Franklin Cain 700's page

It's a Region Activity.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=1375

Tech-wise, including metal buildings of whatever purpose is a more post-industrial feel, not a pseudo-Renaissance feel. Don't recall reading about many _steel_ towers in the usual sources of heroic fantasy literature. _Stone_, yes -- _steel_, no.

Also, I can't imagine the rust monster rider on your homeowner's policy will be all that affordable, either.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=354

Franklin

The commodities listed for the Arcanist's Tower is 6 Ore . . .
And no Stone.

So, it's supposed to be a metal tower? Not a stone one?

Or was this a typo?

Thanks,
Franklin

Ironically Excess farmland turning into Food production is a house rule I'm considering for my personal game.

Well, since I've stole-- err, "borrowed" a few of your ideas that you've posted hereabouts, by all means please feel free to borrow one of my own!

While you're looking at these rules, I'd think of how they interact with warfare. Specifically: How enemy armies can be used to block a kingdom's food and taxes production just by being in the way, and how you can reduce an army's consumption by ordering it to pillage whatever area they are in (damaging or destroying the infrastructure in the process).

Well, as it so happens . . .

I have amended the rules for the Pay Consumption sequence. I do not like the idea that "surplus reduction of Consumption" does NOT equate "gain Food Commodities" in the Rules-as-Written (RAW).

(Also, I like the idea of Farms being OK adjacent to Village hexes, which is historically accurate, so there's that as well.)

Wanted to share this idea, and see what others may think of it.

Thanks,
Franklin

(Turn Order)
Sequence 1.4, Upkeep Phase, Step 4: Pay Consumption

These "house rules" are an amendment to (and/or replacement for) the "official" rules in the Kingdom Building rules within the Adventure Path.

Calculate the total Consumption of all of your settlements as usual, as well as the total Consumption of all of your armies, and combine these as your kingdom's Total Consumption.

Then, calculate the number of (eligible) Farmland hexes within your kingdom. That is, count up the number of Farmland hexes within the Influence radius of one (or more) of your settlements or ("house rule") are merely adjacent to one of your settlements, and label this count as your kingdom's Available Food.

If your kingdom's Available Food is greater than its Total Consumption, then you receive the difference as an amount of surplus Food Commodities. (Any such Food Commodities in excess of your kingdom's capacity for Food storage are lost as usual for Commodities.)

On the other hand, if your kingdom's Total Consumption is greater than its Available Food, then label the difference as your kingdom's Unmet Consumption. For each point of Unmet Consumption, you must do one of the following:

* Spend 1 Food
* Spend 5 RP
* Gain 1 Unrest

And finally, if your kingdom's Total Consumption and Available Food are equal, then you have precisely met your kingdom's Consumption needs for this Turn, with neither any surpluses nor any deficits.

Here are the relevant DCs that I've tentatively come up with, for the different types of terrain. Please note that I've included all of the "standard" types of terrain, not just he ones specifically available in the Stolen Lands, in anticipation of making my rules for Kingdom Building as open-ended as possible.

DC 25 for Arctic
DC 22 for "Badlands" (combination of Desert and Hills)
DC 20 for Desert
DC 15 for Forest
DC 15 for Hills
DC 20 for Mountains
DC 10 for Plains
DC 25 for Swamp
DC 25 for Underground
DC 18 for "Wooded Hills" (combination of Forest and Hills)

I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on these numbers.

Thanks,
Franklin

Hey, Vance. ;-)

On the subject of Farmland at levels 1 and 2...

Because Influence is used for more than just deciding where one can build Farmland, I decided to amend farms instead of Influence. I was specifically going for a more historical, more realistic feel, by saying that farms must be *either* within a settlement's Influence radius, *or* else be adjacent to a settlement. This way, *every* village can be the hub for a new cluster of farms (just like in our own real world history).

On the subject of filling up one's capital too soon...

I like the idea of allowing the capital to expand from a village into a town before level 3. I'm not too sure about allowing more than that. Your idea of letting the capital exceed (by one size) all growth restrictions -- i.e. by letting it become a city (and even worse a metropolis) early -- that seems a bit too much, too soon to me.

