Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 61 to 70 of 70
  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    aberdeen, scotland
    Posts
    282
    Downloads
    131
    Uploads
    0
    I've never quite understood the D&D seperation between composite and normal longbows. Statistically, a Welsh lonbow is much closer to a Str 14+ composite longbow than to the D&D longbow, which has no strength requirement whatsoever. The only example of a composite longbow that I can think of is the daikyu of feudal Japan. Most any other historical composite bows were shortbows used by horse archers.
    not getting into d&d classifications there is one example of a composite longbow in the west thanks to those lovely vikings. A small number of composite bows have been found over the years made using the same techniques as those of the middle east. They are however larger and are reinforced by small iron straps. The rarity of the bows meens they are unlikely to have been used in any numbers but they do exist. There rarity may be down to constuction methods or posibly the strength needed to use it.
    MORNINGSTAR

  2. #62
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    First of all, I'd like to state that I'm new to the BR.net community, so I apologize if this post is off-topic or has already been addressed elsewhere. That having been said, I would like to present a loose comparison of one historical medieval battle to the BR setting's battle system.
    As a DM, I have been trying to collect information on the actual arrangement and movement of military units in well known historical battles in developing a house-rules 'mass-battle' system. At the moment my best information comes from the Battle of Crecy (1346), which is what I will use in the following examples:
    I have developed my own battle system for home use that seems to work well enough (still needs playtesting to work out any exploitable aspects), but I will try to confine this post to a couple of the inconsistencies I've noticed between historic and fantasy warfare.
    Battle Durations- this ties in with the size and dimensions of the battlefield itself. At Crecy, the battle line stretched ~6,000 ft., involving about 51,000 men (~7000 British longbowmen, 5000 British spearmen and men-at-arms, 15,000 Genoese crossbowmen, and another 21,000 French comprised of knights and Genoese footmen). Welsh longbowmen, by most accounts I've read, had an effective range of 300 to 350 yards, which works out to roughly the extreme range of longbows presented in the 3.5 PHB (1000 ft.). The account by Froissant describes the French opening the battle with a movement of crossbowmen into the field to fire upon the British front lines (the infantry), whereupon the longbowmen rained volleys down upon the crossbowmen as soon as they entered the field. Longbows have superior range over crossbows, so it would stand to reason the British could do this before the Genoese had the opportunity to fire on the British. Why is this relevant? It suggests the two armies were set up just outside the longbowmen's effective range. This gives us an image of the battlefield as being 6000ft wide with a 1000ft gap between the two armies. Also, it stands to reason no commander would willingly set up his forces within an arrow's reach of their enemy. At 1000ft. distance we can see it would take a typical unit of light infantry (base move 30ft.) about 33 rounds of marching (walking) to reach the opposing force. Half that for a hustle, halved again for a full run. Using a one-minute round (my preference, but not critical) this means the opposing force could be reached in a single round, should 'running' be allowed (theoretically I allow it, but in practice it quickly becomes obvious how ineffective- suicidal, even- it is to send units out this way). As for the rank-depth of the armies, the French must have been the most densely packed. With 6000ft. of space, the 36000 French troops would need roughly 30 ranks to keep each file 5 feet distant from one another (that is, to obey D&D's 5-foot-square-per-individual rule). Unfortunately, I haven't yet found out how many of the french forces were knights, so the actual number of infantry in-formation they possessed is anyone's guess. but without even removing a portion to account for said knights, the french lines were arranged rather thinly (6000 ft wide, ~150 ft deep), which was probably the case for most medieval armies, pike phalanxes excluded. the British were arranged in a flattened V- shape, with the 'head' comprised of infantry flanked by archers on either side. from what I gather the battle was situated in an area no more than 6 to 8 thousand feet wide by 2000 to 2500 feet deep- this is for a battle of much larger scale than would likely be seen anywhere on Cerilia, but you get the idea.
    The second subject I wanted to address has more to do with a continuing misinterpretation of how battlefield conflicts were resolved (not dealing exclusively with RPGs like Birthright, but also movies, PC games, etc.). Crecy lasted from 4pm till midnight, with the French making 14 to 16 attempts to upend the British from their hilltop position. Everyone's seen Braveheart, right? Now, I can't honestly say I know exactly how long any of those pitched battles lasted (nor have I yet looked for that information), but I'm guessing every last one of them managed to consume the better part of an afternoon; the 20 seconds of cut-scenes of maiming and decapitation, after which the entire losing army is in a heap on the ground, paint a wildly different picture of how these battles were conducted. IMO, one of our biggest inconsistencies in the battle system is the fact that we treat combat and movement as equal pairs, consuming the same amount of time. As was demonstrated earlier, medieval armies met one another in relatively close proximity, capable