Andrelvis's page

The terms "Duergar" and "Drow" are seldom used in fantasy settings other than by Wizards of the Coast. Is this because of a copyright reason? If so, that seems weird to me, as "Dvergr" is the Old Norse word meaning "Dwarf". Meanwhile, "Drow" (or "Trow") are Scottish legendary creatures. I know that Pathfinders uses these names, but that could be due to the OGL allowing them to, rather than these names not being under copyright. I wonder if anyone has ever gotten sued or cease-and-desisted because of using those names.

EDIT: I've found out now though that DotA2 has a "Drow Ranger" (who looks pretty much like a DnD Drow):
http://dota2.gamepedia.com/Drow_Ranger

Did I miss something or are there rules in the AP somewhere for realms that are parts of other (larger) realms, or are vassal to them in some form?

I was thinking of running a Kingmaker-like campaign in Cormyr's Stonelands, using the adventure hook in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, in which the PCs would create a Barony of the Stonelands. But it would be quite strange for them to act in a completely independent manner, not having to pay some form of tax to Cormyr at least, for instance, and other duties.

Do you mean "in combat", or out of it? If it's out of it - I really don't see why you would want to waste time rolling things out.

If you mean *in* combat, then I'd need to know more - IE, what's the fortification, how do your players propose to deal with it. If its a simple measure of attacking the fortification, I would look at them like a dog who hears a strange noise, and remind them why fortifications exist in the first place: IE, to be attacked.

From a common sense standpoint, yes (although only in regards to walls - watchtowers for example, are quite understandable targets). However, in the rules for mass combat, they don't function as barriers with hit points of their own, but as bonuses to the enemy army.

Well, there's already an option to do this in the mass combat section with siege engines. Basically, when you damage an enemy you also reduce the DV bonus from fortifications by 1d4.

I'd then say that when the reduction to DV is equal to the bonus from the fortification, it is effectively destroyed.

From a kingdom building standpoint, a "destroyed" building can be repaired by paying half its cost. So, whoever wins doesn't have to start over from scratch when rebuilding afterwards.

Hehe, thanks! I had missed that.

Andrelvis wrote:

Out of curiosity: suppose your players decided to use one of their armies to destroy an enemy fortification which provides a defense bonus. How would you handle it?

I would say they destroy it and it no longer grants a bonus.

I'm honestly not sure what the question is?

They can't simply destroy it, there needs to be some challenge, at least some sort of rolls involving the army, or else they'd just be destroying strong enemy defenses for free.

Out of curiosity: suppose your players decided to use one of their armies to destroy an enemy fortification which provides a defense bonus. How would you handle it?

Is it mentioned anywhere in which region the Stolen Lands are located officially, though? Or whether they are their own region.

Do the Stolen Lands count as a "Region" in regards to regional traits and etc. or are they considered a part of the River Kingdoms (or Brevoy)?

Why are the Message Boards full of these conversations:

Post - "Hey - I'm thinking of doing XYZ - anyone have any experience or thoughts on the matter"?

Response - "Yes - it's a bad idea - for reasons A, B, C, D, and E."

Post - "Ok - I'm gonna do it anyway".

That's an extremely unfair portrayal of the discussion at hand. I am taking the arguments in consideration, I responded to them, and I never said "I'm gonna do it anyway" or something of the sort without providing a counterargument.

Like Alexander above says: BP is not just fluid cash. It's available man-power, it's natural resources, it's favours and a lot of intangible things. By turning it into "the amount of gold we currently have sitting in the caste/town hall or what have you", then you lose the little bit of control you have to bolster/help or challenge the kingdom.

If you decide that there's a labour strike, costing the PCs some BP every turn (due to lost manpower and goods), it doesn't translate to GP.

Available man-power and natural resources (but not favors) can both be monetized, as labor and goods both are made available in markets for a price. As for a labor strike, it would translate to GP yes, just like a labor strike in reality would decrease State revenue, since less taxable wealth would be generated.

Unless you're basically using the system as is, and just calling the BP (GP) instead. In which case, you're just tinkering with what doesn't need tinkering.

Indeed it doesn't need tinkering, but I think it would be more intuitive to instead of adding a new variable (BP), using one that is already used (GP), and which is also more easily related to real-world experience.

Andrelvis wrote:

I understand the "story" explanations for why BP isn't GP, but I don't see where it would get messy mechanically.

The amount of bookkeeping shouldn't increase at all, it would just be a matter of multiplying the BPs by 4000 and calling them GPs instead.

Well, the biggest problem is that not all BPs are created equal. It costs 4000gp to deposit 1BP into your kingdom, but you only get 2000gp if you withdraw 1BP.

If you do a straight conversion, you would have to lose this cost entirely which causes lots of problems.

If you do 1BP=4000gp then suddenly the PCs have *double* the cash available to them in order to equip themselves. On the other hand, if you do 1BP=2000gp then treasure found by PCs can be invested into kingdom building at half-price which will allow them to expand much quicker than expected. Heck - in AP35 they even suggest that if you aren't using kingdom building rules, you should use the conversion 1BP=500gp for the fielding of armies. The reason, of course, is that most of the cost of armies doesn't come from gold - it comes from the shear manpower drain on the economy. It's assumed, in that case, that the rest of the cost is behind the scenes.

By doing a straight conversion, you'd also have to ignore the loyalty penalty for withdrawing from the kingdom. In my opinion, it's a great feature that makes it really feel like a functioning kingdom rather than just a pile of gold in a treasury.

What I am thinking of doing is that withdraws could only happen at large enough quantities (in units of 2,000) and that, to compensate for the greater availability of GP to be withdrawn, the Loyalty check's DC would be: Command DC + every 2000 GP being withdrawn X 2, and the gained Unrest would be two for every 2,000 withdrawn.

I understand the "story" explanations for why BP isn't GP, but I don't see where it would get messy mechanically.

The amount of bookkeeping shouldn't increase at all, it would just be a matter of multiplying the BPs by 4000 and calling them GPs instead.

I would make a houserule prohibiting the selling of magic items that are in a city's slot, allowing only the selling of magic items that are actually owned by PCs. Since BPs represent the economic strength of your kingdom, it makes little sense to grant extra BPs for selling a magic item of one of the kingdom's shops to one of the kingdom's NPCs. By doing that, the PCs aren't changing the economy significantly at all; while they are making wealth circulate, the kingdom shouldn't get anywhere near the full 4,000 GP corresponding to the magic item, as the magic item was already part of the kingdom in the first place.

Thanks!

Has anyone tried to subsume BP into GP? If so, I'd be interested in hearing how it worked out.

I read one of the writers saying things could get messy if BP and GP are made into one, but I don't see why...

I want a clarification about which hexes represent which terrain types. The mountains are extremely clear, and the hexes that are like the ones in Thousand Voices in the Glenebon Uplands would be forests, while the ones in the Hooktongue Slough would be swamps. That leaves the yellow-brownish terrain and the greenish terrain. I take the yellow-brownish terrain to be hills and the greenish terrain to be plains. Am I correct on all accounts?

Do you mean Diablo II: The Awakening? I have that... as well as the 3rd edition Diablo II: To Hell and Back and Diablerie, and the Diablo AD&D TTRPG(the one in which the quest is to kill The Slayer). But I'm looking for additional stuff, that's why I'm asking ;)

I've been told that in some issues of Dragon magazine there is stuff for Diablo, and my question is, in which issues are they? And is there any Diablo stuff in any Dungeon magazine issue?