Help wanted (on dwarven realm rules)

[Malphas]

I'e trawled these forums for ideas on a conundrum and a map.

the conundrum: what to do with dwarven realms. various books note that dwarves inflict little disruption to the surface realm and thus have high source potential. nothing remotly of that sort seems to be in any domain write-up i've seen, but those same writeups make a general mess of source potential (ignoring coast/river notes, putting the erebannien at forest level <7> rather than ancient forest <9> and claiming it is the most magical and oldest forest on the continent, random enforcement of sidhelien exeption).
also do you adjust max province in mountains. rivenrock province for example seems to break province maximums.

my very rough draft to deal with this is to treat mountain as 2 provinces sharing a source. the source reduction would be the average between inside and outside (with dwarfs possibly enjoying a small improvement).

this would allow for secret dwarven realms (including the lost city of Kheleb-Izhil), deal with province levels (exact reverse of standard mountain levels perhaps), address the source potential and so on.

what are everyone's thoughts on the issue? any better ideas? any mistakes you can spot? perhaps i'm reinventing the wheel and rules for this are already somewhere and i just couldn't find it?

the map i seek is basically any map that has both naval areas and either terrain, provinces or realm to better orient where the naval areas are in relation to the various coasts/ports
i think i downloaded every map here, but i couldn't find anything of the sort.

while i'm at it anyone have any cool ideas of a masela's ehrshegh?
(enhanced sense, sea song and the bloodtrait rolled for a pc)

[Witness3]

I'e trawled these forums for ideas on a conundrum and a map.

the conundrum: what to do with dwarven realms. various books note that dwarves inflict little disruption to the surface realm and thus have high source potential. nothing remotly of that sort seems to be in any domain write-up i've seen, but those same writeups make a general mess of source potential (ignoring coast/river notes, putting the erebannien at forest level <7> rather than ancient forest <9> and claiming it is the most magical and oldest forest on the continent, random enforcement of sidhelien exeption).
also do you adjust max province in mountains. rivenrock province for example seems to break province maximums.

First of all, apologies in advance; I hope I understood your question, it seems to be about handling dwarven provinces or provinces under dwarven domains and the fact that province/magic levels do not always reflect what's written in the rules in terms of ratio and availability.

Province levels / mebhaighl levels do not always follow the manual rules, as they are the result of hundreds of years of events that may have upset the balance. Also, sometimes is not clear the terrain itself; I still don't know if Aerele is plains or hills, for example. Also, 3E is a bit different in this than 2E IMHO: The maximum level table in 2E is in the "build your own domain" chapter, while 3E is much more strict in this. With this in mind, remember that the levels listed in the map are 2E not 3E.

my very rough draft to deal with this is to treat mountain as 2 provinces sharing a source. the source reduction would be the average between inside and outside (with dwarfs possibly enjoying a small improvement).

this would allow for secret dwarven realms (including the lost city of Kheleb-Izhil), deal with province levels (exact reverse of standard mountain levels perhaps), address the source potential and so on.

what are everyone's thoughts on the issue? any better ideas? any mistakes you can spot? perhaps i'm reinventing the wheel and rules for this are already somewhere and i just couldn't find it?

The issue of dwarven realms is not new; sometimes DM prefer to list underground realms as different provinces. I personally prefer to handle everything as a single province, and use law holdings to determine the dwarven/surface dweller ratio. If dwarves have no issue with magic, you may apply the elven rule - magic levels are not reduced when rule province happens from a dwarven domain. And of course The king under the mountain is the king over the mountain.

the map i seek is basically any map that has both naval areas and either terrain, provinces or realm to better orient where the naval areas are in relation to the various coasts/ports
i think i downloaded every map here, but i couldn't find anything of the sort.

Never found such map unfortunately, I always did my own maps .

