Twilightpeaks.net

RoE Development => Regent Guide => : X-Points East July 14, 2013, 06:25:36 AM

: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East July 14, 2013, 06:25:36 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East July 14, 2013, 06:35:06 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East July 14, 2013, 07:20:36 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ohlaak (Alan) July 14, 2013, 08:57:24 AM
What are the proficiences?
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) July 14, 2013, 12:16:23 PM
I think he is playing around with 2.25 rules
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) July 15, 2013, 03:09:01 AM
I am much opposed to the idea of negative proficiencies.
It will open up the rules for mages subverting your holdings to hire incompetents you don't even know are there, and then subvert them to work against your efforts when it will hurt you the most.

I would definitely start hiring lvl 1 people and send them out to "help" people on adventure actions.

I would advise changing that ASAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you define multi expertise?


Would it perhaps be smarter to define realm spell ability as a proficiency?
It costs at least 4 feats and 24 skill points to be able to cast realm spells, so it would seem odd that a character who can do that get a lot of proficiencies also.

Perhaps make it: Master(able to cast realm spells) cost 4, requires medium level or higher, spelcraft(Skilled) And either knowledge religion, nature or arcane (Proficient)
And then look into perhaps removing the modifier for realm magic capability, since it is payed for through proficiencies.


Also:
Perhaps in an effort to make all classes more balanced the regency gain bonus action table could be amended to give:

NPC class full regency 1 area

PC class: Full regency 2 areas and 1 bonus action or
full regency 1 area, half regency 2 areas and 1 bonus action or
full regency 1 area, half regency 1 area and 2 bonus actions
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) July 15, 2013, 05:08:22 AM
Perhaps as Alan pointed out in another thread we should also look to the usefulness of the bonus actions. Perhaps to modify cost for those classes as AA, or to level out the the bonus in some other way?
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Stjordvik/Varri (Greg) July 15, 2013, 06:35:38 AM
Perhaps as Alan pointed out in another thread we should also look to the usefulness of the bonus actions. Perhaps to modify cost for those classes as AA, or to level out the the bonus in some other way?

Yep, I like that idea too. 

I think having a second option for a bonus action is a clear advantage in flexibility (I found it very useful in RoE2 anyway!).

In addition, perhaps some consideration or weighting should be given to the type of action granted (some actions are more likely than others to be used every turn)? 

Also, having a second full regency domain is (IMHO) a clear advantage compared to 1 Full and two half's... in this case, I do not think that 2 half's do not add up to the value of a whole.

Finally, the "right" combination of multi-classing to max out domain and bonus class actions offers stinky cheese, er, I mean an "advantage" in this area as well.  ;)  Perhaps some sort of "cap" might be a solution?

Good discussion!

: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East July 15, 2013, 07:59:00 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East July 15, 2013, 07:05:14 PM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East July 16, 2013, 11:18:15 PM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) July 16, 2013, 11:52:25 PM
It is a good thought.

But what happens if my regent is just one ECL away from jumping a tier and then being able to add another class or class action, and I get that ECL through raising my bloodline... Am I then forced to pick the 2nd action for my current class, or could I choose to retroactively become a lvl 1 barbarian instead of my last lvl of wizard?

On another note: ECL 4 spell casting regents will be able to do next to nothing.
Or are you also contemplating making domain caster levels instead of character caster levels?
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East July 17, 2013, 01:57:28 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) July 17, 2013, 03:33:29 AM
That sounds super.
How is caster level handled?
By character or by domain?

To take the example of the barbarian wizard
If we say he is ECL 8 Heroic minor bloodline, then he have 7 character levels that should be wizard.
Upon improving his blood strength he would become an ECL 9 character with 1 level barbarian, 6 levels wizard and +2 ECL for blood and heroic.

So Caster levels on character level of the character is a little murky.
As I see it there is a few choices:

1)Keeping track of levels even when they decrease to accurately track Caster level
2)Saying that Caster level = character level.
3)Saying that caster level = ECL
4) having domain caster levels
5) making caster level a proficiency type thing
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East July 19, 2013, 08:40:05 PM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES — Effective Domain Caster Level
: Ohlaak (Alan) July 20, 2013, 01:37:19 AM
This seems very powerful, too powerful.  Ohlaak would easily make it to level 20 given these rules.

How about the following?

Growth in DCL is exponential, and there are now modifiers.  This is to give domains more variety.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ohlaak (Alan) July 20, 2013, 06:59:06 PM
This looks better, Brandon. 

Conceptually, most established Spellcasting domains will have a ECL around 9-12th with the regent.

The domain will need something more to get above that bar.

This seems very fitting given that most ROE spellcasting domains weren't very high level.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East July 30, 2013, 06:53:41 PM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ohlaak (Alan) July 31, 2013, 12:13:38 AM

OoC:

Conceptually, characters have generic character levels in this model, not class-specific character levels.



Not sure I follow. Can you elaborate?
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) July 31, 2013, 12:19:42 AM
I think he means like a character would be an "Epic level Fighter/Sorcerer", for example.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) July 31, 2013, 12:34:26 AM
I think he means like a character would be an "Epic level Fighter/Sorcerer", for example.

Yes, but what is the caster level of an epic level fighter/sorcerer?

The problem is that you can multiclass at any point when you gain a level. So you could be an epic fighter who use a single generic class level to multiclass into an epic fighter/wizard.. What is his caster level?

The other way around. An epic wizard multiclass, to become an epic fighter/wizard. What is his caster level?

It is all good to run with abstract level system with generic levels. But when it allows for multi class it need to handle the problem of Caster Level.

That could be done with proficiencies.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East July 31, 2013, 11:05:39 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ohlaak (Alan) July 31, 2013, 12:41:48 PM
Why does this character have a +5 to divine spellcraft?
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East July 31, 2013, 06:17:04 PM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) July 31, 2013, 10:56:44 PM
How are levels generic if they are also class specific?

I don't understand. Perhaps I don't use the same definition of generic as you.
I use:
ge·ner·ic
[juh-ner-ik]
adjective Also, ge·ner·i·cal.
1.
of, applicable to, or referring to all the members of a genus, class, group, or kind; general.

Synonym: Universal

What definition do you use?
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) July 31, 2013, 11:52:42 PM
I think he means that the levels are now less defined, such that a character is a Low, Medium, High level whatever rather than 3rd, 5th, or 8th level.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) July 31, 2013, 11:53:44 PM
So, for example a character could be a High-level Fighter/Medium-level Priest.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES — Proficiencies
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) August 02, 2013, 01:13:39 AM
I don't get the generic character levels label. It isn't really important. I get the idea, but not the label.
Either the character is a high level fighter/priest with generic levels or he is a medium level fighter / low level priest with levels in priest and fighter. The problem with this model is that the levels are less defined and as such you don't really have character levels, you have ECL modifiers. Especially notable since options are given to you based on your ECL and not your class levels. I don't think the term generic class level is a good label to put on an ECL modifier.


