Domain Actions Poll - how to resolve

Dungeons & Dragons BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
1

This poll needs to be done in parallel with the RP/GB question prior to deciding the other polls. This decision could determine how easy it is to resolve domain actions. This would lead to determining DC of doman actions, etc.

This is to determine part of the mechanic for resolving domain actions.

For example attempting a Diplomacy domain action, the applicable skill is diplomacy. Say that the regent has 10 ranks and a +5 ability modifier. Should the base check be a d20 +15 (ranks + ability mod), d20 +2 (10/5) or d20 + 3 ((10 + 5)/5)?

In this example the character would be at least 7th level (due to number of ranks) so this wouldn’t be a starting character (i.e., 1st level).

This does not account for other bonuses that specifically provide bonuses to domain actions vice skills, e.g., Master Feats, Regent Focus, Domain Attitude, etc. This poll is not to determine how domain actions are resolved when characters, other than the regent himself, performs the action. I figure that if we start with the regent himself, it should more difficult for others to perform an action in his stead but that can be figured out after the basics are hammered out.

2

While I voted for option 2 (dividing the total skill bonus by 5), it struck me that one other option that should have been presented here was having a d20 roll with one or more applicable skill synergies each providing a flat +2 bonus if the regent has 5 or more ranks in the skill. By this method, several relevant skill synergies could be listed for any given domain action. Diplomacy, for example, might benefit from synergies from Bluff, Diplomacy, K/Nobility, and Sense Motive. If a regent had 5 ranks in each of those skills, he could get a +8 on the domain action. We’ll call this method Alternative A.

A second, more moderate option (one much closer to the original 2e system) would be to allow only one skill synergy per domain action. i.e., 5 ranks in Diplomacy would grant +2 to Diplomacy domain actions, but no other skills would add such a bonus. This would be Alternative B.

Thought those were reasonable options to include in a 3.5 conversion/revision, since this is the basic mechanical framework of the PHB skill system. If anyone prefers either of these alternative systems, vote for other, then post and say you which you prefer (Alternative A or B).

Osprey

3

Osprey schrieb:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2843

>

> Osprey wrote:

> While I voted for option 2 (dividing the total skill bonus by 5), it struck me that one other option that should have been presented here was having a d20 roll with one or more applicable skill synergies each providing a flat +2 bonus if the regent has 5 or more ranks in the skill. By this method, several relevant skill synergies could be listed for any given domain action. Diplomacy, for example, might benefit from synergies from Bluff, Diplomacy, K/Nobility, and Sense Motive. If a regent had 5 ranks in each of those skills, he could get a +8 on the domain action. We`ll call this method Alternative A.A second, more moderate option (one much closer to the original 2e system) would be to allow only one skill synergy per domain action. i.e., 5 ranks in Diplomacy would grant +2 to Diplomacy domain actions, but no other skills would add such a bonus. This would be Alternative B.Thought those were reasonable options to include in a 3.5 conversion/revision, since this is the

> basic mechanical framework of the PHB skill system. If anyone prefers either of these alternative systems, vote for other, then post and say you which you prefer (Alternative A or B).Osprey

>

Bluff and Sense Motive already give a +2 bonus to Diplomacy. That means

if not only skill ranks but the whole score, divided by 5 that synergies

are already included in the bonus to the domain action Diplomacy or not?

bye

Michael

4

Bluff and Sense Motive already give a +2 bonus to Diplomacy.
That means if not only skill ranks but the whole score, divided by 5 that synergies
are already included in the bonus to the domain action Diplomacy or not?

In the case of Option 2 in the main poll, yes: you would calculate your total skill bonus, including all relevant feats, synergies, special abilities (such as Bloodmark and Divine Aura), and ability score modifiers, then divide by 5 (dropping fractions) to obtain the domain action bonus.

