But.
I found myself constantly frustrated by some of the mechanics.
1) It seemed altogeather too easy to increase the size of a realm.
2) There seemed to be no reason for a regent not to pursue a total monopoly over trade in his realm.
3) Starting bloodline score proved to be a huge advantage, which made players very poorly balanced one with the other.
Anyone else experience this?
There is, in fact, no reason whatsoever for a regent not to pursue a total guild monopoly in his and every nearby realm. If there is no strong guildmaster to stop him, this is a wonderful supply of gold and power, regardless of whether you are a Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, or Guilder.
DMs through their NPCs need only make consequences (such as trade embargos or assassination attempts) for those who attempt to end free trade in their realms if they do not want every realm to become a socialist state.
Besides if they take over the guilds their realms suffer for actions. Its better for the realm in the landed regent has his three actions, the temple, their three, the guild their three and so on. A realm that gets 9 actions can do much much more than one only getting three. :D Very shortsighted... I'd take actions over some excess goldbars any day.
If he takes over the guilds, he will suffer for his actions - but only in the short term. In the long run, there is very little a merchant can do to oppose the ruler of the realm, and while squabbles over power balance between state and merchants are satisfyingly historically accurate, they are a little one-sided.
The basic problem is that, if you are military minded, gold supply is really the only thing that limits the size of your army. Taking over the trade of your region may cost you actions in the short run, but only costs you regency points to defend once you have it.
Alterntavely, you can bind a vassel to do it for you. I threw everything I felt I reasonably could at the players to stop them, but it only really slowed them down.
I was using the original rules. Do the 3rd ed rules changes anything beyond the minimum needed to convert to 3rd ed?
Of course it does depend on what the DM allows.
I was using the original rules. Do the 3rd ed rules changes anything beyond the minimum needed to convert to 3rd ed?
The 3E domain rules do make domain maintenance a little cheaper for most realms, and simplifys the income system.
Provinces now bring in 1 GB/level
Guilds and Temples make 2/3 GB/level
Law holdings make 1/3 GB/level
Maintenance of military units is 1/4 muster cost if they are garrisoned (in home province) or 1/2 muster cost if they are in the field.
This should make it possible to maintain a much larger army for defence and it only gets expensive if you go to war.
Guilders can do a lot to oppose a landed regent who gets uppity. They are probably richer than more landed regents, so they can hire a vast army of mercenaries of kick some noble butt. Or they could just assassinate the greedy noble.
Of course it does depend on what the DM allows.
But in Anuire most guilders aren't noticably richer than the nobles. If anything, the reverse is true. There are also logistical problems in getting the mercenaries to the appropriate country, while the noble, in the event of war, can raise the Guilders holdings with their own troops, which start off in the disputed territory.
Assasination is pretty good. But it's always difficult to simply kill off a PC, and failed attempts tend to encourage a reign of terror rather than a revaluation of tactics.
But in Anuire most guilders aren't noticably richer than the nobles. If anything, the reverse is true. There are also logistical problems in getting the mercenaries to the appropriate country, while the noble, in the event of war, can raise the Guilders holdings with their own troops, which start off in the disputed territory.
.
That is because the Ruins of Empire and such only list the present treasurey not the actual income being generated. In fact Ruins ofEmpire didn't have the rule introduced in Cities of the Sun stating that the number of sea trade routes a port province could have was equal to the number of land trade routes (effectively doubling their income).
In every game I ran (or played in) the guilders (2nd ed thieves) quickly out sone the province rulers as far as net income went. The guilders didn't ahve to maintain armies, hence their domain maintenance costs were substantiall lower, they generated more RP (got it from trade routes too) and this could be spent to influence domain actions..
In every game I played in the 2 most powerful classes were the thieves and priests. Thieves had control of the realm's money and priests had control of the realm's populace, especially if it was in one of the provinces with a state religion (see Book of Priestcraft for how much an impact this has). Plus those 2 classes recieved a "free" domain action (I prefered to call them "bonus" actions since they had a cost).
Guilders are the power behind the throne and if played with that in mind they are an extremely powereful regent. If one want to insist on trying to play head-to-head with a province ruler style wby using troops they will end up losing. But if peddling influence and banking the province ruler the guilder can acquire more and more as timegoes on and the province ruler will protect his dearly loved "banker" with all of the assets he can muster.
