Regency vs Class [Archive]

kgauck

10-13-2002, 12:09 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Slaine the Horned God" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 4:53 PM

> Ok, this may be a really radical idea but does regency need to be
> based on class in 3E? With the ability for characters to multiclass
> thier seems no need to impose class limits on regency collection. I
> would suggest regency being based solely on holdings established
> and not have any penelties or benefits associated with class. Any
> thoughts or opinions?

This has come up before, and I`d guess that its only a minority that applies
the original class limits. The majority of players apply one of two fixes.
Either they dropped class limits completly, or they relaxed class limits.
IMC, I give rulers full access to regency for one or two types of holdings
based on their character concept. All other holdings generate half regency.
I don`t believe you can be all things to all people.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Raesene Andu

10-13-2002, 12:17 AM

I don't agree to this at all. Just because someone can multi-class does not mean that they will automatically do so. How many people out there have played a fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard? Anyone? To begin with you suffer a -40% penalty to your XP, and how many people are willing to accept that, and secondly, you are noticebly behind a single-classed character of the same level.

Also, if you keep the regency based on class system, then it forces a player to do this, should he wish to gain regency from every holding (either that or hire some loyal vassals) while if, as you suggest, the system is made free for all, then he doesn't need to do this and can remain a single-classed character AND still get the regency he wants.

Anyway, in most cases the regent is actually short changing himself doing things this way. Take Darien Avan for example. He has the strongest bloodline in Anuire (70). From his provinces and law holdings (in Avanil only) he gets 74 RP, which is more than he can collect. If he multi-classed and took over the guilds, temples, and sources, he would still only get 70 RP. However, as it stands, he has a pet guilder who (I guess) would grant him a few RP each turn as part of the vassalage agreement. He has two temples to demand RP and Gold from, and an allied wizard. Sure, he could take command of these personally, and would gain bonus gold, but he would also have to defend them against attack (contest actions) with a limited RP collection of 70 RP. A combined attack from several enemy regents would quickly bring him low without a single army needing to sent into battle.

Remember gold isn't everything. A regent should also be trying to maximise his RP collection as well, and trying to personally control every holding does not work!

Raesene Andu

10-13-2002, 12:35 AM

Orginally posted by kgauck
This has come up before, and I`d guess that its only a minority that applies
the original class limits. The majority of players apply one of two fixes.
Either they dropped class limits completly, or they relaxed class limits.
IMC, I give rulers full access to regency for one or two types of holdings
based on their character concept. All other holdings generate half regency.
I don`t believe you can be all things to all people.

Really? I would have thought it the other way around. The minority drop the class limits and the majority of BR campaigns keep the class limits in place. Personally, I would be in favour of restricting them even further, especially in regard to temple of source holdings. I would require that anyone creating a temple or source holding actually be a wizard or priest first!

Slaine the Horned God

10-13-2002, 01:32 AM

My point is this: What is inherent in a character class that would make members of that class a good ruler? Couldn't a particularly pious fighter be just as capable of ruling a temple as a cleric? Would the followers of that temple be less likely to worship there? The same reasoning applies to other holdings and class combinations. The only holding that a class requirement makes sense for me would be for a Source holding as these holdings generate no GB in and of themselves and are primarialy a focus for realm spells.

Raesene Andu

10-13-2002, 02:37 AM

I guess it would depend what you see a holding as being. Personally, I think they are more than just the buildings or strutures involved.

For example, a temple holding is more than just a collection of churches, it is a link between the people and their god. Only a cleric is familiar with the rituals and prayers needed to run such a holding, and to keep the faithful in touch with their god, so only a cleric receives regency. If you prefer, in this case the regency is a reflection of the people's faith in their god and in the temple. No fighter, no matter how pious, can provide this link and so fighters do not receive regency from temple holdings, and personally I don't think they should be allow to create one.

Guild holdings are the only ones I would agree that perhaps could be available to all classes as not all merchants are necessarily rogues.

kgauck

10-13-2002, 03:10 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Raesene Andu" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 7:35 PM

> Really? I would have thought it the other way around. The minority
> drop the class limits and the majority of BR campaigns keep the class
> limits in place.

My guess is that the largest share of BR campaigns allow some multi-classing
access to regency, but don`t allow unfettered access. I should point out
that even just multi-classing itself goes beyond the 2e BR rules. For
example, I`d make Rogr Aglondier an Expert 3/Wizard 3, spending his Expert
skill points on administrative and governing skills. As such I`d allow him
to collect regency for his province, his law, and his sources. That gives
him a potential RP collection of 28, and a realized RP collection of 21.
Under the 2e materials, Rogr collected 14 RP from exposed source holdings.
Without some tinkering, neither Rogr, nor his heir (a Pr) would be able to
maintain their realm.

> I would be in favour of restricting them even further, especially in
> regard to temple of source holdings. I would require that anyone
> creating a temple or source holding actually be a wizard or priest first!