Ex.: an 8th level regent with a Charisma of 17 (+3) has 10 ranks in Diplomacy, and 5 ranks in Bluff, Knowledge (Nobility), and Sense Motive. He also has the Negotiator feat (+2). Finally, he is a scion with the Bloodmark blood ability (+1). This gives him a total Diplomacy skill bonus of +23. He would get a +4 bonus to Diplomacy-based domain actions (Diplomacy, Create Trade Route, and Create/Contest/Rule Temples).
If the same character also had the Master Diplomat feat, he would then have a +25 Diplomacy skill bonus, and gain a +7 bonus to Diplomacy-based domain actions (+5 for the skill bonus, +2 for the Master Diplomat feat).

Osprey

5

Osprey schrieb:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2843

>

>------------ QUOTE ----------

>Bluff and Sense Motive already give a +2 bonus to Diplomacy. That means if not only skill ranks but the whole score, divided by 5 that synergies are already included in the bonus to the domain action Diplomacy or not?

>-----------------------------

>

>In the case of Option 2 in the main poll, yes: you would calculate your total skill bonus, including all relevant feats, synergies, special abilities (such as Bloodmark and Divine Aura), and ability score modifiers, then divide by 5 (dropping fractions) to obtain the domain action bonus. Ex.: an 8th level regent with a Charisma of 17 (+3) has 10 ranks in Diplomacy, and 5 ranks in Bluff, Knowledge (Nobility), and Sense Motive. He also has the Negotiator feat (+2). Finally, he is a scion with the Bloodmark blood ability (+1). This gives him a total Diplomacy skill bonus of +23. He would get a +4 bonus to Diplomacy-based domain actions (Diplomacy, Create Trade Route, and Create/Contest/Rule Temples). If the same character also had the Master Diplomat feat, he would then have a +25 Diplomacy skill bonus, and gain a +7 bonus to Diplomacy-based domain actions (+5 for the skill bonus, +2 for the Master Diplomat feat). Osprey

>

But you are not saying that he get´s a +7 from the totalled Diplomacy

score and in addition the Bluff and other synergies who already raised

the normal Diplomacy score give another +2 synergy directly to the

domain action?

bye

Michael

6

As I noted in the thread regarding RP caps, I think not requiring RP for

domain actions is a reinterpretation of the role of bloodlines and regency

that is better left to DM`s homebrew BR or for another campaign setting

that employs a system of domain rules very much like those of the BR

setting, but shouldn`t be used in the BRCS update itself.

I should note, however, that the poll above asks has only if RP should be

required for all domain actions except those to create level 0 holdings

when there should be additional actions that do not require

RP. “Character” actions (Adventure, Ply Trade, Training) are the most

obvious of these, but those that did not require RP in the original domain

rules should similarly not require them in an update. Domain level

activities that do not intrinsically alter the nature of provinces and/or

holdings should similarly not require RP. Grants, Finances, Decrees,

Research, for example. Those having to do with troops (moving, mustering,

disbanding them or declaring war) should also not require RP. I don`t

think the intent was to add RP to those actions, but the above poll does

not address them, so I want to make sure thats not what were talking about.

As for the DC`s of domain actions, there should be no single, universally

applied DC for all domain actions regardless of what type of action it

is. The difficulty of a particular type of domain action should determined

on an action type by action type basis. That is, the DC of a Build action

should be 5 if the regent delegates the activities to a subordinate (a

court action) and automatic if he supervises the activities himself. The

DC of a Rule action might be 15, while those of other actions should be

based on an assessment of the relative difficulty of the action itself. As

has been suggested, the DC should then be modified by the context in which

the action is being performed–the number of holdings and their levels that

are effected, modifiers for race (elves should have more trouble ruling

province population levels up, for example), etc.

The original domain action`s “success numbers” were typically 5 or 10,

though there were a few token 2`s in there. That seemed to work fine with

one or two notable exceptions (Rule and Contest) so I don`t think those

basic numbers should be changed, and in the case of those two actions a DC

15 might be appropriate.

Gary

7

But you are not saying that he get´s a +7 from the totalled Diplomacy
score and in addition the Bluff and other synergies who already raised
the normal Diplomacy score give another +2 synergy directly to the
domain action?
bye
Michael

OK, I think there’s some mixing of different otions here. The last example I gave for Diplomacy was an example of Option 2 in the poll, taking the total skill bonus and divide by 5 (dropping fractions). This is my preferred method, as it accounts for a character’s talents and skill synergies without making them overly dominant bonuses (as a straight skill check would do).

