RoE General > Magic

Honest Dealings

(1/6) > >>

X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan):

--- Quote ---Components: 3 GB/province
Regency: 1 RP/province caster level
Spell Effect: Increases the productivity of all trade and guild holdings in a province, causing them to generate +1d6x10% income.
--- End quote ---
Assuming no prosperity or stability modifiers, no taxation and full guild & trade holdings.

The spell generates additional income as per the below table.

Bonus Income less CostsProv Lvl1234567891010%-2.96-2.84-2.64-2.36-2.00-1.56-1.04-0.440.241.0020%-2.92-2.68-2.28-1.72-1.00-0.120.922.123.485.0030%-2.88-2.52-1.92-1.080.001.322.884.686.729.0040%-2.84-2.36-1.56-0.441.002.764.847.249.9613.00
50%-2.80-2.20-1.200.202.004.206.809.8013.2017.00
60%-2.76-2.04-0.840.843.005.648.7612.3616.4421.00
As you can see useless in a province level 1-3. Chancy in a level 4 province, and improving in return as the province size gets larger.

Of course this example is assuming an optimal situation, all guild & trade holdings full and no tax. Doesn't place any price on the regency spent and the gold and action required to prepare the spell.

Considering that the spell requires co-operation (at a minimum) between a guild and temple regent you are looking at a situation where the spell would only be cast after some sort of agreement had been reached.

I personally can't see any case where a guild regent would be willing to pay enough to meet my costs (let alone my share of the profits) for casting the spell.

The second issue with the spell is the variable nature of it. It is one of the very few spells that have a variable outcome, and this combined with the low return on investment makes it almost worthless to cast.

Options to correct the spells deficiencies:
1) Fix the return at 50% rather than 1d6x10%.
Pros.
+ Makes the spell reliable.
+ Useful in provinces of size 4+ (giving more breadth of usage).
Cons.
- In the largest provinces can provide massive incomes.
- Still requires co-operation of almost all involved persons to see a return.

2) Treat all guild and trade holdings as though they where 1 level higher. Remove/lower the gold cost per province of the spell.
Pros.
+ Makes the spell reliable.
+ More useful in provinces with diversified guild/trade holdings.
+ Makes a return on invest easier to achieve for the temple.
Neutral
~ Greater % increase in income for low level holdings and lower % increase in income for high level holdings (100% increase for a level 1 holding, 10% increase for a level 10 holding).
Con's.
- Can see large increases in total income in large provinces with diversified trade/guild holdings.

Other ideas/commentary would be welcome.

X-Tuornen/LF (Geir):

--- Quote from: CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan) on December 26, 2010, 12:11:35 PM ---
--- Quote ---2) Treat all guild and trade holdings as though they where 1 level higher. Remove/lower the gold cost per province of the spell.
Pros.
+ Makes the spell reliable.
+ More useful in provinces with diversified guild/trade holdings.
+ Makes a return on invest easier to achieve for the temple.
Neutral
~ Greater % increase in income for low level holdings and lower % increase in income for high level holdings (100% increase for a level 1 holding, 10% increase for a level 10 holding).
Con's.
- Can see large increases in total income in large provinces with diversified trade/guild holdings.

Other ideas/commentary would be welcome.

--- End quote ---

I like to keep things simple; so 2) looks kind of nice. But it favors diversified trade/guild holdings a bit much...

--- End quote ---

X-Ilien & PCE/GeM (Linde):
Prosperity, other spell effects and variable income rolls for the individual domains also influence how much gold is generated. So the table is not as simple as you have made it. But yes, that spell is not very usefull in a small province.

1) I think all other instances of 1D6 being unrandomized in this game have resulted in a 3.. So 30% would sound better to me than 50%

2) Treat all guild and trade holdings as though they where 1 level higher: I think that solution will render the spell more useless. For it will still require cooperation of almost all guild/trade domains in the province, and the spell would be useless in a province with near monopoly on trade or guild.

2)  Remove/lower the gold cost per province of the spell: That is an okay idea if you want the spell to be cast more often. But perhaps you should try to include the lawholders in the negotiations before casting the spell.... They will after all prosper from increased taxes?

All in all I haven't studied the numbers enough to give the best advice, but fixing the return to 30% and looking at the cost of the spell is the first two things that pop into my mind when looking at it.

DM B:
I rather like the 2nd proposed version; it follows established norms for spell effects and is rather easy to implement.

X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan):

--- Quote from: DM Bjorn on December 26, 2010, 11:35:08 PM ---I rather like the 2nd proposed version; it follows established norms for spell effects and is rather easy to implement.

--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: Proposed Spell ---Caster level: Clr 3
Components: ??? GB/province
Regency: 1 RP/province caster level
Casting Time: One free action (1 day)
Range: Long
Area: 1 province +1 province/3 caster levels after 5th
Duration: 1 Turn
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
Description:
Spell Effect: Increases the productivity of all trade and guild holdings in a province, causing them to generate income as though they where 1 level higher.
--- End quote ---

Going from Bjorn's suggestion I'm going to see what the spell would produce in terms of additional income when cast on a variety of provinces. Once I have the results I'll post them and it should then be a matter of choosing an appropriate per province cost.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page