Twilightpeaks.net

RoE General => The Sage (Questions & Answers) => : X-WIT/Toreas Kharnmoin (Rune) March 23, 2011, 01:45:58 PM

: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-WIT/Toreas Kharnmoin (Rune) March 23, 2011, 01:45:58 PM
From the Regent Guide (p. 42, table 3-2):

Designation   1RP/province or holding level bequeathed (at the moment of the ceremony)   Willing regent designates another scion as his heir; that scion will automatically be crowned when the old regent dies.

So, to use WIT as an example, as I have 83 holding levels in total it would cost me 83 RP to designate an heir to my domain? Is there some reasoning behind the fairly steep cost? I understand that designating an heir is no light matter, as it solves several problems that usually occur upon a regents death, but requiring to spend a full 3-4 turns of not spending RP at all (depending on BS and domain size) to save up RP seems rather steep to me.

Is there any way the rules can be tweaked? It has been somewhat of a mantra for the DM (at least towards me) to make sure to have a designated heir to avoid troubles, all throughout the game, but the rules seem unneccesarily preventive of this. Cutting the cost to for instance half of todays cost (exact number is up for debate) would be a simple fix that would ensure that the cost is still high, but not so that players inclined to use such an action can never hope to afford it.

Edit: As Marco pointed out, might be smart to refer to the correct action in the Regent guide.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-Ghieste & HOT/GH (Matt) March 23, 2011, 01:48:25 PM
Here, here as we would say in the UK. The cost seems extortionate as it stands, even given the benefits.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-Alamie/CA (Marco) March 23, 2011, 02:00:25 PM
The right action is Designation but it has also the same costs in RP.

I suggest 1RP every 5 levels of province or holdings would be fair.

Double cost if you want to change your heir previously designated.

It will still costs a lot  but it would be more affordable

just my two cents...
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-Tuornen/LF (Geir) March 23, 2011, 02:01:12 PM
isnt that the cost if one transfer before death?

are you saying that is the cost to name an heir?
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-WIT/Toreas Kharnmoin (Rune) March 23, 2011, 02:03:25 PM
isnt that the cost if one transfer before death?

are you saying that is the cost to name an heir?

That is the cost to name an heir that automatically takes over the domain upon a regents death.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-ETN/Maire Cwyllmie (Libor) March 23, 2011, 02:16:39 PM
I think the cost is intended to be high. But it becomes more harsh if you have BS much lower than DS (lot of RPs wasted during collection). I guess regent is supposed to break his domain into vassal subdomains in such a case. There is also problem with the cost of vassalage, but that is another story.

You can get around the issue by relying on land's choice as OIT do :)
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-Mieres & SAS/AV (Mark) March 23, 2011, 02:33:02 PM
Just do what I do Rune, have multiple designation ceremonies! 
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-WIT/Toreas Kharnmoin (Rune) March 23, 2011, 02:36:23 PM
I think the cost is intended to be high. But it becomes more harsh if you have BS much lower than DS (lot of RPs wasted during collection). I guess regent is supposed to break his domain into vassal subdomains in such a case. There is also problem with the cost of vassalage, but that is another story.

You can get around the issue by relying on land's choice as OIT do :)

I'm not arguing against the cost being high, just prohibitively high like it is now. As for breaking your domain into subdomains, why would anyone voluntarily give up huge portions of their income (I've yet to meet a vassal that wants to give me all his income), as well as deal with NPC vassals which in 99 out of 100 cases are not nice, easy and without an agenda of their own? :)

As to the OIT, I think their history of dead regents should motivate anyone to try to get an heir  ::)

As it stands now, players are "encouraged" to not plan ahead but focus at the present.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-DM Jon March 23, 2011, 03:50:41 PM
Being co-DM I can state it as a fact that Bjørn hasn't been following these rules. I can't say what he's been following, but there's never once been a case of investiture costing anywhere close to this amount - though I haven't been following up on the last 2-3 turns of DO's, so I might be wrong.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-ETN/Maire Cwyllmie (Libor) March 23, 2011, 04:32:03 PM
I'm not arguing against the cost being high, just prohibitively high like it is now. As for breaking your domain into subdomains, why would anyone voluntarily give up huge portions of their income (I've yet to meet a vassal that wants to give me all his income), as well as deal with NPC vassals which in 99 out of 100 cases are not nice, easy and without an agenda of their own? :)

As to the OIT, I think their history of dead regents should motivate anyone to try to get an heir  ::)

As it stands now, players are "encouraged" to not plan ahead but focus at the present.

