Mage Regents was Fighter Re

[Craig Greeson]

J. D. Lail wrote:
> >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.
- -snip-

I'm unaware of any rule, either written or implied, that limits wizards
from starting and holding guilds. Is there a reference to this somewhere
that I have missed? It is certainly true that a wizard can't gather any RP
from guild holdings or trade routes, but that should not preclude him/her
from starting guilds if desired. What I have typically seen done is the
wizard uses his own personal GB and RP to start a guild, and then has a
thief vassal become the nominal "ruler" of the guild/trade route network.
This isn't absolutely necessary, however. I don't believe the BR rules in
any way prevent any class from controlling any type of holding. I know the
BoM is very clear that non-wizards can control sources, even though they
can't tap their power.

I would contend that wizards with decent numbers of source holdings are in
a fairly good position both to start guilds (if desired, personally I don't
like to see this happen since it's quite un-wizardly) and also to prevent
landed rulers from ruling up provinces. Wizards with significant source
holdings can often gather large #s of RPs they can pretty much use in any
discretionary way they want. The landed ruler may want to rule up his
province, but he also has to spend RPs to fend off both openly hostile and
potentially hostile regents in the area. My experience with wizards, on
the other hand, is they are largely ignored unless they're being openly
hostile or another regent needs a favor from them. Thus, they can use the
RPs they gather for either building trade networks (again, I don't like
this) or for opposing the success rolls of landed regents wishing to rule
up a province.
>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.

As a wizard-friendly DM, I think I like the idea that the need for
contesting sources would make it even more difficult for landed regents to
rule up province levels. Does this give the wizard too much of an
advantage over landed rulers? BR is supposed to be a magic-low campaign,
would this shift the balance of power? If a wizard doesn't like all the
humans running about spoiling his sources, I suppose he can always unleash
a death plague or 2.....

Regards
Craig

[JD Lail]

>J. D. Lail wrote:
>> >Craig Greeson said
>>
>> >Of course, there is nothing preventing wizards from creating guilds and
>> >raking in the obscene sums that trade routes can produce,


>>
>> 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.
>- -snip-
>
>I'm unaware of any rule, either written or implied, that limits wizards
>from starting and holding guilds. Is there a reference to this somewhere
>that I have missed?

Well you didn't miss it but you may have misread it (see Below). However you
are correct that you could hold a guild type that you could not collect
regency from if that holding was in some way given to you. I was only thinking
of the guy who does it all by himself and that you can't control something
until it is created and that avenue was (I thought) closed. D'oh ! Another
Homer moment. :(

>I don't believe the BR rules in any way prevent any class from controlling
>any type of holding. I know the BoM is very clear that non-wizards can
>control sources, even though they can't tap their power.

How bizzare, I think you are referring to a passage in the BoM which finally
made the question of creating 0 level holdings clear to me. The Passage in
the BoM pg 19 Col 2 clearly says that the only ways a non wizard regent can
control a source are by; 1) inheritance or 2) having a wizard regent create
a holding on their behalf. While the BoM does not make it 100 % clear that
investiture is involved in the latter case it definitely means that a
non-wizard can not create a 0 level source holding. Given that fact I see no
reason to see why any regent can create holdings outside of their regency
area(s) unless source holdings are for some reason to be treated differently.

An interesting question is how hard will it be to get someone to make a zero
level guild for you ? The local guilders are pretty much precluded since you
can't create a 0 level holding in the same province where you already have
a guild. Other guilder regents will not want you horning in on their markets.
If they do it, I'll bet you have to make some sort of quid pro quo. An NPC
unlanded guilder scion ? Hmmm.....could be dangerous.

Not as easy a scenario imo.


L8R

[The Olesens]

Craig Greeson wrote:

> J. D. Lail wrote:
> > >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.
> -snip-
>
> I'm unaware of any rule, either written or implied, that limits wizards
> from starting and holding guilds. Is there a reference to this somewhere
> that I have missed? It is certainly true that a wizard can't gather any RP
> from guild holdings or trade routes, but that should not preclude him/her
> from starting guilds if desired.

No one argues if a landed figther (Such as in Suiriene) makes a guild for a trade route.
Why should it not be allowed to wizards? They do not recieve the full benefit of them,
yes, and must spend RP protecting thier holdings from guilders *and* wizards but if a
wizard wants to, why not? No one argues when temples or guilds hold law. Law and Guilds
are probably the holdings of most importance. Law allows thier regent to affect province
loyalty and 'steal' gold from other regents. Guilds allow trade routes. The benefits of
these holdings expand to all regents. Temples and sources, on the other hand, grant the
ability to cast realm spells, which only a specific class can utalize.

Try looking at things again but diffrently, it helps (see me post on alignment).

- -Andrew

[Tod Hurlbert]

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.
>

Huh? Where's it say that? He might not collect regency from it, But I don't
recall anything saying that he can't (multiclassed or not) control a guild
holding.