PDA

View Full Version : Looting Fallen Units



MJH
01-04-2004, 04:11 AM
What is the value of the weapons armor etc of destroyed units?

I want to know abouthow much salvage my players should be able to get from a battlefield.

kgauck
01-04-2004, 06:02 AM
----- Original Message -----

From: "MJH" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 10:11 PM





> What is the value of the weapons armor etc of destroyed units? I want

> to know abouthow much salvage my players should be able to get from a

> battlefield.



Traditionally the value of coin was greater than weapon and armor on

destroyed units. Scavaganing the dead after a battle (generally in the

middle of the night before a mass burial takes place) has focused on what

the soldiers carried in pay, not on their weapons and armor. In some cases,

the winners of battle were much more poorly equipt than the winners and

would scavange for gear, but even there the amount of usable equipment is

low. Finally, the soldiers generally have rights to any gear that is found

on the dead while the commander has rights to supply wagons capured. So, I

would recoment focusing on captured supplies (could include the armies

treasury for pay and supply) and not bother with the salvage of gear. Gear

would probabaly value at around 1% of its original value. This represents

the fact that most of it has no value, but some of it retains some value.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

RaspK_FOG
01-04-2004, 07:54 AM
One other thing that - in the real world - affected the face and real value of equipment, mostly that of arms and especially armour, was the fact that it was pretty much broken up during the battle. I am still working on building a system that will reproduce the real world, with armour providing a small armour bonus on Defence, using a system similar to Wheel of Time, where armour would stack with Defence scores, though, and also grant one or two ratings of damage reduction (like "chainmail: AB +2, DR 5/piercing"). In such a system, just like in the real world, suits of armour and weapons would be the first to break after too much use and little repair.

kgauck
01-04-2004, 09:51 AM
----- Original Message -----

From: "RaspK_FOG" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 1:54 AM





> I am still working on building a system that will reproduce the real

world,

> with armour providing a small armour bonus on Defence, using a system

> similar to Wheel of Time, where armour would stack with Defence scores,

> though, and also grant one or two ratings of damage reduction



My calculation goes like this:

AC=10+armor bonus+shield bonus+class bonus+Dex mod+size mod



Armor Bonus is modified and Class Bonus is new.



Armor Bonus:

Light Armor has a bonus of +2

Medium Armor has a bonus of +3

Heavy Armor has a bonus of +4



Class Bonus:

Classes who recieve no armor proficiency get a Class Bonus of +0

Classes who recieve light armor proficency get a Class Bonus of +1

Classes who recieve med armor proficiency get a Class Bonus of +2

Classes who recieve hvy armor proficiency get a Class Bonus of +3



Whenever the BAB table gives you an additional attack, your Class Bonus to

AC is modified by +1. So, no matter what your class, when your BAB goes to

+6/+1,

you get an AC bonus. And, again at +11/+6/+1, and so forth.



In addition:

Light Armor has no damage reduction

Medium Armor has -/1 damage reduction

Heavy Armor has -/2 damage reduction



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Don E
01-04-2004, 01:07 PM
I generally think Kenneth&#39;s suggested rules look usable and well thought out. My only major problem with them are the even greater advantage one gets from multiclassing for one fighter leve gives you. Now just about every wizard (or other charater really) will take that level to gain a quick +3 bonus to defense.

As an expansion to these rules, would you make magic aromour always increase the AC, or could some types increas the DR as well? And what is your take on mithril and other materials in this system?

Cheers,
Don E

ConjurerDragon
01-04-2004, 01:51 PM
Kenneth Gauck schrieb:

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "MJH" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

> Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 10:11 PM

...

> Traditionally the value of coin was greater than weapon and armor on

> destroyed units. Scavaganing the dead after a battle (generally in the

> middle of the night before a mass burial takes place) has focused on what

> the soldiers carried in pay, not on their weapons and armor. In some cases,

> the winners of battle were much more poorly equipt than the winners



Hä? ;-)



> and would scavange for gear, but even there the amount of usable equipment is

> low. Finally, the soldiers generally have rights to any gear that is found

> on the dead while the commander has rights to supply wagons capured. So, I

> would recoment focusing on captured supplies (could include the armies

> treasury for pay and supply) and not bother with the salvage of gear. Gear

> would probabaly value at around 1% of its original value. This represents

> the fact that most of it has no value, but some of it retains some value.

> Kenneth Gauck

> kgauck@mchsi.com



One source where equipment in the number of an army unit could be found

is in the "King of the Giantdowns" adventure. There old weapons and

armours are found in a secret place within a tomb.



