Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: Ruler levels

  1. #11
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    USA.
    Posts
    626
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 12:07:47AM -0500, daniel mcsorley wrote:
    > > > 1st level kings should be as effective (if not more effective) than
    > > > 20th level kings.
    > > Interesting opinion. Care to explains your reason as to why?
    >
    > Because D&D levels are directly tied to adventuring prowess, and
    > adventuring has nothing to do with leadership/rulership ability. There`s
    > been some effort in 3e to make classes (expert, commoner, aristocrat)
    > which gain levels but have nothing to do with adventuring, but it`s still
    > a rather bad tack-on to the D&D level system (what`s a 20th level commoner
    > exactly? And how does he gain all that experience without adventuring,
    > and if he did adventure, wouldn`t he be picking up some adventurer class
    > levels?).

    You have legitimate concerns about the rationale and flaws inherent in
    the current D&D skill system, but that seems to be a seperate
    question. Given that D&D _is_ a class-based system, and that maximum
    skill ranks in any skills (not just adventuring skills) are tied to
    class level, I don`t think that I can avoid the conclusion that in D&D,
    a 20th level king certainly has the POTENTIAL to be a far better ruler
    than a 1st-level king.

    I actually like it this way, as I disagree with your concern at a
    conceptual level. I don`t buy the arguement that XP requires
    adventuring. Gaining XP requires overcomeing challenge. For a
    commoner, that might be working hard enough to pay the taxman, getting
    the best deal out of the miller, or arranging a good marriage for one`s
    daughter. After a few years of toughing it out, the commoner may rise a
    few levels; his experience makes it that much easier for him to
    overcome similar challenges in the future, and might make it possible
    for him to consider challenges that were COMPLETELY beyond his ken a
    few years before. The same is true for a king. The King might
    adventure, or might meet a challenge to personal combat, but he may
    also face challenges in foiling a rival`s plot, using blackmail to
    force the support of a local guilds to his rule, or ANYTHING else that
    is a suitable challenge to the character`s skills, be they combat or
    not.

    But that`s just my opinon. I`ve played may gains in level-free
    systems and have as many pros as cons IMHO. Neither system is perfect,
    neither is inherently flawed. In a level-based system, however,
    high-level is usually a plus (often literally ;) )

    ________
    /. Doom@cs.wright.edu

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

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 16:07, daniel mcsorley wrote:

    On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Raesene Andu wrote:
    > Originally posted by Peter Lubke
    > > 1st level kings should be as effective (if not more effective) than
    > > 20th level kings.
    >
    > Interesting opinion. Care to explains your reason as to why?

    Because D&D levels are directly tied to adventuring prowess, and
    adventuring has nothing to do with leadership/rulership ability. There`s
    been some effort in 3e to make classes (expert, commoner, aristocrat)
    which gain levels but have nothing to do with adventuring, but it`s still
    a rather bad tack-on to the D&D level system (what`s a 20th level commoner
    exactly? And how does he gain all that experience without adventuring,
    and if he did adventure, wouldn`t he be picking up some adventurer class
    levels?).
    --
    Communication is possible only between equals.
    Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu


    Yes pretty much.
    AD&D (1e) had pretty much the same attempt with specialist NPC classes
    -- characters with levels that didn`t gain them through adventuring. NPC
    classes being denied to players. Quite apart from the inconsistency of
    the approach, it suffered from the same questionable logic.

    The difficulty is that the problem is not stated correctly. When player
    character reach high enough levels - ordinary people seem rather, ...
    insignificant ...
    The solution that has been taken is to try to power-up the NPCs - which
    has (and always will) fail.

    A better way to look at things is in relative terms - rather than in
    absolutes.

    One reason that it was perceived this way was that character level was
    equated with social level, or social/organizational rank. This came to
    happen over time - during the development of fantasy role-playing.

    e.g. In AD&D - a character reaching 9th level gained the class level
    title of "Lord", and, IF (big IF), they cleared a previously
    inhospitable area of monsters/enemies, built a castle, and people came
    to live there --- THEN they gained an income and social rank. By 2e,
    there was no longer an IF.

    ^^ this whole concept (of life beyond 9th level whether as adventuring
    or as lord) is IMO flawed. But the idea of ruling a realm is a good one
    -- hence, I love the BR approach.

