Quick question: there is no errata for Monuments? The +3 loyalty for such a small cost (esp if you have a Temple) may create some monument-heavy cities...In this case I would take an approach similar to graveyard or dump heavy cities, have some sort of negative consequence. Perhaps a magical storm rolls in and all the monuments become animated at start rampaging and fighting each other. The main idea is not to power game the stats, which is very easy to do with the RAW.
Nah, that one makes no sense within the context of game. Graveyards producing undead on the other hand makes sense.
What you do is you hit them with a rabble rouser that hits against your stability. All well and good, but he goes on and on about how the PCs are only concerned about their own status. How they bribe the people with statues but don't actually take care of their needs. Have him point out the buildings that the city needs more of and is lacking to be realistic, shops, granaries, a brewery, a dump. Make him annother Grigori. Point out to them that they have responcibilities to their citizens that they need to take care of.
It's not really the style of our game to have GM whim smite the players when they plot out the most advantageous course of action. The characters are a collections of highly intelligent, wise, and motivated people who have spent a great deal of time and effort planning a city to last the ages. If history and experience have proven that a city full of monuments (or dumps and brothels) is the most prosperous, then it makes sense that is the course of action to take (and I would expect Absalom to be full to the brim with such structures).
If the rules as written create an unacceptable world, then the rules need to be tweaked a bit.
Perhaps adding a "support" stat to buildings would do it - to represent the population needed to support multiples of a given structure type. With a full district having a population of 9,000 I could see support values being things like 3000, 4500, 6000, 9000. If you build more than one of a given structure without the necessary population to support it, then it costs double or something (because it's a waste of resources to fund an unnecessary improvement). As an example, if you gave a dump a support value of 4500 that would mean you don't really need a second dump until your city population reaches 4500 (equivalent to half a district) or more and a third dump doesn't make sense until you hit 9000 etc.. Common/generic buildings (like houses and shops) wouldn't have a support value and so you could build all of those you wanted without penalty.
You could even replace the "one per city" trait with a very high support. For example giving a Cathedral a support value of 36000 would prevent a second one from being built until a city had the equivalent of 4 full districts.
I have an issue that I would like to put before my fellow DM's and the amazing people at Paizo. My PC's have divided the Greenbelt amongst three cooperative nations, the Nightscale Hegemony (run by the Kobolds they befriended early on), the Silverfist Dwarves (a clan of Dwarves that 'reclaimed' the dwarven settlement that was overrun by the hodags), and Narland. Of course, Narland receives the most hexes, as it was the first nation in the area. However, my question concerns underground development of hexes.
Both dwarves and kobolds are underground species. Both wish to expand underground to increase the size of their respective kingdoms without interfering with Narland's expansion. The thing is, while I have some ideas floating around, I could use any help with rules for how much development would cost underground.
For example, how much would it cost to build a farm underground? They obviously exist, as underground species such as dwarves, drow, and svirfneblin could not maintain kingdoms without them. What about the price of roads/tunnels? Any additional input or insight that anyone would be willing to provide would be much appreciated.
@CrimsonHorizons,
Unfortunately my input might not be what you're looking for.
Kobolds are scavenger species, and don't really build up "kingdoms" and "empires." If they did, they'd likely be a PC race, or at least have a kingdom somewhere already in the world. They just find a cave, and live in it. The Sootscales just found a silver mine and used it: they weren't digging any deeper before your party showed up, why would they start now? They just don't do that.
Dwarves, yes, they build. But they work on a very difficult timescale: their cities take centuries to build (and then last for many centuries). Yes, they are highly skilled tunnel-diggers, but they are also perfectionists and take their time to make their underground cathedrals... well, cathedrals. Compare to humans where you really can slap together a wooden shop in the course of a month.
Furthermore, remember that when digging underground, there is less incentive to "spread out." On the surface, you have only two dimensions to work with, so farms need to take up a lot of space. In the underground, you'd put things below (or above) you, as a way to keep them closer, rather than sprawling.
Even the mighty Mines of Moria, known as "the Greatest of the Dwellings of the Dwarves" in all Middle Earth, was about 40 miles in length. That's about 3 hexes in Kingmaker-terms.
IMO, it breaks setting to have the kobolds and dwarves expand alongside the human kingdom, and for them to do it at a comparable rate.
