[i]Originally posted by the Falcon+Oct 28 2004, 07:49 PM–></div><table border=‘0’ align=‘center’ width=‘95%’ cellpadding=‘3’ cellspacing=‘1’><tr><td>QUOTE (the Falcon @ Oct 28 2004, 07:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id=‘QUOTE’> I like Danip’s idea. Allow me to chime in and give Dilbert-esque taxonomy of the bonus types he’s mentioned. 
[quote]Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Alchemical: Some arcane realm spells or mass quantities of potions or magic items might directly help/hinder a domain action. A potion of thruthfulness might help in interrogations for Espionage checks. Potions which the regent imbues himself might also give an alchemical bonus. Currently, I dont think there are any examples of this kind of bonus being used to directly influence domain action checks.
Currently in D&D v.3.5, the only thing that can give you an alchemical bonus is an antitoxin. :blink:
Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Armor: A named armor bonus type has some obvious applications in the military unti system. Giving all of your troops nice new shields would be an example.
“This is the bonus that nonmagical armor gives a character”, says my DMG. It also says that a shield bonus “represents the protection a nonmagical shield affords.” I don’t think these are really usable at the domain level.
Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Circumstance: I think in an unstated manner this bonus is already in the d20 domain system. Circumstance bonuses usually stack, and thus wont help keep domain action modifiers in a sane range. Mostly up to DM to control.
Searching through the d20 SRD, I find that it’s mostly equipment that gives circumstance bonuses. For example, crowbar, portable ram, silk rope, alchemist’s lab, masterwork artisan’s tools, climber’s kit, disguise kit, healer’s kit, magnifying glass, masterwork musical instrument, merchant’s scale, masterwork thieves’ tools, masterwork tool, cold weather outfit, and military saddle all give circumstance bonuses, nearly all of them +2 (one of them +5). However, it’s a general rule that favorable/unfavorable conditions can give a +/-2 circumstance bonus/penalty to any (skill) check. I think it’s definitely easy to extrapolate this to the domain level. Certain weather or terrain conditions might give circumstances bonuses or penalties to certain checks, the presence of rivers or roads might give circumstance bonuses, siege engines might give an army circumstance bonuses in a siege, etc.
Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Competence: This named bonus is so obviously what the skill modifier divided by five is. I think we should systematically refer to this skill based modifier as a competence bonus. In making this skill based modifier a named bonus we gain several things. First of all it makes it possible to open up each domain to multiple modifying skills. Each applicable skill could be used to calculate a competence bonus, however because the different competence bonuses would not stack only the highest would be applied. Profession(merchant) or appraise might apply to Create Trade Route; Sense Motive, Gather Information, Forgery, etc might apply to Espionage; Lead and Perform(oratory) might apply to Agitate. This would help open up game play in the way 3e opened up classes. There could be several different ways to become good at a domain action. This would let PCs and their DM create a richer and deeper roleplay around the simple domain action check. Exactly what skills to include might be tricky (is PC great at forgery alone good at espionage). However, because this skill type of bonus is already used extensively you can easily see how making it a named bonus can be helpful in game balance. Other things might be considered a competence bonus. Having a skilled advisor help the regent. The difference between a regent, skilled luetenant, an unskilled luetenant, or a court perform the action might be expressed as a competence bonus or penalty. The regent mastery feat might give a competence bonus.
On the one hand, loads and loads of magic items give competence bonuses. On the other hand, there’s only two spells that give competence bonuses. :huh: There’s a small number of other sources that grant competence bonuses, most notably some classes abilities, like a couple of bard songs and a number of terrain masteries of the horizon walker prestige class. My v.3.5 DMG has the following to say on the matter: “When a character has a competence bonus, he actually gets better at what he’s doing”. So it seems a competence bonus does not result from one’s own competence, but rather grants one a higher level of competence. That’s a tricky one.
Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Deflection: Ummm… Province wide deflector shields, ala Star Wars,… Maybe not for Cerelia. Maybe something in the combat system…
“A deflection bonus increases a character’s AC by making attacks veer off,” says my DMG. No, probably not suitable for the realm level.
Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Dodge: Again only for the combat system possibly…
Well, as my DMG words it: “A dodge bonus enhances a character’s ability to get out of the way quickly.” That’s an interesting formulation, as it does leave the field wide open as to what kind of checks you could apply a dodge bonus. But no, probably not suitable for the realm level.
Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Enhancement: This named bonus is so vaguely worded that we could apply this classification to any set of domain action bonuses that we wanted to stop from running wild. The bonus that you get from regency expense or bloodline abilities could be an enchancement. The potion of Regency in the BRCS gave a +2 enhancement bonus to a domain action. Any spells which directly influence a domain action check could be an enhancement bonus. [There is a whole class of buff spells which assist domain level actions that could be added to the realm spells. Currently Honest Dealings is the only spell which directly places a modifier on a domain action check.] Other magic items might give an enhancement bonus
“An enhancement bonus represents an increase in the strength or effectiveness of a character’s armor or weapon,” says my DMG, “or a general bonus to an ability score”. I’m just wondering, if we follow up on your idea of treating a realm as person, basically—and I must admit I’ve had similar musings in the past about this subject—then we could give a realm ability scores, right? If we don’t, however, I don’t really see how could apply this one to the realm level.
Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Inherent: “An inherent bonus is a bonus … that results from powerful magic, such as a wish spell.” Originally for ability score modifiers only, the above description might work for bloodline regency and abilities. The above potion of regency might instead be renamed to inherent. Then when using the potion you are in a way getting a +2 bonus from free RP. But to get to +3 bonus instead of spending 1 RP you would have to spend 3 RP, because the +2 and the +1 would not stack. Other ways of classifying blood power might be better.
“An inherent bonus is a bonus to an ability score that results from powerful magic,” says my DMG. A definitive no-no, I would think.
Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Insight: Probably the kind of bonus a divination spell would give to a domain scale action. An Army of Haelyn commanded by a paladin with the True Strike realm spell?
“An insight bonus makes a character better at what he’s doing because has an almost precognitive knowledge of factors pertinent to the activity,” says the DMG. Insight bonuses in v.3.5 are basically only given by spell and magic items (and by the horizon walker terrain mastery benefits). However, I don’t see why a ruler couldn’t get an insight bonus from having a team of really good advisors or from getting some really good military intelligence. Of course, then having bad advisors and bad military intelligence can give you an insight penalty. (And I’m sure we can all think of a real-life example here… ;))
Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Luck: More magic obvious possibilities…
“A luck bonus is a general bonus that represetns good fortune,” so sayeth the wise DMG. A few spells and a good number of magic items give these kind of bonuses, but that’s about it. Perhaps we could build some kind of good luck/bad luck mechanism into the realm level of play? Just a suggestion.
Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
[b]Morale:
Duane said:
[quote]Morale bonuses have been made to fit the domain level of play by applying them to troops in BRCS, so the precedent has already been set to “expand” the normal use to include domain level of play.
The attitude/loyalty bonus that is being discussed as I type, would naturally fit as a morale bonus.[/b][/quote]Now this is a sure-fire winner we have here. There’s a number of class abilities that give morale bonuses, either to the character itself or to others, there’s a number of magic items and a host of spells that give them, and there’s even a race that has a morale bonus. Note that a morale bonus “represents the effects of greater hope, courage, and determination”, so practically anything that can increase hope, courage and determination can give a morale bonus to one thing or another. I can see this type of bonus being used a lot at the realm level.
Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Natural Armor: Again military…
Yeah, let’s not go there. This has absolutely no place at the realm level.
Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Profane: Evil spells which dont yet exist…
“A profane bonus represents the power of evil,” says the DMG. Sounds like something a bloodline of Azrai could grant somehow. In v.3.5, it’s only spells that do this, however.
Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Racial: These bonuses are so obvious that I am amazed they havent found their way into BR. Surely the elves are better at some domain actions then others?
Oh yes, this one’s a real prize, too. The bonus, or penalty, should depend on the race of the inhabitants of the province, and not on the ruler, though, I would think.
Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Sacred: Good spells which dont exist…or another place to put regency bonuses given their divine origin…
Same yada as for profane bonuses.
Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Size: The bonus derived from holding levels could work as a domain level size bonus. The size of ones court could also fit in here. Would source level fit here or in some more magical bonus type?
Yeah, I don’t know. I can’t really imaging how this one would be used on the realm level.
Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Unnamed: Freely stacks. Virtually every modifier in the domain rules now.
I think we have get rid of as much as these as possible. We really have to encourage more min/maxing—as opposed to pile-it-on max/maxing. 
[/b][/quote]
Falcon, glad for the feedback. Allow me to use the comments you made as a sounding board.
