View Poll Results: How Should Regent performed Domain actions be resolved?

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • (1) Using a skill check with the applicable skill.

    6 24.00%
  • (2) Using a d20 roll modified by dividing all modifiers to the applicable skill by 5.

    15 60.00%
  • (3) Using a d20 roll modified by dividing the number of ranks in the applicable skill by 5.

    2 8.00%
  • (4) Other (please provide suggestion with as much detail as possible)

    2 8.00%
  • (5) Abstain

    0 0%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Victoria, BC, Canada
    Posts
    8
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by The Jew@Oct 2 2004, 04:34 PM
    With all due respect to Derek, I do agree with Duane on this one. I voted for total skill modifier/5 on the assumption that the DC for the domain actions will be modified. From a previous thread I was given the impression that most agreed.

    I like raising the importance of a characters abilities over bloodline, but not nearly to the extent of a straight skill check.
    Jonah, if you only change Domain Modifier Bonuses, and do it well, there is no need to change DCs for the Domain Actions themselves and thus you create as few changes to the BRCSv1.0 as possible, but still come out with the same general result ie reducing the regency reserve

    So why tinker with more core rules than you need to? Another advantage is that if you leave many rules alone, it is much easier to project the impact of your proposed changes since you have a baseline to work with. If you change everything, it will be very hard to determine the actual impact. Also, you won't need to teach the players all over again.
    History is much like an Endless Waltz; the three beats of War, Peace, and Revolution continue on forever...

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    california
    Posts
    317
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    DC's are going to have to be changed, their have been to many bonuses added due to the 3.0 skill and feat system. It's simply a question of much. I didn't play the original but I didn't think there were regent focuses or master feats, both of which now need to be taken into account.

    I do agree that the numerator should be voted on though
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

  3. #13
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 06:01 AM 10/3/2004 +0200, The Jew wrote:



    >DC`s are going to have to be changed, their have been to many bonuses

    >added due to the 3.0 skill and feat system.



    That`s true. I`d suggest that the issue is still not a matter of having a

    general DC for all actions, but determining how much the DC of particular

    actions should change for the purposes of the conversion based on the

    modifier that is employed. Let`s say, for example, the "total skill

    modifier divided by 5" option is used. The range of skills ranks, ability

    mods, synergies, etc. that can influence such a check is pretty broad, but

    the /5 part means that most regents probably are going to have modifiers

    around +2 to +4 with the occasional modifier as high as +6 or +7. I`d

    suggest the DC for the domain actions should remain as close as possible to

    the original success numbers with the conversion`s bonuses factored

    in. That is, those that were 10 should be 15, those that were 5 should be

    10 and those that were 2 should be 5.



    The only exceptions are still IMO the Rule and Contest actions, which might

    warrant being bumped up a bit, depending on how one views the use of

    holding levels as a modifier when determining DC, and the speed with which

    the Rule action should work.



    Gary

  4. #14
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Folks,

    This is not a sanctioning vote.

    My assumption whenever I make a poll or set of polls is that everything is subject to change. What I mean is that the BRCS-playtest was never intended to stand as-is forever. This was even before the announcement of 3.5.

    In regards to actions that are character actions not requiring RP (ply trade, adventure, etc.) - they are not domain actions in the context used here and were never intended to be.

    The phrasing of the choices (and questions) I've used was to be as clear as possible without miring things down in too much detail. For a preliminary narrowing down it is important to not get into too much detail. Not to mention that detail will be interrelated with other issues that haven't been decided on yet - the other polls I've proposes for instance and possible others that may come about because of the discussions on these.

    Once things start to take better shape then the detail will come into play. But we need to figure out (without getting ahead of ourselves) where to start.
    Duane Eggert

  5. #15
    Once things start to take better shape then the detail will come into play. But we need to figure out (without getting ahead of ourselves) where to start.
    That’s always a good idea, just always hard to implement when people have preconceived ideas on how to do things. At least the poll though shows that most people are following the plan.

    Good way to describe it would be that its like an outline. You first write in the general points you want in the paper and then fill in the details. Sorta like from big picture to small picture. Just that most humans are used to looking at the small picture, so changing to big picture can be difficult. Heheh, if they were used to looking at the big picture, history wouldn’t be so repetitive, nor would humans be so entertaining. So its got its bad and good points.


    Osprey,
    I like your Alternative 1: it does seem like an interesting idea, as it would follow the 3.5 skill synergy idea. Though, there would likely need to be a limit on how many skills can add to the bonus, as it could easily get very large (especially for guild holdings if we were to use those 8 skills in the BRCS for guild regents). It would also allow us to set a maximum cap on the skill bonuses to the domain action.

