Twilightpeaks.net
RoE Development => Regent Guide => : X-MOC/Leman States (Even) April 09, 2012, 06:04:27 PM
-
Random musings from me on a system using the domain power to determine realm magic caster level rather than the character levels of the regent.
Domain caster level :
Base: Domain Power/7
Regent:
Bloodline strength: Caster level:
Minor +1
Major +2
Great +3
True +4
Vorynn bloodline +1 (Arcane only)
Reynir bloodline +1 (Primordial only)
Examples:
For the premier temples of Anuire with a domain power in the region of 60, plus a regent with a major bloodline, total domain caster level would be 60/7 + 2 = 12. This allows realms spells of up to level 5, but will be limited in effect based on regency generation.
For more regional temples, with domain power of at least 35, plus a regent with a minor bloodline, total domain caster level would be 35/7 + 1 = 6. This allows realm spells of up to level 3, allowing the majority of the utility spells, but limiting any high magic effects.
Other factors:
Court: Court size does not provide any impact on domain caster level. Large courts do however provide additional court actions, usable for preparing realm spells as a realm action.
Bloodline score: Additional bloodline strength allows for increased RP gain each turn, allowing a greater number or more powerful spells to be cast.
Blood abilities: Certain blood abilities can
Vassals: Domains having vassals do not gain any advantage on caster level, but loss of domain power and associated spells
Lieutenants: Lieutenants do not affect caster level, but provides actions that can be used for preparing spells, research etc.
Missing regents: If the regent is missing or incapacitated, the remainder of the domain can use the court to cast spells at half the domain power.
Structures: Normal structures have no effect on domain caster level. Structures enabling a larger court will indirectly benefit domain. Some unique structures and domain special rules can affect domain caster level, or effective domain caster level for certain spells.
Character levels/feats/abilities: The statistics of individual characters making up a domain (other than those listed above) does not affect the domain caster level or casting of realm magic.
Magic type:
Each domain can only cast realm magic spells of one type; determined by their court type. For domains with Court[Covenant], Court[Temple] or Court[Grove] use arcane, divine and primordial magic respectively, while domains with Court[Noble] or Court[Guild] are unable to cast realm magic.
Spells known:
Spells known are based on the entire domain, and not limited to the regent. Even if the regent dies, the known spells are retained.
Additional spells can be acquired by a domain through research actions.
If the domain caster level drops below that required to cast a spell, the spell remains known, but not possible to prepare until the temple regains its former glory. Any spells three levels higher than that permitted by current domain caster level will be lost. Regaining lost spells can possibly be easier at DM’s discretion.
Spell slots:
One spell can be prepared per allowed spell level. Each spell slot can only be used once per turn.
One additional spell per level can be prepared, but domain must pay a number of RP when preparing spell equal to twice spell level.
A third spell per level can be prepared, but RP cost is four time spell level.
Variants:
Domain power divisor can easily be changed depending on level of magic desired in campaign. A lower value, such as 5, provides for a much larger number of high levels spells that can be expected to be available. A divisor of 10 will provide with a much more low-magic campaign, making even 5th level spells a rarity at best.
[Example: For a very large temple in a high magic campaign, a domain power of 100 would give the maximum domain caster level of 20 (100/5 = 20).]
Cooperative casting: Several domains can all concentrate their efforts to call on great powers that the individual temples. Total caster level based on adding parts of domain power of the additional temples to that of the primary caster. Only bloodline strength of primary caster affects final domain caster level. (Primary caster does not have to be domain with highest power, and will likely be a political decision.)
Second temple: +50%
Third temple: +35%
Fourth temple: +20%
Fifth or more: +10%
[Example: Four temples have joined forces to strike back at the forces of the shadow that have crossed through the veil. Four temples of domain power 60, 50, 40 and 30 combine their efforts. They are being led by the regent of the temple with domain power 50, who has a major bloodline. Total domain caster score is {50 + 60x0.5 + 40x0.35 + 30x0.20}/7 + 2 = 16. This allows the combined temples to cast Banish Army (which is known by the domain of the primary caster).]
Court limitation: Maximum realm spell level possible to cast is limited to effective court level of domain.
Multiclass domains: Certain domain are allowed a secondary magic type, with separate rules for calculating the domain caster level of each type of magic.
-
Conceptually I like it Even, well done. :)
Random thoughts on Even's musings...
I like the option of changing the divisor for a low magic setting.
I also would suggest some method to include the character's spellcasting levels (of appropriate type). It just seems to me that if all other things are equal, character level should count for something. It could be either as a limiting factor - or an additive to the formula (which might necessitate the changing of the divisor).
-
Greg, one very simple option would be to add the regent caster level to the domain power before applying divisor. Doesn't get much easier than that.
This would help out start up domains get over any initial hurdle. Although they would still be horribly limited by regency generation.
Addendum: Personally I'd prefer to separate the two as much as possible, so as not to have character levels included at all. As a token gesture to make the regent have some additional impact, I added the bloodline strength modifier. And yes, that makes the bloodline count twice, both for RP generations and caster level.
-
Domain power doesn't take into consideration high level holdings. A spellcaster with a good network that ties into one major holding for spellcasting potential would be powerless with this method. Perhaps give a bonus after the division.