When the cost is prohibitively high for you, it means your domain is too huge for your regent's BS. So you could either split your domain effectively trading some GB income for RP income (RP from vassals are not capped by BS), increase regent's BS (like challenging Wallac to duel and stabbing him to hearth  :) ) or find another regent for your domain  ;)
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-Mieres & SAS/AV (Mark) March 23, 2011, 04:34:07 PM
So far I have completed a designation ceremony for my provinces and law holdings but not guild and trade because of the cost of doing all of them at once and that seems to be working for me.  Though that might only be because there is a distinction between holding in terms of both being the Governor and Guildmaster.  Might not work for a single holding regent.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-Ghieste & HOT/GH (Matt) March 23, 2011, 05:45:38 PM
Clearly all large realms with relatively low blood scores should immediately carve up their realm and vassal it all off....

Errrrr no. No thanks.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-DM Jon March 23, 2011, 07:00:07 PM
Nevermind my former entry, a player has already pointed out that he's done it at the listed price.

 The reasoning behind the steep cost is the huge benefit it will gain your realm to have a designated heir - and the power it would take to make it so. It's only fitting that you spend some years worth of importance, fame and goodwill to make an entire domain accept your heir. It protects you from some of the danger of the Land's Choice creating rebellions, something the Orthodox are fraught with. And it will most likely protect you against too harsh stability drops.

 If you don't do it, you can still hope that your chosen heir is the Land's Choice, but it's an uncertainty.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-WIT/Toreas Kharnmoin (Rune) March 23, 2011, 07:07:34 PM
Valid points, that makes sense in a real setting. But this is still a game, and considering chances are quite big that you would never need an heir (unless you feel the need to go adventuring) it hardly promotes the investiture to be used at all. Why would a player spend so much on something he doesn't need, when he needs his resources on much more immediate actions? I just think that if the DM's want players to plan ahead and have a slightly more longterm focus, they should not feel like they are being penalized for doing so. As it is now, the price for designating an heir, especially for the larger domains, are so costly that I doubt anyone would do it unless they are willing to forfeit a lot of other things to save up the resources needed.

P.S. This was not a challenge for Bjørn to try to kill off my regent.  ::)
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-Mieres & SAS/AV (Mark) March 23, 2011, 07:50:19 PM
One thing that can work is not only designating an heir, but if you have a specific choice in mind, putting them in the spotlight as much as possible so if by some unfortunate circumstance LC does come into play, hopefully it will tilt to them.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: DM B March 23, 2011, 07:54:30 PM
I can't recall any player actually designating a REAL heir for his domain. Naming one through decree, sure, investiture...no.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-Mieres & SAS/AV (Mark) March 23, 2011, 07:56:45 PM
Um....I did it in turn 68 using the investiture action and it was a success, but again only for the provinces and law holdings (ie. the governorship) not guild or trade holdings (ie. the guildmaster position)
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-WIT/Toreas Kharnmoin (Rune) March 23, 2011, 07:57:38 PM
I can't recall any player actually designating a REAL heir for his domain. Naming one through decree, sure, investiture...no.

Would you be willing to rethink the rules then, to promote more usage of the action? I assume you would like me to do a proper designation, considering you informed me in my DO that my decree wasn't all that useful without an investiture.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: DM B March 23, 2011, 09:30:37 PM
Um....I did it in turn 68 using the investiture action and it was a success, but again only for the provinces and law holdings (ie. the governorship) not guild or trade holdings (ie. the guildmaster position)

And you're as close as anyone has gotten. But you plan on doing it in increments, right?
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-DM Jon March 23, 2011, 10:14:25 PM
I can't recall any player actually designating a REAL heir for his domain. Naming one through decree, sure, investiture...no.

Brandon, #68, did it. Paid in full too.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan) March 24, 2011, 12:32:39 AM
If you want to tweak the cost make it 1 per holding or province.

Still high for those big domains but not as high.

Or you could have a discounting scheme, based on the position of the heir in the already established heirachy.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-IHH/Wallac Isilviere (Kasper) March 24, 2011, 07:02:40 AM
Bigger domain having to pay more than small domains seems ok in my book. They tend to have more resources and can thus afford it.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: DM B March 24, 2011, 08:02:08 AM
But I don't want to tweak the rule. Its is quite fine as it is.

I'd forgotten about the PETG.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-WIT/Toreas Kharnmoin (Rune) March 24, 2011, 08:17:27 AM
But I don't want to tweak the rule. Its is quite fine as it is.