The text there said:

"On the shelves across the room rest enough weapons and armour

(predominantly swords, spears, shields, and leather armour) to equip an

entire unit of infantery in the old Rjurik style. These weapons have

been wrapped in and protected by the elements by oilskins and ancient

druidic magic. If a regent mustered a levy, irregular, infantery or

similar unit (DMīs call) and supplied his troops with these weapons, he

could cut the mustering cost in half. Of course, the nearly 200 complete

sets of armour and weapons here cannot be easily transported by a small

party of adventurers."



So the entire equipment of a unit in good, preserved condition would be

only 1 or 2 GB or 2000 to 4000 gp. The equipment of a unit after a

battle would be in much less good condition.

bye

Michael

ConjurerDragon
01-04-2004, 02:27 PM
Kenneth Gauck schrieb:

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "RaspK_FOG" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 1:54 AM

>>I am still working on building a system that will reproduce the real

> world,

>>with armour providing a small armour bonus on Defence, using a system

>>similar to Wheel of Time, where armour would stack with Defence scores,

>>though, and also grant one or two ratings of damage reduction

>

> My calculation goes like this:

> AC=10+armor bonus+shield bonus+class bonus+Dex mod+size mod

> Armor Bonus is modified and Class Bonus is new.

> Armor Bonus:

> Light Armor has a bonus of +2

> Medium Armor has a bonus of +3

> Heavy Armor has a bonus of +4

> Class Bonus:

> Classes who recieve no armor proficiency get a Class Bonus of +0

> Classes who recieve light armor proficency get a Class Bonus of +1

> Classes who recieve med armor proficiency get a Class Bonus of +2

> Classes who recieve hvy armor proficiency get a Class Bonus of +3

> Whenever the BAB table gives you an additional attack, your Class Bonus to

> AC is modified by +1. So, no matter what your class, when your BAB goes to

> +6/+1,

> you get an AC bonus. And, again at +11/+6/+1, and so forth.

> In addition:

> Light Armor has no damage reduction

> Medium Armor has -/1 damage reduction

> Heavy Armor has -/2 damage reduction

> Kenneth Gauck

> kgauck@mchsi.com



That make heavy armour and medium armour better. But is that in any way

still balanced? In the 3.0 rules the only thing that generally balanced

the use of light and medium/heavy armour were the speed the character

had (and in some characterclasses like Barbarian/Ranger/Rogue the lost

special abilitys in heavier armour) from 30 to 20.



So will in your campaign anyone that can afford it run around in Full

Plate Mail because it gives the ultimate protection without suffering

any further penalties like reduced mobility or perhaps reduced BAB due

to problems of moving? Or did you introduce some system of fatigue for

fighting in heavy armour, so that a character in light armour not only

is able to outrun a character in heavy armour, but also in the long run

will still be fighting when the platearmoured fighter will drop due to

fatigue. As an example I would see the battle of Saladin against the

crusaders which name I donīt remember now. Something with horns of

Hattin? where the knights lost much of their abiltiy to fight due to the

suns heat and lack of water.

bye

Michael

kgauck
01-04-2004, 03:41 PM
----- Original Message -----

From: "Don E" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 7:07 AM





> My only major problem with them are the even greater advantage one

> gets from multiclassing for one fighter leve gives you. Now just about

> every wizard (or other charater really) will take that level to gain a

quick

> +3 bonus to defense.



The class bonus to AC (like other class features) only apply to character

who start in that class. So a character would have to consider whether they

want to start with a fighter`s starting package - martial weapons, simple

weapons, heavy armor, shields, the +3 AC bonus and full Fort save, but give

up the wizards starting package no familiar, no scribe scroll, and only a +1

Will save; or do it the other way around and get the scribe scroll feat,

summon familiar, the full Will save, proficency with club, dagger, heavy and

light crossbows, quarterstaff, and the +0 AC bonus, and then become a

fighter and get only the bonus fighter feat and +1 Fort bonus.



> As an expansion to these rules, would you make magic aromour always

> increase the AC, or could some types increas the DR as well? And what

> is your take on mithril and other materials in this system?



I think its a nice flexibility to be able to increase AC bonus and/or DR.

Mithral gets a good range of bonuses as it is, with the armor counting as

one grader lighter, and the increased Dex bonus and reduced arcane spell

failure. For adamantine, I give light armor a DR of 1/-, medium an

additional +1 AC bonus, and heavy and additional +2 AC.



----- Original Message -----

From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>

Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 7:40 AM





> So will in your campaign anyone that can afford it run around in Full

> Plate Mail because it gives the ultimate protection without suffering

> any further penalties like reduced mobility or perhaps reduced BAB due

> to problems of moving? Or did you introduce some system of fatigue for

> fighting in heavy armour, so that a character in light armour not only

> is able to outrun a character in heavy armour, but also in the long run

> will still be fighting when the platearmoured fighter will drop due to

> fatigue.