of closing with one another quickly if necessary, but actual conflicts between formations of 200+ men per side were not resolved in the span of one minute's time. with 400 or more troops, some fighting, some waiting within the formation for the battle to reach them, one could easily expect 'engaged' forces to remain engaged for 10-30 minutes before a a unit takes enough damage to constitute a 'hit'. This is why actual combat occurred in the no-man's-land between the two armies- each commander sent a unit into the area, which was intercepted by selected unit(s) of the opposing force, and the result was observed by both sides. in this way, armies didn't hurl themselves in a headlong rush to grapple with the entire opposing force, but ground one another down in smaller conflicts designed to weaken the opposing reserve force (or else allow gaps to open up in its arrangement) until the side with the upper hand could lead a direct assault and 'take the field'. Crecy resulted in 5 to 10,000 French losses (less than a thousand English casualties) before the battle ended with the French pulling back from the field. No sudden collapse of the entire French line, no loss of their entire army; just a series of failed conflicts that gradually weakened French numerical superiority and left them with no intelligent choice but to end the fight. Personally, I use a system where either side alternates making non-combat moves (with 1-minute rounds) until both sides declare they have finished moving. units are 'engaged' during this time, but rather than having those engagements resolve themselves immediately following one round of movement, they remain engaged while players respond to the arrangement of one another's units. It actually resembles chess in many ways. this has the effect of allowing players to 'bid' additional units into a pair of engaged forces before the result is determined, while keeping an eye on their opponent's reserve; bidding too many units into a single conflict leaves your main body open to a cavalry flanking maneuver or an infantry charge that can split your army in two.
    Finally, I had to adjust the role of archers in combat to account for the change in combat sequence. This aspect will probably win me a fair deal of criticism, as it flies in the face of most every modern strategy game. I came to this conclusion after calculating the ‘best possible’ accuracy rate of arrow volleys in medieval warfare and reading a few descriptions of how soldiers responded to these attacks. Once again, I will cite Crecy, since I have far more information about its particulars than any other medieval battle. The typical longbowman carried with him 2 sheaves of 24 arrows each, amounting to 336,000 total arrows on-hand and a larger supply ready to be brought forward as needed. An estimated 500,000 (that’s one-half million) arrows were fired during that 8-hour period. British longbowmen fired an average of 10 shots per minute (fortunately, this is the same ROF as a 1st level warrior), and there were 7000 longbowmen present at Crecy. This works out to an average of about 70 shots per archer, accomplished in a minimum of 7 minutes. Looking at it in this fashion, 500 thousand shots fired appears surprisingly low for an 8-hour-long battle. Obviously, in the limited conflicts that occurred only a small portion of the British archers were eligible to fire, with the majority remaining well out of range. Probably, these units furthest in the flanks were meant only to stop cavalry charges and relieve exhausted archers in the front. Again citing the French casualties (5,000-10,000), this brings to light a serious misinterpretation of the arrow volley’s intended use; of 500,000 arrows, only 1 or 2% managed to strike a hit, yet longbowmen were feared throughout history as a devastating force. We’ve all heard quotes from one battle or another claiming “the sky turned black”, “the sun was eclipsed” or, as in Crecy, one Genoa stated “it looked as snow”, when the arrows were loosed and the would-be attackers turn tail and flee back to their main lines. I make use of missile weapon ranges in my campaign, using the range increment divided by 10 (range 6 for short bows, 8 for light crossbows, 10 for longbows, etc.) but missile weapons do not inflict ‘hits’. Instead, the unit subjected to missile fire makes a morale save (an opposed d20 roll using the defender’s morale bonus vs. the attacker’s missile bonus) to determine if the defending unit is routed, retreating as far back from the missile unit as possible with its remaining movement. On a natural 20 (crit) when determining morale save DC I allow one ‘hit’ of damage to be counted against the defender, in addition to the rout that will likely follow. The specifics of morale saves are just a personal preference; the notion of treating missile weapons as demoralizing rather than deadly is more the point. This redefines missile weapons as a means to deter or disrupt enemy units and formations at a distance, with the occasional chance to cause substantial loss of life. This way, only a well-disciplined force can manage to press through a hail of archer fire.
    Once again, I hope some useful insight can be gleaned from this analysis. I’ve tried to provide an example of how these tendencies in historic warfare could be applied to BR’s battle-system without turning out a ‘this is how to do it’, ‘this is the precise pecking order of events’ lecture. The relevance of these tendencies in a D&D campaign is really more the issue. Also, if anyone should happen to come upon a book or website that details battles of the post-roman, pre-gunpowder middle ages (especially if they offer numerical values such as field dimensions, numbers of ranks, rank spacing, etc.) don’t hesitate to send me a message as I am always looking to get a better understanding of exactly how these wars played out. Thank you!

  3. #63
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    Thank you!
    No, thank you! That was a great post filled with a lot of good historical data - exactly the sort of facts I've been hungry to discover, but didn't know. Plenty of food for thought, to be certain. I'm still trying to wrap my head around envisioning how you described medieval battles and engagements actually playing out.

    For instance, I really can't even begin to imagine two 200-man companies spending 30 minutes locked in battle before one of them takes c. 100 casualties! Having done some informal, reenactment medieval fighting myself (in small groups only, but competitively with metal weapons), I've rarely had any personal combat last more than a minute or so - by then either me or my opponent is down. Most last more like 30 seconds. If two infantry units engaged on the field, I would expect that a fourth to a third of each infantry unit would be engaged with an enemy at a time, especially if one or both sides are charging and penetrating enemy ranks.

    Exceptions to this would include infantry shield walls, and phalanxes of spear-/pikemen - these sorts of defensive formations were specifically designed for resisting enemy penetration of their ranks, and would prolong battles a great deal when employed.

    Crecy lasted from 4pm till midnight, with the French making 14 to 16 attempts to upend the British from their hilltop position.
    Have you found, or can you find, reasonably reliable accounts of the lengths of other historical battles? Not just the largest and most famous, but also smaller conflicts?

    As you mentioned, BR battles are on a much smaller scale than many historical ones - about 1/10 the scale or even smaller. I suspect that one of the main reasons for the considerable lengths (1/2 to full day) of historical battles was due to the tremendous numbers involved - giving orders, and then having them be carried out in a coordinated fashion (especially marching orders, as opposed to missile fire orders), to thousands of troops at a time, is pretty difficult if not completely impossible with the technology and communication methods of the medieval era. That's why it makes sense to me that battles would be fought company by company, as you described.

    Anyways, if most BR battles have only 10-20 companies on a side (c. 2000-4000 troops at most), then I suspect they will be resolved far, FAR more quickly than large-scale historical ones.

    Also, re. size of the battlefield: I suspect size will vary a great deal, depending on actual terrain and the chosen tactics of the commanders involved. An army with many mobile units, who are used to ride (or run) around an enemy's flanks, shielded from enemy missile fire, will need either a much larger field (to stay out of range) or covering terrain (like hills or forest). That's one of the reasons I made battlefield sizes variable (DM's discretion) in my own battlesystem.

    I think Crecy panned out the way it did in part because the French used a very predictable frontal attack strategy. Given the "heavy cavalry charges always win" strategy of the time, plus vast numerical superiority, this makes sense.


    Your missile system is interesting. The idea of forcing morale checks is novel and probably fairly accurate, and it does have the effect of stretching battles out far more than "hit and kill" systems - which makes the battles more realistic, but also makes them take a LOT longer in real time, too, as units rout, run back to the reserves, and eventually rally and come back to fight again...and again..and again...

