Ruling holdings/provinces

[Sean Brown]

O.K.everyone, just looking for a little rules clarification. After
reading the rulebook (several times) what Ii understand for ruling up
provinces/holdings goes something like this: All attempts start at
base 10 (ie must roll equal to or greater than). This is initially
modified by the level that is trying to be attained. (ie when ruling
a Law (6) to a Law (7), the base difficulty is increased to 17) This
number can then be modified either favorably or not by the province
rule or other rules with the same type of holding, up to the level of
the holding the other ruler has. (ie Enemy ruler #1 rules the
province (9), and decides to hinder the rule action, making the
difficulty now 26) After that, you start the bidding to add regency
points to make it easier/ harder to do. This seems to be the easy
part. My questions are:

1) If the person trying to rule a holding owns the province, can
they modify the base chance in their favor, as if another regent owns
the province?

2) If you are trying to rule your own province can you use your
current province level to offset the penalty for the new province
level attampted ?

3) On a completely unrelated topic : Is there any way to case realm
spells on realms that are outside those that you possess sources in
or those that your ley lines cross. I am thinking that spells like
blight and other nasty spells tend to piss off rules of the realms
you have sources in and therefore don't seem to be too beneficial to
the mages.

All for now..I'm sure I can come up with some more in the future :)

Sean

[Robert Harper]

At 06:04 PM 3/13/97 AST, you wrote:

>1) If the person trying to rule a holding owns the province, can
>they modify the base chance in their favor, as if another regent owns
>the province?

I permit Rule attempts on holdings to be modified by friendly province level
whoever owns province. Doesn't make sense to me otherwise.

>2) If you are trying to rule your own province can you use your
>current province level to offset the penalty for the new province
>level attampted ?

I don't permit province level to be used a modifier to chances to rule
province (this would all be eliminate the penalty imposed by the target
province level - so why bother having penalty). Ruling a province is
qualitatively different than ruling a holding within a province.


__________________________________________________ _________________
| |
| We ask ourselves if there is a God, how can this happen? |
| Better to ask, if there is a God, must it be sane? |
| |
| Lucien LaCroix |
|_________________________________________________ __________________|

[swords]

>1) If the person trying to rule a holding owns the province, can
>they modify the base chance in their favor, as if another regent owns
>the province?

In my campaign I would not allow them to make it that much easier.

>2) If you are trying to rule your own province can you use your
>current province level to offset the penalty for the new province
>level attampted ?

This I allow the players to try they use their sway to stop someone from
hindering their efforts.

>3) On a completely unrelated topic : Is there any way to case realm
>spells on realms that are outside those that you possess sources in
>or those that your ley lines cross. I am thinking that spells like
>blight and other nasty spells tend to piss off rules of the realms
>you have sources in and therefore don't seem to be too beneficial to
>the mages.

Your right casting those spells would ruin a mages chances of getting in
good with the local lords. So to cast futhrt away I allow my PC mages to
spend 2 additional gold bars and regency to affect provinces farther away.
Two provinces away 4gb and 4regency.

Michael

[Trevor Romkey]

At 06:04 PM 13/03/97 AST, you wrote:
>O.K.everyone, just looking for a little rules clarification. After
>reading the rulebook (several times) what Ii understand for ruling up
>provinces/holdings goes something like this: All attempts start at
>base 10 (ie must roll equal to or greater than). This is initially
>modified by the level that is trying to be attained.

I'm not sure this is correct...Rule action as described on page 59 makes no
mention of increasing the difficulty based on the target level...

(ie when ruling
>a Law (6) to a Law (7), the base difficulty is increased to 17) This
>number can then be modified either favorably or not by the province
>rule or other rules with the same type of holding,
up to the level of
>the holding the other ruler has.
Further more there seems to be no indication that a regent can not support
the increase of his law level with his own law holding...

(ie Enemy ruler #1 rules the
>province (9), and decides to hinder the rule action, making the
>difficulty now 26) After that, you start the bidding to add regency
>points to make it easier/ harder to do. This seems to be the easy
>part. My questions are:
>
>1) If the person trying to rule a holding owns the province, can
>they modify the base chance in their favor, as if another regent owns
>the province?
Yes
>2) If you are trying to rule your own province can you use your
>current province level to offset the penalty for the new province
>level attampted ?
The rules seem to indicate that you could...however for game balance I'd say
no...

Trevor

[Mick]

Trevor Romkey wrote:
>=20
> At 06:04 PM 13/03/97 AST, you wrote:
> >O.K.everyone, just looking for a little rules clarification. After
> >reading the rulebook (several times) what Ii understand for ruling up
> >provinces/holdings goes something like this: All attempts start at
> >base 10 (ie must roll equal to or greater than). This is initially
> >modified by the level that is trying to be attained.
>=20
> I'm not sure this is correct...Rule action as described on page 59 make=
s no
> mention of increasing the difficulty based on the target level...


I'm quite sure this is correct. It does not note this directly after
the rule action description however. You can find it somewhere before
it in the rule book, I belive when they describe the success roll.

- --=20
"All questions are obvious; to those who know the answers,
Answers are never known; to those who don't understand the
question."

=B0Mick
http://www.earthlink.net/~flammie/
http://www.earthlink.net/~flammie/adnd.html
flammie@earthlink.net

[Sean Brown]

> At 06:04 PM 13/03/97 AST, you wrote:
> >O.K.everyone, just looking for a little rules clarification. After
> >reading the rulebook (several times) what Ii understand for ruling up
> >provinces/holdings goes something like this: All attempts start at
> >base 10 (ie must roll equal to or greater than). This is initially
> >modified by the level that is trying to be attained.
>
> I'm not sure this is correct...Rule action as described on page 59 makes no
> mention of increasing the difficulty based on the target level...
>

Actuall, this is in the rule book (unsure of page), but it explains
this in the section just before the actual explanation of each of the
realm turn actions.

Sean

[Verrrucht@aol.co]

In a message dated 97-03-14 08:39:50 EST, you write:

[Trevor Romkey]

At 07:29 PM 15/03/97 AST, you wrote:
>
>
>> At 06:04 PM 13/03/97 AST, you wrote:
>> >O.K.everyone, just looking for a little rules clarification. After
>> >reading the rulebook (several times) what Ii understand for ruling up
>> >provinces/holdings goes something like this: All attempts start at
>> >base 10 (ie must roll equal to or greater than). This is initially
>> >modified by the level that is trying to be attained.
>>
>> I'm not sure this is correct...Rule action as described on page 59 makes no
>> mention of increasing the difficulty based on the target level...
>>
>
>Actuall, this is in the rule book (unsure of page), but it explains
>this in the section just before the actual explanation of each of the
>realm turn actions.

OK I found it (page48) but if a regent with a similiar holding can
positively modify the roll with his level doesn't this all but eliminate the
negative modifier(eg. rule a law level 3 to 4 base chance is 14+ minus the
regents present holding level of 3 for a base chance of 11+)seems pretty
cumbersome...

Trevor