The negative modifiers for proficiencies are still nonsense.

Either proficiencies modify the chance of producing a fixed bonus to an action, and then a negative modifier is ok. (IE. using support always grant a +2 bonus to the action, but a high level master has a higher chance of granting that bonus than a low level skilled)

Or they have a fixed chance of producing a variable modifier depending on the level and proficiency, and then a negative modifier MUST be avoided. (IE. a high level master gives +6 to the action if he successfully supports, but a medium level expert only grants +2)

I read it as if option 2 is being proposed, am I wrong?

Also, it doesn't make sense to me that a Low fighter/ low wizard that started as fighter can never be as strong in magic as a low wizard/low fighter who started as wizard potentially can be. (Master vs Skilled).


Idea: classes could be remade into proficiencies as well, giving proficiency points for class proficiencies at certain ECL.
You could remove the front loading of proficiencies and then give 1 class proficiency point each 3 ECL. Each class proficiency point could then be exchanged for 3 class specific proficiency points. And proficiencies outside of the class would then cost double.
Some proficiencies like agitate might be on more than one class list.

So a fighter could get espionage or assassination proficiencies while delving deeper into his fighter class and unlocking his fighter bonus actions. But the cross class proficiencies would cost him 2 points for every one advance. Or he could delve deeper into his warcraft and contest or rule law proficiencies at no negative penalty. Or he could multiclass to wizard gaining 3 wizard proficiency points to spend on wizard stuff.


That would remove the problem with the fighter/wizard from above. But it would require a near complete remake of the proposal since it would raise other issues


: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East August 02, 2013, 04:07:50 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) August 02, 2013, 08:42:58 AM
Yes, I've taken that into account. That is why I wrote skilled vs master instead of competent vs master.

I think it would be better if proficiency choices were final. It doesn't make sense to me that you can unlearn something to focus on something else. That would also be fixed with classes as proficiencies. 
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East August 02, 2013, 09:09:15 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) August 02, 2013, 01:36:37 PM
Yes. But a character that start out as a wizard can start as a low level wizard master of spell craft.
A character who multi class into a wizard can only become skilled at spell craft at low level.  He has to wait until medium level before upgrading to master. And in doing so he magically unlearn how to fight on a battlefield or how to contest a holding.. That doesn't make sense.

In your example of domain caster level the proficiency was tied to the levels of specific classes.  So a character multiclassing will in effect unlearn something if multiclassing and lowering spell craft.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Wanderer (Garth) August 02, 2013, 06:43:09 PM
You would have to both intentionally take a level in a non-relevant or half-relevant spellcasting class, and intentionally lower spellcraft at the same time for that to happen.  If we assume that the domain is a spellcasting domain (the only time that spellcraft would really be relevant), then you would have successfully made your regent unlearn something important to the domain.

Loopholes that make a player more powerful in an unintended, unexpected way should be restricted.

Loopholes that allow a player to make intentional decisions to reduce power should be allowed.

Players are less likely to implement those loopholes if at all.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) August 02, 2013, 07:54:55 PM
Well. With domain caster level I would rather focus my regents proficiencies on ruling holdings and use rule holding to increase domain caster level. So I find it very relevant.
Then when I had maxed my caster level potential from holdings I would switch to spell craft.
If domain caster level didn't exist then the possibility of gain from the loophole would be gone.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) August 02, 2013, 09:21:39 PM
draft of hypothetical character rules:

EFFECTIVE CHARACTER LEVEL
Categories & Levels   
ECL Range
Low   1-3
Medium   4-6
High   7-9
Very High   10-12
Legendary   13-15
Near Epic 16-18
Epic 19-21
Epic+ Each 3 ECL thereafter


Bloodline Modifiers   
ECL Modifier
Unblooded   +0
Weak   +0
Minor   +1
Major   +2
Great   +3
True     +4

Each category of effective character level lets you pick one class proficiency.
Trained gives you access to domain powers for the purpose of collecting regency,
skilled gives you access to first class action,
expert gives you access to second class action
master gives you access to third class action


Each category of effective character level gives you a number of proficiency skill points based on your heroism tier: Commoner 1, Professional 2, Elite 3 and Heroic 4.
You may never put more than half round down of your total proficiency skill points into a single proficiency skill, except commoners who may freely distribute proficiency points.

Proficiency skills relating to regent actions including rule and create actions may be taken by heroics.
Proficiency skills relating to regent actions, except Rule and create actions may be taken by experts.
Proficiency skills relating to court actions may not be taken by commoners.
Proficiency skills relating to character actions –including knowledge proficiencies - may be taken by all.
The knowledge proficiency skill Spellcraft if taken by an Expert or Heroic may also grant caster level equal to its bonus, but is then only considered a class proficiency skill for full spellcasting classes, cross class skill for half spellcasting classes (as Paladin) and it is unavailable for classes with no spellcasting ability. And a distinctive spellcraft then exist for each: primordial, divine and arcane spellcasting classes.

Proficiencies are divided into groups. When buying proficiencies you can buy proficiencies available to the class proficiency you just acquired or increased at the cost of 1:1. You can also purchase proficiencies from outside your class group, but they cost 2 points for each one increase, and you are always limited to max one cross class proficiency increase per effective character level category increase.

(list of proficiency skills for the classes are not included, but need to be added for this to make sense)

Proficiency skills provide a bonus equal to the number of proficiency skill points invested in it. With the following limitations:
If the proficiency skill is a cross class proficiency it can maximum give you +4 bonus
If the proficiency skill is from a class you are trained in, it can max give you +6
If you are skilled +8
Expert +10
Master +12

(Remember that these restrictions are on top of the restriction of max half your proficiency skill points invested in a single proficiency skill.)


[Edit: Had to remove references to brandons proposals since he deleted them.]
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East August 04, 2013, 03:52:06 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East August 04, 2013, 03:52:38 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East August 09, 2013, 05:13:32 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East August 09, 2013, 05:14:21 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East August 09, 2013, 05:15:03 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East August 09, 2013, 05:17:03 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East August 09, 2013, 05:17:53 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East August 09, 2013, 05:19:27 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East August 09, 2013, 11:16:22 PM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East August 14, 2013, 08:47:40 PM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East August 17, 2013, 05:43:32 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) August 31, 2013, 12:36:01 AM
well, when you keep deleting and modifying the old posts you make it impossible for me and others to make comments and work on modifying your proposals in a way that make sense to anyone reading the thread.

So to avoid wasting my time again I will refrain from commenting the new proposals until such time when, God forbid, the DMs say they contemplate using your proposal in whole or in parts.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Yggdrasil (DM Andy) August 31, 2013, 11:45:58 AM
well, when you keep deleting and modifying the old posts you make it impossible for me and others to make comments and work on modifying your proposals in a way that make sense to anyone reading the thread.

So to avoid wasting my time again I will refrain from commenting the new proposals until such time when, God forbid, the DMs say they contemplate using your proposal in whole or in parts.