First a few general things.
The domain as a person is a useful metaphor for thinking about how to expand the Core rules to domain scale. But I think it is taking it a bit far in thinking about ability scores, hit points, or other such easy cut and pasting of rule elements.
To expand the original named bonuses into the domain scale I’ve taken some obvious liberties with the original definitions which you have picked up on. You even noticed my selective quotes of the DMG (drats!). However, with the domain scale missing many of the elements of individual DnD, I think it is fair game to expand what the original named bonuses apply to. Several of the original bonuses are defined to apply only to weapons, armor, or ability scores or some such thing. The thing to look at for our purposes is what causes a bonus rather than what the bonus used to apply to.
Keeping the original named bonuses for the domain scale has several advantages. People are familar with these terms/names. Calling the skill modifier divided by five an applied skill bonus doesnt have the same power as calling it a competence bonus. Players and DMs with a bit of experience with the system will immediately recognize the competence name and understand what we are getting at (non-stacking named bonus type). Any new name for the thing would need to have a section in the BRCS explaining the new type.
If we are keeping the original names, wide but resonable lattitude on applying the names will be required. There are several goals we should have in mind before we start slapping these named bonuses onto things (in no particular Dilbert-esque order):
A. The original goal = To keep current and future modifiers to domain action checks within a balanced and playable range.
B. Some realism. The next greatest boon that named bonuses bring is allowing more and more varied modifiers be considered without breaking the d20 mechanic (see A). However, the non-stacking of bonuses can get odd situations that you just have to live with.
C. Understandablity. It shouldnt be a great strech of the imagination to figure out why a certain name goes with a certain bonus. We have the power to label anything as anything and set a bad precedent.
D. Expansion = Already in the process of looking at these bonuses nearly everyone has come up with a new spell, racial trait, blood ability, etc. Rather than create a new specific definition of what the original bonuses mean and apply to at the domain scale, we should embrace and facilitate this creativity. For the sake of house rules, future adventures, magic items, spells, and all other creative expansions to what the BRCS is the foundation of, we must keep that in mind.
That was a bit wordy and general, so let me respond bonus by bonus to your comments:
[quote]Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Alchemical: Some arcane realm spells or mass quantities of potions or magic items might directly help/hinder a domain action. A potion of thruthfulness might help in interrogations for Espionage checks. Potions which the regent imbues himself might also give an alchemical bonus. Currently, I dont think there are any examples of this kind of bonus being used to directly influence domain action checks.
Currently in D&D v.3.5, the only thing that can give you an alchemical bonus is an antitoxin.[/quote]
A perfect example of looking beyond current applications. Even in 3.5e this is a rarely used named bonus, but it is there for future writers. Us included.
[quote]Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Armor: A named armor bonus type has some obvious applications in the military unti system. Giving all of your troops nice new shields would be an example.
“This is the bonus that nonmagical armor gives a character”, says my DMG. It also says that a shield bonus “represents the protection a nonmagical shield affords.” I don’t think these are really usable at the domain level.[/quote]
Let me leave all bonuses like this which specifically deal with combat and might in some vauge way be put in the military unit combat system out of the conversation. Im just going to limit talk to the domain actions.
Competence:
On the one hand, loads and loads of magic items give competence bonuses. On the other hand, there’s only two spells that give competence bonuses. :huh: There’s a small number of other sources that grant competence bonuses, most notably some classes abilities, like a couple of bard songs and a number of terrain masteries of the horizon walker prestige class. My v.3.5 DMG has the following to say on the matter: “When a character has a competence bonus, he actually gets better at what he’s doing”. So it seems a competence bonus does not result from one’s own competence, but rather grants one a higher level of competence. That’s a tricky one.
I could get legalistic and nit pick your grants not results assertion, but that kind of legalism is exactly what I think we should stay away from. For the sake of future expansion creativity I think we shouldnt get so caught up in clever narrow interpretations. I think if we can’t agree that the skill modifier based bonus deserves the name competence, then we are doomed to place named bonuses in the domain system.
Enhancement:
“An enhancement bonus represents an increase in the strength or effectiveness of a character’s armor or weapon,” says my DMG, “or a general bonus to an ability score”. I’m just wondering, if we follow up on your idea of treating a realm as person, basically—and I must admit I’ve had similar musings in the past about this subject—then we could give a realm ability scores, right? If we don’t, however, I don’t really see how could apply this one to the realm level.