I restrict temple holdings to any divine spellcasters, and sources to any
arcane or druidical spellcasters. Bards are arcane spellcasters unless they
elect to devote themselves to Erik, Laerme, or Cuiraécen. A few characters
described in the materials have to be multiclassed, such as Tihara min
Buseri, leader of the Shield of Halaia, or collect only half regency.
Having her collect no regency seems too curious. I`d be inclined to leave
her a fighter with half regency, but I`d swap her Wisdom and Charisma
scores, making her an extreamly charismatic leader to compensate a bit for
the under-performing regency.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

10-13-2002, 03:10 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Slaine the Horned God" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 8:32 PM

> My point is this: What is inherent in a character class that would
> make members of that class a good ruler? Couldn`t a particularly
> pious fighter be just as capable of ruling a temple as a cleric?

Would the bold vos warriors follow any but a warrior or a priest of Belinik?
I don`t think so. Without some restrictions, presumably a rogue or bard
could collect full regency in Vasgaard without any problems. You suggest
that the fighter must be pious to expect success in running a temple. How
do you measure such piety? Skill points in Knowledge (Religion)? The
player declaring that he is? The character role played in a priestly
fashion? Having a couple of levels as a cleric?

Because no class limits means I can be a beer swilling, impious brute
indifferent to learning and still run a temple to Avani. Such is why I
suggest character concept is important. Giving half regency for other
holdings means that if I run my domain well, I can maintain my holdings, but
if I don`t I shall lose it.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

10-13-2002, 05:26 AM

On Sun, 2002-10-13 at 07:53, Slaine the Horned God wrote:

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1038

Slaine the Horned God wrote:
Ok, this may be a really radical idea but does regency need to be based on
class in 3E? With the ability for characters to multiclass thier seems no
need to impose class limits on regency collection. I would suggest regency
being based solely on holdings established and not have any penelties or
benefits associated with class. Any thoughts or opinions?

Nope. It does not. But ... to keep a balance between the various domains
you do need "something". Otherwise all domains begin to look identical -
there will be no independent guilders - all will be realm rulers as
well. I use a `class-less` system as follows.

I calculate 6 values for each regent:
(1) Their total province levels (or loyal population holdings if you
like)
(2) their total guild holdings - plus the value of all trade routes
(3) their total temple holdings - (plus some bonuses, 1 for every realm
in which the faith is present, 2 for every realm in which the faith is
the state faith)
(4) the regents total source holdings (plus 1 for every ley line
established)
(5) the regents total law holdings (plus 1 for every military unit or
military ship owned)
(6) the regents bloodline score

The highest value of (1) through (5) determines the `type` of regent.
When people think about the regent - more of them think of the regent as
a realm regent if their total province levels exceed all the others.
Rogr Aglondier of Ilien would be thought of as a Wizard first and a
realm regent second, `the Wizard of Ilien` more often than as the `Count
of Ilien` for example.

The highest of all 6 values is the regents regency value for the domain
turn. They have a RP total at the start of each domain turn equal to
their regency value at the start of the turn.

The advantage of specializing is that with all your eggs in one basket
you have more RP for your effort. The advantage of having a more
generalized domain is that you are more flexible. Characters with higher
bloodline scores are `natural` leaders and gain an RP advantage until
their domain is equal to their bloodline. Hence blooded characters will
seek their `natural` level of leadership.

Note that it is possible to have no holdings, no provinces, and no
bloodline and still have regency value if you control or create a
military unit or a level one holding. It is possible to have a regency
value with no holdings, no provinces and no units if you have a
bloodline.

A characters bloodline has a percentage chance of improving by one point
equal to any positive difference between their regency value and their
bloodline divided by their bloodline. e.g. El-Hadid has a regency value
of 35 and a bloodline of 10, for a (35-10)/35 or 5/7 chance of improving
his bloodline to 11. Characters who have no bloodline and gain some
regency will have a 100% chance of gaining a bloodline with score 1 e.g.
(x-0)/x = 100%.

w.r.t. character class.
Only Wizards can use sources to cast spells. Any class can use temples
to cast spells as these realm spells are cast in the temples by the
priests with the faith domain regent as the focus - he need not be a
priest himself. Only rogues get a free espionage action - which counts
as a character action.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

ConjurerDragon

10-13-2002, 12:55 PM

Hello!

Slaine the Horned God wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1038
>Slaine the Horned God wrote:
> Ok, this may be a really radical idea but does regency need to be based on class in 3E? With the ability for characters to multiclass thier seems no need to impose class limits on regency collection. I would suggest regency being based solely on holdings established and not have any penelties or benefits associated with class. Any thoughts or opinions?
>
Mmmh.
1st Thought: The limit of collecting RP only from certain holdings is
not that important - most regents will have or gain during the game more
holdings than they could collect RP from, because their bloodline is not
large enough - and in the case of most regents bloodline can´t grow as
fast as a successfull realm with the 3E higher conditions to raise
bloodline (instead of 2E spending your bloodline +1 in RP to gain 1
additional point of bloodline, you have to spend in 3E nearly twice that
amount).

So a limit to collect RP would be noticeable only where a regent would
control few holdings that fit to his class and lots of holdings that fit
to another class. That can only be a problem with holdings, as anyone
can collect RP from provinces (at least in 2E). And that problem occurs
not really very often, does it?