I was only covering the AC formula. The Dex maximum and armor check

penalties, arcane failure, &c are all still in place. As for fatigue, part

of what makes the heavy armor proficiency what it is is the ability to get

along in the armor. Well made plate armor is actually better distributed

and more comfortable running and jumping than chain mail (medium) or a chain

shirt (light). As far as running speed, I don`t reduce speed for armor, but

refer to the total encumberance of the character, except for the tripling of

the running speed in heaby armor. Fighting in heavy armor is not

additionaly fatiguing if that is what you have practiced doing.



> As an example I would see the battle of Saladin against the

> crusaders which name I donīt remember now. Something with

> horns of Hattin? where the knights lost much of their abiltiy to

> fight due to the suns heat and lack of water.



I think what worked against the knights was the heat and the lack of water.

These problems will continue to effect troops from the maritime climate of

western Europe today. Had the fighting taken place in Niederbayern or

Limburg, the climate would have favored the Germans, English, and French

knights, especially in winter. While the combination of heat and heavy

armor might effect an Anuirean in Binsada faster than an Anuirean in light

armor, I would not penalize the Khinasi fighter in heavy armor for the heat.

Part of his practice and training have been to prepare him to operate under

such conditions. This argues for climate effects to endurance more than

armor effects.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

ConjurerDragon
01-04-2004, 05:00 PM
Kenneth Gauck schrieb:

...

> I was only covering the AC formula. The Dex maximum and armor check

> penalties, arcane failure, &c are all still in place. As for fatigue, part

> of what makes the heavy armor proficiency what it is is the ability to get

> along in the armor. Well made plate armor is actually better distributed

> and more comfortable running and jumping than chain mail (medium) or a chain

> shirt (light). As far as running speed, I don`t reduce speed for armor, but

> refer to the total encumberance of the character, except for the tripling of

> the running speed in heaby armor. Fighting in heavy armor is not

> additionaly fatiguing if that is what you have practiced doing.



>>As an example I would see the battle of Saladin against the

>>crusaders which name I donīt remember now. Something with

>>horns of Hattin? where the knights lost much of their abiltiy to

>>fight due to the suns heat and lack of water.

>

> I think what worked against the knights was the heat and the lack of water.

> These problems will continue to effect troops from the maritime climate of

> western Europe today. Had the fighting taken place in Niederbayern or

> Limburg, the climate would have favored the Germans, English, and French

> knights, especially in winter. While the combination of heat and heavy

> armor might effect an Anuirean in Binsada faster than an Anuirean in light

> armor, I would not penalize the Khinasi fighter in heavy armor for the heat.

> Part of his practice and training have been to prepare him to operate under

> such conditions. This argues for climate effects to endurance more than

> armor effects.

> Kenneth Gauck

> kgauck@mchsi.com



A Khinasi fighter in Khinasi lands would be unlikely to wear full plate

armour. However IF he would wear full plate armour and a closed helmet

like the Anuireans than I would think that his normal adaption to the

climate is not sufficient to endure the bakeoven environment of a

platearmour+closed helmet for an endless amount of time.



The rule of suffering fatigue for sleeping in armour for example is IMO

not going far enough, there should be a something for wearing heavier

armour while travelling - why else would we need times to climb into

armour as from the if the character is not assumed NOT to wear the

armour at all times?

bye

Michael

kgauck
01-04-2004, 05:29 PM
Did the Romans wear heavy armor?



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Michael Romes
01-04-2004, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by MJH@Jan 4 2004, 05:11 AM
What is the value of the weapons armor etc of destroyed units?
I want to know abouthow much salvage my players should be able to get from a battlefield.
Something that has not been mentioned is that you canīt assume that when a unit is destroyed that you have 200 dead men (or whatever number the enemy unit had) with their equipmen lying on the floor ready to pick up.

"Destroyed" does not mean that every men is dead, rather that the unit is unable to fight anymore. That can mean dead characters, disabled characters and characters who fled the battlefield.

The 2E Birthright rules make that very clear in that they rule that if a levy unit is "destroyed" in itīs home province then the province will gain the level lost by mustering the levies back - how could that be when the men are all dead?

So they are not all dead, but "destryoing" a unit means that a good number has fled to return home, thus destroying the army unit - but the men leave home.

Mmmh, wasnīt it the Greeks who had some proverb that mentioned that coward strap their shield to their back, when they run from the enemy they so cover themselfs - so that men for example would have left with their equipment... ;)

ConjurerDragon
01-04-2004, 05:50 PM
Kenneth Gauck schrieb:

> Did the Romans wear heavy armor?

> Kenneth Gauck

> kgauck@mchsi.com



Is that in response to my post about a Khinasi in fullplatearmour and

fatigue?



