|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I hope this is in the right spot if not feel free to move it
is there a way to retrain out of an alternate class (Ninja) and into its parent Class (Rogue) without a double retrain session (Retraining to Fighter from Ninja then back to Rogue) when more than 1 level in Ninja exists
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The retraining levels rules needs to make it clear whether or not you can retrain into a class and use the class as it's own Requirements.
Take a Fighter 6/Hellknight 1 and retrain into Hellknight 7 using the Hellknight's own BAB as the requirement with the character feats granting the Armor Proficiency feat.
The feat retraining needs to make it clear you can or can not retrain a feat and use your current stats to qualify. For example a Fighter 6 retraining his 1st, 3rd, and 5th level Character Feats into BAB+6 feats. If you do this and also retrain your 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 6th Fighter feats, you could have a total of 7 (seven) feats with BAB+6 as a requirement at 6th level.
I noticed that on pages 206-7 where it talks about the edict phase it lists the steps in the phase. It skips step 3. I originally thought this was a number typo but I've seen a few places that reference the edict phase having 7 steps. But only 6 steps are listed.
Did I miss something?
Official response from Sean K Reynolds HERE.
There is an omission from the scofflaw description on page 106. Unless I have missed such an omission somewhere else, this description is the only one that does not include typical class and levels for the team with typical examples being 1st level commoners and 3rd level warriors or some such. None is given for the scofflaw but all other descriptions contain such info.
Sorry, but this just drives me nuts. I can't help it. :D
That's more a rules question than an information that needs errata, but I agree, it would be treated as claiming a free city. Essentially, the Land Rush hex is a single hex kingdom with a terrain improvement and no settlement, and should be treated as such when you try to claim the hex yourself.
Looking at how the rules are supposed to work for upgrading rooms, I believe that the upgrade to/from on the sports field(pg 102) and the battle ring(pg 95) are reversed. The battle ring is more expensive, takes more time to build, and gives an added bonus to combatants. It feels like the sports field should upgrade to the battle ring, and not the other way around.
How many business's can a manager run? I have a player that runs 10 farms, an inn, a store and some mercenaries per town in 3 separate towns. If he wants to fight capital attrition does that mean that he needs a manager for each business? That does not seem worth it as the cost of the managers would far exceed the losses when you factor 7 days vs. 14.
Also can he use a cohort as his representative to combat Capital attrition? I know that a Cohort, hireling or himself can do this for Business attrition once every 30 days but it's not clear on Capital attrition. Does it really mean that they take losses no matter what as long as he is not residing in that area?
It seems like it would be better to have 1 manager in every town that visits your business once every 30 to prevent business attrition but as long as your business generates enough capital to combat your 7 day losses why bother using a manager for your business it seems far to expensive.
Or am I just crazy and I have this completely wrong? :)
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Barracks
Upgrade to Garrison
Defense +2
Garrison
Upgrade from Barracks
[No defense]
I've omitted the other stats, but a garrison should give at least the same defensive bonus as a barracks. Probably should be Defense 3 or 4.
stuff:How many business's can a manager run? I have a player that runs 10 farms, an inn, a store and some mercenaries per town in 3 separate towns. If he wants to fight capital attrition does that mean that he needs a manager for each business? That does not seem worth it as the cost of the managers would far exceed the losses when you factor 7 days vs. 14.Also can he use a cohort as his representative to combat Capital attrition? I know that a Cohort, hireling or himself can do this for Business attrition once every 30 days but it's not clear on Capital attrition. Does it really mean that they take losses no matter what as long as he is not residing in that area?
It seems like it would be better to have 1 manager in every town that visits your business once every 30 to prevent business attrition but as long as your business generates enough capital to combat your 7 day losses why bother using a manager for your business it seems far to expensive.
Or am I just crazy and I have this completely wrong? :)
Having a manager does 3 things:
- Doubles the time before capital attrition happens from 1 week to 2 weeks (Upkeep Phase Step 3)
- Removes the possibility of business attrition entirely (Upkeep Phase Step 4)
- Handles Events for you
Capital attrition has no effect on GP earned. Step 1 of the Income phase says that GP income is reduced by an effective -7GP/week and capital earned is reduced by 1/week (to a minimum of 0); this is in addition to capital attrition, which has no effect on GP but reduces capital held by 1 for each settlement.
Following so far? As written: capital attrition is per settlement (but only affects capital, not GP); business attrition is per business; penalty to Income Phase earnings is per business.
The cheapest manager costs 14gp/week (2gp/day), but saves you nothing in GP because all it does is prevent capital attrition (which only affects capital held per settlement, not gp) and business attrition (which makes your businesses go up in smoke). The manager doesn't affect the penalty to Income Phase earnings at all.