Highest Holding Bonus
1-3 +0
4-6 +1
7-8 +2
9+ +3
Or maybe you could give a minimum CL based on highest holding level.
Highest Holding MinCL
0-2 1
3-4 2
5-6 4
7-8 6
9+ 8
Missing Regents: There could be granted positions similar to general and commander. General level position might cast at CL-1 and commander level position might cast at 1/2 CL. Without those positions, and a missing regent, no casting for the domain would be possible.
-
Domain power doesn't take into consideration high level holdings. A spellcaster with a good network that ties into one major holding for spellcasting potential would be powerless with this method. Perhaps give a bonus after the division.
Highest Holding Bonus
1-3 +0
4-6 +1
7-8 +2
9+ +3
Or maybe you could give a minimum CL based on highest holding level.
Highest Holding MinCL
0-2 1
3-4 2
5-6 4
7-8 6
9+ 8
Missing Regents: There could be granted positions similar to general and commander. General level position might cast at CL-1 and commander level position might cast at 1/2 CL. Without those positions, and a missing regent, no casting for the domain would be possible.
Garth, I don't think the spellcaster would necessarily be much worse off with this system. High level holdings still provide regency, which is likely to still be the limiting factor. He is still limited on the level of spell he can cast by the maxmimum holding he holds, just as the current rules do. I'm not sure I'd want to give high source provinces much more of a boost than they already have compared with spread out holdings.
-
You might allow a minor modifier - +/- 1 for a domain with a very good / very poor holdings - so if all you have is level 0-2 holdings you get a penalty of 1, whereas if you have a very high holding (7+) you get a bonus of 1. So it is worth getting a really good holding but not overwhelmingly so and the book-keeping is kept relatively simple - it does leave the question of what happens if the special holding is contested though.
In practice the low level holding rule is probably irrelevant as the domain wouldn't have enough regency to cast the high level spells, but it might impact the Emerald Spiral or some Vos temples.
In practice the caster level is only likely to shift significantly for wizard domains where an apprentice inherits (a mid level priest shouldn't be too hard to justify) so I don't see a problem in removing caster level from the equation.
One impact of the approach is to increase the potential number of spells available to each realm. At present getting a lieutenant who can cast realmspells is very tough, under this system it appears effectively automatic. The real limits on spell-casting would remain RP, actions, and GB, but the action cost would be reduced in practice for temple regents at least - the 'court' can memorise 2-3 BTHL's for the larger churches allowing the church to keep 'special occasion' spells memorised, while still allowing the temple to memorise a number of bthl's for a single regent action (plus court) effectively reducing the regent action cost of BTHL's.
-
...Multiclass domains: Certain domain are allowed a secondary magic type, with separate rules for calculating the domain caster level of each type of magic.
Damn straight! If not, you'd hear the Princess of Avanil cackling madly from the top of her wizardess-tower while manipulating with the very fabric of reality every other hour... only outdone by the Gorgon, who'd flick his fingers and make dinosaur-exterminating meteors rain down from the sky.
-
Interesting work. :)
I suspect the impact of this would be to boost divine magical power in the setting, given temple domains tend to have higher levels of domain power than realms wizards, and also generally more powerful bloodlines.
Wizards on the other hand tend to have weaker levels of domain power and fewer of them have significant bloodlines. Because so much of playing a realm wizard revolves around the wizard herself, they tend to be personally rather active rather than having a 'domain' behind them, supporting their actions. And, arguably, become more personally powerful as a result.
Looking at the original Anuirean setting (as opposed to RoE), it looks like many of the more powerful realm wizards would be reduced in power - the High Mage certainly and by a lot, but also the Sword Mage, Caine and Torele Anviras. Most would end up around caster level 6 or 7. And Harald Khorien might well receive a fairly significant boost in power. In essence, this rule would level the wizardly playing field quite a lot.
You would see a degree of levelling in temples as well, though perhaps not to the same extent as wizards.
Ruins is a bit different, given the different holding data. Here I think you'll find temples have larger domains than wizards, and so will become more powerful relative to wizards. This might very well not be a problem (even though I'm playing a wizard, I'm not a huge fan of realm wizards being able to dramatically influence a campaign).
One question: how would you capture the fact that many realm wizards seem to live for longer-than-natural lifespans, building up (in some cases) centuries of experience, which is easy to reflect in character level, e.g. the High Mage Aelies and Caine; much harder to reflect using domain power?
-
Non-magical holdings should not directly influence DCL. They can help contribute RP and thus indirectly add to spellcasting, but I do not think they should in any way directly add to DCL.
Also, like we discussed on Talk I think that regent and/or lieutenant caster level should have some slight effect on DCL. Not a very big one, but one comparable to a kingdom being led by a warrior-king vs. an underage girl with no military experience.
-
Also, like we discussed on Talk I think that regent and/or lieutenant caster level should have some slight effect on DCL. Not a very big one, but one comparable to a kingdom being led by a warrior-king vs. an underage girl with no military experience.
