Twilightpeaks.net
RoE Development => Regent Guide => : X-Osoerde (Alan) June 18, 2010, 07:58:14 PM
-
I have been meaning to write this topic. As it stands, character level has largely been abstracted, but this does really translate well to realm magic/caster level. I would propose the following for spell casting characters/domains:
Character | | Maximum | | Caster |
Level | | Spell Level | | Level |
Low (1-3) | | 2nd | | 3 |
Medium (4-6) | | 3rd | | 6 |
High (7-9) | | 5th | | 9 |
Very High (10-12) | | 6th | | 12 |
Legendary (13-15) | | 7th | | 15 |
Near Epic (16-18) | | 8th | | 17 |
Epic (19+) | | 9th+ | | 20+ |
Note: This table assumes a character with a singular focus in spell casting. In cases where the character are multiclassed or of secondary focus, Maximum Spell Level (MSL) and Caster Level (CL) are reduced by 1 for each additional class. Characters in which spellcasting in which spellcasting is of tertiary focus, MSL and CL are reduced by 2.
-
The other way of doing it is to put the strain on the source/temple. So you can cast any level spell as long as you have the power, and level is ignored. The idea being that weaker PCs make more use of ritual power, aides etc than stronger ones, and the real limit is the source/temple level only - although perhaps you could impact failure rate a bit, or say that persistently relying on a more skilled aide risks a great captain/etc.
It may though seem a bit strange for a low level PC to cast a very high level spell, but it would make it easy to get replacement PCs for wizards (particularly) and temples where the loss of the regent could cripple the realm long term simply because dropping a few levels with the replacement could remove 1-2 levels of spells from the domain.
-
What do you mean by secondary/tertiary focus?
-
The other way of doing it is to put the strain on the source/temple. So you can cast any level spell as long as you have the power, and level is ignored. The idea being that weaker PCs make more use of ritual power, aides etc than stronger ones, and the real limit is the source/temple level only - although perhaps you could impact failure rate a bit, or say that persistently relying on a more skilled aide risks a great captain/etc.
It may though seem a bit strange for a low level PC to cast a very high level spell, but it would make it easy to get replacement PCs for wizards (particularly) and temples where the loss of the regent could cripple the realm long term simply because dropping a few levels with the replacement could remove 1-2 levels of spells from the domain.
This is part of the design, I would think. Death should be traumatic for domains, particularly when it is of their regent/
Incidentally, another wrinkle of this is that I was thinking that established domains (in particular) might have a base level, dependent on history, importance, etc, when it comes to spell casting.
Additionally, this 'all-in' system would remove some of the individualism of domains. For instance, in theory, Maire Cwyllmie becomes marginalized, despite being the most power cleric within Anuire, by the system.
e.g.
The OIT has an illustrious long history, due to the richness of this temple, its history and the ingrained dogma and rituals within the temple, it has is always treated, at a minimum, as a High level caster for the purposes of casting realm magic.
-
What do you mean by secondary/tertiary focus?
Largely, this is intended to penalize characters/domains who are not purely spell-casting domains. Conceptually, a domain whose focus is only on magic should be more capable than a domain should does not (though they will compensate this through other means, increased RP, GB, etc).
Primary:
Domains which singularly focus on the pursuit of magic (in whatever form). Usually, the regent is not multiclassed or multiclassed within the various spellcasting types (think Cleric/Mystic, Wizard/Sorceror, Wizard/Druid, etc) nor does the domain focus on non-source/non-temple holdings typically. Additionally, these domains will typically be aloof from temporal pursuits. Incidentally, it is very rare for temple domains to be of this category.
- Examples: Regien, High Mage, Arlen Innis (the Storm Warden), Hermedhie, Mhistecai, Kalieman, Savaane Dhoesone, Eastern Temple of Nesirie (due to Marie Cwyllmie)
Secondary:
This will represent the lion share of most temples and landed spell-casters. This represents a domain in which the ability to wield realm magic is important, and in which magic plays an important role, but this domain does not pursue magical endeavors with singular purpose. These domains will typically have multiclassed regents and have significant interest in numerous holding types or temporal obligations/pursuits.
- Examples: Holy Order of Haelyn's Aegis, Orthodox Imperial Temple of Haelyn, the Sword Mage, Aubre Avan, Impregnable Heart of Haelyn, Western Imperial Temple of Haelyn, Eastern Temple of Nesirie (Once Cwyllmie is gone), etc.
Tertiary
These are domains which are focused over numerous complex pursuits in addition to spell-casting, burgeoning spell-casting domains, regents who come late to spell-casting, or those who acquire spellcasting ability from a prestige class alone. Typically, these domains will have significant interests in numerous prusuits and have regents who are multiclassed (within three or more classes). Often times, these domains will not be able to wield realm magic (but it is not neccessarily unheard of either). Additionally, these domains may have access to numerous magic types (divine & arcane, primodial & divine, etc).
- Examples: Baron Tristan Bellamie & Berendor Coasters, Countess Geraldine el-Mesir & Port of Call Exchange, The Wardens
-
It may though seem a bit strange for a low level PC to cast a very high level spell, but it would make it easy to get replacement PCs for wizards (particularly) and temples where the loss of the regent could cripple the realm long term simply because dropping a few levels with the replacement could remove 1-2 levels of spells from the domain.
This is part of the design, I would think. Death should be traumatic for domains, particularly when it is of their regent/
Additionally, this 'all-in' system would remove some of the individualism of domains. For instance, in theory, Maire Cwyllmie becomes marginalized, despite being the most power cleric within Anuire, by the system.
I agree in the main, but the current trauma is extreme for source domains in particular - go from L12 master to L3 apprentice and you lose almost all realm spell capability and with it a good chunk of playability. Less of a problem for a temple domain but still far from trivial.
Incidentally, another wrinkle of this is that I was thinking that established domains (in particular) might have a base level, dependent on history, importance, etc, when it comes to spell casting.
That might be a good half-way house. As alternatives the base level could either add to the caster's level (linearly or in amortising form) or, say, a regent could always cast spells of level equal to half the focus being used, but can only cast more powerful magics if the regent has the personal capability.
-
My two cents:
The level scale presented here, actually Reduce the spellcasting ability by postponing access to higher level spells. - I don't favor that approach.
