Twilightpeaks.net
RoE Development => Regent Guide => RG v.3.5 draft editing => : X-Elinie/RiD (Niels) April 11, 2010, 01:37:46 PM
-
A question:
In the Domain data segment, the listed order of information does not match the "Domain Secrets" or the "<DomainName> - Secrets" documents.
Its a small thing, but should I correct this, so it matches the layout presented in the two documents mentioned above?
As an example, in Domain data, Capital/Court is one paragraph, but in Domain Secrets, these informations are split up and placed on either side of "Area" and "Population".
And when it comes to Treasury and Regency, this information does not come in the Domain Secrets document, but in the "<DomainName> - Secrets" document.
I can switch around and clean it up no problem, but I'm not going to, without asking here. :)
-
Most provinces measure about 2.000 to 3.000 square miles, averaging at 2.500 square miles per province (quite a lot of space). The exact dimensions of a province are of little importance, but most measure roughly 50 miles by 50 miles.
I know ROE has enlarged the size of everything, are these figures taking that into account, or are they legacy from vanilla BR?
-
Vanilla is 20-30 miles by 20-30 miles, so 50 x 50 = 2,500 sq miles is the larger size.
-
Vanilla is 20-30 miles by 20-30 miles, so 50 x 50 = 2,500 sq miles is the larger size.
Vanilla is on average 1.000 sq miles; so RoE provinces are 2,5 times bigger (in area and population).
-
What about my first question? - should I adapt the segment to match the documents we actually use, or just leave it in place?
-
Embassy: Should an embassy provide diplomacy as a Court action at no GB cost, or a Free action costing 1 GB. There is a small but significant difference. Note that on v3.6 I think most domains will be more pressed for Court actions than before.
-
Forts: Will have a max level of 5. Castles still at level 10. I'll add at least one structure that will do fun stuff with fortifications.
-
Embassy: Should an embassy provide diplomacy as a Court action at no GB cost, or a Free action costing 1 GB. There is a small but significant difference. Note that on v3.6 I think most domains will be more pressed for Court actions than before.
Assuming it is still possible to exchange 1 realm action for 2 court actions, I'd say the first of those two. Otherwise you need to set a limit on the amount of Free actions available to a realm per turn (3xcourt level or some such).
-
Assuming it is still possible to exchange 1 realm action for 2 court actions, I'd say the first of those two. Otherwise you need to set a limit on the amount of Free actions available to a realm per turn (3xcourt level or some such).
Good point. Regent actions as court actions needs to be considered.
Btw: There reason the rate is 1 regent = 2 court is; a regent action is assumed to include both regent and court effort. Hence it can be split into regent doing court stuff and court...doing more court stuff. That was the concept anyway.
-
The concept of diplomacy as a 'free' action always bothers me - conceptually, it doesn't seem to fit well.
-
The concept of diplomacy as a 'free' action always bothers me - conceptually, it doesn't seem to fit well.
Conceptually it's your embassy that actually adds a court action (that must be a diplo where the embassy is located). But it's eaier to call it a free action rather than an extra court action that must be a diplo action :-P
-
How could the embassy act without some involvement from the home court? It seems like it might minimize the involvement, but not neccessarily eliminate it. But I do see what you mean.
-
How could the embassy act without some involvement from the home court? It seems like it might minimize the involvement, but not neccessarily eliminate it. But I do see what you mean.
I'm guessing that forming a 'proper' embassy means effectively delegating power to someone trusted - I think a 'within reason' rider would have to be there, but otherwise the embassy should - indeed must given medieval travel limitations - have a fair degree of autonomy. I'm thinking though that the risk of 'the diplomacy goes horribly wrong in a sadistic yet amusing way' risk would be higher than normal.
-
OoC:
Edit: Feel free to delete this post.
-
Bjorn, I like the minimum source potential rule. It handles the wizard source potential paradox rather well, as well.
-
OoC:
Edit: Feel free to delete this post.
-
Many changes, most of them rather minor.
AAs have gotten an overhaul.
-
You might want to mention in the AA section how many specialties an AA might have. Perhaps base it on level, say:
Low = 0
Med = 1
High = 2
Very High = 3
Near Epic = 4
Epic = 5+
-
You might want to mention in the AA section how many specialties an AA might have. Perhaps base it on level, say:
Low = 0
Med = 1
High = 2
Very High = 3
Near Epic = 4
Epic = 5+
Maybe not those exact numbers, but yes, it should be in there.
