CHARACTER RULES

[X-Points East]

OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.

[X-Points East]

OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.

[X-Points East]

OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

Some interesting ideas here, though I think I am on record as objecting strongly to your entire proficiency idea, so I won't waste any further time on that issue.

I also question the idea of the "Prowess", as it seems to permanently bone those characters who aren't Heroic. I'm not sure what purpose it serves.

And I also dislike the whole Domain caster rules, again I think it detracts from what should be the focus of the game.

I rather like the Experience rules, a very good idea there. And the Class rules are also intriguing - I'll have more to say on them after I study the tables more.

[X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander)]

Some kind of compromise between very specific profeciencies (eg. "Rule Manor" as a proficiency) and very broad/flexible proficiencies (eg. "Persuasion) might be possible. It is very hard to map "Rule Manor" as a proficiency to a skill or capabiity in the fiction... So perhaps some groups might be a better idea. One skill to cover Ruling/Contesting/Creating each holding type, a "Warfare" skill to cover all the war actions, etc.

Something that is a little easier to imagine what it means, rather than "Contest Trade Holding" as a skill.

The stacking rules are cool, they make sense.

The idea of there being Heroic and NPC classes is very much ingrained in D&D. It makes no sense in realworld terms, but in terms of the narrative it kinda does - you have you ordinary dudes and your protagonists/antagonists. Hell, it goes back to 1st edition (I think) with 0th level characters who could never advance beyond that. Removing it changes the flavor, dunno if that is desireable.

I really like that there is a mechanical incentive to go "deep" in a class. Taking 4 levels of fighter actually makes sense mechanically, not only for narrative reasons. Having more flexibility in your bonus actions and more regency is worth it.

After the 4th level, unless you are a caster, you might as well pick up another class. More fighter levels at that point literally have no effect... Perhaps not so awesome. But still, we now have a reason to take more than 1 level of fighter, which is progress.

Could we change the naming scheme a bit? "Experience Elements" is really clunky. The system seems solid, but eg. "Tier", "Level" and "Experience" would make more sense to me than "Level", "Experience" and "Experience Element". Especially if one is coming from D&D 3.x.

I'm curious RP - how does the domain caster rules detract from the focus? What they change is primary the dependence of caster domains on their regent... or is it that any domain can pick up a bit of casting by grabbing a few temple holdings? You still really need a highlevel holding to gain a substantial caster level and I assume spell level is still limited by highest holding level.

Regency collection for a 9th level char might be a little out of hand... province + 4½ holding types... wow. Then again, that's largely academic, since I assume the only Paramount character is the Gorgon or equivalent.

The bit about upgrading generic classes seems kinda superfluous... how often is a character going to switch from commoner to *whatever*? THe only place I see them coming into play... and they are kinda confusing. Saying "commoners use generic classes, the others use specific classes"or some such might be simpler. I might be misreading the rules though.

[Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)]

It might be intentionally. But half regency for the first level severely hampers multi domains.
As written TD would have to be lvl 6 to collect regency from Talinie.  Full regency from first class level will make multi domains possible but expensive in stead of impossible. .. That is unless standard regent level is supposed to be 6.

Also regarding spells: The spell progression seems slow for priests and wizards.. What is the game balance reason for the nurf?

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

I'm curious RP - how does the domain caster rules detract from the focus? What they change is primary the dependence of caster domains on their regent... or is it that any domain can pick up a bit of casting by grabbing a few temple holdings?

Both. A caster domain SHOULD be entirely dependent on it's regent, it isn't a political entity, it's a wizard who controls the magical power of the earth itself - the entire thing should be completely personal. In fact, caster domains should not be inheritable, they should fall apart when the regent dies.  And if a non caster wants to get some spell ability, then either take another class or pick up a Lieutenant of the appropriate class, the assumption that merely owning temple or source holdings will grant one realm spells flies in the face of the very core concepts of both Birthright and D&D (and just about every other FRPG in existence.

Again it is the same old difference in play focus, to me the domain is an asset of the regent, while to many here it is the other way round, the regent is merely an asset of the domain. I think, quite strongly, that the second approach detracts enormously from the game as it minimizes the best aspect of the game - playing a regent. The regent, after all, is the whole focus of the Birthright game, the premise is that without a blooded regent, a domain is crippled - that hardly sounds like just another "asset" to me.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

It might be intentionally. But half regency for the first level severely hampers multi domains.

I suspect it is intentional, Brandon dislikes multi domains for some reason, and his rules seem to bone them at nearly every turn, yet the Domain Caster Level rules provides the ultimate reason for everybody to try have a multi domain.

It also pretty much removes the point in being a spell casting class, as all that is needed is a lot of the appropriate holding type.

[X-Points East]

OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.

[Ruideside/OM (RP)]

Brandon, we've told you before how annoying it is when you revise posts we have commented on rather than making a new post.

[Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)]

OoC:

Part the Second, Part the Fifth, and Part the Sixth have been revised.

It might be intentionally. But half regency for the first level severely hampers multi domains.
As written TD would have to be lvl 6 to collect regency from Talinie.  Full regency from first class level will make multi domains possible but expensive in stead of impossible. .. That is unless standard regent level is supposed to be 6.

Also regarding spells: The spell progression seems slow for priests and wizards.. What is the game balance reason for the nurf?

In the hypothetical model (as currently designed), a character with one rank in a specific class is green in that class:—he has no bonus action from that class and generates only half regency from its primary species of regency generation.  (All characters generate full regency from provinces, though.) . . . Researched spells are assets in the hypothetical model.

I am referring to the ability to prepare spells.. Sorcerers are usually able to prepare a spell slot not specifying anything but the level of the spell. For that advantage they gain access to spells a level slower than wizards and priests.  Here all seem to progress as sorcerers.. By current rules temple domain already have access to a variety of spells based on their domain. Why give the special ability of temples to wizards and sorcerers?

This way sorcerers gain something for nothing.  Wizards gain something but pay for it and priests pay without gaining anything.

[X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander)]

I think the idea is that all casting domains prepare and cast domains the same way. Which is imo a good thing - it simplifies things a bit.

[Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)]

I think the idea is that all casting domains prepare and cast domains the same way. Which is imo a good thing - it simplifies things a bit.

okay. Then sorcerers pay for their new advantage as well. That doesn't change the fact that temple domains loose relative power compared to source domains. Perhaps allowing twice the number of spells known by temples would negate that disadvantage and still allow for a more streamlined system than now.

[X-Tornilen/SM (Alexander)]

How do temple domains loose power relative to wizards/sorcerers if all spell casting and preparation work the same way?

Besides, priest are well padded. They have temples - holdings that do everything sources do and give full income.

[Talinie & NIT/TD (Linde)]

How do temple domains loose power relative to wizards/sorcerers if all spell casting and preparation work the same way?

Besides, priest are well padded. They have temples - holdings that do everything sources do and give full income.

As it is now: Temple domains gain access to spells that the regent doesn't need to know.

As is proposed: All spell domains gain that advantage.

It is IMO comparable to giving a all other classes access to temple regency and saying:" How does that make temples loose power?"

It is basically to hand out one of the temple domains advanages to all who can use it.