I've looked through some downtime stuff, and while costs for individual facilities and the like are given, I've yet to find anything about purchasing land or even getting a permit or grant with which to start construction with, assuming it's in or around a civilized enough town.
Anyone know of anything that's come out since the downtime system was first created that gives you some numbers as to what to expect in terms of how much you'll be paying?
Unfortunately, the real estate market can be EXTRMELY tricky, depending on the time, resources, climate, local crops and livestock, geopolitical situation of the region, and much, much more. Also, you have the problem that there is no single nation, or unified international code for this stuff. So it gets tricky.
There is a reason why the king maker campaign is set in a region that is in dispute between the surrounding kingdoms- it makes any attempt for a major kingdom to expand into an act of war, but forming your own tiny kingdom is fine (since the bigger nations think they can beat you down or buy you off when they expand themselves). So that might end up being a resource, sine it touches on this subject somewhat.
Also, I can't guarantee if it has the answers you seek (haven't read too much of it), but this does seem like something covered in the Kingdom Building Rules from Ultimate Campaign
I am not sure if you can find an exact price for land, but it will tell you the price of building on that land (warning- it is in a representational units for various resources and manpower- it does have definitions in gold, but you have to go digging for that)
Alrighty, any bit helps! We're not really looking to build an empire, our party just received some starter gold from our mercenary guild leader to start up a branch in Sandpoint.
2500 gold for anyone curious
I would use the Downtime rules from Ultimate Campaign and assume that ownership of the land for a building is part of the cost of constructing said building. Since the example guildhall costs 2,660 gp to buy outright (and half that to build using capital in the downtime system), I'd say you're in a pretty good position.
|
This is a fantasy setting, you can literally walk somewhere else where there isn't anyone in a kingdom and set up a house or anything. Eventually someone will come asking your allegiance and yadda yadda, but that is to be dealt with when it comes. Land has no inherent value, even near a populated area. The true cost is getting the local government to be okay with you setting up shop, then paying the appropriate taxes for whatever you built. In this particular case I would suggest that if you want room for expansion you start building on stoot's rock as it is rather defensible and has a large enough space for a nice guild.
I've looked through some downtime stuff, and while costs for individual facilities and the like are given, I've yet to find anything about purchasing land or even getting a permit or grant with which to start construction with, assuming it's in or around a civilized enough town
It's all abstracted away in the downtime system, or in other words, it's part of the costs of building. You'll need to pay more for the right/ability to build your apothecary in the middle of a major city, but you'll also spend less shipping all the floor tiles than you would to a site in the middle of nowhere.
In a sense, you're asking the wrong question. Even today, relatively few people in Europe own the land their houses sit on. If I remember correctly, the Duke of Westminster (today!) owns more or less the entire borough of Mayfair in London's West End --- all those multimillion dollar houses you see are actually leaseholds, where someone back in the umpteenth century leased the land from the Duke and then built a house on it. I used to work in a gated resort community with the same deal; you could "lease" a plot of land from the resort for 99 years, then do what you liked with it, but the resort still owned the land.
Prices (whether for the land or the lease) will of course vary widely just as they do in the real world. I'm sure there are spots in Absalom where you could set a gold piece on the ground and it wouldn't pay for the area it covers. By contrast, in the Stolen Lands, it's easy enough to grab some nice farmland, declare it to be Opuk0topia, and invite any bandits to "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough."
It's free if you seize it from the previous owner! >:D
I looked up the pathfinder wiki entry on stoot's rock and it seems like a good place! Both physically and storywise!
Is there a map for it however?
Land has no inherent value, even near a populated area. T
During the classical and medieval eras, land was largely the only thing that had value, and was the primary means of generating wealth.
Obviously a game world can change this, but if one is trying for medieval verisimilitude owning land, or even rights to limited use of land, is very important.
|
|
Land has no inherent value, even near a populated area. TDuring the classical and medieval eras, land was largely the only thing that had value, and was the primary means of generating wealth.
Obviously a game world can change this, but if one is trying for medieval verisimilitude owning land, or even rights to limited use of land, is very important.
I didn't say it wasn't important, or even that it wouldn't end up costing money. Just that it has no "inherent" value.
existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.
Land is unlike other commodities in that it cannot be moved, and cannot be traded in the sense as an item. Land is not permanently, essentially or characteristically worth anything in of itself. The only value land has is created by beings, whether simply living there to be hunted or needing water to drink. In a sense I am being general as you could argue for instinctual value being inherent. The only things in my mind that have inherent value is money and the like as without it being recognized as money it is nothing but a man-made rock or piece of paper, the value is essential to its identity while land is still land without being considered valuable.
Land has no inherent value, even near a populated area.During the classical and medieval eras, land was largely the only thing that had value, and was the primary means of generating wealth.
That depends on what part of the classical and medieval era you're talking about. Worked land had value, but the value is/was arguably in the serfs that were bound to it and worked it. In areas with a labor shortage, either from a simple lack of population (e.g., much of the Nordic countries) or because some natural disaster like the plague had depopulated the area, land was basically worthless.
So while it's true that land was the only thing that had value, that doesn't mean that land per se was valuable. If you couldn't actually make use of your land (for whatever reason), it was worthless.
This is one of the reason's that Grimm's heroes were always finding witches' cottages in "the forest." Generally speaking, either forests were areas that no one wanted to farm, or areas that belonged to an absentee landlord who didn't take care of them properly. That's why they made such great spots for squatters who could and would live quietly.
If one is trying for medieval verisimilitude owning land, or even rights to limited use of land, is very important.
Depends again upon where that land is. If you really want to pack up a boat and head to Ultima Thule, the Duke of Ultima Thule isn't going to stop you, if he even hears about it. On the other hand, if you decide to start squatting in the back garden of his house in Amsterdam, he'd have a lot to say about it.
Land has no inherent value, even near a populated area.During the classical and medieval eras, land was largely the only thing that had value, and was the primary means of generating wealth.That depends on what part of the classical and medieval era you're talking about. Worked land had value, but the value is/was arguably in the serfs that were bound to it and worked it. In areas with a labor shortage, either from a simple lack of population (e.g., much of the Nordic countries) or because some natural disaster like the plague had depopulated the area, land was basically worthless.
So while it's true that land was the only thing that had value, that doesn't mean that land per se was valuable. If you couldn't actually make use of your land (for whatever reason), it was worthless.
This is one of the reason's that Grimm's heroes were always finding witches' cottages in "the forest." Generally speaking, either forests were areas that no one wanted to farm, or areas that belonged to an absentee landlord who didn't take care of them properly. That's why they made such great spots for squatters who could and would live quietly.
Depends again upon where that land is. If you really want to pack up a boat and head to Ultima Thule, the Duke of Ultima Thule isn't going to stop you, if he even hears about it. On the other hand, if you decide to start squatting in the back garden of his house in Amsterdam, he'd have a lot to say about it.
If one is trying for medieval verisimilitude owning land, or even rights to limited use of land, is very important.
Not necessarily. There are other things that could make land valuable other than a labor force and farms. Key trade routes and harbors likely have at least some value just by their location.
Of course, that is probably on too large of a scale for this discussion. At best, for this kind of budget, you might accidentally find a mine or spring (which might be valuable in more arid regions). But those are above your price tag if you are looking to buy them (and snoping around for undiscovered ones makes the people curious, which would raise the market value)
In realistic terms, you might buy a place next to main street or the harbor, which could help your business (and yes, that depends VERY MUCH for people to come to the town to do business)