Isadora had you up late I take it  ::)  I'll let you off as she's awfully cute in the pictures  ;D

While I confess I've not read as much of the proposed rules as I should have done, I think its good that he's doing something, and by posting as he goes, he offers others the chance to shape stuff as it develops, whereas waiting to do an Aphrodite would deny them that chance.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) August 31, 2013, 04:31:32 PM
I think the complaint is that he edits the original posts rather than posting an edited version, so one cannot follow the discussion properly as what was commented on no longer exists.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) August 31, 2013, 11:53:02 PM
well, when you keep deleting and modifying the old posts you make it impossible for me and others to make comments and work on modifying your proposals in a way that make sense to anyone reading the thread.

So to avoid wasting my time again I will refrain from commenting the new proposals until such time when, God forbid, the DMs say they contemplate using your proposal in whole or in parts.

Isadora had you up late I take it  ::)  I'll let you off as she's awfully cute in the pictures  ;D

While I confess I've not read as much of the proposed rules as I should have done, I think its good that he's doing something, and by posting as he goes, he offers others the chance to shape stuff as it develops, whereas waiting to do an Aphrodite would deny them that chance.

Yeah. I don't mind him posting as he goes. And I think it is good that he shares his ideas  I am just annoyed that he delete his old proposals so those comments that are left seem out of place.

The God forbid comment referes to all the issues that I have with his current proposal.  But as mentioned I feel like I am wasting my time commenting them as he'll just delete and post new making it seem like I am ranting about something that doesn't exist.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Yggdrasil (DM Andy) September 01, 2013, 08:31:07 PM
Yeah. I don't mind him posting as he goes. And I think it is good that he shares his ideas  I am just annoyed that he delete his old proposals so those comments that are left seem out of place.

The God forbid comment referes to all the issues that I have with his current proposal.  But as mentioned I feel like I am wasting my time commenting them as he'll just delete and post new making it seem like I am ranting about something that doesn't exist.

Ok, I get it.  I've done enough on wiki's and forums to know how hard it can get to track a conversation over pages (which is why I think he edits the original), but understand your point also, re-posting the edited page as a reply would get unwieldy very quickly - I suspect that there is no "right" answer just "less wrong" ones.  I'm not sure what would work best, possibly a "current position " and a "comments" parallel thread - you'd still get the "what the heck is X talking about" but it would be in a separate thread which could be headed by a suitable introduction mail.

: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) September 01, 2013, 09:52:45 PM
I don't think it's really that big a deal. It annoys Linde so he's not going to reply to the thread until the proposal is finalized is all.

: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan) September 02, 2013, 12:37:15 AM
Ok, I get it.  I've done enough on wiki's and forums to know how hard it can get to track a conversation over pages (which is why I think he edits the original), but understand your point also, re-posting the edited page as a reply would get unwieldy very quickly - I suspect that there is no "right" answer just "less wrong" ones.  I'm not sure what would work best, possibly a "current position " and a "comments" parallel thread - you'd still get the "what the heck is X talking about" but it would be in a separate thread which could be headed by a suitable introduction mail.

I think it would be as simple as quoting the changed section and adding quick bullet point comments indicating what was changed. Or a list of edits made at the bottom of the (original) post.

I know that coming into this thread when it was already on page 4 meant that 3/4 of the posts had me scratching my head going "What is he talking about? That is what the original post already said."
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander) October 25, 2013, 01:30:18 AM
A few thoughts...

I like how it all ties neatly together: The same bonus used for bonuses to actions/EDCL, EDCL ending at 20, etc.

There are effectively only 7 character levels, this means "level" will increase less often than is typical in D&D. Gaining levels and small perks is fun! Might be an advantage to make it more granular, maybe not. I realize that EXP = level, more or less, but still you need to gain quite a few levels to move up.

I assume that two legendary characters aiding an action does not equal +24 to that action. An idea might be that highest bonus counts, +1 if there is an equal level character helping (if the bonus was already above 0) and no further advantage to assistants on the same action. Or something similar.

Not completely clear on what happens if an assistant is helping a regent action - providing able assistance - that is. What action is used for this? The Ply Trade action?

Having a separate proficiency for Contest Law Holding and Rule Law Holding might be a bit over the top, imo. One proficiency for each Holding type might be enough. Already a lot of ground to cover here.

I like how ECL and EDCL makes priest, druid and mage domains less dependent on their regent. There is still a big imbalance here - in a realm domain (law, manor and provinces) it hardly matters what level your regent is. It still matters a lot for caster domains... Providing some kind of perk for having a legendary fighter ruling you realm might be cool.

How does this tie into adventures? Exp level and character class is used?

That is a lot of different classes. A lot of them are just variations on the same, almost identical, theme.

One way to solve the different Regency Collection rates might be to say that a starting character collects full province regency + two full other types (or 1 full, 2 ½; 4 ½). Then adds ½ a holding type at X level and ½ a holding type at legendary. So a legendary Wizard might collect full Province, full Source, full Law and full Manor... a Legendary Fighter might collect full Province, full Law, full Manor, ½ Guild, ½ Trade.
Possibly spread it out a bit more, start with lower collection, etc. That way you are neither rewarded nor punished for multiclassing, with regards to Regency collection anyway.

"Bound" bonuses is a good thing. Keeping the bonus between 0 and +12 makes thing manageable and the math easier.

: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) October 25, 2013, 05:57:31 AM
I agree with the limited number of "levels' being a good thing, but I dislike how the skills are tied so directly to actions - but then again, I am an old time role player who suffers from an incurable case of DM's Disease and am prone to invent extensive back stories for a beggar who the party meets and ignores and thus live for the "fluff".

[Really? Gosh Bob, we never would have guessed!]
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) October 25, 2013, 06:02:30 AM
I much prefer that a player must cite his various skills and explain how they should be relevant to whatever he is trying to do than to say "I have X skill in Rule Law". I much prefer he have to say "I have Rhetoric X, and my Chamberlain has Administration X and I have Persuasion X" and then devises a method of making use of those skills.

Come on guys, we're not sitting around a table with everybody rushing us to hurry up so they can get to do their thing, we have at a minimum two weeks to work this stuff out - put in the effort, and the game will be far more entertaining.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) October 25, 2013, 10:20:11 AM
I think it will be both easier to manage and more fair if skills or proficiencies are linked to specific actions.

The DMs can already award role play and description bonus. And to degrade proficiencies to fluff that can only be used to that is IMO not desirable.
To make proficiencies a bonus in that case is even worse. Someone will harvest large bonuses for thinking to the DMs liking others will be shafted.

: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) October 25, 2013, 10:52:14 AM
As it is right now description alters DAC like this I think:
No description: -2
Description: +0
Good description:+2

The description can be a description of how the action is solved, a transcript of a conversation between important characters in your domain, or anything you find interesting and related.

If you have to think skills and bonuses into descriptions then descriptions will be: "The character does x with this skill, supported by this other character who does Y with this other skill." .... Is that interesting for the DMs to read? And is it interesting for players to write?
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander) October 25, 2013, 12:56:51 PM
The problem with having broad skills that are circumstantially applied is that it works great in tabletop/chat/voice play, but not so great in pbem play. It requires a constant stream of information back and forth.