It could be as simple as giving a +1 or -1 to DCL if the Regent or Lieutenant has a higher or lower personal caster level than the Domain does. A +2 or -2 could be handed down by the DM in very specific circumstances if he feels it's warranted - Regien, for example. A rough rule of thumb might be that 8-10 levels of difference warranted a +/- 2 modifier.
I'm not really a fan of having the Lineage of your bloodline impact DCL - if we're not going to have bloodline powers impact things on the domain level, having the Lineage do so instead seems counterproductive (and annoying to those without the 'appropriate' Lineage).
It'd be important to make the changes in Wizard domains, especially, really clear. This is a major conceptual shift for them, so everyone would need to understand what those domains are now composed of and roughly how they're organized. I like the idea - if nothing else, it makes it much harder to justify training apprentices and spinning them off into secondary domains solely to provide extra Realm Spell actions, which is something we've had to deal with in our tabletop game. It'll just need a fair amount of 'flavor' writeup so everyone's on the same page.
-
Random musings from me on a system using the domain power to determine realm magic caster level rather than the character levels of the regent.
OoC:
Why Domain Power (as currently defined in the Regent Guide), even if limited to the Domain Power of magic-relevant holdings?
-
Random musings from me on a system using the domain power to determine realm magic caster level rather than the character levels of the regent.
OoC:
Why Domain Power (as currently defined in the Regent Guide), even if limited to the Domain Power of magic-relevant holdings?
Because mages & priests are very dependent on character level compared to guild & landed regents. In fact to the point of making the regent the most important part of those domains.
And according to the regent guide p.9 under "Play Style" the focus of the game is domains not characters. And as such it is a conflict that a domains power level effectively is defined by its regent alone.
Do you have an alternative method - other than domain power - that make the mage/temple domain (its source/temple holdings) more important than the regents character/class levels?
-
Proposal for Regent, Lieutenant CL impact on DCL:
Highest bonus takes effect:
Regent CL ; Lieutenant CL ; DCL
---- ; Low ; -2
Low ; Medium ; -1
Medium ; High ; 0
High ; V. High ; +1
V. High ; Legendary; +1
Legendary ; Epic ; +2
Epic ; Epic ; +2
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal for Domain Power (Spelcasting holdings only) effect on DCL
DP/5 = Base DCL
The reason for that is that almost no wizard domain has more than 40 source holdings.
----------------------------------------------------
I don't think that the highest lvl holding should affect DCL, it affects the highest lvl spell you can cast under the limit of the DCL. If it also affected DCL directly it would be double cake.
-----------------------------------------------------
Regarding BS and DCL:
I don't think that BS should directly affect DCL, but it would be cool if blood abilities that could were added, and at such a time when blood abilities are used at domain level of the game they could be available for everyone, not just spellcasters.
-
Because mages & priests are very dependent on character level compared to guild & landed regents. In fact to the point of making the regent the most important part of those domains.
And according to the regent guide p.9 under "Play Style" the focus of the game is domains not characters. And as such it is a conflict that a domains power level effectively is defined by its regent alone.
The regent is certainly the most important part of my domain.
One thing we might run in to, is some wizards are loners and operate largely alone. This is certainly the case with my domain, at least at present. My entire domain consists of the Sea Witch, a bodyguard, one LT, a cook, and two maids. And my staff/domain seems to be larger than that of Hermedhie before me.
I've done a short write up on the Sea Witch domain for Bjorn, including tracing it back to Deismaar. It's a domain with no fixed abode, and which doesn't assemble a court of skilled retainers - it operates very much as an individual. That might change a little over time, now that Aneira is also the court mage of Diemed, but probably not given she is hardly ever in Diemed.
-
The temple holdings represent a religious organization in a province, clerics to prepare ceremonies, libraries, collection plates and such. These are resources that could, hypothetically, be directed at preparing and executing ceremonies to bring about divine realm magic.
Determining CL in a manner above for a temple domain would probably work well.
A source holding is the amount of raw energy tapped into by a regent in a particular province. The comparison between magic domain types drops off after the numerical value of a holding level. We could assume an administration and staff, but it would have to change the nature of the wizardly domain.
Another possibility is to add another arcane holding type such as guild, college, etc. That could be used as the administration and diplomatic aspect of an arcane domain. It could be used, along with source holdings, to determine a domain CL. It wouldn't be the same as that for the temple holdings, but it wouldn't need to be. Additionally, the existing source holdings could be used to determine the current wizard guild holdings for each domain. And, the maximum level of a wizard guild in a province could have a different way in which it is determined than other physical holdings. Minor income could be plausible from tuition when nobles send gifted children for training, or possibly as services are hired out. Etc., etc.
-
I thought DCL should take into consideration highest holding level, because as the rules stand currently, a wizard or priest with a high level holding and a network of leylines or low level temples is probably better off than a domain with tons and tons of 2 or 3 level holdings.
If the incentive structure for domain expansion changes, certain domains would be slighted. Taking into account highest holding level, this is less severely the case.
-
Because mages & priests are very dependent on character level compared to guild & landed regents. In fact to the point of making the regent the most important part of those domains.
And according to the regent guide p.9 under "Play Style" the focus of the game is domains not characters. And as such it is a conflict that a domains power level effectively is defined by its regent alone.
The regent is certainly the most important part of my domain.