The way it's written, you can presumably have 1 manager per town. Think about it: if you have a manager at your tavern but not at your farm, do you still take capital attrition penalties for the farm or lose the business due to business attrition? Capital attrition is per settlement and affects your entire holdings, so no; just having one manager in the town is enough to prevent that. Business attrition is per business, but it can be solved by sending a letter saying "Hi! I'm alive!" or "sending a qualified representative on your behalf (such as a cohort or manager)." Not only does the manager not have to be at a given business 24/7 to prevent business attrition, he/she only needs to show up 1/month.
You have to use that manager's skill checks for all Events for all businesses, though, so you may want to use a damn good one. Also, if your manager isn't in town at the time, you may auto-fail (this is why you should keep it to 1 town per manager). If you use your cohort, you still have to pay him/her/it (I'd say probably 5gp/day since it's the highest manager wage).
If your player is gone for 4 weeks, you have 28 checks of 10 + Room Bonuses + 5 Productivity (oh yes... did you know that, by RAW, businesses don't take weekends off and therefore make checks every day?). Each business gets a result of 48 for each of their 28 checks (totalling 1344). Multiply by 10 because of the ten farms and divide by 10 as per the Income Phase rules, yielding the same results = 1344gp earned. Here's the sticky part, though:
For every 7 days you've been away from the settlement (whether they were downtime days or not), reduce the total amount of gp earned by 7 and reduce the Goods, Influence, Labor, and Magic earned by 1 each (minimum 0).
This is a per check (and, therefore, per business) penalty for which the clock starts ticking the day after you leave the settlement for any reason and incurs a penalty of 7gp per business per total week of absence (this effectively doesn't happen as long as you visit the settlement 1/week). Since your player has been gone for 4 full weeks, he/she takes a penalty on earnings equal to the number of weeks gone (4) x the number of businesses (10) x 7gp = 280 gp. Having a cheap manager costs 56gp for that amount of time and has no effect other than to eliminate the possibility of your buildings going up in smoke.
Doesn't seem that bad, right? It's because it isn't. What the penalty does is eliminate the effective 7gp/week bonus the businesses have from taking 10 on all their checks. Effectively, having the owner in town makes businesses earn 1gp/day more. That's it. Assuming you don't deal in capital, what the manager does is make sure the businesses don't go rogue or have event problems.
But what about capital attrition? Here's another example where that actually matters:
Your player decides he wants to play philanthropist and start an orphanage to take care of all the children who were orphaned in his/her bloody campaign of murder and looting, spending his/her own money to gain influence. An orphanage has an influence modifier of +37. The character, once again, is away for 4 weeks. Take 10 + Productivity 5 + Bonus 37 is Result 52. The player's orphanage may generate 5 Influence/day at a cost of 15gp each.
Here's the catch: your total Influence goes down 1 per week per settlement without a check-in or a manager. Even with a manager, your total influence goes down 1 per 2 weeks. This means that 4 weeks without a player or manager in the settlement means capital attrition consumes 1 points of influence per week of absence. Funny thing: this happens whether you have 1 orphanage or 50 because it's per settlement and not per business. What does having a manager do? A manager (for the cost of at least 14gp/week) saves you an average half a point of Influence per week (5gp value). This only barely is worth the money if you have several different forms of capital that need protecting. Having a manager is mostly about keeping your businesses from going poof.
Make sense yet? X-P This also means that, due to the Income rules, your earned capital from each building you own goes down by one for every full week of absence regardless of if you have a manager. It's debatable whether or not you have to pay for it but I assume not because I'm a generous GM and, besides, this would penalize the player for having multiple orphanages and who would want to do that?
What does this mean? It means that, for a player absent from his/her orphanage for 4 weeks produces a maximum of 140 points of influence at a cost of 2100 gold. That player loses 4 points of total settlement Influence held in that time as well, unless he/she has a manager in which case he/she loses 2 points of Influence instead. Because of the Income Phase rules, earned Influence is reduced by a total of 4 per orphanage regardless of whether there is a manager. It's debatable whether you have to pay for them. If you do, the player may produce a maximum of 132 points of influence in 4 weeks at an average cost of 15.9gp.
Woohoo! Does this make sense? At all? It doesn't really matter because, in my xp, no players actually care about capital, especially since they have to pay for it. It's just too abstract for them. Kind of like that good-hearted, well-crafted NPC you made for them whose name they couldn't remember until he sacrificed himself for the party and since then they've been saying "OMG STEVE THE KINDLY BANDIT YOU WERE TOO GOOD FOR THIS WORLD." It's all about the gp. So as long as you remember that thing about the take 10 effective bonus being nullified and the managers and going poof you're fine.
