We had a cart pulled by horses, and the horses (while ridden) have a speed of 40 ft. so we use that for exploration speed. Though we favor play over realism, so we didn’t even bother with breakage or sticking. Figured if they could travel it, so could the wagon. Of course when it got to things like bridges that could only support one guy going across it, then they couldn’t use it…we didn’t totally suspend disbelief, but for the most part we didn’t stress it too much.
I may be misreading the last several posts, but it looks like we’re talking about randomizing magic items due to placing things like casters towers, etc. and selling them during the Income Phase for BP. If this is the case, then per the rules, you do not re-roll these specific items if they are above the base value of the city.
Instead, magic items above the base value of the city can become available because you have placed the specific buildings that allow them to be rolled up, and consequently sold for a BP profit to the kingdom if they are above 4000gp.
Again, this is explicitly spelled out in the rules (see “Building a City” and “Income Phase,” Kingmaker #32 pages 58 and 64).
Now if we’re just talking generically about the availability of any particular given magic item(s) that are not part of the building system, then yeah, the rules also explicitly state that (like any other settlement), they may be available 75% of the time if the value of the item is less than the base value of the city.
Ya'll do things your way, I don't see why the Kingmaker rules should specifically be different, especially when the whole point of them is to mimic the results of the settlement rules in the Core rulebook.
They are specifically different, actually, in terms of the magic items generating BP only. It’s stated so explicitly (emphasis mine):
As with base value, a community’s size does not influence the number of magic items above base value that are available for purchase. Instead, these items become available as certain buildings (like academies or magic shops) are added to a city.
Now, when it comes to whether any other item is available for purchase, then yeah it’s a 75% chance of availability if it’s below the base value, just like any other town.
Because Bardic Performance does not require an instrument -- or even a performance check -- I have always looked at it a little differently, especially where the bard prefers performances such as keyboards or strings or other combat-unlikely things that turn most people off the class entirely.
I look at it as the bard using her general communication skills to convey the message/magic of the performance rather than the specific performance. Audible or visual: that's all a trained bard needs to be concerned with. Oratory, singing, acting, dance -- all these are specifics that don't even really need to enter into it. Whether a bard is trained in any or none of these, the training in communication is all that matters, and the flavor is up to the bard in question.
A bard who prefers string instruments to the exclusion of all other performances can still choose either audio or visual bardic performance, as that's what she's trained to do -- whether beating a rhythm in time on her shield to whistling/humming that old folk song about Robin Hood to saying "Hey guys, we got this!" (with or without flowery speech, inflection can mean everything).
As to how to continue the action, it can be as easy as a gesture (visual THUMBS UP!) or an enthusiastic audible "YEAH! That's it!"
I have a 14-year-old nephew who hates losing as well. When playing board games, he used to get bent out of shape.
Before every game, I started sitting him down, and while his mom & dad were setting up, I told him "you're going to lose this game, but we're going to have fun anyway." I'd then outline how things were going to go bad for his guy or token or whatever, the dice would go bad, he'd get sent to the [whatever] space, have to go back 3 spaces right at the end, or whatnot, but we'd all have fun just playing the game.
Then we'd sit down to play.
Sometimes he'd win, sometimes he'd lose. In some tense games he'd still get upset when losing occasionally, but after doing this every time, it's gotten a LOT better, now.
Just every time, maybe sit down and say, "Hey, your guy is gonna lose today. The fight's not going to go well. The bad guy's gonna get the info, and you're not going to get your clue, but we're going to roleplay and have fun anyway."
Maybe if he gets used to the idea of losing and the world NOT ending, he won't get so upset. It worked for my nephew, anyway. :D
Level-draining isn't that bad in Pathfinder, since negative levels only impart a number of penalties. They don't cause the character to lose any abilities…
Emphasizing this. It’s not like the “olden days.” Take a good look at the write up (emphasis mine):
For each negative level a creature has, it takes a cumulative –1 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense, saving throws, and skill checks. In addition, the creature reduces its current and total hit points by 5 for each negative level it possesses. The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels. If a creature's negative levels equal or exceed its total Hit Dice, it dies.
The only really horrible horrible part is at the end there, if those negative levels stack up. The rest is punitive, sure, but can be dealt with.
Well, I can see a couple of points:
If your campaign is cool to handle it, I say go for it. Heck, looking at point #2, you might as well have the ruler’s benefit just straight up add an additional 50% to the stat(s) they modify (how “breaking” is it, comparably to these others, to get a +2 to a DC 93 roll?).
EDIT: One other point, for the Magister, might want to take another look at that one, or s/he’d have to specify what district those item(s) become available in, as the rules state you can only make one check per district to sell magic items for BP. Unless you add that you can make a separate check to sell an item from this pool.
Sorry if there's already an answer to this, but what is the mechanical incentive to expand the kingdom? My group claimed two hexes, drove their consumption to zero, and have spent almost 3 years in-game building their capital city. They don't see any point claiming additional hexes because doing so would increase their command DC an not provide any significant benefits. Are we missing something?
Yes, you are missing an entire half of the kingdom building game, in short. :)
You will want to check this thread here for a fairly recent discussion on this very subject. I hope your group sees the light. :D
Freehold DM wrote:
Very much interested in an auto-calculating sheet. Will be looking forward to that in the future.
It’s my first attempt at such a thing, so it’s pretty basic on what fills in and calculates. Pretty much everything that’s a straight “port” of a bonus or a straight “add-up” gets calculated. If it gets more complex than that, then it’s still up to you.
For instance, the specific attacks. Once you get into adding feats such as weapon focus and various traits that add little bonuses here and there, it starts becoming less “character sheet” and more “software.” Along those same lines, the main Base Attack field only holds the highest number (which it uses to calculate CMB/CMD/generic melee/ranged bonuses, etc.), and since the specific weapon bonuses are not tied directly to it, that is where you can put in your iterative attacks, etc.
However, again, what it does do is take a number of the “little” carry-overs and add-ups out of the way, and that’s pretty handy. I did some testing with it, but not extensively. Let me know if there’s anything that I missed.
As for making a different version with the changes Muspellsheimr recommended, I may just make that other version if you think you’d use it. As mentioned in the OP, this is the sheet I’m using now and we’re pretty happy with it in our group, so this sheet as it is probably won’t be changing beyond minor tweaks here and there if needed. But another version, on the other hand… I have to admit to being kind of a form junkie, and a list of specific changes like yours is hard to pass up. One question, though…a big part of your revision hinges on splitting the spells section off onto its own sheet. Would you really rather have a 2-sheet job with the 2nd sheet having just spells on one side and maybe notes or something on the other?
Jhod, too, was responsible for the death of another. Maybe they have common ground, but this being a dark place, maybe Jhod’s self-loathing over his own incident can rub off on Dexter if he sees something in him that is recognizable. At least Jhod’s victim wasn’t totally innocent, after all! Especially if Jhod learns the details of Dexter’s secret after the Temple of the Elk is reclaimed and the quest is completed, having a redeemed cleric of LG god judging you for something you already feel guilty for is delightfully shame-driving in a Ravenloft-esque manner.
As a former prostitute, she may find common ground with the circumstances of the women who join the Cult of Gyronna in book 2, or maybe have sympathy with them, or they for her. Or heck, perhaps it’s something the cult can exploit and make her vulnerable to brainwashing or joining them.
His situation is somewhat similar to the Stag Lord’s. Maybe he could get visions of his own face when looking at him, or of his father when they confront the Stag Lord’s crazy father in the cellar. Could also be fodder for nightmares regarding the Stag Lord in a Luke-in-the-Dagobah-cave kind of way.
Well off the bat, 12 hours is a long time out. Where did you get that figure? A full day of exploration in my games assumes a standard 8 hour day (of actual exploration). If you’re spending more than 8 hours moving, that invokes the “forced march” rules. In addition to incurring the in-game penalties, I’d guess that frays a lot of nerves.
