This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/pathfinder2e by /u/yosarian_reddit on 2023-10-06 11:19:04.

I’m about to start Kingmaker and have done a deep dive and test into running Kingdoms.

One area i’m still unsatisfied with is… why bother to make settlements other than the capital?

This rule enforces it “Structures in your capital provide their bonus to all of the Kingdom’s claimed hexes” - meaning it’s always better to build a building in your capital.

The only limit is the amount of space available in your capital. From levels 3 to 8 the largest settlement you can have is a Town, that allows 4 blocks of buildings (16 lots). And then from levels 9 to 14 its a city with 9 blocks maximum. From level 15+ there’s effectively no limit. This makes it necessary to create additional settlements in order to build more than that number of buildings at those levels.

The other reason is that farmland has to be within the ‘area of influence’ of a settlement to be usable. But his is trivially easy to achieve via the capital plus using the various buildings that lower your food needs (Eg: the ‘Mill’ that reduces your food needs by 1).

However it has issues:

  • It doesn’t encourage thematically appropriate buildings in settlements. For example, you’d expect a Popular Tavern to be a good addition to any and all settlements, but once you’ve built one in your capital, there’s almost no reason to build any more in any settlements, since the whole kingdom benefits from the capital’s Tavern benefits already (+1 to Hire adventurers and +1 to Rest and Relax). You easily end up with villages that are all grain warehouses and nothing else (like some godforsaken Amazon warehouse facility).
  • It removes any need to build settlements from level 15+
  • The constraint on building in your capital is frustrating for players. Which is why Vance & Kerenshara recommend removing that limitation. Which makes sense, but it also removes all need for other settlement construction. I think they’re right: it feels unrealistic to say ‘no you can’t build your Arcanists tower at the capital because the capital has run out of building space’, as well as being unfun for players.

I’m curious if any GMs have considered his and have any simple solutions to it? Right now i’m looking at whether worksites could have a requirement to be placed near a settlement: which could increase the need for village construction so that productive mines, quarries and lumber camps (the ones on +1 output bonus hexes) can be reached. But i have no idea if i works yet, needs some testing. I like this potential solution because it feels somewhat realistic: you build the village near the mine location because that’s where the good ore is.

Another option is just saying ‘screw it’ and finding a basic bonus that having a separate village or town gives to the kingdom - but ignoring building structures there and just hand waving it. Seems like a lost opportunity to me but its a kind of solution.

I feel there needs to be a real option that adds value to the Kingdom to building repeats of buildings in your capital in other settlements. Building construction is competing for resources (lumber, stone etc) and unless the payoff is worth it, there’s just no compelling reason to build outside of the capital.

Anyone know of a clever tidy solution?