It's too late for my campaign (which is well underway), but I've begun thinking that the current rules mean that virtually all rulers of fledgling kingdoms will be Bards, Paladins or Sorcerers, which doesn't make a lot of demographic sense to me.
The issue here is the gigantic importance of Charisma for the rulership position. If I ever ran Kingmaker (or a similar system) again, I think I'd make the following change:
A ruler may use either Intelligence (a clever ruler), Wisdom (a wise ruler) or Charisma (a charismatic ruler) as his/her contibution towards kingdom statistics.
During the Baronial phase of a kingdom's development, the ruler's statistic bonus can only be applied to an appropriate kingdom statistic.
A clever ruler (INT) must use his bonus first towards the kingdom's Economy.
A wise ruler (WIS) must use his bonus first towards the kingdom's Stability
A charismatic ruler (CHA) must use his bonus first towards the kingdom's Loyalty
Once a kingdom has reached the point at which the ruler's statistic affects two kingdom statistics, the ruler may freely choose the second kingdom statistic to affect (but the first must always be limited by the type of ruler).
Comments?
Charisma is what makes the people want to follow you in pathfinder. They don't all have to be the classes you names, even if they are the most likely.
Fighter 20 bp
str 16
dex 8
con 14
int 10
wis 12
cha 14
Later the fighter can get a rod of rulership or even the headband that boost charisma. A 16 is good enough to start with for combat purposes in strength.
It's too late for my campaign (which is well underway), but I've begun thinking that the current rules mean that virtually all rulers of fledgling kingdoms will be Bards, Paladins or Sorcerers, which doesn't make a lot of demographic sense to me.
The issue here is the gigantic importance of Charisma for the rulership position. If I ever ran Kingmaker (or a similar system) again, I think I'd make the following change:
A ruler may use either Intelligence (a clever ruler), Wisdom (a wise ruler) or Charisma (a charismatic ruler) as his/her contibution towards kingdom statistics.
During the Baronial phase of a kingdom's development, the ruler's statistic bonus can only be applied to an appropriate kingdom statistic.
A clever ruler (INT) must use his bonus first towards the kingdom's Economy.
A wise ruler (WIS) must use his bonus first towards the kingdom's Stability
A charismatic ruler (CHA) must use his bonus first towards the kingdom's LoyaltyOnce a kingdom has reached the point at which the ruler's statistic affects two kingdom statistics, the ruler may freely choose the second kingdom statistic to affect (but the first must always be limited by the type of ruler).
Comments?
I like it.
Momar has some good points as well.
Wraithstrike, while what you say is true (I have a 16 chr cleric as ruler), I would say that most groups are going to want to have the person with the highest chr as ruler. That means Sor, Bard, etc... Classes where chr is of primary importance or really useful (pal).
Loyalty definitely needs more utility if I were to change to that system, but something needs to change...while a fighter *could* end up as Baron, I don't think I've ever seen a kingmaker game where that's actually happened. Valandil has noted a situation with a cleric as Baron...Valendil, are there any primary CHA characters in your game?
I don't see what's wrong with the current system, that it requires equalization. Charisma is the most logical stat for leadership. That doesn't mean that a Wizard, Fighter, or Rogue will want to be king any less just because they might have a -1 compared to the best possible leader. That smacks of the 3.5 players that laugh at any character concept that isn't a Cleric/Wizard/Druid, and thus, 'unplayable'.
Some parties handle optimize leadership mechanically rather than choosing based on leadership ability. That's fine -- those parties made their choices. That doesn't mean that Charisma is overpowered for leadership, and that other things need to be beefed up while Charisma needs to be nerfed. Leadership is, after all, one of the cornerstones of Charisma the way that knowledge is part of Intelligence.
I do nod my head at your recognition that they needed limits, like being stuck in place (Intelligence just applying to Economy). Still, becoming a Duke and King would continue expanding the bonuses, then it ultimately doesn't matter what mental stat your character is based on -- A Charisma-, Intelligence-, or Wisdom-focused character all give the same bonus to the same things. I suppose people will determine for themselves whether that's a problem or not, but this was pretty much the number one adventure path for leadership-focused characters, and it seems unusual to then level the playing field so everybody does it nearly the same.