2nd thought: The 2E Birthright had limits on multiclassing that were
more restricting than 2E AD&D (e.g. the demi-humans all could no more
than have 2 classes - instead of 4 as in 2E AD&D).
That 3E D&D has even more options to multiclass, however that does not
mean that a 3E Birthright has to abandon it´s own restrictions to
multiclassing.

3rd thought:
Why have a fighter gain RP from temples? A cleric or paladin, sure - but
a plain fighter?
I assume that the wish to gain RP from temples is a way to create the
"Overlord" character - master of all provinces, and all holdings in his
realm, able to collect RP from all and who has no need of vassals or
other regents in his realm...

That is not a rule that would encourage team-work of say a guild regent
and a province regent or a temple regent - why would your overlord allow
a guilder in his province, when the overlord can collect RP from these
guilds and behold: from the traderoutes as well?

Teamwork is however encouraged, when a specialized guilder can reap
benefits from guilds and trade routes that no other character can hope
to achieve. When a priest can gain RP from temples that no fighter can
hope to get, when a wizard gains RP from sources that the fighter has no
access to, THEN will the fighter province ruler be encouraged to
cooperate with the other regents - sure he may force them to become his
vassals, or ally with them. But there will be player-interaction and no
"I collect RP from everything, I rule it all" character...

IMO I would go even further: Not only limit RP collection on bloodline
AND classes, but also limit GB collection on classes. A specialized 2E
Guilder or 3E Aristocrat (guilder) should IMO be able to create more
gold with a guild than a fighter who also runs his province, has spend
most of his time training with his weapons and armour and assuming he
acts in-character spending his time hunting for sport as the traditional
spare-time-activity for regents of old...
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

10-14-2002, 12:15 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 6:15 AM

> IMO I would go even further: Not only limit RP collection on
> bloodline AND classes, but also limit GB collection on classes.

Are we talking about penalties to GB collection? Something like a -1
penalty, or bumping the province rating on Table 18 back one (a might
slighter penalty to be sure). Maybe a 25% graft penalty at the end of
out-of-class collection? Are these examples of the kind of limits you are
considering? Or do you have something else in mind?

While we`re at it, maybe penalties to realm and domain actions as they
effect out-of-class holdings.

One thing to consider is that the more penalties you impose, the more some
regents will feel incumbant to multi-class or PrC in order to take control
of their realm. I favor the idea of a struggle to take more control of
one`s realm. I agree that it should not be possible to just be the master
regent of all human and magical activity and that one ruler cannot become
all things to all people. But it should make sense to attempt to extend
your reach into at least one sphere of activity beyond your own. If the
hurdle is too high, rulers are too constrained, too limited. If the hurdle
is too low or non-existant, distinctive realms disappear.

While I like to imagine that a baron might become a guild power in his
realm, he should have trouble getting past a certain theshhold, which I like
to figure at about 1/3 of the potential holdings. While there is nothing in
the rules to govern this, and it would be difficult to generalize rules, one
can look at the circumstances and just begin to impose obstacles beyond what
is normal. If the baron in question had a backround that better supported
guild operations (fighter/rogue or aristocrat) I`d focus more on extrernal
obstacles and just ignore the internal obstacles. If a strait fighter was
just looking for extra gold, his capacity for a large guild empire is not
going to hold up as well after he gets too big. Beyond a certain point
(1/3) I`d prefer to see the situation suggest a vassal as a better solution.

If Jaison Raenech put some guilds in Sunken Lands or Gulfport, I`d have no
problem with it. A 2-6 GB improvement, plus 2 RP (AFAIC) doesn`t seem
beyond what we see elsewhere. If, on the other hand, Jaison tried to
compete with Diirk Watershold, I`d think that as far as guild to guild
conflict goes, Diirk has the home field advantage. The easiest way to
represent this is to fall back on skill checks for things. Diirk, a 10th
level rogue is going to have the skills to beat back Jaison, who I`d call a
4th level Aristocrat/3rd level Fighter.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Gavin Cetaine

10-14-2002, 02:13 PM

IMO, the best thing to do is to leave the origional class restrictions in place. Remember that regency is an abstract politcal power. It doesn't just come from what you run, but who you hang with as well. When half the empire gets together for a tornament or wedding, do you hang out with the guilders and talk shop? Or, do you get with the other church leaders and 'debate' religious values and policies? Any scion who tries to hang with all four groups is going to be seen as a dilettante at best. It's a lot better to specilize in an area or two and have trusted allies in the others. You get to spend more time with your chosen group and miss less of what's discussed AND your allies can share the really impotant information without making you put up with all the hours of trivial small talk from the other groups.

Besides, every regent only gets five actions (3 domain, 1 free, 1 lieutenant). It would be very difficult to efficiently work and protect all the types of holdings. You just don't have the time (actions) to spend keeping everything running, so your neighbors will eat away at everything you own. It's much better to have trusted allies to help hold things together.

As to the third post of this string, actually in 3rd Ed, any one who wants to spread themselves thin could take all 11 classes with no experience penalty (only gameplay issues). As written, every race has a favored class that they can raise without a care as to balance. When you ignore the favored class, a character can take any other classes he wants so long as every class remains balanced (within 1 level of each other). If a character chooses to ignore this balance, then he takes a 20% experience penalty for each class out of balance with his highest class level, ignoring the favored class completely.