Second, hiring a high level caster is not easy, but not impossible either. So losing a high level regent can be alleviated, to a degree I digress, by hiring a strong caster.
Introducing this new system will completely remove characters from the equation. In a War, the ones going to cast 0lvl realm magic are whom exactly? - Unlimited numbers? - Faceless minions?
But hey, I'm in the camp favoring more development of the characters and their influence on realm play, not the other way around. :)
-
The level scale presented here, actually Reduce the spellcasting ability by postponing access to higher level spells. - I don't favor that approach.
This isn't totally fair.
In my system conceptually, a 4th level character gains access to 3rd level magic and does so at a higher caster level and a 7th level caster gains 5th level magic.
While it is true that high level spellcasting is penalized somewhat, it was done with an eye toward RoE flavor - rare magic setting where high level magics are even rarer. This system tries to incorporate this.
Second, hiring a high level caster is not easy, but not impossible either. So losing a high level regent can be alleviated, to a degree I digress, by hiring a strong caster.
But this isn't really how domains work, and is virtually unheard of within temples. Spell casting domanis can alleviate this issue by ensuring that they acquire and train proper heirs, but incidentally, this is another occurance that has been rarely attended to by temples and source domains.
Introducing this new system will completely remove characters from the equation. In a War, the ones going to cast 0lvl realm magic are whom exactly? - Unlimited numbers? - Faceless minions?
No domain gets out of the basic requirement that battle spells and realm spells require a regent (or LT) capable of wielding realm magic (meets all the basic requirements).
But hey, I'm in the camp favoring more development of the characters and their influence on realm play, not the other way around. :)
RoEII is a game about domains, it is the domain that every player plays even as the domains outward manifestation is often, but not always, the regent.
-
I see, so you actually made it a tad easier at the lower levels, I missed that. Still don't entirely agree though. :)
I'm sorry to move the discussion off on a tangent, but if the role in war and adventuring is not also addressed, then a domain without access to individually powerful casters will always be at a disadvantage.
Right now, you hire in powerful people for casting, war and adventuring.
If we make casting abstracted, a domain thing, then you make it much more accessible over all. Many domains will be tempted to grab a few holdings of caster type, simply to gain the power therein.
Meaning, the boost to adventuring and war becomes much more targeted on individuals for this purpose alone. Rogues and Fighters and such would gain a popularity boost, perhaps at the cost of regents often being quite puny next to their hired help. - Their ECL is all that matters, blood and casting no longer does.
We see some trending of this, in Lannelah, the Green Knight and a few other super powered NPC's that can be played by domains crafty enough to turn them to their causes.
In most landed domains, losing the regent often means the rule falls to a younger descendant. (At least in optimal situations) - Temples and Wizard domains are at least more free here.
There is no reason to not have 2 level 11 priests, one the regent, the other the lieutenant and heir.
Same for Wizards, the Three Brother Mages would be an example I suppose, although they are running out of brothers fast.
I see this trend moving the regent back further to a position as figurehead and little else. No longer a Hero-King, just a King.
Apart from the setting, there is almost no connection back to D&D. I'm not even sure which side of the fence I'm on, against or for, I'm just pointing out that this change has radical impacts beyond realm magic alone.
-
Interesting suggestion Alan.
Like Niels, I am not sure whether I am in favor or not. In one way it will help alleviate the problem that Mage domains like mine face - if the regent dies, the domain looses a lot of it's power. Guild and Fighter domains do not have this issue.
There is a difference between how much regent level matters, for fighter and rogue domains, and for mage and temple domains. This could be seen as an imbalance, on paper mage and temple domains are stronger. In the game, fighter and rogue domains are in general stronger, because their realms are stronger.
While Alan is right that we are not just playing or regents, but the entire domain, that does not necessarily mean that regents and their lieutenants cannot be fleshed out to a larger degree than currently. A domain is the sum of it holdings, provinces, regent, able assistants, economy, alliances, etc. Detailing one does not mean the others goes away.
The biggest point in favour of this, that I can see, is that it makes spellcasting regent work, conceptually, the same way as other regents. They have their skills, which are usually more useful on the domain level. Spellcasters have their... spells.
Also, the only spells that are made harder to access are the 8th and 9th levels spells. Spells that no one can cast currently (except maybe for a few elven regents) and that would completely shatter the balance of the game anyway. Eg. the spell that instantly takes control of an entire province and every holding in it. Would make the whole Ilien situation a lot easier for some.
Niels is right though, system-wise there are no reasons not to pick up a source or temple holding or two. With access to a realm spell caster, they make any domain slightly more effective (or drastically more effective). There are in-character and thematic reasons not to do so though, reasons that seem to be weigh more heavily.
Personally I would try to smoothe out the difference between domain types by making character levels a little more important for non spellcaster regents. A slight powerboost to them, to explain why the most powerful regents in Anuire are primarily fighters and rogues. Ymmv though.
-
I'm not clear why you feel this is removing the regent from the equation, Niels. He's still the one casting, his level is still the primary limiting fact; the only difference is that his levels have been abstracted from 1-20 to Low - Epic the same way they have been for all other purposes. Yes, an LT can cast as well - that's the same as right now too.
If you're referring to the idea of a domain having a kind of 'minimum' casting level, the primary regent would most likely cast at higher than that to start with, so there'd still be a potency to the regent. In addition, it wouldn't help anything for a non caster domain to grab 'a few holdings' - that non-caster domain wouldn't have any baseline casting ability, since it has no tradition of such. Same for domains grabbing holdings of the kind they're not suited to (wizards grabbing temples). They might have baseline casting ability of one kind, but they wouldn't have it in the other. The fact that you're a level 12 wizard wouldn't let you cast level 4 cleric realm spells unless and until you took levels of cleric and, presumably, began training in divine magic. Which would be a radical departure for the domain to match the radical departure in its capabilities.
Theoretically, a noble could hire a divine or arcane caster, get some appropriate holdings, and start casting that way. They can do that right NOW, too. Nothing changes there. The problem with this, of course, is that the process of getting those holdings is likely to piss some people off - if Osoer or Rashid start taking temple holdings from the IHH or LPA, I suspect there would be....