I would say the mass of the roman legions did not use full plate armour

and a "Topfhelm" buckethelmet? with only small openings to better

protect as the crusaders did later so their armour was not as heavy or

likely to heat them up as that. Most pictures show roman legioneers with

a helmet that leaves the face open and laps over the ears. The

homemuseum here in Andernach has several replicas of such helmets for

display and similar helmets are displayed on stonereliefs. And as far as

I remember most displays show them with nearly no protection of the legs

and no armoured boots but sandals, which reduce weight of the armour.

bye

Michael

kgauck
01-04-2004, 11:49 PM
Some how during this discussion heavy armor has become full plate. The AC

system I described just has a category for heavy armor. So heavy armor to

my mind is as much Roman banded mail (20 kg of armor plus the construction

kit) or Persian banded mail (22 kg) with face almost totally covered as it

is the full plate of the 15th century (30 kg) or especially the 16th century

(40 kg).



Also let`s not make too much of the helm. The great helm of the crusader

period (during which the main armor was chain mail, a medium armor, BTW) is

the heaume with just a bit of an opening for the eyes. By the plate mail

period, the great helm is more of a salade with a visor. Also, where the

Roman wore his open faced helm all day, the knight did not. The helm is

only worn in battle. If the helm is central to the problem, PC`s will adopt

an alternative- either the Khinasi turban helm, or the baviere and camail (a

European version of the turban helm, metal cap with chain mail attached to

protect the back and sides of the head). When I note that the bascinet was

more popular than the heaume, I wonder how many crusaders where in fact

wearing the open faced bascinet rather than the closed up heaume? One can

still be in full plate with a bascinet or a baviere, rather than a heaume.



The Romans did typically wear greaves to protect the leg from their skirt to

their feet. Some depictions do not portray the greaves, so its possible

that it was a piece of armor dropped against certain opponents or in certain

climates. Its also possible the depictions are in error.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

ryancaveney
01-05-2004, 12:10 AM
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



> Did the Romans wear heavy armor?



In 3E terms, the Romans wore "Breastplate" armor:



"A breastplate covers your front and your back. It comes with a

helmet and greaves (plates to cover your lower legs). A light

suit or skirt of studded leather beneath the breastplate protects

your limbs without restricting movement much."



This snippet from the PHB is a very precise description of the Roman

legionary panoply. They also carried large wooden shields. In 3E rules,

this is the heaviest of the medium armors.



In 2E terms, I think the best fit for the Romans is probably Banded Mail.





Ryan Caveney

irdeggman
01-05-2004, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by kgauck@Jan 4 2004, 10:41 AM
The class bonus to AC (like other class features) only apply to character

who start in that class. So a character would have to consider whether they

want to start with a fighter`s starting package - martial weapons, simple

weapons, heavy armor, shields, the +3 AC bonus and full Fort save, but give

up the wizards starting package no familiar, no scribe scroll, and only a +1

Will save; or do it the other way around and get the scribe scroll feat,

summon familiar, the full Will save, proficency with club, dagger, heavy and

light crossbows, quarterstaff, and the +0 AC bonus, and then become a

fighter and get only the bonus fighter feat and +1 Fort bonus.


Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com


Hmm, I think something is being done house rules-ish here Kenneth. When a character changes classes he gains all of that new classes starting abilities except for maximum hit points, double skill points (only 1st level characters get this) and as I recall the only other thing a character doesn&#39;t gain is the wizard&#39;s/sorcerer&#39;s familiar (he has to spend some money and time to gain it, but he can gain one).

For example whenever a character starts as a barbarian (illiterate) he automatically gains the ability to read/write any language he can speak when he changes to a class that is not illiterate (basically any other one). I personally don&#39;t like this, but it is in the &#39;rules&#39;.

The BAB and saving throws bonuses are always cumulative as are the class abilities (that is a character gains all of the class abilities from all of his clases - they don&#39;t necessarily stack with each other, e.g., caster levels don&#39;t usually stack).

One other thing Kenneth when you lump all armors into the light/medium/heavy category they all end up being treated as equal as far as AC bonus - so why would a character ever take a heavy armor that weighs or costs more? For a simplification this system seems to give a good basis though. Somehow something should be &#39;added&#39; to distinguish within the categories, maybe a number of attacks this AC bonus is good against - that way the more protective armors can gain a benefit over the less protective ones (fullplate vice banded) {I don&#39;t know this was just a thought}

irdeggman
01-05-2004, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by Don E@Jan 4 2004, 08:07 AM
I generally think Kenneth&#39;s suggested rules look usable and well thought out. My only major problem with them are the even greater advantage one gets from multiclassing for one fighter leve gives you. Now just about every wizard (or other charater really) will take that level to gain a quick +3 bonus to defense.

