Chapter 2: Domains

[X-Points East]

OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.

[DM B]

Many changes, most of them rather minor.

AAs have gotten an overhaul.

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

You might want to mention in the AA section how many specialties an AA might have.  Perhaps base it on level, say:
Low = 0
Med = 1
High = 2
Very High = 3
Near Epic = 4
Epic = 5+

[DM B]

You might want to mention in the AA section how many specialties an AA might have.  Perhaps base it on level, say:
Low = 0
Med = 1
High = 2
Very High = 3
Near Epic = 4
Epic = 5+

Maybe not those exact numbers, but yes, it should be in there.

[X-Points East]

OoC:

Suggestion:

Character Proficiencies
Point-Buy System

Tier of Heroism	Proficiency Points
Common	–2
Professional	0
Elite	2
Heroic	4
**********	*****
Character Level	Proficiency Points
Raw {0 EXP}	0
Green {1-2 EXP}	1
Able {3-5 EXP}	2
Veteran {6-9 EXP}	3
Crack {10-14 EXP}	4
Epic {15-20 EXP}	5
Legendary {21+ EXP}	6
**********	*****
Level of Proficiency	Point-Cost
Competence	1
Skill	2
Expertise	3
Mastery	4

[X-Points East]

OoC:

In the context of the proficiency system, might it be an improvement to assign penalties (which increase DDC) for Untrainedness?

Hypothetical Example:

Proficiency Modifiers
(Based on Character Level & Level of Proficiency)

	Untrained	Competent	Skilled	Expert	Master
Raw {0 EXP}	–7	+0	+0	+0	+0
Green {1-2 EXP}	–6	+0	+0	+0	+2
Able {3-5 EXP}	–5	+0	+0	+2	+4
Veteran {6-9 EXP}	–4	+0	+2	+4	+6
Crack {10-14 EXP}	–3	+2	+4	+6	+8
Epic {15-20 EXP}	–2	+4	+6	+8	+10
Legendary {21+ EXP}	–1	+6	+8	+10	+12

[Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)]

well.. IMO That make no sense.

That will give all rulers without rulership(appropriate holdings) penalties on rule actions.

And by strict reading all characters gain penalties to aid all actions that could be an area of "Expertise" that they do not have.

If you want it to make sense in the way that unskilled is worse than proficient, then the best way would be to change the numbers so proficient low level give a bonus and work up from there:

Proficiency Modifiers
(Based on ECL of Character & His Level of Proficiency)

	U	P	S	E	M
Low	0	+1	+2	+3	+4
Medium	0	+2	+3	+4	+5
High	0	+3	+4	+5	+6
Very High	0	+4	+5	+6	+7
Legendary	0	+5	+6	+7	+8
Epic	0	+6	+7	+8	+10

But then again, this proposal also shifts power to the lower level characters, and this system was designed to make low-med level proficient and skilled characters just as incompetent as unskilled characters.
Perhaps an oversight, perhaps deliberate. But definitely proof that 2.25 are not easily implemented in combination with 2.21 rules

[Torele Anviras/TA (Niels)]

As far as I recall 3.5 d&d skills progress fairly linearly with very few things giving a boost. Attribute bonus items and feat being the common way to gain a nonlinear increase.

My point being that an exponential bonus does not make sense in a d&d rules perspective.

[Ohlaak (Alan)]

Much of ROE is based on an non-linear progression, particularly for domain-based aspects.  On a more random and purely note, Brandon's skill progression is linear, things just increase by a factor of 2.  In many respects, this model is actually more linear than Linde's suggestion.

In the level abstraction, Low-Medium-High-Very High-Legendary-Epic, the increase between those levels conceptually suppose to be linear within the proficiency bracket, page 258 of the Regent Guide describes it.  To paraphrase:

Mastery confers +4 per level for each level above above low.
Expert confers +3 per level for each level above above low.
Skilled confers +2 per level for each level above above low.
Proficient confers +1 per level for each level above above low.
Unproficient confers no bonus.

[Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)]

Well, character power as described in RG 2.21 work as you describe. And those are the rules we use for RoE 3. And thank goodness for that.

But Brandon and I were discussing 2.25 where the rules have been changed quite a lot.