I do have some respect for wanting different systems for this sort of thing. One of my players was salivating over the idea of a magocracy, which the rules unfortunately do not handle. I myself would like to see what a warring tribal community would look like, where Strength is one of the primary stats, Weakness is a stat penalty where your subject no longer fear you enough to remain under your rule, and Honor is somehow integral ...
But I think it's important to stay away from altering things to the point where any king can use his highest ability score (even Constitution) for any society and still be as good as a ruling-specialist.
Dangit. Now I'm tempted to daydream about how different societies would benefit from different ability scored-rulers, and what additional rules changes would tumble down from that. Magocracy? Tempting to say Intelligence, but then, Sorcerors are full spellcasters too, and technically Bards even though they don't have the spell selection for it ...
A point or two in your starting kingdom stats isn't that big of a deal.
I would disagree. Early on a point or 2 can make a world of difference.
Loyalty definitely needs more utility if I were to change to that system, but something needs to change...while a fighter *could* end up as Baron, I don't think I've ever seen a kingmaker game where that's actually happened. Valandil has noted a situation with a cleric as Baron...Valendil, are there any primary CHA characters in your game?
There is a low chr dwarf druid and a paladin (there was a wizard and barbarian to start). I intentionally made a Selective Channeling, diplomacy cleric to be the ruler to make use of a good chr.
My party's first Baron was a Dwarf Ranger (CHA 8). Really, the only difference character ability scores make is a few months in the time required to achieve a bonus equal to Command DC +20 in Economy, Stability & Loyalty.
|
Personally, I don't see any reason to alter the rules, considering you are expecting all these existing people and new people coming into the Stolen Lands to follow a ruler who is ruling by personal authority, since it is not an inherited position in an established land. Perhaps a lot depends on whether the GM tells their players up front that whoever is going to be the ruler should have a high charisma. That does to to influence whoever has leanings in that direction to make a more "face" oriented character.
The ruler in our campaign is likely to be a fighter that has cha as a stat thats higher than Str. She is using a cha based feat tree, such as dazzling display, cornugon smash, shatter defenses. I'm sure there are more uber builds, but she makes good use of her charisma in roleplaying situations, and the way Kingmaker seems to be designed, this particular AP can make it worthwhile (a lot of encounters have a diplomatic return, if slaughter isn't the preferred method of dealing with opponents).
The real, unspoken, issue here is dump stats. In many games, point buy players of anything other than Bards, Paladins and Sorcerers dump Charisma to better optimize what they see as their "more important" attributes.
Koingmaker is a different animal. Not only do you have the Kingdom leadership rules that reward high Charismas, but there is potential for extremely heavy use of social skills throughout the entire AP. So high Charisma is really rewarded. "Opytimizing" for Kingmaker requires that you take this into account and not dump Charisma, particularly if you intend to be the ruler. I like this about Kingmaker.
The other option is to roll for stats, 4d6 drop one, in order. This gives a chance that any type of character could end up with a decent Charisma. Players who like to optimize or who are married to a particular character concept would hate that, however. It will produce fairly strong characters with much more balanced stats than your typical point buy, though.
Yes and no. I think the original point was more that it seems like certain classes, the ones that require charisma anyway, are over represented as leaders. As long as they're mechanically superior choices for the ruler role this will be true. Adding other possible stats helps diversify who can be leader in groups with an eye toward maximum bonuses, or really any group that cares about numbers.The real, unspoken, issue here is dump stats. In many games, point buy players of anything other than Bards, Paladins and Sorcerers dump Charisma to better optimize what they see as their "more important" attributes.
Koingmaker is a different animal. Not only do you have the Kingdom leadership rules that reward high Charismas, but there is potential for extremely heavy use of social skills throughout the entire AP. So high Charisma is really rewarded. "Opytimizing" for Kingmaker requires that you take this into account and not dump Charisma, particularly if you intend to be the ruler. I like this about Kingmaker.
The other option is to roll for stats, 4d6 drop one, in order. This gives a chance that any type of character could end up with a decent Charisma. Players who like to optimize or who are married to a particular character concept would hate that, however. It will produce fairly strong characters with much more balanced stats than your typical point buy, though.
True, if you are are also optimizing in the Kingdom Building. I think many groups however wouldn't always choose the 18 Charisma sorcerer over the 14 Charisma fighter (+4 vs +2), but when the choice, in a group of point-buy optimizers, is between the 20 Charisma sorcerer and the 7 Charisma fighter (+5 vs. -2), it's not much of a choice. No one wants to take penalties on their Kingdom scores.
