Minimum source levels

[X-Sea Witch/Aneira (John)]

Setting the minimum any higher than 1 wouldn't that mean ALOT more regency becoming available to mages?

Even at a minimum of lvl 1 I'd squeal like a girl if I was a Source domain.

Well, we're still capped by our bloodline score.  I don't know about the other mages but ruling source holdings doesn't make too much difference to my character as my total holding levels are pretty close to my bloodline score already.  Decisions to rule holdings will probably be more strategic than a simple desire to have more holdings.

[DM B]

How about setting the minimum to 1/3 of the maximum magic potential?

Will see you with a remainder between 1 and 3 in each province.

Relatively sweet; except that most provinces have 6+ base magic potential...

But a simple universal rule is the way to go.

Maybe just make it a table:

base potential 1-6 = min 1
base potential 7-8 = min 2
base potential 9+ = min 3

Means that most fully developed provinces are a 1, 2 for some that had high potential in the past and 3 for the rare ones that are carved out of ancient forests and the like.

And sold to the fellow in the CJS robes!

[DM B]

Setting the minimum any higher than 1 wouldn't that mean ALOT more regency becoming available to mages?

Even at a minimum of lvl 1 I'd squeal like a girl if I was a Source domain.

But I like the basic idea. It doesn't make sense that civilization, at the ROE level, completely destroys magic. - Of course, one could argue that the mebheighl is warped by the people living there, and feed into the Temples magical power as ordered, structured and aligned energy.

Sort of a division between Arcane and Divine potential pr. province. - But still, Arcane should not be reduced to 0 in any event, I agree on that.

Currently they are totally crippled by increasing province levels all over the board. Maybe I wasn't clear about it, but this rule is to compensate for the overall higher province levels.

[X-Elinie/RiD (Niels)]

So, when does this take effect?

[X-Elinie/RiD (Niels)]

I mean, I know it takes effect when announced. But do you have a plan for when you will be announcing it?

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

After reviewing all of the Heartlands, Eastern Marches & South Coast, I have come to the following conclusions:

1. Generally speaking, most populated realms gain between 6-12 additional source levels.
2. More sparsely populated realms gain considerably less. Excluding the 1 province realms, Coeranys gains only 2 source levels (in the capital), Tournen gains 3 levels, Tornilien gains 2, etc.

This rule does seem to 'favor' larger realms ATM or rather it will somewhat favor their affliated magi (if they have one), since we are adding around the magnitude of 50-75 source levels overall to all of Anuire, the change isn't actually that material overall, but it will give Wizzies a little more bite and it could also benefit some of the temples that can wield sources.

[X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)]

After reviewing all of the Heartlands, Eastern Marches & South Coast, I have come to the following conclusions:

1. Generally speaking, most populated realms gain between 6-12 additional source levels.
2. More sparsely populated realms gain considerably less. Excluding the 1 province realms, Coeranys gains only 2 source levels (in the capital), Tournen gains 3 levels, Tornilien gains 2, etc.

This rule does seem to 'favor' larger realms ATM or rather it will somewhat favor their affliated magi (if they have one), since we are adding around the magnitude of 50-75 source levels overall to all of Anuire, the change isn't actually that material overall, but it will give Wizzies a little more bite and it could also benefit some of the temples that can wield sources.

Isn't that the intention though?  Less densely populated realms won't hit the floor anyway so won't gain from it, so the big winners would inevitably be those who have currently populated the source down to nil.  The question is whether any of the more sprawling wizard realms might need to be compacted as presumably they were designed with some sort of balance against each other.  The interesting question is whether this will encourage 'apprentice realms' if the existing mage realms are left as is, I think that the cost issue and rarity of mages will suggest not, but it would be an interesting development.

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

Isn't that the intention though?  Less densely populated realms won't hit the floor anyway so won't gain from it, so the big winners would inevitably be those who have currently populated the source down to nil.  The question is whether any of the more sprawling wizard realms might need to be compacted as presumably they were designed with some sort of balance against each other.  The interesting question is whether this will encourage 'apprentice realms' if the existing mage realms are left as is, I think that the cost issue and rarity of mages will suggest not, but it would be an interesting development.

Absolutely, I should have been more explicit.  The rule does do what it was intended to do: up the source levels available in densely populated Anurie.

[X-Ghieste & HOT/GH (Matt)]

Although it has no direct influence on myself it does make sense and seems an appropriate response to the province growth occurring, in order to keep a whole section of regent types "in the game."

It has the Delvy Seal of Approval.

[DM B]

One matter that must be addressed:

River = source 6
Coast = source 7

Both were implemented to make sure those coast/river plains province didn't suffer unduly with RoE's increased province levels.

But with the MinSource rule that adds a complication; any coast would now have MinSource 2. Not what was intended. So it would seem that this is a necessary adjustment:

River = source 6
Coast = source 6

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

Seems good to me.  This isn't a particularly large change.  Most of the coastal provinces will gain levels due to the min. source rule anyways.

[X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)]

I can't see any significant downside.  About the only complaint might be from someone who had deliberately ruled up a province to deprive a hostile mage of sources, but in practice I can't see that as a viable tactic under ROE rules.

It does of course mean that protecting 'the last remnants of the Fell in the province' becomes key - a nice little diplomatic titbit for a mage to be granted as a favour, etc.

[DM B]

I can't see any significant downside.  About the only complaint might be from someone who had deliberately ruled up a province to deprive a hostile mage of sources, but in practice I can't see that as a viable tactic under ROE rules.

That was never intended as an option in RoE anyway.