Instead of one Size early, how about a number of levels early? That is, allowing expansion into a Town at level 1 is "two levels early" (from 3rd level down to 1st level). Similarly, we could allow the capital to expand into a City at level 7 (instead of 9), and again into a Metropolis at level 13 (instead of 15).

Thanks,
Franklin

Changing the DC for Claim Hex and Establishing Worksites/Farmlands by itself makes it close to a different system.

I don't see how. Here's an example of how I'm thinking of revising this:

Let's say that a 5th level kingdom wants to claim a new hex, in the Kamelands (the "level 4" zone, as per the "Stolen Lands Zones" chart on page 45).

The hex's "level" (4) gives us a (base) DC of 18. This DC is adjusted by the dominant terrain type(s) in that hex (specific modifiers to be determined), giving me a final DC for that hex. For the moment, for the purpose of this example, let's pretend the terrain modifier in this case is zero (+/-0), for a "final" DC of 18 for that hex.

Now, for the Claim Hex activity, I plan on using the *higher* of the hex's DC or the kingdom's Control DC, since we are trying to incorporate that hex into the kingdom. (Just as the Establish Trade Agreement activity uses the higher of the Control DC _or_ the Negotiation DC of the target group.)

Since the kingdom's Control DC is 20, and this is higher than the hex's DC of 18, this specific action will have a DC of 20.

As far as I can see, I am being faithful the the PF2 method of skill checks. ;-)

Thanks,
Franklin

f you were going to do the above though I'd suggest simply doing it for Region Activities only.

Well, so far, all of the activities that I've thought about revising accordingly, are all on that list. ;-)

These all affect just one (1) hex, and are the ones I want to "fix":
* Build Roads
* Claim Hex ($)
* Clear Hex
* Establish Farmland
* Establish Settlement
* Establish Work Site
* Fortify Hex
* Irrigation

($ -- I plan on using the _higher_ of either the hex's CR or else the kingdom's level, for calculating this DC)

Please notice that several Region Activities are *not* on my list of "activities to recalculate." ;-)

(Edit):
Forgot about Demolish, which is a Civic Activity. But that's the lone exception.

Thanks,
Franklin

I've just noticed something about how we calculate the DC for various kingdom activities, something that isn't sitting well with me... We are using the kingdom's Control DC for certain Activities, where we should probably be using some other factors for calculating the DC.

This situation was already addressed with settlements. Look at the Build Structure activity. Each building ("settlement structure") has its own distinct DC, which stays the same regardless of the level of the kingdom!

The Control DC should be used when the activity in question affects the kingdom as a whole (or even just a significant portion of the kingdom), but *not* when the activity applies to just *one* specific hex or settlement. (Just like the Build Structure calculates its DC upon the type of structure to be built, and *not* upon the level of the kingdom.)

For example, when we use the Build Roads activity, I would think the proper way to calculate its DC would involve the CR of the hex to be paved over, as well as its dominant terrain type(s). Instead, you have a really *easy* DC (relatively speaking) for a 1st level kingdom, versus a very demanding DC for a 20th level kingdom, for the same hex! Realistically, building roads in that hex ought to be the same DC for both kingdoms. A more plausible, more realistic approach would be to base the DC upon the terrain(s) within that hex: flat, level plains should be easier than rolling hills, which in turn should be easier than dense, overgrown forests or jungles, which in turn should be easier than either soaring mountains or nasty, boggy swamps.

For another example: Clear Hex (*) and Claim Hex should both be based upon the CR of the hex, I would think. (However, since Claim Hex is also attempting to integrate that hex into the rest of the kingdom, I could see one having to use the *higher* of either the CR of the hex or else the kingdom's level, for calculating that DC.)

(* -- When used to prepare a hex for a new settlement. _Not_ when used for clearing out a monster or hazard; those situations are already detailed appropriately.)

I plan to make a list of all of the activities that I believe should be modified accordingly, along with notes on how I plan to run them in my game(s). But I wanted to share this idea with you, in case any of you feel similarly.

Thanks,
Franklin

NEGOTIATION DCS

Certain Leadership activities (Establish Trade Agreement, Pledge of Fealty, Request Foreign Aid, Send Diplomatic Envoy) allow a kingdom to attempt checks to negotiate with other groups. The following list provides DCs for these checks for groups the PCs are likely to encounter. Feel free to adjust them up or down to represent the actions of the PCs: an adjustment of +2 or –2 is a good place to start if the PCs have been particularly friendly or antagonistic to a group. Should the PCs seek relations with a group not listed here, such as a new Freehold, use these DCs as examples to generate DCs of your own.

Candlemere Lizardfolk: DC 22
Fort Drelev: DC 30
Greengripe: DC 24
M’botuu: DC 32
Nomen Centaurs: DC 26
Pitax: DC 28
Rostland: DC 15
Sootscale Kobolds: DC 20
Tiger Lords: DC 36
Tok-Nikrat: DC 18
Varnhold: DC 12

I see Rostland, but I do not see an entry for Brevoy (and/or Issia/New Stetvan).

I also expected to see Mivon listed here, since they are practically a neighbor already, in addition to sharing a border with Pitax.

Also, since Drelev and Pitax are scripted to become enemies, when will they void any existing diplomatic and/or trade agreements with the PCs? Or will any such pre-existing relations change the script of the AP? ;-)

On another note...

To help other players and GMs, here is the same list from above, but in numerical order:

DC 12, Varnhold
DC 15, Rostland
DC 18, Tok-Nikrat
DC 20, Sootscale Kobolds
DC 22, Candlemere Lizardfolk
DC 24, Greengripe
DC 26, Nomen Centaurs
DC 28, Pitax
DC 30, Fort Drelev
DC 32, M’botuu
DC 36, Tiger Lords

Hope this helps.

Franklin

These buildings were included in the first edition of Kingmaker. However, I do not see them in the new version.

* Bureau
* Cistern
* Everflowing Spring
* Foreign Quarter
* Magical Academy
* Moat
* Monastery
* Observatory

(Other buildings had their names changed. For instance, the caster's tower became the arcanist's tower. But they still got carried over to the new edition, albeit with new names.)

One might argue that the foreign quarter was made obsolete with the inclusion of the embassy. The other buildings, however, do not appear to have a replacement building in the new edition.

The moat is a (historically traditional) defensive feature that is not otherwise covered in the new edition.

At least one other Adventure Path that I can think of has included an observatory. Also, let's not forget the obvious lead in to Pathfinder's cousin, Starfinder. Finally, there's also the Cthulhu Mythos entities and the resulting clerical spheres involving the stars and deep space...

Thoughts?
Franklin

Per Table 10-8 ("XP Awards"), 10 XP is the reward for a minor challenge.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=575
And yet, that table goes on to show that a test at the PCs' level (or the single PC's level; remember that a kingdom plays by itself, not as a party of kingdoms!) is worth 40 XP, or four times the amount suggested.

Also remember that the roll to Claim a Hex is based on the kingdom's level, which is (I would say) a moderate challenge (not a minor one).

Also remember that the kingdom must first Clear the hex, before it can Claim that hex, so that adds to the difficulty of the task at hand...

Thanks,
Franklin

One of the advantage from1st edition's rules on armies was that the size (i.e. the number of troops) in the army was specific. I call this an advantage, when the PCs have lots of high-level spells available, and want to nuke the army from orbit, err, reasonably high altitude. By knowing the number of targets down below, one could figure out how may meteor swarms it would take to give a serious spanking to the enemy army.

Now, in the 2nd edition, we have no such metric for us. Just how many soldiers are there in that 20th level army? And given that high-level characters of PC-quality character classes should be rare, just what level(s) are those soldiers? (If they are of a sufficient level to be a challenge to a 20th level PC, why in blazes are those NPCs in someone else's army, instead of adventuring on their own??)

Even moderate-level PCs should be a very tough challenge for an "equivalent level" army. A group of moderate level PCs, armed with wands of fireball or ice storm, riding a flying carpet a 200 to 300 feet above the ground, should be wiping the floor with the whatever-level army is hugging the ground below them!

(And don't get me started on a goblin alchemist's version of a fuel air explosive!)
^_^

Thanks,
Franklin

I've come up with a few house rules I'll be using, to fix one of the more common complaints I've read around here, about skills training and improvement. I'd like to hear your thoughts on these ideas of mine, please.

