Kingdom Building

[Erich Krueger]

Just a couple of quick questions... (apologies if it's been asked before)

Can a hex with a resource be improved, or does it only provide the resource? i.e. the Gold Mine hex is a plain, can I build a farmland on it as well as use it for the +1 Resource bonus? Can I build a city in the Gold Mine hex as well as use it for the +1 Resource bonus?

Can forest hexes be logged and turned into plains hexes for the purposes of making them farmland?

Thanks!

[James Jacobs]

Erich Krueger wrote:

Just a couple of quick questions... (apologies if it's been asked before)

Can a hex with a resource be improved, or does it only provide the resource? i.e. the Gold Mine hex is a plain, can I build a farmland on it as well as use it for the +1 Resource bonus? Can I build a city in the Gold Mine hex as well as use it for the +1 Resource bonus?

Can forest hexes be logged and turned into plains hexes for the purposes of making them farmland?

Thanks!

There's plenty of room in a hex to hold farms AND resources, so yah; you can turn a goldmine hex into farmland if you want.

There's currently no rules for clearcutting, but other folks have come up with houserules for things like clearing wood hexes or draining swamp hexes.

[Erich Krueger]

James Jacobs wrote:

Erich Krueger wrote:

Just a couple of quick questions... (apologies if it's been asked before)

Can a hex with a resource be improved, or does it only provide the resource? i.e. the Gold Mine hex is a plain, can I build a farmland on it as well as use it for the +1 Resource bonus? Can I build a city in the Gold Mine hex as well as use it for the +1 Resource bonus?

Can forest hexes be logged and turned into plains hexes for the purposes of making them farmland?

Thanks!

There's plenty of room in a hex to hold farms AND resources, so yah; you can turn a goldmine hex into farmland if you want.

There's currently no rules for clearcutting, but other folks have come up with houserules for things like clearing wood hexes or draining swamp hexes.

Thanks for your prompt and helpful answers!

[Charles Evans 25]

James Jacobs wrote:

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

14) Is there a limit on the number of hexes which can be abandoned in the 'claim hex' step of the Improvement Phase? (Rivers Run Red, Page 61.) If a hex is deliberately abandoned in this step, does it destroy all roads and farmlands in it as if it had been lost in step 4 of the Upkeep Phase to high Unrest?

Nope; you can abandon as many hexes as you want. Abandoning a hex effectively destroys all the stuff in that hex, since a month of abandonment means that a lot of overgrowth and monster activity and bandit vandalism and the like can undo things a lot faster than they can be built...

What about the bridges/fords which PCs put in, which I assume are represented by the double cost of building roads in a hex without a pre-existing bridge (or ford)?

If seems a little odd if the default position is that a landmark site such as the rickety bridge will survive abandoning of a hex, meaning no matter how many times the hex is abandoned/reclaimed, the cost for building roads there is never doubled by the presence of rivers, but that any hex where a PC controlled kingdom has paid double the cost the first time that they built roads to deal with a river, they have to pay double the cost every other time thereafter...
I assume that a customised map is in use in most games where PCs are building kingdoms and that it wouldn't be too difficult for most groups to keep track on that which hexes they've put bridges/fords in as part of road building, but subsequently lost control of, taking out the roads but leaving the bridges...

[Charles Evans 25]

James Jacobs wrote:

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

James Jacobs:

The positioning of the Random Events phase of the Kingdom Turn cripples the value of some of the 'good' events whilst making bad ones more of a pain. In particular I'd like to highlight the two 'harvest' events on the table, where there's no chance to respond to either minimise the damage or take advantage of the opportunity before the next Upkeep Phase rolls around and consumption has to be dealt with.

Would it make sense to maybe move the 'set edicts step' to the very end of the turn, so that they can at least be used as a tool to in some way respond to the effects of random events, instead of setting edicts in the Improvement phase? (In this case, the effects of edicts are paid for in the next upkeep, which will follow immediately at the start of the next turn, and the edicts will then apply to everything throughout the next turn, up to the end of that turn when they will be set again...)

Putting the events phase at the end of the kingdom turn is important, because that allows all of the non-roleplay intensive elements of the kingdom phase to happen relatively quickly. It's too disruptive to put the events anywhere else, because they're the part of the whole system most likely to cause the PCs to derail into an adventure, after all. And the fact that there's no chance to minimize the damage or take advantage of some events is what makes them unexpected boons or dooms, after all. Allowing for folks to react to them in the same turn they occur in that way kind of defeats the purpose.

So where/how do the thirty days of a month fit in between or during kingdom turns then? I had thought it was pretty much a month between the finish of one Kingdom turn, and the start of the next, but your post proves me wrong in that assumption, and so I need to go back and look at it again.

What exactly is a kingdom turn? And where/when in one do the PCs get to go off adventuring? Is it during the improvement phase perhaps, or between the improvement phase and the income phase?

[James Jacobs]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

So where/how do the thirty days of a month fit in between or during kingdom turns then? I had thought it was pretty much a month between the finish of one Kingdom turn, and the start of the next, but your post proves me wrong in that assumption, and so I need to go back and look at it again.

What exactly is a kingdom turn? And where/when in one do the PCs get to go off adventuring? Is it during the improvement phase perhaps, or between the improvement phase and the income phase?

A kingdom turn is a period of one month. Whether or not that period precisely lines up with the calendar months is up to each GM, but I heartily recommend that they do, otherwise madness might set in.

PCs can go off adventuring whenever they want. Their kingdom can continue doing what it does when they're not sitting on thrones. Adventuring and kingdom turns happen at the same time, in other words.

The various kingdom phases happen in a specific order because that's the only workable way to resolve things, but the actual effects of improvements and events and building and all that all take place at various times scattered throughout the month. It's not really important when they take place during the course of that month.

