Domain rules

Dungeons & Dragons BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
1

Hello.

The Atlas Team will real soon begin to work on the realm statistics, including the realm economics.

The problem is that the realm economics rules (i.e. regency collection and maintenance costs) requires a lot of work. While this is fine for a player, I think it’ll force the DM to do a lot of administration (if he wants to be accurate and not cheat, that is)

What I am asking for is simplicity, even at the expense of realism.

I think the domain income collection rules are really simple AND good. In contrast, the regency collection system is based on skills. While highly realistic, it does require the DM to figure out the skill-levels of a regent, something that would probably be part of a full-character write-up. Unfortunately such full-character write-ups are not scheduled to be part of the d20 Atlas. (Instead, they will probably be part of an upcoming Book of Scions.)

So, is there a simple (but standardized and agreed-upon) DM-way of calculating regency income collection that we could use in the d20 Atlas?

The same goes for the domain and army maintenance cost system. The realm descriptions simply won’t contain all the information necessary for an ACCURATE calculation of realm economic figures.

What to do?

(Oh, besides these issues I think chapter five on ruling a domain is very well done :wink:

2

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion
> [mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM]On Behalf Of mhelles

> So, is there a simple (but standardized and agreed-upon) DM-way
> of calculating regency income collection that we could use in the
> d20 Atlas?

Well sure there is: that from the 2e book. Regents collect RP from a set of
holdings they qualify for based on class up to the level of their bloodline
score.

The rub comes in “that they qualify for based on class.” There is a
standarization (give in the tables in the original Rulebook, but the nature
of classes has largely changed between 2e and 3e. This has let to much
debate on what holdings multi-classed character should draw RP from. I
suspect that I can anticipate much of the range of opinion with the
following classification:

1.) One character/One Class. This school holds that at the domain level, you
can really only do one thing well, and that multiclassed Regents must select
one of their classes as a Primary class. Once that is done, proceed to
Tables from the Rulebook, and collect RP from those holdings. Opponents of
this school complain that it tosses or diminishes a key aspect of the 3e
upgrade. Strengths is that it remains as close as possible to the original
rules, and is therefore as close to universally understood and easily used
as possible.

2.) All Classes Evenly. This school holds that since a key feature of 3e is
ease of multiclassing, this feature should apply on the domain level as
well. Regents proceed to the Rulebook, find the holdings that apply to all
character classes, and collect RP from all those holdings. Opponents of this
school complain that it is too generous; restrictions on multiclassing in 2e
were an important part of domain-scale game mechanics/balance which is lost
by this school. The school counters that Bloodline score is still a hard
limit on RP collection, and that this should be sufficient. Strengths are
that it follows as close as possible with the 3e rules and thus is easiest
for new players to understand.

3.) All Classes, with Limitations. This school tries balance between the two
extremes above, but usually to the statisfaction of none. The school holds
that RP should come from all classes as in the All Classes Evenly school,
but that balance/separation valued by the One Character/One Class school can
be provided through a separate mechanic. This seems to be the school adopted
by the writers of the BRSC, for obvious reasons. The complaint, however, is
that in doing so the rules for RP collection have become needlessly baroque.

I think the real question is/should be: can we come up with a different
“separate mechanic” for school #3 which can be agreed upon. This can then be
listed in the BRCS as an Optional Rule and still leave proponents of School
2 happy. If we can come up with such a mechanic, then we streamline RP
collection rules for both the BRCS and the Atlas, which can then be written
up according to School 2.

I personally think that a good way to refocus on the importance of classes
at the domain level is to use class-specific skills as the appropriate skill
check (rather than Administrate) on the Create Province/Holding Action, the
Rule Province/Holding Action, and the Contest Province/Holding Action (which
I call the CRC actions). Thus, the skill check to use a CRC action on Guilds
would require a check based on skills that rogues are most likely to
possess. Skill checks for CRC actions involving Temples are based on skills
that priests are more likely to possess. Etc.

I still think that the Domain Skills concept that I proposed earlier would
be the best concept for this. Note also that as I laid it out, it actually
DOESN`T have to increase the total number of skills over which characters
spend their skill points. It does change somewhat the choices that
characters who are functioning at the domain level make when they level up.
For example a rogue who had a domain might be more inclined to spend some
skill points in Knowledge(Geography) rather than Pick Pocket if it improved
his Guildcraft score. A rogue without a domain would wiegh these skills
differently. The concept is reasonably simple mathematically (requirely only
the ability to average a few numbers) and would change only when a charater
levels up.