Examples:

Human Fighter 7, Druid 1, Bard 2
Favored: Highest
This character can take a level of any class except Bard with no penalty. Taking a level of Bard creates 1 penalty.

Dwarf Rogue 5, Cleric 3, Bard 3, Fighter 1
Favored: Fighter
The character currently takes 2 penalties. Adding a level of either Cleric or Bard reduces this to 1 penalty. Adding a level of Fighter has no effect. Adding a level of Rogue only makes it harder to get rid of the current penalties. Adding a level of anything causes the character to take 3 penalties.

Human Rogue 5, Cleric 2, Wizard 2, Fighter 1
Favored: Highest
Total current penaly is 0. Adding a level of any class except Cleric or Wizard causes no change to the penalty. Adding a level of either Cleric or Wizard creates 1 penalty with Fighter.

So, you can see that the real issue is not an experience penalty, but whether a cleric/fighter/rogue/wizard can be effective as an adventurer in your campaign world. If the party is big enough and skilled enough to support (keep alive) such a character and can effectively use the extra low level spells and skills, nothing actually prevents or even penalizes a well designed and maintained dabbler.

Such a character could easily exist as a regent in BR, considering things like bodyguards and blood powers. Of course, IMO, politically the character would be looked down on by every noble (scion and unblooded) for being a useless fool. As a GM, the point is to not to actively discourage a well thought-out character idea, but to use the holes in such a character to your advantage while maintaining a level of enjoyment and realism to the game. Be that character a Noble Knight Paladin, a Scheming Guilder, or a Social Dilettante Scion.

J

Slaine the Horned God

10-14-2002, 04:31 PM

Orginally posted by kgauck

----- Original Message -----
From: "Slaine the Horned God" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 8:32 PM

> My point is this: What is inherent in a character class that would
> make members of that class a good ruler? Couldn`t a particularly
> pious fighter be just as capable of ruling a temple as a cleric?

Would the bold vos warriors follow any but a warrior or a priest of Belinik?
I don`t think so. Without some restrictions, presumably a rogue or bard
could collect full regency in Vasgaard without any problems. You suggest
that the fighter must be pious to expect success in running a temple. How
do you measure such piety? Skill points in Knowledge (Religion)? The
player declaring that he is? The character role played in a priestly
fashion? Having a couple of levels as a cleric?

Because no class limits means I can be a beer swilling, impious brute
indifferent to learning and still run a temple to Avani. Such is why I
suggest character concept is important. Giving half regency for other
holdings means that if I run my domain well, I can maintain my holdings, but
if I don`t I shall lose it.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Yours is one way of looking at this problem but consider this:

'Two armies face each other across the cold Vosgaard tundra. On one side the leader is Victor Grimtongue who blows his mighty warhorn to inspire his troops to do battle. On the other, Ivan the Black fingers his wickedly barbed short sword and calls his men to spring from a surpise ambush.'

Who's to say that, looked at in the right way and played in the right way, any character could not fit in any situation? I feel that we, as a Gamer community, have a deep seated desire to set up rules even if they have no meaning. I mean what is the harm in allowing any character to have any holding? As has already been pointed out, there are advantages and disavantages in having several different kinds of holdings. Is not this enough?

Slaine the Horned God

10-14-2002, 05:55 PM

Orginally posted by ConjurerDragon

Hello!

Slaine the Horned God wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1038
>Slaine the Horned God wrote:
> Ok, this may be a really radical idea but does regency need to be based on class in 3E? With the ability for characters to multiclass thier seems no need to impose class limits on regency collection. I would suggest regency being based solely on holdings established and not have any penelties or benefits associated with class. Any thoughts or opinions?
>
Mmmh.
1st Thought: The limit of collecting RP only from certain holdings is
not that important - most regents will have or gain during the game more
holdings than they could collect RP from, because their bloodline is not
large enough - and in the case of most regents bloodline can´t grow as
fast as a successfull realm with the 3E higher conditions to raise
bloodline (instead of 2E spending your bloodline +1 in RP to gain 1
additional point of bloodline, you have to spend in 3E nearly twice that
amount).

So a limit to collect RP would be noticeable only where a regent would
control few holdings that fit to his class and lots of holdings that fit
to another class. That can only be a problem with holdings, as anyone
can collect RP from provinces (at least in 2E). And that problem occurs
not really very often, does it?

2nd thought: The 2E Birthright had limits on multiclassing that were
more restricting than 2E AD&D (e.g. the demi-humans all could no more
than have 2 classes - instead of 4 as in 2E AD&D).
That 3E D&D has even more options to multiclass, however that does not
mean that a 3E Birthright has to abandon it´s own restrictions to
multiclassing.

3rd thought:
Why have a fighter gain RP from temples? A cleric or paladin, sure - but
a plain fighter?
I assume that the wish to gain RP from temples is a way to create the
"Overlord" character - master of all provinces, and all holdings in his
realm, able to collect RP from all and who has no need of vassals or
other regents in his realm...