Nobility is a good argument. Unfortunately, roughly 1/4 of the regents in Anuire aren't noticably noble. They are wizard's realms, cities of thieves, theocracies, etc.
If he takes over the guilds, he will suffer for his actions - but only in the short term. In the long run, there is very little a merchant can do to oppose the ruler of the realm, and while squabbles over power balance between state and merchants are satisfyingly historically accurate, they are a little one-sided.
A noble regent should be unlikely to wish to go into trade, since they usually see mercantile affairs as beneath them. In our games the aristocracy tends to take a dim view of noblemen and noblewoman dabbling in trade.
Besides if they take over the guilds their realms suffer for actions. Its better for the realm in the landed regent has his three actions, the temple, their three, the guild their three and so on. A realm that gets 9 actions can do much much more than one only getting three. Very shortsighted... I'd take actions over some excess goldbars any day.
Yes but in Brechtur the nobles are guilders and the warrior types are looked down upon as being mere pawns. In Khinasi guilders are valuable, while outright thieves are frowned upon. In Khinasi there is more nobility than in most other places. In Rjuirik and Vosgaard, well, guilders and thieves are rare (and most beaten up).
Decent point about the number of actions, but if a regent has more gold then he can perform more realm level actions and hence get more bang for the buck as well as buy larger armies and gain more "forced" vassals, effectively yielding more bang for the buck.
But in general the best domain is the one run by a triad of province ruler (warrior style), guilder, and priest with the silent wizard in the background "just in case". Players that keep trying to gain one-up on everyone around them soon end up in a state of disarray while those that cooperate end up thriving.
Taxes come from somewhere, and a noble that didn't tax their guilds to the max shouldn't be in power.
Then obviously the landed regent wasn't doing their job.
Taxes come from somewhere, and a noble that didn't tax their guilds to the max shouldn't be in power.
So if the province ruler taxes the guilders to the max - how likely are they (the guilders) to pony up some extra money for the province ruler to raise troops to defend his land or declare war on a neighbor? Taxing to the max sill only get some much GB and the guilder will end up with more money in his treasury.
That is why IMO the single most important domain action is diplomacy.
If the province ruler decides to destroy the guilds thenhe must declare war on himself and occupy his own territory which has much worse longterm effects (can you say rebelion?)
Higher taxes translate into worse domain morale and leadstowards rebelion if not mitigated by other actions/circumstances.
As soon as landed regents start taxing their guilds to the max, the first thing that happens is that the guilder gets upset and spends a lot of cash to hire the best assassin they can find. I've seen it happen in so many BR pbem's that it isn't funny any more...
Diplomacy? Why waste the action? Heck, what is wrong with a decree action? A regent declares that all guilders pay 5 GB this round. Simple as that. Then they can squeeze for more through their law holdings if they wish as an afterthought.
Another thing that people seem to forget is that these funds go through the regents "fingers" before the GBs ever see the inside of a guild's treasury. There are import duties and fees, tolls, and taxes that all get taken off before a merchant is allowed to sell their wares in a land. Therefore, guilders can't really prevent decrees like that.
The same principle can be applied to temple holdings too - regents can decree extra taxes, which come out of a peasant's pockets before they ever see the inside of a tithe box; peasants won't pony up the alms if they know they also have to give up their food come fall ( which, in this case, are what those GBs represent ).
I've witnessed games where the regent and realm holders take back seats to the "holding regents" - which should never happen. These are the Lords of the Realm and, as such, are the divine kings of the land - literally. Few should flippantly treat them as such, even if they do rebel against it because of their draconian ways.
In the same principle, assassins should be few and far between, even if guilders manage to scrap up enough money to pay for one silly enough to attack a blooded person.
So if the province ruler taxes the guilders to the max - how likely are they (the guilders) to pony up some extra money for the province ruler to raise troops to defend his land or declare war on a neighbor? Taxing to the max sill only get some much GB and the guilder will end up with more money in his treasury.
Why not? Historically, this happened. Impost and Tallage.
So why not in fantasy too? Heck, we today complain of taxes - and I know for myself I could do with less of them. But we do it anyway, so why wouldn't the fantasy citizens not do so too?
Sure, grumbling will happen, but I doubt - unless its really significant round after round - that a province's loyalty will change drastically as a result of it.
That's why rulers employ chamberlains and taxmen - to figure out just how much those guilds are making and then taxing them appropriately through decrees.