Twilightpeaks.net
RoE General => The Sage (Questions & Answers) => Magic => : X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan) December 26, 2010, 12:11:35 PM
-
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.
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 Costs |
| Prov Lvl | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 10% | -2.96 | -2.84 | -2.64 | -2.36 | -2.00 | -1.56 | -1.04 | -0.44 | 0.24 | 1.00 |
| 20% | -2.92 | -2.68 | -2.28 | -1.72 | -1.00 | -0.12 | 0.92 | 2.12 | 3.48 | 5.00 |
| 30% | -2.88 | -2.52 | -1.92 | -1.08 | 0.00 | 1.32 | 2.88 | 4.68 | 6.72 | 9.00 |
| 40% | -2.84 | -2.36 | -1.56 | -0.44 | 1.00 | 2.76 | 4.84 | 7.24 | 9.96 | 13.00
|
| 50% | -2.80 | -2.20 | -1.20 | 0.20 | 2.00 | 4.20 | 6.80 | 9.80 | 13.20 | 17.00
|
| 60% | -2.76 | -2.04 | -0.84 | 0.84 | 3.00 | 5.64 | 8.76 | 12.36 | 16.44 | 21.00 |
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.
-
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.
I like to keep things simple; so 2) looks kind of nice. But it favors diversified trade/guild holdings a bit much...
-
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.
-
I rather like the 2nd proposed version; it follows established norms for spell effects and is rather easy to implement.
-
I rather like the 2nd proposed version; it follows established norms for spell effects and is rather easy to implement.
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.
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.
-
Asuming average prosperety:
Income generated by the spell = province level * 0,2 * (number of difrent guild and trade holdings in the province)
Any tax will transfere part of that extra income to the lawholders. (40% if taxes are heavy and province level = law levels)
-
Asuming average prosperety:
Income generated by the spell = province level * 0,2 * (number of difrent guild and trade holdings in the province)
Any tax will transfere part of that extra income to the lawholders. (40% if taxes are heavy and province level = law levels)
I like your maths :) Basically means that the biggest impact on the spell will be the number of holdings affected (irrespective of level).
This means that the spell (with the changed guidelines) will generate more income the more guild/trade regents that exist. Which if you think about it is one of the foundations of competition theory.
It also means to get the biggest benefit of the spell the caster needs to deal with multiple regents.
So to balance the fact that the spell generates more income the more targets we possibly tie the spell cost to the number of holdings affected.
I generate a couple of options re spell cost and 0.5 GB per holding (note number not level of holdings) sees the spell generate a small profit for provinces size 3 and up.
So the amended spell would be:
Caster level: Clr 3
Components: 0.5 GB/holding effected
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: Throughout the province trade is stimulated and supported by a number of divine blessings; all scales and weights bear true measure and in all business dealings parties negotiate in good faith, both seeking a deal. Tax collectors and other trade officials provide accurate and timely writs and assessments.
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.
I tested it out using some turn #68 provinces (as that is the only P&H I had at work). Format is regent and increased income as a reult of the spell being cast.
Illien:
GeM 2.4
End 0.5
Tyien 0.5
PCE 3.7
SAS 1.9
ToE 1.9
WoE 1.9
6 holdings affected.
Spell cost: 3 GB + 9 Regency.
Total income increase: 12.7 GB.
Anuire:
CD 5.0
Boer? 0.8
CaD 0.8
DA 1.7
MML 4.0
SAS 4.0
HO 4.0
BRG 4.0
PP 4.0
MS 4.0
12 holdings affected.
Spell cost: 6 GB + 11 Regency.
Total income increase: 32.3 GB.
Endier:
KoH 0.7
CaD 0.4
HO 2.6
2 holdings affected.
Spell cost: 1 GB + 8 Regency.
Total income increase: 3.7 GB.
So the potential for big profits (in say Anuire) if you can negotiate something with the 10 regents involved (wouldn't that be a diploacy session) with much moderate profits in monopolies (like Endier) but you only have to deal with 1 or 2 people to get a share.
Also please note that when considering the profit provided by the spell you need to remeber that the caster needs to memorise (3GB) and spend an action.
-
This is an old topic but since some of the game's areas are overrun by guilds and by a temple of Sarimie I think we should think about Tristan's proposal and update the spell.
-
I agree.
-
I will have a look at it in my spell review, I'm focused on domain description first though.
I'll post on the forum and the GM's can pick what they want.
-
One thing that pops to my mind is that this region is infested with guilds for whom 'Honest Dealings' would be, at best, a very negotiable concept, and at worst absolutely inimical. We might need to completely re-flavor that spell to suit the region. I DO think it needs to be revised mechanically to be not-awful, as I did some serious number-crunching on it last game much like Tristan and came to similar conclusions, but its style just doesn't suit the area ATM either.
-
Well, just because the spell name is Honest Dealings, does not mean it does anything other than making the populace more gullible. Note that only the guilds profit, there is no extra growth for example.
-
Like I said, we just need to establish the right flavor. Honest Dealings, a spell that ensures fairness and open trade, would be highly unwelcome to many of the guilds and might actually screw up their income badly. 'Honest' Dealings, a spell that encourages people to trust the merchants they do business with regardless of any actual honesty, would be EXTREMELY welcome to the guilds and would certainly increase their profits. It's all in the flavor.
-
Bobby is right about the flavour. Maybe we should develop two versions of this spell, each one representing one of those two aspects.
And maybe the honest one could also harm the dishonest guilds and vice versa.