Or maybe I'm totally wrong about all this stuff. I don't think so... but SKR can set me straight if he's still lurking this thread ;D
Here are my house rules in regards to UC. They may be helpful in compiling errata.
- In addition to the issue already mentioned about Kingdom Size and trade routes, there is a similar issue with Diplomatic Edicts. Currently, Kingdom Size for both Kingdoms are added together for Diplomatic Edict checks. While I kind of like the idea that larger kingdoms have more to talk about and expect more from each other, this basically turns diplomacy at the higher levels into a massive, ridiculous bribe-fest. For some of the larger nations, even getting to the table and talking to them would cost hundreds of BP in bribes. I'm pretty sure this is a typo since this means that you add your own Kingdom's Size TO THE DC when you try to Intimidate another kingdom.
- Magical Streetlamps cost 5BP and can be placed in every single lot in your city? Really? In a capital city metropolis with 5 districts my players can get a cumulative -180 penalty to their Crime modifier by making a bunch of glowy lights that cost 50gp each? That modifier would apply to every pickpocket and sense motive vs bluff check in the whole city (which is weird in and of itself: that having extremely low crime makes it easier to lie to people but harder to pick people's pockets; shouldn't it be the same direction for both?). This is terribly broken. BTW: if hobos in real life will tear down streetlamps for copper wire that they can sell for a few bucks, what's to stop thieves from stealing whatever they slapped the effect on if it's worth the equivalent of tens of thousands of modern dollars in gold (nitpicking, I know; just ignore that)? Regardless, I've remade Streetlamps to mirror Sewer System and Paved Streets: 24BP Cost 1/district Loyalty 2 Economy 1 Crime -2
- UC Removed the Arena's affect of halving Holiday costs which it had when introduced in KM. It's not a big deal, but I love that effect and it fits nicely into the whole "big three edict buildings" theme of Waterfront + Arena + Cathedral (with the Palace as the dark horse in the background). I keep it in my game.
- My biggest problem with the Mass Combat rules (which I find awesome, though others have had complaints) in regards to Kingdom Building is that military/city-watch buildings don't come with troops. This is especially problematic for an event in AP36. I've ruled that every military building comes with a free full complement of level 1 warriors with no consumption (eg. ACR 1/3 Medium army for every barracks) that can't be moved into the field, can't be led and automatically fail Morale checks. Also, religious buildings come with a similar full complement of level 1 Adepts. I've also ruled that Monasteries come with a free Small army of level 1 Warriors (with improved unarmed strike and no armor, presumably). I think these changes are relatively minor as armies with such low CR are hardly gamebreaking but remove the necessity of having official field armies posted in every city in order to take advantage of defenses in case of surprise attacks. This is a HUGE deal when you consider that, in the case of a blitzkrieg, a kingdom can only raise armies during the 1/month Edict Phase.
- This highlights another issue with Mass Combat: it makes no sense to intentionally make an army of ACR<3 since Consumption is half of ACR, minimum 1. For that matter, it doesn't make sense to make an army with an even ACR since increasing ACR by 1 doesn't increase Consumption. I don't know how to fix this or even if it's worth fixing.
- I'm a big believer that nameless NPC's should generally be kept at level 5 or less. Unless the players offer a compelling reason why they should be able to recruit an army of level 6+ individuals (lets say that they founded the greatest assassin school in the world and want an army of level 6 assassins or they want to absorb an existing army of 25 level 9 wizards), I keep it maxed at level 5 and, even if they have a compelling reason, there's no way I'd let them make level 11+ armies (legendary individuals, even with NPC classes, shouldn't be the stuff of army raising IMHO)
- Since I think it's unfair for armies with DR5 to get an automatic +10DV bonus for Significant Defense and it'd be even less fair to not give them a DV bonus at all, I've ruled that armies with DR<=5 get a DV bonus equal to their DR.
- I think the BP cost for mounts may be a little low. Horses for a light army would cost the equivalent of 2.75BP in gold, but cost 1BP according to UC because 100 light horses are ACR1. Similarly, 100 untrained hippogriffs would cost 12.5BP in gold (10x that if they're trained) but they cost 2BP according to UC, the same as heavy horses (Technically the text specifies animals. Does that mean you can't mount armies on Magical Beasts? Someone should tell the Korvosans! Also every orc tribe with a Siege Owlbear!). I recommend that the recruitment cost for the mount resource either follow a formula or be based on something other than CR. I recommend ACR squared times 2 for animals and ACR squared times 3 for magical beasts.