---
However, if you really just want to do it, just because, then don't let me stop you. You're already way off the grid as far as setting-sense, so just go with what makes sense from a gamist-sense. Have it cost the same amount, and spread by the same rules. Anything less would be "too weak" to tell interesting stories with. (Again, given the timeframe of a human's life.)
It's not really the style of our game to have GM whim smite the players when they plot out the most advantageous course of action. The characters are a collections of highly intelligent, wise, and motivated people who have spent a great deal of time and effort planning a city to last the ages. If history and experience have proven that a city full of monuments (or dumps and brothels) is the most prosperous, then it makes sense that is the course of action to take (and I would expect Absalom to be full to the brim with such structures).
If the rules as written create an unacceptable world, then the rules need to be tweaked a bit.
It isn't really having the GM smite groups exploiting the rules, it is simply letting their be some consequences. If a town build a ton of graveyards or dumps there is going to be fallout from that. Rules shouldn't override common sense.
In the early starts of my group's kingdom they have been slow to build shops, taverns and inns. So when Grigori strolls in he is pointing that out, that half the city is running business from tents not permanent structures. If there were a large number of dumps you can bet he would be bringing that up as well.
Game rules are often written with the idea that GMs are still present to help shape the world based on actions of the party.
It is certainly your game though and you can tack on the support rules you suggest for your game.
@ Erik Freund
You're correct, that's not really what I was looking for. I'm well aware of the abstractness of my players and how the races in question "generally" function in fantasy settings. I appreciate your response, but it doesn't help me with the mechanics.
Letting everything cost the same could balance out mechanics-wise, but the realism of it would be lacking. Ideally, every city district built underground would already have all four levels of city wall built right in, which is an unfair bonus that my above ground PC cites would miss out on. Tunnels cost more to carve out/shore up than a road costs to pave, so if I want to connect several underground cities together, my underground players suffer an unfair cost penalty.
Also, just curious Erik, but how would you have handled things had your party been entirely (or a majority thereof) composed of dwarves? Given that Dwarves tend to do things slower, how would you reflect that in the Kingmaker setting?
Alternatively, decree that the core building rules be scaled to human time lengths for human kingdoms. If dwarves can live 7x longer than humans, maybe their buildings take 7x as long to build in order to last as long comparatively, given their life spans.
Hey Guys,
I read through this post when it was maybe 100 replies long... Is there any kind of summary of unofficial errata posted in here?
|
If my players want to move their capital, what's the penalty/cost?
They have established their capital in one location and built a town in another. The second town is flourishing better and has better defenses. They wish to make the second town their capital and the first one would just become a has been.
I guess I was thinking maybe some stability penalties for a few months/years before the population gets used to the new location. Maybe a permanent Unrest penalty since the people in the old capital will always remember that the capital was stolen from them?
It's not really the style of our game to have GM whim smite the players when they plot out the most advantageous course of action. The characters are a collections of highly intelligent, wise, and motivated people who have spent a great deal of time and effort planning a city to last the ages. If history and experience have proven that a city full of monuments (or dumps and brothels) is the most prosperous, then it makes sense that is the course of action to take (and I would expect Absalom to be full to the brim with such structures).
If the rules as written create an unacceptable world, then the rules need to be tweaked a bit.
It isn't really having the GM smite groups exploiting the rules, it is simply letting their be some consequences. If a town build a ton of graveyards or dumps there is going to be fallout from that. Rules shouldn't override common sense.
In the early starts of my group's kingdom they have been slow to build shops, taverns and inns. So when Grigori strolls in he is pointing that out, that half the city is running business from tents not permanent structures. If there were a large number of dumps you can bet he would be bringing that up as well.
Game rules are often written with the idea that GMs are still present to help shape the world based on actions of the party.
It is certainly your game though and you can tack on the support rules you suggest for your game.
I support Ironwolf's general take. It is simply part of a GM's job to determine what the logical consequences of party actions and decisions are, even if they are not explicitly covered in the rules.
I also want to reemphasize that the kingdom building rules are just in their infancy. In many ways, Kingmaker is the playtest for these rules, which I hope Paizo will refine and put out in an updated version at a later date. So if you find issues in your campaign arising from apparent loopholes or oversights in the rules that your players (crafty little devils that they are) are exploiting in ways detrimental to the game, i think you should feel free to monkey with the rules and provide feedback to Paizo on what worked well and didn't.
