|
Having the Kingdom be independent from Character stats was a specific design goal in this case.
I think it works better as is, this way any character can be any Leadership role they want, no requirements.
If you did want Character stats to matter there's two ways to do it.
1) Simply make Character stats a Pre-Req for Leadership Roles.
You could this via either ability Scores like the 1e Kingdom Building rules or based on Character Skills. ex, To be Magister you must be an Expert in Arcana, Nature, Religion, or Occultism.
2) Have Character Stats gives bonuses to the Kingdom.
I don't personally like this as messing with Pathfinder 2e math shouldn't be done lightly. I would definitely NOT have the Characters' Ability Scores replace the Kingdom's. If you did want this I would actually make it skill based instead of Ability score based. Map regular skills to Kingdom skills and offer small Circumstance Bonuses this way.
EX: If the Magister is a PC and is Master or above at Arcana, Nature, Religion, or Occultism they get a +1 Circumstance Bonus to all Magic Kingdom Skill checks they personally roll. Increase the Bonus to +2 if they're Legendary.
|
|
I would definitely NOT have the Characters' Ability Scores replace the Kingdom's.Why would you definitely not do that? While I can see giving a flat bonus out of nowhere messing up the math by making the kingdom too strong in one ability score, depending on your party's composition you would get roughly the same distribution if you just had the characters' scores be the Kingdom's. At the very least, it would be within the same poss
A few reasons.
1) It limits the PCs and can make the players feel bad about playing the characters they want to play. Using the example of your party above, two of them have High CHA, one has high WIS and no one has INT. That means there's one PC that doesn't have a high score in any mental ability. This player still deserves a Leadership role but is likely to feel bad about their character since not having a high mental stat actively hurts the Kingdom. It discourages anyone from playing pure Martial characters. Each PC should be able to contribute equally to Kingdom ruling.
2) It doesn't work for groups of more than 4. While you may only have 4 players a lot of groups will have more.
3) It breaks the math a lot more than you think. While no individual score will break the ceiling, having all 4 Ability Scores at 16-18 is way higher than the system intends. 4 18s is 16 Ability Boosts to start! Even with our fixes, a Kingdom only gets 8 Ability Boosts. On the other side, if a party doesn't have PCs with high scores in the mental attributes the Kingdom could be worse off than baseline. It's just too rife for abuse and messes with the math a lot more than you realize.
4) Paizo purposefully removed play stats affecting the Kingdom and while they may not have playtested the 2e Kingdom building rules, I trust their insight.
|
|
With that said, if I had to choose between your suggestions, number 2 seems preferable. Option 1 seems to just be a barrier to entry, as opposed actually having their abilities impact their roles.
Thanks for your input either way! :)
That's fine. If I were to implement this myself I think I'd make it that being Expert in a corresponding skill gives the PC a +1 Circumstance Bonus to checks they make with that skill and being Legendary increases it to +2.
You'd have to allow each Kingdom skill to be affected by multiple regular PF2e skills but I'm sure a workable chart there could be made.
|
|
FWCain's solution to combine them would be quite workable.
If you're limiting your additions to +1/+2 Circumstance Bonuses you won't break the math. The system already has plenty of ways to get Circumstance bonuses, you're just making it easier.
It does lower the value of Kingdom Skill Activities that already grant Circumstance Bonuses though.
|
|
If you were to do things on the Skill end, I'd make it so that each Leadership Role can only influence a certain number of skills.
Without too much thought here's a list of 4 skills per Leadership Role.
Ruler (L): Exploration (E), Politics (L), Statecraft (L), Warfare (L)
Counselor (C): Arts (C), Folklore (C), Scholarship (C), Trade (E)
Emissary (L): Intrigue (L), Magic (C), Politics (L), Statecraft (L)
General (S): Defense (S), Engineering (S), Exploration (E), Warfare (L)
Magister (C): Folklore (C), Intrigue (L), Magic (C), Scholarship (C)
Treasurer (E): Arts (C), Boating (E), Industry (E), Trade (E)
Viceroy (E): Agriculture (S), Industry (E), Engineering (S), Wilderness (S)
Warden (S): Agriculture (S), Boating (E), Defense (S), Wilderness (S)
I've been considering removing the invested bonus entirely. I wonder if tying a PC's skill proficiency to that now-missing status bonus would work...
|
At VanceMadrox's suggestion, I'm cross posting this from the post I started...
One idea I've been thinking on is what if a character in a certain role is trained in a given skill, it lowers the DC of checks they make related to that training by 1 or 2, similar to having an appropriate lore during a recall knowledge. This way it is a completely bolt on system that doesn't interfere with other bonuses provided by feats or other kingdom activities. It should also be fairly easy to remember for the player.
So far I'm thinking give each leadership role 3-4 kingdom skills they are associated with and then match each of those kingdom skill with an appropriate character skill. This could even include Lore skills where appropriate.
The easy example is let's say the Emissary is associated with Statecraft and that is linked with Diplomacy. If the player in the Emissary role is trained in Diplomacy and Sends a Diplomatic Envoy to Pitax the DC is 27 instead of 28, or if they are a master in Diplomacy the DC is 26.
Obviously not all skills will link up so cleanly and there will probably be a handful of Character Skills that get used a lot while some get used very little.
But overall thoughts?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a google doc link to what I have hashed out so far.
But the idea is that if a character attempts a Kingdom activity with a skill governed by their role and they are Trained in the Associated Character Skill (or are an Expert in the case of Perception), reduce the DC by 1. If they are an Expert in the skill(or Master in Perception) treat any Critical Failure as a Failure, and if they are a Master in the skill (or Legendary for Perception) Reduce the DC by 2.
Still not sure what skill to connect Defense to though.
|
|
If they are an Expert in the skill(or Master in Perception) treat any Critical Failure as a FailureThis part is bad.
Eliminating Critical failures as a possibility makes things too easy and reduces a LOT of the fun.
Ok, that's good feedback and I wasn't sure about it. I guess leave it to the reduced DC's then.
Although, would it still throw things off do you think to lock the no crit fail behind legendary Proficiency? That way they're only likely to ever have a couple skills that qualify and it's locked to late game.
Still not sure what skill to connect Defense to though.Each Kingdom Skill should connect to BOTH a regular non-Lore skill AND a Lore skill.
For Warfare and Defense make the NON-Lore Skill Athletics. Let Martials help more!
I had considered Athletics. I didn't know if it would make sense, but I suppose if there is also a lore with it that might work.
One of the other things I was considering, is instead of just offering universal Untrained Improvisation, allowing a character that has the right associated skills use UI when they attempt kingdom activities.
Hi all, first post here. I'll be running this soon so I'm delving into absolutely everything I can.
One thing I am thinking about is what is a PC wants to specifically get better at governing, or whatever we are calling this. Other than the skill/attribute options posted here it doesn't appear that there is any mechanism to support that. I feel the most appropriate way to do that in Pathfinder 2E would be through an archetype. Has anyone developed anything like that?