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

  3. #13
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    Personally, I disagree that character level should have no effect on the
    ability of a regent to perform domain actions. From time to time I`ll post
    some sort of rules tweak or point-based analysis of some system and someone
    will respond that what I`m _really_ doing is tossing out the entire
    character class system--which always surprises me because that`s the
    furthest thing from what I have in mind. I suppose if one dissects a
    system down to its components far enough it begins to look like those
    components are no longer part of a conclusive whole, despite the fact that
    I still see them as interlocked. My point in bringing this up here is that
    a system of rules at the domain level in which character level had no
    influence really would be tossing out the character class system and most
    of the rest of the basis of D&D. D&D is a level-based system and those
    levels are based on character classes. While there are a few folks in the
    BR community who use other RPG systems, BR is still based on D&D even now
    that we`re an edition (and a half) away from the original rules set. While
    I haven`t done a poll, I feel confidant saying that the majority of gamers
    in the BR community still use D&D as the basis of their BR
    campaigns. Coming up with a system of domain rules that ignored character
    level _would_ be doing away with the character class system, at least as
    far as the domain rules go. There needs to be certain differences at the
    domain level of play, but totally ignoring the adventure level of play
    seems like a bad idea.

    Another thing people sometimes mention is that a proposed house rule will
    somehow interfere with role-playing. Usually that objection gets little
    merit in my book because it doesn`t apply to the particular house rule, and
    generally isn`t true in the first place. Actual role-playing can take
    place around just about any set of rules, and it isn`t the rules themselves
    that oppose role-playing. I`ve role-played over a game of checkers played
    at a coffee house. Seriously:

    Gary: Huzzah! I have reached the summit of achievement and claim my
    crown. Henceforth I am King Black, Lord of the Checkered Tiles!

    Opponent: What?

    Gary: Oh, just king me. Sheesh....

    My point here is that a system of domain rules that ignores character level
    might just do exactly what people seem to evince such anxiety over when it
    comes to a few house rules; it could interfere with role-playing. A system
    of domain rules that ignores character level would probably also need to
    ignore character class (one could, at least, apply the same logic) and
    would represent a shift in the emphasis of stats, abilities and basic game
    mechanics. I play a highly adventure oriented BR campaign. As often as
    not the PCs aren`t regents. They may be regents, their subordinates or
    just hired agents, but much of the time the adventures they participate in
    are performed in lieu of a die roll for the domain level action or
    event. Success in the adventure means success or a bonus on the success
    roll for the equivalent domain action or random event. I find this a more
    satisfying way of resolving events at the domain level, and I`m honestly
    surprised that I don`t hear more people espousing it--especially those
    folks who seem to idolize role-playing over rules. It seems like the same
    people who have argued that certain house rules at the domain level will
    interfere with role-playing would adventure out their domain level events
    because it would involve more actual role-playing... but I digress.

    A system of domain rules that ignores character level (and/or character
    class) could make the transition from the adventure level to the domain
    level less subtle and, therefore, interfere with role-playing. If one
    adventures out, for example, a Diplomacy action a PC with a higher
    diplomacy skill would have more success performing the individual,
    adventure level diplomacy skill checks than would another character with a
    lower skill. If the domain level of play does not reflect that skill in
    any way then the transition between adventuring out the domain action and
    performing that domain action without an adventure is
    disconnected. Depending on the chances of success on particular domain
    actions a player could rightly assess his chances of success are better by
    performing the domain action with a simple die roll--not adventuring out
    the action. Thus, less actual role-playing would take place. One could
    certainly role-play that die roll, but a single die roll represents less of
    an opportunity for role-playing than does an entire, month-long adventure.

    As for the system of XP and regents not earning experience for domain
    actions, I again disagree. The CR/XP award system of 3e (and previous
    editions) is simply one set of guidelines for how experience is
    determined. There`s no reason to assume that the only way one can earn XP
    is by defeating monsters. There are guidelines for XP awards that have
    nothing to do with combat, and that`s the kind of thing that occurs at the
    domain level. Successfully performing domain level effects should earn a
    character XP, increasing his character level and making him a more
    effective ruler. Aside from that being the basis of a level-based system,
    it will support the transition from adventure level to domain level by not
    disembodying the two levels of play. Actual awards should IMO be less for
    resolving domain actions rather than resolving them through play or,
    rather, the XP award for successfully completing a domain action should be
    in addition to the XP awards for various adventure level CR
    encounters. The domain action awards would, therefore, represent a kind of
    story award system and could be determined whether or not the PCs were
    regents. It could, in fact, be part of the XP award system with or without
    the domain rules as a way of rewarding PCs for successfully completing
    adventures that have a broader impact than their treasure
    hoard. Hm. Interesting. A system of story awards based on the
    adventure`s relation to accomplishing domain level effects.... I kind of
    like that. I`ll have to give it some thought....

