Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Non-city Kingdom Improvements - Fort, Mine, Camp, etc.


Kingmaker

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

22 people marked this as a favorite.

Similar but slightly different from creating new types of buildings, in my Kingmaker campaign I introduced the following ideas for some things you could build in your non-city hexes. In part I was inspired by the Civilization computer games, but also wanting to allow something to boost the effect of special resources.

Any of these actions take the place of the "build a farm" action in your kingdom turn. They also are mutually exclusive - you can have a farm OR a mine OR a fort OR a camp in a hex. None of these improvements represent a single building in a 12-mile hex. It's not just one farm, or just one mine, or just one fort. Building means you have devoted the primary physical and human(oid) resources of that hex to the activity of farming (farm), mining (mine), logging/fishing (camp), or patrols and defense (fort).

You can, however, build roads through a hex with any of the above.

So, you might consider the following as possible house rule ideas:

Fort: (6 BP, cost is halved if built over an area with an existing Lair or Cave) Instead of building a farm hex, a fort can be built in any hex. +1 Stability, -1 Unrest. If the hex is attacked, +2 Defense.

This is essentially a watchtower. The defense bonus would apply if an enemy attacks your forces in that hex using the upcoming mass combat rules. However, you could also apply it as a special Stability bonus to a Stability check you might make in response to an event like "Monster Attack" or "Bandits" if are having that affect a specific hex.

Mine: (6 BP) Instead of building a farm hex, you can build a mine in hills or mountains. +1 Economy, +1 Stability. This is doubled if the hex contains a "resource" like gold or iron ore: +2 Economy, +2 Stability.

This is essentially the same as a mill in a city, with a special bonus for doing it in a hex where you have a resource.

Camp: (6 BP) Instead of building a farm hex, you can build a logging camp and mill in forests or a fishing camp in swamps. +1 Economy, +1 Stability. This is doubled if the hex contains a "resource" like rare lumber, herbs, or fish: +2 Economy, +2 Stability.

Yes, this is essentially identical to the mine, just in different terrain.

Terraforming: Instead of building a farm hex, you can convert a forest hex into hills or a swamp into grassland. This takes 6 months and costs 24 BP. You could also plant a forest in a grassland or hills hex (though I'm not too sure why you would want to) for the same cost. You continue to gain the benefits of a camp during terraforming, but at the end of the terraforming it is destroyed.

Terraforming is an interesting idea - should PCs be able to really alter and remodel the map as it exists? I think they probably SHOULD be able to; however, I think it is absolutely fair to increase the incidence of negative events - Monster Attack would be a natural, as habitat is destroyed, but any of the nature-based ones like Bad Weather could be druidical revenge, and even Assassination, Feud, and the like could be sponsored by druids and fey objecting to systematic "rape of nature," so to speak and lashing out against it.

Rivers: Much like roads, rivers can be used for commerce. For every 4 hexes your kingdom controls that contains rivers, you gain +1 Economy. (Yes, hexes with a river and a road count for both.)

This was another Civ-inspired notion, as rivers in Civ traditionally boost trade. Of course, they also speed movement in civ, which I wasn't quite willing to do, although people can of course use river transport if they like per the normal PFRPG rules.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Maps, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Planting a forest in hills sounds like a GOOD idea if you need the lumber (or the fruit trees).

Terraforming a hex of swamp into grasslands though would take a lot longer than 6 months...

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

gigglestick wrote:

Planting a forest in hills sounds like a GOOD idea if you need the lumber (or the fruit trees).

Terraforming a hex of swamp into grasslands though would take a lot longer than 6 months...

More talking about the game mechanics of it than the real-world logistics of it. In the real world, of course we have tree farming. Lumber is a big industry here in Washington. In the kingdom rules, claiming a forest hex nets you zip in game-mechanical benefits and costs you a point of consumption. You can't farm it, and it takes extra time to build a road or clear it for building a city. Hills and grasslands are much more useful.

Likewise for draining swamps; it can be done, and filling or reclaiming tidelands and marshlands has been done for centuries - you could certainly make it take longer; I just figured 6 months seemed like a nice round number in terms of fitting into the time scale of the kingdom game.

Honestly, I'm not sure if anyone would put the effort into massive terrain change.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Cool stuff Jason.

Jason Nelson wrote:


Likewise for draining swamps; it can be done, and filling or reclaiming tidelands and marshlands has been done for centuries - you could certainly make it take longer; I just figured 6 months seemed like a nice round number in terms of fitting into the time scale of the kingdom game.

I think Rome was built on a swamp, and one of the earliest civil engineering projects involved draining them.

Actually, speaking of Rome and Civ, another out of hex improvement might be the good ole' aqueduct. I haven't read the kingdom building rules enough to figure out what effect it might have - increasing population growth or max population/district?

Grand Lodge

Sebastian wrote:
Actually, speaking of Rome and Civ, another out of hex improvement might be the good ole' aqueduct. I haven't read the kingdom building rules enough to figure out what effect it might have - increasing population growth or max population/district?

I suppose it depends on what edition you are playing.

In a 4th edition campaign, it adds two health and allows you to build Hanging Gardens.
In 3rd, it would have allowed your city to grow past 6.
Way back in 2nd edition, it let your city grow past 8

1st edition aqueducts were the best. Not only did they let your city grow past 10 but they prevented fires and plague.

:-)
-Jason

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

Aberrant Templar wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
Actually, speaking of Rome and Civ, another out of hex improvement might be the good ole' aqueduct. I haven't read the kingdom building rules enough to figure out what effect it might have - increasing population growth or max population/district?

I suppose it depends on what edition you are playing.

In a 4th edition campaign, it adds two health and allows you to build Hanging Gardens.
In 3rd, it would have allowed your city to grow past 6.
Way back in 2nd edition, it let your city grow past 8

1st edition aqueducts were the best. Not only did they let your city grow past 10 but they prevented fires and plague.

:-)
-Jason

That was actually one of the quirks of the original Civ computer game that I really liked - the "disasters" that could happen if you didn't have certain improvements. My favorite was the VOLCANO that could only be stopped by building a Temple. :)

Grand Lodge

Jason Nelson wrote:
My favorite was the VOLCANO that could only be stopped by building a Temple. :)

I totally forgot about that! Wonderful games. Civ5 is due out soon, which will probably spell the end of my free time for at least a year.

Silver Crusade Dedicated Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Tales Subscriber

Aqueduct. Same cost as roads, must begin on river terrain. Build like roads. Any city connected to an Aqueduct is immune to the fire or plague events in the event phase?

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Aqueduct. Same cost as roads, must begin on river terrain. Build like roads. Any city connected to an Aqueduct is immune to the fire or plague events in the event phase?

Not bad at all. Could also call it "canal."

Silver Crusade Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason Nelson wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Aqueduct. Same cost as roads, must begin on river terrain. Build like roads. Any city connected to an Aqueduct is immune to the fire or plague events in the event phase?
Not bad at all. Could also call it "canal."

"Waterworks"?

Star Voter 2013

I wouldn't make them immune... takes some of the "OH NO!" factor out of two events.

Allow for it to give a bonus on the checks to fix those problems.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

Good thread Jason.

To piggyback on this notion.....

What about moves like making a pact with say dwarves to do the mining that gives a circumstance modifier to the productivity of said mine.

Perhaps the first year the production is a little less as you have to pay the dwarves....then after the first year, the productivity makes a better pay-off.

Robert

Grand Lodge

Robert Brambley wrote:

What about moves like making a pact with say dwarves to do the mining that gives a circumstance modifier to the productivity of said mine.

Perhaps the first year the production is a little less as you have to pay the dwarves....then after the first year, the productivity makes a better pay-off.

I plan to do something like that in my campaign. My players didn't wipe out...

Spoiler:
...the Sootscale Tribe kobolds. Instead, they wiped out the mites, killed the evil kobold/gnome priest, and returned the "holy" statue to the chief. They ended matters with an uneasy "live and let live" truce between themselves and the kobold tribe.

Now that they have killed the Stag Lord and received their "build a kingdom" charter, they have already started planning on how to develop the gold and silver mines. One of the first ideas tossed out was that they should build an alliance with the severely depleted tribe.

If they do, and their skilled little friends start working the mines, I will have those "resources" hexes provide +2 Economy instead of the usual +1.


Aberrant Templar wrote:
If they do, and their skilled little friends start working the mines, I will have those "resources" hexes provide +2 Economy instead of the usual +1.

Good idea.

That's another thing I think is great about the new kingdom rules: for every good (or bad) idea of the players, it is quite easy to come up with a corresponding bonus (or penalty) - you just have to identify whether it should influence Economy, Loyalty or Stability.

Star Voter 2013

Zen79 wrote:

Good idea.

That's another thing I think is great about the new kingdom rules: for every good (or bad) idea of the players, it is quite easy to come up with a corresponding bonus (or penalty) - you just have to identify whether it should influence Economy, Loyalty or Stability.

+1

That's the great thing about this game. They aren't really rules, as more as they are guidelines. Change what you will for how you want it to work. I can't wait to get my hands on tweaking this stuff in game. I know my players will throw curve balls at me.

Star Voter 2015

Yeah I'm hoping my players will do the same with the kobolds. I also hope to use the grig and faerie dragon later on too... lots of potential on those two IMO -- I'm thinking to roll a dice each time period... even it's a bonus to loyalty, odd it's a penalty to stability.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
gigglestick wrote:

Planting a forest in hills sounds like a GOOD idea if you need the lumber (or the fruit trees).

Terraforming a hex of swamp into grasslands though would take a lot longer than 6 months...

Fantastic idea! Thank you!


So dotting this! Awesome stuff... any concern about game balance with these rules or have they been working fairly well for your group?

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

DM Doom wrote:
So dotting this! Awesome stuff... any concern about game balance with these rules or have they been working fairly well for your group?

They're working fine so far - of course, we're only like 15 months into the rulership part of the campaign so any large-scale alterations haven't really become apparent.

I understand James & Co's desire to *not* make every hex of the board equally valuable, and I don't disagree with that. I just like the idea of more varied options for dealing with varied kinds of terrain besides "farm/no farm." I'm sure if/when these rules are reworked into a full-scale stand-alone product, there will be many more rule elements like these to support different models of city and nation building.

Grand Lodge

Jason Nelson wrote:
I understand James & Co's desire to *not* make every hex of the board equally valuable, and I don't disagree with that. I just like the idea of more varied options for dealing with varied kinds of terrain besides "farm/no farm."

+1


Jason Nelson wrote:
DM Doom wrote:
So dotting this! Awesome stuff... any concern about game balance with these rules or have they been working fairly well for your group?

They're working fine so far - of course, we're only like 15 months into the rulership part of the campaign so any large-scale alterations haven't really become apparent.

I understand James & Co's desire to *not* make every hex of the board equally valuable, and I don't disagree with that. I just like the idea of more varied options for dealing with varied kinds of terrain besides "farm/no farm." I'm sure if/when these rules are reworked into a full-scale stand-alone product, there will be many more rule elements like these to support different models of city and nation building.

Beyond your house rules are there any in system benefits for the mines the PC's can discover or is it merely flavor in light of the raw? I admit I could go and comb through the rules but it's Finals week and I'm lazy :P

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

DM Doom wrote:
Jason Nelson wrote:
DM Doom wrote:
So dotting this! Awesome stuff... any concern about game balance with these rules or have they been working fairly well for your group?

They're working fine so far - of course, we're only like 15 months into the rulership part of the campaign so any large-scale alterations haven't really become apparent.

I understand James & Co's desire to *not* make every hex of the board equally valuable, and I don't disagree with that. I just like the idea of more varied options for dealing with varied kinds of terrain besides "farm/no farm." I'm sure if/when these rules are reworked into a full-scale stand-alone product, there will be many more rule elements like these to support different models of city and nation building.

Beyond your house rules are there any in system benefits for the mines the PC's can discover or is it merely flavor in light of the raw? I admit I could go and comb through the rules but it's Finals week and I'm lazy :P

The "mines" are considered a "resource" hex = +1 Stability.

and

RAPS KNUCKLES WITH RULER

That's for being lazy!

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

Jason Nelson wrote:

Terraforming: Instead of building a farm hex, you can convert a forest hex into hills or a swamp into grassland. This takes 6 months and costs 24 BP. You could also plant a forest in a grassland or hills hex (though I'm not too sure why you would want to) for the same cost. You continue to gain the benefits of a camp during terraforming, but at the end of the terraforming it is destroyed.

Terraforming is an interesting idea - should PCs be able to really alter and remodel the map as it exists? I think they probably SHOULD be able to; however, I think it is absolutely fair to increase the incidence of negative events - Monster Attack would be a natural, as habitat is destroyed, but any of the nature-based ones like Bad Weather could be druidical revenge, and even Assassination, Feud, and the like could be sponsored by druids and fey objecting to systematic "rape of nature," so to speak and lashing out against it.

I feel that terriforming a forest hex (i.e. clear-cutting) should result in a one-time payout of BP. I mean, that wood isn't just being burned in a giant sacrifice to Abadar, is it? Do you have any suggestions on what is a game-balanced amount? I wouldn't even know what to guess would be a good amount that makes sense for both early-and-late game. 6? 12? 36?

I guess early game you could only clear one hex at a time, but late game you could have 3 or more hexes being clear-cut at once, and if you stagger them, you could get a pretty nice year-round payout.

Granted, I'd have to come up with some chart that relates "number of forest hexes culled" to "how pissed off Planet, er the druids, get" if I plan on allowing that sort of thing. Maybe mimic the Edict table? Replace "number of festivals this year" with "number of hexes terraformed this year" and replace "consumption increase" with "number of additional rolls on the Events table" (filtered for natural causes / bad things).

"Draining the swamp" makes sense that there would be no BP-bump. Though if we want to get technical, I guess you couldn't make any progress during the winter, 'cuz the stuff is frozen - but that's borderline too-complicated.

Dedicated Voter 2013

I've introduced mines and camps in my own game, but they decrease Consumption by one if built on a resource, rather than increasing Stability!

Dedicated Voter 2013

I think I know something that won't break the system but that will make forests less avoided.

Have forests be worth 1/2 for the purposes of size, so they don't increase consumption as much, or your Command DC. With mountains and swamps being 1/4.

Is that reasonable? Should they be all worth 1/2?


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Aqueduct. Same cost as roads, must begin on river terrain. Build like roads. Any city connected to an Aqueduct is immune to the fire or plague events in the event phase?

Maybe...

Aqueduct/canal grants immunity to fire disaster.
Sewers grant immunity to plague.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
ArchLich wrote:


Maybe...
Aqueduct/canal grants immunity to fire disaster.
Sewers grant immunity to plague.

I think that's a great idea. In fact I'm going to look at the list of events and see what other "disasters" on the list can be benefitted by certain structures.

Robert


what do you reckon the BP for a sewer would be? Great plot hook. Mosters coming out of the sewers and attacking your people.

Same with the graveyard, Undead come to life every full moon and attack.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Robert Brambley wrote:
ArchLich wrote:


Maybe...
Aqueduct/canal grants immunity to fire disaster.
Sewers grant immunity to plague.

I think that's a great idea. In fact I'm going to look at the list of events and see what other "disasters" on the list can be benefitted by certain structures.

Robert

maybe they need to come up with the 'invention' of better sewers or aqueducts for them to be immune to plague and fire. I would even say they have to have 'firemen' etc and a contingency for such an event. Have about a bonus on stability check to minimize a fire etc.

thnx,
PJ


something i added into my game. letting the players research making new buildings. sort of like how spell casters can research how to make new spells. it takes time equal to how much bp the building is going to take. and each month it advances by 1 point. ways to make it go faster such as having a library, academy or what ever building you see fit for speeding up the research time. could also speed up how fast the research goes by putting bp into it 1 bp for 1 research point. my own party is kind of crazy and after letting them at this system they wanted to make a flying invisible castle. so i just said 150 bp for something that crazy and they have to research it too. funny thing is they are getting about 100 bp a month so wont take them that long to research and build it.


My players want to build the Piramids like in "Civ" and the great wall so they get a free wall in every city.

What are your throughs on that? what do you think something like that be? 500 bp?

Great wall 500BP grants all citys in your kingdom walls. If built by a rival kingdom the wall cant be built. Due to the massive size it take 1 month per 50 BP so a wall would take 10 months


dotting so I can find it...

The Exchange

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

dotting for easier reference. Thanks for this.


Pathfinder Tales Subscriber
pavaan wrote:
something i added into my game. letting the players research making new buildings. sort of like how spell casters can research how to make new spells. it takes time equal to how much bp the building is going to take. and each month it advances by 1 point. ways to make it go faster such as having a library, academy or what ever building you see fit for speeding up the research time. could also speed up how fast the research goes by putting bp into it 1 bp for 1 research point. my own party is kind of crazy and after letting them at this system they wanted to make a flying invisible castle. so i just said 150 bp for something that crazy and they have to research it too. funny thing is they are getting about 100 bp a month so wont take them that long to research and build it.

What sort of rules did you come up with?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

I love seeing these old threads get resurrected and have new life breathed into them.

It's like seeing an old toy or something that had been locked away out of sight and mind for a while.

Robert

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Reading some comment on the scarcity of stone as building material in the Kingmaker territory I was thinking about adding one more non-city building:

kilns for the production of bricks and quicklime from limestone.

As far as I can see the requirements for them to work would be:
- near a river or lake (generally the best location to find clay and limestone);
- they will need a road or river connection to the nearest town
- they should not be in a town hexagon as the risk of starting a city fire will be very high.

Some suggestion on the construction cost and effect?

I would think something around 6 BP to construct one in a plain or hill hex, double that if it is a wooden one, a +1 to Economy and +1 BP as effects and the possibility to add a improved (fireproof) capability for the city walls and/or important building for an increase in construction cost.

Comments and suggestions?


You're completely at the mercy of geology with regard to the location of calcareous rocks suitable for feeding lime-kilns, and the geology of the Stolen Lands isn't terribly well detailed. (The only specific mention of limestone I can recall seeing is that there is some around Drelev on Lake Hooktongue. It seems to me that if you want to take a line that Lake Hooktongue is in the approximate centre of an anticline or syncline, then limestone might be reasonably expected to outcrop in locations approximately all around the edge.)
Here in the UK, I know a very highly regarded brick clay was the Oxford Clay, which was a marine clay, not an alluvial or lacustrine deposit. I don't know enough about the brick industry to be able to say how well floodplain or lake clays will do if you don't happen to have an Oxford Clay handy though... :-?

With regard to positioning kilns, keep in mind that hexes are pretty big (ten miles or so across) and to my mind there should be sufficient space in most hexes to accomodate a bit of medieval/renaissance level urban sprawl without getting too close to any kilns.
And what are your kilns running on? Tame elementals? If not, you need wood or coal from somewhere...

Edit:
I find there's mention of limestone in at least one place (location W - I do not name it to avoid possible spoilers) in the Tors of Levenies (in the Nomen Heights) too...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Charles Evans 25 wrote:

You're completely at the mercy of geology with regard to the location of calcareous rocks suitable for feeding lime-kilns, and the geology of the Stolen Lands isn't terribly well detailed. (The only specific mention of limestone I can recall seeing is that there is some around Drelev on Lake Hooktongue. It seems to me that if you want to take a line that Lake Hooktongue is in the approximate centre of an anticline or syncline, then limestone might be reasonably expected to outcrop in locations approximately all around the edge.)

Here in the UK, I know a very highly regarded brick clay was the Oxford Clay, which was a marine clay, not an alluvial or lacustrine deposit. I don't know enough about the brick industry to be able to say how well floodplain or lake clays will do if you don't happen to have an Oxford Clay handy though... :-?

With regard to positioning kilns, keep in mind that hexes are pretty big (ten miles or so across) and to my mind there should be sufficient space in most hexes to accomodate a bit of medieval/renaissance level urban sprawl without getting too close to any kilns.
And what are your kilns running on? Tame elementals? If not, you need wood or coal from somewhere...

Edit:
I find there's mention of limestone in at least one place (location W - I do not name it to avoid possible spoilers) in the Tors of Levenies (in the Nomen Heights) too...

My home country is almost all calcareous rock. You usually don't mine it from the mountains but take the stones from the riverbeds.

That can be different for the Kingmaker area if the rock there is mostly limestone, granite of some other rock.
As there is some metal mine in the area (unless the material there is alluvial deposit) there is a good chance that the rock there is not calcareous rock.

About clay and bricks I see old brick kilns every few teens of Km. Reading the Wiki about brisk it say that most brick production was done locally and that transportation had a heavy effect on the brick price even doubling it after a dozen miles on bad roads (1 hex in the map).
Quality could vary but you generally find enough clay to produce usable bricks searching near riverbeds.

Charcoal wood is easy to get in this setting, there is plenty of forest.
Maybe a charcoal kiln would be a good add on for a wood hex.

About placing the building in the same hex of the city, it would be the logical thing to do (those I see were just outside the city border, not more than 1 km away), but they should not be within the city walls. So the easiest way is to place them in a adjacent hex.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

This question is primarily for Jason Nelson - but anyone else who has some insight, feel free to jump in.

So I've been using your ideas of the forts/camps/mines etc.

The idea is very intriguing and for the flavor/fluff of it - designating a hill-hex to be used for mines sounded really cool.

After they used one hill hex for farmland as they needed the reduction in BP, they dedicated the next to doing a mine.

(*note that my players are not given all of the stat info and rules for kingdom building up front - preferring a style more in line w/ non-optimization builds)

After realizing the hill/mine hex equates to a mill w/ +1 ECO and +1 STA, for their 6 BP investment, they were severely dissapointed. I couldn't refute their gripe; if they had spent the 4 BP on a farmland instead, they would reduce CONSUMPTION by 2 - essentially gaining 2 BP a turn, which is more congruent with a +10 in Economy (if you consider successful Economy checks over one's control DC is then divided by 5 to determine how much BP is earned).

So I'm wondering if this was ever discussed, or thought of as irrelevant for actual use; and of course what other options would be thought of instead.

One thought I had was

Spoiler:
allowing multiple mines to be built allowing for increases in economy for all subsequent mines. Perhaps the first one is 6 BP w/ +1 STA, and +1 ECO, but you could continue to build mines on that hex at 4BP each for a cummulative +1 to ECO.

EDIT - And what sort of limit should there be on that hex? if any....

Thoughts,
Robert

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

The "mine" improvement, if I'm recalling without the book in front of me, is basically just a "mill" building/city improvement that you can build without having to build a city.

As to WHY you would want to build one on a hill rather than farmland, the reasons you could are three:

1. If you value bonuses to your kingdom rolls, since they apply to a variety of things (Econ for magic item sales and whether you get any income at all, not just straight income; Stability for resolving most kingdom events).

2. If your consumption is already at zero, in which case adding farm hexes doesn't help you at all.

3. If there is a resource in the hill, since as I recall the mine value is doubled if there's a resource.

It's hardly an auto-win vs. building a farm, but it's not an auto-lose either. It depends on what kind of kingdom you're building and what your needs are.

Thoughts?


Hey Jason,

I am big lover of Civilization myself, and I find the idea of borrowing from Civilization appealing. But my players do not. Before you add complexity to your system, make sure your players are on board with it. Otherwise you could get a mutiny.

Fort: This seems reasonable.

Mine: I would change this to a +1 Economy / +2 Economy only. These bonuses build up fast.

Camp: One thing I have done in my campaign is that I treat Forest Hexes as resource hexes.

