Ruins of Empire (Inactive)

Game Master EltonJ

Where do you guys stand on Mur-Kilad?

Usually on its southern border.

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

Where do you guys stand on Mur-Kilad?

Usually on its southern border.

Elf humor?

osprey424 wrote:

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

Where do you guys stand on Mur-Kilad?

Usually on its southern border.

Elf humor?

I'm practicing Dwarf humor - in preparation for negotiations.

Ok, so, I'm a few days behind. Thanksgiving will do that to a man. First, did we ever decide if Vindictive Bastard works for a CG paladin? Or should I just ignore the alignment requirement entirely?

On starting equipment, instead of +1 armor, can I start with armor that's only masterwork, but made of a special material? I'm thinking specifically of mithral in my case, but others might be interested for other reasons.

So...Coeranys. 7 provinces seems like a lot. Any pointers for someone new to the system?

So...Coeranys. 7 provinces seems like a lot. Any pointers for someone new to the system?

Yes, get thee onto Discord to chitchat with us.

Ok, so, I'm a few days behind. Thanksgiving will do that to a man. First, did we ever decide if Vindictive Bastard works for a CG paladin? Or should I just ignore the alignment requirement entirely?

On starting equipment, instead of +1 armor, can I start with armor that's only masterwork, but made of a special material? I'm thinking specifically of mithral in my case, but others might be interested for other reasons.

So...Coeranys. 7 provinces seems like a lot. Any pointers for someone new to the system?

FYI I believe in Birthright, elves forge mithral and dwarves forge adamantine (which they call moraskorr). So mithral armor would probably be elven-made armor. I can imagine a number of suits of mithral armor and weapons have been captured by humans from the battlefield over the years.

Re. your realm: More provinces do make for larger borders, which of course you always want to be secure through diplomacy or military assets, but otherwise shouldn't overwhelm you.

1. Best advice for new landed rulers is to get your Law levels up to at least half your Province level in each province so you have better loyalty and more ability to levy extra taxes there should you so choose.

2. Ruling low level provinces is always easier than high level provinces, but high level provinces have better GB income potential from the guilds there, because trade routes can be more valuable if the guilds are higher level.

3. Try to use Diplomacy to get some tribute from any trade routes that start/end in your lands. 1 GB per trade route is a fairly typical amount to ask for in my experience. Just remember that trade routes into foreign lands will also mean the other landed regent will want similar tribute as well. Make sure the guilder gets something for themselves in the end, too, or it won't be worth doing.

4. I have found that Diplomacy with the guilds and temples in your lands that you want to support is wise. Arranging for stable, regular GB tribute is preferable to using your Law holdings for seizures (which is essentially levying seasonal tolls, tariffs, and special taxes on targeted guilds and temples in provinces where you have Law holdings. Your seizures are taken out of their base income in those provinces.). When a guild or temple regent agrees to certain tributes, they tend to be less resentful, and the regular tribute is a predictable expense as well, which is easier to manage than random losses each season.

5. ALWAYS keep an eye on your Treasury. It's very easy to let your expenses mount up close to your income, and then you don't have any spending money left to grow and build things. Worse, when you go to war all of your garrisoned troops become active and cost double their garrisoned maintenance. You can lose money very quickly during big wars.

For all Law Regents:
Remember that the main power of Law holdings is to support or oppose Guild and Temple holdings in their province.

This is your primary bargaining power with Guild and Temple regents. With nothing more than a decree, you can decide to always support certain guild/temple domain actions in your realm, always oppose them, or remain neutral and not interfere. Support means adding your law levels as a bonus to their domain actions when allowed, and opposing means the opposite, subtracting your Law levels from their D20 rolls for many types of domain actions. Law holdings also incur a penalty on Espionage actions in a province, unless the law regent intentionally prevents that.

dwarves forge adamantine (which they call moraskorr).

Which is both an absolute secret, and not shared.

osprey424 wrote:

dwarves forge adamantine (which they call moraskorr).

Which is both an absolute secret, and not shared.

much like the name Moradin and the fact that there is a dwarven pantheon

For all Law Regents:

Remember that the main power of Law holdings is to support or oppose Guild and Temple holdings in their province.

This is your primary bargaining power with Guild and Temple regents. With nothing more than a decree, you can decide to always support certain guild/temple domain actions in your realm, always oppose them, or remain neutral and not interfere. Support means adding your law levels as a bonus to their domain actions when allowed, and opposing means the opposite, subtracting your Law levels from their D20 rolls for many types of domain actions. Law holdings also incur a penalty on Espionage actions in a province, unless the law regent intentionally prevents that.

Hey Osprey, can you throw down a reference for this.

Law Holdings can make claims against Temples and Guilds for GB (pg 43-44 in the Rulebook).

In several instances "[t]he province ruler and any regent with a similar holding in the province can support or oppose the action by adding or subtracting the level of their holdings," but this doesn't allow cross-holding types to get involved. That quote I pulled from the "Rule" action on page 59, but there is similar wording in some other actions.

Am I missing a quote where Law holdings can do what Province holdings do on cross-holding actions?

Also, the Decree Action on page 53 states "A decree cannot affect another regent's domain in any
way,"

Alright, so we're 1 week out from getting this thing going, right?

osprey424 wrote:

For all Law Regents:

Remember that the main power of Law holdings is to support or oppose Guild and Temple holdings in their province.

This is your primary bargaining power with Guild and Temple regents. With nothing more than a decree, you can decide to always support certain guild/temple domain actions in your realm, always oppose them, or remain neutral and not interfere. Support means adding your law levels as a bonus to their domain actions when allowed, and opposing means the opposite, subtracting your Law levels from their D20 rolls for many types of domain actions. Law holdings also incur a penalty on Espionage actions in a province, unless the law regent intentionally prevents that.

