Atgxtg

But I though investment income was separate from lots? My idea here was that the raiders would get income from taking apples from the orchards, some cattle, sheep, etc. This assumes the raiders catch the defenders unprepared. Myt thinking with the temporary investment damage was that the attacker would get some plunder, but the defender wouldn't loose enough to worry about. For instance, two or three cows out of a herd might be worth 1 to the attacker, but won't really hurt the herd. Point taken.. It is double dipping. Uh...(tilts head to look at table sideways)...(then upside down)...(straighten up, shrugs)...yeah....(drops a pen to make sure the laws of gravity haven't changed)...I have no excuse for how I messed that down-- I mean up. Yeah, that was closer to what I had before I got enamored with the table.

Yup. Part of the problem is that we really don't know all that much about medieval economics. For instance try and find out just how much a knight's fee actually was. Even if you find a value it is only good for a specific location at a specific time period. So there are some holes the economics that kind of make mercs impractical. The latter supplements help somewhat with this, but still probably shortchange knights a bit, compared to the footsoldier pay.

Yes. I believe the 2 for 1 rule came out after 5.2. BTW the 6/912 thing for standard of living weas the old rule and I believe the latest version was +5 extra per grade of maintenance. More like it clashes with a lot of little things that already existed. Everything really needs to be brought up to date. One of the things about Pendragon is that each addition had supplements that added on things that didn't get carried over to later edtions or if they were, didn't get updated. So there are a lot of little artifacts in the "rules" from previous editions. For instance, ransoms used to be set at 3x the knights'' income. Should ransoms be raised to reflect the new economic model or not? Is 3x the income too high, now that we got a better overview of the economics? Greg had a habit of tinkering with rules, publishing the changes, then tinkering some more and changing things again. While the goal was noble, striving to make the game better, the effect was that the rules are outdated or contradictory in places. Me too. What I think a lot of us would like to see is everything make consistent between products.At least for the stuff that is used universally, like the cominc system. Stuff like the battle rules can get by with multiple variants, since those sections are more modular and self contained.

That depends on which books/ method you use .Some of them did have random tables to determine the season. Logicality it would depend on how much time the knight spends away adventuring and when. True, but nothing in that grant says you can't hire a couple of extra men. Considering how things work though, I'm surprised more liege lords wouldn't prefer four poor foot solider instead of two average ones.

Assuming your serious here, not quite. Fortifications need a minimum number of combat trained defenders to get their full DV, and a knight only counts as one trained defender, plus another for his squire. This is so they can cover enough of the wall to prevent attackers from just climbing over before someone can get to them. Now the old Knight Value calculations used to give a knight a KV of 2 (Knight plus squire), but that was worth ten bandits (KV 1/5), or 20 peasants (KV 1/10), but that reflected how much better the knigth fought compared to the poorer quality troops, and didn't account for the footmen ganging up on the knight.

Yeah. Yes, but when bouced away from the castle they would probably wind up "picking the low hanging frut" of the less defended manors. What I will try to do is multiply the losses but let the winner of the exchange assign what they are. The idea being that the attacker would most likely pick his target but the defender could sterr him away from something particular. And since the Lots damage will tend to be higher than the DV for manors and more even with estates, I think the math would work out, and the final result pretty simple. What might work would be to try and use the raid damage in lots as the base results for investments to get the same percentages in temporary to permanent, but read lots as investments. That way the damage would be comparable to the fields. Then shift the results up or down based upon the Damage vs. DV roll. So a typical "Pillaged" estate would have 3 outer investments suffer temporary damage, and 2 suffer permanent damage, and then shift the results up or down on the table depending how the opposed roll works out. That would assume a fully developed estate though. Still, adapting the existing tables and shifting up and down would greatly simplify things, and the DV, interior investments, and manor could all be handed easily by adding additional columns. How does this look for a start? Outer Investments Inner Investments (on failure only) Temporary Permanent DV Temporary Permanent Manor (fumble) 0 none 0 none 1 5% 1 5% 2 10% 2 10% Raid 3 0 15% 3 0 15% Pillage 3 2 20% 3 2 20% Plunder 3 4 40% 3 4 40% Ravage 3 6 60% 3 6 60% 3 8 80% 3 8 80% 3 10 100% 3 10 100% Defender Critical Success Partial Failure Fumble Attacker Critical Even Down 1 Down 2 Down 3 Down 4 Success Up 1 X Down 1 Down 2 Down 3 Partial Up 2 Up 1 X Down 1 Down 2 Failure Up 3 Up 2 Up 1 Even Down 1 Fumble Up 4 Up 3 Up 2 Up 1 Even

Yea! That's exactly what I was thinking and I've started working on the matrix. If the defender gets a partial success then damage is all "outside the walls" and the relative results determine if there was any damage to something that takes SPACE/outside the walls, and if it was temporary or permanent. If the defender fails then the walls and investments inside the walls are vulnerable. On a fumble, the manor itself is somewhat vulnerable. This would be something along the lines of a lucky torch throw lighting up the stables and a favorable wind causing the manor house to catch on fire or some such. It's really more a case of the defender panicking and doing something wrong-like forgetting to bar a gate. Yeah about that, although I don't really see an estate really being ruined by raiding alone. It would need a full siege to do that. But a crit vs fumble would probably mean most of the investments were damaged or destroyed, the DV reduced and the some treasure taken from the manor. I'm debating upon a flat die roll for DV lost (1d6/2d6/etc.) or some sort of percentage (like 1d6*10% of DV). I should probably see about scaling all this up for estates too. The simplest approach would be just to multiply the damage by the number of manors, but realistically the damage would be more localized, with one or two manors getting trashed rather than ten manors each suffering damage.

That would depend upon how we intpret a failure of the damage roll. Is is no damage or minor damage. For instance attackf ailure vs. defense fumble probably results in some minor damage. No I think straight DV makes sense. I mean in order to have a chance of success over 10 with Lotsx2 the place would need to be pillaged. Andno lots are permanently damaged below a plunder result, so probably noting else should be either. Just brainstorming here but let me know if you agree with this thinking: A manor doesn't suffer permanent lots damage until it gets a plunder result. So the same should be true for other types of permanent damage. I mean, I can't see someone looses his manor or tower in a raid and yet the fields are untouched. I also don't see someone losing all his fields in several raids, yet the orchard being left alone. Likewise it's possible for someone to loose a handful of cows or sheep but not lose enough to count as a damaged or lost investment.Therefore: We use 5x the Permanent lots damage for the attacker, or- Pillage 10, Plunder 20, Ravage 30. This is an easy number to remember, and means that the greater the lot damage the better than chance of losing an investment. Damage should probably follow an "out to in" distribution. That is outlining investments such as herds, orchards and other stuff that take up SPACE should be more likely to suffer damage opposed to village huts, armories, fortifications or the manor house. Therefore: All damage will be out outer investments unless the defender fails his DV roll. A failed DV roll probably would mean damage to the fortification (the attackers trying to get at the good stuff within). A fumbled DV roll means the attackers breached the defenses and could loot and damage investments and buildings within the walls, and even some treasure/furniture. So the idea would be that damage would progress as follows: no Damage/Temporary SPACE/Permanent SPACE/Village Damage/DV reduction/Inner Investment/Manor & treasure, based upon how well the attack rolls and how poorly the defender rolls. The attacker would get some additional loot from the raid. Say equal to the income of the investment for temporary damage, and twice that for permanent damage. In the worst case scenario, where the manor itself get's breached the attacker also gains some of the treasure stored within (except for stuff hidden in a vault). If the defender has some sort of warning, he's be able to shift some of those outer investments within the walls and mitigate the losses, and thus the damage. That is move the livestock into the enclosure, or some such. The overall idea is that the raider is there mostly to grab whatever he can, not to focus on destruction, fight a battle or besiege the place. So it seems to make sense that losses and damage would be concentrated mostly on whatever is easiest to get at, and to transport. That also help to justify DV more as it not only mitigates the losses by also determines what sort is more likely to be lost. How does that look, logically?

Actually you can get the full range that you get in sieges and battle. Crit vs. Crit, Crit vs Success, Crit vs Failure, Crit vs Fumble, Sucess vs. Partial Success, etc. THat works out to up to 16 differernt results or so, if we want to go that far into it. If it were just lots damage (or maybe 2x lots damage) vs. DV there would be more failures as the numbers would be lower. I can't see the defender suffering much damage if the attack roll failed.

You don't have to get anywhere near it's true value to be profitable. Getting half or one quarter stilll puta a character on easy street. And there are always people who will buy it. Yes, except killing the horse doesn't necessarily save your life. You still have to beat the knight, and that means that the blow that drops the horse might have dropped the knight. And once the knight is down he probably is still better skilled and better equipped. Yes it is, but going after the horse doesn't help much, if at all. For instance, let's say you got a typical Saxon with Axe 14 and 6 point armor , going up against an Average Knight with Sword 19, ans 10 point armor. He's probably going to loose. If the knight has Hate (Saxons) then the Saxon's odds of winning are even worse. , and Hate Saxons Yes in practice leaning in to get the legs exposes your neck and back. Infantry are only a problem in numbers or if the have spears or other reach weapons. TGHat plays a factor, but I don't think it nmakes that much of a difference, for reasons I'll get into below. Not entirely, because the blow that drops the horse, doesn't end the battle and it also had a good chance of dropping the knight. So instead og just getting lucky with a 9 vs 24 (eek!) the Saxon has to win at a 14 vs 24 (still eek!) just to have a chance at 14 vs. 19 (yes, there is the possibly of turning the tables for a round at 19 vs 14 while the knight gets up). But overall I don't think the odds are sigfincatly differnt either way. If the Brit hates Saxons then it probably doesn't matter what tactic the Saxon tries.

Why I get your logic there are some factors at play that should be considered before going after the horses. Horses, especially warhorses are very valuable possessions, and capturing one would be like a modern person getting ownership of a super car. It can literally set the man up for life. Attacking horses also tends to reduce the chances of survival if the Saxon looses. Knights tend to be less merciful to someone who just maimed their favorite warhorse. Plus it's hard to focus on the horse when the rider is trying to lop your head off.

Really? It's pretty easy in KAP5. Most of my players quickly get their main weapon skill (usually sword) to 20 ASAP, and then dump glory bonuses into it. With the natural escalation of glory that comes as times goes on, and the awards for getting landed and married skills at 25 are relatively easy to obtain, especially as it tends to be the best use of the glory bonus points. At least until the aging table starts knocking the stats down. I've fond thatsuch high skill ratings have become more and more common with each campaign, as the players learn how things work and what works best.

Yes, but that's the problem. Nobody wants to play a "supporting character" in an RPG. But the risk of playing hero means that a PK can die an an inopportune time and have to bring in an older character destined to be a benchwarmer while waiting for the true heir to mature. Yes, but how often does that happen? In a typical campaign the majority of the PKs are the same age only at the beginning. With each generation new characters are born at different times and filter into the game at different rates. So I rarely see a new 30 year old coming into a group of newly knighted 21 year olds. More like the 30 year old is coming into a group of experienced knights who are already on the aging table. Oh, I'd take the 21 year old. In KAP5+ the 21 year old will be good enough in combat (17-18) at the start to hold up his end, and can turn into an interesting character, while the 31 year old is at or near his peak and will soon go into decline.The thing in, in a typical group, the player has to play this replacement character for 2-3 months until he heir is ready, and then still be a support character for another month or two as they improve and the other PKs decline. That's three to four months of mediocrity, and limited vestment for the player. It tends to make the intermediate character a "placeholder" and the game much less enjoyable for the player. IMO the problems are: The new character is a throwaway character, who is only being played because the heir isn't ready The new characters accomplishments generally won't reflect upon the heir, and so do not matter (no glory, no additional treasure, etc.) He is also restricted to a supporting role due to missing out of experience rolls and glory that the active character got The heir will likewise be similar restricted to a supporting roll for a time, due to his inexperience. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think there should be a way to make the placeholder characters more important, and significant to the players.

Yes exactly. Actually it does. I give "backup/replacement" PKs Glroy from 1, 2 and 3, and they are still second stringers. The problem is that the relative lack of adventures, and associated chances for improvement and glory results in these characters lagging behind actively played PKs. So much so that most of my players dislike their backup characters, as they view them as competing with their main PKs for glory. With the rate time passes in the game, the older the replacement character the more limited they are both in chargen and in future chances for improvement. A new PK coming in at age 25 isn't too badly off, one coming in at age 35 is nearly hamstrung, as most of his active years for adventuring have been lost.

I beleive it was mentioned in some of the early (KAP1 or KAP3) books and just acknowledged as fact ever since. I'm pretty such that is mentioned in some edition of the hunting rules somewhere. Probably also in an earlier edtion, as hunting used to be far more dangerous than it is now.

I doubt it. It's a classic confict between game design requirments and player pexpectations. From the Game Design aspect, we generally don't want new characters, even experienced once to be the equal of heroes who players have built up over time with experience rolls and glory. That would cheapen the game and minimize the accomplishments. A good part of what makes a Round Table Knight special is that not everybody will qualify. It takes skill and/or luck (usually both) for a character to do so, and a PK that does so is very rewarding to the player. On the other hand a player just lost a good character and is replacing it with a character who has to be inferior by design. Now with a young PK this isn't so bad, as they have potential and time to one day catch up with or even surpass the knight they just lost. But with older replacing characters that's not the case. The lower skills and glory that such characters get, combined with their higher starting age really comes off as a lost opportunity, and a character who will almost always be inferior to the knight they just lost. THe character fells like, and is just a place holder. Thre only real soultion I see to that would be to somehow allow for the character to get skill checks and glory for the years over age 21, in order to give them some chance of catching up with the knight they lost. Perhaps something as simple as the NPC improvement rules from the Book of Entourage? That might do it and be simple and fast enough for chargen. It would oden the door to the replacement PK coming in with, say Sword 25. Yes the actual chances of that would be pretty slim, but players just need to know that there is a chance for the new PK to be great - he doesn't actually have to be.