Consequences. :o
Lastly, Bjorn is capable of maintaining sense and functionality within rule structures. Example: Tristan is now a low-level caster. According to the strict rules Bjorn made, he should be able to cast realm spell despite not personally having the feat required, because he is a regent. However, Bjorn quite readily informed me that since my domain has no tradition of spell-casting, I don't get that particular freebie. Suck it up, Bobby. Why? Because while the rules made sense in most cases, they didn't in this one and were sidestepped appropriately. So I don't think we have to worry about Guilders suddenly taking a few actions and then firing off their own Bless spells as desired.
What exactly do you see this changing, aside from going from a level 1-20 system to a level Low - Epic system?
-
I dont get it.... Geraldine is multiclassed.... She has one additional class so she gets -1 MSL & CL, then she by your example is defined as tertiary and gets -2 MSL & CL
Questions:
Are those two culmative?
As I read this table my regent will get penalized.. More than I think is fair. (Regardless of the answer to my question)
I think the idea could be good... It is nice to have the same standard for all.
But concepts as secondary and tertiary focus can really hit a realm hard on their ability to cast spells, so they really need to be well defined so some (Red. I) can understand why they are being hit with a nerf bat... And the only way to clearly define a characters ability to cast spells is through their individual class levels, not what actions they are forced to spend resources on as a realm.
I think the idea of substracting one from MSL & CL for each additional class the caster has, and perhaps substracting one further if the character only has access to spells through a prestige class would be sound. But dont mix a characters domain into it...
-
I think the fact that she's multiclassed says the same thing as that she's not focused on casting. Only one penalty ought to apply there. I'd say that either of those methods of adjustment should be used, not both.
-
Questions:
Are those two culmative?
It is an either-or system, not a stacking system. So, they are not intended to be cumulative. At most each spell caster is being levied a penalty of either +0/-1/-2 or at least that is how envision the system.
As I read this table my regent will get penalized.. More than I think is fair. (Regardless of the answer to my question)
I think the idea could be good... It is nice to have the same standard for all.
But concepts as secondary and tertiary focus can really hit a realm hard on their ability to cast spells, so they really need to be well defined so some (Red. I) can understand why they are being hit with a nerf bat... And the only way to clearly define a characters ability to cast spells is through their individual class levels, not what actions they are forced to spend resources on as a realm.
At the heart of your question seems to be "Why would I be considered a 'tertiary' spell-caster?"
The basic gist is that this particular domain (and thus its regent) has some very complex things it needs to juggle. Firstly, it has guild interests spanning numerous domains and cultures. Secondly, the domain has significant temporal interests as the Countess of Ilien, a county that is the second largest city/county within Anuire. Thirdly, it has significant magical interests. All of this culminates into an inability of a domain/regent to truly focus on the prusuit of magic/spell-casting and thus it is penalized for such. In fact, this domain is intended, by design, to sacrifice specialization for utility/diversification, I think. Additionally, the union of the two domains (county of Ilien/sources of Ilien and the PCE) is a relatively new domain (as a single entity at least), less than 5 years in fact.
All of these things culminate into why I would place Geraldine as a tertiary spell-caster. Incidentally, the nerf bat isn't actually that bad. Unlike most other wizards, Geraldine would normally have the resources to fund her actions and has less of a need to skimp and plan. Geraldine also has accesss to temporal resources that most wizards wouldn't. Ultimately, it ends up a net zero sum game, IMO.
Lastly, please note - I only listed the above domains as examples of where I would place domains given my limited knowledge of them. Bjorn/Jon, of course, would ultimately determine categories.
-
All of these things culminate into why I would place Geraldine as a tertiary spell-caster. Incidentally, the nerf bat isn't actually that bad. Unlike most other wizards, Geraldine would normally have the resources to fund her actions and has less of a need to skimp and plan. Geraldine also has accesss to temporal resources that most wizards wouldn't. Ultimately, it ends up a net zero sum game, IMO.
Lastly, please note - I only listed the above domains as examples of where I would place domains given my limited knowledge of them. Bjorn/Jon, of course, would ultimately determine categories.
Moving slightly off-topic here, but anyway: Considering Geraldine so far has held quite a few domains at bay while they are trying to bring her down, I'd say that her tri-role seems to be working quite well. I'm certain some players would even say too well ::)
Edit: Those players are of course only jealous 8)
-
The basic gist is that this particular domain (and thus its regent) has some very complex things it needs to juggle. Firstly, it has guild interests spanning numerous domains and cultures. Secondly, the domain has significant temporal interests as the Countess of Ilien, a county that is the second largest city/county within Anuire. Thirdly, it has significant magical interests. All of this culminates into an inability of a domain/regent to truly focus on the prusuit of magic/spell-casting and thus it is penalized for such. In fact, this domain is intended, by design, to sacrifice specialization for utility/diversification, I think. Additionally, the union of the two domains (county of Ilien/sources of Ilien and the PCE) is a relatively new domain (as a single entity at least), less than 5 years in fact.
Well, I agree that a character who studies a lot of different things, tend to know some about a lot, but will never have the time to focus solely on any given thing.
I argue that ALL (or atleast most) player domains have significant intrests in numerous pursuits, so the only difference between a focused and non focused spellcaster/regent of any other type, is how many different classes they have.
So, where is the table that clearly shows that a multiclass Fighter/guilder Regent will never be as good at guilding nor at warring as his single class competition? (I wouldn't mind the table, just as long as it didn't argue that the fighters abilities as fighter was based on what domain he ruled)
If the union of Ilien & PCE is going pooly it will be reflected in the realms stability.... No need to double tab and hit spellcasting abilities preemptively.
And I see character levels as a chance to either focus on one field or go for a more diverse approach. That is why I think that -1 per additional class is suitable... As you yourself have stated in your definition of Tertiary:"Typically, these domains will have significant interests in numerous prusuits and have regents who are multiclassed (within three or more classes)"
All of these things culminate into why I would place Geraldine as a tertiary spell-caster. Incidentally, the nerf bat isn't actually that bad. Unlike most other wizards, Geraldine would normally have the resources to fund her actions and has less of a need to skimp and plan. Geraldine also has accesss to temporal resources that most wizards wouldn't. Ultimately, it ends up a net zero sum game, IMO.
I gain nothing from the table.. I agree that it is nice to have resoures to cast the spells you are able to cast. But the fact that a realm has resources should somehow compensate the loss of the ability to use them as efficiently?. I dont agree.