The best way to handle it all is to simply make all of a kingdom's checks and rolls on the 1st of any game month, and that way if the GM rolls up some crazy event, the PCs basically have one month to handle it themselves if they opt to do that rather than roll a kingdom check or whatever.

[Glass Castle]

Are there any loyalty checks other than those involved in kingdom events?

It seems strange that during kingdom building we roll for economy and stability, but not for loyalty.

It seems easy for a party to consider min-maxing loyalty and running the risk that when they fail, unrest will go up briefly, but that they can handle it on the building turns.

[James Jacobs]

Light Dragon wrote:

Are there any loyalty checks other than those involved in kingdom events?

It seems strange that during kingdom building we roll for economy and stability, but not for loyalty.

It seems easy for a party to consider min-maxing loyalty and running the risk that when they fail, unrest will go up briefly, but that they can handle it on the building turns.

Loyalty doesn't play a really major role in the kingdom building rules, but it's VERY important once you go to war. Loyalty is what keeps your armies together and keeps your nation under control during war, basically.

[Tiresias]

Two quick questions

Inn & Tavern both add the same kingdom bonus (1 Economy, 1 Stability & add 500 to base value) but why does the Inn cost 10BP while the Tavern 12BP?

Are there any optional rules on upgrading roads?
I was thinking 2 or 3BP a square but it reduces travel time and increase by +50% the effects of buildings out of the city as long the upgraded roads are connected to a city.

[Charles Evans 25]

Tiresias wrote:

Two quick questions

Inn & Tavern both add the same kingdom bonus (1 Economy, 1 Stability & add 500 to base value) but why does the Inn cost 10BP while the Tavern 12BP?

Are there any optional rules on upgrading roads?
I was thinking 2 or 3BP a square but it reduces travel time and increase by +50% the effects of buildings out of the city as long the upgraded roads are connected to a city.

I'm not too sure if it's the official reason, but a Tavern is easier to get half price down the road, being part of the Arena (40 BP)/Theatre (24 BP) chain, whilst the Inn is part of the Waterfront (90 BP)/Market (48 BP and two houses) chain.

And the Brothel, which gives an additional +1 to Loyalty, for only one unrest, is cheaper than either halved.

[Charles Evans 25]

James Jacobs:
On the subject of the Brothel, is there something that can be done to 'fix' it, please? As I mentioned above, it's cheaper than either the Inn or Tavern. In fact it's cheaper to build a Brothel and a House to immediately cancel out the unrest, than to build either an Inn or a Tavern (plus that gives you a House 'spare' to build your next brothel...).
I've been wondering of late if maybe some buildings should have a 'diminishing returns' rule, whereby, after the first one, each further one constructed gives you less benefits for each further one which you build in the district. A Brothel could read: 'Economy +1, Loyalty +2 (diminishing returns (1)); Unrest +1'
This means that the first Brothel built in any city district gives the full benefit to economy and loyalty, but the one after that gives only +1 loyalty, and the one after that gives no benefits whatsoever. (Diminishing returns only reduces a stat to 0, not into negatives.)
Or maybe Brothels could impose -2 on Stability* instead creating unrest. After all, in Blood for Blood:

Spoiler:

A brothel madam is a potential very strong ally for the PCs when they're trying to overthrow the rulership of Fort Drelev later on in the adventure path, and who's to say that agents of other governments aren't lurking in Brothels in the PC's own kingdom?... ;) Ooh, this invites a 'foreign spy under every bed' pun.

Edit:
*-1 on stability is too easy to cancel out by building other stuff, which will still result in the Brothel plus Stability building being cheaper than the Tavern or Inn.
Or, further thought, instead of Unrest, Brothels generate cumulative instability? If you have only one in a district it causes -1 Stability. If you have two in a district, each generates -2, if you have three in a district each generates -3...

[Caineach]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

James Jacobs:

On the subject of the Brothel, is there something that can be done to 'fix' it, please? As I mentioned above, it's cheaper than either the Inn or Tavern. In fact it's cheaper to build a Brothel and a House to immediately cancel out the unrest, than to build either an Inn or a Tavern (plus that gives you a House 'spare' to build your next brothel...).
I've been wondering of late if maybe some buildings should have a 'diminishing returns' rule, whereby, after the first one, each further one constructed gives you less benefits for each further one which you build in the district. A Brothel could read: 'Economy +1, Loyalty +2 (diminishing returns (1)); Unrest +1'
This means that the first Brothel built in any city district gives the full benefit to economy and loyalty, but the one after that gives only +1 loyalty, and the one after that gives no benefits whatsoever. (Diminishing returns only reduces a stat to 0, not into negatives.)
Or maybe Brothels could impose -2 on Stability* instead creating unrest. After all, in Blood for Blood: ** spoiler omitted **

Edit:
*-1 on stability is too easy to cancel out by building other stuff, which will still result in the Brothel plus Stability building being cheaper than the Tavern or Inn.
Or, further thought, instead of Unrest, Brothels generate cumulative instability? If you have only one in a district it causes -1 Stability. If you have two in a district, each generates -2, if you have three in a district each generates -3...

I think it is more a problem of Brothels being overpriced. If you reduce the loyalty bonus to 1 or increase the cost to build a Brothel, you may solve your issues. I don't have it in front of me, but I plan on madifying it so that when my players start it is not all they build. I know they will be building some, even if I make it suboptimal, cause that is just the type of players I have.

