Fighter Regents

[Simon Graindorge]

Hey all,

I've been following the threads about guilder regents getting so much money,
etc, and a thought has struck me. I've always been of the opinion that
fighter (not ranger, paladin) regents are at a disadvantage compared to
other character classes. For example, thief regents, or guilders, tend to
make much more money; Priest regents get a lot more regency from various
sources, and have a 'higher power' on which to blame things; etc.

OK, now I do realise that fighter regents tend to be domain rulers for the
most part, which does come with a lot of power in it's own right (see the
current guilder vs. province ruler thread), BUT....

what I was wondering is two things:

* Firstly, what is your take on the above? do you agree with me that
fighters seem at a disadvantage, or not?

* and secondly, has anyone got any ideas of how to address this [perceived?]
imbalance?

Cheers all,

Simon

--------
Simon Graindorge
Tribology Laboratory
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering
University of Western Australia

email: simong@mech.uwa.edu.au
phone: +(61 8) 9380 3604
fax: +(61 8) 9380 1024
--------

[Gary V. Foss]

Simon Graindorge wrote:

> * Firstly, what is your take on the above? do you agree with me that
> fighters seem at a disadvantage, or not?

I think the guys who really are at a disadvantage are wizards. Their sources
generate no money and their realm spells cannot be cast without money. They
either have to ally themselves with some other regent, or they have to spend a
month earning enough money to spend another month casting an Alchemy spell to
earn enough money so that they can even perform domain actions or cast other
realm spells. Alchemy burns RPs like crazy, so a mage without an ally ends up
short of both regency and money, which seems like a pretty lousy situation to
me.

Gary

[RocksHope@aol.co]

Wizards are only disadvantaged if you limit them to sources.

Law Holdings generate no income of their own (and law claims are the worst way
to make money from a holding..) and cast no spells.

Everyone benefits equally from provinces, only from tradition do fighters have
any chance whatsoever.

Fighters as a class in BR are the same as everywhere else, great at low
levels, pathetic at high levels.

- -joshua

[Simon Graindorge]

>Simon Graindorge wrote:
>
>> * Firstly, what is your take on the above? do you agree with me that
>> fighters seem at a disadvantage, or not?
>
>I think the guys who really are at a disadvantage are wizards. Their sources
>generate no money and their realm spells cannot be cast without money. They
>either have to ally themselves with some other regent, or they have to spend a
>month earning enough money to spend another month casting an Alchemy spell to
>earn enough money so that they can even perform domain actions or cast other
>realm spells. Alchemy burns RPs like crazy, so a mage without an ally ends up
>short of both regency and money, which seems like a pretty lousy situation to
>me.

I agree with this, and the only mage regent that has ever been even mildly
successful in my campaigns was also a province ruler, so they gained money
through taxation.

But...my argument against this would be that mages have access to (wizardly)
magic - no-one else can even *think* about using realm (let alone "normal")
magic. ***Only*** mages (and they don't have to be high level) can use
magic. And magic is the sort of power which can make or break an
attack/defence in the blink of an eye. It is no wonder that powerful (and
mediocre) mages are so feared and pandered to by rulers.

Even priests (who are a dime-a-dozen in BR) don't compare to the awesome
power wielded by wizards (regents in particular). Granted, they have a
different type of power, but they don't (IMO) possess the earth-shattering,
land-moving aura that wizards manifest. But, as you say, wizards pay a
pretty hefty price for this power, and it's also pretty difficult to keep
it. The point is, wizards have something which balances out the hard time
they have collecting enough RP's so they can cast some magic. Not only does
it balance it out, it is unique to the wizard class, and no-one else can
access this power.

However, my take on fighters is that everything they do, someone else seems
to be able to do better (or at least just as well - OK, I'm over-reacting
here, but I'm sure you all understand what I mean). I mean this both from a
personal (ie. character abilities) and regency (rulership abilities &
potential) point-of-view. In fact, I have always wondered why fighters need
so much experience at high (and low levels), when they really have very few
special talents (compared to say thieves & priests), but that's getting a
little off-topic.

anyway, just my take on things,

Simon

[Craig Greeson]

Greetings all,
I agree with Simon that fighter regents get the short end of the stick in
BR. People in my campaign usually prefer the more "glamorous" ranger or
paladin classes, and the BR rules for regency tend to slant the game even
more in favor of them vs. the standard fighter class. I've considered
allowing each basic class to only gather regency from a single type of
holding. Warriors would gather regency from Law holdings, rogues from
Guilds, priests from Temples, and wizards from Sources. Unfortunately, I
also see the logic in the way most of the regency gathering rules are set
up now. The one I'm not so sure about is rangers and Guilds.

