Honest Dealings

[X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan)]

Components: 3 GB/province
Regency: 1 RP/province caster level
Spell Effect: Increases the productivity of all trade and guild holdings in a province, causing them to generate +1d6x10% income.

Assuming no prosperity or stability modifiers, no taxation and full guild & trade holdings.

The spell generates additional income as per the below table.

Bonus Income less Costs
Prov Lvl	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
10%	-2.96	-2.84	-2.64	-2.36	-2.00	-1.56	-1.04	-0.44	0.24	1.00
20%	-2.92	-2.68	-2.28	-1.72	-1.00	-0.12	0.92	2.12	3.48	5.00
30%	-2.88	-2.52	-1.92	-1.08	0.00	1.32	2.88	4.68	6.72	9.00
40%	-2.84	-2.36	-1.56	-0.44	1.00	2.76	4.84	7.24	9.96	13.00
50%	-2.80	-2.20	-1.20	0.20	2.00	4.20	6.80	9.80	13.20	17.00
60%	-2.76	-2.04	-0.84	0.84	3.00	5.64	8.76	12.36	16.44	21.00

As you can see useless in a province level 1-3. Chancy in a level 4 province, and improving in return as the province size gets larger.

Of course this example is assuming an optimal situation, all guild & trade holdings full and no tax. Doesn't place any price on the regency spent and the gold and action required to prepare the spell.

Considering that the spell requires co-operation (at a minimum) between a guild and temple regent you are looking at a situation where the spell would only be cast after some sort of agreement had been reached.

I personally can't see any case where a guild regent would be willing to pay enough to meet my costs (let alone my share of the profits) for casting the spell.

The second issue with the spell is the variable nature of it. It is one of the very few spells that have a variable outcome, and this combined with the low return on investment makes it almost worthless to cast.

Options to correct the spells deficiencies:
1) Fix the return at 50% rather than 1d6x10%.
Pros.
+ Makes the spell reliable.
+ Useful in provinces of size 4+ (giving more breadth of usage).
Cons.
- In the largest provinces can provide massive incomes.
- Still requires co-operation of almost all involved persons to see a return.

2) Treat all guild and trade holdings as though they where 1 level higher. Remove/lower the gold cost per province of the spell.
Pros.
+ Makes the spell reliable.
+ More useful in provinces with diversified guild/trade holdings.
+ Makes a return on invest easier to achieve for the temple.
Neutral
~ Greater % increase in income for low level holdings and lower % increase in income for high level holdings (100% increase for a level 1 holding, 10% increase for a level 10 holding).
Con's.
- Can see large increases in total income in large provinces with diversified trade/guild holdings.

Other ideas/commentary would be welcome.

[X-Tuornen/LF (Geir)]

2) Treat all guild and trade holdings as though they where 1 level higher. Remove/lower the gold cost per province of the spell.
Pros.
+ Makes the spell reliable.
+ More useful in provinces with diversified guild/trade holdings.
+ Makes a return on invest easier to achieve for the temple.
Neutral
~ Greater % increase in income for low level holdings and lower % increase in income for high level holdings (100% increase for a level 1 holding, 10% increase for a level 10 holding).
Con's.
- Can see large increases in total income in large provinces with diversified trade/guild holdings.

Other ideas/commentary would be welcome.

I like to keep things simple; so 2) looks kind of nice. But it favors diversified trade/guild holdings a bit much...

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

Prosperity, other spell effects and variable income rolls for the individual domains also influence how much gold is generated. So the table is not as simple as you have made it. But yes, that spell is not very usefull in a small province.

1) I think all other instances of 1D6 being unrandomized in this game have resulted in a 3.. So 30% would sound better to me than 50%

2) Treat all guild and trade holdings as though they where 1 level higher: I think that solution will render the spell more useless. For it will still require cooperation of almost all guild/trade domains in the province, and the spell would be useless in a province with near monopoly on trade or guild.

2)  Remove/lower the gold cost per province of the spell: That is an okay idea if you want the spell to be cast more often. But perhaps you should try to include the lawholders in the negotiations before casting the spell.... They will after all prosper from increased taxes?

All in all I haven't studied the numbers enough to give the best advice, but fixing the return to 30% and looking at the cost of the spell is the first two things that pop into my mind when looking at it.

[DM B]

I rather like the 2nd proposed version; it follows established norms for spell effects and is rather easy to implement.

[X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan)]

I rather like the 2nd proposed version; it follows established norms for spell effects and is rather easy to implement.

Caster level: Clr 3
Components: GB/province
Regency: 1 RP/province caster level
Casting Time: One free action (1 day)
Range: Long
Area: 1 province +1 province/3 caster levels after 5th
Duration: 1 Turn
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
Description:
Spell Effect: Increases the productivity of all trade and guild holdings in a province, causing them to generate income as though they where 1 level higher.

Going from Bjorn's suggestion I'm going to see what the spell would produce in terms of additional income when cast on a variety of provinces. Once I have the results I'll post them and it should then be a matter of choosing an appropriate per province cost.

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

Asuming average prosperety:
Income generated by the spell = province level * 0,2 * (number of difrent guild and trade holdings in the province)
Any tax will transfere part of that extra income to the lawholders. (40% if taxes are heavy and province level = law levels)

[X-CJS/Ruormad Coumain (Tristan)]

Asuming average prosperety:
Income generated by the spell = province level * 0,2 * (number of difrent guild and trade holdings in the province)
Any tax will transfere part of that extra income to the lawholders. (40% if taxes are heavy and province level = law levels)

I like your maths Basically means that the biggest impact on the spell will be the number of holdings affected (irrespective of level).