[Charles Evans 25]

Caineach wrote:

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

James Jacobs:

On the subject of the Brothel, is there something that can be done to 'fix' it, please? As I mentioned above, it's cheaper than either the Inn or Tavern. In fact it's cheaper to build a Brothel and a House to immediately cancel out the unrest, than to build either an Inn or a Tavern (plus that gives you a House 'spare' to build your next brothel...).
I've been wondering of late if maybe some buildings should have a 'diminishing returns' rule, whereby, after the first one, each further one constructed gives you less benefits for each further one which you build in the district. A Brothel could read: 'Economy +1, Loyalty +2 (diminishing returns (1)); Unrest +1'
This means that the first Brothel built in any city district gives the full benefit to economy and loyalty, but the one after that gives only +1 loyalty, and the one after that gives no benefits whatsoever. (Diminishing returns only reduces a stat to 0, not into negatives.)
Or maybe Brothels could impose -2 on Stability* instead creating unrest. After all, in Blood for Blood: ** spoiler omitted **

Edit:
*-1 on stability is too easy to cancel out by building other stuff, which will still result in the Brothel plus Stability building being cheaper than the Tavern or Inn.
Or, further thought, instead of Unrest, Brothels generate cumulative instability? If you have only one in a district it causes -1 Stability. If you have two in a district, each generates -2, if you have three in a district each generates -3...

I think it is more a problem of Brothels being overpriced. If you reduce the loyalty bonus to 1 or increase the cost to build a Brothel, you may solve your issues. I don't have it in front of me, but I plan on madifying it so that when my players start it is not all they build. I know they will be building some, even if I make it suboptimal, cause that is just the type of players I have.

Even at only +1 Economy and +1 Loyalty, a Brothel is still cheaper than either a Tavern or Inn at half price (and even without further House building the unrest will go away the next time you make a Stability check in the kingdom turn Upkeep Phase, or the Royal Assassin does his/her job). In fact a Brothel operates off the same Arena/Theatre chain as the Tavern, so if you can get a Tavern half price, you can get a Brothel half price too...

[Brian Craig]

Is there a document that shows the official errata for the kingdom building rules?

[Charles Evans 25]

James Jacobs wrote:

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Rivers Run Red, Page 56 wrote:

...Cave: Caves can be used as defensive fallback points, storage, or even guard posts or prisons. A cave hex increases a kingdom's Stability by 1...

12) There aren't any 'cave hexes' marked on the Stolen Lands hex maps as far as I know. Is the intention here to indicate hexes with 'Lairs' in which use a sort of cave symbol, or does it mean any hex which is described as having a cave, mine, or other subterranean feature in gives +1 Stability when claimed?

Lairs are the same as cave hexes, since a Lair is symbolized as a cave.

Was this a typo then, or do other hexes potentially count as cave hexes too? (I'm thinking of the various mines around the maps, and the Sootscale Caverns if the kobolds are either amenable or can be evicted... These already count as resource hexes, of course - could some or all of them be counted as cave hexes too?)

[Charles Evans 25]

Brian Craig wrote:

Is there a document that shows the official errata for the kingdom building rules?

Just this thread so far, as far as I know...

There was a post on the first page someone made summarising a bunch of posts/rulings from other threads. Other than that you probably want to read anything James Jacobs posted on this thread (and possibly on the mass combat thread too, but I'm not familiar with that one).

[Charles Evans 25]

James Jacobs:
I've been carrying out a 'dry run', with a group of PCs I generated, of the first couple of parts of Kingmaker. Whilst this lacks some validity as true feedback on the system (as the extent to which I can represent player vs player bickering or strokes of genius is limited, in what is essentially a simulation of a game, not an actual game), I can report back on the current state of the kingdom.

New Azlant:
Size: 24 hexes
(Edit) Alignment: Lawful Good, Principle Religion: Iomedae
Total Edict Consumption: 1 (promotions, no taxes, no festivals)
Settlements: Fort Tuskwater (Stag Lord's Fort) the capital, Olegton (Oleg's Trading Post), Sootscale (Sootscale Caverns), Tatzlford (Tatzlwyrm Den)
Fort Tuskwater has two districts, the others are one district each
Roads: 24
Farmlands: 17 (basically a farmland in every legal hex the kingdom controls, other than one where I'm thinking of maybe putting another city later on...)

Permanent bonuses: +4 Stability (Tiressia & Melianse quests)

Current figures:
Stability: +63
Economy: +60
Loyalty: +58
Unrest: 0
BP: 71
Ruler and Spymaster bonuses not yet assigned for the next kingdom turn...
Dinner time here, but I can provide a further breakdown of officers of the kingdom and of cities later, if you're interested. Development thus far represents probably the equivalent of four or five gaming sessions of Kingdom development.

[Charles Evans 25]

Oh, and further to my previous post, when's the board or computer game coming out? Kingdom management (at least for me) is seriously addictive.
Hmm, I'm imagining a Paizo team-up with FFG to produce something with lots of lovely push out pieces, and multiple expansion packs with further buildings, etc, down the line if the main game is sufficiently successful.

[James Jacobs]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

On the subject of the Brothel, is there something that can be done to 'fix' it, please?

If a GM thinks a brothel costs too much or too little... change the price. The fact that every time you build one unrest increases is not insignificant. And as with the groups who want to fill their towns with graveyards or dumps, a group that wants to fill their town with brothels should have some sort of repercussion. Perhaps a succubus invasion? Perhaps a sudden spread of venereal disease? Maybe a violent uprising of puritanical protestors?

If/when we revise these rules, I'm pretty sure that I'll include something for what happens if you "overdose" a city on particular buildings, but that's not something I have the time to address right now.

And neither do I have time to get too much into tinkering with errata for the rules. They work well enough as is, as long as the GM doesn't let the PCs run the game and he keeps things under control and stays organic and changes things as they require changes, things work fine.

