Domain caster level

[X-OIT (Garth)]

Just for the record, I wasn't arguing any point on this topic from the point of view of the OIT regent.

With that said, I was discussing DCL with the keeper of the P&H and, in much the same way as past editions of AD&D limited maximum spell level for priests worshipping gods of different power levels, we discussed the possibility of a temple domain receiving a disposition based on the power level of its central deity.

Greater Power:  +1 DCL
Intermediate Power:  +0 DCL
Lesser Power:  -1 DCL

I thought this is a decent way to capture a story aspect, and I also thought giving a bonus to the DCL for a temple worshipping the patron deity of the domain's race would work to this end as well.  Haelyn for Anuireans, Erik for Rjurik, etc.

[DM B]

I thought DCL should take into consideration highest holding level, because as the rules stand currently, a wizard or priest with a high level holding and a network of leylines or low level temples is probably better off than a domain with tons and tons of 2 or 3 level holdings.

If the incentive structure for domain expansion changes, certain domains would be slighted.  Taking into account highest holding level, this is less severely the case.

High level holdings are costly to create, but I think they are valuable enough as is. Will not have any effect on DCL other than adding to the total.

[DM B]

Just for the record, I wasn't arguing any point on this topic from the point of view of the OIT regent.

With that said, I was discussing DCL with the keeper of the P&H and, in much the same way as past editions of AD&D limited maximum spell level for priests worshipping gods of different power levels, we discussed the possibility of a temple domain receiving a disposition based on the power level of its central deity.

Greater Power:  +1 DCL
Intermediate Power:  +0 DCL
Lesser Power:  -1 DCL

I thought this is a decent way to capture a story aspect, and I also thought giving a bonus to the DCL for a temple worshipping the patron deity of the domain's race would work to this end as well.  Haelyn for Anuireans, Erik for Rjurik, etc.

This modifier won't be included as part of the default calculation of DCL. It sort of makes sense story-wise, but it makes for a bad modifier in a game. Maybe as an optional side-bare rule though.

[DM B]

I think Manors might be a partial answer here, either representing land that the caster has been granted in return for past favors, a title of nobility granted by a kingdom in exchange for continuing services, or simply the way the caster uses the resources of his domain and the lands around him to produce money.  Even a low-level Arcane Domain might have Manors that represent his continued casting on the villages, farms, and cities around him, and the tithe they send him as a consequence.

Manors and guilds/trade. Both are certainly possible. The manor is a good representation of the lands owned/controlled by the covenant. Guild/trade would be relevant if the covenant produces stuff for trade.

[DM B]

One other note to consider:

If we change the concept of the Arcane Domain to include staffs, assistants, followers, and apprentices, we're giving that domain a lot of expenses - both in-game in the form of his Court costs, and conceptually in the need to support all these people.  This means that they'll have even more need to either support themselves with other, GB-generating holdings, or to integrate themselves further with other domains who'll fund them.  Changing the domain's concept means changing the world it exists in.  I don't see that as a fundamental problem, but it's another concept/description that needs to be laid out clearly.  Who/what are the Arcane Domain's sources of funds, how is it tied to other domains, what are the non-Source resources it controls?

It's a concept change. That's the whole point actually. To make sourcerous domains more like an Ars Magica covenant. There could certainly be some individual variations between domains - a fey-heavy domain like Andy described or a domain that's more dependent upon it's regent that the norm - but the default idea is the covenant.

Regardless of concept change or not; I honestly see few problems 'converting' existing sorcerous domains to fit the new mold.

That's said this is a long way from being ready for play. I don't see it having any place in RoE II Chapter 1 for example.

[X-Sea Witch/Aneira (John)]

If we want to, can we start moving in this direction now?

If yes, can we start detailing members of our domain provided they don't hold any official position, aren't an advisor or assistant, or anything like that?  That is, just fluff personalities.  Or should we spend actions recruiting each individual?

[DM B]

Feel free.

No actions required.

I suggest reading the rules for AAs in the sneak peak of Regent Guide NEXT. I.e. the stuff about advisers/specialist, minions/henchmen and lieutenants.

[X-Points East]

Random musings from me on a system using the domain power to determine realm magic caster level rather than the character levels of the regent.

OoC:

Why Domain Power (as currently defined in the Regent Guide), even if limited to the Domain Power of magic-relevant holdings?

OoC:

For this post, a domain's Domain Temple Power is the sum of that domain's temple levels.

For this post, a domain's Real Domain Temple Power is the sum of that domain's adjusted temple levels, each holding being adjusted in the following manner:  (temple level)*(province level)/5.

