Results 41 to 44 of 44
-
05-19-2004, 09:58 PM #41
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Location
- Victoria BC, Canada
- Posts
- 368
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Originally posted by Osprey@May 19 2004, 02:09 PM
I just thought of one very important issue regarding key skills for domain actions:
When Contesting a holding, does a regent use his key skill in the holding he is using to contest, or does he use the synergy based on the target holding? Or may he choose whichever is most advantageous?
This is mainly relevant when Law holdings are used to Contest Guild and Temple holdings.
What do you think?
Osprey
The other Regents can use their ability in the relevant skills for their own holding, since that is the only way that they can effectively 'fight back', so to speak.
so a Law regent who wishes to contest a Guild would use his Lead skill, whereas the Guldmaster would use his Profession (Merchant) to counter.
It could be said that the Law Regent is inspiring his constabulary or trained thugs to bust up the guilds' shops, or at least restrict trade, whereas the Guild Regent is trying to either prevent supplies from being sold to the same regent's organization, or inflating the prices to make up for his losses."It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion -- and usually easier."
- R. A. Heinlien, from The Collected works of Lazarus Long
-
05-19-2004, 10:01 PM #42
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Location
- Victoria BC, Canada
- Posts
- 368
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Don:
I agree that in this setting, K/Arcana and K/Nature are inextricably linked. The biggest question that we have at this point is if they are so tied together that they really are the same skill.
If we do decide to keep them seperate, then we at least need to make them synergistic, in one direction. 5 or more ranks of K/Nature will give a synergy bonus to K/Arcana. I can't see it the other way around though..."It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion -- and usually easier."
- R. A. Heinlien, from The Collected works of Lazarus Long
-
05-19-2004, 10:41 PM #43While I think most people will agree that sources are inherently linked to the nature, I would also say that K(Arcana) is a more fitting category for them to fall under. If one see lay lines as something under this skill, there is little reason to give sources a different skill.
Competent regent is one thing, but at the expense of being a decent spellcaster in general? IMO any wizard or sorcerer requires a decent level in both Spellcraft, Concentration and K(Arcana). Throw K(Nature) onto this and the sorcerer is required to have a significant int to operate at a 'normal' level. Add the fact that the sorcerer doesn't have K(Nature) as a class skill, and I think he is shafted pretty badly indeed.
One of the reasons it is particularly appropriate to sources is the fact that mebhaighal itself is directly related to the strngth of nature, and thus manipulating sources is really manipulating the power of nature. Also, if Druids are capable of manipulating Sources but not Ley Lines, the different skills help distinguish which is a particularly arcane thing, and which is more tied to mebhaighl itself.
It is extremely debatable how important Concentration is as a "necessary" skill ofr sorcerers. If they're frequently getting involved in combat, especially melee combat, then yes it's important. But otherwise? Nigh-useless. So it goes back to adventure vs. domain, and which is more important to the regent.
QUOTE
Personally, I've never seen much logic behind rangers getting full RP from guilds - or much of anything else for that matter. I think only barbarians would rate as more poorly suitable to be regents.
QUOTE
Related to this issue are bards. While traditional 2e BR says bards are bad regents, I can't help but think that's just poorly thought out.
I think this is a fundamental issue that should be clarified before one goes on to decide what skills are required. It is quite important wheter one go by the principle that all classes are usable as regents of on form or another, or if there are some classes that are inheretnly unsuitable. Another issue is whether classes should have their competency based upon their skill selection, or wheter the skill selection should be defined so as to suit a set of predetermined roles given to verious classes. So far it seems to be going a bit both ways.
Osprey
-
05-19-2004, 10:50 PM #44Originally posted by Athos69+May 19 2004, 05:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Athos69 @ May 19 2004, 05:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Osprey@May 19 2004, 02:09 PM
I just thought of one very important issue regarding key skills for domain actions:
When Contesting a holding, does a regent use his key skill in the holding he is using to contest, or does he use the synergy based on the target holding? Or may he choose whichever is most advantageous?
This is mainly relevant when Law holdings are used to Contest Guild and Temple holdings.
What do you think?
Osprey
The other Regents can use their ability in the relevant skills for their own holding, since that is the only way that they can effectively 'fight back', so to speak.
so a Law regent who wishes to contest a Guild would use his Lead skill, whereas the Guldmaster would use his Profession (Merchant) to counter.
It could be said that the Law Regent is inspiring his constabulary or trained thugs to bust up the guilds' shops, or at least restrict trade, whereas the Guild Regent is trying to either prevent supplies from being sold to the same regent's organization, or inflating the prices to make up for his losses. [/b][/quote]
Athos,
I would tend to agree that the holding being used to Contest should determine the key synergy skill involved. I was leaning that way, but was curious as to what other opinions were out there.
Currently, however (in the BRCS), there doesn't seem to be any provisions to actively defend holdings with synergy skills. As it requires a Character Action to gain the synergy bonus to a domain action, defense vs. Contest is entirely passive, meaning only RP and the level of holding being contested can be used to oppose the contesting regent's action check.
On the other hand, I think it would be an excellent addition to add such a system, though it will take some work to hammer out a workable system that isn't too complex. Off the top of my head, if a Character Action is required, then it would likely require the defending regent to have delayed their domain action, unless we rule that active defense is still possible if the defending regent goes later in the order of domain initiative. However, those who can delay longest (i.e., those with higher domain initiative who delay) still would have the chance to Contest without the other regents being able to actively defend against it.
Second, it would have to be decided: Does the active defense synergy bonus simply modify the contesting regent's DC, or is this a case where opposing domain action checks would be made? Contested rolls equal massive variability in the result, but also add a level of uncertainty and excitement to such actions. Which way we goes depends in part how predictable we want such things to be.
Osprey
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks