Birthright: Chimaeron

For domains and random adventures, a guilder is better. For main adventures, a thief is far more useful. For multi-classes, a guilder isn't eligible, hence thief has value there.

Similar for fighter, they have multi-class potential whereas the other two warrior sorts do not. Additionally, fighters are by nature intended to be inferior to rangers and paladins, hence the inherent stat requirements. Not everything is supposed to be equal at all times. This was the issue with 4E as I recall (it's been a while though, so could easily be off on that).

As to RP generation, it is not established this is not a major factor for either warrior or rogue. In fact, RP generation is a key component to rogues and fighters. Without depth of guilds, trade routes are ineffective/inefficient. The same goes for law holdings. A warrior who limits himself to law only in his one or two provinces is clearly not utilizing one of his key advantages.

Each of the primary class types has an area where they are most effective.

As to rogues being as effective at building armies as warriors, this is clearly not the case. Warriors easily outstrip them in TP and while maintaining law holdings is easy, continually expanding and refining trade routes can be an action sink which becomes a disadvantage in military actions if there is not a warrior tied in to assist.

HA - Haelyn wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:37 pm

As to rogues being as effective at building armies as warriors, this is clearly not the case. Warriors easily outstrip them in TP and while maintaining law holdings is easy, continually expanding and refining trade routes can be an action sink which becomes a disadvantage in military actions if there is not a warrior tied in to assist.

The TP generated by the warrior is not useful without Gold. Law holdings increase domain maintenance. Do not generate gold (except when the province is controlled and allows higher taxes (which has been nerfed). Law claims at best annoys, and roleplay wise it hard to justify doing except against rivals.

A Guilder has 2 less WP then a fighter. (less than 2 when you consider they level faster then fighter) They are not quickly outstripped.

A non-land Wizard, Priest, Rogue are all viable, but not desireable

A non-land Warrior is not viable.

BSB - Blue Skull Barons wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:48 pm

HA - Haelyn wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:37 pm

As to rogues being as effective at building armies as warriors, this is clearly not the case. Warriors easily outstrip them in TP and while maintaining law holdings is easy, continually expanding and refining trade routes can be an action sink which becomes a disadvantage in military actions if there is not a warrior tied in to assist.

The TP generated by the warrior is not useful without Gold. Law holdings increase domain maintenance. Do not generate gold (except when the province is controlled and allows higher taxes (which has been nerfed). Law claims at best annoys, and roleplay wise it hard to justify doing except against rivals.

A Guilder has 2 less WP then a fighter. (less than 2 when you consider they level faster then fighter) They are not quickly outstripped.

A non-land Wizard, Priest, Rogue are all viable, but not desireable

A non-land Warrior is not viable.

The TPs for warriors come in faster than rogues. A 9th level fighter has a minimum of 7 TPs and the 10th level rogue has 4. When scaled across multiple train actions it isn't even a contest.

Law holders should always be taxing, if not they've given up one of their advantages by fiat.

A non-landed warrior should definitely be looking at the mercenary option (or take someone's land).

Warrior 4 + 1 per 3 levels
vs
Guilder 2 + 1 per 3 levels

Law holders can law claim (transferring a GB from someone else) not tax.

If I continue as BSB it will 100% be a Guilder + Training Grounds domain and outstrip all the other fighters who cant afford their training grounds or units.

Fighter is easily outstripped by the guilder at what it is supposed to do best.

I'm not too fond of the idea of buildings making the most wealthy and powerful realms more efficient than others, anyway. We could have all kinds of megaprojects to use as gold sinks, with more esoteric benefits, instead. Shipyards, Training Grounds, Cathedrals and Monoliths all have this problem. The other buildings I like better, in concept.

They also can't be captured or transferred, or used by anyone but the builder, which adds a weird status quo bias effect, making the game less dynamic and unpredictable than it would be if these buildings weren't available. It also makes capturing a capital province much more punishing than it probably should be, which (in my estimation) will make wars less strategically interesting. Especially the wars that follow the first successful one.

I don't think law claims should be seen as 'an annoyance'. To me it seems that if the law doesn't make claims, that's the perk of an unusually good relationship between the law holder and the other holding owners. (Unless the law isn't controlled by the province regent, in which case 'an annoyance' probably describes the entire situation.)

BSB - Blue Skull Barons wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 18, 2020 1:05 pm

Warrior 4 + 1 per 3 levels
vs
Guilder 2 + 1 per 3 levels

Law holders can law claim (transferring a GB from someone else) not tax.

If I continue as BSB it will 100% be a Guilder + Training Grounds domain and outstrip all the other fighters who cant afford their training grounds or units.

Fighter is easily outstripped by the guilder at what it is supposed to do best.

Law claim or tax, that piece is just semantics. They can make money off of other people's holdings (not a lot certainly, but some).

Guilder can certainly go training grounds, and very potent by end game, however a lot of actions will be being sunk into building out those trade routes.

Fighter is not supposed to exist in a vacuum though, nor can anyone else really. I certainly don't disagree that a guilder can make more money though.

Also to clarify because it's not been transferred to this board from the previous.

We are not using combat and tactics: 'Warriors can buy WP with their bonus NWP from high Int'

Do the original reasons for this prohibition still exist?

Similarly what is the concern with weapon mastery, for not using those fighter benefits?

I had thought weapon mastery for single-class fighters was being allowed. It's certainly not game breaking and does give a straight fighter something to call their own.

Banning mastery was a post in the previous forum before the migration.

It was confirmed in one of the earlier Main adventures.

I am sure there are a number of unstated rules that are carried forward, that never made their way into the rules section.

That's unfortunate, weapon mastery was the best thing for fighters and setting them apart from paladins and rangers.