Ah so you continue to threaten, too, that’s interesting, hadn’t even considered that!
So the entry on being prone says this:
Now, as far as move options go, if a prone person tries to move away, they are “crawling,” which is a 5-foot move action, provoking an attack of opportunity. Got that part:
Crawling: You can crawl 5 feet as a move action. Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who threaten you at any point of your crawl. A crawling character is considered prone and must take a move action to stand up, provoking an attack of opportunity.
In PFS, it had been ruled that I could 5-foot-step during a move action of standing up and not incur an attack of opportunity, but the folks here seem to be really opposed to that idea, so I’ll concede that point (for now) and say that’s not going to happen.
What I’m wondering about now are the melee combat options available to a prone character. The only modification given above is a –4 penalty. So am I to assume that pretty much all non-movement options are available? Iterative attacks/total defense/fighting defensively/two-handed use of a one-handed weapon/two-weapon fighting/etc.—as long as the character is taking the –4 penalty?
Was looking at the thread located here and didn’t want to hijack it, so decided to start another thread.
The sheet referenced in that thread looks great! However, I noticed that some folks had some issues with it that I took into consideration when making a character sheet of my own design some time back.
Not posting this to compete with that designer by any stretch! I don’t think mine is better or worse or anything! I’m just using this sheet for my group, and for my characters—but if anybody else wants to use it (or not), that’s cool, too.
Couple of things about mine that is different than the official one or some other ones on the Web:
Again, if you can use it, great! Hope you enjoy it! If not, no biggie, I hope you find one that works great for you! :D
You’ve accepted the charter from Restov, yes? Your charter is to map out the upper portion of the Greenbelt. While doing this, keep an eye out for bandit activity and it *might* be a good idea to take care of other things you come across as needed.
If you choose to look at this as “roaming around randomly,” then that’s certainly your choice, but not very productive. You have accepted a charge to map out a certain territory. If nothing else, fulfilling that charge should be motivation enough (for now).
Now, all that being said, the real strength of a sandbox game is the player contribution. Look at the AP (in this installment, it’s the charter) as a skeleton of the adventure. Around that should be YOUR story. YOUR motivations, YOUR stories, YOUR interactions.
Yes, in the meta-game, you should leave room for the Kingdom-building to come, but for now, what are YOUR characters doing while fulfilling the charter? Is there romance brewing? Is someone looking for a certain type of business opportunities? Is someone caught up in their art? Or maybe someone is taking it upon themselves to not only map the area, but trying to take a census of the inhabitants?
There is tremendous freedom in a sandbox adventure to make the story YOUR story. There IS a story going on in Kingmaker, but one of the great things about it is that it can be there and allow yours to shine as well.
It says “during,” though…this has been ruled legal during a PFS game. It seems like a balanced expenditure of resources. If you look at the rules, the “during” is written for if you substitute a move for a standard action, so there would be no standard action during that turn. If you can, as a full round action “withdraw,” moving twice your speed and provoking no AoO, certainly using a 5-foot-step and a standard action to stand up without provoking is balanced as well. And RAW, to boot. :)
From the above (and from the PRD rule that this clarifies), it seems obvious to me (but I guess I’m just looking for peer approval): You can, when prone next to a foe, stand from prone and take a 5-foot step away during the standing action to avoid the attack of opportunity, yes?
I’ve been looking at Intimidate lately myself. After some research, I’ve come to the conclusion that unless there are some feat/ability shenanigans, the demoralizing ability of Intimidate can only be used against one person at a time.
For instance, take a look at the feat Dazzling Display. The sole purpose of this feat is to allow you to use your normal Intimidate skill roll against multiple foes within 30 feet because you are so awesome with your weapon. If you could normally Intimidate multiple foes, this feat would be utterly and completely useless.
That means that all these spells we're talking about are accessed by the Oracle at the same spell levels as the Cleric. And, like the Sorcerer to the Wizard, the Oracle gets spell levels a level 'late' (except 1st).