I strongly disagree, but ok. I got my answer, so I'll have to adjust my plans accordingly.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: DM B March 24, 2011, 08:43:01 AM
What you should do now, after your decree, is invest you Heir with PART of your domain. I.e. if he's the Archbishop of Tuornen then you invest him with those holdings. Then later you can invest the rest, or leave it and let history play itself out - chances are good that with part of the domain already invested the heir can gather the rest behind him.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-ETN/Maire Cwyllmie (Libor) March 24, 2011, 09:24:58 AM
What you should do now, after your decree, is invest you Heir with PART of your domain. I.e. if he's the Archbishop of Tuornen then you invest him with those holdings. Then later you can invest the rest, or leave it and let history play itself out - chances are good that with part of the domain already invested the heir can gather the rest behind him.

There could be a problem with it. When there is no heir, the domain will probably remain as is, only regentless, and then there is searching/competition for new regent that would take the whole domain (as in Roesone or Boeruine in this game). When the designated heir inherits only part, the domain is effectively split, the rest of holdings/provinces either forming another domain or going uncontrolled. Then the chances of reconstruction of the domain in its previous shape might be slimmer than without designed heir.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan) March 24, 2011, 09:42:39 AM
What you should do now, after your decree, is invest you Heir with PART of your domain. I.e. if he's the Archbishop of Tuornen then you invest him with those holdings. Then later you can invest the rest, or leave it and let history play itself out - chances are good that with part of the domain already invested the heir can gather the rest behind him.

Would it also help to have major vassals recognise the heir ahead of time, considering that some of the lands choice is perception. Having say the CJS recognise after the WIT decree that so-and-so is the righful heir would reinforce the perception that they are heir to all rather than part of the domain.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: DM B March 24, 2011, 09:44:17 AM
What you should do now, after your decree, is invest you Heir with PART of your domain. I.e. if he's the Archbishop of Tuornen then you invest him with those holdings. Then later you can invest the rest, or leave it and let history play itself out - chances are good that with part of the domain already invested the heir can gather the rest behind him.

Would it also help to have major vassals recognise the heir ahead of time, considering that some of the lands choice is perception. Having say the CJS recognise after the WIT decree that so-and-so is the righful heir would reinforce the perception that they are heir to all rather than part of the domain.

Absolutely.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-DM Jon March 25, 2011, 12:29:43 PM
You could also consider making the naming of an heir into a minor agenda, some realms already have it, but considering the total cost, it's worthy of a minor agenda status (though the DM's may demand additional content for it to succeed.)
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-IHH/Wallac Isilviere (Kasper) March 25, 2011, 12:48:02 PM
Some specific details concerning the heir to be; I made some level, allignment and BS tresholds all in a nice package deal and turned it into a minor agenda. Then multiple advisor actions etc, hiring of NPCs to assist with stuff and so on + some fluff. Bjørn accepted that as a minor agenda.

It worked for IHH domain as far as getting accepted as a minor agenda
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-Elinie/RiD (Niels) March 27, 2011, 11:22:03 AM
It's not like there is any real world precedent that huge empires break up into smaller chunks when the mantle of leadership is dropped/passed.

Oh. No, wait, there are plenty of such examples!

I think the pricing is right. Bleed you greedy fuckers! :-)
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-Tuornen/LF (Geir) March 27, 2011, 11:34:07 AM
It's not like there is any real world precedent that huge empires break up into smaller chunks when the mantle of leadership is dropped/passed.

Oh. No, wait, there are plenty of such examples!

I think the pricing is right. Bleed you greedy fuckers! :-)

Tell 'em !  ;D
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-WIT/Toreas Kharnmoin (Rune) March 27, 2011, 01:15:12 PM
It's not like there is any real world precedent that huge empires break up into smaller chunks when the mantle of leadership is dropped/passed.

Oh. No, wait, there are plenty of such examples!

I think the pricing is right. Bleed you greedy fuckers! :-)

I'm assuming your making a joke here, but you might do well to remember that not everybody shares your sense of humor. I'm still disagreeing with the rules, though I'll accept them like everybody else, but being called a greedy fucker - even in good spirits - just because I think it's expensive and find it a bit weird to divide a temple into different segments in order to keep it united if my regent dies, is not something I enjoy on a sunday morning.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-Tuornen/LF (Geir) March 27, 2011, 02:39:07 PM
I'm assuming your making a joke here, but you might do well to remember that not everybody shares your sense of humor. I'm still disagreeing with the rules, though I'll accept them like everybody else, but being called a greedy fucker - even in good spirits - just because I think it's expensive and find it a bit weird to divide a temple into different segments in order to keep it united if my regent dies, is not something I enjoy on a sunday morning.