Hey Osprey, can you throw down a reference for this.

Law Holdings can make claims against Temples and Guilds for GB (pg 43-44 in the Rulebook).

In several instances "[t]he province ruler and any regent with a similar holding in the province can support or oppose the action by adding or subtracting the level of their holdings," but this doesn't allow cross-holding types to get involved. That quote I pulled from the "Rule" action on page 59, but there is similar wording in some other actions.

Am I missing a quote where Law holdings can do what Province holdings do on cross-holding actions?

Also, the Decree Action on page 53 states "A decree cannot affect another regent's domain in any
way,"

So these are specific changes from the 2e Rulebook, which I think you are referencing, to the BRCS rules - where Law holdings largely replace the role that Province levels played in a lot of 2e actions in supporting or opposing other holding actions.

When you read the BRCS Chapter 5 (Domains), you will find under each individual domain action exactly how other holdings might support or oppose actions with their levels.

AND of course any regent with a holding a province can typically support or oppose actions there with Regency Points (RP) as well.

I posted a PDF cop of the Ch6 DOmain rules on our Discord chat, in case you can't get to the website to download for yourself.

EDIT: I meant I posted the Chapter 5 Domain Rules on the Discord server.

So Province owners lose a MASSIVE amount of influence in their Realms! There are Realms in Cerilia that become virtually unmanageable by the nominal Ruler with this change alone.

Regents who couldn’t participate in bidding on an action before, can under this rule set.

If we use these rules, it changes a LOT of my core assumptions, and changes what my mind thinks is a decent Realm to run.

I’d hate to be running Mieres, Brosengae, Roesone, Elinie, or Coeranys under these rules, at least early on. Those realms don’t own much of their Law, so “power” that I think of as being part of the Realm’s ruler, isn’t actually theirs.

Those realms now seem less attractive due to the attitude adjustment stuff if there are hostile regents in your Provinces, especially of Law holdings! I suppose I’ll have to see it working to decide if the system is well designed.

I can't get on the Discord server...:(

I can't get on the Discord server...:(

Did you get my Friend request? Or anyone else’s? We can invite you to the Server.

check your PMs Critz

Just a reminder:

Everyone is allied to one another in this game. I want you to work together. I know seven players is a lot, but I'm not running a PvP game. If I were doing that I'd take on more players and open other regions for players to take whatever realm they want.

I also want to stress that this is a game. And I reserve the right to stop the game in case you can't work together. The adventure modules I plan to run stress teamwork among regents.

In this Ruins of Empire play by post, I'd like the players to work together for the common good. However, the Anuirean Empire is in shambles and the whole of Anuire is Chaotic Neutral at best, and Chaotic Evil at worst (just see the section on the Five Peaks in Ruins of Empire).

I know you are taking variant realms with different alignments. I know each of you have your own goals for your realms. But D&D and Pathfinder are about cooperative play. Just that we are taking this to a different level where you play rulers of kingdoms.

I'm not ready to run a PvP game, and if this devolves into PvP, I'll stop the game and start over. Remember, I have the right to stop the game if it is not fun for me.

No problems here!

I have absolutely no problem with no PVP. But how much are we expected to actively be helping each others realms?

Absent plot hooks, my vague intention was to concentrate on just making my realm a better place to live for its inhabitants. Making it richer, increasing its defences, etc. No real intent of going to war to conquer other nations. While not quite isolationist most definitely concentrating on his realm.

And probably trying to spread his religion a bit. But in a more or less cooperative fashion, not at the point of a sword.

Ok, I reviewed the BRCS document Osprey shared. I don't claim to have digested it all, but in such a short span, here are some thoughts

Feedback on the Ruleset Changes

Maximum Province Level
- The adjustment to maximum province levels for certain terrains (e.g., Desert and Tundra) has significant implications:
- Desert: Reduced from 3 to 1.
- Tundra: Reduced from 2 to 1.
- Impact varies by setting:
- Anuirean Game: Changes are not game-breaking.
- Vosgaard or Khinasi: These changes might feel restrictive.
- Positive aspects:
- Higher levels in certain terrains for dwarves and elves are appreciated.
- Bonuses for sea/riverside provinces add flavor and utility.
- Suggestion: Consider special rules for Goblin and Orog domains to reflect their unique conditions and environments.

Create Province
- Notably absent from this ruleset.
- Critical for realms like Mieres, where creating new provinces is a strategic necessity.
- Suggestion: Reintroduce this action with appropriate mechanics.

Urban Provinces
- Clarifications and considerations:
- Is there a way to create urban provinces?
- Possible mechanic: Use a Create Province action, limited to existing provinces of level 5 or higher.
- Reliance on trade routes feels arbitrary, especially with changes to trade route mechanics.

Law vs. Province Holdings
- The shift in power from realm rulers (province owners) to Law Regents has significant consequences:
- Realms with opposed or enemy Law Regents face increased difficulty.
- Rulers of realms with minimal Law holdings may struggle due to changes in the Rule action and realm actions.
- Suggestion: Rebalance to ensure province owners retain meaningful control over their territories.

Maximum Number of Regents (Table 5-3)
- Deviates from core rules, creating unintended consequences:
- A realm ruler may be disincentivized from raising a province from level 2 to level 3 due to increased competition for Law holdings.
- Observation: This appears to address a non-issue, potentially introducing unnecessary complications.

Asset Maintenance (Table 5-4)
- Significant changes from core rules:
- Seaports: Previously tied to coastal provinces (level 4+); now require construction.
- Fortifications:
- Construction cost reduced (10× level → 8× level).
- Maintenance cost increased (1 GB → 2/3 GB per level).
- Non-guild domains: May generate more GB overall, balancing increased costs.
- Impact on specific realms:
- Fortification-heavy realms (e.g., Baruk-Azhik, Ilien, Khinasi realms) face harsher financial challenges.