- Since nations on Golarion don't have Kingdom Building statistics posted, I've ruled that Size of NPC kingdoms' claimed hexes is equal to 1/5th of their total territories (for instance, I've estimated that the Empire of Taldor has claimed 739 hexes of their estimated total territory of 3695 hexes and they, thus, have a Diplomacy modifier of 147).
In reference to the question about Land Rush: this just came up in my game. I ruled that a freestanding terrain improvement doesn't count as a city. They just claimed the hex as normal. These are "overeager settlers," not rival Kingdom Builders challenging your rule from the top of a Sawmill. The presumption is that they're your citizens (at least prospectively), which is why you're rolling to keep Unrest from building in your kingdom rather than their free city.
Bugbear Cat: I don't know where I read this, but I'm 90% sure that the devs have said it only affects damage dealt. Basically, from what I understand, defensive strategies are useful when you're running out the clock (say, for reinforcements to come) or when you're fighting multiple armies. In the latter case, losing out on the extra damage against the one army you're attacking sucks, but if you had an aggressive strategy you would be taking X more damage from each army attacking you.
Carnox: I feel ya, though I'm not quite there with you. I think of the garrison less as a defensive structure and more of a place to house a ton of dudes with swords.
Risner: I don't know if you saw this, but it looks like the Devs saw your post and changed things a few days later.
>Carnox: I feel ya, though I'm not quite there with you. I think of the garrison less as a defensive structure and more of a place to house a ton of dudes with swords.
TheDailyLunatic: Yes, but:
1. Your point would be doubly true for a Barracks, but the barracks Defense +2. When you *upgrade* to the Garrison you *lose* that defensive value. It's nonsensical
Barracks 6 BP, 1 Lot
Kingdom Unrest –1
Upgrade to Garrison
Special Defense +2
Settlement Law +1
A building to house conscripts, guards, militia, soldiers, or similar military forces.
Garrison 28 BP, 2 Lots
Kingdom Loyalty +2, Stability +2, Unrest –2
Discount City Wall, Granary, Jail
Upgrade From Barracks
A large building to house armies, train guards, and recruit militia.
2. In this context both imply the presence of troops your other point about them note coming with "armies" notwithstanding. Some defensive building mean a fortification and other mean defenders.
3. In common usage a barrack really is the structure whereas a garrison is a unit of troops or its headquarters.
Unless I've got it backwards and the fix is to remove the Defense +2 from Barracks, but that would make it one of the worst building in the list.
Barracks 6 BP, 1 Lot,Kingdom Unrest –1,Upgrade to Garrison,Settlement Law +1
*shrug*
>Carnox: I feel ya, though I'm not quite there with you. I think of the garrison less as a defensive structure and more of a place to house a ton of dudes with swords.
TheDailyLunatic: Yes, but:
1. Your point would be doubly true for a Barracks, but the barracks Defense +2. When you *upgrade* to the Garrison you *lose* that defensive value. It's nonsensical
Barracks 6 BP, 1 Lot
Kingdom Unrest –1
Upgrade to Garrison
Special Defense +2
Settlement Law +1
A building to house conscripts, guards, militia, soldiers, or similar military forces.Garrison 28 BP, 2 Lots
Kingdom Loyalty +2, Stability +2, Unrest –2
Discount City Wall, Granary, Jail
Upgrade From Barracks
A large building to house armies, train guards, and recruit militia.2. In this context both imply the presence of troops your other point about them note coming with "armies" notwithstanding. Some defensive building mean a fortification and other mean defenders.
3. In common usage a barrack really is the structure whereas a garrison is a unit of troops or its headquarters.
Unless I've got it backwards and the fix is to remove the Defense +2 from Barracks, but that would make it one of the worst building in the list.
Barracks 6 BP, 1 Lot,Kingdom Unrest –1,Upgrade to Garrison,Settlement Law +1*shrug*
Lol, excellent point! I stand b****slapped =D
Holy crap I totally forgot the biggest thing:
- UC, as it stands, says that only asterisked terrain improvements may share their hexes with other improvements. That means that it's impossible to build a mine and a road in the same hex (which is necessary to use the special ability of the Foundry). My house rule is that resource-producing TI's (farms, mines, sawmills, quarries) may not share a hex with each other. The one exception is fisheries, which I believe may fairly inhabit the same coastal hex as a farm or same river hex as a sawmill etc.
- Incredibly, I don't think this has been spelled out: no terrain improvement may share a hex with another of the same improvement. Without this specification, a city may build virtually unlimited numbers of farms in a plains hex with a Stockyard and negate the need to build farms anywhere else.
We had a discussion of the Ucamp kingdom rules back in July and Chemlak made a good point there, that the intent behind the asterisks would be much more clear if the asterisks were "reversed", ie "only one improvement marked with an asterisk can be placed in a hex". The thread can be found here, and Chemlak's post here.