[James Jacobs]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Was this a typo then, or do other hexes potentially count as cave hexes too? (I'm thinking of the various mines around the maps, and the Sootscale Caverns if the kobolds are either amenable or can be evicted... These already count as resource hexes, of course - could some or all of them be counted as cave hexes too?)

Yes. When we originally named the various icons for the maps, some of those icons had multiple names through various incarnations. For a long time, we were calling them caves, but then I realized that not all monster lairs are in caves... but all monster lairs ARE lairs. So we finally settled on the word "lair" for this icon. But since a lot of time during initial development was spent calling them caves... that word sneaks in now and then.

And since we didn't want to have any one encounter area have more than one hex tag... no, you can't have something like the Sootscale den function as both a resource AND a lair.

[James Jacobs]

Brian Craig wrote:

Is there a document that shows the official errata for the kingdom building rules?

This thread is as close to an errata file as we're going to come for the kingdom rules.

[Charles Evans 25]

James Jacobs wrote:

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

On the subject of the Brothel, is there something that can be done to 'fix' it, please?

If a GM thinks a brothel costs too much or too little... change the price. The fact that every time you build one unrest increases is not insignificant. And as with the groups who want to fill their towns with graveyards or dumps, a group that wants to fill their town with brothels should have some sort of repercussion. Perhaps a succubus invasion? Perhaps a sudden spread of venereal disease? Maybe a violent uprising of puritanical protestors?

If/when we revise these rules, I'm pretty sure that I'll include something for what happens if you "overdose" a city on particular buildings, but that's not something I have the time to address right now.

And neither do I have time to get too much into tinkering with errata for the rules. They work well enough as is, as long as the GM doesn't let the PCs run the game and he keeps things under control and stays organic and changes things as they require changes, things work fine.

Actually, this suggests to me that an events table which interacts more with the building types in cities in a kingdom might be the way to go, at least for the hardcover.

EG A plague event is worse if you have more Brothels, a food surplus better if you have more Granaries, etc, etc.

On the Taverns vs Inns front, I've been thinking some more, and did the BP costs of the two get mixed up? It seems to me that an Inn (which has to have accomodation for guests, and which could be considered a sort of Travel Lodge) should be bigger and more extensive (and thus cost more to build) than a Tavern (which is basically a pub or restaurant).

[Glass Castle]

James Jacobs wrote:

Light Dragon wrote:

Are there any loyalty checks other than those involved in kingdom events?

It seems strange that during kingdom building we roll for economy and stability, but not for loyalty.

It seems easy for a party to consider min-maxing loyalty and running the risk that when they fail, unrest will go up briefly, but that they can handle it on the building turns.

Loyalty doesn't play a really major role in the kingdom building rules, but it's VERY important once you go to war. Loyalty is what keeps your armies together and keeps your nation under control during war, basically.

Ok. Thank you!

[Charles Evans 25]

James Jacobs:
I can't seem to see an answer for 9a) which I asked on the previous page about demolishing supporting houses once something like an Inn or Stable has been built? :-?

As regards the format of the Kingdom turn, I find it does say something to the effect that the PCs need to spend seven days a month committed to duties to avoid the penalties for a vacant office. Does this time have to be spent at their capital? At any settlement in their kingdom? It strikes me that The Varnhold Vanishing, Blood for Blood, and War of the River Kings may be tricky if PCs have to keep breaking off exploring hexes to head back home to keep their kingdom stable, although if they can execute their duties from any settlement within their kingdom (presumably by sending dispatch riders) this would at least encourage them to keep pushing the boundaries of their kingdom forward and building/annexing settlements to use as forward bases of operations and outposts to keep control of their kingdom from. (Hmm, maybe having a good road network in their kingdom could play into this...)

Edit:
In later adventures can PCs travelling with an army, engaged in a siege on foreign soil, be assumed to be in contact with 'back home' for Kingdom control purposes? (Hmm, in the case of a PC ruler, an NPC spouse as regent back home would be possible, maybe...)

[James Jacobs]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

9a) So is the 'adjacent House' just a requirement for constructing that type of building on a city grid? If a Shop or Stable which was 'free' can exist without a House adjacent, can you build a House, build an adjacent Shop, then demolish the House and put something else there, and the Shop will continue to function normally, just as a 'free' Shop can function without an adjacent House?

Or are free buildings exceptional in some way (in which case might it be an idea to have some means to keep track on the city grid which buildings (if any) were free)?

The point of the adjacent house requirements is to force folks to put places for citizens to live into the city. It doesn't make sense to build a city with no housing at all, and by forcing folks to build houses in order to build a lot of the mercantile buildings, this problem is answered. That said, the rules as written only require the house to be there when the building that requires a house to be adjacent is first constructed. That said... I don't like those implications. I suggest the following:

OPTIONAL RULE: I would rule that a building that requires an adjacent house requires adjacent houses at all times—this is where their employees and customers come from. A building that requires an adjacent house that loses that house because the house was demolished should basically go out of business if a new house isn't built in an adjacent square within one kingdom turn. A building that goes out of business removes all of its bonuses from the kingdom, and increases Unrest by 1. This building can go back IN to business if a new house is built in an adjacent square—that building can then get back into business once you make an Economy check against the kingdom's Command DC during the next Upkeep.

[James Jacobs]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

As regards the format of the Kingdom turn, I find it does say something to the effect that the PCs need to spend seven days a month committed to duties to avoid the penalties for a vacant office. Does this time have to be spent at their capital? At any settlement in their kingdom? It strikes me that The Varnhold Vanishing, Blood for Blood, and War of the River Kings may be tricky if PCs have to keep breaking off exploring hexes to head back home to keep their kingdom stable, although if they can execute their duties from any settlement within their kingdom (presumably by sending dispatch riders) this would at least encourage them to keep pushing the boundaries of their kingdom forward and building/annexing settlements to use as forward bases of operations and outposts to keep control of their kingdom from. (Hmm, maybe having a good road network in their kingdom could play into this...)