Cheers,
Don E
It is very common in our campaigns for a character to start out as a fighter and then change classes. The &#39;normal&#39; advantages are a better BAB, more hit points, proficiency in all armors and all non-exotic weapons so Kenneth&#39;s AC bonus is just one more thing to factor in, but really is not overly advantageous.

kgauck
01-05-2004, 12:53 AM
----- Original Message -----

From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 5:39 PM



> In 3E terms, the Romans wore "Breastplate" armor:

>

> "A breastplate covers your front and your back. It comes with a

> helmet and greaves (plates to cover your lower legs). A light

> suit or skirt of studded leather beneath the breastplate protects

> your limbs without restricting movement much."

>

> This snippet from the PHB is a very precise description of the Roman

> legionary panoply. They also carried large wooden shields. In 3E rules,

> this is the heaviest of the medium armors.

>

> In 2E terms, I think the best fit for the Romans is probably Banded Mail.



I think that description is a much better description of the Greek armor

than it is the Roman. The Romans only wore the brestplate prior to the

legion when they were still fighting in the Greek style. Afterward, the

cuirass was only for officers. By the 2nd century BCE, the Romans had

adopted Gaullic chaim mail, Lorica Hamatain. During Augustus`s reign we see

the adopton of Lorica Segmentata, the banded mail. Its this last type, worn

in Egypt and Palestine that interests me here.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Don E
01-05-2004, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by irdeggman@Jan 5 2004, 01:18 AM
It is very common in our campaigns for a character to start out as a fighter and then change classes. The &#39;normal&#39; advantages are a better BAB, more hit points, proficiency in all armors and all non-exotic weapons so Kenneth&#39;s AC bonus is just one more thing to factor in, but really is not overly advantageous.
In standard D&D 3.5 I generally find it better to start in any other class than fighter and later take one level in it. Yes, you get a few less HP, but you generally gain a LOT more skill ranks (wizard being a notable exception). Might be that we generally play campaigns where skills play a bigger role.

Cheers,
Don E

Don E
01-05-2004, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by kgauck@Jan 4 2004, 04:41 PM
The class bonus to AC (like other class features) only apply to character who start in that class. So a character would have to consider whether they want to start with a fighter`s starting package - martial weapons, simple weapons, heavy armor, shields, the +3 AC bonus and full Fort save, but give up the wizards starting package no familiar, no scribe scroll, and only a +1 Will save; or do it the other way around and get the scribe scroll feat, summon familiar, the full Will save, proficency with club, dagger, heavy and light crossbows, quarterstaff, and the +0 AC bonus, and then become a
fighter and get only the bonus fighter feat and +1 Fort bonus.
It sounds like you play with very similar house rules to me. Separating betwen the starting class and any later classes balances the more front heavy classes a bit and prevents the mulitclassing into fighter becoming a must (my opinion of course).

I would suggest though that you at least get one of the scribe scroll or summon familiar when taking your first wizard level. Otherwise it will take too long to gain any feats from the class.

Cheers,
Don E

kgauck
01-05-2004, 01:15 AM
----- Original Message -----

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 6:13 PM





> Hmm, I think something is being done house rules-ish here Kenneth.



Well of course, I`m not going to explain what the PHB says. Everyone can

read that for themselves. I was explaining why everyone doesn`t take a

level of fighter for the +3 class bonus to AC.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

kgauck
01-05-2004, 01:53 AM
Some further examination reveals that the Roman armor of the imperial period

was extended during the reign of Trajan. The arms were covered and the

greaves added. The sandals had by that time been replaced by boots.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

ryancaveney
01-05-2004, 01:53 AM
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



> During Augustus`s reign we see the adopton of Lorica Segmentata, the

> banded mail. Its this last type, worn in Egypt and Palestine that

> interests me here.



That`s the type I had in mind as well -- at the D&D resolution, I don`t

see much practical difference (in protection, weight or mobility

restriction) between the solidity of a single-piece-per-side cuirass and

the heavy overlapping plates of the lobster-like lorica segmentata. The

idea here is "heavy metal casing for the torso, greaves, and light leather

or no covering of the arms and upper legs", which pretty much encompasses

all three of the Roman styles.





Ryan Caveney

kgauck
01-05-2004, 06:14 AM
----- Original Message -----

From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 7:24 PM





> That`s the type I had in mind as well -- at the D&D resolution, I don`t

> see much practical difference (in protection, weight or mobility

> restriction) between the solidity of a single-piece-per-side cuirass and

> the heavy overlapping plates of the lobster-like lorica segmentata.