-
OoC:
Suggestion:
Character Proficiencies
Point-Buy System
| Tier of Heroism | Proficiency Points |
| Common | –2 |
| Professional | 0 |
| Elite | 2 |
| Heroic | 4 |
| ********** | ***** |
| Character Level | Proficiency Points |
| Raw {0 EXP} | 0 |
| Green {1-2 EXP} | 1 |
| Able {3-5 EXP} | 2 |
| Veteran {6-9 EXP} | 3 |
| Crack {10-14 EXP} | 4 |
| Epic {15-20 EXP} | 5 |
| Legendary {21+ EXP} | 6 |
| ********** | ***** |
| Level of Proficiency | Point-Cost |
| Competence | 1 |
| Skill | 2 |
| Expertise | 3 |
| Mastery | 4 |
-
OoC:
In the context of the proficiency system, might it be an improvement to assign penalties (which increase DDC) for Untrainedness?
Hypothetical Example:
Proficiency Modifiers
(Based on Character Level & Level of Proficiency)
| Untrained | Competent | Skilled | Expert | Master |
| Raw {0 EXP} | –7 | +0 | +0 | +0 | +0 |
| Green {1-2 EXP} | –6 | +0 | +0 | +0 | +2 |
| Able {3-5 EXP} | –5 | +0 | +0 | +2 | +4 |
| Veteran {6-9 EXP} | –4 | +0 | +2 | +4 | +6 |
| Crack {10-14 EXP} | –3 | +2 | +4 | +6 | +8 |
| Epic {15-20 EXP} | –2 | +4 | +6 | +8 | +10 |
| Legendary {21+ EXP} | –1 | +6 | +8 | +10 | +12 |
-
well.. IMO That make no sense.
That will give all rulers without rulership(appropriate holdings) penalties on rule actions.
And by strict reading all characters gain penalties to aid all actions that could be an area of "Expertise" that they do not have.
If you want it to make sense in the way that unskilled is worse than proficient, then the best way would be to change the numbers so proficient low level give a bonus and work up from there:
Proficiency Modifiers
(Based on ECL of Character & His Level of Proficiency)
| U | P | S | E | M |
| Low | 0 | +1 | +2 | +3 | +4 |
| Medium | 0 | +2 | +3 | +4 | +5 |
| High | 0 | +3 | +4 | +5 | +6 |
| Very High | 0 | +4 | +5 | +6 | +7 |
| Legendary | 0 | +5 | +6 | +7 | +8 |
| Epic | 0 | +6 | +7 | +8 | +10 |
But then again, this proposal also shifts power to the lower level characters, and this system was designed to make low-med level proficient and skilled characters just as incompetent as unskilled characters.
Perhaps an oversight, perhaps deliberate. But definitely proof that 2.25 are not easily implemented in combination with 2.21 rules
-
As far as I recall 3.5 d&d skills progress fairly linearly with very few things giving a boost. Attribute bonus items and feat being the common way to gain a nonlinear increase.
My point being that an exponential bonus does not make sense in a d&d rules perspective.
-
Much of ROE is based on an non-linear progression, particularly for domain-based aspects. On a more random and purely note, Brandon's skill progression is linear, things just increase by a factor of 2. In many respects, this model is actually more linear than Linde's suggestion.
In the level abstraction, Low-Medium-High-Very High-Legendary-Epic, the increase between those levels conceptually suppose to be linear within the proficiency bracket, page 258 of the Regent Guide describes it. To paraphrase:
Mastery confers +4 per level for each level above above low.
Expert confers +3 per level for each level above above low.
Skilled confers +2 per level for each level above above low.
Proficient confers +1 per level for each level above above low.
Unproficient confers no bonus.
-
Well, character power as described in RG 2.21 work as you describe. And those are the rules we use for RoE 3. And thank goodness for that.
But Brandon and I were discussing 2.25 where the rules have been changed quite a lot.
Brandon thought that in light of the new proficiency rules(in 2.25), perhaps conveying a negative bonus for being unskilled would be in order. Since then there would be an actual difference between low unskilled and low expert. I say that 2.25 don't improve by having successful support actions by AA convey a penalty to the action they try to help.
Perhaps he hadn't read all through the limited 2.25 rules and just wanted unskilled AA's to have less chance of succeeding their support..
I don't really know what he wanted to do, but I do know that as he proposed it he asked for the first rather than the latter.
In 2.25 it is in fact just as easy for a low level unskilled to support an action as it is for an epic master.. The difference is how large a bonus they give to the action when they succeed.
And when that is true then he should rather focus on the level of bonus the AA give if he want a difference between unskilled and expert.
I would like to point out that, you're front loaded in d&d rules..
Let us for instance say you are an expert at spellcraft. You could have a feat giving you +3, your int could be 16 giving you further +3, and you could have 4-6 ranks in the skill dependent on level giving you 10-12.