well, a good amount of trouble and crisis should ensue when there is a transition of leadership in any realm as they are in this game. And the rules should reflect that. To avoid such natural upheaval should cost a considerable amount. And even then it should not be a guarantee for success.
Well, that’s my opinion.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-DM Jon March 27, 2011, 06:41:19 PM
I'm assuming your making a joke here, but you might do well to remember that not everybody shares your sense of humor. I'm still disagreeing with the rules, though I'll accept them like everybody else, but being called a greedy fucker - even in good spirits - just because I think it's expensive and find it a bit weird to divide a temple into different segments in order to keep it united if my regent dies, is not something I enjoy on a sunday morning.

well, a good amount of trouble and crisis should ensue when there is a transition of leadership in any realm as they are in this game. And the rules should reflect that. To avoid such natural upheaval should cost a considerable amount. And even then it should not be a guarantee for success.
Well, that’s my opinion.

 That's the rules view on it as well. Obviously there are all manner of roleplaying related ways of getting around the rules, but since they're completely ad hoc and DM fiat oriented, you're just going to have to try getting there. Or pay the steep price...
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-Brosengae [Cloene] (Linde) March 27, 2011, 06:46:54 PM
Personally I think the price is right.... 1 rp per holding level makes it more attractive to create a vassal. And it also explains why there is no Emperor, as the steep costs for vassalage, coronation and designation is just not payable if your BS is not in line with your domain, or the very least, it will make your domain vulnerable to its enemies when you are forced to save RP for 3-4 turns.

But then again the same is true for your enemies, unless they have a higher BS than you, and if they have that, they deserve some of that divine advantage that comes with it.

But it is not fair to call anyone greedy for asking a question.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan) March 27, 2011, 07:52:06 PM
Considering that this is a bigger impact on larger domains, and larger domains tend to have vassals.

Vassals can transfer regency to their leige as a free action if I remember correctly. It wouldn't surprise me if there are clauses in most vassalage agreements that say something, "Once in the term of your life you are required to transfer regency equal to the sum total of your holdings."

Means the vassal is paying for the cost of being made a vassal again, or giving the liege the RP needed to raise a BS in line with their domain size.

Alternatively a liege could also purchase regency from a vassal in return for GB, holdings or other agreements.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-Ghieste & HOT/GH (Matt) March 27, 2011, 08:42:48 PM
It's not like there is any real world precedent that huge empires break up into smaller chunks when the mantle of leadership is dropped/passed.

Oh. No, wait, there are plenty of such examples!

I think the pricing is right. Bleed you greedy fuckers! :-)

Actually no there really are not. Empires and States do not break up on changes of leadership, but instead when the leadership into whose hands they have ben delivered proves inadaquete or that the infrastructure has decayed past the point of being able to maintain the power and command systems. Rome, China, Mongols, Persia, Zulu, British, French, Russian, Spanish - all have faltered historically for those reasons and not because of the death of a specific leader. The only major examples I can thing of where such have broken into chunks on the death of a leader are the Alexandrian empire, some 11th century kings in europe and the later Mongol Empire, all of which were because of specific arrangements by the leader in question.

The suggestion was not that it should not be expensive but rather that the current arrangement is such that it might be too expensive as it is. As is it does appear that the DM's have offered some possible half way houses, with vassals or through partial investment of heir status, allowing a split of the costing. The problem with vassals is that means the DM's play them, and they drive the deals and we all know from painful experience quite how tough negotiation with the DM's can be (and when it isn't that means you should be even more worried). The partial investment probably is a more suitable path for those who are running larger realms on low bloodscores. *ahem* Not that we know anyone like that of course :)

And the last comment Niels was poor. Asking a nice open question should not invite an offensive reply in my opinion, even if it is followed by a smiley.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-ETN/Maire Cwyllmie (Libor) March 27, 2011, 11:25:27 PM
Change in leadership always create turmoil when there is not clear succession. If we take Rome as an example, there were many civil wars fought over succession. Empire was split temporarily on many occasions (after death of Gaius Julius Caesar for example). Most countries expirienced the same, though not in the degree Rome did. If the state is held together only by personal loyalties, it tends to split permanently (such us Mongol Empire). If there are other bonds established, such us common language, way of life, economic ties or there is clear power centre that can subjugate other parts, it tends to reunite over time.

So breaking up of a large domain upon death of its regent is, in my opinion, very likely scanario, unless there is widely accepted designated heir or the domain has long history of being togehther or is unified by culture, customs, or some strong idea. For example upon death of MC, the Mieran part of ETN could wery well split from the main temple, while the rest would probably remain together and find new regent after some period of confusion and quarrels.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-Elinie/RiD (Niels) March 28, 2011, 12:40:56 AM
I apologize to those who are taking my statement much too seriously!