Brandon thought that in light of the new proficiency rules(in 2.25), perhaps conveying a negative bonus for being unskilled would be in order. Since then there would be an actual difference between low unskilled and low expert. I say that 2.25 don't improve by having successful support actions by AA convey a penalty to the action they try to help.
Perhaps he hadn't read all through the limited 2.25 rules and just wanted unskilled AA's to have less chance of succeeding their support..

I don't really know what he wanted to do, but I do know that as he proposed it he asked for the first rather than the latter.

In 2.25 it is in fact just as easy for a low level unskilled to support an action as it is for an epic master.. The difference is how large a bonus they give to the action when they succeed.

And when that is true then he should rather focus on the level of bonus the AA give if he want a difference between unskilled and expert.

I would like to point out that, you're front loaded in d&d rules..
Let us for instance say you are an expert at spellcraft. You could have a feat giving you +3, your int could be 16 giving you further +3, and you could have 4-6 ranks in the skill dependent on level giving you 10-12.
A master could further more have edges and flaws giving +2, a regional feat giving another +1 and 20 in intelligence for a total of 15-17 at low level.
The difference between a level 1 master and a level 10 master could be as low as +9, where as the difference between a level 1 master and untrained could be +15.
So if you wanted a system that were representative for how good a character could get in d&d 3.5, you should start them off with something depending on mastery level and then add a flat bonus to that for level abstraction, regardless of what mastery level the character has. (As I mostly did)

Lastly I would like to argue that my table is more linear than Brandon's in several ways.
His unskilled have an increment that is off compared to his other skills, that I think is vastly more different than the rest of his table than my choice to make epic master +10.

[Stjordvik/Varri (Greg)]

It seems to me like the tiering of levels that is being kicked around lines up nicely with the "Savage Worlds Deluxe" ruleset which has a more linear progression (compared to d20), with 5 distinct tiers (Novice, Skilled, Veteran, Heroic and Legendary).  Of course, SW is not nearly as widespread as d20 RPG rules (though I think SWD is arguably the best all-purpose set of RPG rules out there, definitely worth the $10 investment for the Deluxe Edition).  Not suggesting a change, rather, just an observation. 

[Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)]

Yeah SW can be used for a lot of things, but I don't find it linear at all. Each tier is like a step on a giant stair. You just stay on the same step for a while, getting the bonuses for that step a little at a time, before you jump to the next level of overwhelming power.

You are open to create your own races and setting with SW, I once played a Shadow Run campaign with SW rules.

I think Burning Wheel is a better option.

It will require tinkering and and finesse to create a new setting, but if you are not up for the work you can just "Burn" (create) the characters as per the rules for monster burning, and then all you need to do is decide if your setting has any special skills not covered in the standard rules.
Its character progression is not linear, but you learn and advance the abilities you use in game. And every once in a while you can have a trait vote where you can advocate for reasons why you should be allowed to break a rule in a specific way or get an extra bonus under certain circumstances. And if you can convince the other players and GM then you get it.
And that is much more fun than picking a new ability and suddenly having a new super awesome power with not much base in what your character could before.
But it's biggest force is that you get to define beliefs for your character (a sort of agendas), try to achieve them and role play on your success or failure.

[Stjordvik/Varri (Greg)]

Yep, you are right about the baby steps in between and then boom!  When I said linear, I meant it in the context of tiers - each SW tier (odds-wise) is a more linear increase relative to the standard d20 rules progression, which his heavily front loaded (IMO).

And thanks for the tip - I'll have to check out Burning Wheel! 

[X-Points East]

OoC:

Suggestion:

Character Levels & Experience

Character Level	EXP
Raw {0}	0
Green {1}	1-2
Able {2}	3-5
Veteran {3}	6-9
Crack {4}	10-14
Epic {5}	15-20
Legendary {6}	21+

Unit/Crew Levels & Experience

Unit/Crew Level	EXP
Raw {0}	0
Green {1}	1-2
Able {2}	3-5
Veteran {3}	6-9
Crack {4}	10-14
Epic {5}	15-20
Legendary {6}	21-27
Fabulous {7}	28-35
Mythical {8}	36-44
Paramount {9}	45+

[X-Points East]

OoC:

Secondary Terrain

Perhaps a province could have at maximum two types of secondary terrain?

When a province has more than one type of secondary terrain, perhaps MPL modifiers from secondary terrain could not stack?

When a province has more than one type of secondary terrain, perhaps GRM modifiers from secondary terrain could not stack?