    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.

  4. #14
    Site Moderator Ariadne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    near Frankfurt/ Germany
    Posts
    801
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Birthright-L

    Prestige Class: Monarch??? Sounds good to me. The more a person learns about being a Monarch, the better they would be at it. There are already Warlord and such prestige classes, I think this one would be a good one. Others could be: Guilder, High Priest, Realm Mage, etc.
    Really funny. Prestige class: High-Priest. That's good. No, being a high-priest is given by a god, not a PrC. Naturally the same you can say for monarch etc. ...
    Fun to the side: What you you think are the prequisites for those PrC's? A bloodline, a level? If nearly everyone can take this PrC, it will be useless, I fear. Further for "monarch" you can take "aristocrat" instead...

    Otherwise it is right, being a monarch shouldn't be related to the level, but maybe you can say: Higher level = more experience and that's why a wiser regent. And naturally a 20th level regent needn't to hide himself from anyone...
    May Khirdai always bless your sword and his lightning struck your enemies!

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    BR mailing list
    Posts
    1,538
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Nitpicking is my least favorite thing.....but I`ll go along and do some of
    my own if ya insist ;-)

    A person can take any prestige class they want as long as they meet the
    prerequisites right? Since I didn`t include any, don`t assume just anyone
    can take it. A prerequisite for the High Priest (which I was just
    blathering about and making no attempt to seriously describe) may be
    required to have a great and holy experience with the Avatar of the Deity
    eh?

    NOTHING is useless here since there was no description at all. As for one
    of the prerequisites for any of these prestige classes, you could say a
    character must: Monarch=rule a province, Guilder=rule a guild holding,
    etc...

    These were just ideas...just ideas. I wasn`t trying to make anything Canon
    eh? JUST IDEAS...nothing to be critical over. Now I`ll bow down to
    superior thinkers.......wouldn`t want to challenge anyones brain.

    Tony


    ----Original Message Follows----
    From: Ariadne <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
    Ariadne wrote:
    Originally posted by Birthright-L

    Prestige Class: Monarch??? Sounds good to me. The more a person learns about
    being a Monarch, the better they would be at it. There are already Warlord
    and such prestige classes, I think this one would be a good one. Others
    could be: Guilder, High Priest, Realm Mage, etc.
    Really funny. Prestige class: High-Priest. That`s good. No, being a
    high-priest is given by a god, not a PrC. Naturally the same you can say for
    monarch etc. ...
    Fun to the side: What you you think are the prequisites for those PrC`s? A
    bloodline, a level? If nearly everyone can take this PrC, it will be
    useless, I fear. Further for "monarch" you can take "aristocrat"
    instead...

    Otherwise it is right, being a monarch shouldn`t be related to the level,
    but maybe you can say: Higher level = more experience and that`s why a
    wiser regent. And naturally a 20th level regent needn`t to hide himself
    from anyone...

    __________________________________________________ _______________
    Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.
    NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.

  6. #16
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    7
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    > On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Raesene Andu wrote:
    > > As a related question let me ask you this. If certain skills/feats
    > > were required to be a more effective ruler (e.g. administration and
    > > strategy) would you spend the points to gain levels in these skills or
    > > would you continue to focus on combat, magic, or stealth related
    > > skills and feats?
    > >
    > > In other words, which would be more important, a powerful, harder to
    > > kill character, or a character that could rule his realm more
    > > effectivly?
    >
    > Well, the point of BR was to play an adventuring king, so you`d want to be
    > able to have some of both (probably wouldn`t be optimal at either, which
    > is fine). The "adventuring->XP->levelling->more skillful" model doesn`t
    > really work for a non-adventuring king, though, does it? And he should
    > probably be a more skillful king than the adventuring king, since it`s his
    > only focus. But he never gets XP, so he`ll never improve his skills, and
    > the adventuring king will blow by him. Adding XP rewards for kingly
    > duties is kind of a hack and doesn`t exactly solve the problem either.