In principle, neither do I, hence my grouping of all armor into three

catagories. What remains is whether this is heavy or medium armor. If the

Romans at the time of Trajan are not in banded mail, I don`t know what

banded mail is. And the difference between this and the earlier forms is

arm and leg coverings. Certainly we have the heaviest of the medium armors

and the lightest of the heavy. By comparison to German warriors in a fur

and leather tunic (hide armor) the Romans seem heavy, and hide is also a

medium armor.



Looking at the warcards, it seems certain that at least some units in

Khinasi are heavily armored. Some look almost like cataphracts. In any

event, I still contend that heavy armor is practical in Khinasi.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

geeman
01-05-2004, 09:03 AM
At 08:24 PM 1/4/2004 -0500, Ryan Caveney wrote:



>I don`t see much practical difference (in protection, weight or mobility

>restriction) between the solidity of a single-piece-per-side cuirass and

>the heavy overlapping plates of the lobster-like lorica segmentata.



In my experience (which is, admittedly, limited to the mock ups of armor

available in various costume houses and among those of my acquaintance who

participate in SCA) the difference isn`t so much in protection, weight or

mobility as it is in the range of movement the wearer has. Segmented

armors tend to be more flexible and allow for a more natural range of

movement. It`s also more difficult to do things like stand, jump, run,

etc. in armor that has fewer segments since they just don`t move along with

your body. In D&D terms, that would probably represent a higher dex bonus

allowance.



Gary

irdeggman
01-05-2004, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by kgauck@Jan 4 2004, 08:15 PM
----- Original Message -----

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 6:13 PM





> Hmm, I think something is being done house rules-ish here Kenneth.



Well of course, I`m not going to explain what the PHB says. Everyone can

read that for themselves. I was explaining why everyone doesn`t take a

level of fighter for the +3 class bonus to AC.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com













Kenneth I was only refering to the statement "(like other class features)" and some of the examples you gave like saving throws were very house rules and not core, I understood the clearly house rules AC bonus and wasn&#39;t referring to that just the implication that the BAB and saving throws (and other class features) were not all gained when changing classes via the core rules.

MJH
01-06-2004, 06:08 PM
I think I will go with a salvage value of 1/4 or destroyed or captured unit equipment. I was going to go for 1/2 but your arguments have convinced me otherwise. Thank you for your help.

teloft
01-07-2004, 08:12 PM
I feel like the plunder of the battlefield is divided betvine the figthing men of the units victorius.

and relitively begin part of there experience. Taking the plunder in your own posession, is like taxing thee units, taking there plunder. This will not make the units happy.

- - - -

Im designing a new way of thinking about a unit.

where I have equipment - traind men of battle - there personal helper, like helping them dress in armour, and carrying there sword - Suportmen wokring foodstufs and seeing to the units need.

well, the idee is to stop thinking so much of the unit, but rahter think of the army. the army is composed of battle units, and there suporting units.

- - - -

as a part of this system, I use Templets, one unit is a carryer of a set of templet, the templet begin character clases of the leaders, and there prymery skilles.

Training rule, in order to train u usualy need to be part of a unit thet has a templet in the field you like to train in.

if you like to advance a level, you need to train, to train you need a master, master are easely found in units. So if your a part of a garrison unit, you have easy acsess to your master.

Mages and oothers thet would like to advance on there own, need to do aditional training actions in order to be there own masters.

ConjurerDragon
01-09-2004, 04:36 PM
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 17:33:58 -0600, Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM> wrote:



>Some how during this discussion heavy armor has become full plate.



That was my error. When using the example of crusaders fatigued vs. Saladins

troops at the horns of Hattin (suffering from heat and lack of water), I

wrongly assumed the knights with their bucket helmets to wear full plate

armour in my mind.



>The Romans did typically wear greaves to protect the leg from their skirt to

>their feet. Some depictions do not portray the greaves, so its possible

>that it was a piece of armor dropped against certain opponents or in certain

>climates. Its also possible the depictions are in error.

>Kenneth Gauck

>kgauck@mchsi.com



The pictures I saw in books or in the museum at my hometown all where

without greaves and with sandals (caldare?), not boots.



But to come back why I brought up the example of the crusaders - the current

rules allow endless combat in the heaviest armour without fatigue, while

even the 2E Playerīs Option: Combat & Tactics had a rule that did let them

fatigue after several rounds of combat (a very abstract system which did

only use class to assign how many rounds a character could fight without

fatigue).