Mark V.

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

3

So what you’re suggesting is this:

The default system to calculate regency income is to use the character class like in the 2e with the full benefit of multi-classing. (I believe this is school 2 above.) I don’t see the multi-class benefit as too much of a problem as not many regents in Birthright are actually multi-classed in different domains, e.g. cleric/wizard, rogue/figther, etc.

An optional rule (or rule variant) can then suggest the use of skills (or some other mechanism) for regency income. (School 3, I think.)

To me, that sound’s perfect. The d20 Atlas would then probably settle for school 2. But DMs and players that favor realism over simplicity can then choose school 3.

Brilliant.

4

mhelles,
Don’t look only towards the NPCs when you figure out how to come up with a way to make RP collection easier (and balanced). I guarantee that there will be more players choosing to be multi-classed when switching to 3rd edition rules, the overall benefits are just too great and it is relatively easy to accomplish vice the way it was in 2nd edition. Another factor to be considered is the use of prestige classes and haow they would factor into RP collection. Face it, whether you (or I) like it or not prestige classes are here to stay. They didn’t exist in 2nd edition but they are abundant in 3rd edition and hence we need to be able to address them also.

Overall I think that a skill based collection system, usng skills that favor certain classes for certain holding types, would be the easiest way to address all of the permutations that occured as a result of the game-mechanics changes in 3rd edition and also will handle any future changes seemlessly.

The problem (or question) as Trevyr pointed out is determining what skills to use. The system he put up for discussion is not a bad one, essentially it puts the calculations up front instead of during the collection period. Averaging various skills into a single aggregate one. The “extra” work still exists though.

As we pointed out when the playtest document was put out that the whole domain section was rather rough and we definitely knew that the skills selection/combination issue needed work. I thought that was pointed out by Doom very early on, but I could be mistaken.:slight_smile:

5

> irdeggman wrote:
> The problem (or question) as Trevyr pointed out is determining what skills
to use. The system he put up for discussion is not a bad one, essentially it
puts the calculations up front instead of during the collection period.
Averaging various skills into a single aggregate one. The “extra” work
still exists though.
>

This is only half the problem. A bigger issue IMO, is that the current
system is over-complex. The various percentages of the full RP income from a
province that characters at various skill levels can use is bewildering and
unworkable without a spreadsheet.

/Carl

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

6

[b]Originally posted by Birthright-L

   > irdeggman wrote:

> The problem (or question) as Trevyr pointed out is determining what skills
to use. The system he put up for discussion is not a bad one, essentially it
puts the calculations up front instead of during the collection period.
Averaging various skills into a single aggregate one. The “extra” work
still exists though.
>

This is only half the problem. A bigger issue IMO, is that the current
system is over-complex. The various percentages of the full RP income from a
province that characters at various skill levels can use is bewildering and
unworkable without a spreadsheet.

/Carl

[/b]

Agreed without a doubt, but back to the comment that it was put out for discussin in a very rough form without a lot of playtesting done to check it out.

The percentages were inserted to reflect a progression of getting better at ruling the more you put into it (i.e., ranks in skills). I’m not certain that people have a problem with this concept as much as with the claculations involded due to attempting to capture this learning curve. Maybe the discussion should focus on one or the other of these issues instead of “it sucks”.:slight_smile:

7

I understand that the rulesbook is a draft. Which is exactly why I am commenting on it :wink:

I just want a simple, working domain system, with more easy-to-use components like the domain income system. I definitely don’t want a system that requires an entire spreadsheet for each domain.

My suggestion above is simple and workable. I love prestige classes and multi-classing, and, of course, the rules should be able to handle them. One simple way to do this could be to grant full RP income for any classes (like in 2e); prestige classes can then be ignored or be beneficial at the DMs option (the rulebook can provide some guidelines for evaluating prestige classes). Players that multi-class into a fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue are more than welcome; although they can collect regency from four different holding types, they’ll have four times as many enemies as well. In Birthright, I actually think that specialization is an advantage (but then, that probably depends on how the DM runs the game). I agree that a skill-based system is probably more realistic, but it does require more work.