    I don`t see why being a good monarch shouldn`t give you XP. The mentality
    that adventuring is the only XP source is just the kind of thinking that
    makes D&D a joke to other gamers, who feel that a D&D game is all about
    saddling up, sacking a monster and his lair, dividing up the treasure and
    moving on.

    Now me, personally, I think that gets old very fast.

    Tommy

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

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    BR mailing list
    Posts
    1,538
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Tommy Brownell wrote:
    > > Well, the point of BR was to play an adventuring king, so you`d want to be
    > > able to have some of both (probably wouldn`t be optimal at either, which
    > > is fine). The "adventuring->XP->levelling->more skillful" model doesn`t
    > > really work for a non-adventuring king, though, does it? And he should
    > > probably be a more skillful king than the adventuring king, since it`s his
    > > only focus. But he never gets XP, so he`ll never improve his skills, and
    > > the adventuring king will blow by him. Adding XP rewards for kingly
    > > duties is kind of a hack and doesn`t exactly solve the problem either.
    >
    > I don`t see why being a good monarch shouldn`t give you XP.

    It could at low levels but will slow and stop as you reach higher levels.
    Say all your domain actions are based on some skill (Knowledge-kingliness
    or whatever). A domain action has a DC, typically between 10 and 20.
    There are straightforward rules for assigning experience for encounters
    based on skill checks, but DCs for domain actions top out around 20.

    I don`t have the chart handy, but basically a DC 15 skill check is a CR 1
    or two encounter, and a DC 20 check might be 3 or 4. You gain experience
    based on CR, so if you make a DC 20 domain action at level 1, great, lots
    of XP, but by the time you get to level 12 you will never earn experience
    from domain actions again. And since domain actions are the vast majority
    of what BR regents do, they`ll advance very slowly from that point on, if
    ever.
    --
    Communication is possible only between equals.
    Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.
    NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Belgrade, Serbia
    Posts
    152
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    >
    > In the original ruleset, character ruleset didn`t really
    > affect one`s talent as a regent. It was more domain power,
    > and occasionally a couple of proficiencies were used, but
    > most of those could be picked up within a couple of levels.
    >
    > 3e uses the skill point system, so if you tie any portion of
    > the domain system to a skill (administration or strategy),
    > high level characters will be significantly better. Is that
    > good? Or should a 3e version of domain rules allow 1st level
    > kings to be just as effective as 20th level kings?


    It should depend on skills and feats, I think.

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

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    BR mailing list
    Posts
    1,538
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    What I used was similar to the skill synergy bonuses - if tyou had 5 ranks
    is certain skills, you get a +2 bonus on that kind of action. Each domain
    action has a list of four associated skills. Has worked fine for me!

    /Carl


    __________________________________________________ ___
    Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
    Busenkelt!

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.
    NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 08:31, Tommy Brownell wrote:

    > On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Raesene Andu wrote:
    > > As a related question let me ask you this. If certain skills/feats
    > > were required to be a more effective ruler (e.g. administration and
    > > strategy) would you spend the points to gain levels in these skills or
    > > would you continue to focus on combat, magic, or stealth related
    > > skills and feats?
    > >
    > > In other words, which would be more important, a powerful, harder to
    > > kill character, or a character that could rule his realm more
    > > effectivly?
    >
    > Well, the point of BR was to play an adventuring king, so you`d want to be
    > able to have some of both (probably wouldn`t be optimal at either, which
    > is fine). The "adventuring->XP->levelling->more skillful" model doesn`t
    > really work for a non-adventuring king, though, does it? And he should
    > probably be a more skillful king than the adventuring king, since it`s his
    > only focus. But he never gets XP, so he`ll never improve his skills, and
    > the adventuring king will blow by him. Adding XP rewards for kingly
    > duties is kind of a hack and doesn`t exactly solve the problem either.

    I don`t see why being a good monarch shouldn`t give you XP. The mentality
    that adventuring is the only XP source is just the kind of thinking that
    makes D&D a joke to other gamers, who feel that a D&D game is all about
    saddling up, sacking a monster and his lair, dividing up the treasure and
    moving on.

    So what you are saying is that good domain stewardship should make a
    regent a "better" regent. And that you`d like this to be reflected with
    XP (instead of RP, BP or DP)

    But gaining XP for adventuring does not make you a better regent. Nor
    does being a better regent make you better at adventuring.

    To be best then you`d need a separate pool of XP for regents - and a
    Regent class that this correlated to.


    Now me, personally, I think that gets old very fast.

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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.