Holding attack/defense Holding system

[irdeggman]

RP is part of it being an opposed roll - personally I don't see the difficulty in opposed rolls - 'her roll is your DC' sort of thing.

Right.

The reason I mentioned RP is the fact that no one had done it earlier.

The discussion was along the lines of a flat out defense number based on character level, bloodline, etc. But no mention of any circumstance modifier (i.e., RP) which is really a core concept in being a regent in BR.

There should be a way to handle it, most likely easily. But it should not be merely dismissed as a "relic" and something that should be thrown away becasue it goes against the 4th ed concepts. I feel that it can fit in with those concepts as long as someone wants it to.

[Vicente]

Right you are there Thelandrin (I just checked the wiki).

We "solved" this problem in another way: sources generate "magic income" that can be used to cast spells (Alchemy for example). And population doesn't reduce source level, but reduce that magic income (so no need to Rule the source back if the population goes down among other things). So Wizards don't have to spend their RP to get income and they continue to have problems with high level populations but not so hard.

[bbeau22]

First we have to look at what is setting material versus what is flavor material.

Here is a thread with that subject:

Flavor versus game mechanics:
http://www.dndworlds.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1884&highlight=flavor


Now if you want to only play 4th ed and wave your hand over it and say it is Birthright - feel free.

But IMO you will be making a huge mistake.

One of the good things about 2nd ed that was watered down tremendously in 3.5 was the notion of "settings".

In 2nd ed each setting was distinctly different (well a most of them were in any event). Each had componets that defined the setting in a way that separated it from the others.

In 3.5 this line was deliberately blurred due to economics (and IMO this will continue with 4th ed and anything subsequent). The idea being that any book or product created could be used in any setting. This was in direct contrast to the 2nd ed philosophy.

So IMO define what is and what is not Brithright and then work towards using the 4th ed mechancs to explain it. Not do it the other way.

Totally understand where you are coming from. We are just looking at the same problem with two seperate points of view. I certainly would never sacrifice much of what makes Birthright unique just to shove it into 4th edition, but what I have always said if 4th edition mechanics CAN be used and it doesn't mess up the original intent of Birthright ... then we should.

Seems you aren't too far off from that opinion. I just get scared when people offer up solutions for 4th edition by create new rule sets to go along with 4th edition rules. Too many of those and we might as well not even be using 4th edition at all.

-BB

[kgauck]

First we have to look at what is setting material versus what is flavor material. Here is a thread with that subject:

Good old Ben Franklin.

[Rowan]

For bookkeeping purposes and especially the PBEM community (which we could devise a separate rules set for, but it would be nice if we didn't have to), I prefer to keep the domain actions simple. That's a driving focus of 4e, as well: reduce unnecessary math and die rolls.

So I would like to keep the current Contestation system rather than introducing per-holding calculations of attack and defense and possibly introducing an additional die roll (making it opposed). You could introduce Blood powers and/or feats or assets that provide a bonus to Contest or Resist Contestation, if you wish, but the current system is actually pretty straightforward: base DC = 10+target holding level; you add your own holding level to your action, and then there's RP bidding.

If you'd like to make it a little easier to defend, skill and feat adjustments (if we still have any in 4e) could apply to the defender's side as well. If you want to write down the attack/defend numbers ahead of time for each holding, that's fine, but I'd rather not do that bookkeeping myself.

I also would like to retain the term "Contest" (and, by extension, resisting contestation), because this is a real world term that better applies to the situation and can be explained in any number of ways. "Attack/Defend" takes us out of the political realm and is a distraction making us think of tabletop metagame terms rather than story terms.

As an additional note, in general I think that we should avoid factoring in level or bloodline score into regular calculations. It gives far too much of an advantage to powerful scions. Even using Domain Power (an under-utilized number, IMO) solely as a bonus would give an advantage to large realms and discount the agility factor in smaller ones.

If you wanted to throw wizards a bone, you could allow sources to generate income like laws and allow them to bid regency (but not source levels) against Rule Province.

I would let Source levels apply against Rule Province; the more strongly the magic of the land is controlled, the harder it will be to Rule. However, this works best if Rule Province is made easier and is explained in terms of administrative reforms and divine connection to the land rather (among other things) rather than in population. We've been over those things before in another thread, and I've put forth ideas about making things work within those explanations better.

[Vicente]

That's just status quo, Vicente. The wizards couldn't be contested or even seen except by other wizards, yet they had minimal (if any) income and were completely hosed by Rule Province.

I've just checked the Birthright Campaign Setting at home and any holding can contest any other holding, they don't have to be of the same type, this was changed in the BRCS 3e.

[irdeggman]

I've just checked the Birthright Campaign Setting at home and any holding can contest any other holding, they don't have to be of the same type, this was changed in the BRCS 3e.

