminology, and call them Domain Action Checks. They are unique in their scope and range of effects, and represent actions on a realm scale, not a single character scale.

Osprey

Don E

08-24-2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 24 2004, 03:10 PM
However, I don't think they refute a regent's (or Lt's) personal skills having some effect on a domain action.

I agree, and think this is 100% a matter of taste varying significantly between players. Hence my suggestion that a poll be made to determine this.

The main argument for choosing no skill modifier in the domain actions is the simplicity it gives and the ease of which the domain rules can be used across a range of different character level rules.

ConjurerDragon

08-24-2004, 04:30 PM

Arius Vistoon schrieb:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2784

>

> Arius Vistoon wrote:

> QUOTE (Don E @ Aug 24 2004, 01:16 PM) 4) Other skills check are all representations of a character doing something on his own. A domain action, according to the current description, is more or less fully performed by other people. Following this reasoning a master smith should then be allowed to make a skill check if his journeymen and apprentices are doing some work under his instructions.

>-----------------------------

>

> i agree with :) and it`s exactly my opinionn too

>

And I don´t agree - an apprentice/journeyman certainly is more likely to

make something without failure when supervised by a mastersmith - even

if the mastersmith does not control him in any moment of the work but

spreads his time among several apprentices. This is not reflected in the

aid another manner, as the master smith could supervise several

apprentices and not just one.

Likewise if a regent personally cares for and spends his time (1 month/

his character action) to ensure the success of a domain action he should

be able to influence the chance of success - regardless if his

underlings do the actual work they feel the gaze of their lord following

their steps and will work better ;-)

bye

Michael

Don E

08-24-2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by ConjurerDragon@Aug 24 2004, 05:30 PM
And I don´t agree - an apprentice/journeyman certainly is more likely to

make something without failure when supervised by a mastersmith - even

if the mastersmith does not control him in any moment of the work but

spreads his time among several apprentices. This is not reflected in the

aid another manner, as the master smith could supervise several

apprentices and not just one.

Yes, which gives the apprentice/journeyman a +2 bonus if the master spends the whole time with him. This is quite different to the whole skill bonus of the master, e.g. +10 or more on a skill check.

Likewise if a regent personally cares for and spends his time (1 month/

his character action) to ensure the success of a domain action he should

be able to influence the chance of success - regardless if his

underlings do the actual work they feel the gaze of their lord following

their steps and will work better ;-)

Following the same reasoning the regents participation should give a +2 bonus on the domain check. Possibly not too far from skill bonus divided by 5 (or some other divisor). :)

Athos69

08-24-2004, 04:53 PM

I say then that we stick with the skill BONUS divided by 5, and increase the base DCs to 15. It's simple, elegant, and preserves the balance.

As I see it, Chapter 5 is pretty much OK as it sits, with only a few things to do in it.

A: Determine how to handle domain bonuses to action checks. In Progress
B: Adjust DCs to deal with the above decision. In Discussion with above.
C: Add new actions to the Action list, along with clarify existing actions. Not Started
D: Discuss RP collection, and how to handle it. Not Started
E: Fix Table 5-5: Court Levels. Ready for Commentary

I am willing to make the fixes on this chapter and post the resulting document in light of the discussions here, if there are no objections.

Mike/Athos

Don E

08-25-2004, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Athos69@Aug 24 2004, 05:53 PM
As I see it, Chapter 5 is pretty much OK as it sits, with only a few things to do in it.
I don't really agree with that. There is still a fundamental question to be answered in how the actual domain actions are divided into various categories. As mentioned I'e earlier there is a significant deviation frmo the 2e rules here, which I don't reall think is necessary. In particular I'd like to point out the whole issue of the wizard running of adventuring while his court casts the realm spells. A fundamental shift in philosphy I don't agree with.

Osprey

08-25-2004, 01:48 PM

In particular I'd like to point out the whole issue of the wizard running of adventuring while his court casts the realm spells. A fundamental shift in philosphy I don't agree with.

Agreed. As mebhaighal can only be manipulated by elves or blooded mages in the 2e rules, it makes sense that a Character Action should be necessary to affect sources and ley lines. This then limits source actions to the blooded regent and her blooded lieutenants.

A related issue is that of druids: if druids can create, rule, and contest sources, must they also be blooded to do so? My own preference would be to hold them to the same requirement as mages inthis regard - only blooded druids have the necessary potential to affect the realm-scale magic of sources.

A final issue then arises: are druid-made and mage-crafted sources compatible? For instance, can a mage source regent have a blooded druid Lt. who can rule a source in his absence? A tricky question when one is arcane and the other divine. My sense of logic says the two would not be compatible, yet there is no current distinction in types of sources, and creating such a distinction makes for a rather messy system. So for the sake of keeping things simpler, I would be inclined to allow this sort of crossover and say "a source is a source, however one goes about creating and growing it."

