RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
The Ultimate Battle. It comes. Very close now it is.
Hey uh I know this is kind of the wrong thread but will there be any more of the Adventure Path Iconic sets coming out in the near to mid future?
You mean the pregen PCs? Yes.
Hey uh I know this is kind of the wrong thread but will there be any more of the Adventure Path Iconic sets coming out in the near to mid future?You mean the pregen PCs? Yes.
Yes but I think you have Adventure Path Iconics created by LPJ Design and Pregen PCs created by Legendary Games confused.
Jason, time for the big ask.
As you might know, I'm currently the caretaker of the Ultimate Campaign Kingdom Tracking Spreadsheet. Thanks to the wonders of the Community Use Policy here at Paizo, I've been able to register the sheet in the Community Use Registry, even though it contains some Product Identity items in electronic form (specifically, the building tiles and settlement grids).
Since I've very nearly finished the UCam sheet, my next task is going to be Ultimate Rulership, and I'd like to incorporate the building tiles, however I believe they constitute Product Identity in URule, and as such I don't want to touch them if it would be an issue.
Could you:
a) Tell me tough luck.
b) Give me your blessing to use them.
c) Let me know privately what hoops you need me to jump through to get permission.
?
Answer appreciated in advance.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jason, time for the big ask.
As you might know, I'm currently the caretaker of the Ultimate Campaign Kingdom Tracking Spreadsheet. Thanks to the wonders of the Community Use Policy here at Paizo, I've been able to register the sheet in the Community Use Registry, even though it contains some Product Identity items in electronic form (specifically, the building tiles and settlement grids).
Since I've very nearly finished the UCam sheet, my next task is going to be Ultimate Rulership, and I'd like to incorporate the building tiles, however I believe they constitute Product Identity in URule, and as such I don't want to touch them if it would be an issue.
Could you:
a) Tell me tough luck.
b) Give me your blessing to use them.
c) Let me know privately what hoops you need me to jump through to get permission.?
Answer appreciated in advance.
I say go for it. Shared spreadsheets make tracking kingdom stuff far easier, and I'm all for making it easy for people to use our products!
You, sir, are a gentleman.
Thanks!
|
Jason - Quick question: With the construction rules, is it intended that a building that takes multiple months to build count against the number of buildings that can be built for the entire duration of construction, or just for the month when the initial improvement edict is issued? I can see it going either way and was just curious which you thought worked better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I'd like to compliment on the book. I'm loving it, even through my third or fourth read-through. I am currently working on a PBeM game that will involve some of the information listed here, though the fact that buildings seem to cost... tremendous amounts of money (72k for an Aerie)... just seems rather staggering.
Of course, I am also now reading over the 'Starting from Scratch' section and believe that using the 01-25 Kingdom Size statistics for BP would be nice. However, considering that I am updating a Birthright (2nd Edition D&D game setting) PBeM to using /some/ of the Pathfinder information, and I am using these two books, I believe I might end up getting rid of Build Points entirely and, as the 01-25 Kingdom Size states of 1,000 GP = 1 BP, I might remove the BP and restore the traditional Gold Bar (GB) amount, however with such smaller kingdoms the GB cost would be 1,000 GP instead of 2,000 GP per 1 GB. Makes buildings much easier to purchase and make, though I am still having to look over the cost of buildings in the Ultimate Campaign again, though the chart on Page 20-21 (for some reason it reads as 25) shows the BP/Month information and I might just end up using that instead.
Again, love the book, but just trying to figure out how to retool it to assist me in my main love of Birthright.
Again, I'd like to compliment on the book. I'm loving it, even through my third or fourth read-through. I am currently working on a PBeM game that will involve some of the information listed here, though the fact that buildings seem to cost... tremendous amounts of money (72k for an Aerie)... just seems rather staggering.
It's mostly as a result of the abstraction of BP. It's best to avoid thinking of BP in terms of gp equivalence except at the point of conversion. Remember your not just dropping 72,000 gp on an aerie: you're buying labour, land, tack, saddles, fodder, beds, chairs, tables, etc.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
Yes, the idea of BP is kind of the opposite of the GB concept in Birthright. That is, these are not liquid cash assets, like literal gold bars sitting in your treasury. BP represent the sum total of productive resources that your kingdom devotes to the production and development of a key building and its attendant support buildings, staff, and infrastructure. It's the start-up cost to get that building and everything that goes with it running at full speed, including not just material goods but also the work of the people. That's why you can't just freely exchange BP for gp - those BP are the churn of wages and spending by the people of your kingdom that helps grow the kingdom as a whole. You skim some of that off in taxes, but most of the circulation of BP happens outside of what the rulers technically own (unless they are despotic tyrants, of course!).
*nods* I'm doing my best. I do understand what you mean, Chemlak, but I'm also agreeing with Jason Nelson in the fact that the BP do seem to be opposite to the Birthright GBs... just that I am trying to do my best to come up with an idea as to how to bridge the two.