Yup; the PCs need to spend a week a month doing their job as leader. This time doesn't need to be spent at the capital; it's just time you can't spend adventuring. You just have to spend the time doing leader stuff, which can be accomplished anywhere (since it's safe to assume there's messengers and magical methods of communication and enough local worries and jobs to keep a leader busy no matter where they are in a kingdom).

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

In later adventures can PCs travelling with an army, engaged in a siege on foreign soil, be assumed to be in contact with 'back home' for Kingdom control purposes? (Hmm, in the case of a PC ruler, an NPC spouse as regent back home would be possible, maybe...)

Travelling with and leading an army is the same as adventuring. That time does not count for the seven days of bureaucratic work required.

Note that the seven days per month requirement does not require those seven days to be consecutive.

[Charles Evans 25]

James Jacobs wrote:

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

9a) So is the 'adjacent House' just a requirement for constructing that type of building on a city grid? If a Shop or Stable which was 'free' can exist without a House adjacent, can you build a House, build an adjacent Shop, then demolish the House and put something else there, and the Shop will continue to function normally, just as a 'free' Shop can function without an adjacent House?

Or are free buildings exceptional in some way (in which case might it be an idea to have some means to keep track on the city grid which buildings (if any) were free)?

The point of the adjacent house requirements is to force folks to put places for citizens to live into the city. It doesn't make sense to build a city with no housing at all, and by forcing folks to build houses in order to build a lot of the mercantile buildings, this problem is answered. That said, the rules as written only require the house to be there when the building that requires a house to be adjacent is first constructed. That said... I don't like those implications. I suggest the following:

OPTIONAL RULE: I would rule that a building that requires an adjacent house requires adjacent houses at all times—this is where their employees and customers come from. A building that requires an adjacent house that loses that house because the house was demolished should basically go out of business if a new house isn't built in an adjacent square within one kingdom turn. A building that goes out of business removes all of its bonuses from the kingdom, and increases Unrest by 1. This building can go back IN to business if a new house is built in an adjacent square—that building can then get back into business once you make an Economy check against the kingdom's Command DC during the next Upkeep.

Thanks for the clarification on the demolished Houses front.

(Much Edited)
Possible idea/revision for the hardcover rules:
Would it be possibe to take houses and tenements (or at least their markers) off the map altogether for the revised rules for the hardcover? Since the city grid isn't a literal representation, have a requirement that some businesses can only be placed in blocks that have been 'seeded with residences'. The idea here is that you pay some combination of BP and Unrest modification (if you pay enough BP you cut unrest, just as if building current houses, and vice versa, for tenement simulation) to set that block up with living places which will be scattered in amongst the businesses that you're later placing there, and that you only pay it the once (to set the block up) unless the block gets partially or entirely demolished later on...
(It would be impossible to place some structures such as the current four square ones, and some of the two square ones, in a block which had been so prepped, and some buildings would have the quality that they could be placed irrespective of whether the block was residential seeded or not.)
Hmmm.... I'm not sure how clearly I've presented that idea though, or if it would actually be practical to implement it, and I don't know it does much more to encourage residential development than the current ruleset. Maybe some modification of it with an obligation...

[Charles Evans 25]

Question:
20) Whilst a light trimming of trees (a matter of a border a few millimetres wide on the map) around the edge of a plains hex shoves the hex exploration time into the forest category as per the rules in Stolen Lands, does it affect the development of the hex as farmland? It seems a little unfair to see a plains/hills hex which is 98% potential good farmland be 'unfarmable' because of a few square miles of forests around the edge.
For cases with greater encroachment of trees (or swamps or mountains) would it be reasonable to apply a rule of thumb that so long as you pay the regular farmland preparation BP cost a hex that is between about 50% and 90% can be converted into farmland which reduces consumption by only 1 (i.e. the hex is essentially simply 'self supporting')?
Since the lakes such as Tuskwater are apparently rich in fish, where a hex is part hills or plains and part lake, is it reasonable to assume that the cost of converting a hex to 'farming' includes developing resources for fishing the lake, so that the hex (even if it is a substantial percentage water) still counts as a regular plains/hills hex for farming & consumption reduction purposes?

[James Jacobs]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

20) Whilst a light trimming of trees (a matter of a border a few millimetres wide on the map) around the edge of a plains hex shoves the hex exploration time into the forest category as per the rules in Stolen Lands, does it affect the development of the hex as farmland? It seems a little unfair to see a plains/hills hex which is 98% potential good farmland be 'unfarmable' because of a few square miles of forests around the edge.

For cases with greater encroachment of trees (or swamps or mountains) would it be reasonable to apply a rule of thumb that so long as you pay the regular farmland preparation BP cost a hex that is between about 50% and 90% can be converted into farmland which reduces consumption by only 1 (i.e. the hex is essentially simply 'self supporting')?
Since the lakes such as Tuskwater are apparently rich in fish, where a hex is part hills or plains and part lake, is it reasonable to assume that the cost of converting a hex to 'farming' includes developing resources for fishing the lake, so that the hex (even if it is a substantial percentage water) still counts as a regular plains/hills hex for farming & consumption reduction purposes?

Whether a hex counts as trees or hills or whatever is up to the GM to determine, but the rules as they currently exist do not account for "partial" hexes. It's either a forest hex, a swamp hex, a hill hex, a water hex, a plains hex, or a mountain hex. There's no crossover rules.