One thing we might run in to, is some wizards are loners and operate largely alone. This is certainly the case with my domain, at least at present. My entire domain consists of the Sea Witch, a bodyguard, one LT, a cook, and two maids. And my staff/domain seems to be larger than that of Hermedhie before me.
I've done a short write up on the Sea Witch domain for Bjorn, including tracing it back to Deismaar. It's a domain with no fixed abode, and which doesn't assemble a court of skilled retainers - it operates very much as an individual. That might change a little over time, now that Aneira is also the court mage of Diemed, but probably not given she is hardly ever in Diemed.
Bjorn is blowing this entire concept up.
While the regent is important, he doesn't alone cast realm spells - conducting realm spells requires attendents, apprentices, a cabal, access to goods, or summed up...a court. A wizardly court may be very different and perhaps doesn't require a permenant location, amongst other non-magical courts. Court styles may (and probably should) vary based on magic type and formula (learned vs. spontaneous).
-
RE: Regents and LTs
To keep it simply, DCL could probably work on a series of modifiers like you see for prosperity modifiers.
No Regent -5
Regent/Non-Spell Caster -5
Regent (Level:Low) +0
Regent (Level:Medium) +1
Regent (Level:High) +2
Regent (Level:Very High) +3
Regent (Level:Legendary) +4
Regent (Level:Epic) +5
Leiutenant +2
Special (Artifact - Great) +3
Special (Artifact - Major) +2
Special (Artifact - Lesser) +1
Special (Advisor/Hireling) +1 (this is an able assistance character(s) whose sole purpose is granting a bonus to the DCL)
I can think of like a ton of possible modifiers and associated domain ability/powers.
I would be inclined to personally create a system that gave domains a base DCL:
Domain | Power Range | Base CL |
Slight | 0 - 15 | 3 |
Minor | 16-30 | 5 |
Lesser | 31-45 | 7 |
Major | 46-60 | 9 |
Great | 61+ | 11 |
The idea here is that you cannot move beyond what is considered 'very high' for a character without special circumstances (i.e. modifiers) being attached to the domain.
-
Or we could all just take a few seasons to grind levels. ???
Actually, I like what Alan wrote, and I think a slightly different system from arcane (spontaneous or otherwise) to divine is probably best.
-
The concept is as follows:
Sourcerous domains are just another type of domain.
That's not how it works right now. Right now a sorcerous domain is incredibly dependent upon a single spellcaster.
This setup is not desirable. In RoE that is. Maybe in BR, but not in RoE. RoE is a game where the domain is the focus, not individual characters. It is also a game that aims for interaction between domains. And sorcerous domains have always been problematic in that they interact too little. They are too independent, too removed from the rest.
A new type of holding is not desirable. Tweaking the existing source holding is. It will still be primarily about magical energy, but is also covers that energy's manifestation and everything that's required to tap it an maintain it.
-
While a wizardly domain doesn't conceptually have a large number of human (or sidhe, etc) staff, I don't see a problem with it having a large number of spirits, etc that together form the domain - I'm thinking of Katherine Kerr's Deverry concepts somewhat, but you could have a L4 source holding as representing the support of the local mountain spirit, a tribe of nixies that live along the river system, a number of forest spirits, etc - all of whom keep the mebhaighl flowing, bring information, carry out duties, etc in effectively a parallel 'world' of which the average Anuirean is oblivious. The wizard then has a court, retainers, etc, etc just like any other regent, but simply made up of beings which don't/won't generally interact with other domain types.
I've played wizards in other games and the key problems were income (they had none) and the fact that I was playing a character not a domain, if the wizard died then so did the entire domain, even if there was an apprentice to carry on their level made them impotent and the PBeM set-up wasn't geared towards the apprentice gaining levels quickly enough to compensate.
-
While a wizardly domain doesn't conceptually have a large number of human (or sidhe, etc) staff, I don't see a problem with it having a large number of spirits, etc that together form the domain - I'm thinking of Katherine Kerr's Deverry concepts somewhat, but you could have a L4 source holding as representing the support of the local mountain spirit, a tribe of nixies that live along the river system, a number of forest spirits, etc - all of whom keep the mebhaighl flowing, bring information, carry out duties, etc in effectively a parallel 'world' of which the average Anuirean is oblivious. The wizard then has a court, retainers, etc, etc just like any other regent, but simply made up of beings which don't/won't generally interact with other domain types.
While this is an interesting version of the wizards domain, and one that explains how they get anything done, it's moving the wizard in the wrong direction, clarifying their exclusion with other domains rather than forcing them to integrate with the other domains and players. Perosnally I would much rather see the arcane domains as part of the overall dynamics between all the different domains, rather than playing in their own little world.
I've played wizards in other games and the key problems were income (they had none) and the fact that I was playing a character not a domain, if the wizard died then so did the entire domain, even if there was an apprentice to carry on their level made them impotent and the PBeM set-up wasn't geared towards the apprentice gaining levels quickly enough to compensate.
I think that sums up some of the key challenges of the wizard domains pretty well. As a result my preference would be for the domains to represent a group of wizards, say the whole college of sorcery, where there would be relatively modest disruption from the regent dying. Like you say, once a wizard dies the domain is at the moment pretty much doomed.