See that box over there? See the outside of the box? Think over there…
The original enhancement bonus applied to weapons, armor, or ability scores, because that is pretty much what the individual core rules have to work with. A domain check has none of those elements. But is it getting too creative to apply the enhancement bonus in other ways?
“An inherent bonus is a bonus to an ability score that results from powerful magic,” says my DMG. A definitive no-no, I would think.
Must an inherent bonus always apply to only an ability score? I guess this is a basic open question to everyone. How much can we bend the original mechanic when applying it to the domain system?
Insight:
“An insight bonus makes a character better at what he’s doing because has an almost precognitive knowledge of factors pertinent to the activity,” says the DMG. Insight bonuses in v.3.5 are basically only given by spell and magic items (and by the horizon walker terrain mastery benefits). However, I don’t see why a ruler couldn’t get an insight bonus from having a team of really good advisors or from getting some really good military intelligence. Of course, then having bad advisors and bad military intelligence can give you an insight penalty. (And I’m sure we can all think of a real-life example here… ;))
Of course, my view isnt the only one. I had kinda fixated on the “precognitive” part of the original defenition. I had pegged good advisors as being a competence bonus. However, I could see how a good spynetwork or a successful espionage action could give an insight and an insight bonus to a domain action. If the advisors wernt casting divination spells should it be an insight bonus for their abilities? Perhaps gotta be careful in how vague we go. Some of these bonuses have such broadly appliable names that we might go too far?
[quote]Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Luck: More magic obvious possibilities…
“A luck bonus is a general bonus that represetns good fortune,” so sayeth the wise DMG. A few spells and a good number of magic items give these kind of bonuses, but that’s about it. Perhaps we could build some kind of good luck/bad luck mechanism into the realm level of play? Just a suggestion.[/quote]
Ummm…there is the d20 die roll for randomization. 
Note that a morale bonus “represents the effects of greater hope, courage, and determination”, so practically anything that can increase hope, courage and determination can give a morale bonus to one thing or another. I can see this type of bonus being used a lot at the realm level.
Yes we have a winner! I totally agree. Too easy really…
[quote]Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Profane: Evil spells which dont yet exist…
“A profane bonus represents the power of evil,” says the DMG. Sounds like something a bloodline of Azrai could grant somehow. In v.3.5, it’s only spells that do this, however.[/quote]
In bringining up bloodlines you make me think of an important thing. Currently all blood abilities are unnamed bonuses I think. It is even clearly stated in the BRCS. Blood is so important and is meant to be powerful that having it being non-stacking is probably wrong. We must be sure not to name everything that could take a name. It would really totally, majorly suck to have a cool blood ability and have it not stack with something else. Probably not fitting for the setting.
This is a danger of named bonuses. As a player I hate that some things dont stack. It is very unrealistic, but for the sake of playability it is nescessary. But not for everything.
[quote]Originally posted by Danip@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Racial: These bonuses are so obvious that I am amazed they havent found their way into BR. Surely the elves are better at some domain actions then others?
Oh yes, this one’s a real prize, too. The bonus, or penalty, should depend on the race of the inhabitants of the province, and not on the ruler, though, I would think.[/quote]
I agree a real prize. Here again might not want to get too narrow and make it dependent upon the province population. Ive see quite a few arguments about province race in treads about Rule Province. Can get very complicated, especially as province race doesnt come into the rule calcualtions at any point so far. Unless we can come up with something easy and obvious, I dont want to touch that mess.
<!–QuoteBegin-Danip[/i]@Oct 23 2004, 04:14 AM
Size: The bonus derived from holding levels could work as a domain level size bonus. The size of ones court could also fit in here. Would source level fit here or in some more magical bonus type?
Yeah, I don’t know. I can’t really imaging how this one would be used on the realm level.[/quote]
This is a bit of a stretch. But the bonus from holding levels is pretty big. It is one of the main things that is going to make bonuses blow up. It should probably be named and other things which reflect a large orgonizational presence in a province should be similarly named. Kinda realisitic too, if you think about it. More people/hands stops helping after a while. The size label was just the most convenient.
Please chime in with more thoughts.
Im especially wondering:
How free are we to interpet the original named bonuses to the domain system?
What do you think should be named what?
What should stay unnamed?
Has the named bonus idea given you new ideas for spells, items, modifiers, and if so what?
