View Poll Results: What cost modifiers should be used for domain actions that require a check (other than rule province

Voters
20. You may not vote on this poll
  • (1) +1 GB per target level

    3 15.00%
  • (2) +1 RP per target level

    2 10.00%
  • (3) + x2 GB per target level

    0 0%
  • (4) + x2 RP per target level

    0 0%
  • (5) Combination of (1) and (2) above

    6 30.00%
  • (6) Combination of (1) and (4) above

    3 15.00%
  • (7) Combination of (3) and (4) above

    0 0%
  • (8) Combination of (2) and (3) above

    1 5.00%
  • (9) Other (please provide suggestions with as much detail as possible)

    4 20.00%
  • (10) Abstain

    1 5.00%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Let's try this one. This is to determine the modifer for domain actions based on target level not the base cost for domain actions. This also excludes rule province since I think that is one that a lot people think should be more costly than others.

    This only applies to actions that change the target's level, pretty much the rule action - but I don't want to close the door on somthing related that I might have missed.
    Duane Eggert

  2. #2
    Birthright Developer Raesene Andu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,357
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    I voted other because once again I believe that the domain actions need to be worked out on a case by case basis and balanced individually.

    Also, this poll cannot really be accurate until we determine what the DC of each action is. For example, take rule holding. If the base DC is 10, then I'd say that the cost should be 1 GB + 2 RP/target holding level. However, if the base DC is 15, then it should only be +1 RP/target holding level.
    Let me claim your Birthright!!

  3. #3
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I voted other because once again I believe that the domain actions need to be worked out on a case by case basis and balanced individually.
    Well if you read my comments you can see that this is only in relation to actions that affect a target's level - pretty much the rule action, although there may be some others too but definitely not all actions.

    Also, this poll cannot really be accurate until we determine what the DC of each action is. For example, take rule holding. If the base DC is 10, then I'd say that the cost should be 1 GB + 2 RP/target holding level. However, if the base DC is 15, then it should only be +1 RP/target holding level.
    Looking at the poll I closed on doing this - it was obvious that people were already making individual assumptions about what things were going to affect the actions themselves. Based on what I've been seeing from the skills, feats, class (especially noble), and various discussions on domain actions themselves, people seem to feel stronger about how certain things should affect a domain action instead of trying to balance things overall with a DC. At least people seem to be making their own assumptions on how everything ties together instead of working on one aspect at a time.

    Even you are dealing with multiple layers at once - see the comment on dealing with (and balancing) a domain action at a time.

    What this does, IMO, is remove the attempt to standardize the mechanics. 3.5 is all about standardizing mechanics not individualizing them.

    It is probably easier to calculate how things interact and then determine the appropriate DC to make them an appropriate challenge.
    Duane Eggert

  4. #4
    Birthright Developer Raesene Andu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,357
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    While I think is a good idea to standardize the basic structure of domain actions. e.g. the success chance of each is a DC +/- modifiers, costing X amount of GB and x amount of RP, standardizing the cost of all actions is going a little to far IMO. That is standardization simply for the sake of it, not for any other reason. 3.5E has no rules that come anywhere near looking like domain rules, so what are we standardizing them with exactly?

    Anyway, we are only really talking about Rule Holding here aren't we? No other action is specifically tied to target level. In that case see my comments above. I can't make a descision on cost until I know what the DC for the action will be.
    Let me claim your Birthright!!

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Victoria, BC, Canada
    Posts
    8
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Raesene Andu@Oct 16 2004, 10:30 AM
    I voted other because once again I believe that the domain actions need to be worked out on a case by case basis and balanced individually.

    Also, this poll cannot really be accurate until we determine what the DC of each action is. For example, take rule holding. If the base DC is 10, then I'd say that the cost should be 1 GB + 2 RP/target holding level. However, if the base DC is 15, then it should only be +1 RP/target holding level.
    I happen to agree with Ian and voted Other.

    I think the cost per action should be the same as those in 2E BR. In many cases that was 1 GB plus 1 RP for the action.

    I caution against more than 1 GB per action. ie not 1 GB per target level (except for Rule Province).

    The reason for this is that gold is already perceived (for right or wrong) to be in short supply. Anyone who has run a BR campaign has seen the Turn 1 Squeeze put on the guilders and temples by the landed regents. Why increase the tension? Most BR campaigns, especially the PBEM type, suffer from d4-1 primarily because of the gold 'shortage'. It leads to all out war, which becomes waaaay too much work for DMs and they pack it in. If anyone needs this explained in a step by step manner, they can PM me and I'll post it.

