Suggestion: Realm Magic Update - Caster Level

[X-Ilien & PCE/GeM (Linde)]

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.

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

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.

[X-Bellam & BC/TB (Bobby)]

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.

[X-Bellam & BC/TB (Bobby)]

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.

[X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander)]

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!

[X-Bellam & BC/TB (Bobby)]

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.

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

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

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.

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

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.

[X-Elinie/RiD (Niels)]

...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.

[X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander)]

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.

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

...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.

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

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.

[X-ETN/Maire Cwyllmie (Libor)]

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

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.

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

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.

[X-Bellam & BC/TB (Bobby)]

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.