In my current Kingmaker campaign, I'm actually revealing the mechanics for individual buildings to the players only bit by bit as they build them, to reflect a more realistic view of how city and national planners develop their kingdoms. If monuments become a problem once they discover how valuable and cost efficient they are, I will probably rule that there will be decreasing Loyalty bonuses for all monuments after the first one or two in each city.
As far as the brothels and dumps are concerned, if the players are building as city full of them where is all the trash or customers coming from? This is what I would ask my players if they did that, which luckly they haven't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Guys,
I read through this post when it was maybe 100 replies long... Is there any kind of summary of unofficial errata posted in here?
Quick question.
Castles, Cathedrals and Arenas half the cost of certain other buildings however the way it is written for them states that you get a discount on "building x or building y".
Does this mean that you get the half cost on both of them or just one?
I'd say it's either one or the other. Buildings like the temple lists the buildings it halves as "graveyard, monument, and shrine."
|
|
If my players want to move their capital, what's the penalty/cost?
They have established their capital in one location and built a town in another. The second town is flourishing better and has better defenses. They wish to make the second town their capital and the first one would just become a has been.
I guess I was thinking maybe some stability penalties for a few months/years before the population gets used to the new location. Maybe a permanent Unrest penalty since the people in the old capital will always remember that the capital was stolen from them?
I have come up with the following: (Please let me know what you think)
1) You can establish a kingdom without establishing a capital.2) Until you establish a capital, you will incur a -2 penalty to Stability checks.
3) You will need a city in your new Kingdom, even if you don't designate it as the capital.
4) The original city built will be unable to grow for 4 months after the new city becomes the capital. This is to represent the mass exodus from your city as citizens move to the official "Capital".
I'd say it's either one or the other. Buildings like the temple lists the buildings it halves as "graveyard, monument, and shrine."Quick question.
Castles, Cathedrals and Arenas half the cost of certain other buildings however the way it is written for them states that you get a discount on "building x or building y".
Does this mean that you get the half cost on both of them or just one?
This is a question I've been struggling with. Haven't argued it with the DM. If anything, I self-ruled that it's "either x OR y", myself, though I would love to know if it can apply to both. More bang for your BP, after all. However, the word "or" only appears in the "big" buildings (Arena, Castle, Cathedral).
Would that be if you were taking a certain "track" with your city? For instance, my character, the leader, has finally managed to build the "Church of Cold-Blooded Unity" (Cathedral), but as he's an Enchanter, he's far more interested in arcane research, so he has an Academy built. Would that show he's not very interested in the religious affairs of his people, and thus not care about the zoning of future temples in that city? What if you have a windfall and decide to build a second Cathedral in a city (just sayin'...)? Would you then get the "half-off" ability for the temples?
Finally: In our campaign, over the two years we've been building the nation, our attitudes and edicts have shown that we are now more of a lawful civilization united behind a cause of "civilized unity". Can you change your nation's alignment to reflect this?
@Crimson Horizons
Interesting points. I certainly like the idea of it being possible for the rules to cope with subterranean domains, and I think that you might actually have largely answered your own question in your explanation of your concerns.
If an underground development would receive the benefits of certain above-ground ones, then include the costs of those things in what you charge for setting up the new subterranean zone. I.e. if you give the benefit of City Walls to every underground settlement, then preparing a city district site would entail the cost of 4 sets of city walls (32BP) in addition to whatever you charged for opening up the space itself.
That kind of expense would certainly limit expansion to a slow crawl for any underground race, and would strongly encourage heavy development of an existing settlement before any expansion was considered - which would in turn seem to fit the politics and settlement patterns of Golarion.
You'd need to figure out how to handle the costs of 'claiming' a hex, and whether you wanted to tweak the expense associated with clearing different terrain types - hills and mountains should arguably be easier to develop underground dwellings in, with forests and plains tough, and swamps nearly (or entirely) impossible.
Roads, unless they're run above-ground, are presumably going to be more expensive to develop since they involve massive amounts of digging: perhaps a base of 8BP (double the cost of the most expensive conventional road networks).
Likewise, I'd recommend tweaking some other effects: a network of caves, for example, wouldn't merely be a 'safe refuge' granting a minor Stability bonus to the realm, but would be a huge cost-saving on setting up a settelement - at the least I'd go with the Kingmaker-standard halving of cost for relevant work (in this case, the opening up of city districts) instead of the Stability boost. If nothing else, this'll strongly encourage underground races to concentrate in places where caves are to be found.