I know this example has no relevance in the rules, but what if we were to say that: "Since Archduke Osoer has a realm that enables him to pay for mercenaries, he should not be able to hire as many as a less wealthy Ruler."
This would make just about as much sense to me.
I like the table, and the deduction in MSL & CL based on multiclass, for as I see it, multiclassing is what represents diversity in a character, and ultimatly makes a pure focused character impossible.
I dont like the idea of arguing character statistics based on the domains... It implies that all rulers of a specific domain will be the same person, more or less.... If that was true, then there would be no reason to get attatched to the regent and describe his/her actions or role play him/her.... It would just be a mecanic to explain that the domain didn't collaps... The next one would be just the same, perhaps a subplot more or less.
They would all be a faceless mass of clones with different clothes. And that would not be something I would be as comfortable with. For I would start to get the feel that this was no more than a strategic board game.
-
I think that there may be a simpler way.
Each realm has a 'magic mod' for either source or temple magic - from -2 to +2.
This is the maximum spell which 'the domain' can cast if the regent is not involved in the casting - if it has the relevant character classes, source, etc for a looey in its ranks.
It also stacks with the caster level to boost low level regents, so + full value to L1-4 caster, +1/2 value (round down) to L5-6 caster. - so L3 and L4 spells should be reachable even for low level regents, but stronger spells are out of reach unless you have the right regent.
The magic mod (if positive) can be used once per season - so only 1 spell (compared to a regent casting as many realm spells as they have slots. If negative it applies to all spells cast and is a major pain that needs to be got rid of.
I note in passing that hiring a wizard / priest is extremely difficult, hiring one who can cast realm magic is practically impossible - I've been trying to figure out how since I started as I see an heir as Robhan's #1 priority - but with DC >40 its not something that can be done easily.
-
Focus in other regents is primarily evident in their skill sets - Tristan's skills are almost all simply "Skilled" due to his diverse focus. And yes, that hurts his ability to go 'warring' - Osoer, a much more focused character, could turn him inside out and use his skin as a battle flag. Diversity does directly impact the ability to be a ruling noble, in that respect.
The ability of a regent to be a guilder isn't affected as much by the character, but there are very few (if any) pure guilders left in this game. Most of us wear many hats. What we get is an impressive income; what we lose is the skill focus others have.
In terms of focused/non-focused, Alan's comparing you to, say, Regien. He doesn't have to split his attention between expertise as a caster and ruling multiple domains, but he also doesn't have a steady income from law and guild holdings like you do. Consequence: Regien can cast very powerful spells, but the number of them he can cast with his gold is more limited than yours.
Using the number of classes or the type of domain seems kind of a "6 of one, a half-dozen of the other" situation to me - both would give pretty much the same result in the end, with some people gaining or losing by one system vs. the other. Either would work, or the current one could continue, or we could use the abstraction without modification and base it solely on the caster class rather than overall character level. I don't see this as terribly earth-shaking.
The regents, meanwhile, wouldn't be clones, any more than all noble or guilder regents are just clones of each other. For one thing, the character's level would still be the primary determination of their ability - all the domain contributes is a modifier to that level. For another, character identity comes from their style of ruling, the decisions they make, and the way they interact with others, not their level. Tristan's personality has very little to do with his classes - so far, I've yet to find someone who could accurately guess his mix without some prior knowledge.
Edit: My opinions on the rules suggestions were relevant; others were not. Adjusted.
-
Alan - One good point that has come up, but only tangentially, is that a character with 14 levels of fighter and 1 level of Wizard would, by these rules, count as a MUCH higher level caster than he probably should. Have you considered, instead of applying modifiers to a result based on character level, simply usingthe combined caster levels of the character and then applying this table? I think that might solve some of the concerns voiced so far as well.
-
Bobby, solid posts, except for the unsubtle ad hominem attack. Implying that Linde's problem is that this does not give him enough "POWAR!!" should be below our level of discourse.
That realms with a broad focus would be hit hard by this is a good point. They are often already affected by this in their class levels - I think that most guilders have some rogue levels or something. This removes casting ability already, because the casting level is lower than the character level would imply. For some regents, that must be a hard hit. Since it gets harder to level up, those different levels will hold you back for quite some time, though the diversity might be worth it. Hard to say, since fighter and rogue levels have very little direct impact on the realm level of things.
That it might hit some players harder than others, that it might nerf characters that do not need nerfing, should be a concern before rule changes are made.
(for the record, my character would have her power slightly boosted by this)
As for the second point, then it becomes a question of why we are bothering to make these changes. If we need to first split part of our character levels up, compare part of them to one table and compare the total of them to another table... it's not really simpler than reading the character levels and applying one table.
I think the reason that Bjørn introduced the skill table, way back when, is that it simplified things. Before that, skill bonus was a mix of stats, skill points, feats, racial bonuses, etc. It simplified things considerably.
Casting ability comes down to one thing: What is your effective caster level? This sets how many spells you can cast in a turn, what the highest level spell is and how powerful those spells are.
So, partially to my own surprise, I am actually against this suggestion in the end. The casting level system is already pretty simple, it only gets complex for sorcerers because they have to look hard at how many spells they can keep in their memory. If we want to simplify spellcasting, which is a worthy pursuit, we need to simplify how spellcasting works at it's core. Namely things like the 9 spell levels, of which only the first... 6 are necessary. The fact that spells are hard to balance, because caster level means the world for some of them, and next to nothing for others.
Right now, the simplest solution is to count up your spellcasting levels and use that number. If skills had been just as simple, I imagine we would not have switched over to the table for that at all. If a skill test was defined as rolling a d20 + relevant class levels, the same way caster checks are made, then... it would work fine as it was. Something like this table might work:
Caster | | Maximum | | Spells pr. |
Level | | Spell Level | | Turn |
1 | | 1st | | 1 |
2 | | 1st | | 1 |
3 | | 2nd | | 2 |
4 | | 2nd | | 2 |
5 | | 3rd | | 3 |
6 | | 3rd | | 3 |
7 | | 4th | | 4 |
That is for a wizard, a sorcerer would count one level lower. Which brings about another point, if we want to simplify spellcasting, then dropping the distinction between sorcerers and wizards could be a good idea. I would miss only having to prepare spell levels, instead of specific spells, but hell... it would be simpler.
