Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    The table 5.3 Maximum number of Regents and the rule around it
    is only slightly changed the old rule from p. 34 of the 2E rulebook.

    However in the 2E rulebook it was clearly stated:
    "(Note: this breakdown is provided for the sake of practicality. The DM may
    alter or ignore this guide line.)"

    If you have this rule, which is not even used in all PBEMS, then you should
    have the note as well.


    I second the opinion of an earlier poster, about wondrous structures:
    Spending 25 GBX level to gain the option to change 2GBXlevel into 1 RP/level
    seems useless to me when RP and GB spend to support actions are equally
    valuable. Or did I understand it wrong and a regent can´t any longer spend
    GB to support his actions as the listing of modifiers under "Resolving
    actions" does not list GB?


    Contest Action: Why lose 1D3 levels? This is an additional roll, and in my
    opinion an unnecessary change to the old rule of having a successfully
    contested holding produce no GB, no RP and have neutralized trade routes
    that origin from it. To lose 1D3 levels of the holding in addition to that
    for 1 successful contest seems harsh to me. If the intention was to stop the
    total destruction of holdings of any size with two successful contest
    actions then the rule could have been that the contested holding suffers the
    old penaltys from the first successful contest and is reduced by half (at
    least reduced by 1) by each following successfull contest actions.

    A variant I like more is that a in a province filled with holdings to the
    maximum a regent can rule up his own holding and when his RULE action is
    successful automatically reduces a holding that has been contested before by 1.
    More to follow
    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.

  2. #2
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    USA.
    Posts
    626
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 12:56:58PM -0800, Michael Romes wrote:
    > Contest Action: Why lose 1D3 levels? This is an additional roll, and in my
    > opinion an unnecessary change to the old rule of having a successfully
    > contested holding produce no GB, no RP and have neutralized trade routes
    > that origin from it. To lose 1D3 levels of the holding in addition to that
    > for 1 successful contest seems harsh to me. If the intention was to stop the
    > total destruction of holdings of any size with two successful contest
    > actions then the rule could have been that the contested holding suffers the
    > old penaltys from the first successful contest and is reduced by half (at
    > least reduced by 1) by each following successfull contest actions.

    In the current version, there is no longer any need to track a "contested" state,
    just current holding level. After its reduction, the remainder of the
    holding functions at normal capacity (collecting RP/GB as per norm).
    The regent can _choose_ to Rule holding to increase their holding back
    towards its original level, but does not need to do so in order to
    allow the remainder of the holding to become "uncontested.

    This is a rather significant change designed to deal with the many
    noted problems of the one-two contest-contest all-or-nothing contesting
    rules in 2e. It is certainly simpler... but does it have the right
    feel? This is one of the rules that has yet to be playtested (as noted
    previously, Chapter 5 needed another couple of rounds to work
    everything).

    - Doom

    ************************************************** **************************
    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. #3
    >> Contest Action: Why lose 1D3 levels?
    <<<SNIP>>>


    By DOOM:
    <<SNIP>>>
    >> This is a rather significant change designed to deal with the many noted problems of the one-two contest-contest all-or-nothing contesting rules in 2e. It is certainly simpler... but does it have the right feel?


    I really like the new contest action. It seems for more workable than the CONTEST + CONTEST that is practically required at this point. A d3 also seems just about right to me.

    Eosin

    ************************************************** **************************
    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.
    Hello, I guess I gotta have a sig.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Dr. Travis Doom wrote:

    >On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 12:56:58PM -0800, Michael Romes wrote:
    >
    >>Contest Action: Why lose 1D3 levels? This is an additional roll, and in my
    >>opinion an unnecessary change to the old rule of having a successfully
    >>contested holding produce no GB, no RP and have neutralized trade routes
    >>that origin from it. To lose 1D3 levels of the holding in addition to that
    >>for 1 successful contest seems harsh to me. If the intention was to stop the
    >>total destruction of holdings of any size with two successful contest
    >>actions then the rule could have been that the contested holding suffers the
    >>old penaltys from the first successful contest and is reduced by half (at
    >>least reduced by 1) by each following successfull contest actions.
    >>
    >In the current version, there is no longer any need to track a "contested" state,
    >just current holding level. After its reduction, the remainder of the
    >holding functions at normal capacity (collecting RP/GB as per norm).
    >The regent can _choose_ to Rule holding to increase their holding back
    >towards its original level, but does not need to do so in order to
    >allow the remainder of the holding to become "uncontested.
    >This is a rather significant change designed to deal with the many
    >noted problems of the one-two contest-contest all-or-nothing contesting
    >rules in 2e. It is certainly simpler... but does it have the right
    >feel? This is one of the rules that has yet to be playtested (as noted
    >previously, Chapter 5 needed another couple of rounds to work
    >everything).
    >- Doom
    >
    Then the reduction makes sense, as the remaining holding is still able
    to collect RP/GB and have a working trade route/ley line originating
    from it without needing a rule action to make it work again, only to
    bring it back to the former size. However to avoid holdings larger than
    0 to be destroyed in one contest the rule to"lose 1D3 levels/destruction
    when below 0" should be softened. In 2E Birthright only 0 level holdings
    could be destroyed with 1 successful contest, all others neeeded 2
    successful contests to be destroyed and the owner had the chance to rule
    it out of contest before the enemy could contest the second time. With
    losing 1D3 levels any holding of level 0, 1 or 2 risks destruction in
    one successful contest and an high roll on the 1D3 - without the owner
    being able to "repair" that damage through an action of his own. Perhaps
    two flies with one hit: Avoid the additional dice roll of 1D3 and avoid
    destruction of level 1 and 2 holdings in one action by reducing the
    contested holding by a percentage of itself, say half but at least 1. So
    highlevel holdings (e.g. 10 would become 5 which is a good blow, but a
    level 2 holding would become 1 not destroyed by chance).
    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.