With regards to Gary's comment about wizards being at a real disadvantage,
I would have to agree with his basic premise. It is VERY difficult to play
a successful wizard with limited GBs. On the other hand, the campaign can
be completely dominated by a wizard who has plenty of gold. Some of the
wizard realm spells (i.e. mass destruction, warding, transport, defection,
and especially animate dead) can be quite unbalancing if a wizard can throw
a lot of cash and RP into them. The fact the alchemy spell burns a lot of
RPs helps explain why wizards don't dominate the Cerilian landscape. Of
course, there is nothing preventing wizards from creating guilds and raking
in the obscene sums that trade routes can produce, with the notable
exception of mass paranoia that would probably ensue with local guilders
and landed regents.

Regards
Craig

Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
> Simon Graindorge wrote:
>
> > * Firstly, what is your take on the above? do you agree with me that
> > fighters seem at a disadvantage, or not?
>
> I think the guys who really are at a disadvantage are wizards. Their sources
> generate no money and their realm spells cannot be cast without money. They
> either have to ally themselves with some other regent, or they have to spend a
> month earning enough money to spend another month casting an Alchemy spell to
> earn enough money so that they can even perform domain actions or cast other
> realm spells. Alchemy burns RPs like crazy, so a mage without an ally ends up
> short of both regency and money, which seems like a pretty lousy situation to
> me.
>
> Gary
>
> ************************************************** *************************
> > 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Simon Graindorge
>I've been following the threads about guilder regents getting so much
money,
>etc, and a thought has struck me. I've always been of the opinion that
>fighter (not ranger, paladin) regents are at a disadvantage compared to
>other character classes. For example, thief regents, or guilders, tend to
>make much more money; Priest regents get a lot more regency from various
>sources, and have a 'higher power' on which to blame things; etc.
>
>OK, now I do realise that fighter regents tend to be domain rulers for the
>most part, which does come with a lot of power in it's own right (see the
>current guilder vs. province ruler thread), BUT....
>
>what I was wondering is two things:
>
>* Firstly, what is your take on the above? do you agree with me that
>fighters seem at a disadvantage, or not?
>
I don't neccessarily agree, see below.

>* and secondly, has anyone got any ideas of how to address this
[perceived?]
>imbalance?
>
When playing a warrior regent (I'm assuming with a domain of mainly law
and provinces, though you could have a fighter rule a guild if you wanted to
I suppose, he just wouldn't do well), you have several advantages to balance
the wealth of guilds and priests. To knock down a wizard, just rule up your
provinces when you get a chance, he'll lose power at the same time as you
gain it, net effect he loses _fast_.
1 Use law holdings to collect all the GB you can.
2 Play guilds against each other, and temples too, so you have a clear
majority of law in each province, and can collect more money.
3 Don't allow temples or guilds to have troops. Strongly discourage
fortifications.
4 Take 50% of every trade route. If they don't like it and won't pay, shut
it down with a decree (another reason to have higher law holdings than their
guild holdings, see page 60 of the Rulebook).
5 Fortify everything. Castles are the best investment you can make, it's
automatic defense in depth. Even if you have no troops stationed in a
province, they can't just raze your holdings, they have to neutralize it
first and wear it down.
6 If worst comes to worst, threaten them physically. Since you didn't allow
troops or fortifications, a declare war action will allow you to raze any
holding they have. All their money you took will let you get more troops to
do it with :) Remind all your neighbors (who, being feudal lords
themselves, won't realistically want a guild to get that much power) that an
uppity guilder might turn on them someday, too, so they shouldn't let him
muster troops in their lands.
7 If feeling sneaky, make a deal with a neighbor; you each invade each
other, but mysteriously only raze XYZ Guilds in the lands you occupy.
Bluster, rattle sabres, and withdraw, apologize mutually six months later.
The guilds will never know what hit them (same goes for temples).
So, if you really feel that a fighter regent is disadvantaged, cut the
other regents down a few notches. The one that is really disadvantaged is
the wizard, he can hardly hold his own. No GB income unless he uses a high
level source as a guild, no troops, the realm spells balance it some, but he
really needs a patron to cast those. And, no way to really get ahold of a
province to rule, unless he gets some kind of vassalage or treaty from a
landed lord, since most of the lands are taken.