That is not a rule that would encourage team-work of say a guild regent
and a province regent or a temple regent - why would your overlord allow
a guilder in his province, when the overlord can collect RP from these
guilds and behold: from the traderoutes as well?

Teamwork is however encouraged, when a specialized guilder can reap
benefits from guilds and trade routes that no other character can hope
to achieve. When a priest can gain RP from temples that no fighter can
hope to get, when a wizard gains RP from sources that the fighter has no
access to, THEN will the fighter province ruler be encouraged to
cooperate with the other regents - sure he may force them to become his
vassals, or ally with them. But there will be player-interaction and no
"I collect RP from everything, I rule it all" character...

IMO I would go even further: Not only limit RP collection on bloodline
AND classes, but also limit GB collection on classes. A specialized 2E
Guilder or 3E Aristocrat (guilder) should IMO be able to create more
gold with a guild than a fighter who also runs his province, has spend
most of his time training with his weapons and armour and assuming he
acts in-character spending his time hunting for sport as the traditional
spare-time-activity for regents of old...
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Reply to 1st thought with my 1st thought:
You are correct. this whole line of thinking proves my point. Why have a restriction with so little real meaning?

Reply to 2nd thought with my 2nd thought:
Yes, Birthright could continue restricting multiclass with some mechanic. I am against this because I like the customization that 3E brings.

Reply to 3rd thought with my 3rd thought:
My desire is based on personal experience and the idea that RP collection should not be based on class but simply on the ruler that owns the holding. An Overlord character is nothing new, the best example of which would be the Gorgan, but this is beside the point. What really started this post was my dismay at the difference between law holdings and other types of holdings. Law holdings add to domain but generate little income and the main advantage of a law holding, an army, costs massive amounts of GB. Compare this with an guild or temple holding that generates good income and gives a free action per turn and a law holder can feel a bit left behind.

Adding new restrictions opens a whole new bag of worms for the game. Especially if changes were made at your suggestion. Rogue, or thief, regents already receive RP from both guild holdings and trade routes, add to this mix an improved GB collection and you would have an 'uber' regent unlike anything that I have suggested. Removing restrictions invokes less problems and really only affects the people who play the game not the mechanics of the game itself.

kgauck

10-15-2002, 01:35 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Slaine the Horned God" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:31 AM

> Who`s to say that, looked at in the right way and played in the right
> way, any character could not fit in any situation?

Any message that includes these lines is an example of special pleading. If
someone is willing to look in the right way at a thing in the right
situation, I suppose that person could be convinced of anything.

Any character in any situation means that my wizard who knows nothing of
money, nothing of commerce, nothing of the nicities of social interactions
can run a guild just as well as Omar el-Rahál (guildmaster of the Docandragh
Coster for nearly 50 years). I will argue that I can create a wizard with
some Profession, Knowledge, Bargain, a backround description that associates
him with guilds and rogues, run him in adventures as a guild wizard using
magic in the service if the guild, and then argue he can take over a guild
and be a reasonable threat to Omar (or Storm Holtson, or Diirk Watershold).
But, that is a far cry from "any character in any situation."

In human society, a shared understanding of how people should act in a
situation is required for stable, efficient social cooperation. This means
that a character who runs a guild has to know something about guilds,
guilders, and guild operations, otherwise there will be problems. The
norms, values, skills, and methods of a holding must be familiar to the
character who hopes to employ them. Every character, or "any character"
does not have the knowledge to run any holding, that is "any situation."
People salad, where I just toss people from one way of life to another
doesn`t work.

Going back to my earlier example of the guild-wizard. He may know how to
run guilds, and he may know how to use sources. That doesn`t mean he knows
how to rule provinces or temples.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

ConjurerDragon

10-16-2002, 05:20 AM

Hello Kenneth!

Kenneth Gauck wrote:
...

>>IMO I would go even further: Not only limit RP collection on
>>bloodline AND classes, but also limit GB collection on classes.
>>
>Are we talking about penalties to GB collection? Something like a -1
>penalty, or bumping the province rating on Table 18 back one (a might
>slighter penalty to be sure). Maybe a 25% graft penalty at the end of
>out-of-class collection? Are these examples of the kind of limits you are
>considering? Or do you have something else in mind?
>
Everything is possible. e.g. I could imagine a simple +1 to GB
collection for aguild holding if the regent is a
rogue/guilder/Aristocrat(Guilder) - within the maximum collection, so
that the maximum is still the same for all with a lucky roll, just that
the specialized regent gets more on average. Same would be that a
priest/paladin would receive +1 to temple collection, and maybe
fighter/Aristocrat(Lord) for province collection.