[Malphas]

First of all, apologies in advance; I hope I understood your question, it seems to be about handling dwarven provinces or provinces under dwarven domains and the fact that province/magic levels do not always reflect what's written in the rules in terms of ratio and availability.

honestly mostly on point in understanding my question. let me clarify and state what i failed to mention

Province levels / mebhaighl levels do not always follow the manual rules, as they are the result of hundreds of years of events that may have upset the balance. Also, sometimes is not clear the terrain itself; I still don't know if Aerele is plains or hills, for example. Also, 3E is a bit different in this than 2E IMHO: The maximum level table in 2E is in the "build your own domain" chapter, while 3E is much more strict in this. With this in mind, remember that the levels listed in the map are 2E not 3E.

we play 2e so 3e notes don't apply. with that in mind i understand that but it is rarely written why the levels are what they are. (is it because nonhuman holdings in tuarhievel or because it has halfling/human settlements. zwielund description implies the former while rhuannach strongly disproves it and suggests the latter). the erebannien example is probably special since all available lore points one way while the province levels blatantly refute. and yea deciding what terrain a province is, can be a pain (i haven't put much thought about Aerele personally, but after looking through a few official maps i would lean towards plains as a majority). all this is just reinforcing my point that the og data is a bit imprecise and at times contradictory. thankfully i don't need to tackle elven dilemma just yet (although it will likely change in the foreseeable future)

The issue of dwarven realms is not new; sometimes DM prefer to list underground realms as different provinces. I personally prefer to handle everything as a single province, and use law holdings to determine the dwarven/surface dweller ratio. If dwarves have no issue with magic, you may apply the elven rule - magic levels are not reduced when rule province happens from a dwarven domain. And of course The king under the mountain is the king over the mountain.

interesting idea (i was thinking half elven rule, or a one less rule or several others. with the main reason being a differentiation from orogs, the other under-species). how do you handle maximum province levels then. raw has the bigger the mountain the lower the level. witch does work great on the surface, but the logic falls apart a bit when the civilization is in the mountain. TBH i'm not completely sold on the 2 provinces idea either, but i struggle to think of a better solution to address all concerns i have so any ideas are welcome.

side-note: how would you handle in yur system the tendency of dwarves sealing themselves in for a while (with a potential settling of the surface) as well the occasional dwarven community cropping up where nobody expected one to be (example silverheads)

Never found such map unfortunately, I always did my own maps .

sadness

[Witness3]

honestly mostly on point in understanding my question. let me clarify and state what i failed to mention

we play 2e so 3e notes don't apply. with that in mind i understand that but it is rarely written why the levels are what they are. (is it because nonhuman holdings in tuarhievel or because it has halfling/human settlements. zwielund description implies the former while rhuannach strongly disproves it and suggests the latter). the erebannien example is probably special since all available lore points one way while the province levels blatantly refute. and yea deciding what terrain a province is, can be a pain (i haven't put much thought about Aerele personally, but after looking through a few official maps i would lean towards plains as a majority). all this is just reinforcing my point that the og data is a bit imprecise and at times contradictory. thankfully i don't need to tackle elven dilemma just yet (although it will likely change in the foreseeable future)

Well that's one of the main factors of brithright - you have to fill a lot with your own stuff. In one of the interviews Baker stated that this lack of meta information - having information but not explaining how to use it - was one of the game's flaws in his own perspective.

Personally, first I go with the wiki then I made things when needed. You don't need to know every single detail in every single province in a domain game. If you play on a smaller level, i.e. a single level, you have to made it up.

interesting idea (i was thinking half elven rule, or a one less rule or several others. with the main reason being a differentiation from orogs, the other under-species). how do you handle maximum province levels then. raw has the bigger the mountain the lower the level. witch does work great on the surface, but the logic falls apart a bit when the civilization is in the mountain. TBH i'm not completely sold on the 2 provinces idea either, but i struggle to think of a better solution to address all concerns i have so any ideas are welcome.

Well, you may copy the 3E rule for elves. Elven realms in 3E may raise province levels up to 8. Maybe dwarven realms have this special ability too when handling mountain provinces. So a mountain province under dwarven dominion may reach level 8. However, I wouldn't apply the sea/river bonus as such settlements would be mostly underground.

Also, check out the realm of [[Dauren]]. It's a human realm , bu there is a province with province levels but no law holding. This describes the fact that that province has a dwarven community which has strong relationships with the human realm but does not fully recognize human laws. Creating law holding there may be seen as having human settlements or even increase the relationship between dwarves and humans - having them accepting human rule.

side-note: how would you handle in yur system the tendency of dwarves sealing themselves in for a while (with a potential settling of the surface) as well the occasional dwarven community cropping up where nobody expected one to be (example silverheads)

1. Castle asset (fortify action) - No one can enter the province unless the dwarves says so. If it's only a small portion of the province instead of the whole province, I'd do the fortify holding action.