It's great, I love that part of play (hell, my favorite system Burning Wheel emphasizes this to a very high degree), but I don't think that's it is feasible for pbem play.

A descriptive bonus makes sense and you can definitely leverage things that are established in the fiction to help with those. Fx it's is established that my character is charismatic, so in my description I explain how he talks to all the important people, smooth feathers, etc, while doing my Rule Law action. This helps me get that +2 bonus from description, but other than that it is my Knowledge (Law) proficiency that provides the bonus.

EDIT: Not that it's necessarily how we do it this time. That's how Bjørn (kinda) did it and what seems intuitive to me.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) October 25, 2013, 05:03:37 PM
Someone will harvest large bonuses for thinking to the DMs liking others will be shafted.
Welcome to role playing.
"The character does x with this skill, supported by this other character who does Y with this other skill." .... Is that interesting for the DMs to read? And is it interesting for players to write?
Yes, it's far more interesting than writing "I have 2 levels in Rule manor, so my final goes up by 2"
Personally, I would much rather read or write "My bard, who has X levels of performance (singing) goes travelling through Dhoesone, singing tales of how marvellous a place Boerstand is, and how generous and just an overlord I am." and then let the DM decide how much of an effect that may have.

This pointless to argue, you are of the video game mentality, where everything is predictable and calculable and works the same way every time for everybody, and I am not. I much prefer having to figure out ways to make use of realistic skills and talents to achieve the underlying aim of the action. To me, that is the essence of role playing, whether I am role playing a cunning guttersnipe starting out in the stews of Helltown, or if I am role playing High Emperor Kron - the principle is the same, what skills do I and my associates have that might be of use to me in any given situation.

Even a skill as mundane as Cobbler can be of use, "I make a pair of superb ladies riding boots which I present to the countess as a gift when requesting she intervene on my behalf with her husband Count Olaf" is far more interesting and entertaining than "I have Diplomacy 1."
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) October 25, 2013, 05:08:47 PM
That's how Bjørn (kinda) did it and what seems intuitive to me.
In that case, Bjørn was (kinda) doing it right. I'm not surprised, as Bjørn generally does get things right.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander) October 25, 2013, 05:56:25 PM
Telling Linde that he is "of the video game mentality" is not conductive to a good discussion. You clearly do not mean that as a compliment and you are making yourself look like an ass.

Fiction (IC text and descriptions) and rules interact in many ways. You can have freeform rules with lots of roleplay and you can have more bound rules and lots of roleplay, those things do not exclude each other.

Realism is also a tricky word, as this takes place in a magical world with god-blooded rulers. What is "realistic" is also highly subjective. Having clear rules, that explicitly leave room for interpretation and bonuses, is the ideal IMO.

In RoE 2 you had a bonus to actions based on your classes and on your level, with possible extra bonuses to that based on descriptions/narratives and possibly penalties based on the lack of the same. It is my impression that this is what Linde has written he prefers as well... and it is also the system that Brandon suggests.



: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) October 25, 2013, 06:24:03 PM
Welcome to role playing.

Well. RoE has ever been a strategy game with a role playing element. To discuss that fact is just as pointless.

To write you have 2 in rule manor so your total goes up by two is not a description.  I haven't said or implied that. So for you to write it make no sense.

The problem with a skill as perfom is that it can be used for any and all domain actions and as such grant arbitrary bonuses.

The description might be of the bard performing.  And that might warrant a role play bonus.  But a skill bonus should only be granted if he has the skill of ruling manor.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander) October 25, 2013, 07:23:40 PM
Alternatively RoE has always been a roleplaying game with strategic elements and that is equally pointless to discuss :)

Players have very different priorities for playing this. We do need to make room for those mostly in it for the narrative as well as those in it for the strategy.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) October 25, 2013, 09:32:10 PM
Yes Alex,
There should be room for every different play style. But for a person who has yet to play to say "Welcome to role playing" when in fact the rules state that role playing is optional is IMO arrogant and/or ignorant.

I am not saying that role playing shouldn't be an important part of the game! IMO it has always been and continue to be one of the most important parts of the game. But to quote the regent guide: "Ruins of Empire is a strategy game."

I think it should be encouraged that players write nice and good descriptions for their actions so the DMs have something to work with. And I think the current rules do that nicely!

I don't think that more bonuses are needed for role playing and descriptions than the ones ALREADY in the game.

The characters personality is the basis for role playing bonus, not his skills.
Description bonus is awarded for nice descriptions of the attempt to solve the action or some underlying plot behind the action, or something else, but not by telling what skills or ability score the character is going to use!
A characters skills are the basis for action bonuses and as soon as everyone accepts that or the DMs decide to rewrite the rules the better.

To clarify:
Description bonus: Applies to any action. Awarded for kewl descriptions, you are limited by your imagination and the DMs sense of what you can do.

Action bonus:(Or Skill bonus)Applies to specific actions, you get this bonus based on your characters abilities and not based on your ability to convey that ability in a kewl way! In other words, just because you are incompetent doesn't mean your character is, and just because you are the greatest genius since Einstein doesn't mean your character is!

Role playing bonus: Applies to any action or your BS/RP pool or extra VP. You get that for acting in character in a SUPER kewl and fun way as defined by the DMs.

For reference:
: Regent Guide
Play style
It has already been pointed out, but here it is again; Ruins of Empire is a strategy game. It is about kingdoms and dynasties, not about single characters, their equipment and their round-to-round affairs.
However, the game is also about role-playing, and for that characters are more suitable than kingdoms! Simply put; it is much easier for both players and the DM to relate to a character and his personality, than to something as abstract as a kingdom or organization. So if you envision your regent (and his primary assistants) as the vessels through which you convey the nature of your domain, you should do very well.
You can also decide to go lighter on the role-playing part of the game if you don’t feel you have the time, interest, or insight required. But you may not neglect the strategic part of the game, and only rely on role-playing.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) October 25, 2013, 10:00:21 PM
Telling Linde that he is "of the video game mentality" is not conductive to a good discussion. You clearly do not mean that as a compliment and you are making yourself look like an ass.
An ass? Oh dear, the insults start already, how shocking! I suggest that the next time you decide to try read my mind and tell me what I mean as a compliment or not, you should make the effort to be right. While it is possible that I did in fact mean it as an insult, it is also possible that I meant it exactly the way it was said: there is a certain philosophical approach to gaming among many younger gamers (and yes, Linde counts as "younger" to me, I was playing D&D years before either of you were even born) that wants things to be far more quantifiable and equitable, where nobody gets "shafted" for not being as creative or as descriptive, where the players' and DM's personalities are removed from the equation as much as possible - which is pretty much the opposite of how role-playing works, and I attribute this approach to the influence of video games - thus the "video game mentality.