I believe you are wrong and Christopher Vrysen, Karjak Rustscale, and the general consensus is right. :D Otherwise, Life oracles are at a severe disadvantage compared to other oracles, and that is clearly not the intention. When a dab of common sense is all it takes, why willfully ignore it?
Awesome feat, thanks!
I can understand the hesitation from a thematic point of view. But in the spirit of “Yes, and…” instead of looking for a way to shut your player down, maybe just ask for a thematic justification from the player. Not to sell YOU on the idea, but to get “on the same page” that normally these two packages are against purposes.
Again, the purpose wouldn’t be to sell you on it, but to help him clarify for himself how these two roles fit together in his character.
In my campaign, Jhod is the High Priest and resides at the city being cleared at the Temple of the Elk. He’s attracted a number of doe-eyed waifs as followers (Leadership feat). The PCs got wind of this and was worried he had started some mind-control sex cult. They got up there and found them all (Jhod included) dirty and elbow-deep in dung planting crops.
Make sure your players are up for it. The fact is, not every player is up for this kind of thing. I was born and bred a sandbox GM and my last campaign (before the one I’m running now) was hell because two of the players had zero initiative, and needed things spoon-fed to them.
At one point I flooded them with options, characters, details, and there they were with 2 zillion plot threads. They took none of them until something came in and literally bonked them on the head.
Well, if your Fighter is a powerhouse, then your instincts are right that you would be good as a protector. However, in this role you really would want a higher CON as that would provide you with more hit points (i.e., make you better able to take the poundings as you protect). Your high DEX is going to be mostly wasted if you’re going to be in heavy armor—at least from a protection standpoint. Perhaps you can appeal to the GM to swap those (if you’re so inclined)?
As far as your Wisdom is concerned, it stands at a 10, which isn’t bad. It’s average. First of all, elves age…differently…than humans, so they don’t necessarily mature the same rate humans do. Secondly, think of Wisdom as “common sense.” A lot of old people can grow old and have no common sense. :P As it stands, you have a 16 Intelligence, so you are very smart. Consider yourself more of an intellectual, and less of a common-sense type--more likely to analyze than to improvise.
The Serpent’s Skull Player’s Guide suggests the following animal companions for druids (and by extension for rangers, too):
A wide variety of exotic creatures make logical choices for druids operating in the the Mwangi Expanse: ape, bird, boar, cat (big or small), crocodile, dinosaur, dog, horse, pony, and snake (constrictor or viper). From the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary, the following additional choices are logical: dire bat, dire rat, elephant, giant frog, hyena, monitor lizard, and any of the specific dinosaurs listed.
Personally, given the opportunity (and Serpent’s Skull is a golden opportunity), you can’t beat a good old fashioned T-Rex by your side!
Are we, in the context of Kingmaker settlements, supposed to be rerolling magic items that come up as lower than the base value of the given settlement?
That would make perfect sense! It would seem odd that this little kingdom in the middle of nowhere is the only place on the planet that is cranking out items that are way above its capabilities. ;D
A good point. And one that has been met in this thread, I believe. Immediate and sudden expansion can tax a kingdom and be undesirable. The rules reflect this.
Expanding gradually, in concert with building your cities and the general economy of your kingdom, along with its stability and the loyalty of your citizens, is favorable. The rules also reflect this.
Being stuck in a strategic situation unprepared with a tiny kingdom will find you effed. The rules reflect this as well. :D
Kingdom building isn’t about the short quick kill. You can number crunch it, but expect it to be a balance game over time.
I believe the “This is a silly place” was a reference to Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
So you want RULES that encourage BELIEVABLE expansion? You can’t just WANT to do it?
I suggest trying it as written, then. You’ll find that you reach the status of “2) as your kingdom gets bigger, you can build more than one building/turn. That strikes me as useful, but only once my kingdom attributes are high enough to only fail on a 1.” very very quickly.
Your Economy/Loyalty/Stability statistics (assuming all leadership positions are filled) will reach your DC within a few turns, thus leaving you open to expansion! Hooray!