EDIT: Damn typos!
-
Alex - points noted, except that this chart is based on character level, not caster level. If it was using caster level only, then there'd be no need for adjustments based on focus/multiclassing. Thus it isn't hammering people with multiple classes 'even harder', necessarily.
But yeah - the idea here, I believe, was to move caster level form 1-20 to the same Low - Epic scale as the other aspects of the characters. It should be a move to simplify things, otherwise it's counter-productive.
-
Alan - One good point that has come up, but only tangentially, is that a character with 14 levels of fighter and 1 level of Wizard would, by these rules, count as a MUCH higher level caster than he probably should. Have you considered, instead of applying modifiers to a result based on character level, simply usingthe combined caster levels of the character and then applying this table? I think that might solve some of the concerns voiced so far as well.
Everyone should remember that in RoE your full character level factors into your spell casting ability. Please see the details at the following link: http://ruinsofempire.twilightpeaks.net/forums/index.php?topic=170.0 (http://ruinsofempire.twilightpeaks.net/forums/index.php?topic=170.0)
Bobby, my system doesn't really work great for this case - this particular character is unable to wield realm magic and for the most part this system is about domain-level play for the most part. From a DM standpoint, I would probably list out the character as:
Legendary Fighter/Wizard [Arcane, Low, Tertiary]
This accomplishes everything that is needed, I think.
-
Well, I agree that a character who studies a lot of different things, tend to know some about a lot, but will never have the time to focus solely on any given thing.
I argue that ALL (or atleast most) player domains have significant intrests in numerous pursuits, so the only difference between a focused and non focused spellcaster/regent of any other type, is how many different classes they have.
So, where is the table that clearly shows that a multiclass Fighter/guilder Regent will never be as good at guilding nor at warring as his single class competition? (I wouldn't mind the table, just as long as it didn't argue that the fighters abilities as fighter was based on what domain he ruled)
If the union of Ilien & PCE is going pooly it will be reflected in the realms stability.... No need to double tab and hit spellcasting abilities preemptively.
And I see character levels as a chance to either focus on one field or go for a more diverse approach. That is why I think that -1 per additional class is suitable... As you yourself have stated in your definition of Tertiary:"Typically, these domains will have significant interests in numerous prusuits and have regents who are multiclassed (within three or more classes)"
Linde, I am having difficulty following your argument.
The system is applicable to both domains and characters. Conceptually, the best of the two would be used. Notice that the Eastern Temple of Nesirie is listed as both Primary and Secondary representing that fact that its regent is considered to be the most powerful cleric within Anuire, despite the fact that she is multiclassed, and the ETN is a temple which significant prusuits which would normally dilute spell-casting ability. The system affords for special circumstances, and if the system doesn't, Bjorn does.
The dynamic between domain and regent is central to the game, but make no doubt that the regent manifests from the domain. RoE is a game about domains though and regents are by no means domains. With this being said, regents are critical to spell-casting domains and the current system does not jive well with the rule system that all other regent (non-spell casters) are subject too; my system was intended to address this.
Incidentally, if you are looking for hard and fast rules, the categories are not intended to do that. Instead, it is about assessing the domain/regent and applying their general characteristics.
Again, conceptually, if I look at Geraldine, in terms of standard DnD, it is very difficult to construct a character that is a passibly good rogue/guilder regent and wizard without sacrificing significant spell casting power. A character such as this would have almost no skill in the various adminstration skills, and the rogue level is largely noise (particularly if it wasn't 1st level, which I would bet it wasn't given the character history). I challenge someone to do this, knowing that from the updated Chapter 8, casting realm magic has steep requirements: 5 feats, 24 skill ranks.
The abstraction system actually allows characters to be freed from the numbers, ultimately, IMO, because for the most part, most people would not be able to create a regent from the 'rules' that is as deep as their current regent, without using their player knowledge/skill to supplement the cold, hard numbers.
-
...But those numbers were originally made up so that casters were Not freed of them.
And AFAIK as soon as you are a Regent, you ignore them anyway.
I'm disagreeing that this is an area of the game that needs further tweaking, when it comes to caster levels and such.
Caster level remains a simple and efficient way to figure out how many spells you can cast.
-
My table is also slightly wrong, btw. Number of spells pr turn and highest spell level are tied together, as a 7th level caster you cannot cast 4 4th level spells. It was an example anyway.
And Bobby, I know. Some multiclassed characters would actually get a boost out of this, especially if they are at the low end of a level range (say lvl 10). This would also make those two rogue levels you have hurt less, if your realm falls into the secondary focus catagory.
The thing is, caster level is not really affected by all the things skills are affected by. Feats have no effect (except for a few we are most definitely not using), stats have little effect (except for the limitation on what level spells you can learn, which we are ignoring), etc. There isn't really much to simplify.
However, if we in the long run want to remove character levels altogether, and just be able to list describe a regent as high level, with x,y and x skill focuses; and a tertiary focus in spellcasting, then yes, this is the way to go. I think the spellcasting system would need so rerigging before that would work though.
-
...But those numbers were originally made up so that casters were Not freed of them.
And AFAIK as soon as you are a Regent, you ignore them anyway.
I'm disagreeing that this is an area of the game that needs further tweaking, when it comes to caster levels and such.
Caster level remains a simple and efficient way to figure out how many spells you can cast.
Yet, isn't this the point? The virtual feat addition for spell-casting regents is because it is so hard to create a viable spell-casting regent using the base rule system and because levels as a whole in RoEII were reduced.
IMO, the magic system for determining caster level is out-of-place when compared to the rest of the character system. This difference does not jive well with the goals of the character abstraction system. Additionally, without all the other rules around spell-casting using caster level in absentia of the other things that constrain it, ends up creating imbalance within the character system.
-
My table is also slightly wrong, btw. Number of spells pr turn and highest spell level are tied together, as a 7th level caster you cannot cast 4 4th level spells. It was an example anyway.
And Bobby, I know. Some multiclassed characters would actually get a boost out of this, especially if they are at the low end of a level range (say lvl 10). This would also make those two rogue levels you have hurt less, if your realm falls into the secondary focus catagory.
The thing is, caster level is not really affected by all the things skills are affected by. Feats have no effect (except for a few we are most definitely not using), stats have little effect (except for the limitation on what level spells you can learn, which we are ignoring), etc. There isn't really much to simplify.