[avgbountyhunter]

Hello! Been playing the Kingmaker stuff for the past month and my players and I love it! We just started the kingdom building stuff, and I was trying to come up with a way to provide my players with a visual representation of what their kingdom looks like. So, with the magic of Photoshop, I put together a giant hexgrid that covers the entire stolen lands, made hex patterns for different types of terrain, put in all of the encounter markers, rivers and everything. I also have a way of highlighting the hexes that a currently controlled by my players, including farms and roads.

Using two monitors I update the map as they explore, save, and the changes are reflected on the screen they can see.

I'm not sure if anyone has done something like this yet, but I've included a few images and I'm not sure if it's ok, but I'm willing to upload it and share it with anyone interested (with some basic instructions). It will at least be interesting to see what people think! :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v726/avgbountyhunter/map2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v726/avgbountyhunter/map1.jpg

[ChrisO]

avgbountyhunter wrote:

Hello! Been playing the Kingmaker stuff for the past month and my players and I love it! We just started the kingdom building stuff, and I was trying to come up with a way to provide my players with a visual representation of what their kingdom looks like. So, with the magic of Photoshop, I put together a giant hexgrid that covers the entire stolen lands, made hex patterns for different types of terrain, put in all of the encounter markers, rivers and everything. I also have a way of highlighting the hexes that a currently controlled by my players, including farms and roads.

Using two monitors I update the map as they explore, save, and the changes are reflected on the screen they can see.

I'm not sure if anyone has done something like this yet, but I've included a few images and I'm not sure if it's ok, but I'm willing to upload it and share it with anyone interested (with some basic instructions). It will at least be interesting to see what people think! :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v726/avgbountyhunter/map2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v726/avgbountyhunter/map1.jpg

Yowza! Good work. I've been thinking on how to do something similar, but I'm phooey with photoshop. Any instructions you could give, if the tiles and grid shouldn't be shared?

Cool images and idea!

[Charles Evans 25]

avgbountyhunter wrote:

Hello! Been playing the Kingmaker stuff for the past month and my players and I love it! We just started the kingdom building stuff, and I was trying to come up with a way to provide my players with a visual representation of what their kingdom looks like. So, with the magic of Photoshop, I put together a giant hexgrid that covers the entire stolen lands, made hex patterns for different types of terrain, put in all of the encounter markers, rivers and everything. I also have a way of highlighting the hexes that a currently controlled by my players, including farms and roads.

Using two monitors I update the map as they explore, save, and the changes are reflected on the screen they can see.

I'm not sure if anyone has done something like this yet, but I've included a few images and I'm not sure if it's ok, but I'm willing to upload it and share it with anyone interested (with some basic instructions). It will at least be interesting to see what people think! :)

*North Greenbelt Closeup (spoilers)*

*Greenbelt (spoilers)*

Edited above for links.

And I hope your group appreciates your handiwork. :)

[Charles Evans 25]

Minor query/comment regarding the Mill. Why does it have to be 'water adjacent'? A lot of british water mills for villages or small towns were built on streams (or rivers so small they could be considered insginificant by the standards of Kingmaker's rivers) with dams to store water to supply the pressure/drive from a 'millpond'. Only major industrial mills such as at Quarry Bank (for the cotton industry) were actually sited on waterways which could be considered 'rivers' by Kingmaker standards (and these still required the damming of such rivers (or the erection of weirs) to maintain pressure and otherwise assist in regulating the water).
If a Mill is constructed adjacent to a Kingmaker river, to save on portage complications should a level of technology on Golarion be assumed to allow for locks to be constructed for river traffic to bypass the dam/weir?

Edit:
And of course locks create brillant opportunities for authorities to tax/regulate river traffic whilst boats are waiting to come up or go down... :)
Maybe locks on Kingmaker rivers could cost more (for the locks) but give a bigger bonus to Stability and/or Economy...

[James Jacobs]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Minor query/comment regarding the Mill. Why does it have to be 'water adjacent'?

Because we don't have any rules for streams or creeks, except to say that those are water borders.

[Zen79]

avgbountyhunter wrote:

I'm not sure if anyone has done something like this yet, ...

Yes, we do:

link

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

The Map So Far... We're still in book one, at about week 3. We've gone from 12 players to 6, due to GM going mad trying to run a weekly game and pass university. (Now we play fortnightly).

The PCs have just come across the Howling Rock where they've found 4 of the 6 lost members (ZOMBIES!)

[Charles Evans 25]

Howling Rock? This is a location specific to your campaign?

[Charles Evans 25]

James Jacobs:
I'm curious as to what extent Rivers Run Red relies on PCs taking out BP as spare cash to buy stuff to ensure wealth by level is met in terms of character gear? Stolen Lands seemed to just about hit adequate treasure for a 4 man party (assuming that they never had incurred any significant costs for things like dead party members) but at the moment I'm a bit concerned about the levels of treasure in Rivers Run Red. I don't mind one-off adjustments from the text so a really big item of equipment such as the broken weapon in the barrow plays to a character's weapon proficiencies, but other than that a lot of the gear lying around is going to end up useless to a party (non proficiencies, armour unsuited to party members, etc) and being sold for half price (or turned into BP at best). There are consumables (potions, wands, poisons) contributing to the overall treasure haul, I guess, but these by definition are 'use it and cross it off your sheet' items which may not be around figuring in a character's gear by the end of the adventure.
And I tend to work on the basis that Artwork and Gems (unless there is a collector looking for specific items) retail like anything else that isn't a coin or ingot of precious metal for only half price.
So, coming back to my question, to what extent is it assumed that PCs in Rivers Run Red will top up their gear from the kingdom coffers? Or is there an expectation since there is so much time available for item crafting, that a party will have dedicated item crafters able to turn things out 'half price'?