I also include farms in the "mutually exclusive" category. If you can build farms in every hex with no downside I find that they buy off their BP cost in only two turns and make it trivially easy to keep consumption at 0. It also makes Forest hexes much, much less attractive than to hills.
I'm moving this from another forum in hopes that it get more traction on this thread.
RAW: If I have 8 roads and upgrade 1 to a highway I now have 7 roads and 1 highway my economy and stability each reduce by 1.
This should be clarified, I can think of three reasonable clarifcation depending on the intent:
1. Roads upgrade to highways and the only benefit is increased overland travel speed. Highway should be changed to "Highway hexes stack with Road hexes for determining the Economy and Stability bonuses; further improves overland travel speed."
2. Roads upgrade to highways and all benefits increase. "Economy +1 for every 4 hexes of Highway, Stability +1 for every 8 hexes of Highway; Highway hexes stack with Road hexes for determining the Road Economy and Stability bonuses; further improves overland travel speed."
3. Highways are not an upgrade to roads in the the building rules sense of an upgrade, rather they are an additional improvement to the hex. That road represent a network of unpaved roads and highways supplement with paved major arterials. Highway text should be changed to, "A highway is a paved and well-maintained type of a road allowing for speedier travel between settlements." Road text should be changed to, "A Road speeds travel through your kingdom and promotes trade. You can add a Highway to your Road." This leads to the idea that the improvement is real a system of roads not a road.
stuff:I'm moving this from another forum in hopes that it get more traction on this thread.RAW: If I have 8 roads and upgrade 1 to a highway I now have 7 roads and 1 highway my economy and stability each reduce by 1.
This should be clarified, I can think of three reasonable clarifcation depending on the intent:
1. Roads upgrade to highways and the only benefit is increased overland travel speed. Highway should be changed to "Highway hexes stack with Road hexes for determining the Economy and Stability bonuses; further improves overland travel speed."
2. Roads upgrade to highways and all benefits increase. "Economy +1 for every 4 hexes of Highway, Stability +1 for every 8 hexes of Highway; Highway hexes stack with Road hexes for determining the Road Economy and Stability bonuses; further improves overland travel speed."
3. Highways are not an upgrade to roads in the the building rules sense of an upgrade, rather they are an additional improvement to the hex. That road represent a network of unpaved roads and highways supplement with paved major arterials. Highway text should be changed to, "A highway is a paved and well-maintained type of a road allowing for speedier travel between settlements." Road text should be changed to, "A Road speeds travel through your kingdom and promotes trade. You can add a Highway to your Road." This leads to the idea that the improvement is real a system of roads not a road.
Highway*
A highway is a paved and well-maintained version of a Road. You may upgrade a Road into a Highway. You must have a kingdom of Size 26 or greater to build a Highway.
Terrain: Any hex with a Road.
Effect: Economy +1 for every 4 hexes of Highway, Stability +1 for every 8 hexes of Highway; improves overland travel speed.
Cost: Twice the cost of a Road (see Table: Terrain and Terrain Improvements).
I agree, Carnox. The description is inconsistent. It says you can build the damn thing or upgrade from a road, but then it says that you must build it on a hex with a road. I read them as stacking since that's what makes the most sense to me. My players won't get the upgrade discount for building them, but they won't lose out on the benefit of their existing road.
In the beneficial kingdom events, new subjects claims society goes up by one. Now I'm assuming this just means in a single settlement, not in all your settlements, but I'm not sure from the wording
A small group of indigenous intelligent creatures joins your kingdom and submits to your rule. Society and Stability increase by 1, Unrest decreases by 1, and your Treasury increases by 1d6 BP (each time you roll a 6, add the result to the total and roll again).
This is a serious WTF. Here's another one:
You may purchase or build a Mansion or Noble Villa in one of the other kingdom's settlements to use as an embassy (if so, your ambassador uses it as a residence). The target kingdom's leaders may do the same in one of your settlements. Your embassy is considered your territory (and vice versa). Your embassy grants your kingdom the normal bonuses for a building of its type (they apply to your kingdom's totals but not to any specific settlement in your kingdom) and increases Consumption by 1, Economy by 2, and Society by 2.
Does that mean that if my players decide to make 10 embassies there is a +20 bonus to Society for every single podunk settlement in the nation? That means that the kingdom also gets +2 Fame for every settlement because Society modifies it. Much worse, that means that every single Diplomacy check in the kingdom gets a +20. Even the most evil kingdom becomes a utopian paradise where everyone loves each other and helps each other out all the time for no reason!