So if you are right that at Hattin only adaption to environments heat and

lack of water were the reason of fatigue not fighting in heavy armour, would

that mean that a character in heavy armour, can fight as long as a totally

unarmoured opponent without that at least SOMETIME he would get weary to the

weight of his armour while his opponent (if he is lucky and does not get hit

with his lack of protection? (equally if he is Crusader or Roman?)

bye

Michael

tsarrion
01-22-2004, 06:50 PM
ITs only natural to loot from the dead... we as people have been doing it for thousands of years. For example go to a museum or art gallery... how many of these painting or ancient momentos were looted from the ancient pyramids or greece? All were taken from these dead empires and it is only natural that we continue. So i believe plundering or even salvaging the dead is ok beacause the dead dont care. The dead are dead and they have no use for anything they leave behind. And none of you get high and mighty on me we all plunder... how many of you have goose feather pillows or leather sofas and jackets? Where do you think they came from&#33;@#&#036; we salvaged these off dead animals because we&#39;re salvaging resources and supplies. These creatures are dead and even if they do need these things in the afterlife; will any of us stop taking from these dead? And also when any of us has a family member who has died in the family dont we after the funeral divide portions of that relatives belonging and split among others in our family&#33;? My point is that if we do salvage and pillage from the dead HERE in this world why is it any different in another fantasy or not? *TSARRION

RaspK_FOG
01-23-2004, 02:46 AM
Err... don&#39;t you think you are being a bit too offensive here? In fact, your tone is at least somewhat insulting&#33; If it doesn&#39;t matter, why all the snide remarks, I ask you. I am sorry if this sounds rude to you, but you reminded me of the joke of the driver, one of whose car&#39;s tires got flat, and as he went to a nearby house to procure the needed tools, he was thinking of a possible quarrel with an unhelpful (even unfriendly) person, so when the owner of the house politely answered the door, he said: "Screw you&#33;" and slammed the door at the surprised man&#39;s face...

irdeggman
01-23-2004, 11:01 AM
I posted this thread a while ago. Every now and then it deserves a revist, IMO, to help us all stay focused.

Until recently I had not noticed any disrespect in this thread, just open and frank discussions and many historical references.

Anyway check out the thread, we all could use a refresh.

http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1848

geeman
01-24-2004, 05:04 PM
Even in a magical world in which people have not the fear of reprisal from

the dead alone, but the reality of reprisal from the dead in the form of

very real fantastic creatures, the question is not IMO whether or not

people would loot the bodies of the fallen after a battle. Of course they

would, ghosts or no ghosts. It`s too tempting, too near, the value to

high, and the desire for trophies is too strong to be ignored.



The question is how much can a regent expect to gain from defeating units

at the large scale combat level of BR? As I see it, there are several

factors in such a consideration:



A. The number of dead soldiers left on the battlefield (as opposed to

them being carried off by their compatriots or their mounts) when a unit is

defeated whose equipment can be looted.

B. The number of captured soldiers when a unit is defeated whose

equipment will be confiscated.

C. The amount of equipment left on the battlefield by a fleeing enemy.

D. The percentage of the equipment that is salvageable. ie. breakage.

E. The percentage of the equipment that is actually found (vs lost

forever among the weeds or buried with the dead.)

F. The percentage of that salvageable equipment that makes its way into

the hands of the victorious regent to be turned into GB (Finance action) or

to use to equip for his own troops (as opposed to that percentage that is

stolen by scavengers or otherwise lost.)



One thing to note about the above list: Only #1 is going to provoke fear of

spiritual reprisal, even if one were to consider such fear greater than the

rewards of . There are still going to be captured soldiers or equipment

left on the field that can be taken by a victorious army, so whether or not

one thinks that looting the dead is an issue that`s only part of where the

value of looting equipment after units are defeated might come from.



Anyway, all told several of the above factors represent fractions for an

expression of the overall value of the units. Value of "destroyed" unit`s

equipment * (A + B + C) * D * E * F = Loot.



Depending on what kinds of numbers one puts in there the percentage can be

pretty small. Generally battlefield casualties are a much lower percentage

that most people expect (20% is quite high) but it`s important to keep in

mind that the number of casualties and prisoners taken (A & B) is for

"destroyed" units, not a whole army, so these figures can be higher than

they might be in some of the classic battles for which we have

figures. It`s hard to calculate the "average" number of prisoners taken,

or the value of equipment thrown down by a fleeing enemy since that`s not

the kind of statistic kept very often, but less say for the sake of

argument (and simple math) that a destroyed unit leaves 25% of it`s

equipment on the battlefield in the form of dead soldiers, captured ones

and discarded equipment (A + B + C). Again, the amount of unspoiled

equipment taken from these factors is probably lower than one might expect

since things do actually break or are damaged in battle more often than D&D

suggests, in which players go their entire gaming lives without their

characters wearing out so much as a pair of boots, but for the sake of

parity, let`s let`s again go with 25%. Last, we have the amount of value

that goes to the victorious regent. Scavengers are pretty common after a

battle, and one can`t generally rely on skirmishers to turn in all the

valuable goods, and there`s not a real good way of determining the

"average" for such a thing, so let`s again go with 25%. All told, that

comes out to a little under 4% of the value of the unit. If anyone thinks

any of those numbers are off they can plug it in without too much trouble.