I do believe the price is right. Even if an empire or entity remains united in name, the power shifts and ripples beneath the surface. - That's as far as I'll go describing RL events, you guys know much more details on these things than I do and I am sure you agree, on some level, that when feudal/dictator style leadership is passed, it is quite common for a new faction to become greater players. (Grabbing holdings)

As for ingame... Well, over here on the eastern marches, being a middling fish, hearing someone complain about the price of rulership when holding 83-some levels of holdings... *cough*

Big empires already get rebates on court maintenance and fixed costs such as buildings also get "cheaper" with wider ranging effects as income and the ability to power them go up.

I have sacrificed blood on occasion to even keep my little realm from falling to pieces. I can find very little sympathy for something I genuinely perceive as... Well, it is hard to put into words that will not unintentionally offend.

The cost per level of holding is the same for all. Not having the Blood to take advantage is why, well one of the reasons, people have vassals in the game. Alternatively, increase that line every turn without exception. You just need one vassal to give you a bit outside normal collection and you can do it every turn.

Bah humbug. Man up and cry not. I'll go back to my cave.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan) March 28, 2011, 01:29:40 AM
A couple of initial points.

Niels, the joke was perhaps unnecessary.

Everyone else, perhaps we are overeacting a tad.

Back to the topic at hand.

The cost per level of holding is the same for all. Not having the Blood to take advantage is why, well one of the reasons, people have vassals in the game. Alternatively, increase that line every turn without exception. You just need one vassal to give you a bit outside normal collection and you can do it every turn.

The issue that Rune is raising, and one that I agree with is that most temple regents do not have the situation that many landed regents have, of having vassals within their organisation providing regency to them.

Instead temples exist as monolithic structures, supreme (I like to think) and indivisable.

This means that heir designation is almost an impossibilty considering the pile on nature of events and the corresponding need to spend regency that most players face.

Whilst I don't agree or disagree with the rule, I can see that it has a higher impact on temples than on most landed regents.

As for changing the rule, I'm not sure it would be fair considering that some players have already faced and dealt with it as is.

Instead I'd be recommending to current players to look at ways of working with the rule. Ideas covered here:
1) Partial designation of the realm and hope that the lands choice follows suite.
2) Declarations from vassals and hope that the lands choice follows suite.
3) Create vassals within your domain and use them to generate additional RP to pay for the heir.
4) Purchase regency from current vassals and use that to pay for the heir.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-DM Jon March 28, 2011, 01:45:35 AM
There is no such thing as an unnecessary joke  ::)

And it's easy enough to designate an heir, even if it costs you 80+ RP. You just take the time necessary. 10RP unspent each round and you're set in 8 turns. That's two years spent on preparing the way. In the meantime, perhaps try to refrain from getting involved in too many outside conflicts.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-Mieres & SAS/AV (Mark) March 28, 2011, 02:49:21 AM
And it's easy enough to designate an heir, even if it costs you 80+ RP. You just take the time necessary. 10RP unspent each round and you're set in 8 turns. That's two years spent on preparing the way. In the meantime, perhaps try to refrain from getting involved in too many outside conflicts.

Also - avoid having your heir kidnapped, that is always a good idea.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-IHH/Wallac Isilviere (Kasper) March 28, 2011, 08:12:26 AM
Plus make sure the AA you dont want to take over after your regent repeatedly enter harms way. Archbishop Bellamie of Roesonne comes to mind. Or what do you say mark?
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-Avanil/Aubrae Avan (Thorsten) March 28, 2011, 09:40:04 AM
Tristan, you are the voice of reason it seems. I will try to refrain from going out too deep but I feel a need to comment on at least one thing:
I'm not going to use the curse button for this, but I never *never* want to see the F-word on RoE, especially in sentences directed somewhat towards other players. This is my retreat from the idiots who inhabit my daily life and who use that word more than enough. I'd prefer not to read it in here as well. I simply believe we are too mature for that.

As always when writing forum posts, remember that we cannot see you smiling, we do not necessarily know what kind of mood you are in, so chances are someone will misinterpret your carefully constructed joke. Especially if its someone you haven't had that many dealings with IC and/or OOC.
 