I haven't really run full force into this yet, but I think I might establish a cap on how far these shenanigans can go. Maybe a +5 or +10 cap? Also maybe the bonus only affects your capitol city?
Maybe I should just be a total douche and say that it only affects effective society in the foreign city where it's built for your citizens. Wow... that would actually make much more sense. And they'd still apply as modifiers for Fame. I think that's what I'll do.
Discrepancy between tables:
Exploration Time (table 3-3) for Marsh at speed 30 feet is 2 days. Table 4-6 has the Marsh at 3 days, with a specific note that the times in this table are for a speed of 30 feet, and that the Jungle (2 days in 4-6) should be treated as a Marsh on table 3-3 for different party speeds.
I suspect that the Table 4-6 entry for Marsh should be 2 days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the description of a Temple type building on page 112 it says the temple consists of "1 Altar, 1 Bedroom, 1 Common Room, 1 Confessional,
1 Office, 1 Sanctum, 1 Statue, 1 Storage".
Why should a temple have a common room and not a ceremonial room (page 96), which seems designed for this exact type of building?
Given that the Cathedral does include the Ceremonial Room (which is an upgrade of the Common Room), I'd say it's intentional.
It's the difference between a village church and Westminster Abbey.
Hi folks. In the optional kingdom building rules, the Warden leadership role is associated with the Knowledge (engineering) skill. Does anybody have any theories why these two are associated? I don't see why a role that has to do with enforcing laws and ensuring safety has to do with this skill.
Maybe if siege engines are involved? But that seems like a very specific scenario.
Thanks for any clarification.
Hi folks. In the optional kingdom building rules, the Warden leadership role is associated with the Knowledge (engineering) skill. Does anybody have any theories why these two are associated? I don't see why a role that has to do with enforcing laws and ensuring safety has to do with this skill.
Maybe if siege engines are involved? But that seems like a very specific scenario.
Thanks for any clarification.
Since you posted your question, I've been thinking about it and trying to come up with a reasonable response.
Here's my thinking so far.
Warden
The Warden is responsible for enforcing laws in larger settlements, as well as ensuring the safety of the kingdom leaders. The Warden also works with the General to deploy forces to protect settlements and react to internal threats.Benefit: Add your Constitution modifier or Strength modifier to Loyalty.
Vacancy Penalty: Loyalty and Stability decrease by 2.
Knowledge
(Int; Trained Only)
You are educated in a field of study and can answer both simple and complex questions. Like the Craft, Perform, and Profession skills, Knowledge actually encompasses a number of different specialties. Below are listed typical fields of study.<snip>
•Engineering (buildings, aqueducts, bridges, fortifications)
<snip>
Identify dangerous construction Engineering 10
Determine a structure's style or age Engineering 15
Determine a structure's weakness Engineering 20
The basic uses of Knowledge (Engineering) relate to the construction of buildings. Since the Warden is charged with "ensuring the safety of the kingdom's leaders", knowing that certain styles of buildings frequently have escape tunnels, or that every building designed by A Particular Ancient Architect has secret passages between bedrooms, or where poor defensive locations are, or where good hiding spots for assassins are, or any of a myriad of other possible uses for the skill would be invaluable. Further, "react to internal threats" suggests rebellions, but also includes criminal enterprise, and (for example) being able to read the blueprint for the sewer system is advantagious.
So, I think I can make a good case to use Knowledge (Engineering) for the Warden, which then raises the question as to whether any other skill would do the job?
Yes, almost certainly. Knowledge (Local) is going to be invaluable to every single leadership role. Which brings up a game balance issue, in that if you make every leadership role benefit (optionally) from Knowledge (Local), everyone will take it.
Which suggests that the idea behind the optional rule is to grant the bonus for skills which (to borrow corporate bull for a moment) "adds value" to the role. (I have not looked at the other roles from this perspective, so this is just a very nascent hypothesis.) Having ranks in Knowledge (Engineering) is going to "add value" to the things a Warden is responsible for, and hence it is the skill that provides the (optional) bonus.
Anyway, sorry for the thread derailment, as this is not an errata issue, but I thought it was worth responding to.
Well, it might have been related to errata, if people felt like the skill in question was a mistake or a typo. :)
But thanks for your thoughts. I feel like it's a stretch, but it makes a little sense when you factor in that the devs wanted a variety of skills, and not every leader using the same few skills. Still, I would think that other skills would be just as appropriate, but it's not a big enough worry for me to do so. Thanks again.
Oh, I definitely agree that it's a bit of a stretch (since when you think of settlement security you don't immediately think Knowledge (engineering)), but if you factor in "minimise skill duplication across the roles", then it is the skill that makes most sense when all of the other role skills are removed as options.