2 posts back I described two alternative methods. These were meant to be complete alternatives, not somehow combined with option 2 from the poll. Allow me to recap those 2 alternatives:

Alternative 1: each domain action has a list of applicable skill synergies. The acting regent/lt. then gains a +2 bonus to the domain action for each of those skill in which he has 5 or more ranks.

Alternative 2: there is a single key skill for each domain action. If the regent/lt. has 5 or more ranks in the key skill, he gains a +2 bonus to the domain action.

Both of these alternatives are meant to stand as fairly direct extrapolations of the 3.5 skill system applied to the domain actions. Neither method relies upon a character’s skill bonus, only upon having 5+ ranks in one or more pertinent skills.

Osprey

8

Having been intimately involved in the use of the BRCS system as a player for two years and a DM for one year (with 20-30 players at a time, that’s a lot of actions to see!) I think that any increase over the current status quo of +1 per 5 skill ranks would hasten the already noticable regency reserve power creep.

A little history.
In 2E, most domain actions required 1 RP or more to power the action. You also did not receive any bonuses to perform the action due to skills, synergy or non existent feats. Thus, a regent spent 3-5 more regency on average to perform a domain action in 2E than in BRCSv1.0. This results in an addition of maybe 6-10 regency into the reserve per season and is the prime reason why the reserves are so high in BRCSv1.0.

If you choose to sweeten the bonuses further, you will cause the regency pools to increase even more.

Thus my thoughts. I will cover 2 last for reasons of logic:

  1. Using straight up skill checks widens and magnifies the advantage higher level regents have over lower level regents. This is not in the flavour of BR where many low level regents with high bloodlines do just fine, thank you. IMO, bloodline should be the ‘dominant’ factor for in-game mechanic success. However, there is no way to compensate for pc skill or lack of :blink:

  2. This is the current system and works good, but could be better. It can be argued that the true measure of skill for a regent also involves their ability modifier and their feats. I agree.

  3. Thus, I propose a modified use of skill bonus for the domain modifier bonus. Instead of a straight divide by 5, which would give us a defacto power creep due to skill bonuses being higher than ranks used in almost all cases, a different divisor should be used. After seeing so many turns being processed and the way regency integrates, I propose a divisor of 10.

That is, total skill bonus divided by 10.

9

There is a reason as to why I put this poll out in parallel with the other poll on should domain actions require RP and have both run before the next poll in the series (what should the be standard DC for domain actions).

IMO people are jumping ahead in trying to make a balanced domain actions system based soley on these proposals.

The balance of a good domain mechanic is to incorporate the use of RP (or not) and the modifiers (whether a simple skill check or one of the modified versions from this poll) and a DC that reflects the difficulty that would make it a reasonable challenge. But ceratin things must be decided in series and not in parallel which why the order of these polls are structured the way the are.

If you assume that the BRCS-playtest version’s DC of 10 is the one to use, any modifications to other mechanics have a greater effect on how that works. If instead these two polls are taken into consideration when determining the default DC then the balance starts to form. Remember that the default DC does not have to be a 10.

10

With all due respect to Derek, I do agree with Duane on this one. I voted for total skill modifier/5 on the assumption that the DC for the domain actions will be modified. From a previous thread I was given the impression that most agreed.

I like raising the importance of a characters abilities over bloodline, but not nearly to the extent of a straight skill check.

11

Originally posted by The Jew@Oct 2 2004, 04:34 PM
[b]With all due respect to Derek, I do agree with Duane on this one. I voted for total skill modifier/5 on the assumption that the DC for the domain actions will be modified. From a previous thread I was given the impression that most agreed.