Courts
- Notable issues:
- The expectation for courts to match the value of the largest non-source holding creates a financial burden.
- Province owners may net no income from their largest provinces.
- Temple Regents in maxed-out provinces may operate at a loss (only earning 2/3 GB per temple level).
- New mechanics:
- Court size limits realm actions.
- Courts seem cheaper yet more powerful overall.
- Questions:
- How do source-only regents gain extra court actions?
- What is the effect of the Base Reputation modifier?

Trade Routes
- Major deviations from core rules:
- Canonical trade routes from "Ruins of Empire" and Players Secrets are incompatible with this system.
- Example: Guild profits may remain stable or increase, but distribution across multiple guilders dilutes benefits.
- Suggestion: Reevaluate mechanics to better align with established canon and balance.

Domain Attitude
- Adds complexity compared to core rules:
- Previously limited to province loyalty; now applies to all domains.
- Unanswered questions:
- Do different holdings within the same province share the same attitude?
- How do provinces without holdings view a domain?
- What happens when reestablishing holdings in previously lost provinces?
- How does attitude affect source holders?
- How the heck does Table 5-8 work?

Domain Regency Collection
- Challenges:
- The concept of "unblooded regents" contradicts the setting’s lore.
- Skill-based regency collection (Table 5-9) raises several issues:
- Mechanics assume 3.0/3.5 ranks, disadvantaging certain classes (e.g., Fighters).
- Pathfinder's skill system (e.g., +3 bonus for class skills) does not align with this table.
- Suggestions:
- Discard skill-based mechanics in favor of bloodline score limits.
- Allow specific classes (e.g., Bards, Clerics with certain domains, Rangers) to use non-standard holdings.

RPs from Trade Routes
- Missing from this ruleset.
- Suggestion: Reinstate RP generation from trade routes to support Rogue Regents.

Source Holdings
- Restriction to casters of greater arcane magic contradicts canon.
- Suggestion: Allow non-caster regents to hold source holdings where appropriate.

Domain Income (Table 5-11)
- Positives:
- Simplifies income stages, making them more reliable.
- Reduces conflict over Law claims against Temples and Guilds.
- Potentially increases overall GB generation.
- Suggestion: Balance simplicity with the satisfaction of rolling for income.

Domain Maintenance
- Observations:
- Army/Navy maintenance costs make sense.
- War becomes more expensive, but some costs deviate from core rules.
- Suggestion: Perform a detailed financial analysis to assess long-term balance.

Rule Province
- Limitations:
- Restricting this action to once per domain turn is reasonable.
- Lack of RP expenditure for success makes it a risky investment.
- Example: DC 11 for increasing a province from level 1 to 2 creates a 50% success rate.
- Suggestions:
- Integrate skill bonuses (e.g., Administrate) into the mechanic.
- Allow RP expenditure to improve success chances.

Skills and Domain Actions
- Suggestions:
- Use core Pathfinder mechanics for skill checks in domain actions.
- Example: Apply RP and holdings modifiers to DC-based skill rolls.
- Introduce reasonable failure rates (e.g., 5%), but avoid critical failure terminology.

Synergies
- Concerns:
- The 3.0/3.5 synergy concept may not translate well to Birthright.
- Potential for abuse.
- Suggestion: If implemented, align synergy benefits with Pathfinder mechanics (e.g., 2 ranks instead of 4).

Can I add the requirement for ships to be set aside to service the trade route as another issue with these rules? I don't have Section 6, to look at the costs on those ships, but there is upkeep on those ships, and they will be active, so they cost more, which will eat into the trade route profits. Does there need to be a ship for both ends of the route? Which guilder provides that? Do they share the expense?

I want to run Elinie if that can be made to work with the other players choices

I do not see why it might not be workable with Coeranys being taken by Ouachitonian, Sielwode being taken by Osprey and Baruk-Azhik being taken by Zahir.

Also with Roesone taken by me and Medoere taken by Critzible (or not?) you are in a pretty good spot. Of course if Evindyl would remain in Aerenwe that would make things even better (as I heard they were considering being an isolationist and movine way northwest.

So sort of like Osprey said perhaps we could collectively move south and north and absorb Ghoere and Osoerde into our 4 Realms as a potential long term plan ;-) assuming the various PCs are in those spots I mentioned.

I'm gonna go with Roesone as my home base. I want to build more of the ancient wood.

Okay Elton how does that work? I mean I can see how to Realms can collaborate but how do two players share a Realm as you can technically only have one Regent (yes/no?)??

Also Blodeuwydd what about us (I in Roesone and you in Medoere) simply clear the Spiderfell Woods and share that Realm as a great good forest rather than the dark evil place it currently is?

Blodeuwydd Wynn wrote:

I'm gonna go with Roesone as my home base. I want to build more of the ancient wood.

Okay Elton how does that work? I mean I can see how to Realms can collaborate but how do two players share a Realm as you can technically only have one Regent (yes/no?)??

Also Blodeuwydd what about us (I in Roesone and you in Medoere) simply clear the Spiderfell Woods and share that Realm as a great good forest rather than the dark evil place it currently is?

Blodeuwydd would be a source regent, more like a court wizard. You would still control the provinces and law holdings; while she controls the sources in your domain.

DeJoker wrote:

Blodeuwydd Wynn wrote:

I'm gonna go with Roesone as my home base. I want to build more of the ancient wood.

Okay Elton how does that work? I mean I can see how to Realms can collaborate but how do two players share a Realm as you can technically only have one Regent (yes/no?)??

Also Blodeuwydd what about us (I in Roesone and you in Medoere) simply clear the Spiderfell Woods and share that Realm as a great good forest rather than the dark evil place it currently is?