As stated earlier, I also think the domain maintenance costs system requires too much administration. Most realms will have a myriad of bridges (diferent types), roads (different terrains), taxed trade routes (different agreements), armies (in both home and away provinces), etc. all of which has a different maintenance cost.

One enourmous simplification could be that the maintenance costs for all non-living things (like bridges, roads, etc.) is included in the province net income. But they do cost GBs to build, of course. If the DM thinks PCs begin to exploit this (e.g. by building roads everywhere), s/he can add an extra cost (again, we can provide some guidelines) and/or think of an adventure/event that somehow discourages players from doing this.

I think armies should have a fixed payroll whether they are in their home province or not, like in the 2e.

Etc.

I think these simplifications are not too unrealistic. Most importantly, they do make domain administration a lot easier.

Again, please read these comments as constructive suggestions for improving the rulebook. After all, I think we all want the best rulebook possible! :wink:

8

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Stephen Starfox wrote:
> This is only half the problem. A bigger issue IMO, is that the current
> system is over-complex. The various percentages of the full RP income from a
> province that characters at various skill levels can use is bewildering and
> unworkable without a spreadsheet.

It should be simplified. You should be able to collect half regency from
a holding by first level, which means the threshold for that should be 8
or less, Id go with 6, on that little table 5-10. Then full collection should happen at a total of 10. So a character could be collecting full RP at 2nd level, like now, but wouldnt have to max out the applicable
skills at 1st level to collect half, so he could save some skill points
for something adventure-useful if he wanted.

You should note whether skill focus counts for this, by the way. It
should, which means the threholds should be adjusted up a little unless
you`re fine with full collection at 1st level for someone willing to
expend the feat.

Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

9

Let`s try this.

[b]

-----Original Message-----
From: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion
[mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM]On Behalf Of mhelles

My suggestion above is simple and workable. I love prestige
classes and multi-classing, and, of course, the rules should be
able to handle them. One simple way to do this could be to grant
full RP income for any classes (like in 2e); prestige classes can
then be ignored or be beneficial at the DMs option (the rulebook
can provide some guidelines for evaluating prestige classes).
Players that multi-class into a fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue are
more than welcome; although they can collect regency from four
different holding types, they`ll have four times as many enemies
> as well. In Birthright, I actually think that specialization is
> an advantage (but then, that probably depends on how the DM runs
> the game). I agree that a skill-based system is probably more
> realistic, but it does require more work.
[/b]

I hope that worked for you board-readers. I can never remember whether I
need to use the forward slash or the backward slash…

Anyway, I agree that it makes most sense to step back and return to RP
collection rules on the basis of class. The simplest approach to dealing
with prestige classes is just to say that they do not increase the scope of
RP collection unless explicitly stated (by the PrC description or the DM).
You dont really NEED PrCs to draw RP, since all characters must start out with regular classes. And it doesnt eliminate the choice to take a PrC,
just reweights the option of taking another basic class rather than PrC for
PC`s operating at the Domain Scale.

Its relatively easy to rewrite or add notations to any PrCs that you think
should increase RP collection scope, but I dont think its usually going to
be necessary (since if collection is based on class rather than skill then a
single level of a class is sufficient to earn full collection). Further, it
adds the interesting possibility of PrCs designed especially for PCs
operating at the Domain Scale. For example, a Guilder prestige class (I
don`t remember if one is included in the BRCS) might gain RP collection from
Trade Routes as one of its benefits. This would restore a feature of the
origial rules while (appropriately) increasing its cost. Simiilarly, a
Chevalier prestige class might gain RP from the number of units of Knights
commanded.

Mark V.

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

10

[b]Originally posted by DanMcSorley

You should note whether skill focus counts for this, by the way. It
should, which means the threholds should be adjusted up a little unless
you`re fine with full collection at 1st level for someone willing to
expend the feat.

Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu
[/b]

Skill focus doesn’t increase your ranks in a skill. It gives a bonus to checks just like the character’s applicable ability modifier does. While I understand what you are getting at, it just doesn’t seem to fit in with the 3rd ed game mechanics. I mean counting skill focus as an increase in ranks - this would also mean that a character couldn’t exceed his max ranks due to class if it counted as such. If the system was specifying a max adjusted modifier, it would also seem to be a little out of whack since it would be rewarding those with high ability scores instead of those who have spent time “studying” and “appying themselves” at getting better at a certain skill. It could work, it just needs some more thought as to the ramifications it could have other game mechanics.:slight_smile:

11

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, irdeggman wrote:
> Skill focus doesn`t increase your ranks in a skill. It gives a bonus

to checks just like the characters applicable ability modifier does. > While I understand what you are getting at, it just doesnt seem to
fit in with the 3rd ed game mechanics. I mean counting skill focus as
an increase in ranks - this would also mean that a character couldn`t
> exceed his max ranks due to class if it counted as such.

Forget the ranks, they dont matter. I dont want skill focus to improve
ranks. The number on the chart /shouldnt/ monitor ranks, it should monitor how good you are at the relevant skills. That includes a skill focus feat (extra training) and relevant attribute modifiers (natural
aptitude`).

If the system was specifying a max adjusted modifier, it would also
seem to be a little out of whack since it would be rewarding those
with high ability scores instead of those who have spent time
“studying” and “appying themselves” at getting better at a certain
skill.

Shouldn`t they be rewarded? To pick a random example, a person with a 18
charisma and no diplomacy ranks is going to be a better regent than
someone with a 10 charisma and 2 skill ranks.

Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

12

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, daniel mcsorley wrote:

> Shouldn`t they be rewarded? To pick a random example, a person with a 18

charisma and no diplomacy ranks is going to be a better regent than
someone with a 10 charisma and 2 skill ranks.

Agreed. I`m still not too comfortable with the whole “skills determine RP
collection” idea – but if you are going to use it, then the number you
use in the calculation should definitely be the final total modifier from
all sources (including magic items and racial bonuses or penalties, in
addition to those things already mentioned), not just raw ranks.

Ryan Caveney

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

13

I would prefer it if a single skill could be used to determine a character`s
ability to rule each type of holding. Here is a proposal. It is very similar
to having a class prerequisite, but does allow characters to cross-train to
gain this ability at high level. If a minimum skill bonus is set (say skill
bonus +5), it also makes it somewhat more problematic for multi-classed
charcters.

Guild: Appraise
A class skill for bards and rogues, this is the ability to know what is
worth how much where - the very most basic skill for comerce. Sure, most
rogues/bards will have many other skills as well, depending on their exact
commercial activity. A thief will have theif skills, a craftsman craft
skills, a merchant merchantile skills. But they all need to know the rules
of comerce - governed by appraise.

Temple: Diplomacy andthe ability to cast divine spells
Class skill for bards, clerics, druids, monks, paladins, and rogues. But
only clerics, druids and paladins ever cast divine spells.

Source: Knowledge (Arcana) and ability to cast arcane spells
Class skill for bards, clerics, monks, sorcerers, and wizards, but only
bards sorcerers, and wizards can cast arcane spells.

Law: Ride
While ride skill might seem spurious, the most important distinction between
commoner and noble is the ability to ride, and ride well. Riding ability
confers prestige. Ride is also the only skill that a suitable set of classes
have as a class skill: barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger.

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

14

----- Original Message -----
From: “Stephen Starfox” <stephen_starfox@YAHOO.SE>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 6:40 AM

> A bigger issue IMO, is that the current system is over-complex.
> The various percentages of the full RP income from a
> province that characters at various skill levels can use is
> bewildering and unworkable without a spreadsheet.

Thats why no matter what becomes official, semi-official, or pseudo-official, I prefer to just eyeball which holdings a character can collect full, half, or no regency for. A simple paragraph describing the exemplar principle would be sufficient to explain it. It would not be hard and fast, but apparently Spot checks arent hard and fast either.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

15

Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, daniel mcsorley wrote:
>
>>Shouldn`t they be rewarded? To pick a random example, a person with a 18

charisma and no diplomacy ranks is going to be a better regent than
someone with a 10 charisma and 2 skill ranks.

Agreed. I`m still not too comfortable with the whole “skills determine RP
>collection” idea – but if you are going to use it, then the number you
>use in the calculation should definitely be the final total modifier from
>all sources (including magic items and racial bonuses or penalties, in
>addition to those things already mentioned), not just raw ranks.
>
And if we limit collection of RP by skill of regent, then we should also
limit the collection of GB by the same logic :wink:
bye
Michael Romes

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

16

On the collection of RP:

Why can`t each character be assigned 150% collection potential? If he was a law regent, he might collect 100% from Law holdings and 50% Guild holdings. A Paladin might choose 100% Law and 50% Guild. A cleric might take 100% temple and 50% law.

