Holdings as 3e Classes

[Birthright-L]

Hello,

well, just an idea I´m playing with. It´s not even being tested in real play, just a draft. The thing is doing holdings like character classes: the law, the temple,... Here goes an example (hope the tabulation doesn´t go crazy):

(BAB = Base Action Bonus ;) )

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

The Law Holding

Level Law BAB Temple BAB Guild BAB Source BAB Abilities
0 +0 +0 +0 +0 -
1 +1 +1 +1 +0 Tax +1
2 +2 +2 +2 +0 Security (+1 against hostile Contests)
3 +3 +2 +2 +1 Tax +2
4 +4 +3 +3 +1 Security (+2 against hostile Contests, Detect Hidden Holdings)
5 +5 +3 +3 +1 Tax +3, Loyalty I
6 +6 +4 +4 +2 Security (+3 against hostile Contests, Protect)
7 +7 +5 +5 +2 Tax +4
8 +8 +5 +5 +2 Security (+4 against hostile Contests)
9 +9 +6 +6 +3 Tax +5
10 +10 +7 +7 +3 Security (+5 against hostile Contests), Loyalty II

Tax
------

The law holding can try to claim some GB from the income of another holding situated in the same province (or from the population). The base DC is 10 + Number of GB claimed + Level of Target. The law holding adds to his roll his law BAB.

Security
-------------

Every even level starting at level 2, the law holding gets +1 law defense bonus against contest actions.

At level 4, it can try to detect hidden holdings located in the same province: The DC is 15 - Hidden Holding Level + Hidden Holding Level Law BAB.

At level 6, the law holding can protect another holding situated in the same province against a contest action at the cost of losing itself his law defense bonus agains contests that round.

Loyalty
----------

At level 5 and 10, the law holding recieves one of his most powerful abilities: being capable of ignoring or impeding loyalty changes. Loyalty I allows the law holding to try to avoid loyalty changing from poor to rebelious or from going from average to high. The DC for this is 15 + the population level + the bab of the trying holding (if there´s one). The law holding can add his law BAB.

At level 10, the law holding can try to avoid greater changes: impeding loyalty going down from average or higher than poor. The DC for this is 15 + population level + the bab of the trying holding (if there´s one). The law holding can add his law BAB.

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

Well, that is. I don´t have very clear the "powers" of each holding or how to address bab and saving throws (resistance modifiers against actions), but I think some 3e concepts fit quite nicely in developing holdings like classes (I couldn´t resist the BAB one ;).

Greetings,

Vicente

************************************************** **************************
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.

[ryancaveney]

On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Zaor wrote:

> (BAB = Base Action Bonus ;) )

Amusing. =)

> The law holding can try to claim some GB from the income of another
> holding situated in the same province (or from the population). The
> base DC is 10 + Number of GB claimed + Level of Target. The law
> holding adds to his roll his law BAB.

So you pick a number of GB you want to try for, and if you miss you get
nothing? I would prefer a method in which you rolled a die against some
resistance and how much you succeeded by would tell you how many GB you
got, perhaps as a fraction of the target`s income. On that note, see how
this will change the existing mechanic: it becomes easier to always take
every GB a small holding makes, and harder to get even one GB from a big
one. The base rulebook table I think makes a better balancing agent.

> At level 5 and 10, the law holding recieves one of his most powerful
> abilities: being capable of ignoring or impeding loyalty changes.

This I think is where the holding level to character level mapping breaks
down worst. A substantial majority of provinces are less than level 5,
and only one in all Cerilia is level 10, so most regents will lose all
ability to resist loyalty changes. I think the base rulebook idea of
basing loyalty change resistance on fraction of available holdings
controlled is a better one.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Birthright-L]

Hello,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

sorry for not answering faster, I wasn´t out (free day here in spain ;)

> So you pick a number of GB you want to try for, and if you miss you get
> nothing? I would prefer a method in which you rolled a die against some
> resistance and how much you succeeded by would tell you how many GB you
> got, perhaps as a fraction of the target`s income. On that note, see how
> this will change the existing mechanic: it becomes easier to always take
> every GB a small holding makes, and harder to get even one GB from a big
> one. The base rulebook table I think makes a better balancing agent.

the ability was just a suggestion. You could also say the base dc is
15+objetive holding level and you earn what is said in the rulebook table.
For every 5 points you succed you get 1 extra gb, for every 5 points you
fail, you don´t get 1 gb.

> This I think is where the holding level to character level mapping breaks
> down worst. A substantial majority of provinces are less than level 5,
> and only one in all Cerilia is level 10, so most regents will lose all
> ability to resist loyalty changes. I think the base rulebook idea of
> basing loyalty change resistance on fraction of available holdings
> controlled is a better one.