    As for alternative 2: you are basically setting the skill bonus cap to +2. So with a master feat, the character is only gonna have like +4 or so to a domain action. Heh, even more limiting. Though, if you want to keep players from not building up beyond level 6 (using a base DC of 15) it would be an effective means of doing so. Would really make the game more adventure based then.
    "Who was the first that forged the deadly blade? Of rugged steel his savage soul was made." --Tibullus

    "Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum." --Vegetius

    "Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing and dancing sooner than war." --Homer

  6. #16
    Member Bokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Lawrenceville GA
    Posts
    32
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Guys,
    One thing that makes 3.5 so great is the simplicity. I would set the DC's with whatever seems appropriate, not let previous roll requirements from 2nd edition interfere with our decision. I would stick to the basic 3.5e rules with regard to synergy bonuses. I don't think it would be necessary to divide by 5, although that might add more realism; as it would also make it more difficult for a beginning player to comprehend, as it would add an exception to the rule. I know that all of us that have played BR for years wouldn’t have any problems with the change, but to a standard D&D player trying to learn BR we wouldn’t want to turn them off with to many exceptions.

    This would mean we might have to adjust the DC’s from what is listed in the original rules (make them higher), but then WotC made massive changes to the way skill checks work, so it might be appropriate to change our DC’s. I know several people have had suggestions (including me) about changing the way the rule action works. Maybe making the DC's of the rule action higher as the level increases would work. Of course, this would be another example of exceptions to the general rule. Oh well!!
    B)
    Kill 'em all, let the God's sort them out!!

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Nether-Netherland
    Posts
    308
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Bokey@Oct 8 2004, 05:57 PM
    Guys,
    One thing that makes 3.5 so great is the simplicity. I would set the DC's with whatever seems appropriate, not let previous roll requirements from 2nd edition interfere with our decision. I would stick to the basic 3.5e rules with regard to synergy bonuses. I don't think it would be necessary to divide by 5, although that might add more realism; as it would also make it more difficult for a beginning player to comprehend, as it would add an exception to the rule. I know that all of us that have played BR for years wouldn’t have any problems with the change, but to a standard D&D player trying to learn BR we wouldn’t want to turn them off with to many exceptions.

    This would mean we might have to adjust the DC’s from what is listed in the original rules (make them higher), but then WotC made massive changes to the way skill checks work, so it might be appropriate to change our DC’s. I know several people have had suggestions (including me) about changing the way the rule action works. Maybe making the DC's of the rule action higher as the level increases would work. Of course, this would be another example of exceptions to the general rule. Oh well!!
    B)
    I agree. Having said that, I also agree with ShiroAmada that a ruler's skill ranks should not have too great an influence on the action check, unless he's personally supervising or executing the task.
    <span style='color:darkgray'>&quot;I like to be passionate and sincere, but I also like to have fun and act like a dork... Geeks unite.&quot;
    &#160;</span>&#160;<span style='color:brightgray'>&#160;&#160;—Kurt Cobain</span>

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    california
    Posts
    317
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    The problem Bokey is that the challenges in normal 3.0 are meant to increase as a player gains in levels. So a 10th level rogue rolling a Move Silently check will most likely face an opponent with a much better listen check, then would a 1st level rogue.

    In BR the challenges remain mostly the same. If we stick to a basic skill check, then a 12 level regent is going to be vastly overpowering against a 6th level regent. If the DC is going to be anything but impossible for the 6th level regent, then it will be easy for the 12th level regent. Also the importance of regency will dramatically decrease, as the importance of skills dramatically increases. I honestly don&#39;t see what is so complicated by dividing the total skill modifier by 5 or 10. This is pretty simple.

    Also, I don&#39;t think a rulers or Lt&#39;s skills should have any impact on a role unless they are personally supervising it.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    The Jew schrieb:



    >This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

    > You can view the entire thread at:

    > http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...ST&f=36&t=2843

    >

    > The Jew wrote:

    > The problem Bokey is that the challenges in normal 3.0 are meant to increase as a player gains in levels. So a 10th level rogue rolling a Move Silently check will most likely face an opponent with a much better listen check, then would a 1st level rogue. In BR the challenges remain mostly the same. If we stick to a basic skill check, then a 12 level regent is going to be vastly overpowering against a 6th level regent. If the DC is going to be anything but impossible for the 6th level regent, then it will be easy for the 12th level regent. Also the importance of regency will dramatically decrease, as the importance of skills dramatically increases. I honestly don`t see what is so complicated by dividing the total skill modifier by 5 or 10. This is pretty simple.Also, I don`t think a rulers or Lt`s skills should have any impact on a role unless they are personally supervising it.

    >

    The challenges may remain the same through the game but they need not to.

    If your PC´s start as minor regents then likely they will be opposed by

    other minor regents in their vicinity - later when they have achieved to

    accumulate more power/holdings/RP then they will be opposed by more

    powerful regents who would not have wasted their time with them before.



    The challenges do not remain mostly the same - it is a large difference

    if a minor law holder spends a handful RP to oppose your intendet action

    or if Prince Avan or any other major player according to the region

    personally takes an interest and uses the resources of his vast realm to

    raise the DC of your action to a point at which you can´t succeed.

    bye

    Michael

  10. #20
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Folks note the specific phrasing of the poll question;

    How Should Regent performed Domain actions be resolved?

    This was intended to be the regent personally handling an action and not the resolving of a domain action overall.

    I had reconized that there would be differences between the regent himself performing the action or if his Lt did it. The methodology for incorporating skill ranks/modifiers should be different for these different cases. But that is something for future discussions, after the basics are decided. Assume that the regent is personally performing the action for the first set of polls. After that we can wittle down the other details.
    Duane Eggert

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.