Also, remember the variable nature of ability scores. At least a few NPC statblocks I have seen have a "Born for Greatness" Special Quality, which is to say that their ability scores are off-the-charts. (in this case, just the point-buy chart)
One can expect that your class doesn't matter so much, you could be a fighter or a cavalier and if your stats are all ridiculous, you're going to rise to the top.
So, your observation only holds for PCs on Point Buy. In that case, yes, Bards, Paladins, and Sorcerers are at a decisive advantage in rulership.
|
There are alot of good reasons for this.
1: (Looks over at 1/2 my players.)If the players read the players guide. This problem dose not come up. How ever there are alot of players that will not read it.
2: They will not be ready for some of the stuff that comes up in AP.
3: Low point buy games like my group dose. Changes how you make characters. They have more of a grite feal to them becous you can't be good at alot of things.
I normal make sure the characters. The players bring to the table when we start an AP. Are well made over all not min/max but not gimps. To prevent a TPK in the first book. After that well let the dice roll.
It's too late for my campaign (which is well underway), but I've begun thinking that the current rules mean that virtually all rulers of fledgling kingdoms will be Bards, Paladins or Sorcerers, which doesn't make a lot of demographic sense to me.
The issue here is the gigantic importance of Charisma for the rulership position. If I ever ran Kingmaker (or a similar system) again, I think I'd make the following change:
A ruler may use either Intelligence (a clever ruler), Wisdom (a wise ruler) or Charisma (a charismatic ruler) as his/her contibution towards kingdom statistics.
During the Baronial phase of a kingdom's development, the ruler's statistic bonus can only be applied to an appropriate kingdom statistic.
A clever ruler (INT) must use his bonus first towards the kingdom's Economy.
A wise ruler (WIS) must use his bonus first towards the kingdom's Stability
A charismatic ruler (CHA) must use his bonus first towards the kingdom's LoyaltyOnce a kingdom has reached the point at which the ruler's statistic affects two kingdom statistics, the ruler may freely choose the second kingdom statistic to affect (but the first must always be limited by the type of ruler).
Comments?
I let the barbarian in my campaign use his strength. I assumed when he does his ruling, he does it with force. And people obey him because they fear him.
The rules are abstract. I have no problem inserting another stat as long as I can come up with a reasonable reason as to why it works.
The only stats I couldn't come up with a reasonable reason for her Con and Dex.
Str, Int, Wis, and Cha I would let a player use as their main stat for ruling without a second thought.
we just started kingdom building in our group, everyone chose the ranger over the cavalier even tho the cavalier had better cha (16 vs 12) we have an all halfling party tho so everyone has higher then normal charisma (11 is the lowest, 5 player party) also the cavalier was dead set on being the general.
our party composition is: ranger, cavalier, witch, druid and alchemist.
|
|
we just started kingdom building in our group, everyone chose the ranger over the cavalier even tho the cavalier had better cha (16 vs 12) we have an all halfling party tho so everyone has higher then normal charisma (11 is the lowest, 5 player party) also the cavalier was dead set on being the general.
our party composition is: ranger, cavalier, witch, druid and alchemist.
This is why they put out players guides. Not following the suggestions is up to the players. It is not the DM's job to make the game easyer, becous the players did not follow the recomdations in the players guide. The players should have solutions to all problems listed in the players guide. If not it's on the players to over come not the DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
we just started kingdom building in our group, everyone chose the ranger over the cavalier even tho the cavalier had better cha (16 vs 12) we have an all halfling party tho so everyone has higher then normal charisma (11 is the lowest, 5 player party) also the cavalier was dead set on being the general.
our party composition is: ranger, cavalier, witch, druid and alchemist.
That's the party's choice, and it has mild consequences. Munchkins might choose differently to optimize things, but so what? The difference in stat bonuses is overcome with one extra month's worth of kingdom building, if you're worried about it. Certainly not worth changing the kingdom system so that a different stat is preferred for the ruler, it's a mild speedbump as a result of - horrors - role-playing. Good for them. Pick the character you actually want to be the ruler, not the guy who just happens to have a bigger number written on a piece of paper.