Blodeuwydd would be a source regent, more like a court wizard. You would still control the provinces and law holdings; while she controls the sources in your domain.

Is someone taking Ilien? That's tailor made to be a Wizard's Realm!

Per Joker's request, here are a few responses to some of Tripp's observations:

Maximum Province Level
- The adjustment to maximum province levels for certain terrains (e.g., Desert and Tundra) has significant implications:
- Desert: Reduced from 3 to 1.
- Tundra: Reduced from 2 to 1.
- Impact varies by setting:
- Anuirean Game: Changes are not game-breaking.
- Vosgaard or Khinasi: These changes might feel restrictive.
- Positive aspects:
- Higher levels in certain terrains for dwarves and elves are appreciated.
- Bonuses for sea/riverside provinces add flavor and utility.
- Suggestion: Consider special rules for Goblin and Orog domains to reflect their unique conditions and environments.

I don't know why they lowered the desert and tundra max levels from 2e.

Don't forget when evaluating that maximum levels go up by +1 for a major river border and +2 for coastal provinces.

Any race that has underground settlements I'm not really sure normal terrain rules should apply at all! Dwarves and orogs most notably - I think goblins are still at least partly surface-based in Cerilia.

There has been a lot of discussion in the forums in the past about underground province levels, but it really would require a whole second map with separate settlements with their own rules for max levels, probably based on the sophistication of their mining and subterranean building skills.

Create Province
- Notably absent from this ruleset.
- Critical for realms like Mieres, where creating new provinces is a strategic necessity.
- Suggestion: Reintroduce this action with appropriate mechanics.

It would be good to have rules for this action, it shouldn't be too hard. I don;t really agree that Mieres needs to create any new provinces to thrive (I had a player turn Mieres into the capital of an Adurian Empire without making new provinces until maybe much, much later in the game. Undead hordes roaming the vast Deismaar Wastes have a lot to do with why Mieres has the borders it does.)

Urban Provinces

- Clarifications and considerations:
- Is there a way to create urban provinces?
- Possible mechanic: Use a Create Province action, limited to existing provinces of level 5 or higher.
- Reliance on trade routes feels arbitrary, especially with changes to trade route mechanics.

Urban provinces are really problematic. I think the idea that they are dependent on agrarian trade routes absolutely makes sense to me, but it gets to be a lot of rules just for this special case scenario.

I personally went a different route in my game and allowed certain kinds of Wondrous Structures to be built up and potentially raise province levels above their normal maximums. The main way was building a University Wondrous Structure with different kinds of Land Management (ex: Advanced Agriculture for open provinces), Urban Planning, and Industrial research and engineering specialties as it leveled up. Plus I ruled that any Wonder hitting the province's current maximum level could add +1 to that province's maximum level.

The easiest thing for a more vanilla game is to just not have any urban provinces besides the Imperial City of Anuire, and just let it be that one special case that nobody knows how to duplicate yet.

Law vs. Province Holdings
- The shift in power from realm rulers (province owners) to Law Regents has significant consequences:
- Realms with opposed or enemy Law Regents face increased difficulty.
- Rulers of realms with minimal Law holdings may struggle due to changes in the Rule action and realm actions.
- Suggestion: Rebalance to ensure province owners retain meaningful control over their territories.

Here I feel like the BRCS use of Law holdings replacing Land holdings in function both makes sense and is a big improvement over the 2e rules.

In 2e Law holdings had limited function: you got them to 1/2 the province level so you could max out your Province taxes, and used them to squeeze any guilds or temples you didn't like with seizures.

Meanwhile Landed regents had immense power without really having to do anything other than inherit land holdings and hang onto them. They could use the full province level to support or oppose any other regent doing almost anything in their province, and with higher level provinces this got extremely one-sided and unbalanced.

In the BRCS, Law holdings do exactly what you'd expect: Make the Rules!
I feel like thematically this is the right way to go, and it makes Law holdings more powerful - a needed boost for them (and for Fighter Regents in particular). They also can still do seizures if you want, in addition to their modest base income, and like all holdings at 1/2 or max levels (compared to the local province) can add a bonus to seasonal Attitude checks. All Law, Temple, and Guild holding regents can passively support or oppose a ruler and thus influence their seasonal attitude checks.

As for hostile Law holdings in your lands: They should be big problems! What was the point of them in 2e? How much could they really do in the old system? Not much, in my experience.

As a DM I have used the BRCS system for many years, and I totally prefer the way Law holdings are used there compared to the 2e original.

As for low starting Law holdings...this isn't at all an insurmountable problem for most regents. It just creates an early goal for how you should change your realm to strengthen your rule! Some realms are more challenging than others in this regard, and I think that is just fine. If everyone started with a perfectly strong realm, I think the domain game would just be more boring and less challenging.

Maximum Number of Regents (Table 5-3)
- Deviates from core rules, creating unintended consequences:
- A realm ruler may be disincentivized from raising a province...

In my experience, these limits were usually in line with the numbers you see in Ruins of Empire and didn't change the game too much from the 2e setting.

Finally, you can have any number of level 0 holdings in a province, and the utility of these is bigger than is at first apparent: regular intelligence is gained on the province, and the owner can spend RP to support or oppose many actions there.

And having a reason to not rule every province up higher is a great thing! Just ask any wizard. ;)

Part 2

Asset Maintenance (Table 5-4)

- Significant changes from core rules:
- Seaports: Previously tied to coastal provinces (level 4+); now require construction.
- Fortifications:
- Construction cost reduced (10× level → 8× level).
- Maintenance cost increased (1 GB → 2/3 GB per level).
- Non-guild domains: May generate more GB overall, balancing increased costs.
- Impact on specific realms:
- Fortification-heavy realms (e.g., Baruk-Azhik, Ilien, Khinasi realms) face harsher financial challenges.