>While we`re at it, maybe penalties to realm and domain actions as they
>effect out-of-class holdings.
>One thing to consider is that the more penalties you impose, the more some
>regents will feel incumbant to multi-class or PrC in order to take control
>of their realm. I favor the idea of a struggle to take more control of
>one`s realm. I agree that it should not be possible to just be the master
>regent of all human and magical activity and that one ruler cannot become
>all things to all people. But it should make sense to attempt to extend
>your reach into at least one sphere of activity beyond your own. If the
>hurdle is too high, rulers are too constrained, too limited. If the hurdle
>is too low or non-existant, distinctive realms disappear.
>While I like to imagine that a baron might become a guild power in his
>realm, he should have trouble getting past a certain theshhold, which I like
>to figure at about 1/3 of the potential holdings. While there is nothing in
>the rules to govern this, and it would be difficult to generalize rules, one
>can look at the circumstances and just begin to impose obstacles beyond what
>is normal. If the baron in question had a backround that better supported
>guild operations (fighter/rogue or aristocrat) I`d focus more on extrernal
>obstacles and just ignore the internal obstacles. If a strait fighter was
>just looking for extra gold, his capacity for a large guild empire is not
>going to hold up as well after he gets too big. Beyond a certain point
>(1/3) I`d prefer to see the situation suggest a vassal as a better solution.
>If Jaison Raenech put some guilds in Sunken Lands or Gulfport, I`d have no
>problem with it. A 2-6 GB improvement, plus 2 RP (AFAIC) doesn`t seem
>beyond what we see elsewhere. If, on the other hand, Jaison tried to
>compete with Diirk Watershold, I`d think that as far as guild to guild
>conflict goes, Diirk has the home field advantage. The easiest way to
>represent this is to fall back on skill checks for things. Diirk, a 10th
>level rogue is going to have the skills to beat back Jaison, who I`d call a
>4th level Aristocrat/3rd level Fighter.
>
A simple solution to this would be to invent a GB or RP collection
penalty in the same way characters get a XP
penalty for multiclassing - who tries to do it all loses everywhere :-)
You would just have to use -20% penalty from the 3E PHB used for XP, for
GB and/or RP collection as well to prevent excessive multiclassing to
collect RP/GB from more than a few types of holdings.

Another way to prevent characters from trying to rule all holdings is
used in COG II:: There you can transfer only your bloodline in RP
divided by the number of different holdings into the next turn
(provinces are not counted). This means a guilder with guilds can
transfer a maximum of his bloodline to the next turn, an overlord who
controls guilds, temples, sources and law holdings only his bloodline
divided by 4 - not much.
bye
Michael

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

ConjurerDragon

10-16-2002, 05:20 AM

Hello!

Gavin Cetaine wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1038
>...
>Besides, every regent only gets five actions (3 domain, 1 free, 1 lieutenant).
>
?
3 domain, 1 lieutenant I agree, but why only 1 free? The cardboard that
came with 2E Birthright says that a regent can take free actions= his
level in a domain turn, not just 1?
bye
Michael

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

10-16-2002, 05:20 AM

Essentially, there`s just one reason why RP collection should be limited by
character class; because the DM feels like it. The DM might feel like it
because s/he wants to emphasize a particular dichotomy between the
character classes, to reflect the role of character classes at the domain
level, to portray different cultural/sociological takes on the character
classes. Similar reasoning in the past has focused on a perceived
interaction between social class and character class, the perceived
difficulties in running a domain that has several different types of
holdings in it, or issues involving game balance between character classes
at the domain level. When it gets right down to it, though, all the
reasoning in the world boils down to "because the DM says so." For every
justification for limiting RP collection there are one or more counter
arguments, and in practise opening up RP collection to all classes doesn`t
amount to a particularly radical change in the way the domain levels works
than many other suggestions made by various BR aficionados. For instance,
in many ways it is less significant than going with the non-magical
interpretation of RP that some folks prefer, since that can lead to a lot
of reinterpretation of what RP can do and how they work. Opening up the
holdings to all classes doesn`t need the same amount of rethinking (unless
you`re also going to define RP as non-magical at the same time, of course.)

I have a few of reasons for not opening up RP collection for all holdings
to every character class, however. These vary in significance depending on
what you emphasize in your campaign, but you may want to consider the
following issues.

1. Realm magic. In thinking about what realm spells are and how they
function, I opened them up to all spellcasters. Bards, paladins and
rangers can cast realms spells IMC. Spellcasters can only cast realm
spells, however, through a holding from which they are able to collect RP,
so I personally don`t want to eliminate RP collection restrictions because
such a tweak would interfere pretty directly with this particular
tweak. Using the standard rules, of course, one could simply say "divine
realm spells must be cast through temple holdings and arcane realm spells
through source holdings" but if one is opening up RP collection to all
character classes, and RP are used to empower realm spells why shouldn`t
regents be able to cast realm spells through any holding from which they
collect regency? If the flow of RP goes one way then why not the reverse
in the form of realm spells? Shouldn`t a cleric in a system of domain
rules that removes RP restriction be able to cast realm spells through his
law or guild holdings the same way he can cast them through his temple
holdings?

2. Multi-classing. One thing many BRers hated when 3e came out was the
ease of multi-classing and how that would muddle the RP collection
restrictions. I never worried much about this issue since it seems to me
that the problem is solved by the inherit limitation to RP collection in
bloodline strength score, but many folks find this restriction alone
unacceptable (and a few have tweaked the bloodline strength score as a
limitation to RP collection in their campaigns) so various other changes
might influence the decision making in a similar way. The objection seems
to have grown fainter now, but it occurs to me that for those people who
have embraced the 3e multi-classing concept when it comes to regents you
might wind up with an objection to the fact that unrestricted RP collection
has the opposite affect. That is, it discourages multi-classing when that
might be the better solution. IMO, a fighter-regent who behaves in
priestly fashion and wants to take on a few temple holdings would be best
reflected by him also taking on a few cleric levels. Even using the
standard rules, of course, there`s no necessity for him to do so. He can
still create, rule and collect GB from temple holdings, but if he also
collects RP from them regardless of his character class then there`s no
realm domain level motivation for this regent to take on at least one
cleric level, and I`d personally prefer such a character do so.