Osprey

Don E

08-25-2004, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Athos69@Aug 24 2004, 05:53 PM
As I see it, Chapter 5 is pretty much OK as it sits, with only a few things to do in it.

A: Determine how to handle domain bonuses to action checks. In Progress
B: Adjust DCs to deal with the above decision. In Discussion with above.
C: Add new actions to the Action list, along with clarify existing actions. Not Started
D: Discuss RP collection, and how to handle it. Not Started
E: Fix Table 5-5: Court Levels. Ready for Commentary
Another one, that partially will be depending on how Lieutenants end up working, is wheter the regent can use RP to influence actions he does not personally support. Having played with this rule I have found that it is a good way to limit the extent with which the regent spends his character actions, but it does make for a weird situation if a regent can't support the actions of his own domain, but is able to oppose those of other domains.

I am willing to make the fixes on this chapter and post the resulting document in light of the discussions here, if there are no objections.
I don't think you have many people fighting to take the work off you. I'm heading off on my own 'sabbatical' and would love to see a writeup when I come back.

The Jew

08-25-2004, 03:32 PM

So how do we want to fix the Court Table. I am unsure, since I have no access to the BRCS, but this seems like something that can be run through pretty quickly.

Don E

08-25-2004, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 25 2004, 02:48 PM
A related issue is that of druids: if druids can create, rule, and contest sources, must they also be blooded to do so? My own preference would be to hold them to the same requirement as mages inthis regard - only blooded druids have the necessary potential to affect the realm-scale magic of sources.
I would say that Druids definately should require a bloodline to have access to sources. WHile an unblooded druid could have sources invested to him just like any unblooded character, he would not be able to control or utilize them.

Another question that came up in the discussion of Magicians is wheter a blooded Magician should be allowed to access sources. I think the 2e rules are quite clear on this, saying that once choosing the path of the Magician one looses any hope of accessing realm magic. That said we now have the option of changing this, and would like to hear what other people have to say on this issue.

A final issue then arises: are druid-made and mage-crafted sources compatible? For instance, can a mage source regent have a blooded druid Lt. who can rule a source in his absence? A tricky question when one is arcane and the other divine. My sense of logic says the two would not be compatible, yet there is no current distinction in types of sources, and creating such a distinction makes for a rather messy system. So for the sake of keeping things simpler, I would be inclined to allow this sort of crossover and say "a source is a source, however one goes about creating and growing it."
For simplicity I would say that that sources are the same no matter who created them. Similarly I see no reason why a Wizard Lt should not be able to use a source controlled by a Druid. It would most certainly be a rare occurence, but I see no realm thematic difference between their access to sources.

Osprey

08-25-2004, 03:41 PM

Another question that came up in the discussion of Magicians is wheter a blooded Magician should be allowed to access sources. I think the 2e rules are quite clear on this, saying that once choosing the path of the Magician one looses any hope of accessing realm magic. That said we now have the option of changing this, and would like to hear what other people have to say on this issue.

I would say Magicians should be strictly prohibited from accessing sources. This is a core theme of the BR setting, that those of the lesser path cannot access the vast energies of realm magics and sources.

The Jew

08-25-2004, 03:52 PM

I buy the simplicity argument. It does make some sense that both can use the same sources, if both use know (nature) as the base skill for source based actions.

Druids would definitely need to be blooded, since casting realm spells requires regency, which only scions have.

Magicians should not have access to realm spells, magicians are a birthright creation to allow non-blooded characters access to arcane magic. Their is no reason to change the 2e on this.

Athos69

08-25-2004, 05:05 PM

I never could get formatting to work where a table is concerned, so here goes...

Level Court Type Court Actions Court Reputation Modifier
0 Minimal 0 +0
1 Minimal 0 +0
2 Quaint 0 +0
3 Average 1 +0
4 Average 1 +1
5 Good 2 +1
6 Good 2 +2
7 Excellent 3 +2
8 Excellent 3 +3
9 Opulent 4 +3
10+ World Class 5 +4

The Jew

08-25-2004, 05:21 PM

Level Court Type Court Actions Court Reputation Modifier
0 Minimal 0 +0
1 Minimal 0 +0 (allows Lt's to perform standard or realm actions)
2 Average 1 +0
3 Average 1 +1
4 Good 2 +1
5 Good 2 +2
6 Excellent 3 +2
7 Excellent 3 +3
8 Opulent 4 +3
9 Opulent 4 +4
10+ World Class 5 +4

I would suggest this as a revision. Their is now some gain every level, and the transition from opulent to world class is smoother, rather than gaining both 1 court action and a +1 court reputation from the increase from 9 to 10.