I don't mind Castles and Fortified Holdings costing more to maintain in 2e, but I think the BIG question is what exact value do they have for the cost aside from a player liking the idea? Yes they can make a siege take a long time as in 2e, but the most important question is how much they affect Assaults to reduce them more quickly. This becomes a question then of what Battlesystem is in use, and how do castles factor into that? I can vouch for the power of high level castles making defending units very hard to kill in the BRCS battle system, where the castle level is added to a defending unit's defense (AC) rating. I once saw 4 defending units kill a ridiculous number of attacking skeleton and infernal legions (the 2 strongest types of summoned units in the game) attacking a level 6 castle in Mhoried. They did eventually fall, but their heroic defense gutted the Sword Mage's supposedly unbeatable army of darkness, and left few survivors to gloat over their pyrrhic victory!

In general, higher maintenance lends itself to more carefully choosing Fortified provinces and holdings, as opposed to having large numbers of castles everywhere in your realm. Not necessarily a bad thing?

Finally, my BRCS games tend to require that regents with lots of fortifications and big armies need big incomes. So they had better have either lots of holdings (that aren't all fortified) and/or tribute from vassals and allies supporting all those expensive military assets.

Courts

- Notable issues:
- The expectation for courts to match the value of the largest non-source holding creates a financial burden.
- Province owners may net no income from their largest provinces.
- Temple Regents in maxed-out provinces may operate at a loss (only earning 2/3 GB per temple level).
- New mechanics:
- Court size limits realm actions.
- Courts seem cheaper yet more powerful overall.
- Questions:
- How do source-only regents gain extra court actions?
- What is the effect of the Base Reputation modifier?

1st let me say: I love the Court and Court Action system in the BRCS!

So, let me address the main concern about expected court size: NO WORRIES! It's just a guideline that helps players have a goal for what is "Reasonable" or "normal" in the world, and is in no way an actual requirement. How much that expectation actually affects diplomacy and attitude of subjects and other folks is entirely subjective and a DM call, if at all. It may be most noticeable in roleplaying flavor (big courts are impressive, small courts are not).

Without looking it up, I believe Base Reputation is supposed to give a bonus to Diplomacy and other social skill checks made by courtiers in the Court setting or possibly envoys from that court in foreign lands? For the sake of time I'll let someone else dig for the exact details on that. I know it did not provide a bonus directly to domain actions. So it's a very secondary feature of the courts in my own games compared to number of court actions.

Game Note: Most regents with larger courts build Palaces to expand their courts to higher levels. You can add Palace levels to your base Court level to measure your total Court Level, up to double the base court level at maximum efficiency. Palaces cost 6 GB a level to build, but only 1/2 GB per level to maintain - so big long-term savings on court costs.

Arcane Courts: For my game I made a house rule about these for 3.5 and PF. I always hated how wizards got screwed on GB income, and needing a regular court to perform realm actions seemed dumb, because no amount of courtiers is going to be a big influence on how many sources a wizard could affect at one time. And preventing wizards from performing realm actions seems terribly unfair as well when they already seem to need more time and domain actions for their work than any other regent.

So my system was to allow a Source Regent to use each blooded mage Lieutenant they had invested to act as a Court Action when manipulating sources with a Realm Action, making blooded Apprentice/Lts. a primary commodity for powerful source regents, and having a small cadre of them the ultimate in rapid expansion and contest power for sources. It's not the simplest or easiest thing to build, but I really liked the realism and results of the system, and still use it in my Pathfinder domain game today.

These are good responses, Osprey. In part 2, there's more of an explanation of how these things work. Don't you agree, @Zahir?

These are good responses, Osprey. In part 2, there's more of an explanation of how these things work. Don't you agree, @Zahir?

So far, so good. You’ll need to decide what ruleset we’re using.

Is there a part 3 coming?

PART 3

Trade Routes

- Major deviations from core rules:
- Canonical trade routes from "Ruins of Empire" and Players Secrets are incompatible with this system.
- Example: Guild profits may remain stable or increase, but distribution across multiple guilders dilutes benefits.
- Suggestion: Reevaluate mechanics to better align with established canon and balance.

OK here I feel I need to state what almost every 2e BR DM has said as well: Trade Routes are the most broken, overpowered mechanic in the the 2e Domain system. They generate so much extra gold plus equal RP for Rogue regents who build them, and then they went and said seaport provinces could have DOUBLE the number of trade routes other provinces could have, just to go ahead and break the income system really damn hard!

In 2e games I've played (and I've played a Guilder reaping all these rewards), players who know this inevitably set forth to build every single trade route they possibly can as soon as possible (which is OK, but proves how they are so much greater in value than any other option in the domain game). Landed Guild Regents with Trade Routes get stupid rich real fast, and will tend to take over the world pretty fast if they want to - at least as long as armies matter more than magic.

Another unrealistic factor of 2e Trade Routes was that you could build a trade route of *any* value by owning only a single level 0 guild in the originating province. If it was a level 6 guild instead, good for you...no effect on the trade route derived from it. Only province levels mattered.

BRCS: Guilds and guild levels and guild monopolies (where guild level = province level) REALLY matter now. Moreover, guilders control the trade routes on both ends, so you end up negotiating with foreign guilders to set up trade routes for mutual benefit, instead of negotiating directly with landed regents and ignoring guilds in the target province altogether as in the old system. Of course Trade Routes are very easy to contest or raid with military forces, so landed regents still will want and deserve a cut of the profits, and a realistic trade route between 2 realms may often involve 2 guild regents + 2 landed regents, or even more if other realms are crossed. Everybody wants a cut! But those cuts are precisely what guarantees the stability of the route, and makes the guilders indispensable to the landed regents for extra income. Another example of how the BRCS system fosters more cooperation and diplomacy as a necessary tool for prosperity and stability. Although it also makes establishing your guilds on both ends of a trade route a very lucrative and worthy endeavor for a guilder!