/rant

I agree with Rune and Tristan. I have no issue with the cost as it stands for Nobles - Heck, Aubrae has two provinces herself in Avanil, the rest is controlled by her bannermen - but it does seem a bit strange to me when it comes to temples. If I, as a noble, invest part of my domain to a vassal, I can expect his son or heir to pick up the slack should someone off him. I am investing a man and his family with power.
Temples do not work like that, instead electing new Archbishops or whatnot to fill out a role when an old one dies. And considering most high-ranking priests are somewhat old that could in an extreme case mean that a large temple have to designate several new "heir's" instead of just one.

If the cost is to remain, perhaps it could be possible to transfer a bit of RP into the action each turn, with complete designation to take place after the last RP is pooled together? I suggest this, because I know from myself how much my RP/GB pools resemble my own wallet if I am not careful: If there's anything in it, chances are they'll burn a hole straight through.

And if that is possible, then, at the DM's discretion, it might be possible that lands choice might lean towards someone who is, at the very least, partially invested already?


: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-DM Jon March 28, 2011, 11:09:01 AM
Land's Choice has a tendency to lean towards what has already been prepared. However, the opposite has also known to happen.
 And Land's Choice is no protection against possible pretenders.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-Bellam & BC/TB (Bobby) March 28, 2011, 04:20:07 PM
Thus far, we haven't had a history of vassalages within a single temple the way the larger nations do.  Maybe that's something the larger temples might actually want to consider changing?  Lord knows, I'm sure some of you would love to hand off some of the Bless Lands work you have to do to a lower-ranked vassal.  Maybe you could kill a couple birds with one stone.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-ETN/Maire Cwyllmie (Libor) March 28, 2011, 07:03:33 PM
Thus far, we haven't had a history of vassalages within a single temple the way the larger nations do.  Maybe that's something the larger temples might actually want to consider changing?  Lord knows, I'm sure some of you would love to hand off some of the Bless Lands work you have to do to a lower-ranked vassal.  Maybe you could kill a couple birds with one stone.

There can't be vassalage within single temple. Creating vassal would mean to split the temple and create new one (and then bond it with vassalage). Actually, I have contemplated setting the Miearan branch of ETN as vassal. I think I could live with the loss of GB (and gain of few RP). However,  effort required to arrange such affair (starting with finding suitable vassal regent) was too much for me. I still have few things that I HAVE to do, but was forced to postpone.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan) March 28, 2011, 08:58:40 PM
Thus far, we haven't had a history of vassalages within a single temple the way the larger nations do.  Maybe that's something the larger temples might actually want to consider changing?  Lord knows, I'm sure some of you would love to hand off some of the Bless Lands work you have to do to a lower-ranked vassal.  Maybe you could kill a couple birds with one stone.
A lower ranked vassal able to handle some of the Bless Lands is still a high level character thanks to the multiple feats required to cast realm magic. Which may be one of the reasons that we haven't seen much of it.

It also makes sense in a larger temple to have a vassal take over the see of an Archbishop and run it in there own right. Gives them a chance to prove their abilities to the temple as a whole, it could also set up a tradition where the Archbishop of Soandso is the heir apparent.

: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-Bellam & BC/TB (Bobby) March 28, 2011, 09:00:39 PM
Yes, Libor, that's what I'm talking about.  For the larger temples, I'm asking if there might be benefits to breaking out smaller regional sections under vassals.  Conceptually, it's still one 'temple' - still the Western Imperial Temple, for instance - and all still answerable to its high priest, but with lower-ranked priests handling the day-to-day affairs in those regions.  Osoerde is 'one kingdom', but it's composed of multiple landed domains.  A temple could also be 'one temple' while consisting of multiple domains.  There's a gold loss, but also a reduction of personal responsibility by the overall ruler.

For many temple domains, I'm sure reducing their personal load isn't of massive importance compared to trying to manage vassals instead of ruling absolutely, but in particular I'm wondering if being able to make Bless Land spells the responsibility of lesser Vassal priests might do a number of things: reduce the high priest's actions used up each season preparing them; allow more provinces to be blessed, increasing the amount of GB and/or RP the temple could bring it by its agreements with secular rulers; allow the temples to sway rulers to their faith by PROMISING more blessings than other temples could manage; and provide more and stronger assistants to the high priest for dealing with opposing temples and creatures of the Shadow, since having vassals would mean having more actions to wield against opponents.  Plus, vassals tend to be higher level and competence than mere AA's, which can be valuable during adventures and other 'excitement'.  As long as your under-priests are trustworthy, which SURELY they are (  :P  ), dividing up responsibility through vassalage could potentially be a boon to temple regents.  It's not 'the way things are done' right now, but is that worth changing?