-
One other note to consider:
If we change the concept of the Arcane Domain to include staffs, assistants, followers, and apprentices, we're giving that domain a lot of expenses - both in-game in the form of his Court costs, and conceptually in the need to support all these people. This means that they'll have even more need to either support themselves with other, GB-generating holdings, or to integrate themselves further with other domains who'll fund them. Changing the domain's concept means changing the world it exists in. I don't see that as a fundamental problem, but it's another concept/description that needs to be laid out clearly. Who/what are the Arcane Domain's sources of funds, how is it tied to other domains, what are the non-Source resources it controls?
I think Manors might be a partial answer here, either representing land that the caster has been granted in return for past favors, a title of nobility granted by a kingdom in exchange for continuing services, or simply the way the caster uses the resources of his domain and the lands around him to produce money. Even a low-level Arcane Domain might have Manors that represent his continued casting on the villages, farms, and cities around him, and the tithe they send him as a consequence.
-
I just thought this would be good to put here.
From the chat:
"(14:00:25) Points_East/EL: Suggestion: maybe change "domain power" to "domain generation" in the Regent Guide.
(14:01:00) Points_East/EL: (removing the word, "power", from it)
(14:04:38) Points_East/EL: But, as currently defined, Domain Power is not a very accurate representation of relative power: is it?
(14:05:23) Points_East/EL: So, why use it, when determining Domain Caster Level?
(14:07:26) Points_East/EL: Edit: But, as currently defined, Domain Power is not necessarily a very accurate representation of relative power: is it?
(14:16:55) OIT/Narvelon_Diem_(Garth): It seems to me that highest level holding combined with the number of holdings is probably a better representation of power. That's what I was getting at. Using domain power as it is currently defined shifts the actual power to domains with midrange holdings that were heretofore only providing some additional income generation (for temples) and reserve power (if their holdings were somehow interrupted) for magic."
-
But do we want wizards, magic, to be just another factor for power? Where is the mystic?
What is the point in calling it magic if it isn’t extraordinary?
-
I thought DCL should take into consideration highest holding level, because as the rules stand currently, a wizard or priest with a high level holding and a network of leylines or low level temples is probably better off than a domain with tons and tons of 2 or 3 level holdings.
If the incentive structure for domain expansion changes, certain domains would be slighted. Taking into account highest holding level, this is less severely the case.
The reason a priest domain is better if it has a high lvl holding is that temple holdings generate income and a high level holding in a high level province generates more income than tons of low level holdings in low level provinces. 5 lvl 1 holdings cost the same to maintain as 1 lvl 5, so money generating holdings are always better if they are higher.
That will still be true in either case.
The only limiting factor for a wizard domain is the level of the regent. If a lvl 9 wizard has a lot of lvl 1 sources I doubt it will take many domain turns for him to contest and rule sources until he have a lvl 5 holding.
But a lvl 2 wizard with a lvl 5 source will have to gain 7 levels putting his regent in mortal danger at least 7 times and spend years of game time to gain the same power that the lvl 9 wizard potentially can achieve in a single domain turn.
I just thought this would be good to put here.
From the chat:
"(14:00:25) Points_East/EL: Suggestion: maybe change "domain power" to "domain generation" in the Regent Guide.
(14:01:00) Points_East/EL: (removing the word, "power", from it)
(14:04:38) Points_East/EL: But, as currently defined, Domain Power is not a very accurate representation of relative power: is it?
(14:05:23) Points_East/EL: So, why use it, when determining Domain Caster Level?
(14:07:26) Points_East/EL: Edit: But, as currently defined, Domain Power is not necessarily a very accurate representation of relative power: is it?
(14:16:55) OIT/Narvelon_Diem_(Garth): It seems to me that highest level holding combined with the number of holdings is probably a better representation of power. That's what I was getting at. Using domain power as it is currently defined shifts the actual power to domains with midrange holdings that were heretofore only providing some additional income generation (for temples) and reserve power (if their holdings were somehow interrupted) for magic."
I disagree. The high level tempel holdings still enjoy the benefit of larger income compared to upkeep.
Cake is cake! A high level holding is cake. There is no need to give it the frosting of increased DCL.
In my opinion giving bonus DCL for a high holding is the same as giving all the units in an army bonus to their attack, defense & morale because they have a single unit that is more experienced than any unit in the enemy army. That just seems wrong to me, and so does your proposal.
You almost sound like low and mid level holdings have little effect on a domain. But to try and put it in perspective:
OIT generate 50 RP and 67,6GB.
Of those 18RP and 28,3GB come from lvl 5+ holdings, the rest come from mid to low range holdings.
That is 58% of the GB and 64% of the regency from those low to mid level holdings.... They seem to be almost worth more than the few high level holdings when looking at OIT at a whole. - And I would certainly call it an understatement that all they provide for OIT is "some additional income generation"
Furthermore, remember that OIT only generate that amount of cash because temples don't pay tax in diemed and most of OIT's holdings and all of their high level holdings are in Diemed. So for any other generic domain with the same holding levels, the mid and low level holdings would hold a higher percentage of the GB income.
The mid & low level holdings also give you the ability to cast more spells, as you can only use the same holding once each turn, and they provide a spell casting network too.