All the above is just from my experience, disagree if you like, I'd love to
hear it.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[LrdTuerny@aol.co]

In a message dated 10/5/98 9:52:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
simong@mech.uwa.edu.au writes:

[BenandAmy]

>>Simon Graindorge wrote:
>
>However, my take on fighters is that everything they do, someone else seems
>to be able to do better (or at least just as well - OK, I'm over-reacting
>here, but I'm sure you all understand what I mean). I mean this both from a
>personal (ie. character abilities) and regency (rulership abilities &
>potential) point-of-view. In fact, I have always wondered why fighters need
>so much experience at high (and low levels), when they really have very few
>special talents (compared to say thieves & priests), but that's getting a
>little off-topic.
>
>anyway, just my take on things,
>
> Simon




Although it's probably not worth as much as the disadvantages, warrior
class regents are the only ones who collect full regency for law holdings
right? This, of course includes paladins and rangers.

[Simon Graindorge]

> When playing a warrior regent (I'm assuming with a domain of mainly law
>and provinces, though you could have a fighter rule a guild if you wanted to
>I suppose, he just wouldn't do well), you have several advantages to balance
>the wealth of guilds and priests. To knock down a wizard, just rule up your
>provinces when you get a chance, he'll lose power at the same time as you
>gain it, net effect he loses _fast_.
>1 Use law holdings to collect all the GB you can.
>2 Play guilds against each other, and temples too, so you have a clear
>majority of law in each province, and can collect more money.
>3 Don't allow temples or guilds to have troops. Strongly discourage
>fortifications.
>4 Take 50% of every trade route. If they don't like it and won't pay, shut
>it down with a decree (another reason to have higher law holdings than their
>guild holdings, see page 60 of the Rulebook).
>5 Fortify everything. Castles are the best investment you can make, it's
>automatic defense in depth. Even if you have no troops stationed in a
>province, they can't just raze your holdings, they have to neutralize it
>first and wear it down.
>6 If worst comes to worst, threaten them physically. Since you didn't allow
>troops or fortifications, a declare war action will allow you to raze any
>holding they have. All their money you took will let you get more troops to
>do it with :) Remind all your neighbors (who, being feudal lords
>themselves, won't realistically want a guild to get that much power) that an
>uppity guilder might turn on them someday, too, so they shouldn't let him
>muster troops in their lands.
>7 If feeling sneaky, make a deal with a neighbor; you each invade each
>other, but mysteriously only raze XYZ Guilds in the lands you occupy.
>Bluster, rattle sabres, and withdraw, apologize mutually six months later.
>The guilds will never know what hit them (same goes for temples).
>
>All the above is just from my experience, disagree if you like, I'd love to
>hear it.

well, you asked for it :-)

I agree with everything you have said above, but all of these
"powers/abilities" are not unique to fighters. Pretty much *any* character
class can use them - all they have to do is become the ruler. Now, granted
that fighters do tend to be more Let's face it, from a purely game mechanics
(ie. numbers) perspective, other classes make much better domain rulers
(collect more RP, GB, etc).

What I was really getting at is that the fighter seems to have nothing that
says "I am a fighter, and taking me on in this area is going to go badly for
you". For example, a wizard has magic, a priest has higher powers, thieves
have a network of informants and other such things, rangers have woodland
friends, paladins have supreme military powers as well as a god - fighters
don't have anything like this, yet they still have one of the highest
experience point tables of all the classes.

The point of my post was not really that province/domain rulers (who are
mostly fighters, I'll admit) are relatively weak, but that fighter rulers
seem to have very few benefits.

I was wondering if perhaps they should have some benefits, in battle - ie.
if you are going to attack a neighbouring warlord's (fighter regent)
provinces, you better think twice about it.

Like you say, disagree if you like, I'd love to hear it :-)

Simon

[Jim Cooper]

Simon Graindorge wrote:
> * Firstly, what is your take on the above? do you agree with me that
> fighters seem at a disadvantage, or not?

I do.

> * and secondly, has anyone got any ideas of how to address this [perceived?] imbalance?<

See my arguement about giving prov. rulers more control over their
economy. Just like Mark said about centralized power and stuff, I think
the ruler's (Anuirean at least) should have all the power and the
guilder regents having to fight to get their 'fair share'.

Not the other way around. I mean, if you look at it from a strictly RP
point of view, only the wizard is as 'limited' as the fighter class. And
they get spells to boot! So, what does everyone else think?

'Course, it could just be my players that have caused me to worry about
this dilemma ...

Cheers,
Darren