However, if we in the long run want to remove character levels altogether, and just be able to list describe a regent as high level, with x,y and x skill focuses; and a tertiary focus in spellcasting, then yes, this is the way to go. I think the spellcasting system would need so rerigging before that would work though.
I concur with Alexander.
Incidentally, in theory, all realm spells could be put into the various categories: Low, Medium, High, etc. with very little effort.
Additionally, changing the casting requires of spells to correspond to the new system is easy as well. For example, in order to cast a Medium spell, you need at least a source/temple 4, High would need source/temple 5, etc (or something like this). Most of the ruleset can be modified for this with ease and with little fear of breaking the system, IMHO.
-
Everyone should remember that in RoE your full character level factors into your spell casting ability. Please see the details at the following link: http://ruinsofempire.twilightpeaks.net/forums/index.php?topic=170.0 (http://ruinsofempire.twilightpeaks.net/forums/index.php?topic=170.0)
This link leads to old RoE forums. I assumed in RoE II we are using Regent Guide from download section (which is BTW newer than the posts you are reffering to) + errata in THIS forum. And the thread, you are pointing to, says that caster level is affected by non-magic levels only very slightly (1 caster level per 4 levels or so). So either way, your point is irrelevant and misleading. Ability to cast realm spells IS hampered by regent multiclassing.
And if you claim that current system creates imbalance, you could perhaps tell us what imbalance and give us some example.
-
Libor, 90% of the rules/erratas established in RoEI are in play for RoEII. In actuality, this rule did not appear in either Regent Guide for RoEI or RoEII, nonetheless, it is in effect as far as I know. I am sorry that this is apparantly news to you.
The character system is imbalanced in the following ways:
If you take Osoer for example, regardless of whether he is level 7, 8, or 9 - his statistics for domain- and character-level play remains absolutely the same.
A spell caster though would see significant change during this arc - 2 new spell levels and potentially, the ability to affect more targets via magic, etc.
This is the basic imbalance in the character-system as it stands.
-
Expecting folks to root through all the RoE I stuff as well as all the random bits involved in these forums isn't going to accomplish much, though. If it's stuff that needs to apply and isn't in the RG, it probably needs to get reposted and re-confirmed for use here in the RoE II forums.
-
The system is applicable to both domains and characters. Conceptually, the best of the two would be used. Notice that the Eastern Temple of Nesirie is listed as both Primary and Secondary representing that fact that its regent is considered to be the most powerful cleric within Anuire, despite the fact that she is multiclassed, and the ETN is a temple which significant prusuits which would normally dilute spell-casting ability. The system affords for special circumstances, and if the system doesn't, Bjorn does.
I cant see how a characters ability to do whatever should be hampered, or given bonus by his domain. I disagree with any rule that bases character abilities in what domain he is, unless it is in that specifc domains description that they are really good at/or suck at that stuff.
Regarding ETN, I believe that the fact that the regent of ETN is considered to be the most powerful cleric should not warrent additional bonuses to ETN, but instead be an indication that the regent of ETN is higher level than most other clerics. If she is not, then this would just be an example that sometimes people get it wrong.
The dynamic between domain and regent is central to the game, but make no doubt that the regent manifests from the domain. RoE is a game about domains though and regents are by no means domains. With this being said, regents are critical to spell-casting domains and the current system does not jive well with the rule system that all other regent (non-spell casters) are subject too; my system was intended to address this.
I am sorry... I can't seem to find the rules that tie every non spellcasting regent to a specific set of skills and skill levels
But since you seem to think that it is only spellcasters who have been freed from their domain in such a way, then please direct me to where in the rules or erratta it is stated that all other regents have their set of abilities determined by what domain they rule and how much that domain has to do.
Incidentally, if you are looking for hard and fast rules, the categories are not intended to do that. Instead, it is about assessing the domain/regent and applying their general characteristics.
Spellcasting regents are subject to the same abstracted level rules as all other regents when it comes to everything but spellcasting.
If you are to abstract their levels when it comes to spellcasting, then you need to abstract spellcasting too. You need to get rid of spell levels from 1-9 and make it into abstract low to epic level spells.
Rules that are not hard and fast are not rules. They are instead a wobbeling goo of: if I speak my case well enough I will gain a bonus that my friend here will not get, cause he is not as good at speaking his case as I am.
Where is the table that assesses that since a domain has access to the ocean the regent clearly has too much on his mind and as such can not be good at warfare? And then with the prospect of being nurfed for something completely unreasonabe the affected players can speak their case of why just their realm can handle warfare anyway.... I would find that idea pretty much the same as the table if the idea of primary, seccondary and tertiary is preserved.
Again, conceptually, if I look at Geraldine, in terms of standard DnD, it is very difficult to construct a character that is a passibly good rogue/guilder regent and wizard without sacrificing significant spell casting power. A character such as this would have almost no skill in the various adminstration skills, and the rogue level is largely noise (particularly if it wasn't 1st level, which I would bet it wasn't given the character history). I challenge someone to do this, knowing that from the updated Chapter 8, casting realm magic has steep requirements: 5 feats, 24 skill ranks.
Well, I havent read the updated Chapter 8, but I know that a characters abilities within various administration skills are governed by skillpoints, and luckily when first you have chosen that your next level will be a wizard level, you will acctually gain skillpoints... Not as many as a rogue will, but surely enough to cover 24 skill ranks with less than 5 levels. So to further penalize a wizards ability to do magic based on a conceptual view of what he should be doing, is wrong... Instead the DM should factor the regents skills in regards to his domain into the difficulty of the various relevant events.
Besides, the regent of a domain has able assistants for just that end, no regent is superhuman in every field, so they hire experts to help.
It has allready been ruled by Bjørn atleast in a mail to me, that while regent of a sorcerous domain you are able to cast realm magic regardless of any requirements left unfilled. So the table you propose is, in my eyes, only here to force the conceptual ideas of others down on sorcerous domains and take freedom away from or give unwarrented extra power to players who are able to cast realm spells.
The abstraction system actually allows characters to be freed from the numbers, ultimately, IMO, because for the most part, most people would not be able to create a regent from the 'rules' that is as deep as their current regent, without using their player knowledge/skill to supplement the cold, hard numbers.
Well, here again we have a differance of oppinion.