I will give you that a domain with a single lvl 10 holding is way more powerful than a domain with 10 level 1 holdings. And that domain power in no way reflects that difference.
But the power lies in having more money and a more easily protected domain and as such also more resources to fuel their spells. Why should they on top of that also have access to higher Domain caster level?
What will it bring to the game?
How will the domain with 10 x 1 level holdings ever be able to hurt the domain with 1 lvl 10 holding in any case?
-
Scrap that long rant.
It will be an equal playing field for all no mater if the DCL gets a bonus from a high holding or not. As no matter what the rules become we players will do our best to rule the holding to
The real and only problem that I see is that Mage domains are in conflict with other domains in three ways:
1. They are insubstantial and hard to force interaction with.
2. They loose power when landed rules gain power (the magic disappears as the province grow in population)
3. They are a single person operation, and as such they are fragile and hard to work with.
-
Generally the tie between source domains and other domains, is that the source domain supplies realm spells to affect landed domains and armies and the landed domains in turn supply GB.
It is a little unsatisfactory, but I'm not sure that making the wizard domain into a domain of magicians and wizards - who can be readily attacked by a landed regent - is the way to go. It lacks mystery - we have multiple landed domain types and I'd almost prefer to create another 'magical' type than change the source holdings over.
I'd wonder about either increasing the cross-over in terms of spells which affect landed domains, or the types of mystical issue which can beset a landed domain and the type of side-effects that can impact a source domain from landed holdings.
The latter is however particularly difficult unless it is reduced to ad hoc DM fiat along the lines of 'to build a ley-line you need the bridge built in a slightly different place and with some charms mixed in with the mortar - it will add x GB to the cost, but will give +4 to the chance of forming the ley-line and halve the cost for a year until the mebhaighl flow changes'.
-
The real and only problem that I see is that Mage domains are in conflict with other domains in three ways:
1. They are insubstantial and hard to force interaction with.
Agree, but by the same token they are handy for less involved players in a PBeM while retaining social status, etc that avoids them being ignored as a 'petty little domain'.
2. They loose power when landed rules gain power (the magic disappears as the province grow in population)
I think that this was deliberate to oppose the formation of masses of high level provinces - under vanila 2e raising the province level is fairly easy.
3. They are a single person operation, and as such they are fragile and hard to work with.
That's the key problem, Even's idea of a collection of mages is one fix, my hope would be that the fairy court approach would be another - either way you have mystical support for the regent justifying a reasonable skill level at domain magic after the regent dies even if the specific character is merely an 'the apprentice'. I'm not sure though that you need to go the whole hog of them having a big staff to need GB's to support a court though.
-
Before making further comment, I would observe I am certainly not opposed to the ideas under discussion and can only speak from my own perspective/experience. I can't speak for other wizard players obviously, and I've been thinking about building a small cabal of characters to support the Sea Witch - maybe a priestess of Ruornil, a couple minor mages of some description, maybe even a water faerie or spirit of some type. Finding all those people takes a bit of time and DO 71 is only the 4th I've submitted - and the earlier 3 mostly concentrated on the affair in Ilien, finding out more about the Red Wind, and tidying up my ley lines. I've also made an effort to interact with other regents - I'm sure I don't do it anywhere near as much as most other regents, but I'm usually involved in 3 or 4 separate IC interactions per turn.
At the end of the day, I'm hoping changes don't fundamentally alter the demands on my time. The primary reason I opted for a small wizard domain in the first place is I really wanted to play in this game, but didn't really have the time to take on a major domain. :)
One issue Andy has touched on is, I think, very pertinent. Wizard realm spells tend to be largely military in focus (e.g. helping attack stuff) or focused on the wizard's domain (e.g. spells affecting ley lines, sources, etc). Our spell selection doesn't involve interacting with other domains very much. But also, our interests don't have a lot of alignment - landed regents, temples and guilds have very little need of us unless they get attacked by something, or they attack something. The rest of the time other regents tend to leave wizards alone because they genuinely don't need us, and wizards are quite happy focusing on those things that matter to them and which don't involve other domains (unless you have purely social, RPing interactions - dropping in for a glass of wine or a social chat).
If one of the goals of the changes is to encourage or incentivise domain interaction, then perhaps we need to think about this dynamic a little more. Either looking at wizardly spells or mystical issues which require some input from the local mage as Andy suggests might be the way to go. Personally, I think there is scope for Birthright mages, with their intimate connection to the land, to have access to some druidic-type spells. Also, from my perspective, my major agenda is something I smply can't achieve by myself and so I need to interact with others. So there's certainly a range of ways available out there to encourage greater interaction between wizard regents and other regents.
-
Just for the record, I wasn't arguing any point on this topic from the point of view of the OIT regent.
With that said, I was discussing DCL with the keeper of the P&H and, in much the same way as past editions of AD&D limited maximum spell level for priests worshipping gods of different power levels, we discussed the possibility of a temple domain receiving a disposition based on the power level of its central deity.