Interesting it doesn't specifically state that they have to be the same type - although there is evidence to support that in the color text and other places.

BRRB pg 52
Contest

"A regent can neutralize another regent's holding by contesting his influence." Emphasis on influence.


pg 82 BRRB

"Sources gain the advantage that they are immune to being contested by military force. They can be contested only through the contest action."

Book of Magecraft pg 18

"If another wizard already controls a source within the province, or if the province's ruler objects to the wizard establishing a presence, the wizard may meet opposition in trying to create a holding. (See "Domain, Character, and Free Actions" in the BRRB."

pg 16 of the BoM talks about locating sources. Pretty much only wizards or those with a strong tie to the land in the area itself can locate a source. So if a regent can't locate it how can he "contest" it? Especially since it is immune to being contested by force.


BRRB has an interesting note on barred actions for source regents (pg 82)

A source regent with a 0 level source can only perform the Rule domain action (he can't even contest other sources).

[Vicente]

Probably this is my problem as not been a native english speaker, but I don't see anything in the color text supporting that interpretation :S

BRRB pg 52
Contest

"A regent can neutralize another regent's holding by contesting his influence." Emphasis on influence.

I don't see anything here that supports the same holding type. Why a law regent can't contest the temple regent influence? Can't she deem that religion ilegal for example? (seems a good "contest").

pg 82 BRRB

"Sources gain the advantage that they are immune to being contested by military force. They can be contested only through the contest action."

I think this was related to military occupation of a province (when you conquest an enemy province you can contest/raze everything there, but I'll check when I get home). Again nothing here supports they can't be contested by another holding type.

Book of Magecraft pg 18

"If another wizard already controls a source within the province, or if the province's ruler objects to the wizard establishing a presence, the wizard may meet opposition in trying to create a holding. (See "Domain, Character, and Free Actions" in the BRRB."

If the province ruler can oppose the create holding or rule actions, then that seems to support that she will be able also to contest the source later on if she wishes.

pg 16 of the BoM talks about locating sources. Pretty much only wizards or those with a strong tie to the land in the area itself can locate a source. So if a regent can't locate it how can he "contest" it? Especially since it is immune to being contested by force.

"Those with a strong tie to the land" can easily mean the province ruler or other regents in that province (they are tied to the province more than anyone). But it would make normal people living there incapable of stumbling upon the source (except by chance).

BRRB has an interesting note on barred actions for source regents (pg 82)

A source regent with a 0 level source can only perform the Rule domain action (he can't even contest other sources).

I don't think this is related, it just means several actions are prohibited to source regents because they don't have enough political weight (another problem for the poor guys).

Again, I don't think this rule change is a bad change at all (although I would only make it for source holdings, I would let the rest holdings contest each other).

Also, the problem it could be also the understanding of what a contest action means. While in the BRCS 3e says contest is nearly the same as a war declaration, I don't understand contest as such a terrible thing. It's more political infighting behind the curtains trying to gain more influence over a subject than other regents. If contest is like a war declaration, then create holding or rule is the same most times, and I understand them also as political moves more than war moves.

[AndrewTall]

Totally understand where you are coming from. We are just looking at the same problem with two seperate points of view. I certainly would never sacrifice much of what makes Birthright unique just to shove it into 4th edition, but what I have always said if 4th edition mechanics CAN be used and it doesn't mess up the original intent of Birthright ... then we should.

Seems you aren't too far off from that opinion. I just get scared when people offer up solutions for 4th edition by create new rule sets to go along with 4th edition rules. Too many of those and we might as well not even be using 4th edition at all.

-BB

well, to a degree we are stuck in that we are trying to create rules to model the interaction of domains, and 4e is built on the interaction of people - some stuff will jar.

But using a skills approach to determining action success seems fine for 4e - if you want to have it level/2 rather than points based it would be easy enough to keep point based as an optional system for more experienced players - saying that 'you can spend RP up to your ability modifier on any domain action to improve the chance of success' should make it too hard for anyone. Unless 4e has done away completely with opposed rolls I'd keep it as an opposed roll is easy to handle than tables for defense values.

Bloodline modelled on an ability score worked fine in 3e and that should translate without a problem

Bloodline powers can fit around feats/abilities for combat powers or be 'per action, seasonal, yearly' for domain affecting powers - with the latter being add-ons not swaps to retain adventure level parity.

Domain income should be 3e non-random rather than 2e dice based, but perhaps updated by going decimal to simplify the book-keeping.

RP generation could stay skill focused - if you choose the rule province and rule law' skills on your 'ruler class' then you get RP from them, you can get feats to get up to your bloodline score modifier from other holdings, etc.