Now, whether or not I think that is a good thing (I don't) has no bearing on whether I meant it as an insult (I didn't). The fact of the matter here is that you took it as an insult, and decided to project that onto my motives. This almost always an error, especially in an online interaction, something you will learn when you have been interacting online as long as I have (and no, you haven't been, I have been interacting online since you were in diapers). I will also let you know here and now that it almost guaranteed to be an error when interacting with me online. You will have to take my word for it  - I do not think like you at all, and any attempt on your part to figure that out is pretty much certain to be wrong. In the future, you should just take my words at face value, I do not pussyfoot or shilly shaly around, I say exactly what I mean - nothing more and nothing less, and I haven't the slightest interest in playing passive-aggressive forum games. Nor do i really care what a bunch of complete strangers online think of me. I do not waste my time trying to be cute or cryptic, if I think somebody is being a twit I will tell them outright - oh BTW Alexander, you are at the moment.

Now assuming you are done being so, we can get on with the discussion, and if not? Oh well, I can always get a chuckle out of your posturing.

The problem is that the whole idea of "being skilled in ruling manor" is silly. What exactly does that skill consist of and how does it differ fro being skilled in ruling law or temple? Is it agricultural expertise? Bookkeeping? or perhaps it is the ability to force people into serfdom? See what i mean? it is purely game mechanic oriented and has no actual correlation to anything real world and does not in any way take into account what the action itself actually represents.

It is a simplification that detracts from the game, it basically changes the game from a free-flowing open-ended intellectual exercise into a video game where you can purchase certain specific bonuses and that is it, you do not have the freedom to be creative and find bonuses elsewhere, you do not have the ability to find ways to use seemingly unrelated skills in an original manner to affect an action.

And that freedom, that lack of hard structural limit is what distinguishes role playing from boardgames and video games, even the so-called online role playing games, and is what makes them a superior for of gaming. And that sort of freedom is what is being progressively removed from RoE with the latest revisions.

Now, if I am a dinosaur whose time has past, so be it, I will continue play the game the way I feel it should be played, and I will continue to grumble about the direction that you young whippersnappers are taking the game. You can all ignore me, or engage me, or perhaps even heed me, it really doesn't matter to me, I am really here to play a game, not to make friends with anybody.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) October 25, 2013, 10:08:44 PM
But for a person who has yet to play to say "Welcome to role playing" when in fact the rules state that role playing is optional is IMO arrogant and/or ignorant.
What is actually ignorant and arrogant is for somebody to claim that participation in one specific flavour of Birthright PBEM that he is claiming isn't really a role-playing game at all in any way disqualifies anybody from stating what role-playing is or isn't, especially when the second person has been into this particular brand of role-playing game longer than the first person has even been alive.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) October 25, 2013, 10:19:43 PM
But for a person who has yet to play to say "Welcome to role playing" when in fact the rules state that role playing is optional is IMO arrogant and/or ignorant.
What is actually ignorant and arrogant is for somebody to claim that participation in one specific flavour of Birthright PBEM that he is claiming isn't really a role-playing game at all in any way disqualifies anybody from stating what role-playing is or isn't, especially when the second person has been into this particular brand of role-playing game longer than the first person has even been alive.
Well, RoE is based on birthright, but you haven't played RoE yet.

And your aggressive behavior when confronted with your ignorance, arrogance and general inability to communicate without ambiguity online is not excused by years of experience.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) October 25, 2013, 10:30:10 PM
And your aggressive behavior when confronted with your ignorance, arrogance and general inability to communicate without ambiguity online is not excused by years of experience of being an ass.
LOL. My but you do provide comedic relief there Linde. How you equate anything I have said to being aggressive is beyond me, perhaps the word no longer has the same meaning it used to.

You see, to my mind, it is you and Alexander who are being aggressive by trying to insult me for expressing my opinion. as to the direction the game should take. Obviously, you don't like the way I express myself, oh well - suck it up Buttercup, I don't care if you do or don't.

Now, unless you intend to grow up and start behaving like the adult you claim to be, I think I am just going to slot you into the "not worth my time" category.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: DM B October 25, 2013, 10:41:12 PM
I think the discussion has pretty much run its course...
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East November 09, 2013, 03:41:49 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East November 09, 2013, 03:42:32 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East November 09, 2013, 03:43:22 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East November 09, 2013, 03:43:57 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East November 09, 2013, 03:44:18 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East November 09, 2013, 03:44:37 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East November 09, 2013, 03:56:10 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East November 09, 2013, 03:56:29 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) November 09, 2013, 05:51:45 AM
Some interesting ideas here, though I think I am on record as objecting strongly to your entire proficiency idea, so I won't waste any further time on that issue.

I also question the idea of the "Prowess", as it seems to permanently bone those characters who aren't Heroic. I'm not sure what purpose it serves.

And I also dislike the whole Domain caster rules, again I think it detracts from what should be the focus of the game.

I rather like the Experience rules, a very good idea there. And the Class rules are also intriguing - I'll have more to say on them after I study the tables more.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander) November 09, 2013, 10:37:33 PM
Some kind of compromise between very specific profeciencies (eg. "Rule Manor" as a proficiency) and very broad/flexible proficiencies (eg. "Persuasion) might be possible. It is very hard to map "Rule Manor" as a proficiency to a skill or capabiity in the fiction... So perhaps some groups might be a better idea. One skill to cover Ruling/Contesting/Creating each holding type, a "Warfare" skill to cover all the war actions, etc.

Something that is a little easier to imagine what it means, rather than "Contest Trade Holding" as a skill.

The stacking rules are cool, they make sense.

The idea of there being Heroic and NPC classes is very much ingrained in D&D. It makes no sense in realworld terms, but in terms of the narrative it kinda does - you have you ordinary dudes and your protagonists/antagonists. Hell, it goes back to 1st edition (I think) with 0th level characters who could never advance beyond that. Removing it changes the flavor, dunno if that is desireable.

I really like that there is a mechanical incentive to go "deep" in a class. Taking 4 levels of fighter actually makes sense mechanically, not only for narrative reasons. Having more flexibility in your bonus actions and more regency is worth it.

After the 4th level, unless you are a caster, you might as well pick up another class. More fighter levels at that point literally have no effect... Perhaps not so awesome. But still, we now have a reason to take more than 1 level of fighter, which is progress.

Could we change the naming scheme a bit? "Experience Elements" is really clunky. The system seems solid, but eg. "Tier", "Level" and "Experience" would make more sense to me than "Level", "Experience" and "Experience Element". Especially if one is coming from D&D 3.x.

I'm curious RP - how does the domain caster rules detract from the focus? What they change is primary the dependence of caster domains on their regent... or is it that any domain can pick up a bit of casting by grabbing a few temple holdings? You still really need a highlevel holding to gain a substantial caster level and I assume spell level is still limited by highest holding level.

Regency collection for a 9th level char might be a little out of hand... province + 4½ holding types... wow. Then again, that's largely academic, since I assume the only Paramount character is the Gorgon or equivalent.