A master could further more have edges and flaws giving +2, a regional feat giving another +1 and 20 in intelligence for a total of 15-17 at low level.
The difference between a level 1 master and a level 10 master could be as low as +9, where as the difference between a level 1 master and untrained could be +15.
So if you wanted a system that were representative for how good a character could get in d&d 3.5, you should start them off with something depending on mastery level and then add a flat bonus to that for level abstraction, regardless of what mastery level the character has. (As I mostly did)
Lastly I would like to argue that my table is more linear than Brandon's in several ways.
His unskilled have an increment that is off compared to his other skills, that I think is vastly more different than the rest of his table than my choice to make epic master +10.
-
It seems to me like the tiering of levels that is being kicked around lines up nicely with the "Savage Worlds Deluxe" ruleset which has a more linear progression (compared to d20), with 5 distinct tiers (Novice, Skilled, Veteran, Heroic and Legendary). Of course, SW is not nearly as widespread as d20 RPG rules (though I think SWD is arguably the best all-purpose set of RPG rules out there, definitely worth the $10 investment for the Deluxe Edition). Not suggesting a change, rather, just an observation. :)
-
Yeah SW can be used for a lot of things, but I don't find it linear at all. Each tier is like a step on a giant stair. You just stay on the same step for a while, getting the bonuses for that step a little at a time, before you jump to the next level of overwhelming power.
You are open to create your own races and setting with SW, I once played a Shadow Run campaign with SW rules.
I think Burning Wheel is a better option.
It will require tinkering and and finesse to create a new setting, but if you are not up for the work you can just "Burn" (create) the characters as per the rules for monster burning, and then all you need to do is decide if your setting has any special skills not covered in the standard rules.
Its character progression is not linear, but you learn and advance the abilities you use in game. And every once in a while you can have a trait vote where you can advocate for reasons why you should be allowed to break a rule in a specific way or get an extra bonus under certain circumstances. And if you can convince the other players and GM then you get it.
And that is much more fun than picking a new ability and suddenly having a new super awesome power with not much base in what your character could before.
But it's biggest force is that you get to define beliefs for your character (a sort of agendas), try to achieve them and role play on your success or failure.
-
Yep, you are right about the baby steps in between and then boom! When I said linear, I meant it in the context of tiers - each SW tier (odds-wise) is a more linear increase relative to the standard d20 rules progression, which his heavily front loaded (IMO).
And thanks for the tip - I'll have to check out Burning Wheel!
-
OoC:
Suggestion:
Character Levels & Experience
| Character Level | EXP |
Raw {0} | 0 |
Green {1} | 1-2 |
Able {2} | 3-5 |
Veteran {3} | 6-9 |
Crack {4} | 10-14 |
Epic {5} | 15-20 |
Legendary {6} | 21+ |
Unit/Crew Levels & Experience
| Unit/Crew Level | EXP |
Raw {0} | 0 |
Green {1} | 1-2 |
Able {2} | 3-5 |
Veteran {3} | 6-9 |
Crack {4} | 10-14 |
Epic {5} | 15-20 |
Legendary {6} | 21-27 |
Fabulous {7} | 28-35 |
Mythical {8} | 36-44 |
Paramount {9} | 45+ |
-
OoC:
Secondary Terrain
Perhaps a province could have at maximum two types of secondary terrain?
When a province has more than one type of secondary terrain, perhaps MPL modifiers from secondary terrain could not stack?
When a province has more than one type of secondary terrain, perhaps GRM modifiers from secondary terrain could not stack?
-
As long as you adjust the P&H formula ;)
There can come a point where the number of province types is excessive, old school BR had just the one type. Bjorn's P&H allows 4 (I think), but with modifications for up to 4 features such as rivers, capitals, etc.
What I'd like is some sort of maximum cap sometimes, for example one of the terrain types I added to the P&H was intended to have a maximum source level which would prevent other terrain types increasing it, after some fun and games I came up with a way of making the P&H do what I wanted but it was very messy and would have been time consuming to implement in practice.
Otherwise I'd generally suggest that restraint in province design is the way to avoid multiple terrain types - if the DM really wants to have 4 terrains, then presumably they have a reason (guilty as charged in some cases), mostly from a quick flick through the P&H I only have 1 or 2 with at most a handful of 3's - many of which are quasi-2's as they are low mount + med mount, or forest+ancient forest/wood or some such where the impact of the 3rd terrain would be minimal. I only saw one 4-terrain province (Monsedge) so in practice the need for a formal limit seems minimal. The number of features otoh is routinely 3 or 4 so if a cap was wanted to simplify the P&H that would be the one which had an impact - but I confess to liking the features, they let me add a population point when monsters, etc need it most ;D