Osprey

08-25-2004, 06:04 PM

I like Jonah's version - a nice ascending series of levels, each with some significance. I also like the idea that at least a minimal court is necessary to utilize Lts. effectively. Nice touch. :)

Athos69

08-25-2004, 06:10 PM

excellent suggestion Jonah -- I guess I'll have to give you a 50% increase in your pay :)

Only potential flaw is that a Court 0 means that the Regent has to personally oversee all actions himself. If we allow Lts to take on actions with a Court 1, is that asking Wizards to pay 1 GB/season and have the Lt work their sources for them? Also, will a Court 1 allow the Regent to let the Court itself perform the actions for him?

The Jew

08-25-2004, 07:20 PM

Osprey

08-25-2004, 08:02 PM

one option would be to allow Lt. actions at a level 0 court, then allow standard actions to be taken, without a character action attatched at a level 1 court. That would solve the problem with the wizards, but still allow for a gain at every level.

That would be a logical conclusion, since level 0 really means no court at all. Since performing a standard action without a character action must be done by the court, it makes sense that you forst NEED a court to be able to do so.

Athos69

08-25-2004, 08:43 PM

I've taken the suggstions and popped them into the table. I just wish I knew how to format a damn table in these messages...

The Jew

08-25-2004, 11:03 PM

OK, so now how about, C: new domain actions and fixing old ones. Who has some ideas on this. Actually maybe a new forum for this may be needed, as this is going to be huge.

The Jew

08-25-2004, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 25 2004, 03:02 PM

one option would be to allow Lt. actions at a level 0 court, then allow standard actions to be taken, without a character action attatched at a level 1 court. That would solve the problem with the wizards, but still allow for a gain at every level.

That would be a logical conclusion, since level 0 really means no court at all. Since performing a standard action without a character action must be done by the court, it makes sense that you forst NEED a court to be able to do so.
So what you are trying to say is that i'm a logical person who makes sense. Why thank you Osprey, you are to kind. :P

Don E

08-26-2004, 03:37 AM

Another question is what actions the Court Reputation modifier should affect. Would this be all actions, or just some?

Athos69

08-26-2004, 06:27 AM

The current rule stated that teh Court Reputation modifier is itself further modified by the Province loyalty to provide a bonus or penalty to members of teh Court in personal skill checks such as Bluff, Diplomacy, Perform, Gather Information and Intimidate. There is no further use than that.

The Jew

08-26-2004, 07:01 AM

What if the court modifier also acted as a bonus for actions, even if the regent is not involved. This represents the higher courts not only being larger, but also highering more specialized and experienced bureacrats, thereby increasing the chance of success. The would apply to standard and realm actions. If the regent or Lt was involved then either modifier is used, whichever is higher. The court modifier merely provides a baseline.

Don E

08-26-2004, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by The Jew@Aug 26 2004, 08:01 AM
What if the court modifier also acted as a bonus for actions, even if the regent is not involved. This represents the higher courts not only being larger, but also highering more specialized and experienced bureacrats, thereby increasing the chance of success. The would apply to standard and realm actions. If the regent or Lt was involved then either modifier is used, whichever is higher. The court modifier merely provides a baseline.
If we go with the regent providing a significant benefit to domain actions I think this would be a reasonable rule.

Osprey

08-26-2004, 01:13 PM

Given that court reps can go as high as +5, this represents a rather potent bonus to any domain action, at least in comparison to skill and feat bonuses. This could be rather unbalancing for low-level regents with high level courts, especially since Lt. levels are limited by the regent's character level, but courts are unrelated in that regard.

Here's my suggestion: Reputation would make an excellent Diplomacy bonus, meaning the Diplomacy domain action. Since RP does NOT modify this action in the BRCS rules, every bonus available becomes very significant. This is where, I think, a Court's Rep could have a powerful influence in helping a regent make a strong impression.

Otherwise I don't think Court Rep should have a direct effect on domain actions - I would prefer that skill/feat bonuses apply only under the efficent direction of the regent or his Lts.

I believe the BRCS Court Rep. can also have an influence in resolving events, with variable positive or negative effects depending on province loyalty. Dunno about this, never thought the event resolution should be rolled on a table anyways.

Osprey

ConjurerDragon

08-26-2004, 03:30 PM

The Jew schrieb:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2784

>

> The Jew wrote:

> What if the court modifier also acted as a bonus for actions, even if the regent is not involved. This represents the higher courts not only being larger, but also highering more specialized and experienced bureacrats, thereby increasing the chance of success. The would apply to standard and realm actions. If the regent or Lt was involved then either modifier is used, whichever is higher. The court modifier merely provides a baseline.

