>Gary V. Foss said;

>>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. You can have unlanded Temple or Guild regents simply by
substituting more holdings for the provinces. This is because Guilds and
Temples generate income of their own in addition to the RP's they generate.
Sources OTOH generate no income.

>Simon Graindorge wrote:

>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.

But unless you actually use this power and its suffer its consequences it
is useless. For an unlanded human wizard to try and stand alone simply will
not work, imo.

>Craig Greeson said

>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.

If you are referring to an unlanded regent Wizard then I must disagree with
you. An unlanded wizard can only only have a Trade Route if he has a Source
of 7+ strength. Those are of course, darn rare. Unless of course you want
to allow a wizard to have a trade route by means of a guild holding which,
unless they are multiclassed they are not supposed to be able do.

>Resume Craig Greeson said;

>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_.

This is a great weakness of the Wizard Class, imo. Their Sources can be
taken away by a province ruler at any time, without contesting. IMHO that
should be changed so that before a province ruler can rule up a province
he must contest the source away.