2nd edition: Rangers collect Regency from Guilds?

[cyrano24100]

Hello There,

A new player pointed out to me that rangers in core Birthright 2ED collect regency from guilds; and he's right! According to page 41; WOW, hold on; I've been playing it wrong all along?

I've looked through the forum archives but I haven't seen a discussion on this; any reason why Rangers should be better "guilders" then say "sherifs?"...

By the way, I don't play the latest 3.5 rules; but my guess is that Ranger has been switched there to receive regency from Law; right?

Someone tell me this is a mis-print in core rules, please!

[kgauck]

Rangers as the ideal woodsman would be able to supervise a timber operation (the number one building material and fuel of the middle ages) without undermining the forest. They might also have some ideas about minerals in the parts they watch over. Finally, rangers are among the best animal guys, and handling herds is a great source of wealth, too.

This is not to say law isn't a good ranger 1/2 regency scenario too.

[cyrano24100]

Rangers as the ideal woodsman would be able to supervise a timber operation (the number one building material and fuel of the middle ages) without undermining the forest. They might also have some ideas about minerals in the parts they watch over. Finally, rangers are among the best animal guys, and handling herds is a great source of wealth, too.

This is not to say law isn't a good ranger 1/2 regency scenario too.

Arg...OK, so it is as I feared; Rangers gain Regency from Guilds only, per rules; I have been house-ruling them getting regency from Law all this time!!

OK; let meseenow about fixing my Birmail now...

Thanks kgauck!

[Lord Rahvin]

Back in my 2e days, I played with a house rule that allowed every PC to
choose a holding type and gain full regency from that holding type,
regardless of class. It just worked better for us. For the most part,
wizards kept to the source holdings and priests kept to the temple holdings,
but the fighters and rogues always chose from LAW or GUILD and we never had
a problem so long as it was role-played. I had a wizard once that chose LAW
and it made perfect sense for the regent character as he played it.

AD&D really tries to hard to get you to play your class and alignment
"appropriately". In the latter days of 2e, we were all writing up various
classes and getting kits and choosing Skills & Options & Combat & Tactics
anyway, that none of those restrictions really made a whole lot of sense
within the game anymore.

I had a Fighter once with (aghast!) the Astrology non-weapon proficiency.
That was a cool character.

On 7/6/07, cyrano24100 <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> Rangers as the ideal woodsman would be able to supervise a timber
> operation (the number one building material and fuel of the middle ages)
> without undermining the forest. They might also have some ideas about
> minerals in the parts they watch over. Finally, rangers are among the best
> animal guys, and handling herds is a great source of wealth, too.
>
> This is not to say law isn`t a good ranger 1/2 regency scenario too.

[AndrewTall]

By the way, I don't play the latest 3.5 rules; but my guess is that Ranger has been switched there to receive regency from Law; right?


Nope, 3e converted NWP's and some abilities such as move silently into 'skills' - and regents now gain RP's based on skills to avoid people picking up a level of thief or fighter just to get an RP boost from another holding type. So you can theoretically build a fighter good at collecting RP from guilds if you want (although they will struggle to get much RP as they probably won't have high skill ranks in the skills required).

[cyrano24100]

I like Lord Ravin's house-rule to make them choose...

I'll have to look at the skill-based method Andy described in 3.5, but the house-rule to make them choose does help make the Player feel "empowered", and takes Priests/Thiefs/Fighters off the fence....

I've re-read the 2nd Edition BR core rules page 41; it looks like Rangers get regency from Guilds, and "Warriors" from Law.... Hold on; does that mean they get regency from BOTH!? Since Rangers are warrior class! Man; I knew Rangers were jazzy and all that; but this is a little much!


Game on.

[Gheal]

I've re-read the 2nd Edition BR core rules page 41; it looks like Rangers get regency from Guilds, and "Warriors" from Law.... Hold on; does that mean they get regency from BOTH!? Since Rangers are warrior class! Man; I knew Rangers were jazzy and all that; but this is a little much!


Nothing special, if compared to Paladins - they have this same advantage. In days past our group had house rule, when rangers can only gain regency from guilds in somewhat untamed provinces - forest, swamp, glacier or mountain.

[Valadrim]

Yes rangers get regency from both, as they are both warriors and rangers. Paladins do not get regency from both temples and law, as they are warriors but not priests. As support I point to page 96 of the Birthright Rulebook. Where it discusses paladin's in the context of domain design. "...and 4 points to get two temple (1) holdings (since she isn't a priest, she must spend two domain points for each temple)."

One would assume that if paladins do not count as priests for the purposes of domain design, then they would also not count as priests for regency collection.

[kgauck]

Page 41 identifies who gets regency from what holdings in 2nd edition, and priests and paladins are listed as getting full regency from temples.

[Valadrim]

*facepalms* yeah, don't know how I missed that... guess thats what happens when you don't pay attention.