The question being asked when selecting the skill is "all else being equal, which one skill makes this person a better <role> than someone without that skill?" Balancing that across all of the roles must have been a pain.
So I am working on redoing my own personal game world and remapping the entire world onto graph paper to represent hexes so if and when anything kingdom related happens in game, I already have it set up for it.
** spoiler omitted **
Now, looking to create my legend for the map I scoured the book to find the exact size of a hex so I could extrapolate that number and figure out exactly how big this first continent and subsequent islands and landmarks were.
The book says that a hex is 12 miles from corner to corner, and just under 95 square miles. Great! Right? Wait....
So to figure out the overall area of my map, I decided to figure the side length of a hex, meaning that I divide the square hex into two congruent isosceles right triangles, knowing that the hypotenuse is 12 miles per the book. Then using prior knowledge that I have with isosceles right triangles I know that if I divide that hypotenuse by the square root of 2 (1.414) I can calculate the side length of the hex pretty easily.
This is where things get dumb, I get about 8.486. Now, when I take that 8.486 and square it, I should get just under 95 square miles, right?
Okay, I get 72.021. Wait, what? There's about 23 square miles missing from my kingdoms per hex, multiply by a whole continent and I have a disaster.
Checking my work, I decided to take the sqaure root of 95, and got 9.746, and when I multiply by 1.414 I get 13.781 miles across a hex from corner to corner.
Now my question is: which number is right? The difference comes in about 1.75 miles across the hex. Should I be using the 95 square miles and multiplying that by the number of hexes on my continent to obtain the total area on my world, or should I use the 12 miles and end up with less area overall? Should I use both numbers knowing that the math is wrong because that's RAW? Is this a case where RAW should not be applied in game?
Also, what happens to the nations in Golarion when players start claiming hexes and establishing kingdoms? Do the other nations just let it go, or do they go to war? Is there a lot of unclaimed land I don't know about? How should I handle international policy in my tabletop RPG?
Not sure about your method, but the area of a hexagon with circumference radius 6 miles (making it 12 miles corner to corner) is 93.5 square miles. The edges are 6 miles long. The edge to edge distance is 10.4 miles.
Not sure about your method, but the area of a hexagon with circumference radius 6 miles (making it 12 miles corner to corner) is 93.5 square miles. The edges are 6 miles long. The edge to edge distance is 10.4 miles.
But the 'hexes' in the book are squares which leads to me being confused. Especially considering the kingdom sheets having the hexes mapped out on square graph. Perhaps that is the issue.
Okay, colour me utterly confused. I might have an idea what's going on, so bear with me.
When we talk about hexes, we refer to an overland map, such as that shown on page 159 of Ultimate Campaign.
The only place I can think of in which squares are used in UCam is the settlement district grid (page 226), which is used for approximate mapping and relational representation of the buildings in a settlement.
If I'm reading you right, you're using the district grid in an attempt to map an overland area, which will throw out some really odd results.
The rules in UCam assume that overland maps are done with a hexagonal grid overlay (as per page 159).
Am I close to figuring out the discrepancy?
The problem with hexagons (and, thus, hexes) is that they are not platonic solids. If you measure 12 miles from corner to corner (93.6 sq. miles), you end up with a different area than if you measured 12 miles from edge to edge (124.7 sq. miles).
Okay, colour me utterly confused. I might have an idea what's going on, so bear with me.
When we talk about hexes, we refer to an overland map, such as that shown on page 159 of Ultimate Campaign.
The only place I can think of in which squares are used in UCam is the settlement district grid (page 226), which is used for approximate mapping and relational representation of the buildings in a settlement.
If I'm reading you right, you're using the district grid in an attempt to map an overland area, which will throw out some really odd results.
The rules in UCam assume that overland maps are done with a hexagonal grid overlay (as per page 159).
Am I close to figuring out the discrepancy?
Yeah that pretty much solves the discrepancy in the math. Now all I need to do is figure out the distance in my districts to determine the total distance overall.
The problem with hexagons (and, thus, hexes) is that they are not platonic solids. If you measure 12 miles from corner to corner (93.6 sq. miles), you end up with a different area than if you measured 12 miles from edge to edge (124.7 sq. miles).
I don't know what your words mean, but g&!@!&n right.
Screw hexes.
Yeah that pretty much solves the discrepancy in the math. Now all I need to do is figure out the distance in my districts to determine the total distance overall.Okay, colour me utterly confused. I might have an idea what's going on, so bear with me.
When we talk about hexes, we refer to an overland map, such as that shown on page 159 of Ultimate Campaign.
The only place I can think of in which squares are used in UCam is the settlement district grid (page 226), which is used for approximate mapping and relational representation of the buildings in a settlement.