Please note that "Skill Training (II)" is identical to the Rules-as-Written (RAW), and that "Skill Training (I)" is just "Skill Training (II)" but with both options being taken.

Thanks,
Franklin

KINGDOM ABILITY "SKILL TRAINING"

This kingdom ability has three versions. Whenever the kingdom receives two of these abilities at the same time (i.e. for the same level), the kingdom resolves these abilities in numerical order (e.g.: a kingdom receives Skill Training (II) and Skill Training (III) at 13th level; the kingdom resolves Skill Training (II) first, and then resolves Skill Training (III) second).

Skill Training (I): At 3rd level, and every four levels thereafter, the kingdom improves the proficiency level of one skill by one rank (e.g.: from trained, up to expert), up to the maximum allowed at that level.

Then, the kingdom chooses a new skill, and receives that skill at the trained proficiency rank.

Skill Training (II): At 5th level, and every four levels thereafter, the kingdom chooses one of these two options:

* The kingdom chooses an existing skill, and improves the proficiency rank for that skill by one rank, up to the maximum allowed at that level.

* The kingdom chooses a new skill, and receives that skill at the trained proficiency rank.

Skill Training (III): At 7th level, and every six levels thereafter, the kingdom improves the proficiency rank, by one rank, for both of the skills given to it by its chosen government type, as follows.

* At 7th level, the government skills are improved from trained to expert.

* At 13th level, the government skills are improved from expert to master.

* At 19th level, the government skills are improved from master to legendary.

If either of the government skills have already been improved to the intended proficiency rank (or above), then in place of that skill's upgrade, the kingdom chooses a new skill, which it then receives at the trained proficiency rank.

From the Players Guide:
"The first time you build a Barracks in any settlement, reduce Unrest by 1."

Notice the use of the word "any" (instead of "each").

Now, that reads (from a purely pedantic point-of-view) as, the first time we build a Barracks at all, anywhere within our kingdom, we get to reduce Unrest by 1. The second and subsequent time we build any Barracks, we do not get to reduce Unrest, regardless of whether or not any of those Barracks are the first of their kind within their respective settlements.

That seems (to me, at least) as being too restrictive.

Now, if this was actually not intended, if the word choice was actually supposed to be "each" (instead of "any"), then we still have a problem, especially later in the game (when the kingdom will have lots more BP to spend). Suppose our example kingdom has all eight leader positions staffed by PCs. Then, in any one turn, we could have this kingdom build eight new settlements, and then build eight new Barracks (one in each settlement), for a total of eight points of Unrest negated.

The pendulum will have swung too far in the other direction, I'd say.

The compromise that I'll be using (as a "house rule"; and I also suggest this as a proposed errata) will be as follows:

When you build a Barracks, you reduce Unrest by 1, provided this is the first Barracks built within that settlement, and this is the first Barracks built this turn.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Franklin

Back in the 1st edition, you could have a settlement, AND farms, AND a work site (mine or quarry only; no saw mills), ALL in the same hex. The reasoning back then, for the settlement being able to share space with the others was, since the hex is so big (12 miles across), there was PLENTY of space to have a settlement as well as some farms and/or a mine or quarry...

Now, with the 2nd edition, with Farms and Work Sites being a source of Commodities, it makes sense from a "game balance" perspective to have those two improvements be mutually exclusive. However, I do not see any such rationale behind lumping settlements into this restriction...

Obviously, I can just "house rule" this away (and have already done so), but I'd like to poll the other gamers out there, as to why settlements might ought to be included in the group of mutually-exclusive improvements. So, any ideas, please?...

(Edit):
Per my understanding of the rules, trying to create Luxury commodities does NOT require being linked to a specific settlement or to a specific building within a settlement. This was the only idea I had for why this restriction was implemented.

Thanks!
Franklin

Actually, it's the reverse. Historically, it has always been easier, cheaper, and otherwise more effective to ship stuff by water than by land.

I already mentioned the historical example of Venice, during the late medieval era and all throughout the Renaissance.

There is also the example of the British Empire.

In the U.S., there was the Erie canal, and even more importantly, there was the entire Mississippi river network (with New Orleans being the strategic bottleneck).