>

Where do Advisors who are not Lieutenants (and thus can´t perform domain

actions on their own) fit into this? The Book of Regency described how

NPC´s could become fleshed out Advisors and degrading them to being just

a part of the court which grants the bonus makes them again vanish in

the anonymous NPC crowd :-(

bye

Michael

The Jew

08-26-2004, 09:07 PM

The highest court modifier available is +4, but that is at a court level of 9, very few would have one that high. It's not unreasonable if base DC's are raised to 15. I would say that would preclude the use of advisors though.

The other option is to go with Ospreys suggestion. Just effect the diplomacy checks and charisma based skill checks for all the court officers. Then allow for advisors. Maybe charge 1GB for 1st level and +1/4 per additional level per season and allow them to add a character bonus to a single court action or a +2 bonus to a single standard action(or realm action too, but not the additional court actions) performed by a regent or Lt. if they make an aid another check.

Raesene Andu

08-27-2004, 01:52 AM

The reputation modifier is meant to only apply to Diplomacy actions, not all domain actions.

I was working on information for adding advisors. A regent can hire an advisor (say a skilled administrator) and this will then give a bonus to court actions. They weren't overly expensive (say 1/2 GB each) and could enable a regent to flesh out his court and not have to spend all his skill points on domain specific skill, but instead hire a few skilled advisors to help out. I used the book of regency information as a base, so similar sorts of advisors to those mentioned there could be hired (including generals to lead your armies).

Lieutenants were different again and provided a bonus court action/domain turn (on top of those provided by court) using their skills to determine result.

I'll take a look and see if I wrote up anything on this and post it if I can find it. In short though, my idea was to expand the idea of a court and allow for advisors, different sorts of courts (temple/guild/province/etc), lieutenants role in courts, etc. I did some work on it about 6months ago, but most of it is still in my head somewhere.

Osprey

08-27-2004, 02:53 AM

I was working on information for adding advisors. A regent can hire an advisor (say a skilled administrator) and this will then give a bonus to court actions.

I can think of only a few Court Actions, though, that would benefit from an Advisor's skill bonuses. Diplomacy and Espionage performed via Embassies and Spy Networks are the main things. Is there really any other skill-based Court Action out there? Currently, it takes a Standard Domain Action to lead a Build Action and maximize output - perhaps this could be changed to a Court Action, but maintaining the P/Engineering check? A Master Architect seems appropriate for an advisor, but not for a regent's Lt.

Maybe we need to expand the list of skill-based Court Actions somewhat if Advisors are to be worthwhile enought o include in the chapter.

Raesene Andu

08-27-2004, 03:59 AM

It is my understanding of the playtest rules, that most domains actions (including rule, contest, etc) use up court actions when used as realm actions. This was one of the major changes from the original rules. So if you want to rule up 2 holdings at once, one holding is ruled up by the lieutenant and the other by his court (or lieutenant or whatever) as the regent can't be everywhere at once. In this case, you could say that the regent's skills could only be used for the main action, and then an advisor or lieutenants skills become very important.

Court actions are not the same as free actions.

The Jew

08-27-2004, 04:48 AM

I like raesenes idea. I always thought it a little ridiculious that character bonuses applied to all the court actions. This will limit regency creep which has occured in the BRCS and provide a use for advisors.

RaspK_FOG

08-27-2004, 06:15 AM

If you want to format a table, switch the font you type with to Courier.
The result
is obvious.

Raesene Andu

08-27-2004, 07:01 AM

As far as skill bonuses applying, there are 3 different situtations where you could apply a bonus due to skill a regent or his advisors might have.

1. Domain Action
Actions supervised by the regent, so use the regent's skills and modifier.

2. Realm Actions
Actions that effect more than 1 holding or province. Use the regent's skills for 1 holding, and the skill of advisors/lieutenants for the rest (or no modifier if you have not advisors/lieutenants but still have a court). Domain action is used for regent's holding/province, court actions are used for additional holdings/provinces. Additional RP can be spent on court/lieutenant actions used this way, but the regent cannot use his skill modifiers except for the province/holding he is currently present at.

3. Court Actions
Actions carried out by the court, with no real need of a regent's presence (used to be called free actions). Build is a good example. In this case, use the skills of a regent's advisors or lieutenant(s).

I do things this way and find it allows the DM more control over the whole domain side of things. It means that a regent's current location is more important as he can only affect holdings where he is present (a line-of-sight kind of regency), while his court handles actions in other provinces.

It also allows a regent not to spend all his skill points on skills that are domain related, instead he can simply hire a couple of good advisors (NPCs who have spent all there skill points on those skills, and possibly taken the right feats as well) and gain bonuses to actions due to their skills.

Each advisor/lieutenant can only look after a single holding or province (so you can't use them for more than one roll each domain turn) and there is only 1 bonus court action due to lieutenant not matter how many lieutenants a regent has, although he can use his lieutenant instead of advisors for court actions.