Tristan: True, finding a sufficiently powerful priest to act as a vassal would be one of the steps involved, and a limiting factor the landed regents don't have to put up with.  Probably is, as you say, one reason it happens less.  But I do like the idea of using this as a way of testing and training an heir.  Plus, having more realm casters is always nice ANYWAYS, eh? :)
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-ETN/Maire Cwyllmie (Libor) March 28, 2011, 11:20:58 PM
Yes, Libor, that's what I'm talking about.  For the larger temples, I'm asking if there might be benefits to breaking out smaller regional sections under vassals.  Conceptually, it's still one 'temple' - still the Western Imperial Temple, for instance - and all still answerable to its high priest, but with lower-ranked priests handling the day-to-day affairs in those regions.  Osoerde is 'one kingdom', but it's composed of multiple landed domains.

That is just the way we name it. We could use the name 'Osoerde' for only those provinces under Osoer's control and call the rest dependent states or satellites of Osoerde. Other way round, we could call WIT and CJS and other WIT's vassals the 'Traditionalist Temple' an say that 'conceptually' it is still one temple :)

There is a reason for this difference in naming conventions od course. Because the liege-vassal relations between landed regents are quite different from those between temples. Landed liege controls his vassals through law holdings in their provinces and through military force (financed partly from those law holdings and from vassals' tributes). Temple liege doesn't have such tools. So liege-vassal relations between temples are more loose by necessity. If the vassal temple decides to say goodbye to its liege, then there is actually very little the liege temple can do about it.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan) March 29, 2011, 12:51:01 AM
That is just the way we name it. We could use the name 'Osoerde' for only those provinces under Osoer's control and call the rest dependent states or satellites of Osoerde. Other way round, we could call WIT and CJS and other WIT's vassals the 'Traditionalist Temple' an say that 'conceptually' it is still one temple :)

There is a reason for this difference in naming conventions od course. Because the liege-vassal relations between landed regents are quite different from those between temples. Landed liege controls his vassals through law holdings in their provinces and through military force (financed partly from those law holdings and from vassals' tributes). Temple liege doesn't have such tools. So liege-vassal relations between temples are more loose by necessity. If the vassal temple decides to say goodbye to its liege, then there is actually very little the liege temple can do about it.

Naming conventions still have a lot of force though. For the sake of an example lets say that I've gotten my Archbishop of Alamie trained up so he can cast realm spells and I've spun off my Northern Alamie holding so that he can cast the Shadow Ward every turn.

If he decides to refuse vassalage he's basically trying to split the temple in name, it'd start a a civil war within the CJS.

Even if I haven't split the holdings off so they answer to me (in game terms) and my Archbishop of Alamie decides to split off it'd still start a civil war within the CJS.

With a lot of things for ROE, and in fact strategic simulations in general it is more often the perception that matters just as much (and in some cases more than) as the reality.

If the perception that the holdings of the CJS Archbishop of Alamie are part of the CJS then as far as most people are concerned they are part of the CJS. It is only for the purpose of game mechanics that there would be any seperation.

On the other hand if the perception is that the holdings of the CJS Archbishop of Alamie are seperate from the CJS then they might as well be another church.

So for temple regents with vassals under their umbrella the challenge would be in maintaining the perception that you are one group, rather than multiple groups under the one umbrella.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy) March 29, 2011, 11:44:04 PM
My 2 pence.

The more 'authority' your heir has, the more chance they have of unopposed succession - they are the 'natural choice'.  So I could for example designate them over 2 holdings, 20, or all of them, they'd still be the front runner to inherit the rest through the land's choice if nobody else had any designation, but the odds of opposition, or having low initial stability would increase as the amount of RP spent on designation reduced, with only full payment guaranteeing a smooth succession (as much as anything is ever guaranteed).

Alternatively I could designate multiple people with greater or lesser amounts of the domain, to reduce the cost of wastage if any of them die - but at the same time increasing the risk of contested succession or fragmentation.

Those are bog-standard political risks and rewards to be traded off, the cost is harsh but in practice I'd expect that a realm with high stability and a 'clear natural heir' can afford to be less cautious and simply trust to the will of the gods, whereas a realm in turmoil with no clear successor would need to take the time and effort to formally designate, bend arms, etc to have a reasonable chance of an orderly takeover.  A lot probably depends on how strongly identified th eleader is with the organisation - if the leader is known to have a council of powerful advisors then they are automatically looked to as heirs, if the leader takes a lawnmower approach to management succession then there will be trouble.


