RoE Development > Regent Guide
STABILITY
Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde):
This would change max natural stability for Talinie from +2 to -1
That is a serious nerf.
I think it is wrong to mess with domain size. Linking it to bs is to make bs even more powerful. It is already your regency cap and now you want to make it stability cap as well. It could work with Bjørns version, if domain maintenance was linear. But if added as is sugested here I would seriously contemplate using my first action turn 1 splitting talinie from NIT.
And I am completely unable to follow why chaotic domains who are prone to lower stability than lawful domains should be able to nullify that disadvantage by being able to diversify their domain at no cost.
Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde):
--- Quote from: Talinie & NIT/TD(Linde) on September 17, 2013, 10:21:26 AM ---This would change max natural stability for Talinie from +2 to -1
That is a serious nerf.
I think it is wrong to mess with domain size. Linking it to bs is to make bs even more powerful. It is already your regency cap and now you want to make it stability cap as well. It could work with Bjørns version, if domain maintenance was linear. But if added as is sugested here I would seriously contemplate using my first action turn 1 splitting talinie from NIT.
And I am completely unable to follow why chaotic domains who are prone to lower stability than lawful domains should be able to nullify that disadvantage by being able to diversify their domain at no cost.
--- End quote ---
Just a note:
This quote was written back when Brandon's second post penalized lawful domains for being a multiple type domain by reducing maximum annual stability increase(ASI) by -2, and didn't reduce ASI for chaotic domains for their 2nd domain type. He might change it again so this rant seems out of place. But trust me, it is not!
Brandon was nice enough to send me a PM informing me of his change. And I appreciate that very much!
But it doesn't change the fact that I have to constantly edit my posts to keep them up to date unless I want to seem stupid. Any new reader would read my post and wonder what I was talking about, and where I got my crazy numbers from.
I feel it is unfair to the discussion, and to me, that I have to update my posts in order to keep the discussion on track.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I will now try to address this proposal without using any posted numbers as a reference. That will hopefully ensure that my post will make some sort of sense regardless of other players edits to their own posts.
I feel Bjørn's proposal in 2.25 for linking BS to domain size is the way to do it if we at any point want to link BS to domain size. It will give a bonus to medium, large and huge domain sizes of regents with high BS while keeping the smaller domain sizes static.
That being said I like the completely static version that Bjørn proposed better!
BS is strong enough and there is no need to give double bonus to regents with high BS.
Granting a higher maximum ASI to small domains and lowering it for larger domains in effect give higher income to small domains and lower income to large domains. This is already achieved by domain maintenance not being linear.
In addition to changing the income of domains, the change to ASI will in effect grant a bonus to small domains actions while imposing a penalty on large domains actions. That might be something that we want to do? I think it could be a good idea, but not while we keep the current domain maintenance rules.
I am against linking domain types to ASI!
Firstly because we have different amount of holding types linked to each domain type. That inherently makes the domain types that may hold 3 types of holdings even more powerful than they are today. In effect the rule will penalize! But it will penalize Wizards and Temples before it penalizes Guilds, and it will penalize Guilds before it penalizes Nobles. That is IMO not desirable.
Secondly. I don't agree with the reasoning for linking a negative stability modifier to number of domain types. Stability as defined in RGv2.21 is the loyalty and effectiveness of your government. And I don't see the link that make your government in general disloyal to their king because he is the conduit to their God as well. Neither do I see the link that make the government ineffective because their king is a mage, or a guilder. I can't make a link between any two domain types and say: "Yes! That would always make the government disloyal or ineffective."
I can see that it might be appropriate from a game masters point of view to dissuade multiple type domains. But that can be achieved via granting each ruler a small specific bonus to domain actions in regard to a specific holding type.
It will work just as well, and it won't seem as a rule imposed to dissuade a behavior, rather a rule to encourage another behavior. That is IMO more desirable.
To sum it all up:
If we want to grant a bonus to small domains actions a way to do it could be to implement base 2.25 rules for ASI and domain size while changing the domain upkeep to being linear.
If we want to encourage people to stay within a single holding type that could be done with a holding specific bonus representing the skills of the regent. And should be addressed in character creation rules.
X-Points East:
OoC:
Example:
Domain X
Alignment: Lawful Good
Size: Large
Type: Composite (Landed & Temple)
Under the rules in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.20, Domain X has maximum stability of 3; minimum stability of –3; and ASI threshold of 2.
Under the rules in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.25, Domain X (effectively) has maximum stability of 2; minimum stability of –4; and ASI threshold of 1.
Under the rules in STABILITY, Domain X has maximum stability of 5; minimum stability of –5; and ASI threshold of 0.
Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde):
--- Quote from: X-Points East on September 17, 2013, 07:16:35 PM ---
OoC:
Example:
Domain X
Alignment: Lawful Good
Size: Large
Type: Composite (Landed & Temple)
Under the rules in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.20, Domain X has maximum stability of 3; minimum stability of –3; and ASI threshold of 2.
Under the rules in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.25, Domain X (effectively) has maximum stability of 2; minimum stability of –4; and ASI threshold of 1.
Under the rules in STABILITY — Domain Alignment/Size/Types & Annual Stability Increase, Domain X has maximum stability of 5; minimum stability of –5; and ASI threshold of 0.
--- End quote ---
This example is only true for a limited BS and holding level. The premise to compare the proposal here and 2.25 should be that the domains you look at are the same domain. What is the domain had 31 holdings and the regent had a bs of 20?
Large by your definition but small by Bjørns.
X-Points East:
--- Quote from: Talinie & NIT/TD(Linde) on September 17, 2013, 07:37:59 PM ---
--- Quote from: X-Points East on September 17, 2013, 07:16:35 PM ---
OoC:
Example:
Domain X
Alignment: Lawful Good
Size: Large
Type: Composite (Landed & Temple)
Under the rules in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.20, Domain X has maximum stability of 3; minimum stability of –3; and ASI threshold of 2.
Under the rules in Regent Guide v.3.5 Draft 2.25, Domain X (effectively) has maximum stability of 2; minimum stability of –4; and ASI threshold of 1.
Under the rules in STABILITY, Domain X has maximum stability of 5; minimum stability of –5; and ASI threshold of 0.
--- End quote ---
This example is only true for a limited BS and holding level. The premise to compare the proposal here and 2.25 should be that the domains you look at are the same domain. What is the domain had 31 holdings and the regent had a bs of 20?
Large by your definition but small by Bjørns.
--- End quote ---
OoC:
In a stability-relevant context, Domain X is a large domain, howsoever defined.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version