I belive that further details are only there to flesh out your regent.
I also think that a player is more than the numbers, as you say the player has knowledge and skill that he uses to further the agenda of his regent/domain.
But I dont see the abstraction system as being freed from the numbers, I just see a new set of numbers, one that favor those able to speak their case for why their domain/regent should have a bonus instead of a system equal for all.
And I dont see the rules as a limit to player imagination. That my regent doesnt have knowledge (Ilien) doesnt mean she doesnt know anything about her county. It just means she knows nothing about her county that will give her a significant bonus in a relevant event. But she can still know more about it than most outsiders, and seem learned about Ilien to the common public.
-
I could live with the concept of Primary/seccondary/tertiary focus if it was the players choice as it is with skills
[Edit] Perhaps even making caster level a skill and as such forcing a mage to either focus or split his focus on temporal or magical issues.
-
I have been meaning to write this topic. As it stands, character level has largely been abstracted, but this does really translate well to realm magic/caster level. I would propose the following for spell casting characters/domains:
I think the intention to abstract character level from spellcasting is a worthwhile goal, it has already been largely abstracted in player facing aspects to be more descriptive, which in a PBEM game with PbP adventures is quite beneficial to game flow and the ability to be descriptive rather than number crunching.
What Alan has done is lay a direct link between character level and casting ability, which while simple has, I feel, skipped the entire discussion of what should impact casting ability.
Personally I'd favour a slightly more complex consideration that takes multiple variables into consideration.
I would consider:
- Domain strength (for appropriate holdings only) i.e. a Divine spellcaster would consider the strength of their temple holdings.
- Character level (abstracted) in the appropriate class/es.
- RP/fluff/domain flavour, i.e. the GM given bonuses.
Give each of the above factors a numeric value, compare it to a table and that gives you spell breakdown and max level.
I'd also support a revamp of the spell lists, there are plenty of unnecessary spells as well as many useless and some overly useful spells. I'd like to see the list pruned, it's always annoyed me that the spell list chapter tends to be the biggest one in most systems.
-
Libor, 90% of the rules/erratas established in RoEI are in play for RoEII. In actuality, this rule did not appear in either Regent Guide for RoEI or RoEII, nonetheless, it is in effect as far as I know. I am sorry that this is apparantly news to you.
I think you are quite wrong. If newer version of document doesn't contain older errata, it means that the errata are not in effect. Last word on this matter belongs to Bjorn though. Also, I believe it was repeatedly stated that RoE II is a new game. And my point was that even the old and outdated rule states something different than what you were saying.
The character system is imbalanced in the following ways:
If you take Osoer for example, regardless of whether he is level 7, 8, or 9 - his statistics for domain- and character-level play remains absolutely the same.
A spell caster though would see significant change during this arc - 2 new spell levels and potentially, the ability to affect more targets via magic, etc.
This is the basic imbalance in the character-system as it stands.
Actually it is only 1 new spell level, but conceptually, you are true. But I don't see your proposal solving it. Realm casters would still gain more power from new levels than others (provided they have holdings of high enough level to make use of it). It is just that spellcasting domain reaches its full efficiency on higher regent level (level in appropriate class) than other domains.
Actually, your proposal would make spellcaster's rise in power even steeper if he is multiclassed. Because levels in non-magic class would add to his spellcasting power as much as those in his core magic class.
-
I cant see how a characters ability to do whatever should be hampered, or given bonus by his domain. I disagree with any rule that bases character abilities in what domain he is, unless it is in that specifc domains description that they are really good at/or suck at that stuff.
Regarding ETN, I believe that the fact that the regent of ETN is considered to be the most powerful cleric should not warrent additional bonuses to ETN, but instead be an indication that the regent of ETN is higher level than most other clerics. If she is not, then this would just be an example that sometimes people get it wrong.
Marie Cwyllmie, is an additional asset/resource of the Eastern Temple of Nesirie domain, which augments and heightens the prestige, clout and power of the domain as a whole. This in effect is a bonus to that domain which is temporary based only on the time that Cwyllmie remains its regent. The regent is nothing more than the manifestation of a domain, the embodiment of its will/ethos, in this regard, while the regent plays a central part to the domain, it is absolutely NOT the domain, which can continue independent of the regent - the latter cannot be said of a regent though.
I am sorry... I can't seem to find the rules that tie every non spellcasting regent to a specific set of skills and skill levels
But since you seem to think that it is only spellcasters who have been freed from their domain in such a way, then please direct me to where in the rules or erratta it is stated that all other regents have their set of abilities determined by what domain they rule and how much that domain has to do.
Your point is lost on me, Linde. Landed/Guild domains are limited by a skill set in which most of them will not and cannot obtain mastery, for obvious reasons: regents cannot typically dedicate enough time to achieve mastery.
If the prusuit of magic, nobility, and trade all require practice, study, and discipline, why does it seem reasonable that a regent who controls and oversees all three, be able to master all three? How does this seem likely or even remotely plausible? It seems that they might be decent at all three or good at one and fair at others, but very unlikely that they would be good at all three. As it stands, these characters get access to the skill system (without modification) and spellcasting (without modification), which seems to create imbalance within the system.
Spellcasting regents are subject to the same abstracted level rules as all other regents when it comes to everything but spellcasting.
If you are to abstract their levels when it comes to spellcasting, then you need to abstract spellcasting too. You need to get rid of spell levels from 1-9 and make it into abstract low to epic level spells.
I have noted that the spell levels could/would need to undergo a similar revision and that I did not believe that this would be overly difficult. I apologize if this was unclear earlier.
Rules that are not hard and fast are not rules. They are instead a wobbeling goo of: if I speak my case well enough I will gain a bonus that my friend here will not get, cause he is not as good at speaking his case as I am.
Bjorn is only bribeable by the way in which your roleplay and commit to the game - and even then you will still get screwed (a lot). Since Bjorn would be the final arbiter in this, I don't forsee this as an issue.
Where is the table that assesses that since a domain has access to the ocean the regent clearly has too much on his mind and as such can not be good at warfare? And then with the prospect of being nurfed for something completely unreasonabe the affected players can speak their case of why just their realm can handle warfare anyway.... I would find that idea pretty much the same as the table if the idea of primary, seccondary and tertiary is preserved.