Terraforming: I think terraforming is best handled on case-by-case basis. These are major changes. Plus it adds character to your PCs kingdom that there are still 'wildernesses'. If the PCs systematically change the world you end up with this kingdom that feels too perfect and manicured. It also begs the question. Why are the PCs so desperate to drain swamps when there is still plenty of better land to claim.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Jason Nelson wrote:


It's hardly an auto-win vs. building a farm, but it's not an auto-lose either. It depends on what kind of kingdom you're building and what your needs are.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that I don't necessarily agree with your assessment. Which is okay.

For my tastes - it seems a much more auto win to go the route of a farm vs this idea - especially considered just how big the kingdom is apt to become.

Well let me ask you this - I also was under the impression that roads must be built too - (just as you would a farm)in a hill hex to build a mine (or forest hex to build camp). So the initial investment for my players has been quite steep for a +1 ECO and +1 STA - which really isn't anything. For the 6BP for the Mill and the 2 for the Road - total of 8BP - that +1 ECO would need 40 turns to pay it off. (over 3 years), and still need 20 months if the hill has a valuable resource.

Even if the Roads weren't necessary (which I believe they should be if you wish to easily obtain the fruit of the labor); that 6B needs 30 months or 15 w/ a resource to recoup.

(again when you compare to the other option of doing a farm).

When you consider a mill is a small building structure that takes up a small part of the town, I'm thinking a mine (or series of mines within a 12 mile across hex) ought to procur more than a typical mill in a town.

I have yet to make a ruling for my players - when we met last week I saw their concerns and told them that I would take it under advisement for the next week before we meet again and making a final ruling on it.

I have a thought:

Spoiler:

Allow mines to be expanded upon. 6BP for the initial investment (+1 ECO / +1 ECO) and cost 4BP for each additional +1 ECO.

If the hex has a resource, it also removes the consumption for that Hex. (breaks even - as opposed to 2 that a farm would provide).

But this then brings up the burning question - how big can you make the mines?

Would it be that unbalancing? spending an immediate 4 BP for a continuous +1 to ECO??? I don't think so. It would take 20 months for each to pay off.

Just some thoughts to discuss.
Robert

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Robert Brambley wrote:
Allow mines to be expanded upon. 6BP for the initial investment (+1 ECO / +1 ECO) and cost 4BP for each additional +1 ECO.

Obviously I meant +1 ECO / +1 STA.

Aside from that - carry on!

Robert


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Robert Brambley wrote:
Robert Brambley wrote:
Allow mines to be expanded upon. 6BP for the initial investment (+1 ECO / +1 ECO) and cost 4BP for each additional +1 ECO.
Obviously I meant +1 ECO / +1 STA.

That's an interesting idea, but it raises some problems. The first problem is that your mine hexes still cost more than your farmland hexes and still produce less advantage than the farmland hexes overall even if the mine is built on a resource hex, which means that there's no economic reason for a mine hex. The second problem is that, even if there was a marginal increase in effective revenue for mine hex improvements as compared with the effective revenue for farmland hexes (which there isn't), you would still need a substantial number of improvements to break even. You would then need a substantial number more improvements to provide enough eventual return on investment to justify losing money (relative to making it a farmland hex instead) until you reach the break-even point. By the time you get around to doing that, you pretty much sink all of your mine-building resources into one mine for something that you have to expend resources to protect so that you eventually end up being able to sink enough into it to start turning a profit.

Ultimately, I think it makes more sense to just leave the rules as they are. They state that claiming a hex containing a resource grants a +1 to your kingdom's Economy score. So . . . claim it, build a road in it, and call it farmland. You can call it a "mine" hex instead if you like. The rule, then, would be "A mine hex costs the same as a farmland hex, with the same requirements, plus it needs a resource. It provides -2 Consumption and +1 Economy." Same goes for "camps" as for "mines".

Voila. Done.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
apotheon wrote:


That's an interesting idea, but it raises some problems.

Trading BP cost now for bonuses to Economy that add up over time si exactly what the building rules use.

That in a nutshell is what the buildings are - an investment now for returns later.