As a percentage of the GB cost of mustering troops 4% isn`t much. It`s

important to note that BR units are, however, undervalued in terms of the

actual gp value of the unit`s equipment and the GB cost to muster them. If

one were to take the actual gp value of the unit--which would exist whether

one considers their GB cost to be a function of feudal obligation or

not--in the case of a few of the units with expensive equipment there could

be the potential for quite a lot of loot, particularly cavalry units. A

unit of knights has had the value of its equipment and livestock calculated

at well over 100,000gp according to the PHB values. At 4% that`s

2GB. When it comes to lightly armored and equipped units, however, there`s

probably not a lot of value there, so looting the bodies of levies would

probably not get much value at all.



The real money in medieval combat comes from taking hostages and getting a

ransom for them, hence the term "a king`s ransom" to describe a whole lot

of cash. That, however, is probably better left up to a case by case basis

since it is by definition an individual affair.... Though I think someone

once proposed a value for ransom based on character level, which sounds

like a good guideline for approximating such a thing. 100gp/level IIRC.



Gary

kgauck
01-24-2004, 05:04 PM
----- Original Message -----

From: "tsarrion" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 12:50 PM



> My point is that if we do salvage and pillage from the dead HERE in

> this world why is it any different in another fantasy or not?



Here is one example. The spirits of the dead resent it. When the dead have

items stolen from them, they may haunt the theives, or they might haunt

their kin to avenge the wrong. Why did Hamlet`s ghost come back and speak

with Hamlet? Why did the Spectral Scion come back in the adventure in the

Rjurik Highlands book?



> how many of these painting or ancient momentos were looted

> from the ancient pyramids or greece?



The objects from the pyramids especially are often associated with a curse.

Sometimes with the mummy animating to protect his stuff. In a fantasy game

this can be real, not just legend or superstition.



I am far, far more inclined to take the old legends and superstions as the

point of view for my game`s reality than I am my own interpreation of

reality as a player. That`s why its *fantasy* role playing.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

Trithemius
01-24-2004, 05:04 PM
Tssarion:

> > My point is that if we do salvage and pillage from the dead HERE in

> > this world why is it any different in another fantasy or not?



Kenneth, in reply:

> Here is one example. The spirits of the dead resent it. When the dead

> have items stolen from them, they may haunt the theives, or they might

> haunt their kin to avenge the wrong. Why did Hamlet`s ghost come back

> and speak with Hamlet? Why did the Spectral Scion come back in the

> adventure in the Rjurik Highlands book?



Also one should consider the idea that bloody battles where lots of "deathly

energies" are released can blight the land and permit the Evanescence (no, not

that awful band...) to weaken. If this occurs, the dead rise and, in most cases

I would presume, do awful things to people that are in the process of looting

them.



Clearly, in BR, the spirits of the dead are more prone to getting up and

shambling about. I would expect that prohibitions against looting the dead in

Cerilian cultures are backed up by a lot of really good practical reasons.



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

-----------------------------------------------------

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

geeman
01-24-2004, 05:04 PM
At 08:49 AM 1/23/2004 -0800, Lord Rahvin wrote:



>If there was even the slightest chance that the Evanescence band was

>going to rise up, as a midieval soldier I might be disuaded against

>robbing the dead. : )

>

>Maybe this should be a new awnsheigh that appears at the sites of

>massive death and carnage and greed... Damn, where`s Gary when you

>really need him?



The Evanescence? Now I have to figure out how to portray "a slight

glowing" in my BP system....



I`m still working on my Death: the Final Adventure expansion of BR

cosmology and the Shadow World that does cover this kind of thing. It

looks like that`s going to have to be it`s own little separate text from

what I had initially planned, which was to put all these new awnshegh,

ershegh and SW creatures together into a single doc. Of course, I *could*

mash it all together into a single opus with the "D:tFA" stuff as a

chapter... maybe that`s the way to go.



Gary

Birthright-L
01-24-2004, 05:04 PM
> Also one should consider the idea that bloody battles where lots of

> "deathly

> energies" are released can blight the land and permit the Evanescence

> (no, not

> that awful band...) to weaken. If this occurs, the dead rise and, in

> most cases

> I would presume, do awful things to people that are in the process of

> looting

> them.



If there was even the slightest chance that the Evanescence band was

going to rise up, as a midieval soldier I might be disuaded against

robbing the dead. : )



Maybe this should be a new awnsheigh that appears at the sites of

massive death and carnage and greed... Damn, where`s Gary when you

really need him?



--Lord Rahvin