Even claiming a hex is likely to be different - after all, to +do+ anything with it, space has to be opened up. I might let subterranean kingdoms 'claim' as much land as they like - but until they dig roads through it or open it up for other uses, it gives them nothing at all in the way of either cost or benefit: it's just a load of rock over which they have no power at all.
It'd probably make sense for a hex with caves (or ruins, to allow for those famous monster-haunted castles and lost cities beloved of fantasy gaming?) to be claimed and settled without much expense... but it's hard to think of anything else that could be easily moved into by races that want to have stone on all sides.
And for any development you're again looking at a lot of digging. E.g. I'd guess that subterranean farms would cost at least 16BP to develop (eight times the cost of a hex of surface hill farms, but still much less than opening up a defensible city).
Overall, these kind of figures would leave most humanoid tribes lurking in undeveloped caves and / or ruins, with only a handful able to get together the funds required to found any kind of a capital. But with good leaders and a lot of hard work - or generous allies throwing resources their way to get things going - they might manage to make something of themselves.
6) Just to check that my understanding is correct that to build a second (or subsequent) city district in a hex, as part of the process of extending a city, that the 'clear the ground' process has to be gone through each time before building additional districts?
Each district costs a new batch of BP, yes.
Do you mean we have to pay consumption for each district? Or we have to pay the clearing costs AND the consumption for each district? I was under the assumption that the clearing costs cleared the ENTIRE hex.
***
Roads cost double when built over rivers because you have to build a bridge.
Is this always the case when you build a road on a river hex? Or does it only apply when you want the road to actually CROSS the river?
I may not always want a bride across the water, so I shouldn't have to pay the extra cost, right?
If I can do this, and I later decide to build a bridge in that hex (with the road alongside the river), do I just pay the difference in BP costs?
***
During step 3 of the Improvement phase, it says you can destroy buildings to make space.
Does destroying a building and replacing it with a different building count against the "new buildings per month" limitation?
James: If you only ever really need one wall in a district, why do the rules specifically say it covers only 1 of 4 sides?
Do you mean we have to pay consumption for each district? Or we have to pay the clearing costs AND the consumption for each district? I was under the assumption that the clearing costs cleared the ENTIRE hex.
As the man answered - it means both. You pay the BP cost for the clearing of the new district, and consumption goes up by 1.
Roads cost double when built over rivers because you have to build a bridge.
Is this always the case when you build a road on a river hex? Or does it only apply when you want the road to actually CROSS the river?
I may not always want a bride across the water, so I shouldn't have to pay the extra cost, right?
If I can do this, and I later decide to build a bridge in that hex (with the road alongside the river), do I just pay the difference in BP costs?
As a niche situation that will only come up in your game, there is no official rules answer to this. That being said, I allowed my players to build roads without building bridges at single cost.
So if your GM wants to, yes.
Roads cost double when built over rivers because you have to build a bridge.Is this always the case when you build a road on a river hex? Or does it only apply when you want the road to actually CROSS the river?
I may not always want a bride across the water, so I shouldn't have to pay the extra cost, right?
If I can do this, and I later decide to build a bridge in that hex (with the road alongside the river), do I just pay the difference in BP costs?
How about if thee are multiple rivers in a hex (like at the Stag Lords Hex)? Do you pay or 2 bridges, or does the bridge cost include all rivers?
"Build City" comes before "Build Roads", so do cities get roads for free or do you still have to build the road in the city hex? How about bridges in a city hex?
|
In Kingmaker rules, it's very simple.
Building a road in a hex: X BP (cost dependant on terrain)
Rivers?: Double the cost (doesn't matter how many, this covers bridges over any and all rivers)
If the GM was ok with the players not wanting bridges in a river hex, then I would think it'd be fine to not double the cost.
Oh, and building roads in a hex with an already established bridge (the GM will know which ones these are) negates the doubling cost. Even if there are other rivers.
Just remember it's an abstraction, it'll work out in the end. :)
As a niche situation that will only come up in your game, there is no official rules answer to this.
Starting at the Stag Lord's fort, we are surrounded on three sides by rivers, and a forest on the fourth side, so whether or not we are FORCED to pay the bridge cost will have a BIG impact on how we start out.