I like raising the importance of a characters abilities over bloodline, but not nearly to the extent of a straight skill check.[/b]

Jonah, if you only change Domain Modifier Bonuses, and do it well, there is no need to change DCs for the Domain Actions themselves and thus you create as few changes to the BRCSv1.0 as possible, but still come out with the same general result ie reducing the regency reserve

So why tinker with more core rules than you need to? Another advantage is that if you leave many rules alone, it is much easier to project the impact of your proposed changes since you have a baseline to work with. If you change everything, it will be very hard to determine the actual impact. Also, you won’t need to teach the players all over again.:smiley:

12

DC’s are going to have to be changed, their have been to many bonuses added due to the 3.0 skill and feat system. It’s simply a question of much. I didn’t play the original but I didn’t think there were regent focuses or master feats, both of which now need to be taken into account.

I do agree that the numerator should be voted on though

13

At 06:01 AM 10/3/2004 +0200, The Jew wrote:

>DC`s are going to have to be changed, their have been to many bonuses

added due to the 3.0 skill and feat system.

Thats true. Id suggest that the issue is still not a matter of having a

general DC for all actions, but determining how much the DC of particular

actions should change for the purposes of the conversion based on the

modifier that is employed. Let`s say, for example, the "total skill

modifier divided by 5" option is used. The range of skills ranks, ability

mods, synergies, etc. that can influence such a check is pretty broad, but

the /5 part means that most regents probably are going to have modifiers

around +2 to +4 with the occasional modifier as high as +6 or +7. I`d

suggest the DC for the domain actions should remain as close as possible to

the original success numbers with the conversion`s bonuses factored

in. That is, those that were 10 should be 15, those that were 5 should be

10 and those that were 2 should be 5.

The only exceptions are still IMO the Rule and Contest actions, which might

warrant being bumped up a bit, depending on how one views the use of

holding levels as a modifier when determining DC, and the speed with which

the Rule action should work.

Gary

14

Folks,

This is not a sanctioning vote.

My assumption whenever I make a poll or set of polls is that everything is subject to change. What I mean is that the BRCS-playtest was never intended to stand as-is forever. This was even before the announcement of 3.5.

In regards to actions that are character actions not requiring RP (ply trade, adventure, etc.) - they are not domain actions in the context used here and were never intended to be.

The phrasing of the choices (and questions) I’ve used was to be as clear as possible without miring things down in too much detail. For a preliminary narrowing down it is important to not get into too much detail. Not to mention that detail will be interrelated with other issues that haven’t been decided on yet - the other polls I’ve proposes for instance and possible others that may come about because of the discussions on these.

Once things start to take better shape then the detail will come into play. But we need to figure out (without getting ahead of ourselves) where to start.

15

Once things start to take better shape then the detail will come into play. But we need to figure out (without getting ahead of ourselves) where to start.

That’s always a good idea, just always hard to implement when people have preconceived ideas on how to do things. At least the poll though shows that most people are following the plan.

Good way to describe it would be that its like an outline. You first write in the general points you want in the paper and then fill in the details. Sorta like from big picture to small picture. Just that most humans are used to looking at the small picture, so changing to big picture can be difficult. Heheh, if they were used to looking at the big picture, history wouldn’t be so repetitive, nor would humans be so entertaining. So its got its bad and good points.

Osprey,
I like your Alternative 1: it does seem like an interesting idea, as it would follow the 3.5 skill synergy idea. Though, there would likely need to be a limit on how many skills can add to the bonus, as it could easily get very large (especially for guild holdings if we were to use those 8 skills in the BRCS for guild regents). It would also allow us to set a maximum cap on the skill bonuses to the domain action.

As for alternative 2: you are basically setting the skill bonus cap to +2. So with a master feat, the character is only gonna have like +4 or so to a domain action. Heh, even more limiting. Though, if you want to keep players from not building up beyond level 6 (using a base DC of 15) it would be an effective means of doing so. Would really make the game more adventure based then.

16

Guys,
One thing that makes 3.5 so great is the simplicity. I would set the DC’s with whatever seems appropriate, not let previous roll requirements from 2nd edition interfere with our decision. I would stick to the basic 3.5e rules with regard to synergy bonuses. I don’t think it would be necessary to divide by 5, although that might add more realism; as it would also make it more difficult for a beginning player to comprehend, as it would add an exception to the rule. I know that all of us that have played BR for years wouldn’t have any problems with the change, but to a standard D&D player trying to learn BR we wouldn’t want to turn them off with to many exceptions.