As a note for the kingdom hardcover, perhaps there could be some leeway in PCs taking out money to equip themselves: If they do seem to be underequipped by the level of heroes that they are (character level must in some way translate into perceptions in a kingdom of the scale and accomplishment of their deeds) the Loyalty check to avoid unrest is much much easier than if they're ludicrously over-equipped for their levels and trying to wring more cash out of the coffers. The public might have more sympathy for those they perceive to be pulling their weight for the kingdom, but operating on a desperately tight budget with very little equipment, than for a group of selfish so and sos who don't do much and are out to take the public purse for everything which they can get.
In the real world, public perception over here in the UK is that our armed services (the army in particular) have been horribly underfunded by the government for years, and despite that they are still out there doing wonderful jobs. Consequently the UK armed services have a great deal of public good will, and indeed charities to assist them (particularly to provide assistance for those injured in the line of duty) are able to raise huge sums.

[wraithstrike]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

questions

I am not James, but I am running a 5 character party through the game, and they are doing quiet well. They are not really optimized either. We are near the end of book 2, just short of level 6. All damage dealers have magical weapons. The guys that need AC have enough to matter, and they still have a few coins left to spend. They are not rich, but they are not hurting for wealth either. The game assumes you won't need spare cash, which is why the unrest is involved with taking money out of the treasury.

PS:Most AP's have you above or below the WBL at any given time, however as DM feel free to adjust as needed.

PS:I know I am not James.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Howling Rock? This is a location specific to your campaign?

Sure is. My party had been encountering an inordinate number of Wolves, Worgs and Werewolves in Random Encounters. I decided to make something of it, and recycled an old dungeon from a Dungeons and Cowboys campaign I was running (filed off Coyotes and put wolves in its place).

It's an ancient Temple of Thron revered by Elves (before the ascension of man). There they would bless themselves with Earth, Water and Air to become the wolfkin. Unfortunately when Zon-Kuthon transformed Thron into the Prince in Chains those who were blessed at the Temple were driven mad (becoming the precursors to many werewolf strains). They repurposed the temple to summon back the werewolves and lock them away forever.

When some bandits from Alkenstar decided to join the Stag Lord, the Stag Lord sent them to the Wolf Rock in search of treasure. They've since been tromping through the place and accidentally re-activated the Rock's Ancient Purpose.

The PCs have just reached the place and are dealing with finding half their party zombified. (I used to run a 12 man group but had to cut half the players due to GM Sanity).

And that's the story of Howling Rock. When I've finished the adventure I'll probably put the map and notes online, it's a bit of a tough dungeon for level 2 characters, but fun never-the-less.

[James Jacobs]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

So, coming back to my question, to what extent is it assumed that PCs in Rivers Run Red will top up their gear from the kingdom coffers? Or is there an expectation since there is so much time available for item crafting, that a party will have dedicated item crafters able to turn things out 'half price'?

The assumption is that the PCs will use NO BP to augment or enhance their gear. We put enough treasure in each adventure (often in the form of NPC gear) to more than compensate the PCs so that they should have plenty of money and gear even if they handwave the entire kingdom management aspect of the campaign. Any additional funds the PCs "borrow" from their kingdom to get more gear is over and above what they find in the adventures.

That said, not every party is the same. Some groups don't think to loot every fallen foe. Other groups strip traps for their component parts to resell and scavenge expensive body parts from fallen foes. In the end, it's pretty much the GM's job to make sure his players have the amount of gear he's comfortable with—if it's much more than the expected norm for a baseline game (which is what the APs assume), then he'll probably need to toughen up a lot of encounters, and if it's lower, he'll probably need to soften up a lot of encounters.

But in the end, additional gear from BP borrowings is treated the same way as additional funds the PCs might gain by going on side treks or other non-adventure supported elements the GM creates.

[Charles Evans 25]

My problem with Kingmaker NPC gear being counted at full value as treasure is that not every NPC in Kingmaker is going to end up dead and being looted. In Rivers Run Red for example:

Spoiler:

Grigori may be run off instead of being killed and looted (and indeed if the PCs do kill and loot him in public it causes unrest and a permanent Loyalty penalty)
Malgorzata's magic item is associated with the faith of Gyronna which might cause adverse reactions from NPCs (plus it's an item of woman's clothing, although cross-dressing PCs are certainly possible, or even female PCs, I suppose...)
Killing Corax robs the kingdom of a potential NPC official
Killing Melianse deprives a kingdom of a chance of a permanent +2 Stability bonus (and with the greatest respect those are almost priceless to a new kingdom)
Killing Narthropple robs the kingdom of a potential NPC official
Killing the Old Beldame robs the kingdom of a potential NPC official and deprives the PCs of someone prepared to craft magic items for them
Killing Munguk means the PCs may never find out where the troll lair is without GM intervention (how many PCs are actually going to be able to make a DC 25 Linguistics check if all that they have to go on is his map?)
The PCs may opt for some kind of successful peace negotiations with Vesket, having disposed of the will-o'-wisp (okay, there is some latitude here for a GM to handwave in some sort of 'exchange of gifts' or 'tribute' to get the PCs some of Vesket's gear that they might otherwise miss out on by Diplomatising Vesket)

I'll go over the numbers for Rivers Run Red again, but given that even some of the treasure the PCs do get might be useless because none of them has the proficiencies and class to use that sort of item, I may end up looking for possible ways to get extra stuff into the Kingdom events table...
Hmm. Building on the 'exchange of gifts' idea I floated in the spoiler, I wonder if a 'celebrity visit' could be RP'ed with an exchange of gifts, giving the PCs a chance to present the ambassador from Chelix with that useless +1 weapon they have hanging around (but which their kingdom's spymaster has heard that he has a collection of examples of), and getting back something of approximately equal GP value useful to them?