Funny. I find the opposite to be true. I find the fight between one PC with Broadsword 127% and a group of mooks at 45% to be boring and take forever. In no small part because such fights tend to be insignificant to the story. The player is expected to win, and everyone is just going through the motions in order to give the player a sense of how great his character is. The mooks aren't expected to actually challenge the PC in anyway, and if one of them were to get a lucky hit and kill the PC it would be anti-climatic and a major setback to the campaign. The PC falling to a mook is really the enemy of a good campaign. Yes, we have to allow for it to keep the game challenging, and give the players a sense that they actually accomplished something, but there little to it. Imagine if Elric got shanked by some random guard during the sack on Immyrr. Conversely a fight between two skilled combatants tends to be more interesting, as the two combatants tend to have actual goals they are striving for and the outcome of the battle is important to the overall story beyond just the fate of the two characters. For instance Elric losing to Jagreen Lern would result in a sadder, more depressing ending to the Elric saga, but one that still provides closure, in a way that falling to some nameless mook doesn't. My problem with the ultra high skills is more about it eating up a lot of the PCs points leaving fewer points for other things which results in less rounded, less defined characters and a game that focuses around combat, as well as the lack of understanding and tactical thinking that goes with starting off greatly superior to the average opponent. I think that is actually better reflected by the circumstances and motivations for the fight. If there is something more to the fight that just a random fight with a random bunch of mooks just to make the adventure "more exciting" it will be more effective. That why things like defending a tactically important spot, or item works better. The mooks become more than just an obstacle course for the PCs to navigate, but instead become a manifestation of the adventure's antagonist and his/her/it's power.

Yes, but as you point out it is a bit too random. I've seen manors that were mostly untouched in the raid get burnt to the ground, and ones that were pillaged shrug off the attack. Yeah, but I think an opposed roll might work out better. That way any really bad results would require two bad rolls instead on just one and we'd probably get more consistent results, while still allowing for the occasional lucky result. Ideally I'd like to tie it more directly to the raid results, as well. Of course wanting something and making it so are two different things. I'll give the raid sections in BoE and BoM another look before I try to put something down.

The original estate name was just Chalke. It was latter divided into Broad Chalke and Bower Chalke Information can be found here.

Oh, I sympathize with you.-that was exactly how I feel about the Book of the Manor. If felt like we were spending more time managing estates that playing Pendragon. I'm just surprised that you found Estate to be all that time consuming or had that significant of an effect. It mostly comes down to PKs building one improvement, and an enclosure and netting a little extra income. The extra skill checks are a non-issue, as the PKS will generally be using the skills they want checks in, and getting checks anyway.

I didn't phase that correctly. I mean't that rolling damage against the DV as an opposed roll, similar to the siege roll. The idea being that the greater the lots damage, the more likely something else would be damage too, while the higher the DV the better defended the place is and the greater the chance that investments would be protected.

Yes, we've been seeing that squires who start at 14 and develop via Book of Entourage tend to be much more powerful that those who start at 21. Mostly for the same reason why older starting characters tend to lag behind- extra improvement rolls and chances to get skills above 20. Pretty much every PK squire ends up with 21+ in their primary weapon, as they will work on getting it to 20 before being knighted and dump glory bonuses into it.

I wasn't reffering to 15 chargen, but more the 20 skillcap during play and. lack of skill checks and adventure glory for those extra years. A PK written up at age 30 is destined to be a bench warmer. I've been thinking of rasing the 20 limit up a point at age 30, age 40, etc. to try and allow for the extra improvment rolls the character would have had during all that time. Which still has to 20 skill cap limit. Thus bringing in a "younger brother": at age 30 or 40 results in a character with 20 in his primary skills, plus glory bonuses.

That would be double dipping. For instance if plunder (severity 3) that would be three dice with a loss on three or less.I think I'd rather tie it to the damage take in lots. Maybe 1d20+ Lots Damaged vs the DV of the manor?

Did you start off using Book of Manor or Book of Estate? BoM got very fiddly, but BoE is much faster and easier.