2. Small communities are not listed in domain scores! so, do not assume a province listing describes everything inside a province. If you want a small colony of dwarves in the silverheads, do so. I'm actually playing a giantdowns campaign and I have small settlements of dwarves in the silverheads - they are too small to constitute a province level however.


Now, If I may give a general suggestion.

When I learned birthright from 2E, I loved it, but I was really confused. Reading 3E domain rules helped me a lot understing how the domain sheet and scores work, even if in the end I kept using 2E rules. I suggest you do so, if you haven't done it already, as a lot of mechanics and attributes are explained way way better than how it is done in the core rulebook.

[Malphas]

Well that's one of the main factors of brithright - you have to fill a lot with your own stuff. In one of the interviews Baker stated that this lack of meta information - having information but not explaining how to use it - was one of the game's flaws in his own perspective.

Personally, first I go with the wiki then I made things when needed. You don't need to know every single detail in every single province in a domain game. If you play on a smaller level, i.e. a single level, you have to made it up.

while not by choice i've been doing effectively the opposite. I had found a completely different wiki (solo 3e IIRC) but not this one.

Well, you may copy the 3E rule for elves. Elven realms in 3E may raise province levels up to 8. Maybe dwarven realms have this special ability too when handling mountain provinces. So a mountain province under dwarven dominion may reach level 8. However, I wouldn't apply the sea/river bonus as such settlements would be mostly underground.

hmm interesting thought. query: is the normal elven ability for forests only or universsl (technically made a similar ruling of elves trating all forests as light for this purpose)

as for dwarves it feels that bigger mountain=more space. so perhaps 8-x where x is standart population levels (with the rest having to be above ground weather in 2 provine or 1 province solution)...

Also, check out the realm of [[Dauren]]. It's a human realm , bu there is a province with province levels but no law holding. This describes the fact that that province has a dwarven community which has strong relationships with the human realm but does not fully recognize human laws. Creating law holding there may be seen as having human settlements or even increase the relationship between dwarves and humans - having them accepting human rule.

where is realm of [[Dauren]]? i think i remember dauren river from somewhere but i dont recall what part of the continent it was

1. Castle asset (fortify action) - No one can enter the province unless the dwarves says so. If it's only a small portion of the province instead of the whole province, I'd do the fortify holding action.

2. Small communities are not listed in domain scores! so, do not assume a province listing describes everything inside a province. If you want a small colony of dwarves in the silverheads, do so. I'm actually playing a giantdowns campaign and I have small settlements of dwarves in the silverheads - they are too small to constitute a province level however.

1. doesn't work in the Kheleb-Izhil case. the city was lost (sealed and everyone forgot where it was) in Khinasi lands (docandragh reportedly) and every province there is settled enough to notice a castle. but a decent stopgap nonetheless. perhaps Kheleb-Izhil could be treated as a special city-province (in a similar vein as ainure capital of ainure)

2. must've misunderstud giantdowns then. i thought it was dwarf realm 1 ruled by an unblooded and thus incapable of growth. then again i didn't need to deal to much with giantdowns. this may change now, if my pcs start using them as a pathway to shadow.

Now, If I may give a general suggestion.

When I learned birthright from 2E, I loved it, but I was really confused. Reading 3E domain rules helped me a lot understing how the domain sheet and scores work, even if in the end I kept using 2E rules. I suggest you do so, if you haven't done it already, as a lot of mechanics and attributes are explained way way better than how it is done in the core rulebook.

not a bad idea tbh. was considering doing it anywhay (if only to convert this wikis contents back to 2e). might search for a download in the evening and read tomorrow. time permitting.

[Witness3]

hmm interesting thought. query: is the normal elven ability for forests only or universsl (technically made a similar ruling of elves trating all forests as light for this purpose)

Forest only. However, elven realms have another ability: they do not lose magic levels when increasing province levels, and that is universal as long as it's an elven Rule province action.

as for dwarves it feels that bigger mountain=more space. so perhaps 8-x where x is standart population levels (with the rest having to be above ground weather in 2 provine or 1 province solution)...

