RJS wrote:House and Lands
Q) It is possible to invest in the same Wealth Holdings more than once? Would they need to be on different domains.
A) Yes, you may invest in the same Wealth Holdings more than once. A second investment could be placed in another domain (often a good idea especially if you lose domains to war or calamity) or can go in the same domain. In the case of the latter, the holding simply improves. Investing twice in a Marketplace in the same domain means you have a bigger, more famous marketplace. The effects are cumulative. Note, in the case of Godswood, you would roll 4d6 − 12 for two, 6d6 − 18 for three, and so on.
There's currently an interesting thread going on here at RPG.net considering the lack of benefits of owning several domains over investing all your holdings in just one super domain.
Regarding both the value of Land and its defensibility, the OP from said thread condensed the following arguments:
Wields-Rulebook-Heavily wrote:Let me just condense the argument a bit.
-Land can be useful as a bargaining chip.
-[strike]It may be important to the plot.[/strike]
-[strike]It may be strategically important.[/strike]
-Undeveloped land is less defensible and produces [strike]less[/strike] no income.
-It can be raided, reducing overall land value.
-It's land points that could have been spent on your most defensible and rich land.
-[strike]it may not be important to the plot.[/strike]
-[strike]It may not be strategically important.[/strike]
Some of these cancel each other out, because outside actual play we have literally no way to quantify them, and actual play could easily swing both ways so any argument based on it being superior to theory is pretty much moot. We could throw hypotheticals all over the place and see what sticks, but it wouldn't really help. That leaves one incentive for buying it (so you can potentially give it away), and several disincentives against.
That's a damn shame. Lords should be vying tooth and nail for every scrap of territory they can take and defend while still being in good graces with their liege lords. They should agonize over leaving land undefended and vulnerable to the mercies of the enemy. The "roleplaying" defense doesn't really hold here either, because a) it's entirely subjective, much like any actual play and b) the game doesn't really give any incentives for it. That leaves us back at the system.
How about this for a houserule; Reduce the house fortune bonus of a dedicated Maester to +2, a sept to +2, a mine to +4 and a port to +4. Mines and ports retain high value because of terrain costs.
Add +1 to house fortune rolls for every banner house and domain the house commands regardless of terrain, additional +1 for the grasslands feature in summer (however long that lasts) and +1 for the woods and roads features throughout the year to represent income from farming communities and various resource operations. These bonuses are contingent on being able to defend the lands and maintain the law, so if bandits and armies roam them freely, even if only for a short time, the bonus is lost for that quarter.
You could represent the law requirement with specialised law holdings (either instead for or in addition to the current system) or garrison units, but it's a start towards making lands valuable and tempting players to overextend their resources to get more. Thoughts?
I think he may have a point.
- Therefore, it might be a good move limiting second investments to other domains, and not the same - effectively eliminating the bolded text on the first quote of this post.
Some exceptions could possibly apply (the case of King’s Landing – however King’s Landing could also be possibly conceived as several domains, or even have new special kinds of holdings).
- I also agree that Land holdings should provide some value (as opposed to none) in the House economics, and that reallity wasn’t been taken into account in the Rules As Written.
- I also found, when creating my player’s House (see this thread) that Population (and not Land) should be the factor determining community investments (hamlets, towns, etc).
31 Population for 20 Land seems a little bit contrived (a lot of Population for an Hamlet - see Population Table on Page 97!)
Maybe a rules revision should be in order.
What do you think?