Birthright: Chimaeron

Yeah, in the case of subverting army units it makes sense if the subversion can be partially successful when it's only partially bid against... but, holdings, lieutenants, and provinces can't be broken down like that.

I actually like number 3 because it gives you the option of knowing what you have to bid against or hope the roll is higher.

I've always presumed version 1 was in play.

The Caster puts the amount of juice they want into the spell. The defender determines whether or not they want to bid against a spell.

Neither party knows how much the other is willing to commit. It's a blind drop and winner takes all.

Edit: version 1, for some reason I thought 2 was the blind bid.

#3 Is preferred (aside from self-interest) because it gives value to the action, even if it fails. If realm magic is being underutilized, or Wizards are being seen as getting weaker by the priests, this may be the way to go. It matches the RAW best.

I would admit though the value may be too high? making #1 the best. It can be deployed for RP draining your enemy, or require investment for the desired effect.

#2 for the sake of being consistent with holdings, doesn't really fly. Espionage biding requires the use of a counter-pool that holdings don't. Also being consistent should be way down the list of things after, balance, value, fun, workload etc. Also if consistency is the goal, it should work like dispel magic, requiring the defender to bid the RP cost of the spell before overpowering it (considering it's a free dispel magic for the defender). (which would be unbalanced when targeting multiple army units)

Ley lines, holdings, espionage and rule actions all use method #2 at this time. Why would this suddenly be a completely different system?

I think of the steps as:

The caster buys access to the spell's targets.
The defender buys spell resistance for them, or not.
The caster buys penetration for the resistance, or not.
The DM determines the outcome based on these decisions.

I think #1 is the most interesting. #3 is second best. I think #2 is boring. You make Subversion simply another route for the person with the most RP to always win at everything. We already have lots of those.

Maybe it is just a flawed spell. Maybe it should not be able to effect units. Just singular holdings or LTs etc.

If someone leaves a large army under the command of a lieutenant (lieutenant action led war) - it is a devastating spell to use.

I expected the cost of the spell to be part of the bid really..