In 3E 8 is the maximum level for a province unless the province has access to the sea or a major river. Id' stick with that.

where is realm of Dauren? i think i remember dauren river from somewhere but i dont recall what part of the continent it was

Sorry, wiki fu fails me. The realm of Dauren is located in the western reaches of Brechtür.

1. doesn't work in the Kheleb-Izhil case. the city was lost (sealed and everyone forgot where it was) in Khinasi lands (docandragh reportedly) and every province there is settled enough to notice a castle. but a decent stopgap nonetheless. perhaps Kheleb-Izhil could be treated as a special city-province (in a similar vein as ainure capital of ainure)

Yes, it does; I call them castles but they are more like province fortifications. Also, the Ward domain spell may work in a similar manner. You may handle Kheleb-Izhil as a Urban province following 3E rules.

However, IMHO Kheleb Izhil is a mythical city hidden and forgotten by memory. It's not something a dwarven realm or any realm should be able to do ad undo in a whim. That's outside the scope of domain gameplay.

2. must've misunderstud giantdowns then. i thought it was dwarf realm 1 ruled by an unblooded and thus incapable of growth. then again i didn't need to deal to much with giantdowns. this may change now, if my pcs start using them as a pathway to shadow.

A bit, yes. The Giantdowns are not a realm per se, rather a region where a lot of refugees, including dwarves from Mur Kilad, flee to gain some peace. They have no real government here besides some ranger. The Awshegh Ghuralli has conquered the northern region , including the silverheads and the southern Lluabraight, but that's it.

[Malphas]

what the hell?
why does it show to me that the above post was written by me?
can't quote either for some reason. is this related to the fact that the site was down for a while

on a different note:
how do urban provinces work in 3e? IE are they limited by the terrain of their parent province in how high they can develop? how about what provinces they can trade with?
I know that alternate culture would allow same terrain to trade, but seeing that an urban province is so dependent on having a trade route it is even more likely that someone would try making it internal.

I did get to read 2 versions f 3e rulebook but not sure which if any is the final. might need to trawl the site again now that it seems to be back.

as far as my impression of 3e birthright is concerned:
some things are better/clearer and thus probably something i might adopt (after converting it to 2e mind you), some things are good but could use a touch up (possibly already done in a different file. now that both me and the site are back might need to check that), and some things are decidedly worse. the main problem as i predicted is less with any new rules and more with 3e ease of manufacture of magic items. there is no mechanical reason why 3e cerilia should not have a magic item shop or such which clashes with tone and worldbuilding. IMO it would be easyer to make ebberon 2e (rule that dragon shards make items not need permanency for example) than 3e birthright (a 3rd level caster can start a weak magic item shop.)

[Witness3]

what the hell?
why does it show to me that the above post was written by me?
can't quote either for some reason. is this related to the fact that the site was down for a while

Nice! let's see who this answer will be attributed then

on a different note:
how do urban provinces work in 3e? IE are they limited by the terrain of their parent province in how high they can develop? how about what provinces they can trade with?
I know that alternate culture would allow same terrain to trade, but seeing that an urban province is so dependent on having a trade route it is even more likely that someone would try making it internal.

Urban provinces are a 3E new addition and bit messy , honestly. AFAIK only the imperial city is recognizable as a urban province. Basically, you handle a big city as a province, creating a difference between the city and the surrounding area. you could use this, for example, to differentiate underground dwarven cities and the outside world. A trade route is required because, I think, the rationale was that cities do not have self susteinance (i.e. farms) so provisions must be acquired. this makes sense only on huge (lv 8+) places whereas a level 1 province with a level 1 urban province could simply be a level 2 province.

as far as my impression of 3e birthright is concerned:
some things are better/clearer and thus probably something i might adopt (after converting it to 2e mind you), some things are good but could use a touch up (possibly already done in a different file. now that both me and the site are back might need to check that), and some things are decidedly worse. the main problem as i predicted is less with any new rules and more with 3e ease of manufacture of magic items. there is no mechanical reason why 3e cerilia should not have a magic item shop or such which clashes with tone and worldbuilding. IMO it would be easyer to make ebberon 2e (rule that dragon shards make items not need permanency for example) than 3e birthright (a 3rd level caster can start a weak magic item shop.)