This would mean we might have to adjust the DC’s from what is listed in the original rules (make them higher), but then WotC made massive changes to the way skill checks work, so it might be appropriate to change our DC’s. I know several people have had suggestions (including me) about changing the way the rule action works. Maybe making the DC’s of the rule action higher as the level increases would work. Of course, this would be another example of exceptions to the general rule. Oh well!!
B)

17

Originally posted by Bokey@Oct 8 2004, 05:57 PM
[b] Guys,
One thing that makes 3.5 so great is the simplicity. I would set the DC’s with whatever seems appropriate, not let previous roll requirements from 2nd edition interfere with our decision. I would stick to the basic 3.5e rules with regard to synergy bonuses. I don’t think it would be necessary to divide by 5, although that might add more realism; as it would also make it more difficult for a beginning player to comprehend, as it would add an exception to the rule. I know that all of us that have played BR for years wouldn’t have any problems with the change, but to a standard D&D player trying to learn BR we wouldn’t want to turn them off with to many exceptions.

This would mean we might have to adjust the DC’s from what is listed in the original rules (make them higher), but then WotC made massive changes to the way skill checks work, so it might be appropriate to change our DC’s. I know several people have had suggestions (including me) about changing the way the rule action works. Maybe making the DC’s of the rule action higher as the level increases would work. Of course, this would be another example of exceptions to the general rule. Oh well!!
B) [/b]

I agree. Having said that, I also agree with ShiroAmada that a ruler’s skill ranks should not have too great an influence on the action check, unless he’s personally supervising or executing the task.

18

The problem Bokey is that the challenges in normal 3.0 are meant to increase as a player gains in levels. So a 10th level rogue rolling a Move Silently check will most likely face an opponent with a much better listen check, then would a 1st level rogue.

In BR the challenges remain mostly the same. If we stick to a basic skill check, then a 12 level regent is going to be vastly overpowering against a 6th level regent. If the DC is going to be anything but impossible for the 6th level regent, then it will be easy for the 12th level regent. Also the importance of regency will dramatically decrease, as the importance of skills dramatically increases. I honestly don’t see what is so complicated by dividing the total skill modifier by 5 or 10. This is pretty simple.

Also, I don’t think a rulers or Lt’s skills should have any impact on a role unless they are personally supervising it.

19

The Jew schrieb:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2843

>

> The Jew wrote:

> The problem Bokey is that the challenges in normal 3.0 are meant to increase as a player gains in levels. So a 10th level rogue rolling a Move Silently check will most likely face an opponent with a much better listen check, then would a 1st level rogue. In BR the challenges remain mostly the same. If we stick to a basic skill check, then a 12 level regent is going to be vastly overpowering against a 6th level regent. If the DC is going to be anything but impossible for the 6th level regent, then it will be easy for the 12th level regent. Also the importance of regency will dramatically decrease, as the importance of skills dramatically increases. I honestly dont see what is so complicated by dividing the total skill modifier by 5 or 10. This is pretty simple.Also, I dont think a rulers or Lt`s skills should have any impact on a role unless they are personally supervising it.

>

The challenges may remain the same through the game but they need not to.

If your PC´s start as minor regents then likely they will be opposed by

other minor regents in their vicinity - later when they have achieved to

accumulate more power/holdings/RP then they will be opposed by more

powerful regents who would not have wasted their time with them before.

The challenges do not remain mostly the same - it is a large difference

if a minor law holder spends a handful RP to oppose your intendet action

or if Prince Avan or any other major player according to the region

personally takes an interest and uses the resources of his vast realm to

raise the DC of your action to a point at which you can´t succeed.

bye

Michael

20

Folks note the specific phrasing of the poll question;

How Should Regent performed Domain actions be resolved?

This was intended to be the regent personally handling an action and not the resolving of a domain action overall.

I had reconized that there would be differences between the regent himself performing the action or if his Lt did it. The methodology for incorporating skill ranks/modifiers should be different for these different cases. But that is something for future discussions, after the basics are decided. Assume that the regent is personally performing the action for the first set of polls. After that we can wittle down the other details.