The reason a mine would be an option instead of another farm is just in the case where consumption is so low or nil based on numerous farms, that there's no reason to build another farm.

apotheon wrote:


So . . . claim it, build a road in it, and call it farmland. You can call it a "mine" hex instead if you like. The rule, then, would be "A mine hex costs the same as a farmland hex, with the same requirements, plus it needs a resource. It provides -2 Consumption and +1 Economy." Same goes for "camps" as for "mines".

Voila. Done.

My above statements being said - I have to say I do like the simplicity of your method.

It's so simple in fact I probably never would have come up with it - I tend to over think everything.

So I'll see how good my system is working out and if it's just too complicated, I'll certainly revisit your much more streamlined suggestion.

Thanks for the ideas.

Robert

The Exchange

I've had a think about the 'resource' hexes and development of mines. The +1 Economy isn't really doing for me or the group, nor are the Mine bonuses suggested. I think you should only be able to build a Mine where a precious metal or mineral resources are located. A Mine costs 6BP to develop and provides +1 BP if the Kingdom succeeds it's Economy check in Step 4 (Generate Income) of the Income Phase.

The reason being is that a Farm Hex essentially generates 2BP via it's reduction in consumption. Also, exploitation of Mines is limited to the resources available on the map.

Thoughts?

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

RizzotheRat wrote:
I think you should only be able to build a Mine where a precious metal or mineral resources are located.

I put a sidebar in the Book of the River Nations about this. Basically it said that a gold deposit with a mine generates the same amount of economic bonus as a rare berry bush field with a camp generates the same bonus for 1 reason: the berry field is less labor intensive as a gold mine. The amount of people required to operate the mine plus directly support them is a small town by itself (think Falcon's Hollow, even though it was lumber). Berry fields by comparison doesn't require as much labor and doesn't require nearly as much additional support (healers devoted to working on the laborers, blacksmiths to maintain the tools, materials to hold up the mine shaft, etc, vs basket weavers). So the money earned per person working is higher and the continual investment is lower. So on a macro-scale (aka, the kingdom sheet) they generate the same benefit.

This is by no means perfect. Its meant to be a simple abstraction for game purposes. Nothing more.

Scarab Sages

Next game session, we are starting out kingdom building, so I thought I would pose a question to those of you who are already in it (or past it, I suppose).

I have a druid who none of the kingdom roles fit (we have a 9 man party), so I invented a new one, Lord of Resources, sort of a minister of the interior. I wanted to give keeping that role filled the advantage of allowing excess consumption reduction from farms to be turned into BP. As the game progresses, is that going to be unbalancing?

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

1 person marked this as a favorite.
redcelt32 wrote:

Next game session, we are starting out kingdom building, so I thought I would pose a question to those of you who are already in it (or past it, I suppose).

I have a druid who none of the kingdom roles fit (we have a 9 man party), so I invented a new one, Lord of Resources, sort of a minister of the interior. I wanted to give keeping that role filled the advantage of allowing excess consumption reduction from farms to be turned into BP. As the game progresses, is that going to be unbalancing?

It can be. A better rule would be a variant of the roads rule: every 4 BP beyond reducing the kingdom's consumption to 0 (aka 2 farms) grants a +1 to Economy. This way you're giving them something and it can make a difference, but its not a 1 to 1 ratio.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
redcelt32 wrote:

Next game session, we are starting out kingdom building, so I thought I would pose a question to those of you who are already in it (or past it, I suppose).

I have a druid who none of the kingdom roles fit (we have a 9 man party), so I invented a new one, Lord of Resources, sort of a minister of the interior. I wanted to give keeping that role filled the advantage of allowing excess consumption reduction from farms to be turned into BP. As the game progresses, is that going to be unbalancing?

I think what Mr.McCoy suggested is a worthy replacement suggestion.

It's hard for me to believe your druid isn't capable a good fit for either the High Priest, Marshall, Treasurer, or Magister

Robert

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Adventure Path / Kingmaker / Non-city Kingdom Improvements - Fort, Mine, Camp, etc. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.