Chapter 5 ideas

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 9 2004, 11:42 PM
while I find this discussion about the noble class very interesting, its not really something that belongs in the Ch 5 discussion rather it should be in the Ch 1 discussion or its own thread really. So, please lets try to not get too far off subject.

Actually the discussion of the noble class was directly related to its ability to lead and hence draw RP which was one of the main topics of this thread.

[geeman]

At 11:49 AM 5/10/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



> Actually the discussion of the noble class was directly related to its

> ability to lead and hence draw RP which was one of the main topics of

> this thread.



I suppose we could try to bring it back around to that....



Personally, I see the noble class as being geared towards ruling provinces

in the same way that other classes are oriented towards particular

holdings. The original RP collection of character classes was based on

their class/sub-class designation with, for instance, fighters, paladins

and rangers having full access to RP collection from law holdings; and

paladins and rangers getting half RP from temples and guilds,

respectively. Similarly, priests and druids (sub-classes of clerics) got

access to temples and, of course, wizards got RP from

sources. Illusionists were a subclass of wizard in 2e, but they weren`t

addressed in BR, being replaced by the "low magic" magician, which didn`t

need to have its RP collection described since it was assumed to be by

definition a character class of commoners.



Everyone got full RP from controlling province population levels. However,

there was no noble character class in 2e, and the lack of one in BR in a

D20 update would be kind of weird. Maybe it would help to illustrate the

issue by thinking of the noble character class in 2e terms. If it had

existed in 2e would it have been a sub-class of fighter or might it have

been its own character class? If they had had such a character class in

the original 2e rules how might they have assigned RP collection?



Gary

[tcharazazel]

Actually the discussion of the noble class was directly related to its ability to lead and hence draw RP which was one of the main topics of this thread.

Um, we all know the noble can lead. In fact, we all should know nobles make a better Law regent than a fighter, because the noble gets Administrate as a class skill. And we all know that to create/contest/rule a Law holding in the BCRS its based upon the Administrate skill.

Honestly, I understand why you want to keep fighters as good Law regents (attachment to 2e) and why you think nobles shouldn't be so good (3.5 balance between classes). However, you seem to have forgotten that BR is a mix between Domain and Adventure. Some games may have a balance between the 2, and some maybe focused more upon one or the other. For all games, characters will likely multiclass in fighter/noble and for balanced games they will probably be fairly even. If the game is focused upon Domain play then we can expect noble to become a dominant class, if the game is focused upon Adventure we can expect fighter to become a dominant class.

A noble is a class really specialized on domain level of play. A fighter is really specialized on adventure level of play. If you put a noble vs a fighter on a domain level of play, I'll put money on the noble, however, if you put a noble vs a fighter in a gladiator ring, I'll be betting on the fighter.

Thus, it becomes obvious that with the current skill based system nobles are the class to be for province and law regents, who are focused upon a Domain level of play, and want to get full RP collection.

Now, if you insist upon making it a class based system for RP collection, it is only benefiting those very low level regents (levels 1-3) actually, not those classes with few skill points! Every class by 4th level would have more than enough skill points to collect Max RP from their provinces/holdings, if they Choose to do so. This is the main flaw in your argument really, and one that you need to properly address if you want to gain any creedence to your argument for changing the skill based system for RP collection.

[Athos69]

Now, if you insist upon making it a class based system for RP collection, it is only benefiting those very low level regents (levels 1-3) actually, not those classes with few skill points! Every class by 4th level would have more than enough skill points to collect Max RP from their provinces/holdings, if they Choose to do so. This is the main flaw in your argument really, and one that you need to properly address if you want to gain any creedence to your argument for changing the skill based system for RP collection.

And this is why I am an advocate of the skill-based system. We don't need to endlessly argue over what classes should get what percentage of the Regency from holdings and provinces. The onus is on the player to allocate sufficient skill points. If the player has a race/class combo that makes it difficult, then it's difficult, but eventually the character will achieve 100% collection.

[Osprey]

And this is why I am an advocate of the skill-based system. We don't need to endlessly argue over what classes should get what percentage of the Regency from holdings and provinces. The onus is on the player to allocate sufficient skill points. If the player has a race/class combo that makes it difficult, then it's difficult, but eventually the character will achieve 100% collection.

I fully agree. Originally I was working within Irdeggman's schema just to tinker and refine, but honestly if a poll were started I'd vote for a skill-based system - I infintely prefer it to class-based collections, as it is less game-ish and more inherently logical. I generally prefer any game to base things on a believable system rather than an artificial one, or at least lean in that direction. Ironic, given my penchant for catapulting games I run to high levels of power, but there it is.

I would, however, favor a 1-10 scale very similar to the BRCS except a simple 10% per total rank sliding scale.I prefer a system where RP collection isn't the major issue once characters have a few levels of relevant experience under their belts. The main function of bothering at all is to keep the completely inappropriate characters with NO relevant skills from gaining RP from certain types of holdings - bad rulers are bad rulers, and it's good to have something besides DM fiat to adjucate that.

In general as bloodlines are lower powered and slower-growing than in the BRCS (significantly, I'm finding, as I continue to compare the revised Ch 2 stuff to my BRCS campaign), I think that will become the primary limiter to regency collection for campaigns of any significant length, the exception being those scions who start brand new domains from scratch and try to claw their way up to significance as regents.

[Athos69]

Further, averaging is the bettert way to go as well, because any 1st level character under a sum total point system will start wit 80% RP collection (4 ranks + 4 ranks). If it was Averaged, it would be only 40%. (i.e. 1/2 as fast)

[tcharazazel]

I agree with you Athos, as it makes sense that higher level characters make better regents than lower level characters. As the averaging method will require a character of level 7+ to get full RP collections, while the current BRCS skill collection method requires level 2. Heh, and the class method only requires level 1!

There is only one issue that arrises from increasing the minimum level to get full RP from level 2 to Level 7, namely that many regents were below level 7 in 2e. Heheh, I'm fine with this, however, it may require that the atlas team rewrite some of the regents

[teloft]

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 8 2004, 04:22 AM
yeah, letting fighters get Conqueror, Discipline, Great Leader, Hardiness and Military Genius all make sense to add to the bonus feat list. However, not the skill focus as skills are definately not a fighters strong suit.

yep.. but to spend a feat on it, thets considerd expensive where I come from..

[Athos69]

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 12 2004, 07:04 PM
There is only one issue that arrises from increasing the minimum level to get full RP from level 2 to Level 7, namely that many regents were below level 7 in 2e. Heheh, I'm fine with this, however, it may require that the atlas team rewrite some of the regents

But keep in mind that the table could be rewritten to change that curve.

For ecample if we wanted 5th level to be the defining level for 100% collection, then we'd have a table that would cap with an average of 8. If we wanted it difficult for 1st level to get any RP at all, we could have the table start at 4 for 20% and go up by 20% for every point greater than that...

It's all a matter of making decisions....

[tcharazazel]

I like that idea, use the average method and have the RP colection go by avg 4 ranks = 20% RP, avg 5 ranks = 40%... avg 8 ranks = 100% RP collection. As many regents are level 5+ it wouldn't really require many changes.

Heh, also forgot that many regents are going to get a level of scion so that will also up the average level of the regents. So, that makes it even easier.

Good call with that one Athos