Domain Temple Power, in Turn #71 (if not mistaken):

WIT:  81 /// HA:  61 /// MOC:  57 /// ETN:  46 /// OIT:  37 /// THB:  27

Real Domain Temple Power, in Turn #71 (if not mistaken):

WIT:  89.8 /// HA:  58.6 /// MOC:  58.2 /// ETN:  51 /// OIT:  47.4 /// THB:  18.4


OoC:

Assuming that base Temple Caster Level (TCL) might be either (Domain Temple Power)/5 or (Real Domain Temple Power)/5, here follow the resultant base TCL figures (when rounding down {and if not mistaken}). . . .

Base TCL (in Turn #71), using Domain Temple Power:

WIT:  16 /// HA:  12 /// MOC:  11 /// ETN:  9 /// OIT:  7 /// THB:  5

Base TCL (in Turn #71), using Real Domain Temple Power:

WIT:  17 /// HA:  11 /// MOC:  11 /// ETN:  10 /// OIT:  9 /// THB:  3


OoC:

In this context, is Real Domain Temple Power superior to Domain Temple Power, when determining base Temple Caster Level?

[X-Points East]

Random musings from me on a system using the domain power to determine realm magic caster level rather than the character levels of the regent.

OoC:

Why Domain Power (as currently defined in the Regent Guide), even if limited to the Domain Power of magic-relevant holdings?

OoC:

For this post, a domain's Domain Source Power is the sum of that domain's source levels.

For this post, a domain's Real Domain Source Power is the sum of that domain's adjusted source levels, each holding being adjusted in the following manner:  (source level)*(current source potential)/5.

Domain Source Power, in Turn #71 (if not mistaken):

Reg:  34 /// Oak:  33 /// GeM:  29 /// SW:  29 /// AuA:  23 /// Ivory:  21 /// SM:  21 /// Kal:  12 /// CoS:  9

Real Domain Source Power, in Turn #71 (if not mistaken):

Oak:  32.2 /// Reg:  29.2 /// GeM:  27.6 /// SW:  26.4 /// AuA:  19 /// CoS:  18 /// Kal:  14.2 /// Ivory:  12.8 /// SM:  10


OoC:

Assuming that base Source Caster Level (SCL) might be either (Domain Source Power)/(2.5) or (Real Domain Source Power)/(2.5), here follow the resultant base SCL figures (when rounding down {and if not mistaken}). . . .

Base SCL (in Turn #71), using Domain Source Power:

Reg:  13 /// Oak:  13 /// GeM:  11 /// SW:  11 /// AuA:  9 /// Ivory:  8 /// SM:  8 /// Kal:  4 /// CoS:  3

Base SCL (in Turn #71), using Real Domain Source Power:

Oak:  12 /// Reg:  11 /// GeM:  11 /// SW:  10 /// AuA:  7 /// CoS:  7 /// Kal:  5 /// Ivory:  5 /// SM:  4


OoC:

In this context, is Real Domain Source Power superior to Domain Source Power, when determining base Source Caster Level?

[X-Points East]

OoC:

In my above post (Reply #37), which seems preferable:  OIT-Base-TCL 7 and THB-Base-TCL 5 . . . or . . . OIT-Base-TCL 9 and THB-Base-TCL 3?

In my above post (Reply #38), which seems preferable:  SM-Base-SCL 8 and CoS-Base-SCL 3 . . . or . . . CoS-Base-SCL 7 and SM-Base-SCL 4?

[X-OIT (Garth)]

A question that could stir some additional thought:

The magic relevant domain power or magic relevant real domain power, however it might be calculated, does not give any value to 0 Lvl Holdings.  Do 0 Lvlv Holdings provide anything to the domain apart from an extended network, or is an extended network the only benefit?  Should an extended network be a factor in the power of DCL?

[DM B]

Lvl 0 holdings allow you to use influence. Which can be important.

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

Unless someone has a lot of them, I'm not sure that it's worth making special rules for large numbers of L0 holdings, any benefit would be minimal compared to the more significant holdings.

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

There are no special benefits for level 0 holdings beyond that they allow you to expend influence (particularly RP) in general within the province.

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

I have been thinking about how to 'force' source domains to interact more with the other domains. I think there are a few ways that might help spur this.

*Relax the rules of Advantage/Hardiness in relation to Source domains: Allow Law/Temple/Guild domains to confer bonus to create & rule actions of sources.  Allow Sources to affect agitate, rule province, contest holding (all), etc.  I still wouldn't allow domain to occupy source domains, nor allow source domains to be affected by armies.

*You might consider giving virtual trade or guild holdings.  Giving them a limited source of income will not tip power scales very much, and will give the domains reason to be concerned about what is occuring in the non-source domains.

*Giving well establish Source domains hidden and non-hidden manor, guild, temple and/or law holdings.  This holdings would not represent neccessarily the source domain attempt to enter those arenas in force, instead it is represents close ties the source domain may have with various power structures.  Taken to an extremely, you would get the source domains that directly rule several holding types.