Well, you could change the ability to level 3 and 6 (or 4 and 8). It´s
true that when using holdings as character classes some abilities can´t have
the same effect as they had in the old rulebook. But maybe with those
abilities the law levels would change (encouraging people to get higher law
levels, something you don´t have nearly any reason to do in the rulebook...
And something I find quite strange (as it´s quite expensive)). I´ll play
some more with this idea ;)

Greetings,

Vicente

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

This is an interesting idea. True that it needs some refinement, for balance sake, but interesting. It also opens up the idea of holding prestige classes, such as covert holdings, fortified holdings, etc; perhaps these abilities can be represented as feats. A lot of options become available if you overlay the d20 system onto birthright. I'll start brainstorming.

[Birthright-L]

Hello,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>

> This is an interesting idea. True that it needs some refinement, for
balance sake, but interesting. It also >opens up the idea of holding
prestige classes, such as covert holdings, fortified holdings, etc; perhaps
these >abilities can be represented as feats. A lot of options become
available if you overlay the d20 system onto >birthright. I`ll start
brainstorming.

Prestige holdings is something that has been discussed here in the
birth-l. You can search the archives for more information.

The feats part is a quite interesting one. But I don´t know if it adds
too much bookeeping, and some "strange" choices have to be done: for
example, if you have something like "skill focus" (a bonus to one action),
you have only that bonus when you do that action with that holding? Then,
you have to say from where you do your actions (I don´t see many problems
with that, but it´s something I´m not used to do except with some actions
(contest, agitate,...)). You could even play with the +10/+5 bonus to
actions (and get to actions from one holding), etc etc. But it needs a lot
of playtesting and brainstorming.

Greetings,

Vicente

************************************************** **************************
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.

[ryancaveney]

On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Zaor wrote:

> You could also say the base dc is 15+objetive holding level and you
> earn what is said in the rulebook table. For every 5 points you succed
> you get 1 extra gb, for every 5 points you fail, you don`t get 1 gb.

That sounds better to me -- less wild variation turn-to-turn.

> > I think the base rulebook idea of basing loyalty change resistance
> > on fraction of available holdings controlled is a better one.
>
> Well, you could change the ability to level 3 and 6 (or 4 and 8). It`s
> true that when using holdings as character classes some abilities
> can`t have the same effect as they had in the old rulebook.

I think the 3e class system is flexible enough to handle it. In the PHB,
we find that whether one rogue can flank attack another is based not on
the absolute levels of the two, but the difference between their levels.
Thus I think you could still keep the rulebook loyalty change resistance
rule unchanged, defining it as a feature of the law holding class from the
first level. If you used differences instead of ratios (e.g., ignore one
level change if your holding level is within three of the province level)
then some of the relative flavor would be preserved, but I think a set of
numbers that worked well for low-level provinces would be too hard for
high-level ones, and a set of numbers that worked well for high-level
provinces would be too easy for low-level ones.

> But maybe with those abilities the law levels would change
> (encouraging people to get higher law levels, something you don`t have
> nearly any reason to do in the rulebook...

Really? IMO, high law holdings are a must for any province ruler, because
they are the true source of income -- you can`t make much in taxation
without strong law holdings, and you need to claim as much from guilds and
temples as you can -- and essential to holding on to control of the
province.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
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]

Zaor:
> But maybe with those abilities the law levels would change
> (encouraging people to get higher law levels, something you don`t have
> nearly any reason to do in the rulebook...

Ryan B. Caveney:
> IMO, high law holdings are a must for any province ruler, because

The regional guides are donwnright goofy on this point. It tries to make a
virtue (from the POV of chaotic alignment) of abdication of duty. Rather
than arguing that a good chaotic ruler attempts to hold all the law and use
it to protect the individual choices of the people, it just assumes they
abdicate any role (and potentially leaves the holdings available for other
cruel or abusive rulers). Historically, peasants would resist abuses by the
shield of the law. If the law is not held by the ruler, that ruler can`t
determine what that law says or how its applied.

Its great that some chaotic regent doesn`t want to be a burden to their
people. They should hold all the law, enshrine concentual government into
the law through estates (mechanic - setting the tax rate to severe requires
a diplomacy action, this action can be a realm action. Performing the
action in only one province is a free action). Both guilders and templars
have an interest in setting up commercial law courts and church courts.
From the chaotic ruler`s POV, it would be best to make sure that church or
merchantile courts are not set up to impose church law or defend
confiscatory guild operations.