The bit about upgrading generic classes seems kinda superfluous... how often is a character going to switch from commoner to *whatever*? THe only place I see them coming into play... and they are kinda confusing. Saying "commoners use generic classes, the others use specific classes"or some such might be simpler. I might be misreading the rules though.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) November 10, 2013, 12:14:49 AM
It might be intentionally. But half regency for the first level severely hampers multi domains.
As written TD would have to be lvl 6 to collect regency from Talinie.  Full regency from first class level will make multi domains possible but expensive in stead of impossible. .. That is unless standard regent level is supposed to be 6.

Also regarding spells: The spell progression seems slow for priests and wizards.. What is the game balance reason for the nurf?
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) November 10, 2013, 02:02:18 AM
I'm curious RP - how does the domain caster rules detract from the focus? What they change is primary the dependence of caster domains on their regent... or is it that any domain can pick up a bit of casting by grabbing a few temple holdings?
Both. A caster domain SHOULD be entirely dependent on it's regent, it isn't a political entity, it's a wizard who controls the magical power of the earth itself - the entire thing should be completely personal. In fact, caster domains should not be inheritable, they should fall apart when the regent dies.  And if a non caster wants to get some spell ability, then either take another class or pick up a Lieutenant of the appropriate class, the assumption that merely owning temple or source holdings will grant one realm spells flies in the face of the very core concepts of both Birthright and D&D (and just about every other FRPG in existence.

Again it is the same old difference in play focus, to me the domain is an asset of the regent, while to many here it is the other way round, the regent is merely an asset of the domain. I think, quite strongly, that the second approach detracts enormously from the game as it minimizes the best aspect of the game - playing a regent. The regent, after all, is the whole focus of the Birthright game, the premise is that without a blooded regent, a domain is crippled - that hardly sounds like just another "asset" to me.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) November 10, 2013, 02:10:30 AM
It might be intentionally. But half regency for the first level severely hampers multi domains.
I suspect it is intentional, Brandon dislikes multi domains for some reason, and his rules seem to bone them at nearly every turn, yet the Domain Caster Level rules provides the ultimate reason for everybody to try have a multi domain.

It also pretty much removes the point in being a spell casting class, as all that is needed is a lot of the appropriate holding type.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East November 10, 2013, 09:49:34 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) November 10, 2013, 10:49:01 AM
Brandon, we've told you before how annoying it is when you revise posts we have commented on rather than making a new post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) November 10, 2013, 09:08:04 PM

OoC:

Part the Second, Part the Fifth, and Part the Sixth have been revised.

It might be intentionally. But half regency for the first level severely hampers multi domains.
As written TD would have to be lvl 6 to collect regency from Talinie.  Full regency from first class level will make multi domains possible but expensive in stead of impossible. .. That is unless standard regent level is supposed to be 6.

Also regarding spells: The spell progression seems slow for priests and wizards.. What is the game balance reason for the nurf?

In the hypothetical model (as currently designed), a character with one rank in a specific class is green in that class:—he has no bonus action from that class and generates only half regency from its primary species of regency generation.  (All characters generate full regency from provinces, though.) . . . Researched spells are assets in the hypothetical model.



I am referring to the ability to prepare spells.. Sorcerers are usually able to prepare a spell slot not specifying anything but the level of the spell. For that advantage they gain access to spells a level slower than wizards and priests.  Here all seem to progress as sorcerers.. By current rules temple domain already have access to a variety of spells based on their domain. Why give the special ability of temples to wizards and sorcerers?

This way sorcerers gain something for nothing.  Wizards gain something but pay for it and priests pay without gaining anything.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander) November 10, 2013, 09:44:34 PM
I think the idea is that all casting domains prepare and cast domains the same way. Which is imo a good thing - it simplifies things a bit.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) November 10, 2013, 10:28:54 PM
I think the idea is that all casting domains prepare and cast domains the same way. Which is imo a good thing - it simplifies things a bit.
okay. Then sorcerers pay for their new advantage as well. That doesn't change the fact that temple domains loose relative power compared to source domains. Perhaps allowing twice the number of spells known by temples would negate that disadvantage and still allow for a more streamlined system than now.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander) November 10, 2013, 10:41:52 PM
How do temple domains loose power relative to wizards/sorcerers if all spell casting and preparation work the same way?

Besides, priest are well padded. They have temples - holdings that do everything sources do and give full income.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde) November 10, 2013, 11:49:49 PM
How do temple domains loose power relative to wizards/sorcerers if all spell casting and preparation work the same way?

Besides, priest are well padded. They have temples - holdings that do everything sources do and give full income.

As it is now: Temple domains gain access to spells that the regent doesn't need to know.

As is proposed: All spell domains gain that advantage.

It is IMO comparable to giving a all other classes access to temple regency and saying:" How does that make temples loose power?"

It is basically to hand out one of the temple domains advanages to all who can use it.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander) November 10, 2013, 11:59:16 PM
Huh, good point, forgot about temples having this in place.

Fair enough, I'd still argue that this leveling is a good thing. Temples hold all the cards: They have almost-equivalent spells, better holding types and automatic ley lines. Temple Holdings gives advantage to almost everything that matters to most rulers... I think that some of priest's advantages being handed out to others is a good thing.

But that might be a separate discussion. These rules definitely dole out some of the advantages that priests have to others. You were right there.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Stjordvik Traders/SH (Tristan) November 11, 2013, 05:39:20 AM
Temple connections work differently to source connections though. For a temple to be connected I need to trace a physical line from the spell location to a temple of the level to cast the spell. You can't hop hostile territory with a ley line (like an arcane caster), you have to build a set of level 0 holdings accross it.

Temple holdings are easier for other (temple and non-temple) regents to oppose, they are vulnerable to pillaging, they require maintenance and they lead to all sorts of interactions with everyone because religion.

I like the idea that casting access would be dependant on both domain size and regent power.

I personally feel that the key to differentiating the arcane vs divine casting access is not in how they access spells but rather what those spells can do.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) November 11, 2013, 09:04:56 AM
I'm with Linde on this one, and I happen to disagree that the simplification is a good thing, I don't think things are anywhere near too complicated as they stand, and having the various class/domain types being as different as possible is a good thing - it adds flavour and it allows the various regents different advantages and disadvantages. By making a one-size-fits-all system, you effectively reduce the difference between the various caster types to their spell lists.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ohlaak (Alan) November 11, 2013, 12:28:37 PM
I'm curious RP - how does the domain caster rules detract from the focus? What they change is primary the dependence of caster domains on their regent... or is it that any domain can pick up a bit of casting by grabbing a few temple holdings?
Both. A caster domain SHOULD be entirely dependent on it's regent, it isn't a political entity, it's a wizard who controls the magical power of the earth itself - the entire thing should be completely personal. In fact, caster domains should not be inheritable, they should fall apart when the regent dies.  And if a non caster wants to get some spell ability, then either take another class or pick up a Lieutenant of the appropriate class, the assumption that merely owning temple or source holdings will grant one realm spells flies in the face of the very core concepts of both Birthright and D&D (and just about every other FRPG in existence.