If I'm reading you right, you're using the district grid in an attempt to map an overland area, which will throw out some really odd results.
The rules in UCam assume that overland maps are done with a hexagonal grid overlay (as per page 159).
Am I close to figuring out the discrepancy?
Your choice is pretty simple, really. Go for 10-mile squares (100 square mile area) to keep the area about the same, or 12 mile squares (144 square mile area) to keep the distances roughly the same (and use the same "second diagonal is twice the distance" rule as the combat rules use). I would opt for the second, since daily movement figures tend to be based around easy fractions or multiples of 12.
Your choice is pretty simple, really. Go for 10-mile squares (100 square mile area) to keep the area about the same, or 12 mile squares (144 square mile area) to keep the distances roughly the same (and use the same "second diagonal is twice the distance" rule as the combat rules use). I would opt for the second, since daily movement figures tend to be based around easy fractions or multiples of 12.Yeah that pretty much solves the discrepancy in the math. Now all I need to do is figure out the distance in my districts to determine the total distance overall.Okay, colour me utterly confused. I might have an idea what's going on, so bear with me.
When we talk about hexes, we refer to an overland map, such as that shown on page 159 of Ultimate Campaign.
The only place I can think of in which squares are used in UCam is the settlement district grid (page 226), which is used for approximate mapping and relational representation of the buildings in a settlement.
If I'm reading you right, you're using the district grid in an attempt to map an overland area, which will throw out some really odd results.
The rules in UCam assume that overland maps are done with a hexagonal grid overlay (as per page 159).
Am I close to figuring out the discrepancy?
Right, rule of 72 and all that.
After having played through it and using the map though, I have found that the only real time that the actual distance matters is when someone goofs up a teleport, since Ucamp includes travel time across a hex (8 hours assuming not plain terrain and a party speed of 30) which essentially means that a hex is equal to one day's travel.
Also, just a point of clarification: Since armies and kingdoms pay Consumption at different rates, and Farms and Fisheries reduce Consumption at the kingdom scale, how do they interact? I'm seeing three possible scenarios...
a) Farms and Fisheries do not ever reduce army Consumption. I sincerely hope this is not the case, as my Kingdom is not well-positioned for lots of +BP per turn, only lots of -Consumption, and I'd like to not die from the Kobold and Dwarf nations near me.
b) Farms and Fisheries apply to army Consumption after kingdom Consumption, if kingdom Consumption is reduced to zero, but the reduction only applies once per month. So to get an army to zero Consumption, you have to have enough Farms to cancel out four times the army's Consumption. This is what I think it is - that Farms apply to the armies' monthly Consumption.
c) Farms and Fisheries apply to army Consumption after kingdom Consumption, if kingdom Consumption is reduced to zero, and the reduction applies to each week's Consumption. This is a really nice option for the players, but pretty much means giant armies will be the norm for any reasonably sized city. Stockyard in the middle of seven Plains, with seven Farms = -14 Consumption before you even start building Fisheries or more Farms further out.
Does anyone know if this ever got answered anywhere?
Under Gaining Capital, should the formula for Class Abilities be 1d20 + your relevant class level + your highest ability modifier -5 rather than your character level?
I'd think a F3/C4 wouldn't be quite as effective as a F7 in training about swordplay.
Probably not a gamebreaker, but just something that occurred to me reading over the section. (Finally got my copy! Yay!)
In your example, why wouldn't a multiclass character with a Base Attack Bonus of +7 be as good at teaching someone how to fight as a single class character with a Base Attack Bonus of +7?
The Slavers settlement event in the kingdom rules says that it reduces unrest on failed checks. This seems counterintuitive, and I can't think of any good reason that illegal kidnapping and slavery would be beneficial.
Feel free to call out typos here, too.Since Sean specifically allowed it:
I believe the trait, "Underlying Principals" should be "Principles", unless there's some pun I'm not getting.
<Insert joke about PCs enjoying not being on top sometimes here.>
I've started a FAQ thread about the Mass Combat rule's Strategy Track over here. Meatrace, have we received any more clarification on the matter? If not, then I urge you all to please FAQ the opening post of that thread so we can get a clarification.
Hahahaaa... it's funny to see that this thread is still going since my last campaign derailed over a year ago.
Did anybody figure out what the hell is the deal with embassies? I'm just going to rule that the +2 society just affects capitol cities. They're too crazy otherwise.
I might also seriously houserule settlement modifiers altogether. 5 embassies means a blanket +10 on all disguise checks. That's the same you get from Disguise Self. I don't care how open-minded your city is, there's no way that just being inside it gives you as much benefit to disguising yourself as magic.