Here is just one reference I found via Google:
"Maritime transport is the backbone of international trade and the global economy. Over 80% of the volume of international trade in goods is carried by sea, and the percentage is even higher for most developing countries."
https://unctad.org/webflyer/review-maritime-transport-2021

Franklin

In the Player's Guide:

Page 20: only Exploration and Wilderness have Claim Hex listed as Untrained Abilities.

Page 23: the text description of Claim Hex states it can be done with an Exploration, Intrigue, Magic, or Wilderness check.

The latter probably makes more sense within the game mechanics, since it gives each of the four Key Abilities a Skill with Claim Hex. The table would limit Claim Hex to Economy and Stability.

Actually, that reads (to me) as: Untrained with either Exploration or Wilderness, or Trained with either Intrigue or Magic.

Meaning that those who are trained in Intrigue or Magic can use those "special" skills for claiming new land, but ANYONE can still claim new land by "conventional" means.

On the matter of Influence versus Farmland, I've decided to "house rule" Farmland, in that it must =either= be within the Influence radius of a Settlement =or= be adjacent to a Settlement. This way, you can now have farms near a village, which is =historically accurate= (as well as being so very helpful for a beginning Kingdom).

Franklin

Using the commonly-posted house rule of "10 XP per 1 RP" (for lower levels) I've seen bandied hereabout, I've come up with a conversion rate that varies by level, that should work for me. So, I wanted to share it with others, in case it helps you as well.

(Franklin's House Rule):

At level 1, each surplus RP is worth +10 XP.
At level 2, each surplus RP is worth +6 XP.
At level 3, each surplus RP is worth +5 XP.
At level 4, each surplus RP is worth +4 XP.
At level 5, each surplus RP is worth +3 XP.

At levels 6 through 9, each surplus RP is worth +2 XP.

At levels 10 through 19, each surplus RP is worth just +1 XP.

Finally, at level 20, no further XP are gained from surplus RP. (That is, each surplus RP is worth +0 XP.)

For the mathematically-inclined, the underlying equation I came up with is: 20 XP / (1+ kingdom's current level), rounding down (i.e. dropping fractions).

Hope this helps.
Franklin

In another thread, Mr. Jacobs proposed changing the XP reward from Kingdom Events to be 40 XP (to better match the standard XP awards from the relevant table in the core rulebook).

Franklin

As written, (Kingdom Events) grant 30 XP regardless of Event Level. That said, I think it's a really good idea to change that to 40 XP, so that the XP granted matches table 10–2 on page 489 of the Core Rulebook. That way you can easily adjust XP up and down depending on the level of the event.

(snip)

Changing the event XP rewards to match table 10–2 is a great fix and should also help get those kingdoms more XP.

Is this an "official errata"? (And, if so, should it be added into the corresponding thread for errata?)

Thanks,
Franklin

Although I am specifically asking about the new 2e version of Kingmaker, this question would also apply to any other hardcover book published by Paizo.

If I buy the hardcover of the new 2e version of the Kingmaker Adventure Path ($100), do I also get the PDF version bundled with it? Or must I buy the PDF (another $50) separately?

Thank! ;-)
Franklin

Per my understanding of the rules as presented in the Players Guide, a kingdom gets just one Feat at first level, and that Feat is specific to the chosen form of Government.

Meanwhile, characters at 1st level get their -choice= of one ancestry feat (within the category of those feats associated with their choice of ancestry), as well as a background feat (specific to their choice of background), for a total of two feats at 1st level.

So, unlike characters, a kingdom gets just one feat at 1st level. Correct?

Thanks,
Franklin

So, if I select "Forest/Swamp" then my kingdom gets to take advantage of the Heartland condition for any one hex containing EITHER forest or swamp? So be it. ;-)

(But, for the record, I was not saying the capital's hex had to CONTAIN both types. I was just wondering if the kingdom got to CLAIM both types of terrain. Which, per your reply, they can...) ^_^

Thanks!
Franklin

In the Players Guide, the Heartlands are listed as pairs of terrain types (for ex,: Forest and Swamp). Does that mean that a kingdom's heartland is actually both terrain types (i.e. the kingdom can use either or both of these terrain types at the same time)? Or must the players choose just =one= of the terrains listed in their chosen pair as their kingdom's one true Heartland? The rules are not quite specific enough, per my understanding.