    The less we change, the easier it is to balance the game.

    *Crusader for Game Balance and Simplicity*
    History is much like an Endless Waltz; the three beats of War, Peace, and Revolution continue on forever...

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Victoria BC, Canada
    Posts
    368
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I am also of a like mind with Raesene and Shiro, thus I too voted 'Other'
    "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

  7. #7
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    While I think is a good idea to standardize the basic structure of domain actions. e.g. the success chance of each is a DC +/- modifiers, costing X amount of GB and x amount of RP, standardizing the cost of all actions is going a little to far IMO. That is standardization simply for the sake of it, not for any other reason. 3.5E has no rules that come anywhere near looking like domain rules, so what are we standardizing them with exactly?
    On the other hand I can make a point that not standardizing is contrary to the core concepts of 3.5 - which are that mechanics are standardized. Individual cases are handled by situational modifiers. That is one mechanic modified by situational conditions (or conditional/situational modifiers). The domain rules from 2nd were the absolute closest thing in existance to a core d20 mechanic.

    Anyway, we are only really talking about Rule Holding here aren't we? No other action is specifically tied to target level. In that case see my comments above. I can't make a descision on cost until I know what the DC for the action will be.
    Unfortunately, IMO, people couldn't make that distinction while voting in the poll that I closed. That was gleemed from thecomments being made on the poll. It is also much easier to set a base DC (a single number) based on the total of potential modifiers. Looking at the bonuses from various feats, skills, potential for RP modifiying the to roll, etc., and then determing the base DC to come up with an appropriate challenge.
    Duane Eggert

  8. #8
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    I generally liked things similar to the 2e domain rules. Most actions should have a base cost of 1 GB, some should have RP and/or more RP required. Here's a breakdown of how I would like to see domain action costs implemented:

    BASE COSTS OF DOMAIN ACTIONS
    Agitate: 1 RP x target level of province/holding (assuming the populace's attitudes may be agitated for or against holding regents), 1 GB per province or holding targeted
    Rule Province: (1 RP + 1 GB) x target level
    Rule/Contest Holding: 1 RP x target level, 1 GB
    Create Law/Guild/Temple Holding: 1 GB
    Create Source Holding: 1 RP (Sources should be RP-focused rather than GB-focused).
    Create Province: 5 GB
    Create Ley Line: 1 RP per province crossed, 1 GB
    Create Trade Route: 1 GB per target level of the trade route. This makes trade routes actual investments that require capital and risk, and a full season of operation to pay back the costs of creation. Economically, this still makes most trade routes extremely lucrative, but not so easy that we must assume eveery trade route possible would already have been created barring its destruction by war or contest.
    Diplomacy: 1 GB
    Espionage: 1 GB
    War: units moved gain active maintenance costs
    Ceremony: 1 GB base cost, + any associated costs below
    -Investituture: +1 GB per province and/or holding invested; a suitable DC, say
    0 [willing] or 15 [hostile] + total levels of all provinces and holdings being invested, should require that a good number of RP must be spent to invest either a single hostile province or inherit a sizable domain.
    -Designation and Lieutenancy: 1 RP, 1 GB (the RP is used to establish the divine rights of the heir/Lt. - Lts. may then spend the regent's RP when acting in the regent's place. Heirs gain the divine connection that allows them to inherit the deceased regent's RP reserve and gain 1/2 regency of the domain).

    COURT ACTIONS
    Decree: 1 GB
    Train Unit: 1 GB per month (i.e., 1 GB added to unit's muster cost per month of successful training)
    Build: 1d4 GB per month
    Move Troops (friendly): 1 GB, no additional cost incurred if troops are simply moved from one garrison to another.

    That's about all I can think of at the moment. What do folks think of this arrangement?

    Osprey

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    california
    Posts
    317
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Directed towards Ian. It seems like a part of your argument against the base DC for domain actions polls (which I fully agreed with) was that we didn't know all the modifiers yet. Now a part of your argument against this poll is that we don't know what the base DC is. Creates a a loop which is difficult to break out of. I think we should go ahead and figure out all the modifiers, and then adjust the base DC's at the end to bring game balance.

    Having said that I'm voting for other because I also agree with Ian and ShiroAmada. Standardization of the rules is good, but not standardization of the costs. It seems like 2ed costs are a good place to start out at, with a few adjustments for what people view as imbalances.
    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.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    california
    Posts
    317
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    having only now read ospreys post, only after I posted :unsure: I like 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.

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.