3. Trade routes. Using the standard rules trade routes generate RP for
rogues. They generate a lot of RP, in fact. Trade routes are something of
an exception to the way other holdings must be created and ruled up in
order to collect RP since they spring into existence already generating RP
for the regent who controls them. If one opens up RP collection, this
particular loophole could be exploited by all characters, not just
rogues. Depending on how you look at it that could be a "balancing" of the
problem, or it could just be a problem that everyone is going to get into
the trade route act since it would be the easiest, and quickest way to max
out one`s RP collection.

There are more reasons one could come up with for not changing the way RP
collection works, but those are the ones that I think I`d be most concerned
with. None of the above, however, should be taken to mean I`m saying a DM
couldn`t do away with the RP collection restrictions and still run a
perfectly legit and playable. There are even several reasons why one could
do away with the RP restrictions with quite a bit of plausibility. These
are just things a DM might want to think about before making the leap.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

ConjurerDragon

10-16-2002, 05:20 AM

Hello!

Slaine the Horned God wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1038
>
>Reply to 1st thought with my 1st thought:
>You are correct. this whole line of thinking proves my point. Why have a restriction with so little real meaning?
>
OOC it is little real meaning. IC a lord of a province who also has his
hands in the trade of his realm will be looked upon as a lowly parttime
guilder by the nobility of Anuire (where guilders only recently are
accepted into society instead of being common-folk). Therefor and to
further teamwork with a guilder player the landed regent should try to
be what he is: A noble ruler in the traditional Anuire - and if the
player ignore this because he covets the gold from the guilds and wants
to control the guilds himself - then you need either a good DM who
makes the player feel his error - or a set of rules which discourage
dabbling in several holdings.

That would be completely different in Brechtür for example - there I
could see the landed ruler to also have guilds without penalty - but
maybe not sources or temples.

>Reply to 2nd thought with my 2nd thought:
>Yes, Birthright could continue restricting multiclass with some mechanic. I am against this because I like the customization that 3E brings.
>
Like the Barbarian/Aristrocrat(Guilder)/Paladin/Monk-Overlord character? ;-)

Maybe the rule from 2E Birthright that only allowed 2 classes where in
2E AD&D more were allowed is not bad after all, but the thought that
more classes would not allow a character to effectively rule any holding?

>Reply to 3rd thought with my 3rd thought:
>My desire is based on personal experience and the idea that RP collection should not be based on class but simply on the ruler that owns the holding. An Overlord character is nothing new, the best example of which would be the Gorgan, but this is beside the point.
>
The Gorgon is a thousand years old Fighter/Wizard - I can see him do
things no player could do within the rules. However even he does not
control the temples himself but has a vassal to control them.

> What really started this post was my dismay at the difference between law holdings and other types of holdings. Law holdings add to domain but generate little income and the main advantage of a law holding, an army, costs massive amounts of GB. Compare this with an guild or temple holding that generates good income and gives a free action per turn and a law holder can feel a bit left behind.
>
IMO Wrong, but before we continue: Have you already read the Book of
Regency and what it says about law holdings?
A law holding can not only claim the few GB´s of law claims.
Law holdings are essential in keeping the province from rebellion - no
province ruler can tax severe when the law regent does not support him -
else the province will rebel. e.g. Prince Avan controls his vassal
Taeghas very strictly because he can prevent any taxation but light if
he wishes.
No decrees of other holding regents are considered to be law of the land
as that of the law holder.

But for GB collection: Why do you point out that a law holding claims
less than a guild, but not that a source regent claims no gold at all?
That is even more unfair ;-)
bye
Michael

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Gavin Cetaine

10-16-2002, 12:52 PM

[quote]Orginally posted by ConjurerDragon

>Besides, every regent only gets five actions (3 domain, 1 free, 1 lieutenant).
>
?
3 domain, 1 lieutenant I agree, but why only 1 free? The cardboard that
came with 2E Birthright says that a regent can take free actions= his
level in a domain turn, not just 1?

As a late comer to the BR world, I don't personally own all the materials (as much as I might wish to have everything right at hand). Currently, our group is breaking in a new player to the field of domain actions. Our person who keep track of all the rules we don't often have to refer to stated that the rule was 1 free action per domain turn. Since that occurred at our last session, it was the most recent information I had. Thank you for the correction.

J

Elton Robb

10-16-2002, 02:58 PM

Reply to 2nd thought with my 2nd thought:
Yes, Birthright could continue restricting multiclass with some mechanic. I am against this because I like the customization that 3E brings.