Until and unless I see an "official ruling" [TM], I plan to interpret the rules as implying that the kingdom's Heartland is =just one= of the relevant terrain types, not both. But I would still be grateful to hear from The Powers That Be, for an official clarification.

Thanks! ;-)
Franklin

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I think it might be wise to house-rule for a Capital to increase its influence by 1. So the Kingdom can have a bit of easy early growth.

If the GM feels giving a flat "+1" is too much (especially at higher levels), a more stingy (but still helpful, at low levels) solution is to house-rule that the capital's Influence is a minimum of one hex.

In order to fix this problem, as well as the problem of one's capital being too small for too long, I have decided on a different house rule that should alleviate these problems more elegantly.

In my game, because of the strategic importance of a kingdom's capital, a PC kingdom may expand their capital into a town BEFORE the kingdom reaches 3rd level. This exception applies ONLY to the capital, however; all other settlements are stuck as villages until the kingdom reaches 3rd level. Furthermore, the capital is NOT allowed to continue expanding into a full-fledged CITY early.

This way, the PCs can continue to develop their kingdom for the first two levels of their kingdom, and (once the capital becomes a town) they can begin establishing Farms (ref.: Influence).

One house rule to fix two separate (yet related) problems. ;-)

Franklin

I would imagine (borrowing from Real-Life examples of the Roman legions, for instance) that armies can assist with various activities, such as "hexploration" [sic], clearing a hex, claiming a hex, building a work site, establishing a settlement, and so on.

But I do not recall seeing any hints in the Player's Guide on how to adjust the DCs for these activities accordingly.

Thanks,
Franklin

the Consumables cost for buildings mean that unless you start in a forest hex, or purchase commodities, even one block of houses is off limits, I must admit that without the full game in front of me, the kingdom building rules in the players guide leave me not hopeful that this will be playable, without a separate computer program for...

On Turn One, you are absolutely going to have to Purchase Commodities (as one of your Leadership Activities), to get the Lumber you need for your first Residential building.

Franklin

you won't be able to Establish a Work Site, because your capital's Influence is 0.

While Farmlands are limited by Influence, Work Sites are *not*. Please check page 28 again.

I think it might be wise to house-rule for a Capital to increase its influence by 1. So the Kingdom can have a bit of easy early growth.

If the GM feels giving a flat "+1" is too much (especially at higher levels), a more stingy (but still helpful, at low levels) solution is to house-rule that the capital's Influence is a minimum of one hex.

But, yeah, having a "capital" village with zero Influence stinks, big time.

Franklin

I think there was some fan discussion of that over in the 2E Kingmaker forum.

Fooey.

But Paizo isn't going to put out any more products for PF1E, probably ever, because it would be a competitor to PF2E.

I must respectfully disagree. A guide on how to convert from the old (1e) to the new (2e) would be an *asset* (not a "competitor"). Paizo should want to find as many ways as possible to wean/seduce their player base away from the older version to the newer version, from a purely fiscal point-of-view.

But this pedant is a trivial point, if Paizo isn't making any such conversion guide...

Thanks, any way. ;-)
Franklin

Completely revised, much more streamlined. But also very different.

Have they published any conversion guides, to transfer kingdom write-ups from 1st edition over to 2nd? Or have they mentioned any intentions of doing so?

Also, for their new rules on kingdom building -- Did they provide useful write-ups for the various other "kingdoms" the PCs will interact with (i.e.: Varnhold, Fort Drelev, and Pitax) using these new game mechanics?

Thanks,
Franklin

Do the rules on kingdom building have "backwards compatibility" with the first edition rules (in "Ult. Campaign")? Did they just revise them for compatibility with second edition? Or did they rebuild them completely from scratch?

Thanks,
Franklin

The PDFs and hardcopy books will be made available to non-backers on October 26.

Thank you. ;-)

Could some kind soul please post a URL for this new product? I am not able to find this new product on Paizo's website, using their Search function...

Thanks,
Franklin

I think it's very elegant: You open up a lot of options, there is little new to be understood, and the price is appropriate.