Well, I agree on 3E being a mixbag, it is much clear than 2E but maybe a bit too 3E in certain things such as scion templates or skill ranks linked to regency collection. Mind you, 3E birthright is not just a conversion, because it has a different philosophy. Certain issues comes to mind, maybe someday someone will start a full post on this.

- 3E birthright encourages non blooded regents, and this kinda breaks Regency Points as 2E always required RP (and thus requires a blooded scion as a regent)
- 2E is much more destructive: 2 succesful contest actions may destroy or even steal up to 10 levels in a single month/turn. Military conquest is checked per week, not per month
- 2E relies heavily on classes, and IMHO it was for the better comparing them to 3E skill's calculation for regency %.
- 3E bureaucracy is based upon fixed values and the any gain is tax included, compared to 2E where gains are random and you pay maintenance for everything.

As for 3E approach to magic, be glad it's not 5E :P JK, I guess that depends on the DM - 3E allows you to play a high magic birthright setting if you want, even if it is not intended so.

[Malphas]

Nice! let's see who this answer will be attributed then


Urban provinces are a 3E new addition and bit messy , honestly. AFAIK only the imperial city is recognizable as a urban province. Basically, you handle a big city as a province, creating a difference between the city and the surrounding area. you could use this, for example, to differentiate underground dwarven cities and the outside world. A trade route is required because, I think, the rationale was that cities do not have self susteinance (i.e. farms) so provisions must be acquired. this makes sense only on huge (lv 8+) places whereas a level 1 province with a level 1 urban province could simply be a level 2 province.

OK, this didn't answer any o my questions. Let me try to clarify the questions then.
I understood the principle behind the province and the rationale behind trade route requirement. what i'm confused about is if the terrain of associated/home province (like Ainuire for city of Ainuire) matter.
in birthright terrain matters primarily in two ways:
1. maximum level (IE what if the urban province is a Khinasi city state in a desert or a
lost dwarven city in mountains instead of coastal plains)
2. trade with own culture. in order to establish a trade route between 2 provinces either terrain or culture (race or human group) has to differ. does urban count as separate terrain (IE could a regent forge a trade route between Ainuire and city of Ainuire, despite both being ainurean pains)
I honestly could see it either way (hell even base terrain and a modifier r base terrain or a preset number whichever is more)
as for trade never thought of it prior to 3e reading, but if the city is so dependent on trade and farm support there is an argument to be made for allowing trade with same terrain. after all the city clearly doesn't have enough of that terrains exports.
if i allow urban provinces even in limited capacity (something that i'm now inclined to do) i need to answer these two uncertainties. any advice or input would be greatly appreciated

Well, I agree on 3E being a mixbag, it is much clear than 2E but maybe a bit too 3E in certain things such as scion templates or skill ranks linked to regency collection. Mind you, 3E birthright is not just a conversion, because it has a different philosophy. Certain issues comes to mind, maybe someday someone will start a full post on this.

- 3E birthright encourages non blooded regents, and this kinda breaks Regency Points as 2E always required RP (and thus requires a blooded scion as a regent)
- 2E is much more destructive: 2 succesful contest actions may destroy or even steal up to 10 levels in a single month/turn. Military conquest is checked per week, not per month
- 2E relies heavily on classes, and IMHO it was for the better comparing them to 3E skill's calculation for regency %.
- 3E bureaucracy is based upon fixed values and the any gain is tax included, compared to 2E where gains are random and you pay maintenance for everything.

i'll go point by point. not to shit on the system but to clearly state my opinion:

-that seems to remove some of the point to play the system in the first place (as well as creating world-building problems). i'd go with kingmaker (pathfinder 1) rules then
-fully agree. the main problem as i see it stems from lieutenant actions and contest action being uncontested creating a rather bad combo. this does need addressing and i'll have to create houserules. after i finish the terrain reform for my campaign (a mix between mostly 2e and some of 3e) and finish dealing with the dwarven question (pretty much done)
-true but that is inherently more of a 3e issue. in 3e multiclassing (and feat progression) is something you have to count with vigor, as there is a far greater punish for multiclassing (which makes me roll eyes at every published npc/pc with really bad combos). some npc regents i've seen on this site are classed greatly for flavor (i think i've seen aristocrat/wizard) but as soon as they come into conflict with pcs they struggle
which is fine in some cases (competent upstarts unseating high level incompetents) but can become difficult to challenge pcs at times.
-never really had a problem with that. do't really have a problem with most 3e either exept it reduces player agency a tiny bit (setting tax rates, law holding claims y/n). not entirely a solution looking for a problem mind you, but not a clear improvement either.

