Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    94
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Noticed on thing on p.117 of the latest (?) manual under "How many individuals are in an army unit".

    A single warrior is only a CR 1/2. It takes 2 warriors (as the NPC-Class, not 2nd ed warriors) to make a CR1 encounter.

    Shouldn't the army unit be 256?

    You could change the CR to 13+half the unit muster, to be closer to 200 people, or the sergeants and officers of the unit are actual 1st fighters that will bring value down.

    A very minor point.

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I am curious as to "correct" answer here. It is a minor point, but hopefully one of game designers can chime in?

  3. #3
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Actually I think that the NPC classes are considered the same as the regular classes as far as CR goes. Using Enemies and Allies as an example thug 1/2 orc War1/Rog1 CR 2 and the table in Appendix 3.

    While I don't agree with the equation that would put a warrior as the same CR as a fighter, it appears that is what is being done in the core rules. Perhaps 3.5 will clarify this some.

    I'll leave any more specific answer to Doom or Mark_Aurel, since they are more knowedgeable on this topic than I. But IMO the answer depends on how, as a DM, you would rate warriors as a CR. If they are CR 1 then this works, if they are CR 1/2 (which I don't think is the right mechanic) then there would be twice as many. I believe that if warriors are not even up in CR than the conversion would be level-1 vice 1/2 of level. Sorry that I can't offer any more guidance on this. It is a good question.

    :)
    Duane Eggert

  4. #4
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    388
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, irdeggman wrote:
    > Actually I think that the NPC classes are considered the same as the
    > regular classes as far as CR goes. Using Enemies and Allies as an
    > example thug 1/2 orc War1/Rog1 CR 2 and the table in Appendix 3.

    No. NPC classed types are CR = level-1, except at 1st level where they
    call it CR 1/2.
    --
    Communication is possible only between equals.
    Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    NPC 1st level Warrior CR is 1/2. This is in the experience section of the DMG. Pg 168 or 169.

    How does this effect the EL 14 + 1/2 muster cost idea?

  6. #6
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    DMG pg 167 "Since NPC classes (see Chapter 2: classes) are weaker than PC classes, levels in an NPC class contribute less to a creature's CR than levels in a PC class. For an NPC with an NPC class, determine her Challenge Rating as if she had a PC class with 1 fewer level."

    So the 256 number sounds more realistic.

    One could use the discussion under knights to create an equivalence that there is always a small contingent of better trained members in the unit that makes it more powerful. The suggestion that officers and sargents are actually fighters is the argument for this condition. Barring additional comment from Doom or Mark_Aurel I would go with this condition. There is always a small grouping of better troops within a unit, for regular infantry these would be fighters or 2nd level warriors (it doesn't really matter which) which would rais up the CR of the unit so that there are approximately 200 or so members of the unit. {This core group would probably bring the number down from the 256 straight translation). 200 is a nice round number, the exact number will always vary but it should be within 15% of that number.:)
    Duane Eggert

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    That makes sense. I believe 200 was the general number used in 2e BR.

  8. #8
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "zshahroody" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
    Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 7:17 AM

    > zshahroody wrote:
    > That makes sense. I believe 200 was the general number used in 2e BR.

    Which has been typically understood in this forum as meaning 200 HD, not
    just 200 people. So a unit of 4th level fighters on horses would be a much
    smaller number of knights than a unit of peasants.

    Kenneth Gauck
    kgauck@mchsi.com

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  9. #9
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Good point Kenneth. I think, however, that using HD is rather 2nd ed and using a CR instead would be more useful. Monster HD translate into higher CR anyway. An example of CR in use for this would be the example of the unit of Varsk riders on pg 117 of the playtest document.

    I would add +1 to a unit's CR for each type of special training and if veteran. This would refect that they are not really 1st level anymore but a higher level unit. Hence there would be less members in a unit of veteran hvy infantry than a standard unit. It would also reflect the fact that a unit of elven knights has fewer members than a unit of Anuirean knights, they are just more effective. Again this are just suggestions to use if the actual numbers really matter, I'm sort of hard pressed to see a time when they would really matter.

    I hope I'm not making something more confusing instead of less.
    Duane Eggert

  10. #10
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
    Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 11:34 AM


    > Good point Kenneth. I think, however, that using HD is rather 2nd
    > ed and using a CR instead would be more useful. Monster HD
    > translate into higher CR anyway.

    True, but the original poster was explicitly referring to the 2e rulebook,
    so I didn`t elect to switch editions in my phrasology. CR is more accurate
    in my opinion than HD, but we didn`t have that in the dark ages of 2e.

    Kenneth Gauck
    kgauck@mchsi.com

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.