Domain Attitude

- Adds complexity compared to core rules:
- Previously limited to province loyalty; now applies to all domains.
- Unanswered questions:
- Do different holdings within the same province share the same attitude?
- How do provinces without holdings view a domain?
- What happens when reestablishing holdings in previously lost provinces?
- How does attitude affect source holders?
- How the heck does Table 5-8 work?

It's always tricky deciding how to handle Attitude and Loyalty for Holding regents. The best way is really the most detailed and high maintenance in my opinion: province by province with each holding you own, though I think one attitude rating per province is fine regardless of how many types of holdings you control there. More holdings just add to the bonuses possible, if they're high-enough level. If the DM doesn't like this level of detail, one Attitude check/rating per Realm is OK (and is what I use for NPC regents if I roll for them).

Provinces without holdings would simply not get bonuses or penalties for other holding types in the domain. Only the landed regent's reputation and factors would affect the seasonal attitude check (recent deeds etc).

What happens when reestablishing holdings in previously lost provinces?

Interesting case, I'm not sure...but this is the kind of fairly rare nuance where a DM just makes a call and keeps the game moving. Indifferent would be the (re)starting default unless there's reason to be otherwise, I would say.

How does attitude affect source holders?

That's up to the DM. You could rule that they are the same as other holding regents, because the locals could still make life difficult for a source regent when they try to do things like transport or buy materials for their realm spells and domain actions, or work undisturbed in the forest while angry peasants jeer and fling mud and manure at the wizard trying to concentrate on month-long rituals...or straight up raise a mob and try to lynch them!

Table 5-8: It works almost identically to the Attitude tables in the 3.5e DMG. It's basically a D20 check with results for multiple DCs.
Ex: So say a province (4/1) is Indifferent at the start of the season. The landed regent rolls D20+3 for the attitude check, adding +1 for his Law (2) holding there and +2 for having Diplomacy Rank 5 (I personally think domain bonuses from skills actually work better starting at 5th level instead of 2nd). Since he has a net positive modifier, any result will keep the province Indifferent or better (DC 1), and a result of 15 or better (d20 roll of 12+) will raise the province attitude one level to Friendly. It would take some extraordinary events or conditions to give enough of a bonus to reach DC 30 and raise the province 2 levels to Helpful! Likewise, it would take some very bad conditions, causing severe penalties, to give a net result of less than 1 and drop the province's attitude to Unfriendly.
Does that make sense?

PART 4
(The last one, I swear!)

Domain Regency Collection

- Challenges:
- The concept of "unblooded regents" contradicts the setting’s lore.
- Skill-based regency collection (Table 5-9) raises several issues:
- Mechanics assume 3.0/3.5 ranks, disadvantaging certain classes (e.g., Fighters).
- Pathfinder's skill system (e.g., +3 bonus for class skills) does not align with this table.
- Suggestions:
- Discard skill-based mechanics in favor of bloodline score limits.
- Allow specific classes (e.g., Bards, Clerics with certain domains, Rangers) to use non-standard holdings.

This is one of the main places where Pathfinder conversion is necessary. I have been discussing options and my own solutions with Elton, which I'll share here.

I also like the idea that ALL the regent's skill bonus in the Key Skill matters - not just their raw experience (ranks), but also their talent (ability score modifier), specialties (feats), and magical enhancement that boost the skill.

As a 3.5 and Pathfinder DM I used to make it +1 domain action bonus per +5 skill bonus in the Key Skill, but playtest experience proved that at high levels this really got too powerful and made too many instances where no RP was needed for automatic success (or a 2+ on a D20 in my game - I always had a roll of 1 fail for a domain action), and with Realm Actions these bonuses get repeated across multiple target holdings and things get broken.

Now, if I were to start another Pathfinder game, I'd make the bonus +1 per +10 bonus in the key skill. As harsh as this may sound at low levels, it's really not...later on at higher levels skills can reach +30 or better by 10th level, and +50 or 60 by 20th level.

Plus there are Feats that can give a few more plusses to domain actions, too, which needs to be accounted for.

So that's how I'd fix/convert it.

Also: I'd make Spellcraft the Key Action for Create/Rule/Contest Source Holdings, not Administrate.

Re. RP collection by skill ranks, well that's already been discarded in favor of class-based RP collection in this game, and that's fine by me. I do the same in my games.

Source Holdings

- Restriction to casters of greater arcane magic contradicts canon.
- Suggestion: Allow non-caster regents to hold source holdings where appropriate.

This actually makes better sense to me than 2e canon.

Domain Income (Table 5-11)

- Positives:
- Simplifies income stages, making them more reliable.
- Reduces conflict over Law claims against Temples and Guilds.
- Potentially increases overall GB generation.
- Suggestion: Balance simplicity with the satisfaction of rolling for income.

More rolls for Attitude, less rolls for income. Still plenty of rolls to be made each season, and lots of math. :D

Particularly notable here is how Province levels not only generate a base income of 1 GB per level, but can generate even more by raising taxes. Each province can earn up to 50% of its level, rounded down, from additional taxes, but with a commensurate -1 per extra tax GB to its seasonal attitude check. Nobody likes extra taxes, but they are better tolerated from a strong ruler who has attitude bonuses to compensate. So a level 6/0 province with a tax rate of +3 earns 9 GB a season, and incurs a -3 penalty to attitude checks each season.

Provinces are also the one type of "holding" that all classes can get full RP from.

So while BRCS provinces may be less politically powerful than in 2e, they are powerful sources of RP and GB income - and this is their main function.