As for 3E approach to magic, be glad it's not 5E :P JK, I guess that depends on the DM - 3E allows you to play a high magic birthright setting if you want, even if it is not intended so.

the less said about 5e the better. it could be worse tho
i mean while we collectively may have blocked that fact but there is a number between 3 and 5... and 3e less allows you to play a high magic birthright setting than forces you to play a high magic birthright setting. what it allows (and heavily encourages) is to play birthright magicpunk. and while eberon is in my top 3 dnd settings but no.

[Witness3]

OK, this didn't answer any o my questions. Let me try to clarify the questions then.
I understood the principle behind the province and the rationale behind trade route requirement. what i'm confused about is if the terrain of associated/home province (like Ainuire for city of Ainuire) matter.
in birthright terrain matters primarily in two ways:
1. maximum level (IE what if the urban province is a Khinasi city state in a desert or a
lost dwarven city in mountains instead of coastal plains)
2. trade with own culture. in order to establish a trade route between 2 provinces either terrain or culture (race or human group) has to differ. does urban count as separate terrain (IE could a regent forge a trade route between Ainuire and city of Ainuire, despite both being ainurean pains)
I honestly could see it either way (hell even base terrain and a modifier r base terrain or a preset number whichever is more)

What I mean with it's a bit messy imho is: there is no real answer to your question because no one apparently was thinking enough about urban provinces, but they decided to add them to 3E anyway.

1. Maximum level should be either the same as the province or 8 if you consider a urban province a settlement with much higher population density. Apply coastal bonuses where necessary.

as for trade never thought of it prior to 3e reading, but if the city is so dependent on trade and farm support there is an argument to be made for allowing trade with same terrain. after all the city clearly doesn't have enough of that terrains exports.

if i allow urban provinces even in limited capacity (something that i'm now inclined to do) i need to answer these two uncertainties. any advice or input would be greatly appreciated

2. The rationale between different terrain/cultures is: birthright economy is supposedly based upon import/export of resources not found in the province.
I don't need to import potatoes if my fields are full of potatoes. However, If I have fields of potatoes and you have mines full of iron, maybe we exchange potatoes for iron.

A urban province trade route does not follow this idea. Urban provinces principal resources is people. people with money. So a trade route to a urban province is basically a way to represent how markets keep opening in the city. They receive commodities and allow detail sell.

So I'd say you can forfeit the culture/terrain rule on urban provinces, and maybe even the distance rule if you use that.

-true but that is inherently more of a 3e issue. in 3e multiclassing (and feat progression) is something you have to count with vigor, as there is a far greater punish for multiclassing (which makes me roll eyes at every published npc/pc with really bad combos). some npc regents i've seen on this site are classed greatly for flavor (i think i've seen aristocrat/wizard) but as soon as they come into conflict with pcs they struggle which is fine in some cases (competent upstarts unseating high level incompetents) but can become difficult to challenge pcs at times.

Well most npcs here are meant to be just npcs. It's always difficult to create a good villain without knowing the party's level. a character may always be too strong or too weak. Most awnies seem to point to mid-level characters.

the less said about 5e the better. it could be worse tho
i mean while we collectively may have blocked that fact but there is a number between 3 and 5... and 3e less allows you to play a high magic birthright setting than forces you to play a high magic birthright setting. what it allows (and heavily encourages) is to play birthright magicpunk. and while eberon is in my top 3 dnd settings but no.

I agree. altough I have nothing against magicpunk (first time I see this term, cool), we already have a lot of these,even the forgotten realms are becoming more and more steamy, birthright's more grounded "fire and steel" attitude sets it apart from other settings.