Again it is the same old difference in play focus, to me the domain is an asset of the regent, while to many here it is the other way round, the regent is merely an asset of the domain. I think, quite strongly, that the second approach detracts enormously from the game as it minimizes the best aspect of the game - playing a regent. The regent, after all, is the whole focus of the Birthright game, the premise is that without a blooded regent, a domain is crippled - that hardly sounds like just another "asset" to me.

An integral part of ROE has always been that it is a game about domains primarily. Regent are a domains most important assets but they are still but a piece of the domain. This isn't going to change I suspect. So it doesn't seem like this hammering this difference is worthwhile.

In practice a character can't get a single level of a spell casting class and then cast spells. It usually requires an establish character who has a compelling and story to have learned realm magic. In Roe learning realm magic required a few feats and skill ranks, it wasn't something a undedicated character learned.  Additionally, it also required a domain trained to wield realm magic - it is easy to forget that realm magic is a domain activity.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander) November 11, 2013, 02:11:22 PM
To be fair, that is a thematic change from the original game. It is hard to imagine High Mage Aelis as mysterious figure who goes years without human contact, when he has a couple hundred assistants he needs to clothe, feed and help him cast realm spells.

Personally, I like this new direction - it fits better with the general feel of the game and in practice this has been in place all through RoE 2 (dunno about RoE 1) as you really need a court rating to be an effective caster. I'm not sure I would call it a core concept, but it is a change compared to the original game.

As a general principle, I think the roleplaying elements (training, story reasons for being able to cast realm spells, etc) need to be reflected in the rules. Also, the D&D 3.5 system seems to be something we are moving away from, started by Bjørn with the "tiers" introduced for skill modifiers and continuing with this. A single level in this proposed system reflects several D&D levels... enough for a couple of feats and skill points.

Perhaps to gain access to Domain Caster Level, you need to spend a couple of actions, over a period of time? 2 actions, each in their own turn?
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) November 11, 2013, 03:36:59 PM
An integral part of ROE has always been that it is a game about domains primarily. Regent are a domains most important assets but they are still but a piece of the domain. This isn't going to change I suspect. So it doesn't seem like this hammering this difference is worthwhile.
Well in that case RoE has always taken the wrong approach, and these proposed rules take it even further down that wrong road. And as far as hammering the difference being worthwhile or not, well what the hell, it's not like we have anything else to do on here now is it. ;):)

Look, I know most of you seem to think this sort of thing is the right way to go, but I simply do not, I think it will ruin the game - at least it will for me. It will reduce the game to a mini/maxing number crunching exercise in rule playing with nothing to differentiate one realm from another - no thanks, if I want to do that I'll play Risk.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) November 11, 2013, 03:38:07 PM
it fits better with the general feel of the game
If that's the case, then RoE has pretty much nothing whatsoever to do with D&D or Birthright.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ohlaak (Alan) November 11, 2013, 07:05:14 PM
To be fair, that is a thematic change from the original game. It is hard to imagine High Mage Aelis as mysterious figure who goes years without human contact, when he has a couple hundred assistants he needs to clothe, feed and help him cast realm spells.

Personally, I like this new direction - it fits better with the general feel of the game and in practice this has been in place all through RoE 2 (dunno about RoE 1) as you really need a court rating to be an effective caster. I'm not sure I would call it a core concept, but it is a change compared to the original game.

It is not a thematic change at all. High Mage Aelies had a domain of people. In fact, his death and the integration of his domain in the greater Wardens domain is one of the reasons why the wield realm magic.  I will grant you that it may have appeared that way but under the surface, definitely not that case.  As the IHH, in RoE I and II, I inter acted with the domain along with HMA you'd have been surprised at the amount of angst in his domain with this clash between the new and the old.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ohlaak (Alan) November 11, 2013, 07:11:34 PM
An integral part of ROE has always been that it is a game about domains primarily. Regent are a domains most important assets but they are still but a piece of the domain. This isn't going to change I suspect. So it doesn't seem like this hammering this difference is worthwhile.
Well in that case RoE has always taken the wrong approach, and these proposed rules take it even further down that wrong road. And as far as hammering the difference being worthwhile or not, well what the hell, it's not like we have anything else to do on here now is it. ;):)

Look, I know most of you seem to think this sort of thing is the right way to go, but I simply do not, I think it will ruin the game - at least it will for me. It will reduce the game to a mini/maxing number crunching exercise in rule playing with nothing to differentiate one realm from another - no thanks, if I want to do that I'll play Risk.

It could perhaps, but given that there are a host of us who have played this game with this never being an issue. It crops up from time to time and those players simply don't last long in the game.  This pretty much goes back to: if it ain't broken, don't fix it.  RoE has survived multiple iterations, with consistent players and good, if not excellent RPing, a vast majority of the time - why does it require a change?

Once you actually play and see the ROE community in action, I think your perspective will at minimum be more informed and perhaps your critiques more appropriate.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ohlaak (Alan) November 11, 2013, 07:16:03 PM
Sorry Bob, that reads bitchy.  Not what I intended, apologies.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander) November 11, 2013, 07:28:03 PM
It is not a change for RoE, no, but compared to the original Birthright rules it is a change, I think that's what Bob refers to.

: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) November 11, 2013, 08:19:06 PM
It crops up from time to time and those players simply don't last long in the game.
Hardly surprising, given as how that approach sucks.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) November 11, 2013, 08:26:58 PM
This pretty much goes back to: if it ain't broken, don't fix it.
But the approach you are taking, or more specifically the extent to which the proposed rules are tailored to that approach are broken.

I think your perspective will at minimum be more informed and perhaps your critiques more appropriate.
I doubt it, I have been running a tabletop campaign using the RoE rules for nearly 2 years now - I am confident that I a familiar with how it works, and over and above that, I know what makes for a good game, and ore importantly - what doesn't.

It's quite clear that the majority here are very uninterested in getting the most out of the game, oh well so be it, that doesn't affect my enjoyment of it, though if Brandon's proposed rules are adopted, then it's doubtful if I will bother wasting my time with the game.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) November 11, 2013, 08:30:55 PM
And don't sweat it Alan, I don't take things said online personally, it is far too easy to misread intention with only text, so I don't even bother trying - I just take what was written at face value without trying to impart any hidden meanings or intentions to them.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander) November 11, 2013, 09:32:35 PM
There is a huge difference between a tabletop game and PbEM with 20 players. The medium, the context and so on change a lot. What I really miss - compared to "live" games - is the quick back-and-forth communication. Not saying that your experiences aren't valid, but applying them directly to PbEM play might not be easy.

