I’m about to give a players a large role. Help?

[Praise_Helm]

I’m giving one of my players the “Divine Mandate to Rule.” After a corrupt king fails to do his job, his title as king is revoked and placed upon a worthy soul. This includes new feats that allow them to do all sorts of fun stuff like dealing radiant damage and casting command at will a certain amount of times per day. Any ideas how to give my player a big upgrade without making them completely overshadow the rest of the group? They are currently a 10th level life cleric.

[Slybluedemon]

I’m giving one of my players the “Divine Mandate to Rule.” After a corrupt king fails to do his job, his title as king is revoked and placed upon a worthy soul. This includes new feats that allow them to do all sorts of fun stuff like dealing radiant damage and casting command at will a certain amount of times per day. Any ideas how to give my player a big upgrade without making them completely overshadow the rest of the group? They are currently a 10th level life cleric.

Make it a boon that has the same criteria to be taken away as the old corrupt king and does one main thing (Let's the PC cast command, without spending a spell slot, as many times per long rest based on Charisma mod (minimum 1)) or something else.

Also, make it so the PC can use an ASI to improve the boon.

If you make it too powerful the rest of the party will fall behind and need boons to make up for it.

[Aett_Thorn]

Just out of curiosity, how do you plan to have the player rule whatever kingdom this is, and still adventure? If the player is off adventuring, they're likely not ruling the kingdom well, especially if the old ruler was corrupt and the kingdom likely needs an active hand.

[opaopajr]

Have their kingdom fall apart whenever they are more about adventuring than maintaining their domain. :smalltongue:

Giving PCs a king title is a mess of responsibilities with competing requests and intrigues -- and that's just from your sworn vassals! You are either retiring them from the typical SWAT team trope of play for WotC D&D parties, or you are completely altering the structure of the campaign to old skool "Name Level" campaigns. Both are legit decisions, but you have to ask yourself whether it's worth it to nuke your campaign structure just to throw out a few PC widgets.

Basically... why do you need to give out a title AND PC widgets? The consequences of both should be meaningful, but the title should be exceedingly so. Higher tier power, action economy (minions), and wealth access wipes out SO MUCH lower-mid tier complications that you have to question deeply your commitment to it beyond MOAR POWAH! :smallcool:

That said, Name Level started at 10th level (lords and barons), and most old skool games didn't go much longer beyond fighting each other then. So yeah, this PC is at the right level. :smallwink:

[Unoriginal]

why only give ONE player a large role?

[Slybluedemon]

why only give ONE player a large role?

Agreed, Everyone should get something important.

If one is going to become a king, what is everyone else going to become? Usually, if one party member becomes a king or something big, the others become head of a major church or thieves guild, atleast something of equal power that makes sense for the character.

[JNAProductions]

Agreed, Everyone should get something important.

If one is going to become a king, what is everyone else going to become? Usually, if one party member becomes a king or something big, the others become head of a major church or thieves guild, atleast something of equal power that makes sense for the character.

That's not necessarily the case. If the PC getting the power is the kind to share it and always rely on his friends and companions, it can work.

But yeah, this seems fraught with risk of shining the spotlight too much on one PC. Proceed carefully.