Seeing as many groups begin play in that area, I don't see it as being a fringe case AT ALL.
Just remember it's an abstraction, it'll work out in the end. :)
My teachers in Graphic Design school always said "You have to know the rules before you can break them [with abstractions]."
The Unrest increases and reductions on buildings, are they one time effects on the build turn, or are they ongoing? The K.I.S.S. design vibe of this system would indicate the former, but I want to make sure.Unrest reductions and increases from buildings occur once only, when the building is created.
Unrest can get out of hand REALLY fast, so a recurring unrest effect is really bad.
So why are the other bonuses sustained?
It's not like the 58 BP Cathedral you just built stopped being there or stopped reducing the unrest.
Perhaps I am missing something here?
Thank you!
IronGolem
So why are the other bonuses sustained?
It's not like the 58 BP Cathedral you just built stopped being there or stopped reducing the unrest.
Perhaps I am missing something here?
Thank you!
IronGolem
That's a decent question - but it's one that each GM has to answer for himself on a case by case basis.
Mechanically, the why of it is simple - Unrest is kind of like damage, and effects that remove unrest are like effects that heal damage. You care cure wounds on a person, they don't get 1d8+1 bonus hit points - they heal that amount. Same with unrest. If a building removes 2 unrest, you just reduce unrest by that much the one time - consider it pacifying that given group of dissenters.
From a roleplaying perspective, consider it this way. Unrest represents groups of people in your kingdom that are actively dissatisfied with your rule. When you build new luxury housing or a cathedral (or whatever other building lowers your Unrest), some of those people's dissatisfaction goes away - they like their new digs, or they find solace in their religion, whatever.
But then you go ahead and do something else that raises your Unrest. That's a new set of people who grow dissatisfied with your rule - despite all of the housing or that big cathedral. It's just not enough for those people. So you need new housing, or a new cathedral, or a new... whatever... to quiet them.
And one more question, while I'm thinkin' about it..the rules state that multiple city grids can be placed in a single hex. Is there a BP cost to adding extra city grids to a city, or is it that once a hex has been prepped, you can build as many city grids as you need without incurring any additional BP cost? Or is the +1 Consumption per grid assumed to be enough of a limiter on overdeveloping a single hex in favor of expanding the kingdom?Urath DM is right on the first question; the 75% chance and the actual rolled items are two separate areas for magic items to live.
As for the second question: Multiple city grids can indeed exist in a single hex, but you have to prepare the land for each grid. Every time you add a city grid to your kingdom, no matter if it's in a hex that has a grid or not, you pay the prep cost and your Consumption goes up by 1.
I was wondering about this myself, thanks for the clarification! It did seem to me that the cities the PCs could build in Kingmaker would be kind of small.
The logging camp and mine are house rules.
How do they work? I'm guessing they're basically the equivalent of farms, but done in either mountain or forest hexes.
We are just starting Rivers Run Red and our first kingdom building session tonight.
My players have already asked "Do we get paid from the kingdom?"
Can anyone tell me if there are any rules on handling "salary" for rulers? Any suggestions? The more you can help me argue the point the better, my players will try to squeeze me for everything they can.
Help!
Thanks,
Mike
|
|
We are just starting Rivers Run Red and our first kingdom building session tonight.
My players have already asked "Do we get paid from the kingdom?"
Can anyone tell me if there are any rules on handling "salary" for rulers? Any suggestions? The more you can help me argue the point the better, my players will try to squeeze me for everything they can.
Help!
Thanks,
Mike
Technically, no.
However, you could use the Withdraw step of the Income Phase as a way of accumulating wealth. It will cost them though. It is an automatic unrest point, plus if they fail the DC, it costs them another unrest for every BP they try to withdraw. And don't forget, a 1 automatically fails.
|
We are just starting Rivers Run Red and our first kingdom building session tonight.
My players have already asked "Do we get paid from the kingdom?"
Can anyone tell me if there are any rules on handling "salary" for rulers? Any suggestions?
I can't remember where they are but I use the upkeep rules from 3.5- i.e. I assign the players a 'lifestyle' depending on the size and power of their kingdom. My players are all in the 'wealthy' lifestyle bracket now, and thus do not track expenses unless they are beyond 10GP.
Thank you both! I like the wealthy lifestyle, and I will allow the withdraw action too, but I will make sure they understand its risky.
