RP cost of designating an heir to a domain

[X-WIT/Toreas Kharnmoin (Rune)]

From the Regent Guide (p. 42, table 3-2):

Designation   1RP/province or holding level bequeathed (at the moment of the ceremony)   Willing regent designates another scion as his heir; that scion will automatically be crowned when the old regent dies.

So, to use WIT as an example, as I have 83 holding levels in total it would cost me 83 RP to designate an heir to my domain? Is there some reasoning behind the fairly steep cost? I understand that designating an heir is no light matter, as it solves several problems that usually occur upon a regents death, but requiring to spend a full 3-4 turns of not spending RP at all (depending on BS and domain size) to save up RP seems rather steep to me.

Is there any way the rules can be tweaked? It has been somewhat of a mantra for the DM (at least towards me) to make sure to have a designated heir to avoid troubles, all throughout the game, but the rules seem unneccesarily preventive of this. Cutting the cost to for instance half of todays cost (exact number is up for debate) would be a simple fix that would ensure that the cost is still high, but not so that players inclined to use such an action can never hope to afford it.

Edit: As Marco pointed out, might be smart to refer to the correct action in the Regent guide.

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

Here, here as we would say in the UK. The cost seems extortionate as it stands, even given the benefits.

[X-Alamie/CA (Marco)]

The right action is Designation but it has also the same costs in RP.

I suggest 1RP every 5 levels of province or holdings would be fair.

Double cost if you want to change your heir previously designated.

It will still costs a lot  but it would be more affordable

just my two cents...

[X-Tuornen/LF (Geir)]

isnt that the cost if one transfer before death?

are you saying that is the cost to name an heir?

[X-WIT/Toreas Kharnmoin (Rune)]

isnt that the cost if one transfer before death?

are you saying that is the cost to name an heir?

That is the cost to name an heir that automatically takes over the domain upon a regents death.

[X-ETN/Maire Cwyllmie (Libor)]

I think the cost is intended to be high. But it becomes more harsh if you have BS much lower than DS (lot of RPs wasted during collection). I guess regent is supposed to break his domain into vassal subdomains in such a case. There is also problem with the cost of vassalage, but that is another story.

You can get around the issue by relying on land's choice as OIT do

[X-Mieres & SAS/AV (Mark)]

Just do what I do Rune, have multiple designation ceremonies! 

[X-WIT/Toreas Kharnmoin (Rune)]

I think the cost is intended to be high. But it becomes more harsh if you have BS much lower than DS (lot of RPs wasted during collection). I guess regent is supposed to break his domain into vassal subdomains in such a case. There is also problem with the cost of vassalage, but that is another story.

You can get around the issue by relying on land's choice as OIT do

I'm not arguing against the cost being high, just prohibitively high like it is now. As for breaking your domain into subdomains, why would anyone voluntarily give up huge portions of their income (I've yet to meet a vassal that wants to give me all his income), as well as deal with NPC vassals which in 99 out of 100 cases are not nice, easy and without an agenda of their own?

As to the OIT, I think their history of dead regents should motivate anyone to try to get an heir 

As it stands now, players are "encouraged" to not plan ahead but focus at the present.

[X-DM Jon]

Being co-DM I can state it as a fact that Bjørn hasn't been following these rules. I can't say what he's been following, but there's never once been a case of investiture costing anywhere close to this amount - though I haven't been following up on the last 2-3 turns of DO's, so I might be wrong.

[X-ETN/Maire Cwyllmie (Libor)]

I'm not arguing against the cost being high, just prohibitively high like it is now. As for breaking your domain into subdomains, why would anyone voluntarily give up huge portions of their income (I've yet to meet a vassal that wants to give me all his income), as well as deal with NPC vassals which in 99 out of 100 cases are not nice, easy and without an agenda of their own?

As to the OIT, I think their history of dead regents should motivate anyone to try to get an heir 

As it stands now, players are "encouraged" to not plan ahead but focus at the present.

When the cost is prohibitively high for you, it means your domain is too huge for your regent's BS. So you could either split your domain effectively trading some GB income for RP income (RP from vassals are not capped by BS), increase regent's BS (like challenging Wallac to duel and stabbing him to hearth  ) or find another regent for your domain 

[X-Mieres & SAS/AV (Mark)]

So far I have completed a designation ceremony for my provinces and law holdings but not guild and trade because of the cost of doing all of them at once and that seems to be working for me.  Though that might only be because there is a distinction between holding in terms of both being the Governor and Guildmaster.  Might not work for a single holding regent.

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

Clearly all large realms with relatively low blood scores should immediately carve up their realm and vassal it all off....

Errrrr no. No thanks.

[X-DM Jon]

Nevermind my former entry, a player has already pointed out that he's done it at the listed price.

 The reasoning behind the steep cost is the huge benefit it will gain your realm to have a designated heir - and the power it would take to make it so. It's only fitting that you spend some years worth of importance, fame and goodwill to make an entire domain accept your heir. It protects you from some of the danger of the Land's Choice creating rebellions, something the Orthodox are fraught with. And it will most likely protect you against too harsh stability drops.

 If you don't do it, you can still hope that your chosen heir is the Land's Choice, but it's an uncertainty.

[X-WIT/Toreas Kharnmoin (Rune)]

Valid points, that makes sense in a real setting. But this is still a game, and considering chances are quite big that you would never need an heir (unless you feel the need to go adventuring) it hardly promotes the investiture to be used at all. Why would a player spend so much on something he doesn't need, when he needs his resources on much more immediate actions? I just think that if the DM's want players to plan ahead and have a slightly more longterm focus, they should not feel like they are being penalized for doing so. As it is now, the price for designating an heir, especially for the larger domains, are so costly that I doubt anyone would do it unless they are willing to forfeit a lot of other things to save up the resources needed.

P.S. This was not a challenge for Bjørn to try to kill off my regent. 

[X-Mieres & SAS/AV (Mark)]

One thing that can work is not only designating an heir, but if you have a specific choice in mind, putting them in the spotlight as much as possible so if by some unfortunate circumstance LC does come into play, hopefully it will tilt to them.