[scooter.monkey]

After a slow summer, my group finally got to the Kingdom Building part. I know this has probably been asked already, but there are tons of posts to sort through so I'll ask again.

On the Economy checks, you are rolling against the Kingdom Command DC. The rules state that you gain 1 BP for every 5 points you rolled if you succeed. Is this 1/5 total or 1/5 of what you beat the roll by?

For example, a new Kindom with Command DC of 21, if the Treasurer rolls a modified 26, does the Kingdom get 1 BP or 5? Or 6? 1/5 of the total roll seems kind of all-or-nothing, especially when the Kingdom starts to grow to 50, 100, or even 200 hexes.

Also, just for laughs... I made Bekken crazier than usual and gave him some randomly occurring, not-in-the-books, uncontrollable powers when his crazy manifests. The PCs went and made him Magister. I house-ruled that his relevant stat is D20 +5 for the month (-3 to +6), with a 1 meaning that he was too insane or just plain vanished for the month and the post was effectively vacant.

[scooter.monkey]

Under the event "notable NPC visits"... This is our groups first Pathfinder Adventure. Any suggestions for notable NPCs that they will look back on fondly later? Sort of the Pathfinder equivalent of Elminster, Tasslehoff, Tyrion Lannister, etc?

[wraithstrike]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

My problem with Kingmaker NPC gear being counted at full value as treasure is that not every NPC in Kingmaker is going to end up dead and being looted. In Rivers Run Red for example: ** spoiler omitted **

I'll go over the numbers for Rivers Run Red again, but given that even some of the treasure the PCs do get might be useless because none of them has the proficiencies and class to use that sort of item, I may end up looking for possible ways to get extra stuff into the Kingdom events table...
Hmm. Building on the 'exchange of gifts' idea I floated in the spoiler, I wonder if a 'celebrity visit' could be RP'ed...

My group did not kill everyone, and I did not even do the bard event. I just skipped it. I did not do the werewolf event either. If your group has classes that make things difficult you may need to change treasure out for more useful treasure, but there seems to be something for everyone so far. The visitors "bearing gifts" is a good idea if you need it, but I would not worry about it until it becomes an issue.

[wraithstrike]

scooter.monkey wrote:

For example, a new Kindom with Command DC of 21, if the Treasurer rolls a modified 26, does the Kingdom get 1 BP or 5?

They get 1.

[wraithstrike]

scooter.monkey wrote:

Under the event "notable NPC visits"... This is our groups first Pathfinder Adventure. Any suggestions for notable NPCs that they will look back on fondly later? Sort of the Pathfinder equivalent of Elminster, Tasslehoff, Tyrion Lannister, etc?

It depends on how you plan to run the game. You could have Ervil Penrod stop by on his way to Varnhold. He could mention he was sent there to study some artifacts. When the PC's hear he went missing they will at least know who he is. I also plan to have the ruler of Pitax or his 2nd in command visit at some point well before he matters to the PC's.

My opinion:
1.Have NPC's visit that you might want the PC's to know about later. If the PC's ignore them have them do something rude or nice, as appropriate, so the players don't forget them.

2.If you have no special ideas in mind then just have a random NPC come through that. Maybe Elminster needs a place to stay for a week while on a quest.

[Erik Freund]

wraithstrike wrote:

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

My problem with Kingmaker NPC gear being counted at full value as treasure is that not every NPC in Kingmaker is going to end up dead and being looted. In Rivers Run Red for example: ** spoiler omitted **

I'll go over the numbers for Rivers Run Red again, but given that even some of the treasure the PCs do get might be useless because none of them has the proficiencies and class to use that sort of item, I may end up looking for possible ways to get extra stuff into the Kingdom events table...
Hmm. Building on the 'exchange of gifts' idea I floated in the spoiler, I wonder if a 'celebrity visit' could be RP'ed...

My group did not kill everyone, and I did not even do the bard event. I just skipped it. I did not do the werewolf event either. If your group has classes that make things difficult you may need to change treasure out for more useful treasure, but there seems to be something for everyone so far. The visitors "bearing gifts" is a good idea if you need it, but I would not worry about it until it becomes an issue.

On some level, that's the price of specialization. The advantage to being a generalist is that you can use the loot you get.

I'm not saying you should screw over your specialists. Not at all. Things like the "shift the barrow wight to become what you need" is great. But you shouldn't shift everything because that screws over the generalist.

And it's kindof cool to ride the feast-and-fame wave. Gives a chance for the spotlight to move about, and feels more organic. Always having exactly the right stuff and having at all exactly balanced is so.... 4th ED.

[Charles Evans 25]

James Jacobs:
If Kingmaker is used with the Faction rules, roughly what basis should PCs be able to convert PA with a faction into BP for a kingdom? (I assume that if the PCs are members of one or more organizations that they could reasonably call in favours earned with such groups to get additional support for a kingdom?)
Going the other way, what effect does it have on PC standing with a faction if they do something like build a Guildhall and assign it to a specific group that they favour/support? Hmm, in this case, I suppose maybe that particular Guildhall could give reduced Loyalty bonus in exchange the PCs getting additional help/support from that specific faction?
Does PC support for one or more factions, if openly demonstrated, cause problems for a kingdom, or does that depend on how closely the alignments of any such factions match the 'official' alignment of the Kingdom?

[Berhagen]

wraithstrike wrote:

scooter.monkey wrote:

For example, a new Kindom with Command DC of 21, if the Treasurer rolls a modified 26, does the Kingdom get 1 BP or 5?

They get 1.

I think they get 5..... I seem to recall that James confirmed this somewhere on these boards, but I might be mistaken. (It is a "all or nothing" roll)