To be fair, Birthright's gold bars don't have to be gold bars. They're an abstraction of each ruler's physical resources, just like BP, though I'd agree that BP are a lot more besides.
To say that I'm unfamiliar Birthright would be something of an understatement, but if I'm reading you right a GB is a currency unit (not unlike a gp or pp) but of significantly higher value.
Fair enough.
Taking a cursory glance at UCam, and comparing the downtime rule building costs to the BP costs from the Kingdom chapter (which were written by different developers, I believe, so I doubt we can expect any real consistency), the actual physical cost of the building itself is somewhere between 1-2% of the BP-gp equivalent cost. Or, to put it another way, 98-99% of the "cost" of a building in the kingdom rules is something you can't get just by throwing money at the problem*.
Let's take a solid look at the Aerie:
You are buying a big stable-like building for flying mounts. The building itself is probably less than 2,000 gp (up to 8,000 gp for a fast build). This includes gross physical features like a landing strip, groom's quarters (including his bed), water troughs, a hay barn, feed stores, and that nifty aerial hatch for your knights to do VTOL out of.
However, there's a lot more to the Aerie than that. There's hiring a groom who knows about airborne creatures. Ordering custom tack, saddles, brushes and so forth. Ensuring delivery of a stable-full of flying mounts from a supplier who can provide breeding stock. Making sure you can meet the specific dietary requirements of the mounts. Passing the necessary legislation regarding who can own a flying mount, what types they can have, how many, and registering permits to them. Planning permission.
All in a single month.
*Exception: hiring sufficent labour to complete any building in 30 days.
I don't happen to agree with interpreting the rules as "I do this all in 1 kingdom turn". Your kingdom has probably been working on this Aerie for a while, so the costs are spread out (yay for the X/month for Y months costs in URule!). But however you parse it, construction and furnishing of the building itself costs all of 2 BP at most. The rest of the cost is all the other details that cash-money really can't account for.
So, if you want an idea on how to bridge GB and BP, here's a possible suggestion:
5% (I'm consciously being generous, here) of a kingdom's BP is actual cash in the treasury and may be drawn as GB in the Income phase (pick your own conversion rate, but 1 BP to 2 GB would be the standard if I've read you right) without incurring any penalty. These GB may be spent as normal.
Also GB may be converted into BP at a favourable exchange rate: 3 GB to 1 BP, which represents how these are the currency of kings, used for large-scale purchases well beyond the means of normal men. Converting GB in this way requires a Mint.
Doing those shouldn't cause undue strain to the kingdom rules, and will keep the GB a bit special.
Gold bars (GB) refer to a theoretical unit of currency equal to 2,000 gp. A trade bar would thus be a solid bar of gold, some 40 lbs in weight.
They provide the primary base unit of financial resources in the 2nd Edition Birthright setting and are analogous to BP in that respect. However, you don't actually buy mundane things with them, as one game action specifically deals with splitting them into gp for spending or turning gp into usable GB.
Jason - while going over the recruitment edict rules, I stumbled over a typo I hadn't noticed before on the top ofpage 8:
and the same number that can be recruited as
ordinary militia (1st-level warriors). Hence, in Any armies you
recruit over this limit (except for Elites, as described below)
Is "Hence, in" the start of an important sentence that needs to be restored, or should it just be ignored?
'Hence' means "from this" and indicates that the following clause derives or follows on from the previous statement.
Yes, but this particular sentence does not in fact make sense with the Hence bit attached.
"Manpower: This number represents the percentage of your population that can be recruited as regular army soldiers (2nd-level fighters), and the same number that can be recruited as ordinary militia (1st-level warriors). Hence, in Any armies you recruit over this limit (except for Elites, as described below) are treated as emergency conscripts (1st-level commoners that automatically gain the shaken condition in combat)."
See? That sentence should clearly begin with "Any armies".
It's not that it doesn't make sense, but it's unnecessarily flowery. I imagine that the proofreader thought so as well, given that 'any' is capitalised.
EML is right: the sentence doesn't scan right. Either "Hence, in" needs to be removed, or "in" needs to be removed to make the sentence comprehensible. The parenthesised clause muddies the water when reading it: if you pull that out it's more obviously nonsensical:
Hence, in Any armies you recruit over this limit are treated as emergency conscripts.
That sentence needs either an extra subject (hence, in Any armies you create over this limit <subject> are treated as emergency conscripts), but I have no idea what subject that could be, or the start of the sentence needs revising to remove the apparent reference to "in any armies".
Or, possibly, there was an entire other sentence beginning with "hence, in" that got partly cut. I see that as a low-probability situation though.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure the "Hence, in" is just an editing artifact that got left behind when I was writing and didn't get caught. Wrote the sentence one way, then went back and changed it but didn't delete the whole original sentence and it didn't get caught anywhere along the way.
Nothing to see here... :)