Our 4e additions therefore are:
* a new ability score
* a new class - with no adventure level impact, just a choice of 2 or 5 skills
* some new adventure abilities and feats
* some domain abilities and feats
* domain ruleset

None of these require a new mechanic, only the last would take more than a few minutes to understand how to use.

* class to monster conversion (I haven't checked this area of 4e yet, it may be easy enough) for awnies
* opposed rolls (Can't actually see anything in phb stopping this at the moment anyway)

Possibly new but again fairly simple.


The book-keeping is:
* track regency
* track domain gold
* track domain expenses

Anyone who can track hitpoints and gp can track these. Anyone who can't must have someone in their group able to handle primary school math and a spreadsheet who can.

The alternative to domain GB book-keeping is to have 'wealth levels' for realms to avoid tracking gold at all but this in my view causes more problems than it solves.


Overall we don't have much new that doesn't need to be done anyway - the 'outside combat' skills, interactions and economics basically. Frankly if we get new 4e players coming along and saying 'hmm, this is all 4e' I'd be disappointed, 4e is at best the start of a game, if it was the be-all-and-end-all then I'd be converting to herosystem, earthdawn, etc.

[irdeggman]

Probably this is my problem as not been a native english speaker, but I don't see anything in the color text supporting that interpretation :S

Quite possibly.

I don't see anything here that supports the same holding type. Why a law regent can't contest the temple regent influence? Can't she deem that religion ilegal for example? (seems a good "contest").

This is where I think knowledge of English language usage comes into play.

Influence in general refers to influence over something.

A temple regent has influence over the religious beliefs of the population.

A guild holding has influence over the economic patterns of the population.

A law holding has influence over the "behavior" of the population. As in "safety" and "order". Taxes also frequently fall under this category.

Sources have influence over no one. They are independent of population and a source holding is really a measure of the regent's influence over the "land" itself.


Now this opinion is reinforced by the ruling in 2nd ed that uses the difference between holding levels as a modifier for the contest action.

In a level 4 province there can be a level 4 law, level 4 guild and a level 4 temple holding, but the source holding level is not based on the same number. It depends on the pravince land type and subtracts the province rating to dtermine what is left.

It is clear that all holding of the same type are on a similar footing and competing for the same resources while holdings of different types are not competing for the same resources.

Regents are competing for influence over these resources (those of a similar type) and not over the total province (that is under the contest province action, which is vastly different).

I think this was related to military occupation of a province (when you conquest an enemy province you can contest/raze everything there, but I'll check when I get home). Again nothing here supports they can't be contested by another holding type.

Right - but a regent can use troops (could in 2nd ed) to target specific holdings. This emphasizes that sources are quite different than other holdings in the fact that there is generally nothing physical to destroy, no buildings, no assets, no population to disperse, etc.

If the province ruler can oppose the create holding or rule actions, then that seems to support that she will be able also to contest the source later on if she wishes.

Note that the BRCS has the word "generally" in the description of contest actions. It does not say only similar types.

"Those with a strong tie to the land" can easily mean the province ruler or other regents in that province (they are tied to the province more than anyone). But it would make normal people living there incapable of stumbling upon the source (except by chance).

Have you read the Book of Magecraft?


I recommend it strongly as it contains lots of description of what a source holding really is. It is a "manifestation" of the magic potential. This marks a distinction in understanding what the holding represents as compared to a guild or temple.

Landed regents still have a means of "contesting" source holdings.

The rule province action effectively lowers the magic potential of the land and while a specific manifestation can't be targeted - all source holders are penalized by this action.

Only landed regents can use this action.

I don't think this is related, it just means several actions are prohibited to source regents because they don't have enough political weight (another problem for the poor guys).

But if you are using the words as written in the BRRB as a basis without comparing other text, then the words as written here are very specific and do not address interactions with other holding types but all domain actions in general.

Also, the problem it could be also the understanding of what a contest action means. While in the BRCS 3e says contest is nearly the same as a war declaration, I don't understand contest as such a terrible thing. It's more political infighting behind the curtains trying to gain more influence over a subject than other regents. If contest is like a war declaration, then create holding or rule is the same most times, and I understand them also as political moves more than war moves.

Yes and no.

This topic has been around for a long time.

Contesting is like attacking someone's assets. This very action is similar to declaring war since a regent is using his influence against someone. Different holding regents view "war" as different things. Temple regents view religious contests as a war against their god and beliefs, guild regents view it as "stealing" from them, while law regents (and landed ones) tend to view war in the more traditional terms.

Creating a 0-level holding is viewed quite differently.

A 0-level holding (other than sources) allows a regent to establish a place to conduct political dealings - an embassy if you will. What the regent does with that base is something else.

So creating a holding can (and usually would be) viewed with suspician.