Topic: Of Buildings

[JB - Jana Boulderbrew]

I suppose my issue is that I played a D&D 3.5 cleric and later a druid that made armor and potions. Potions of healing, potions of barkskin, magic armor and shields. 3.5 had some clear rules for item creation where clerics could make many items. Usually the items were focused on healing and protection or on something to do with the faith .. ie wand of fire if you worshiped a fire god. The cleric worshiped the god of crafting, so it made sense. Also in 3.5 you could create an item if someone worked with you that had access to the spell.

Locate object for treasure finding and healing for reducing hits are priest spells not wizard.

Anyway, that was 3.5 and I understand this is 2.0.

[AaH - Avicerra al Hamam]

I dont think allowing custom house extra trade routes is a good idea. It will give more cash flow in the game and guilder with chain trade will get insane income. Just giving free actions for espionage will be very powerfull.

[WB - Water's Blessing]

For me, at least, it's more about province resources than the gold. I don't think the gold will be as much an issue because we've already taken a lot out. Especially if raiding is more accepted and seen as "normal" (fingers crossed) this game, trade routes should be something that gets hit regularly anyway, so they'll take more resources or actions to maintain.

As I think about it, I think I prefer option A. I see where others are coming from with the Knights Templar and Merchant of Venice options, etc, but you can still have that with two players cooperating (which, arguably, would be better for an RPG anyway). For me, option 2 erodes the non-magic casting classes edge too much. Casting classes already have a domain level edge. If we let them close the gap with training actions, or let them have extra trade routes like a guilder in their capital, then why do you need those other classes? I think keeping the buildings class specific helps to reinforce the special edge of each class rather than blur it to obscurity. Class should matter at the domain level a lot, and not just in adventures.

[SG - Sigrun Godefroy]

having trade value based on distance could be a thing, would make trade routes possibly culnerable to raiding

[WB - Water's Blessing]

That said, option B might be a good way to handle multiclass characters. It keeps them on par with single class characters by limiting them to 2 class buildings but acknowledges their broader skill set. A Half-Elf could maybe be a Merchant of Venice or a Knight-Templar, but they pay for that flexibility by being disliked by everyone (reflected in them having a permanent cross-cultural penalty in every culture).

[HW - Halmond Westerly]

I still think thief regents (not the guilder or bard sub-classes) should receive a free espionage action (but still with the 1 GB cost) each turn. This would let them use their unique (and otherwise unusable) skills to do some information gathering, create random events, or just generally to be a thief, rather than focus on business all the time. Without this, there seems little reason to play a thief instead of some other rogue or spell caster, and those who do are at a big disadvantage, without any particular role in play.

Are there any other regent types that get special free actions by being that regent type? If not, then I don't see a reason to give a single class a special free action in addition to it's regular actions. That's not bringing something into balance, that's favoring a class and taking things out of balance. Now, if you wanted to give them bonuses to specific Actions, I'd be all for that. For instance, the Theft or Sabotage actions would make sense to me. Giving them an entirely new free action, however, does not.

If the customs house gives up to 3 free espionage actions per turn, that seems like way too many. If it only gives one free action when that level of building is built, as a one-time thing, that seems unlikely to be worth the 10 GB. The extra trade route benefit, though, is downright dangerous. If two regents had level 2 customs houses, that's 20 GB spent to give them each +5 GB per turn from a trade route. It'd pay for itself quickly, and rapidly spin out of control.

I don't recall anyone saying anything about a number of free actions, only bonuses. Now, granted, I've missed things before, so it's possible this is another thing I missed. That said, I've been talking about bonuses to those actions, not getting free actions. I'd be okay with a single free action per turn, not three. Additionally, Guilders are the class that are designed to be making a lot of money. They're also the easiest ones to place taxes on with some of the hardest ways to fight back with things other than simply moving. So...why not bump their income? That is what the class is specialized in doing to begin with, and each of the other classes are getting bonuses to the things that they're specialized in.

I don't like characters starting at a higher level from going to an academy, but if that's how it works, I think they should receive 1000 XP per academy level rather than simply a higher starting level. This would mean a level 1 Academy produces level 2 Rogues, and a level 5 Academy produces level 4 Rogues, level 3 or 2/2 characters of other classes, or level 3/2 multi-class Rogues. Which seems both more sane and more balanced.

I think you might be onto something here, but it's also a bit of a headache to keep track of the XP, especially in light of several individuals trying to reduce tracking for simplifications sake. So, what about a compromise where it does just give flat level bumps, but at a rate of building level -1, minimum of 1 level. Multiclass characters get an additional -1 level? Not sure about that part, honestly, but it seems to be somewhat in line with what you're saying here. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[DCT - Destiny Corben-Talas]

If allows single class to choose buildings from every class, multis should have a 3 buildings choice, otherwise, it severely reduces the flexibility of a multi and improves greatly the monoclass more than already have.

[HW - Halmond Westerly]

having trade value based on distance could be a thing, would make trade routes possibly culnerable to raiding

This is exactly what I'm thinking as well. Sure, you can trade just 1 or 2 provinces away, but it's far less expensive than something that came from the other side of the world, or even just half that distance. Rarity, availability, transportation costs, etc all go into prices that people would have to pay to get the goods. Thus, the price goes up. It just makes sense that we could incorporate that concept with a linear scale with every so many units of distance (provinces, sea area, etc) adding to the value of the route.

This in turn would also encourage raiding, as it is a more valuable target, and costs more to maintain both in terms of GB's, but also in turns of sending out ships and such to protect the route.

[HW - Halmond Westerly]

If allows single class to choose buildings from every class, multis should have a 3 buildings choice, otherwise, it severely reduces the flexibility of a multi and improves greatly the monoclass more than already have.

Agreed, but that's why I at least, don't favor the mix and match for any categories. I think the cooperative needs of having various class types going on is much more appealing for RPG reasons, but also for developing different types of realms based on what is available

[BB - Bronzebeard]

I understand the appeal of the secondary resources, but in the last game, I found it difficult to tell what provinces had what resources available, what trade routes where chained to what. There was no listing on the turn report or anywhere, so mainly was best guess. Adding more resources will only aggravate the situation. A forum could be created to list provinces with available starting and trade resources, but maintaining it would be an increase in Juan's workload, which is bad. I think it's complexity and confusion that doesn't really add much beyond the existing resources.