Note: I explained both of these things to them...their response was "We should make that gold mine a privately owned mine to make money"
*sigh* my players kill me with the "what's in it for me" thing. Any suggestions on handling the above if they decide to develop the mine "privately"? I'm thinking that knowledge of it could get out and cause unrest etc. Any other suggestions if they try to go this route?
Thank you again,
Mike
We are just starting Rivers Run Red and our first kingdom building session tonight.
My players have already asked "Do we get paid from the kingdom?"
Can anyone tell me if there are any rules on handling "salary" for rulers? Any suggestions? The more you can help me argue the point the better, my players will try to squeeze me for everything they can.
Help!
Thanks,
Mike
The kingdom does not provide them a salary. They have to go out and adventure like any other adventurer. Tell them to come here and ask for the rules if they don't believe they don't get a salary. I would not give them a salary because the game advances at a slow pace. If they sit around for 10 years or so and don't adventure, and they get paid 100gp a month then they now have 12000 that they did nothing to earn.
BP is *not* a pile of money in the kingdom's vault.
BP represents all of the human and material resources and the economic activity of the kingdom.
So, when you have no unrest and you make a Stability check, someone doesn't roll up to your palace with a wagon load of 1 BP worth of gold ingots and drop it in the vault. It just means that the combined productivity of the people of your kingdom increases by 1 BP worth of productivity. More logs are sawn into boards. More chickens are raised and laying eggs. More wandering peddlers move from tiny unmarked hamlet to tiny unmarked hamlet selling penny whistles and moon pies. There is peace and order and happiness and prosperity...
... which adds up to the NET WORTH of your kingdom's human and material wealth increasing by 1 BP in equivalent value.
Your magic item creating buildings are attracting clients coming through town who patronize other businesses, who engage in under-the-table deals for items that don't come up in the public "store window" and they keep other people in business. The caster's tower is employing other people to gather skunk cabbage leaves and eyelashes and gum arabic and sulfur and bat guano and amber rods and wolf fur and all manner of magical stuff, to create flasks and alembics and vials, to chop firewood, to make pots in various sizes and metals, to build new tables and workbenches to replace ones incinerated when experiments occasionally explode, and on and on down the list. Heck, they are hiring bodyguards and trapmakers to defend their valuable stashes and vaults!
* Remember that every "building" is presumed to include a number of homes scattered around the city "square" where the building is built - a Library is not a 750' x 750' building; it means that this city square has a library per se, but that the neighborhood around it is also generally dedicated to the purpose of education.
BP are almost never in the form of Cash Money in the pockets of YOU, the king and council. BP are everthing that every citizen across your city is doing and building and buying and selling and trading and eating and drinking and growing and sowing and reaping and grinding and collecting and prospecting. You *CONTROL* what happens with everything in the kingdom (which is represented by the BP), because you are the players, but your characters don't *own* everything in the kingdom.
...
*sigh* my players kill me with the "what's in it for me" thing. Any suggestions on handling the above if they decide to develop the mine "privately"? I'm thinking that knowledge of it could get out and cause unrest etc. Any other suggestions if they try to go this route?Thank you again,
Mike
Well there's a lot that goes along with running a privately owned mine. Who pays the works? the security? the transportation of equipment and the moving of the raw ore. Who are they selling the raw ore to? sure Kingdoms may buy it, but if their own kingdom is buying it, that could cause some major unrest. *just think of how much scandal is caused when a politician gets discovered for only working with their friends* And remind the players that first all the expenses come out and then they can start mining. You may also have them have to buy the land from the kingdom. If they still go through with it, I'd say just pick a figure for how many pounds of ore they sell and give them cash for that. 50gp per a pound is the going rate I think, but that's pure gold.
Thank you both! I like the wealthy lifestyle, and I will allow the withdraw action too, but I will make sure they understand its risky.
Note: I explained both of these things to them...their response was "We should make that gold mine a privately owned mine to make money"
*sigh* my players kill me with the "what's in it for me" thing. Any suggestions on handling the above if they decide to develop the mine "privately"? I'm thinking that knowledge of it could get out and cause unrest etc. Any other suggestions if they try to go this route?
Thank you again,
Mike
Simply make it clear to your players that the mine is either a kihngdom resource (and thus contruibutes to the BP economy) or a player resource (and they get paid in gold). There is no mix-and-match.