Also, because you don't like an approach does not mean it's broken. The experiences Alan are referring to are PbEM experiences from many years of RoE. The regents as assets things is more his taste :)
We're getting close to a apples-and-oranges territory here.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) November 12, 2013, 12:13:31 AM
There's a difference between a tabletop game and a PBEM game? Really? Wow, I never would have guessed. Of course there is, the PBEM gives everybody the time to put more time and thought into things, I mean there's a whole lot of difference between having a week to mull over your options for the next domain turn and having 1 minute or two to do it, so there really is no excuse to take away from the game in the name of simplification in a PBEM, I can if I can run a face-to-face birthright campaign with  8 to 10 players (not everybody showed up every time) without anybody needing things "simplified", then I really don't buy the excuse that it is needed in a PBEM with a week or so turn around time for the DT - that dog just won't hunt, sorry.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander) November 12, 2013, 12:39:51 AM
It wasn't my intent to be sarcastic or condescending.

Keeping workload for turn processing as low as possible is a valid concern. The workload scales almost exponentially from what I can see, so there is a big difference between 5, 10 and 20 players. Simplification generally lowers the workload, so I tend to err in that direction when possible.

It's part of why I prefer there being a clear relationship between proficiencies and what they apply to. In tabletop, asking for a clarification on something so you can decide if a proficiency applies takes half a minute, in a PbEM it might take 3 days. For those 3 days I can't resolve actions that directly interact with the action in question, and so on.

So that's why I like simple, concise and un-ambivalent rules when possible, especially in a PbEM. The more open to interpretation the rules are, the more communication they require to use and communication over email takes a long time.

Thematical simplification is for a different, but related reason. When me and a player have to agree on the rules for his or her domain, it's a short conversation to clarify the relevant points and/or misunderstandings in real life. Over email that will take longer. Having the rules generally be consistent and predictable across different roles help with this... less chance of a player discovering the bad way that loosing your regent destroys a mage domain, but not other domains, if domains work in roughly the same manner.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) November 12, 2013, 01:45:38 AM
It wasn't my intent to be sarcastic or condescending.
It was mine.

As for the rest, oh well, you see problems where I don't, and your solutions are themselves problems of even greater magnitude than the imaginary ones they are intended to solve.

I fully understand there are two basic approaches to playing this game, remember you got all pissy about it the last time I brought it up? And the rules at present have enough flexibility to allow each player to chose which approach they want, however, if the sorts of rule changes that everybody around here seems to want take place then that choice will be gone, and everybody will be forced to play one way - and that way is in my my experience (which when it comes to role playing games is pretty damned extensive) is a complete waste of time.



: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: DM B November 12, 2013, 09:01:50 AM
And

Keeping workload for turn processing as low as possible is a valid concern. The workload scales almost exponentially from what I can see, so there is a big difference between 5, 10 and 20 players. Simplification generally lowers the workload, so I tend to err in that direction when possible.


It is essential. If you try 10+ players you simply can't manage all the little details.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: Ruideside/OM (RP) November 12, 2013, 02:22:27 PM
That's odd, you can in person face to face, so I don't see how one can't when one has days to do it in rather than minutes.
Anyway, you guys have a fabulous rule set here, and while it may need a little tinkering here and there, it most certainly doesn't need a major overhaul, and it most certainly doesn't need this God awful set of character rules, but hey whatever, if you all want to geld your prize stud go for it.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander) November 15, 2013, 02:57:39 PM
Anyway...

I've been thinking a bit about Regency Collection (RC) and perhaps some of my pondering can be of use to others.

The original way RC was done in 2nd ed worked fine due to the way multiclassing and classes in general was set up. It wasn't the fluid concept we deal with today.

3rd edition changed that and in 3rd ed, basing RC purely on class seems problematic. Consider a 4th level Fighter and a 4th level Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric. They are equally good rulers, but the latter collects every kind of regency fully and can cast spells to boot. In actual combat encounters the single-classed character is clearly stronger, but we don't really use the 3rd edition system for adventures either. Adventures are more down to an ECL comparison, creativity, writing skills and role-playing.

So basing it on having the class(es) or not having the classes does not seem viable. Requiring a certain number of classes or levels to collect regency is problematic because it punishes low-level rulers and it weakens composite domains. Basing it on the degree of multiclassing is complicated and weird (oh, too many fighter classes compared to rogue classes, no more guild regency for you...)

So what to do about regency collection?

I see a few options...

a) Find a default regency collection "magnitude" and stick with it. The default could be that you collect full regency from provinces and 2 holding types, combined any way you want. So a Wizard might have full provinces, full sources, half law and half manors. Perhaps 3 full holding types, in addition to provinces, would better... then composite domains like Ilien and Dhoesone can work fairly well.

b) Level-based regency collection, like Brandon is suggesting here. As mentioned above, this potentially hurts composite domains and possibly Realm domains (Law, Manor and Provinces). It does mean that a high-level regent is an important asset to any domain, which I think is kinda cool... but it might tip the balance a little too much.

c) Some combination of a) and b). For example, every characters starts by being able to collect full province and 2 full holding types (or a combination of halves). Then at level X (maybe 10 in D&D, 3 in Brandon's system) you add another holding type, and a fourth holding type at lvl X x 2.

d) Everyone collects full regency from everything, possibly with the exception of sources and temples. This makes BS the only cap. In this model I like that classes allow you to exceed you regency collection maximum - holding levels of your classes "favoured type" does not count fully towards your max, depending on the number of levels. Fx. for each level of Fighter you have, 1 Law holding level does not counter toward your maximum collection. In Brandon's proposed system it should probably be 2/level. That way a Guild master can collect full regency from X + BS holdings, where X depends on his Guilder/Rogue levels.

Personally I lean towards option a). We figure out what the standard regency collection rate should be and then that is what everyone gets. For some reason I like provinces + 2½ holding types... I think it makes composite domains strong enough in that compartment. The could possible be an option of taking a Regent Action and waiting for some time to pass, in order to change your focus.

So a fighter/cleric with a realm and a temple might collect province, law, temple and ½manors.
A rogue/cleric with a temple/guild might collect province, temple, guild, ½manor.
A fighter with a realm might collect province, law, manor and ½guild.

And so on.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: DM B November 15, 2013, 03:32:49 PM
Well thought out post.

Last time I played around with regency collection I went back to basics; I grouped regents into 4 broad classes: Warrior, Rogue, Mage, Priest (I'm sure you recognize those 4 from 2ed!). Everyone collected from Provinces and Law, and then each group collected from one holding type (guess which). Very simple. It also mean that you didn't really need to use the 3E DnD system if you didn't want to - any character from any system could with relative easy be put into one of those 4 classes (or more than 1 class as needed).

I don't think I concluded, but those were my design notes.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East August 28, 2014, 06:56:48 PM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East August 28, 2014, 06:57:34 PM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East August 28, 2014, 06:58:18 PM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East August 28, 2014, 06:59:02 PM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East August 28, 2014, 06:59:47 PM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East August 28, 2014, 07:00:52 PM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East August 28, 2014, 07:01:57 PM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East August 28, 2014, 07:02:38 PM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: CHARACTER RULES
: X-Points East September 30, 2014, 11:45:03 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.