Thank you. ^_^

Speaking of focused schools: Is it legal to take them as one or both of your schools?

If your GM allows focused schools, then I'd say it would be OK. However, you'd have to choose such sub-schools from _different_ schools. That is, you should not be able to choose two sub-schools from the _same_ "parent" school.

Franklin

I've been toying with this idea (a wizard variant -- would this be an "archetype"? -- who has two specialties, at the cost of having the other six as "oppositional" in exchange) for a while now, and I thought I'd post it and ask for your thoughts and advice.

This is for First Edition, in case that matters.

Thanks in advance! ;-)
Franklin

DOUBLE-MAJOR WIZARD

A double-major wizard chooses two of the eight standard schools of magic (listed below) as his specializations. The other six schools all become his opposition schools.

* Abjuration
* Conjuration
* Divination
* Enchantment
* Evocation
* Illusion
* Necromancy
* Transmutation

A double-major wizard receives all of the school abilities (appropriate for his class level) for both of his chosen specialties.

Since a spell from an opposition school takes two spell slots, a double-major wizard cannot afford to have too many such spells memorized. (Spells of the "universalist" school are never treated as being from an opposition school.)

This modifies the wizard's "arcane school" class ability.

I am still in the process of figuring out what Kingdom stats to give to Pitax. However, I did create my own version of the city itself, as follows.

I based my version of the city of Pitax on the map on page 62 of AP 35 ("War of the River Kings").

Given the map's scale, I presumed the city would have from two to four separate District Grids. Coincidentally, the write-up of Pitax listed three distinct regions. Hence, I created a District Grid for each of the three regions: Troutmouth; the Shattered Ward; and the New Ruins.

I presumed each of the Great Family's Trade Houses to be a combination of a Mansion and a Shop (with the Dwarf's Cave being the Shop of the Liacenza Family's Iron Fox Trade House, which they lost to Irovetti).

The river bank would count as a Moat.

The Moondocks did not look to be developed enough to qualify as a Waterfront, so I wound up making them two (2) Piers.

Because Pitax was not as developed as it could be (in part, due to Irovetti's embezzlements over the years), I decided that the two older wards (Troutmouth and the Shattered Ward) would not be as "cost-efficient" (i.e.: not as ruthlessly optimized) as a player-created District would be. However, since Irovetti was stated as having done such civic improvements in the New Ruins, I took this into account when designing that ward. (But, again, based upon the narrative provided, I left several undeveloped lots still in Ruins/Rubble, for future development, should Irovetti have gotten his hands on more money. This was also in keeping with the city's map, as illustrated.)

Given these ideas in mind, here is what I came up with...

Building Sub-Totals for Troutmouth:

(*) Graveyard, x1
(*) House, x13
(*) Mansion, x3
(*) Pier, x2
(*) Shop, x3
(*) Temple, x1
(*) Trade Shop, x4
(*) Watchtower, x1

(*) Defenses: City Wall, x2
(*) Defenses: Moat, x1
(*) Ruins (Watchtower) x1
(*) Water x6

Building Sub-Totals for the Shattered Ward:

(*) Castle, x1
(*) Cathedral, x1
(*) House, x19
(*) Inn, x1
(*) Mansion, x1
(*) Park, x1
(*) Shop, x1
(*) Trade Shop, x5

(*) Defenses: City Wall, x2
(*) Defenses: Moat, x1

Building Sub-Totals for the New Ruins:

(*) Bardic College, x1
(*) Exotic Artisan, x1
(*) House, x13
(*) Tavern, x1
(*) Theater, x1
(*) Trade Shop, x11

(*) Defenses: City Wall, x4
(*) Ruins/Rubble, x6

Total "Kingdom Builder" Stats from Buildings:

(*) Economy 34 (9+9+16)
(*) Loyalty 15 (3+8+4)
(*) Stability 39 (12+12+15)

(*) Defense 20 (5+11+4)

(The numbers in parentheses are the values from each of the three Districts, in order: Troutmouth; the Shattered Ward; and the New Ruins.)

I know I am "late to the party" (as this module series is a decade old), but I still thought I might have some ideas worth sharing.

Thanks,
Franklin