Even the random events understand that the people will demand good laws and
legal protections (Matter of Justice).

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.

[Birthright-L]

Hello,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

> I think the 3e class system is flexible enough to handle it. In the PHB,
> we find that whether one rogue can flank attack another is based not on
> the absolute levels of the two, but the difference between their levels.
> Thus I think you could still keep the rulebook loyalty change resistance
> rule unchanged, defining it as a feature of the law holding class from the
> first level. If you used differences instead of ratios (e.g., ignore one
> level change if your holding level is within three of the province level)
> then some of the relative flavor would be preserved, but I think a set of
> numbers that worked well for low-level provinces would be too hard for
> high-level ones, and a set of numbers that worked well for high-level
> provinces would be too easy for low-level ones.

Haven´t thought about the flanking mechanics from the phb. The explain
very well the law holding loyalty change resistance (in ratios and in
differences. So I think I´ll let the ratios thing because as you point,
differences are going to be hard to get for one extreme or the other. Or
maybe a mix...)

> Really? IMO, high law holdings are a must for any province ruler, because
> they are the true source of income -- you can`t make much in taxation
> without strong law holdings, and you need to claim as much from guilds and
> temples as you can -- and essential to holding on to control of the
> province.

Yes, they are a must. But I don´t see having all the levels of them as a
must. With half (or half+1 don´t remember), you could ignore one loyalty
change and don´t get problems with medium taxes. One loyalty change is
enough, most times, to get your realm safe. And the resources (and actions)
you need to develop high level holdings could be used everywhere.

And with guilds and temples the reasons to get high level holdings are
less and less. The income table of holdings is quite a mess (IMO) and they
don´t get many extra uses...

Greetings,

Vicente

************************************************** **************************
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.

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> Rather than arguing that a good chaotic ruler attempts to hold all the
> law and use it to protect the individual choices of the people, it
> just assumes they abdicate any role

Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes! The books are insane on this point.
Chaotic regents ought to have maximum law holdings for precisely this
reason. Even Sidhelien regents ought to have maximum law holdings, if
simply to mechanic the fact that no non-elf should have any chance at all
of persuading an elf to do anything. Personally, I am inclined to think
non-elves should not be able to create any non-source holding at all in an
elven province (and probably non-dwarves in dwarven and non-orog in orog;
humans, halflings and goblins I see as much less picky on this point).
Rhuandice Tuarlachiem should hold about half the law in Tuarhievel, to
reflect her continuing political struggle with Fhileraene over proper
policy towards humans.

> (and potentially leaves the holdings available for other cruel or
> abusive rulers). If the law is not held by the ruler, that ruler can`t
> determine what that law says or how its applied.

Yes. As I have complained before about the alignment system, it assumes
that everyone is an idiot and cannot or will not predict the likely
consequences of their actions, and the impact those will have on the
ideals they seek to support and promote. A chaotic government with an Int
above three seeks to limit itself by enacting and enforcing strong laws to
curtail any intrusion into its citizens` lives, including its own.

> Its great that some chaotic regent doesn`t want to be a burden to
> their people. They should hold all the law, enshrine concentual
> government into the law through estates
> From the chaotic ruler`s POV, it would be best to make sure that
> church or merchantile courts are not set up to impose church law or
> defend confiscatory guild operations.

Most definitely.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Birthright-L]

Hello,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Gauck" <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>

> The regional guides are donwnright goofy on this point. It tries to make
a
> virtue (from the POV of chaotic alignment) of abdication of duty. Rather
> than arguing that a good chaotic ruler attempts to hold all the law and
use
> it to protect the individual choices of the people, it just assumes they
> abdicate any role (and potentially leaves the holdings available for other
> cruel or abusive rulers). Historically, peasants would resist abuses by
the
> shield of the law. If the law is not held by the ruler, that ruler can`t
> determine what that law says or how its applied.

I think the rulebook asumes that a chaotic ruler will use his actions to
avoid other people getting law holdings in his lands (quite time and
resources cosuming). IMO, the rulebook asumes that having law holdings is
the same as taking out the freedom of your subjects (happens with chaotic
rulers, but also with elven rulers), and that is not necesarily true...

Something similar related to loyalty and law happens that I can´t finish
to understand: you have a province with high loyalty, you tax them with
severe taxes, but you have all the law. The loyalty continues being high. I
can´t understand it: I can understand that the province doesn´t go to
rebellion because the law holdings ensure some order (through guards,
soldiers,... even martial law), but I can´t understand the people continuing
having high loyalty towards you if you tax them severily turn after turn...

Greetings,

Vicente

************************************************** **************************
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.