|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I can see, assigning PCs kingdom roles has only one effect - they are filled by PCs instead of NPCs, which gives the Kingdom a bonus on certain checks.
Is it correct that nothing about the PC (stats, skills, alignment, class, lore) has any effect on anything other than VERY OCCASIONALLY influencing a minor check?
Seems to really downplay the fact that the PCs are undertaking thse jobs. Even in the CRPG it matters which characters you assign to which roles.....
Confused, Australia.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the goal was to allow more freedom in terms of what classes/PCs fill what roles. In the 1e/CRPG you really need the right key attribute for a role -- you need your Magister to be an Int caster, not a CHA caster, etc. And it always felt a little dis-proportionately weighted to CHA in general for many of the roles.
I often felt like the most personality based PC for a certain job was never the best stat person for the job and I felt it suffered a bit as a result.
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
We deliberately downplayed the PC rules/mechanical impact on the roles, yes, because we wanted the players to have more freedom in assigning roles, or in ignoring them if they didn't want to do that and wanted to leave it to PCs. But also because this makes it easier to run the kingdom rules for other systems, in particular 1st edition Pathfinder or 5E. And also because I didn't want to give players nervous breakdowns about making the "wrong" choice for their PC's build. This also allows players to mix and match; changing character roles as time goes on for whatever reason.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly for my old group we decided it dumb that only a single Stat mattered for each roll...primarily because "DUH!" leadership requires some Charisma and people skills.
So we made it so that all Roles use the total of your Charisma +X (X being what other stat the Role required), with the sole exception of Ruler which used all 3 Mental Score Mods (Int +Wis +Cha).
Among other things it eliminated the whole Bard/Sorcerer nonsense (unless the Bard was Smart and Charismatic, Sanity would then be relative).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We used 'highest stat is what counts towards rulership'. So the Ruler was King Kaylen the Strong, or King Kaylen the Wise, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's also the optional rule for 1E where a ruler can apply a relevant skill bonus (divided by 5, I think) in place of the relevant ability modifier.
For my own game, I bumped it down to divided-by-4 and then let each player choose which bonus their character applied.
I mean, I want the mechanics to support that certain characters aren't good fits for every job (terrible rulers do exist), but I also can see where you don't want the leadership role to be a straightjacket for your PC.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm - I'm about to embark on the game, the players know they're headed for ruling a Barony/Kingdom, so I'd like to recruiting for the PCs to at least have to take that into account. Not even sure I'm mainly focused on stats as much as compatible alignments, appropriate Lore skills, etc. I think I'll homebrew a few tweaks (no more than that - don't want to break it!) for people who make smart choices.
Totally on board with not straitjacketing the PCs though - this may be an AP where people of opposite alignments can co-exist if they take the right roles!
Looking forward to running it immensely - thanks for the feedback guys!