  5. #5
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    388
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
    > Perhaps two flies with one hit: Avoid the additional dice roll of 1D3
    > and avoid destruction of level 1 and 2 holdings in one action by
    > reducing the contested holding by a percentage of itself, say half but
    > at least 1. So highlevel holdings (e.g. 10 would become 5 which is a
    > good blow, but a level 2 holding would become 1 not destroyed by
    > chance).

    So a level 1 guild contesting a level 9 guild could use a lot of RP from
    somewhere and reduce the 9 to a 4?

    I think contest should be exactly the opposite effect of Rule. Rule
    raises your holding one level, Contest should reduce it 1 level.
    --
    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.

  6. #6
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    949
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    So a level 1 guild contesting a level 9 guild could use a lot of RP from
    somewhere and reduce the 9 to a 4?

    I think contest should be exactly the opposite effect of Rule. Rule
    raises your holding one level, Contest should reduce it 1 level.
    This was the original version of contest, that was playtested at TSR before BR was published. It was found to be too slow a mechanic (i.e. it made contest wars into trench warfare of contest-rule-contest-rule-contest-rule-contest-rule where nothing would ever really happen). The version in the BRCS is a step back in that direction, and yes, the intent is that you can be able to wipe out a low-level guild quickly.

    The "halve the level" mechanic was examined - however, it essentially works similarly, though in a clunkier fashion - i.e. halving a level 9 guild to 4, then a level 4 guild to 2, then a level 2 to 1 as opposed to 9 to 7 to 5 to 3 to 1, on average; same number of steps, but why should the initial result have such a dramatic effect as opposed to the later rounds? Doesn't make much sense, IMO.

    Also, note that if you use the variant rule for exceptional results on domain actions, you could roll a "crit" for contest, making the effective reduction 2d3 instead.
    Jan E. Juvstad.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    daniel mcsorley wrote:

    >On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
    >
    >>Perhaps two flies with one hit: Avoid the additional dice roll of 1D3
    >>and avoid destruction of level 1 and 2 holdings in one action by
    >>reducing the contested holding by a percentage of itself, say half but
    >>at least 1. So highlevel holdings (e.g. 10 would become 5 which is a
    >>good blow, but a level 2 holding would become 1 not destroyed by
    >>chance).
    >>
    >
    >So a level 1 guild contesting a level 9 guild could use a lot of RP from
    >somewhere and reduce the 9 to a 4?
    >
    That was what I thought. However to succeed in such a contest assuming
    the same skills would require a lot of RP as the holding level alone
    would make it less likely to succeed and both regents can bid RP.

    >I think contest should be exactly the opposite effect of Rule. Rule
    >raises your holding one level, Contest should reduce it 1 level.
    >
    There is a house rule, that when a holdings is contested (a status no
    longer there in the new rules) another regent ruling his holding up,
    reduces the contested one by 1 - I always thought that much friendlier
    than to utterly destroy another holding with 2 contests and then rule
    your own holding up.

    However your argument of Contest = Negative Rule sounds also good to me.
    With extraordinary success perhaps 2 instead of 1, but as before I think
    that no holding of level 1+ should be destroyeable in one action.
    bye
    Michael Romes

    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.

  8. #8
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    388
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
    > There is a house rule, that when a holdings is contested (a status no
    > longer there in the new rules) another regent ruling his holding up,
    > reduces the contested one by 1 - I always thought that much friendlier
    > than to utterly destroy another holding with 2 contests and then rule
    > your own holding up.

    That`s an interesting rule, and remarkably I`d never heard it before. I
    think the current attempt to reduce tracking by getting rid of the
    contested state is a good thing, though.

    > However your argument of Contest = Negative Rule sounds also good to me.
    > With extraordinary success perhaps 2 instead of 1, but as before I think
    > that no holding of level 1+ should be destroyeable in one action.

    Not even with an extraordinary success? If someone contested a level 1
    holding and got an extraordinary, that would reduce it to 0, and then
    destroy it, and I think that could be ok.
    --
    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.

  9. #9
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    388
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Mark_Aurel wrote:
    >
    I think contest should be exactly the opposite effect of Rule. Rule
    > raises your holding one level, Contest should reduce it 1 level.
    >
    > This was the original version of contest, that was playtested at TSR
    > before BR was published. It was found to be too slow a mechanic (i.e.
    > it made contest wars into trench warfare of
    > contest-rule-contest-rule-contest-rule-contest-rule where nothing
    > would ever really happen). The version in the BRCS is a step back in
    > that direction, and yes, the intent is that you can be able to wipe
    > out a low-level guild quickly.

    Hmm. Interesting. d3 seems to be a good compromise then. I haven`t got
    to the actions in my Ch 5 thread yet, but that`s one less thing to object
    to.
    --
    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.

  10. #10
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7
    At 07:14 PM 2/7/2003 -0500, Eosin the Red wrote:

    >I really like the new contest action. It seems for more workable than the
    >CONTEST + CONTEST that is practically required at this point. A d3 also
    >seems just about right to me.

    The d3 strikes me as being a little... well, random. I went with a
    successful contest action halving a holding level, minimum 1. That seems
    pretty high, but given that it would require a level 7 holding to represent
    more potentially lost levels than the d3 rule it really isn`t all that extreme.

    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.

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.