I see no reason for temple's not to have vassalage or sub-domains, I take it as a given that HA includes Monastic orders, faiths dedicated to gods other than Haelyn, etc - HA itself is simply the core organisation and the political will behind the wider organisation - much as a guild is actually a vast network of smaller guilds not just one type of trade.

You do get the risk of split by assigning vassals - the OIT once controlled all the empire and it has since fragmented multiple times until only a core of 'true believers' still clinging to the centre - but equally you get more actions, RP, etc - it is a risk:reward trade off no different to any other holding type.

In thematic terms it makes perfect sense to give different areas of the church operational responsibility, particularly if they are geographically distinct where the leadership is probably fairly theoretical anyway.

In mechanic terms, the real cost to splitting off vassal domains for a temple holding would not so much be GB (many minor holdings are barely more than break even, particularly when you factor in pandering to local ego's) or RP (like most temples I'm way past collection saturation and would be looking to increase RP income through vassalage) but the increased cost of the ubiquitous BTHL where splitting off a L1 holding adds 1 RP to the cost of each province casting. 

If I could stack vassal temple levels for BTHL purposes if I carved out sub-holdings then I'd seriously consider doing so, but if I wind up hemorrhaging RP through increased spend for BTHL then the vassalage RP is amortised and the benefit of the split-off becomes fairly minimal while the costs & risk remain significant.
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan) March 30, 2011, 12:35:56 AM
Those are bog-standard political risks and rewards to be traded off, the cost is harsh but in practice I'd expect that a realm with high stability and a 'clear natural heir' can afford to be less cautious and simply trust to the will of the gods, whereas a realm in turmoil with no clear successor would need to take the time and effort to formally designate, bend arms, etc to have a reasonable chance of an orderly takeover.  A lot probably depends on how strongly identified th eleader is with the organisation - if the leader is known to have a council of powerful advisors then they are automatically looked to as heirs, if the leader takes a lawnmower approach to management succession then there will be trouble.
I'd hazard a guess that realms with high stability and a clear natural heir have probably gotten that way by having a designated heir. The stability hits for anything else can be rather painful to deal with.

In mechanic terms, the real cost to splitting off vassal domains for a temple holding would not so much be GB (many minor holdings are barely more than break even, particularly when you factor in pandering to local ego's) or RP (like most temples I'm way past collection saturation and would be looking to increase RP income through vassalage) but the increased cost of the ubiquitous BTHL where splitting off a L1 holding adds 1 RP to the cost of each province casting.

If I could stack vassal temple levels for BTHL purposes if I carved out sub-holdings then I'd seriously consider doing so, but if I wind up hemorrhaging RP through increased spend for BTHL then the vassalage RP is amortised and the benefit of the split-off becomes fairly minimal while the costs & risk remain significant.

Spin off the entire holding in a province (i.e. the vassal gets 2 levels from the 2 you have rather 1 of 2) and then have the vassal maintain a ley link (1 RP per turn from them) as a condition of the vassalage. You can then cast the spell using the vassals network as though it was your own.

Or train up the vassal to the point where they can cast spells in their own right, maybe recruit a new AA, someone young with a reasonable BS and then have them spend every action they get as your aide learning from how you do things (i.e. training actions).
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy) March 30, 2011, 09:39:44 PM
Cause and effect on stability is somewhat confused I think - weakness in one area leads to loss of trust/corruption which leads to weakness elsewhere, and vice versa.  Some realms (nobles) absolutely need an heir politically and so would lose stability if their was no heir, other domains probably expect rather different succession (smoke signals from the vatican, guild member votes, etc) and so might actually get less stable if an heir was foisted on them - presumably why the RP spend is so high is the need to overcome any such resistance.

Training up an heir to cast realm spells is nigh on impossible, they'd either cost a year's income to be bought pre-loaded or require vast numbers of adventure actions and probably die horribly, futilely, and the turn before you finally figured out what you really needed them for if bought fresh.  :o

I'm not sure that ley links work all that well for temples, the problem isn't casting BTHL - it's just L1 - it is casting it cheaply, and co-operation between temples to avoid RP spikes does not come easily.  :(
: Re: RP cost of designating an heir to a domain
: X-DM Jon March 31, 2011, 12:54:23 AM
Training up an heir to cast realm spells is nigh on impossible, they'd either cost a year's income to be bought pre-loaded or require vast numbers of adventure actions and probably die horribly, futilely, and the turn before you finally figured out what you really needed them for if bought fresh.  :o


 Temples usually don't choose heirs unable to cast realm spells, there are always a couple of medium level clerics able to cast realm spells available to take on the mantle of leadership. And temples usually have an easier time hiring clerics as aa's.