Looting Fallen Units

[Michael Romes]

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 can´t 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 it´s 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, wasn´t 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]

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]

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]

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]

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't gain is the wizard's/sorcerer'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't like this, but it is in the 'rules'.

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't necessarily stack with each other, e.g., caster levels don'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 'added' 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't know this was just a thought}

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Don E@Jan 4 2004, 08:07 AM
I generally think Kenneth'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 'normal' advantages are a better BAB, more hit points, proficiency in all armors and all non-exotic weapons so Kenneth's AC bonus is just one more thing to factor in, but really is not overly advantageous.

[kgauck]

----- 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]

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]

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]

----- 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