Domain Maintenance

- Observations:
- Army/Navy maintenance costs make sense.
- War becomes more expensive, but some costs deviate from core rules.
- Suggestion: Perform a detailed financial analysis to assess long-term balance.

Always pay close attention to your NET GB INCOME.

All domains can be financially balanced, especially when you factor in Tribute from vassals and allies for the more expensive realms.

Army Note: Units actually only cost 1/2 the maintenance of their 2e equivalents, thought their muster costs remain the same. So armies are way cheaper to support than before!

Rule Province

- Limitations:
- Restricting this action to once per domain turn is reasonable.
- Lack of RP expenditure for success makes it a risky investment.
- Example: DC 11 for increasing a province from level 1 to 2 creates a 50% success rate.
- Suggestions:
- Integrate skill bonuses (e.g., Administrate) into the mechanic.
- Allow RP expenditure to improve success chances.

This was another broken factor of the 2e domain system. In 2e a regent with a lot of RP and GB could rule 3 different provinces a season and use RP to guarantee success! Populations just multiplied overnight, and within a few years every realm in Anuire could double in province levels if no one sacked their provinces (which doesn't happen a lot in my experience unless it's the Gorgon or Spider or Rhuobhe or somesuch; conquerors tend to want to annex occupied provinces, rather than just pillage and leave).

BRCS: Administrate IS the Key Skill for the action, so using that system the regent's skill could give a bonus. Bonuses from feats like Regent Focus: Rule Province (+4) and Master Administrator (+2) are extremely valuable for landed regents in this system, as would be anything boosting the Administrate skill. While low level regents are really hoping to get lucky raising a province to higher levels, more experienced rulers can actually have pretty good odds.

And from a world balance perspective it is a very good thing that provinces are not constantly going up in level all over the map. Where are all those new loyal subjects coming from?

DM Note: I always reasoned that when PC Realms start growing rapidly in power, their neighbors tend to start competing with them to keep up and not feel threatened. So if you (a PC Landed Regent) start ruling up your provinces and holdings, expect your (competent) neighbors and rivals to start doing the same in their realms!

Skills and Domain Actions

- Suggestions:
- Use core Pathfinder mechanics for skill checks in domain actions.
- Example: Apply RP and holdings modifiers to DC-based skill rolls.
- Introduce reasonable failure rates (e.g., 5%), but avoid critical failure terminology.

Whaddya mean no critical failures?!? Where's the fun in that? :D

In my world: Rule Province fumble? -1 level! Same with holdings!
Critical successes likewise can grant an extra level of raise.

Critical successes are not just rolls of 20 - the natural 20 must be confirmed with a normal success, just like critical hits in combat.
And a 20 followed by a 20 allows a 3rd roll to triple the base effect, and so forth.
Exploding 20s for the ultimate win!

A Fumbles is a natural 1 followed by a roll that is a normal failure.
A 1 followed by another roll of 1 opens up a 3rd roll to check for failure and so forth.
Exploding 1s for the ultimate disaster!

I use this system for combat, skill checks, and domain actions in my games. Great fun and dramatic punctuations in the action!

Synergies

- Concerns:
- The 3.0/3.5 synergy concept may not translate well to Birthright.
- Potential for abuse.
- Suggestion: If implemented, align synergy benefits with Pathfinder mechanics (e.g., 2 ranks instead of 4).

If synergies are used, I suggest making them harder to get and actually keep them at 5 ranks for a +2 skill synergy. 3.5e saw a whole lot of 2nd level/5 rank skills just for synergy bonuses. This method would make it a lot harder to abuse them at lower levels, and at higher levels a +2 skill bonus is not quite as huge a deal.

Blodeuwydd would be a source regent, more like a court wizard. You would still control the Provinces and Law holdings; while they control the Sources in your Realm.

Okay I suppose that is viable if that is truly what Blodeuwydd wants to do I however still feel that we would be better served if you, Blodeuwydd, took the Regency of either Medoere or Ilien with Medoere being the better of the two in regards to your Blodeuwydd proscribed purpose. For then we could work on converting the Spiderfell Wood into something much more friendly and viable and a true Elven Realm.

Exploding 20s for the ultimate win!

Exploding 1s for the ultimate disaster!

I use this system for combat, skill checks, and domain actions in my games. Great fun and dramatic punctuations in the action!

I don't have the experience to comment on most of your posts but this I DO have the experience to comment on.

I am unable to find words sufficient to adequately express how vehemently and strongly I DISAGREE with this. I utterly and absolutely loathe exploding dice. If you want, I can regale you with war stories where they absolutely destroyed entire campaigns.

Is someone taking Ilien? That's tailor made to be a Wizard's Realm!

That was (and still is) one of my suggestions for Blodeuwydd too take for it does touch that other great wood that could be expanded further into Ilien if so desired.

Again Blodeuwydd I would be more than happy to work with you closely to help you either with your own Regency or functioning within my Regency. I just think we (as a whole) would be better served if you took a Regency of your own as that gives us a bit more to work with long term.

I don't have the experience to comment on most of your posts but this I DO have the experience to comment on.

I am unable to find words sufficient to adequately express how vehemently and strongly I DISAGREE with this. I utterly and absolutely loathe exploding dice. If you want, I can regale you with war stories where they absolutely destroyed entire campaigns.

Sorry to hear that -- for I could regale you with many stories where it absolutely benefited the entire campaign.

Still yes I concur exploding dice, no matter the system, does have its pros and cons but if utilized it does allow for somethings to happen that would not normally happen which allows for the concept of chaos to have a play in what transpires.

Now as a GM of many, many years and of many different games and genres I do not see exploding dice as overly detrimental in any way shape or form. Further I am again sorry that your experience with it was so dramatically bad for as it stands it is no worse than not having exploding dice.

