Druids tapping into Source

[Lawgiver]

I see no problem allowing access to both. Though I might set a limit of 2-4 on temples.
The regent still has to spend the time/resources to tap both and doubles his trouble and options for the DM to mettle in his affairs.

[cccpxepoj]

Unlike the existing realms where land, law, and source are held by one person? Or land, law, and guild? How is a temple, law, source domain any different?

As i recall there is not many realms in Cerilia where one regent dominate more than 2 or maximum 3 types of holdings, and source is rarely one of those.
In this case we can have druid lord of Jankaping( for an example ) where arch druid receive regency from provinces, law, source and temple holdings, he can even let the Jarls control some of the trade and receive gold as tribute from them.
In that case ES will spiritual,magical,economic and military power in the Rjurickland, i am not saying it is bad, i am saying that is too easy to abuse.
I am not making balance in the sake of balance( even it is a druid neutrality )
I'm just worried because i have megalomaniac players with a desire to abuse every rule change i make in the sake of role-playing.

[kgauck]

As i recall there is not many realms in Cerilia where one regent dominate more than 2 or maximum 3 types of holdings, and source is rarely one of those.

Allowing druids to tap sources doesn't give them law holdings. This would allow druids access to two kinds of holdings at start, which is pretty standard for landed rulers.

I'm just worried because i have megalomaniac players with a desire to abuse every rule change i make in the sake of role-playing.

That's because role playing constraints don't bother megalomaniac players. In fact, the whole problem there is the players, not the game system. Such players can make any game system a headache for the DM. A megalomaniac wants to impose his will on his surroundings and is especially put off by the idea that the will of others will also impact them.

But primarily let's not make general statements about what is or is not a good change on the basis of unusual players, like megalomaniacs.

[Green Knight]

Allowing druids to tap sources doesn't give them law holdings. This would allow druids access to two kinds of holdings at start, which is pretty standard for landed rulers.

That's because role playing constraints don't bother megalomaniac players. In fact, the whole problem there is the players, not the game system. Such players can make any game system a headache for the DM. A megalomaniac wants to impose his will on his surroundings and is especially put off by the idea that the will of others will also impact them.

But primarily let's not make general statements about what is or is not a good change on the basis of unusual players, like megalomaniacs.

I agree with this. I do not find druids to become overpowered allowing them access to both temple/source (indeed, I experimented with only 1/2 regency gain from sources, but found that too weak). If anything the druid becomes the victim of "the curse of the regent with many types of holding" - he now has another arena where he needs to compete, and any power he gains from sources are more than compensated by the need to spend precious resources and ACTIONS (always in limited supply) defending/expanding his "new" area of interrest.

[bbeau22]

Well it seems that most people feel it is a good idea, I will try to add a variant to the rules that will include Druids tapping into source. Let me know if there is anything specific you want me to add with it.

My thought about GB gained. Do we treat this as a wizard controlling the source where no money is generated or do we throw them a bone. I feel druids might be able to pull resources out of the land naturally where a wizard might not be able to do it so easily. I was thinking making the income match that of a law holding. It gives the Druids money to cast realm spells and grow the domain.

Wizards have spells to help supplement their income where druids won't unless they go heavy with temples.

What do you think?

-BB

[kgauck]

Even if druids could, they would not draw wealth from nature. Wealth itself is a dangerous temptation and best not even pursued lest your find yourself having turned into a city dwelling temple priest without even knowing it ever happened.

No income.

[Tomtom]

I don't see why Druids would need a temple holding at all, it would make sense to have them tap into source instead. I would also think it would be best to have druids have one or the other either its source or temple holdings not both. but thats just me

[Lawgiver]

Even if druids could, they would not draw wealth from nature. Wealth itself is a dangerous temptation and best not even pursued lest your find yourself having turned into a city dwelling temple priest without even knowing it ever happened.

No income.

Why not? People bring gifts and offerings to defend the causes they believe in. It only takes one adventurer/person to donate a single magical item or "haul". Perhaps even from the destruction of a strip mining facility or logging company or ....

[bbeau22]

Guess it comes down to first is that the druid spells out there cost money. Perhaps in the variant they would cost something different. If no money than higher regency cost.

I look at it as there are rare roots and herbs that can be extrated from the woods that would be extremely valuable to the humans nearby. Not to mention fruit from the trees. If the druid controls the wilds some of this could be brokered in the funds needed to cast realm spells.

Now someone trying to make money from the woodlands typically cut down trees and hunt animals along with the above. That is why I think what the druids would offer is far less than what a guild holding can get from the land.

I can see both sides of this one. I would lean towards some sort of income for them but I just don't know what yet.

-BB

[Green Knight]

No free money to druids from sources...absolutely NOT.

B