-
So, running some numbers based on this region. I'm taking the variant of the spell that adds 1 to all guild and trade holdings. I'm working here with a level 5 province - 6's are going to be extremely rare around here, but there should be at least some 5's. So, assuming a level 5 province with one Law holder and two Guilds, one with 3 Guild and 3 Law, the other with 2 of each, with a 30% tax rate and average prosperity:
Before/After Spell / Increase
Law 3.0 / 4.2 / 1.2
Guild1 4.2 / 5.6 / 1.4
Guild2 2.8 / 4.2 / 1.4
A total increase of 4 GB. With a casting cost of 3 GB plus some regency, it's still not looking terribly appealing - a profit of only 1 GB. You'd be better off having a wizard cast Alchemy for you.
Without listing all the math, the total increases for other combinations are as follows:
Level 5, 3 Guilds - 6 GB = 3 GB profit at the cost of a court action and some RP
Level 6, 2 Guilds - 4.8 GB = 1.8 GB profit
Level 6, 3 Guilds - 7.2 GB = 4.2 GB profit
-
I was just thinking about how to distinguish this from Bless Lands, and how to keep it from being something that's just routinely cast anywhere it's profitable or never cast at all, and that question combined in my head with Niels' comment about flavor options. If we cast this as a spell that lets merchants/guilds take advantage of folks a bit, what if we make it reasonably profitable for the guilds, well worth arranging for, but reduce Prosperity by 1 in that province for each casting as the locals slowly start getting angry at being gouged? Maybe it makes people a bit more gullible, maybe it just helps the guilders predict what will be in short supply so they can monopolize it, but it provides them with profits at a long-term cost. So now the province becomes a sheep, not an orchard - a guild can either shear it every year or so, reaping profits then letting the prosperity recover, or they can run the place into the ground for several seasons in a row to rack up a significant war chest at the province's expense. It'd add to the conflicts between landed rulers and guilders that seem to be a recurring theme here, which might appeal to our benevolent DMs, too - not only would the rulers be unhappy at having an unhappy province, if they can't stop the spell, they'll have to reduce taxes to compensate for the Prosperity losses. What do you guys think?
-
One thing that pops to my mind is that this region is infested with guilds for whom 'Honest Dealings' would be, at best, a very negotiable concept, and at worst absolutely inimical. We might need to completely re-flavor that spell to suit the region. I DO think it needs to be revised mechanically to be not-awful, as I did some serious number-crunching on it last game much like Tristan and came to similar conclusions, but its style just doesn't suit the area ATM either.
Honest does not necessarily mean nice. If no-one can rely on a contract, people pay in lead coins, rotten food is passed off as fresh, flour mixed with stone dust, nags passed off as mares, etc then trade is crippled. Individuals may suffer, but at domain level the people as a whole are winners, even the worst guild firmly believes that honouring contracts is imperative.
So please, don't get hung up on the name, we're role-players, we can rationalise anything.
-
It's less the name than the description: "Throughout the province trade is stimulated and supported by a number of divine blessings; all scales and weights bear true measure and in all business dealings parties negotiate in good faith, both seeking a deal. Tax collectors and other trade officials provide accurate and timely writs and assessments." I understand your point, as well. I just think that in this area, a somewhat different basic description would be appropriate, and since we're already working on the mechanics of it, we might as well look at the flavor.
-
fair enough.
-
Wasn't the cannon Honest Dealings spell a priest spell that HURT guild holdings. Ie. Guild holdings only made a small percentage of income. The tradeoff was espionage actions were at auto-fail in the province, so it had SOME upside?
Also....I object to the classification that this area is "overrun" by Saramites...we aren't pests after all.
-
Vanilla Honest Dealings:
Lvl 3
Gold: 2GB
Regency 3rp/province
Target 1province + 1 per 2 caster levels beyond the minimum required.
Duration: One Domain turn + 1 round/lvl
This ceremony creates a widespread charm effect that magically guides a province's citizens toward honest and upright practices. In a province affected by this spell, agitate and espionage actions cannot succeed, diplomacy actions suffer a -4 penalty, and guild holdings are reduced 2 levels for collection purposes. An individual who attempts to commit a crime or tell a lie while in the province must succeed a saving throw versus spell to do so.
-
Um, just my 2 cents, but I actually like the vanilla Spell and concept/description. The effects can be quite useful if applied at the right time vs. what is trying to be countered. I would keep it as is.
Perhaps work out the details and game balance aspects of the desired effects first, mechanics, etc., and then come up with a new name for the new spell.
-
Vanilla spell works well for me.
I suggest to create also a revers spell "Dishonest dealings"
-
Vanilla spell works well for me.
I suggest to create also a revers spell "Dishonest dealings"
"corruption" would work well in that regard.
-
Um, just my 2 cents, but I actually like the vanilla Spell and concept/description. The effects can be quite useful if applied at the right time vs. what is trying to be countered. I would keep it as is.
Perhaps work out the details and game balance aspects of the desired effects first, mechanics, etc., and then come up with a new name for the new spell.
I like the vanilla version better too... Between Bless Province and Bless Holding, do we really need a specific way to bless Guilds?
For a game with Fog of War I think the vanilla version of the spell is due a hearty welcome back!
-
I like the vanilla version better too... Between Bless Province and Bless Holding, do we really need a specific way to bless Guilds?
For a game with Fog of War I think the vanilla version of the spell is due a hearty welcome back!
Hey, there's nothing wrong with the original concept. I was mostly plinking at this from the perspectives of 1) creating more ways for the different holdings to interact and piss people off, and 2) Mark's temple of Sarimie, which I can see easily wanting a spell that boosts Guilds rather than other groups. Hence providing a financial boost, not a holding boost (to avoid mimicking Bless Holding), and having it come at a cost to other groups, so that it creates 'fun' conflict rather than just providing Free Money! to them. Really, when it comes down to it, the question is 'what do the casters want for themselves?' Believe me, I plan to submit a few unique spell ideas to Matt and Andy for Clumine at some point here!