Alright Elton, let us know what rules you want to use.

but if utilized it does allow for somethings to happen that would not normally happen which allows for the concept of chaos to have a play in what transpires.

And that is very probably the nub of the issue. Some people like chaos, some don't. I'm very firmly in the "don't like chaos" category.

Ilien has no Sources within its borders. I also want to concentrate on Source Management and Rules. Social interactions and diplomacy come with that, but My goal is to eventually go after the Spider Woods. Figured it would be a long-term goal.

Should the Spider Woods fall or another territory, then I would gladly when comfortable throw my hat into managing it, but until then I wanna stick to Source only play. Thats my plan. I am new to Birthrights rules and figured take a specific role and rule set and focus on it. Add in some fun and engaging story element and boom character.

Alright Elton, let us know what rules you want to use.

The BRCS 3.x, with all of it's faults, is the better system to use.

Roger.

Hey folks. This is…a lot. Even in reading through the books Elton provided during recruitment, I didn’t really have a good idea of the breadth and depth of new stuff I was going to have to learn for this. The setting and premises seem really interesting, but this is more than I can handle right now. Sorry y’all, but I’m out.

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

Alright Elton, let us know what rules you want to use.

The BRCS 3.x, with all of it's faults, is the better system to use.

Could you please point to exactly the version that we will be using (the version Osprey pointed at doesn't seem to be identical to the version on birthright.net. birthright.net also seems incomplete).

EltonJ wrote:

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

Alright Elton, let us know what rules you want to use.

The BRCS 3.x, with all of it's faults, is the better system to use.

Could you please point to exactly the version that we will be using (the version Osprey pointed at doesn't seem to be identical to the version on birthright.net. birthright.net also seems incomplete).

This one, Paul. Be sure to download the 3.5 version.

pauljathome wrote:

EltonJ wrote:

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

Alright Elton, let us know what rules you want to use.

The BRCS 3.x, with all of it's faults, is the better system to use.

Could you please point to exactly the version that we will be using (the version Osprey pointed at doesn't seem to be identical to the version on birthright.net. birthright.net also seems incomplete).

This one, Paul. Be sure to download the 3.5 version.

1) Thanks

EltonJ wrote:

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

Alright Elton, let us know what rules you want to use.

The BRCS 3.x, with all of it's faults, is the better system to use.

Could you please point to exactly the version that we will be using (the version Osprey pointed at doesn't seem to be identical to the version on birthright.net. birthright.net also seems incomplete).

Sorry about that, Paul...I probably had older versions on my desktop which may have been further edited after I got mine, and couldn't get onto BR.net at the time I posted on Discord to download updated versions.

I am going to update my pinned post on Discord now so the most recent copy is on there.

3) Are we converting this into Pathfinder at all? The rules refer to skill ranks but the meaning of skill ranks changed substantially with Pathfinder and class skills. As an example, as a cleric I get Regency points based on knowledge religion ranks. But in Pathfinder I only have 1 rank at level 2 vs 2 or 4 ranks in 3.5. Makes a huge difference at low levels (in fact, I will be generating 0 Regency until level 3).

Regency (RP) collection is based on class as Elton posted earlier, which are derived from the orignal 2e rules for RP collection).

4) I'm finding these rules confusing. As an example, under the diplomacy action they talk about setting the DC. But what is actually rolled? A diplomacy check? Using who's skill if a lieutenant or unnamed courtier does the talking?

The Diplomacy action is one of the most variable DC actions in the rules (Espionage is the other one) - because it covers so many possible outcomes. There is a list of guidelines for DCs based on desired outcome of the action. I'll break the paragraph into separate lines by DC:

The base DC in a Diplomacy action is strongly determined

by how much the target wants to reach an agreement with you.
DC 5: If the Diplomatic offer is a clear advantage to the target
regent and has little or no cost to them, then the base DC is 5
(Easy).
DC 10: If the offer has some advantage to the regent that
exceeds the cost, then the base DC is 10 (Routine).
DC 15: If the offer has a potential advantage to the regent but the costs may equal the potential gains, then the base DC is 15 (Hard).
DC 20: If the offer entails a large risk or cost for the target the base DC is 20 (Difficult).
DC 25+: Attempting to reach an agreement that entails large
risk for the regent may have a base DC of 25 or higher.

These DCs are meant to emulate versions of the Diplomacy skill check in 3.5e, but on a domain scale (similar to domain attitudes, which also emulate NPC Attitudes described in the 3.5e DMG).

The domain action check for a Diplomacy action is similar to all domain actions: it is a D20 roll vs the DC, with modifiers found in the action description. They are:
1. The difference between the active and target regent’s court levels
acts as a positive or negative modifier to the check.
2. +1 or -1 per extra GB spent by any regents involved on gifts/bribes to influence the action. RP does not affect the roll for success with this domain action.

The one unclear thing to me is where this action should take place (usually it's either hosted at your own court or at the target's court), which may affect what other regents are present during the negotiations and allowed to spend GB to influence the outcome.

P.S. - The 3.5e BRCS is incomplete. Chapters 1-5 are pretty much done, Ch 6 was worked on and never finished, and chapters 7-9 are the same as the 3.0 version as far as I know. I have those (Ch 7-9) as individual chapters if you want them, but it's just as easy to use a copy of the 3.0 BRCS doc and look those chapters up if you are interested.

These DCs are meant to emulate versions of the Diplomacy skill check
... The domain action check for a Diplomacy action is similar to all domain actions: it is a D20 roll vs the DC, with modifiers found in the action description. They are:

So my characters skill in diplomacy is irrelevant?

If I'm reading the rules correctly, every 5 ranks in a skill gives me a +1 if I'm also using my character action as well as a standard action on a domain turn.

Only my ranks matter and they matter much less than in 3.5 due to the different way class skills are handled.

Elton, are you planning on changing this in any way?