Greater Power: +1 DCL
Intermediate Power: +0 DCL
Lesser Power: -1 DCL
I thought this is a decent way to capture a story aspect, and I also thought giving a bonus to the DCL for a temple worshipping the patron deity of the domain's race would work to this end as well. Haelyn for Anuireans, Erik for Rjurik, etc.
-
I thought DCL should take into consideration highest holding level, because as the rules stand currently, a wizard or priest with a high level holding and a network of leylines or low level temples is probably better off than a domain with tons and tons of 2 or 3 level holdings.
If the incentive structure for domain expansion changes, certain domains would be slighted. Taking into account highest holding level, this is less severely the case.
High level holdings are costly to create, but I think they are valuable enough as is. Will not have any effect on DCL other than adding to the total.
-
Just for the record, I wasn't arguing any point on this topic from the point of view of the OIT regent.
With that said, I was discussing DCL with the keeper of the P&H and, in much the same way as past editions of AD&D limited maximum spell level for priests worshipping gods of different power levels, we discussed the possibility of a temple domain receiving a disposition based on the power level of its central deity.
Greater Power: +1 DCL
Intermediate Power: +0 DCL
Lesser Power: -1 DCL
I thought this is a decent way to capture a story aspect, and I also thought giving a bonus to the DCL for a temple worshipping the patron deity of the domain's race would work to this end as well. Haelyn for Anuireans, Erik for Rjurik, etc.
This modifier won't be included as part of the default calculation of DCL. It sort of makes sense story-wise, but it makes for a bad modifier in a game. Maybe as an optional side-bare rule though.
-
I think Manors might be a partial answer here, either representing land that the caster has been granted in return for past favors, a title of nobility granted by a kingdom in exchange for continuing services, or simply the way the caster uses the resources of his domain and the lands around him to produce money. Even a low-level Arcane Domain might have Manors that represent his continued casting on the villages, farms, and cities around him, and the tithe they send him as a consequence.
Manors and guilds/trade. Both are certainly possible. The manor is a good representation of the lands owned/controlled by the covenant. Guild/trade would be relevant if the covenant produces stuff for trade.
-
One other note to consider:
If we change the concept of the Arcane Domain to include staffs, assistants, followers, and apprentices, we're giving that domain a lot of expenses - both in-game in the form of his Court costs, and conceptually in the need to support all these people. This means that they'll have even more need to either support themselves with other, GB-generating holdings, or to integrate themselves further with other domains who'll fund them. Changing the domain's concept means changing the world it exists in. I don't see that as a fundamental problem, but it's another concept/description that needs to be laid out clearly. Who/what are the Arcane Domain's sources of funds, how is it tied to other domains, what are the non-Source resources it controls?
It's a concept change. That's the whole point actually. To make sourcerous domains more like an Ars Magica covenant. There could certainly be some individual variations between domains - a fey-heavy domain like Andy described or a domain that's more dependent upon it's regent that the norm - but the default idea is the covenant.
Regardless of concept change or not; I honestly see few problems 'converting' existing sorcerous domains to fit the new mold.
That's said this is a long way from being ready for play. I don't see it having any place in RoE II Chapter 1 for example.
-
If we want to, can we start moving in this direction now?
If yes, can we start detailing members of our domain provided they don't hold any official position, aren't an advisor or assistant, or anything like that? That is, just fluff personalities. Or should we spend actions recruiting each individual?
-
Feel free.
No actions required.
I suggest reading the rules for AAs in the sneak peak of Regent Guide NEXT. I.e. the stuff about advisers/specialist, minions/henchmen and lieutenants.
-
Random musings from me on a system using the domain power to determine realm magic caster level rather than the character levels of the regent.
OoC:
Why Domain Power (as currently defined in the Regent Guide), even if limited to the Domain Power of magic-relevant holdings?
OoC:
For this post, a domain's Domain Temple Power is the sum of that domain's temple levels.
For this post, a domain's Real Domain Temple Power is the sum of that domain's adjusted temple levels, each holding being adjusted in the following manner: (temple level)*(province level)/5.
Domain Temple Power, in Turn #71 (if not mistaken):
WIT: 81 /// HA: 61 /// MOC: 57 /// ETN: 46 /// OIT: 37 /// THB: 27
Real Domain Temple Power, in Turn #71 (if not mistaken):
WIT: 89.8 /// HA: 58.6 /// MOC: 58.2 /// ETN: 51 /// OIT: 47.4 /// THB: 18.4
OoC:
Assuming that base Temple Caster Level (TCL) might be either (Domain Temple Power)/5 or (Real Domain Temple Power)/5, here follow the resultant base TCL figures (when rounding down {and if not mistaken}). . . .
Base TCL (in Turn #71), using Domain Temple Power:
WIT: 16 /// HA: 12 /// MOC: 11 /// ETN: 9 /// OIT: 7 /// THB: 5
Base TCL (in Turn #71), using Real Domain Temple Power:
WIT: 17 /// HA: 11 /// MOC: 11 /// ETN: 10 /// OIT: 9 /// THB: 3
OoC:
In this context, is Real Domain Temple Power superior to Domain Temple Power, when determining base Temple Caster Level?
-
Random musings from me on a system using the domain power to determine realm magic caster level rather than the character levels of the regent.
OoC:
Why Domain Power (as currently defined in the Regent Guide), even if limited to the Domain Power of magic-relevant holdings?