Corrollary: Yes, customization is possible. But if you remember, multiclassing brings an experience penalty, plus your Uber-Regent would be somewhat lacking in his abilities. Trying to do everything at once brings psychic meltdown.

A classic example is in the Bible, when Moses was leading Israel out of Egypt. Moses was a good example of the Uber-Regent, he tried to do everything at once, it was aging him. My brother also held a leadership position, in which he tried to do everything at once. Doing so made him seem to age by 10 years.

What I'm trying to say is, sure you can create an Uber-Regent, and teach him how to learn to use sources and manage a temple guild, but it's impossible to manage everything and stay within a manageable stress level.

[/quote]

Reply to 3rd thought with my 3rd thought:
My desire is based on personal experience and the idea that RP collection should not be based on class but simply on the ruler that owns the holding. An Overlord character is nothing new, the best example of which would be the Gorgan, but this is beside the point. What really started this post was my dismay at the difference between law holdings and other types of holdings. Law holdings add to domain but generate little income and the main advantage of a law holding, an army, costs massive amounts of GB. Compare this with an guild or temple holding that generates good income and gives a free action per turn and a law holder can feel a bit left behind.
[/quote]

Corrollary: Any regent may control any holding. But just because he controls it doesn't mean he knows how to use it to gain Regency. Case in point, the White Witch. A bad example when comparing Province Holdings with Temple Holdings and Guild Holdings to be sure. But she also controls the Source Holdings in her realm.

She doesn't gain Regency from her source holdings, though. She's not a wizard, she's a cleric. A Cleric of Karesha. She doesn't know the first thing about controling a source. She just controls them to keep others from taking the source.

Conclusion:
The Regency Restrictions exist in 2e for a reason. Just like the Experience Point penalties exist for a reason in 3e. Removing the Regency Restrictions opens a new can of worms, especially in campaigns dealing with Collective Rule or the High King scenarios.

If you remember, these options promote team work among the players in ruling a domain or a small empire. Every player gets a piece of the regency, and every player works towards common goals.

Take the restrictions away, and these two campaign scenarios become meaningless and will have to be adjusted to accomodate the new scheme. The result is potentially anarchic to a game. Quarrelling among the players will result, something which other regents can take advantage of quickly (I.E. Gavin Taele can invade your realm while the regents bicker over who has control over what).

Elton Robb

geeman

10-16-2002, 03:31 PM

At 02:52 PM 10/16/2002 +0200, Gavin Cetaine wrote:

>As a late comer to the BR world, I don`t personally own all the
>materials. Currently, our group is breaking in a new player to the field
>of domain actions. Our person, who keep track of all the rules we don`t
>often have to refer to stated that the rule was 1 free action per domain
>turn. Since that occurred at our last session, it was the most recent
>information I had. Thank you for the correction.

There is actually a bit of confusion regarding the number of free actions a
regent can take. As Michael
pointed out the cardboard does say that a regent can take 1 free action per
domain turn per character level s/he has, but the Rulebook doesn`t mention
any such restriction. The description of Free Actions in the RB reads:

Free actions don`t count against a regent`s three actions, but they do
count against a nonregent PC`s three actions. A regent can take as many
free actions as he wishes at any time before the actin rounds begin. After
that, free actions must be declared during the regent`s turn of the action
round.

When it comes to the number of free actions available, I think they should
be pretty much unlimited, so I ignore the card. Free actions are generally
the types of things that don`t register at the domain level time scale at
all, or that would be the rationale for them being free to begin with. One
could spend a lot of time crafting a decree, but it could also be something
as simple as an announcement. Similarly, it probably shouldn`t take a
whole lot of time to hand some money to another character a law the Grant
action. Those things could take a lot of time if handled personally (if
the regent had to actually scribe the decree himself or count the money
handed over) but at the domain level they`re the kinds of things that a
regent can order and expect the "machine" of the domain to kick in to take
care of them.

If really wants some sort of limitation, character level doesn`t seem
particularly apt. Maybe something more like intelligence score....

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

irdeggman

10-16-2002, 10:40 PM

I think that the reference to 1 free action per domain turn was actually refering to the priest's free agitate and the thief's free espionage. I generally refered to these as "bonus" actions so as not to confuse them with the other "free" actions which were always considered to be minor actions, such as decrees and such. Remeber that in 2nd ed it was impossible to be a multi-class thief/priest so it was not possible to gain a "bonus" agitate and a "bonus" espionage action.:)

geeman

10-17-2002, 01:58 AM

At 12:40 AM 10/17/2002 +0200, irdeggman wrote:

>I generally refered to these as "bonus" actions so as not to confuse them
>with the other "free" actions which were always considered to be minor
>actions, such as decrees and such.

That seems sensible. A free Agitate or Espionage are "bonus free" actions
for those character classes. Personally, I also limited those bonus free
actions to provinces in which the regent had the "proper" holding. ie. a
temple holding is required for a priest to get a free Agitate action in a
particular province, and a guild holding for a rogue.

>Remeber that in 2nd ed it was impossible to be a multi-class thief/priest
>so it was not possible to gain a "bonus" agitate and a "bonus" espionage
>action.:)

Thief/priest actually was an option for half-elves, and I don`t recall any
restriction on dual-classing.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.