This means that the spell (with the changed guidelines) will generate more income the more guild/trade regents that exist. Which if you think about it is one of the foundations of competition theory.

It also means to get the biggest benefit of the spell the caster needs to deal with multiple regents.

So to balance the fact that the spell generates more income the more targets we possibly tie the spell cost to the number of holdings affected.

I generate a couple of options re spell cost and 0.5 GB per holding (note number not level of holdings) sees the spell generate a small profit for provinces size 3 and up.

So the amended spell would be:

Caster level: Clr 3
Components:  0.5 GB/holding effected
Regency: 1 RP/province caster level
Casting Time: One free action (1 day)
Range: Long
Area: 1 province +1 province/3 caster levels after 5th
Duration: 1 Turn
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
Description: Throughout the province trade is stimulated and supported by a number of divine blessings; all scales and weights bear true measure and in all business dealings parties negotiate in good faith, both seeking a deal. Tax collectors and other trade officials provide accurate and timely writs and assessments.
Spell Effect: Increases the productivity of all trade and guild holdings in a province, causing them to generate income as though they where 1 level higher.

I tested it out using some turn #68 provinces (as that is the only P&H I had at work). Format is regent and increased income as a reult of the spell being cast.

Illien:
GeM   2.4
End   0.5
Tyien   0.5
PCE   3.7
SAS   1.9
ToE   1.9
WoE   1.9

6 holdings affected.
Spell cost: 3 GB + 9 Regency.
Total income increase: 12.7 GB.

Anuire:
CD   5.0
Boer?   0.8
CaD   0.8
DA   1.7
MML   4.0
SAS   4.0
HO   4.0
BRG   4.0
PP   4.0
MS   4.0

12 holdings affected.
Spell cost: 6 GB + 11 Regency.
Total income increase: 32.3 GB.

Endier:
KoH   0.7
CaD   0.4
HO   2.6

2 holdings affected.
Spell cost: 1 GB + 8 Regency.
Total income increase: 3.7 GB.

So the potential for big profits (in say Anuire) if you can negotiate something with the 10 regents involved (wouldn't that be a diploacy session) with much moderate profits in monopolies (like Endier) but you only have to deal with 1 or 2 people to get a share.

Also please note that when considering the profit provided by the spell you need to remeber that the caster needs to memorise (3GB) and spend an action.

[Dhoesone/FD_(Marco)]

This is an old topic but since some of the game's areas are overrun by guilds and by a temple of Sarimie I think we should think about Tristan's proposal and update the spell.

[Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)]

I agree.

[Torele Anviras/TA (Niels)]

I will have a look at it in my spell review, I'm focused on domain description first though.

I'll post on the forum and the GM's can pick what they want.

[Silver House/ClDh (Bobby)]

One thing that pops to my mind is that this region is infested with guilds for whom 'Honest Dealings' would be, at best, a very negotiable concept, and at worst absolutely inimical.  We might need to completely re-flavor that spell to suit the region.  I DO think it needs to be revised mechanically to be not-awful, as I did some serious number-crunching on it last game much like Tristan and came to similar conclusions, but its style just doesn't suit the area ATM either.

[Torele Anviras/TA (Niels)]

Well, just because the spell name is Honest Dealings, does not mean it does anything other than making the populace more gullible. Note that only the guilds profit, there is no extra growth for example.

[Silver House/ClDh (Bobby)]

Like I said, we just need to establish the right flavor.  Honest Dealings, a spell that ensures fairness and open trade, would be highly unwelcome to many of the guilds and might actually screw up their income badly.  'Honest' Dealings, a spell that encourages people to trust the merchants they do business with regardless of any actual honesty, would be EXTREMELY welcome to the guilds and would certainly increase their profits.  It's all in the flavor.

[Dhoesone/FD_(Marco)]

Bobby is right about the flavour. Maybe we should develop two versions of this spell, each one representing one of those two aspects.
And maybe the honest one could also harm the dishonest guilds and vice versa.

[Silver House/ClDh (Bobby)]

So, running some numbers based on this region.  I'm taking the variant of the spell that adds 1 to all guild and trade holdings.  I'm working here with a level 5 province - 6's are going to be extremely rare around here, but there should be at least some 5's.  So, assuming a level 5 province with one Law holder and two Guilds, one with 3 Guild and 3 Law, the other with 2 of each, with a 30% tax rate and average prosperity:

      Before/After Spell / Increase
Law    3.0 / 4.2 / 1.2
Guild1  4.2 / 5.6 / 1.4
Guild2   2.8 / 4.2 / 1.4

A total increase of 4 GB.  With a casting cost of 3 GB plus some regency, it's still not looking terribly appealing - a profit of only 1 GB.  You'd be better off having a wizard cast Alchemy for you. 

Without listing all the math, the total increases for other combinations are as follows:
Level 5, 3 Guilds - 6 GB = 3 GB profit at the cost of a court action and some RP
Level 6, 2 Guilds - 4.8 GB = 1.8 GB profit
Level 6, 3 Guilds - 7.2 GB = 4.2 GB profit