Wizards as always bite the regency bullet - and just collect 100% source. I suppose you could give them 150% and they could do 100% Source, 25% Law & 25% Guild?

The base percentages should be fluid during construction. FREX: Haelyn`s Clerics might take 75% Law and 75% Temple? Harold Khorien might take 100% Magic and 50% Law, while a wizard/priest regent of Medoere might (unwisely) take 50% Law, 50% Temple, and 50% Source.

This allows the player some control but divorces the process from all of the problems associated with basing it on endlessly variable classes, PrCs, and multiclassing?

Eosin

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

17

At 04:59 PM 3/26/2003 -0500, Ryan Caveney wrote:

>I`m still not too comfortable with the whole “skills determine RP
>collection” idea – but if you are going to use it, then the number you
>use in the calculation should definitely be the final total modifier from
>all sources (including magic items and racial bonuses or penalties, in
>addition to those things already mentioned), not just raw ranks.

To me this should really be one or the other. Characters should collect RP
based on their character classes, based their ranks in particular
skills. Combining the two concepts leads to a rather muddled system that
makes the restrictions rather anemic. It seems more sensible to just open
up RP collection to any character regardless of skill, class, etc. if one
is going to allow for both methods at once.

Having said that, the problem with the skill based approach, IMO, is that
it is arguable on many levels what skills should apply to which domain
feature, and what ranks would be required to order to collect regency. I
could see an argument for several different skills for each of the
holdings. An argument could be made that Sense Motive is the paramount
skill in collecting regency, and that it should allow regency collection
from all types of holdings. At what point should ranks be an
issue? 5? 10? 15? Should different ranks allow for different
percentages of RP collection? Should feats that improve skills influence
how much RP one can collect? There are too many permutations possible, one
could write a whole chapter on the possibilities, and none in particular
strikes me as standing out amongst the rest as being demonstrably superior
to any other. Combining a skill based approach with a character class
based approach adds a level or three of more options to how one could view
RP collection. Character class alone as the basis for RP collection has
the benefit of simplicity if nothing else.

Gary

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

18

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Eosin the Red wrote:

> The base percentages should be fluid during construction. FREX:
> Haelyn`s Clerics might take 75% Law and 75% Temple? Harold Khorien

might take 100% Magic and 50% Law, while a wizard/priest regent of
Medoere might (unwisely) take 50% Law, 50% Temple, and 50% Source.

I really, really like this approach!

It is vastly superior to nearly anything else Ive ever heard suggested on the topic. If RP collection is to be limited based on holding type, this is definitely the way to do it. Personally, I am still partial to "everyone gets 100% of everything", but if I were to change from that Id
change to this.

One question: can you change your mind later? If so, what penalties, if
any, would the changer face? One way I can see to do it is to spend one
domain turn collecting regency using the lower of the new numbers and the
old numbers.

Thanks, Eosin! This is immensely better than multiclassing.

Ryan Caveney

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

19

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Gary wrote:

> To me this should really be one or the other. Characters should
> collect RP based on their character classes, based their ranks in
> particular skills. Combining the two concepts leads to a rather
> muddled system

I agree. (Youre missing an "OR" after the comma, yes? Well, an "XOR", really, but I dont know how widely known that operator is.
And an “on” after the second “based”, but that`s less critical.)

that makes the restrictions rather anemic. It seems more sensible to
just open up RP collection to any character regardless of skill,
class, etc. if one is going to allow for both methods at once.

Again, agreed.

An argument could be made that Sense Motive is the paramount skill in
collecting regency, and that it should allow regency collection from
all types of holdings.

The same could be said for Diplomacy.

There are too many permutations possible, one could write a whole
chapter on the possibilities, and none in particular strikes me as
standing out amongst the rest as being demonstrably superior

Agreed! There`s just too much to tune.

Ryan Caveney

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

20

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
> And if we limit collection of RP by skill of regent, then we should also
> limit the collection of GB by the same logic :wink:

No, thats blatently stupid. In the original rules, GB collection was limited by nothing, RP collection by class. The skill RP limit is an attempt to replace the latter in 3e, and the former doesnt need replacing
at all.

Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.