OoC:
For this post, a domain's Domain Source Power is the sum of that domain's source levels.
For this post, a domain's Real Domain Source Power is the sum of that domain's adjusted source levels, each holding being adjusted in the following manner: (source level)*(current source potential)/5.
Domain Source Power, in Turn #71 (if not mistaken):
Reg: 34 /// Oak: 33 /// GeM: 29 /// SW: 29 /// AuA: 23 /// Ivory: 21 /// SM: 21 /// Kal: 12 /// CoS: 9
Real Domain Source Power, in Turn #71 (if not mistaken):
Oak: 32.2 /// Reg: 29.2 /// GeM: 27.6 /// SW: 26.4 /// AuA: 19 /// CoS: 18 /// Kal: 14.2 /// Ivory: 12.8 /// SM: 10
OoC:
Assuming that base Source Caster Level (SCL) might be either (Domain Source Power)/(2.5) or (Real Domain Source Power)/(2.5), here follow the resultant base SCL figures (when rounding down {and if not mistaken}). . . .
Base SCL (in Turn #71), using Domain Source Power:
Reg: 13 /// Oak: 13 /// GeM: 11 /// SW: 11 /// AuA: 9 /// Ivory: 8 /// SM: 8 /// Kal: 4 /// CoS: 3
Base SCL (in Turn #71), using Real Domain Source Power:
Oak: 12 /// Reg: 11 /// GeM: 11 /// SW: 10 /// AuA: 7 /// CoS: 7 /// Kal: 5 /// Ivory: 5 /// SM: 4
OoC:
In this context, is Real Domain Source Power superior to Domain Source Power, when determining base Source Caster Level?
-
OoC:
In my above post (Reply #37), which seems preferable: OIT-Base-TCL 7 and THB-Base-TCL 5 . . . or . . . OIT-Base-TCL 9 and THB-Base-TCL 3?
In my above post (Reply #38), which seems preferable: SM-Base-SCL 8 and CoS-Base-SCL 3 . . . or . . . CoS-Base-SCL 7 and SM-Base-SCL 4?
-
A question that could stir some additional thought:
The magic relevant domain power or magic relevant real domain power, however it might be calculated, does not give any value to 0 Lvl Holdings. Do 0 Lvlv Holdings provide anything to the domain apart from an extended network, or is an extended network the only benefit? Should an extended network be a factor in the power of DCL?
-
Lvl 0 holdings allow you to use influence. Which can be important.
-
Unless someone has a lot of them, I'm not sure that it's worth making special rules for large numbers of L0 holdings, any benefit would be minimal compared to the more significant holdings.
-
There are no special benefits for level 0 holdings beyond that they allow you to expend influence (particularly RP) in general within the province.
-
I have been thinking about how to 'force' source domains to interact more with the other domains. I think there are a few ways that might help spur this.
*Relax the rules of Advantage/Hardiness in relation to Source domains: Allow Law/Temple/Guild domains to confer bonus to create & rule actions of sources. Allow Sources to affect agitate, rule province, contest holding (all), etc. I still wouldn't allow domain to occupy source domains, nor allow source domains to be affected by armies.
*You might consider giving virtual trade or guild holdings. Giving them a limited source of income will not tip power scales very much, and will give the domains reason to be concerned about what is occuring in the non-source domains.
*Giving well establish Source domains hidden and non-hidden manor, guild, temple and/or law holdings. This holdings would not represent neccessarily the source domain attempt to enter those arenas in force, instead it is represents close ties the source domain may have with various power structures. Taken to an extremely, you would get the source domains that directly rule several holding types.
-
A potential problem with giving high level sources holdings of existing types, is with 'new-found' provinces - a very high source level and not much else. The wizard could stop just about anything happening as they'd have advantage/hardiness/etc - adding to the natural difficulty of creating and ruling holdings in a wild land.
That said I like the idea of limited income, and of some interaction - and certainly in an isolated realm the wizardly court would have reasonable influence compared to in more populous lands where there are many numerous organisations. The question to me would then be how to set the rules to give them influence (tapering rapidly as the realm size grew) but not dominance.
-
The holdings don't neccessarily have anything to do with high-level source holdings but rather 'well-established' source domains. In a way, this is conceding what has been a long standing idea about source domains, i.e. that they are insubstanial, ephemereal, if you will.
I think I have an idea that could do this.
High MSP grants virtual trade holdings in a province equal to the MSP - 4. These holdings can only be created by Source domains. In all other respects, they act as trade holdings. These holding represent wizardly services for hire, tutelage, sage services, alchemical, and/or other wizardly/scholarly services within the province.
-
I'm not sure if you need the virtual holding - mechanically you could make a formula to generate income in a source holding above a certain level, although the virtual holding would allow differentiation between 'mercantile' and 'mystical' source holdings - you could for example allow 1/3 virtual holdings (round down) for each theoretical source level and then leave it to the source holders to create and rule them or not - and contest them if need be. Would you use GB or a 'magic only GB' substitute?
One key game issue would however be sidhe realms - any income rules for source holdings would benefit them signficantly, although not enough to compensate them for having no temples and minimal guilds I suspect.