Then simply treat it like a business (getting as detailed as you wish) they own - require an initial investment of X, and produce monthly earnings of Y. Whatever works for your campaign. A simple approach is 1000 gp per PC and one month to develop the mine, then income of 100 gp per PC per month.
The important part is to make it clear that your PCs can't 'skim off the top' of the kingdom's mine.
|
|
When PCs opt to buy an item that pops up on the magic item list, does that count as “sold” (and thus adding to BP per the minor/medium/major status of the item if over 4k)?
I can see arguments for and against it, but my eyes (and brain) are just about bleeding out after reading all these posts over the past couple of weeks and probably missed it in there somewhere.
If they buy it themselves with GP the item does not generate BP.
While I agree with your reading of the rules, I let them get the BP as well if they purchase an item. Of course, I only award 0/1/2 BP for minor/medium/major so it doesn't amount to much.
When PCs opt to buy an item that pops up on the magic item list, does that count as “sold” (and thus adding to BP per the minor/medium/major status of the item if over 4k)?
I can see arguments for and against it, but my eyes (and brain) are just about bleeding out after reading all these posts over the past couple of weeks and probably missed it in there somewhere.
That is indeed a good question. My first idea was "No, only if they sell it through economy checks." but I can see the logic in "But it still gets sold?".
I'm going to take the first, and I would advice people to be careful for exploits if they take the second.
"We should make that gold mine a privately owned mine to make money"[...]
To be honest - unless the PCs killed off all of the Kobolds, I'd say
that technically, the mine is already 'privately' owned...by the Kobolds.
Isn't the Kobold mine a silver mine? I thought there was another, unclaimed, gold mine banging around in Stolen Lands. Well, I could be wrong.
Anyway, I have a weird question, please keep in mind that I'm a new GM and all, but how many districts can be fit in 1 hex?
It's just curiosity, and I doubt my players will try to fill it up, but unless my math is wrong a hex is about 93 square miles, and if each district is about 1 square mile does that mean that, technically, we should be able to fit 90+ disctricts into it?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, I have a weird question, please keep in mind that I'm a new GM and all, but how many districts can be fit in 1 hex?It's just curiosity, and I doubt my players will try to fill it up, but unless my math is wrong a hex is about 93 square miles, and if each district is about 1 square mile does that mean that, technically, we should be able to fit 90+ disctricts into it?
This has been figured before...
The short answer is:A hex is approximately 125 square miles in size.
A city district is 1 square mile (1 mile per side)
So, technically, you could have 125 districts in one hex.
|
|
Here is some of the compiled data H.T.H.Hey Guys,
I read through this post when it was maybe 100 replies long... Is there any kind of summary of unofficial errata posted in here?
Can you email me a copy of this compiled FAQ? My email is username at google dot com.
I don't recall this ever being asked, but it's an issue that's bothered me a while:
-Can you build a farmland in the same hex as a city?
I can see arguments for both sides (and the lack of specificity in the rules leans me towards yes) but if there's an official answer, I'd like to hear it.
|
You can develop any grassland or hill hex that contains roads into farmlands to help sustain your kingdom’s Consumption. It costs 2 BP to designate a grassland hex as farmland and 4 BP to designate a hill hex as farmland. You cannot build a city on a farmland hex.
I would rule that the converse is also true by RAW.
Disclaimer: I actually allow my PCs to build farmlands on city hexes. 12 square miles of land is a lot to cover with just a city, but this is a house rule. It was implemented to give the early kingdom a little bit of a leg up.
I remember reading sth regarding that but cannot find it - are there any houserules / "official" ones concerning the use of "classical" magic items like the lyre of building, decanter of endless water, ringgates etc?
You can develop any grassland or hill hex that contains roads into farmlands to help sustain your kingdom’s Consumption. It costs 2 BP to designate a grassland hex as farmland and 4 BP to designate a hill hex as farmland. You cannot build a city on a farmland hex.I would rule that the converse is also true by RAW.
Disclaimer: I actually allow my PCs to build farmlands on city hexes. 12 square miles of land is a lot to cover with just a city, but this is a house rule. It was implemented to give the early kingdom a little bit of a leg up.
Huh, I totally missed that in the rules.
I'm working on a reworking of the kingdom building rules (putting more emphasis on localization, instead of everything being so top-down heavy) and in it I think I'll move farm building to happen prior to city building, so this sort of confusion is avoided.