I am having trouble understanding what gross unfairness you envision will happen with this system. In effect it already exists for the skill system, where regents need to justify their skill-set (or at least can if neccessary). I don't think this has been a problem in the game, but I could be misinformed perhaps?
Well, I havent read the updated Chapter 8, but I know that a characters abilities within various administration skills are governed by skillpoints, and luckily when first you have chosen that your next level will be a wizard level, you will acctually gain skillpoints... Not as many as a rogue will, but surely enough to cover 24 skill ranks with less than 5 levels. So to further penalize a wizards ability to do magic based on a conceptual view of what he should be doing, is wrong... Instead the DM should factor the regents skills in regards to his domain into the difficulty of the various relevant events.
Besides, the regent of a domain has able assistants for just that end, no regent is superhuman in every field, so they hire experts to help.
It has allready been ruled by Bjørn atleast in a mail to me, that while regent of a sorcerous domain you are able to cast realm magic regardless of any requirements left unfilled. So the table you propose is, in my eyes, only here to force the conceptual ideas of others down on sorcerous domains and take freedom away from or give unwarrented extra power to players who are able to cast realm spells.
It would be the concept of the table to either curb or expand the power of spell-casting domains to bring more in line with the level abstraction system. Incidentally, does it not seem that granting sorcerous domains the ability to cast realm magic, even if their regent by themselves would be unable, seem a little unbalancing? Wouldn't you expect that the regent of such a domain would wield magic the same as one who could?
-
I could live with the concept of Primary/seccondary/tertiary focus if it was the players choice as it is with skills
[Edit] Perhaps even making caster level a skill and as such forcing a mage to either focus or split his focus on temporal or magical issues.
Skills are not the choice of the player expressly. They are reviewed and approved by Bjorn/Jon, even if tacitly.
[Edit] Perhaps even making caster level a skill and as such forcing a mage to either focus or split his focus on temporal or magical issues.
This is a very good idea, an extremely good idea. I will think on this some and think how something like this might work.
-
Note: Requirements to cast realm magic are: 8 ranks in concentration, spell craft and the relevant magical knowledge skill, cast ritual spell, cast realm spell, 1 metamagic feat.
Personally I feel that the auto-feat aspect of the domain is more distortive than helpful - it effectively prohibits having two spellcasters in a domain (possibly no bad thing of course) or prevents a lieutenant being the primary caster while the regent takes a broader role. I'd prefer to remove the two 'cast x spell' feat requirement than say that the domain bestows them for free - I am left to wonder why <any one> would buy these feats, as they are only of use to someone high ranking enough in a domain to have access to the source/temple power, but are of no use to the actual regent - a very select group of people and a group of very temporary membership in the main... The freebie's also support the importance of the regent over the domain, not the converse - if the domain could grant the free feat effect to one character a season it would support the domain=key aspect more.
Skill base: This is a good alternative, but requires us to move towards a more skill-based magic system generally - so a skill check to cast any realm spell, easier with added RP spend, harder with higher level, etc, etc.
-
Skill base: This is a good alternative, but requires us to move towards a more skill-based magic system generally - so a skill check to cast any realm spell, easier with added RP spend, harder with higher level, etc, etc.
Not Neccesarily, Andy. I think we are only talking about abstracting the spell casting system so that it fits into the overall skill system. Since we don't really worry about DCs and the like in game, it should neccessiate us moving wholesale in this particular direction.
-
I have tried this numerous ways, this is my favorite.
This doesn't correspond to the Standard D&D, so for a moment, before looking at the table you need to suspend the standard D&D rules regarding spell progression and the like.
# Maximum Spell Level (# Caster Level)
| Master | Expert | Skilled | Proficient | Untrained |
Low (1-3) | 2(3) | 1(1) | 0(1) | - | - |
Medium (4-6) | 3(6) | 2(4) | 1(2) | 0(1) | - |
High (7-9) | 5(9) | 3(7) | 2(5) | 1(3) | - |
Very High (10-12) | 6(12) | 5(10) | 3(8 ) | 2(5) | - |
Legendary (13-15) | 7(15) | 6(13) | 4(11) | 3(7) | - |
Near Epic (16-18) | 8(18) | 7(16) | 5(14) | 4(9) | - |
Epic (19+) | 9(20+) | 8(18) | 6(16) | 5(11) | - |
-
Playing along, for now, what do the target save against?
And how many spells pr. day would you use?
I'm assuming Rangers, Paladins are usually in the Skilled category, where a Bard would usually be in Expert and a single class Wizard or Cleric would be a Master.
And ofc. if you multiclass you will likely drop in proficiency if the new class does not grant the same caster level type.
-
Playing along, for now, what do the target save against?
Why does this matter? Has Bjorn ever asked you for your Fortitude Save Bonus? Or your Will save?
And how many spells pr. day would you use?
Use the appropiately class table and reference your current caster level
Arcane[Spontaneous] = Sorceror/Bard
Arcane[Formulaic] = Wizard/Magician
Divine[Spontaneous] = Cleric/Paladin
Divine[Formulaic] = Mystic (Sorceror)
Primordial[Spontaneous] = Skald (Bard)
Primordial[Formulaic] = Druid/Ranger
I'm assuming Rangers, Paladins are usually in the Skilled category, where a Bard would usually be in Expert and a single class Wizard or Cleric would be a Master.
Rangers, Paladins are typically Proficient can reach at best.
Bards, Skalds are typically Expert can reach at best.
Clerics, Wizards, Sorcerors, Druids, etc can reach Master at best.
BUT remember, Mastery is rare.
But I think it depends on the sort of character that is being played. I can easily imagine clerics of Cuiraecen fighting like warriors, having strategy/command, and casting magic as a secondary component.
And ofc. if you multiclass you will likely drop in proficiency if the new class does not grant the same caster level type.
Yes, that is the intention, but it is based on character concept as well.
A character that is mostly wizards but has a tidge of sorceror ability might not warrant dropping a proficiency level. With a skill system, the emphasis becomes more about the character than cold-hard mechanics.
NOTE: Incidentally, actually fighting ability can also be translated into this system, to a degree, this is a side note though and not pertinent to this conversation.
Master = Fighter BAB + All appropiate feats and what not
Expert = Fighter BAB
Skilled = Cleric + appropiate feats and what not
Proficient = Cleric
Untrained = Wizard