    Realistic, maybe, but how much fun is it to play out such a lengthy series of exchanges? In my experience, the longer a battle takes (real-time), the less appeal it has for most players, and only the most die-hard historical/strategy enthusiasts will stay interested. Like most game systems, there's often a very large dilemma between realism and playability.

    Osprey

  4. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    C0R5A1R schrieb:



    >This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

    > You can view the entire thread at:

    > http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...ST&f=36&t=3027

    >

    > C0R5A1R wrote:

    >

    ...



    > about 70 shots per archer, accomplished in a minimum of 7 minutes. Looking at it in this fashion, 500 thousand shots fired appears surprisingly low for an 8-hour-long battle. Obviously, in the limited conflicts that occurred only a small portion of the British archers were eligible to fire, with the majority remaining well out of range. Probably, these units furthest in the flanks were meant only to stop cavalry charges and relieve exhausted archers in the front. Again citing the French casualties (5,000-10,000), this brings to light a serious misinterpretation of the arrow volley’s intended use; of 500,000 arrows, only 1 or 2% managed to strike a hit, yet longbowmen were feared throughout history as a devastating force. We’ve all heard quotes from one battle or another claiming “the sky turned black”, “the sun was eclipsed” or, as in Crecy, one Genoa stated “it looked as snow”, when the arrows were loosed and the would-be attackers turn tail and flee back to their main lin

    > es.

    >

    Casualties on the french side do not necessarily equal hits of english

    bows - certainly the french only counted the dead human beings in that

    number, and horses which are large targets have been hit as well.

    bye

    Michael

  5. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Orlando FL
    Posts
    37
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    About the feared English/Welsh Longbowman.....

    I watched a history channel thingy about Agincourt I believe.. where the english army was heavily outnumbered vs the french army 6000 (5000 archers the rest knights & men-at-arms) vs 30000 (5000 Nobles/Knights 8-10000 men-at-arms remainder infantry & crossbowmen) or so. The longbows were relatively innefective against the knights save for their mounts. The iron arrowhead couldnt penetrate the steel armour the french men-at-arms wore. (They did a test on the show) What did the french in is basically arrogance & tactical inflexibility.

    Mindset:
    the french were drunk on their superior numbers & did not keep their mind on FIGHTING the battle.
    The french marshall of the army was very intelligent & formed a good attack plan (he would rather starve them out but nobles wanted glory) However the nobles who commanded units were more concerned for personal glory & Ransom so most of them moved to the front of the line so they could be seen & "get in on the action" pretty much disregarding the supporting infantry & crossbows

    The british were in trouble however at this time period britain is starting to have a "professional" military no longer a feudal military system

    Terrain:
    battlefield was damp & already muddy hordes of very pissed french guys on horses &/or in very heavy armor moving on the field aggravated this. Whats worse is the actual terrain was a natural bottleneck that the french would attack through. Whats worse though is the soil nothing special dry but when damp is very clay-like & sticky. when the french attack they become bogged down in this muck as the suction this mud creates when the try & move through it in their heavy armour. The english in lighter armor for the most part can run circles around the armoured french. What makes this worse is the french keep coming and basically kill themselves as they step on each other trying to get at the english & with more troops pressing from behind its like a crowd-push at a football game.


    Most of the french casualties are from suffocating in this horrid muck or being killed after being captured by the english. Now the theory behind why the english killed most of their prisoners is shortly after driving the french of the english baggage train is attacked by a mob of french peasants. The english think they are being attacked from behind & they have almost as many prisoners as they have troops so a rough tactical call.... King Henry V orders his men to kill the prisoners te feudal lords troops say no way since they will lose out on the ransom however the "professional" troops obey the kings order.

    Crecy though the longbows definitely outrange the french crossbowmen & slaughter them quite nicely.
    0=[=====>
    Lord Valkyr, Duke of Aragon

  6. #66
    Member Bokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Lawrenceville GA
    Posts
    32
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Has anybody considered using the rules from the complete minitures handbook as a "simple" system?

    GB cost of units could probably be converted into points, and then these points could be used to purchase certain types of available figures. The other option would be to have the BR community decide which figure best represents the available unit types, and then just reference the Complete Miniatures Handbook for all relevant rules. These figures (representing units) could then duke it out.

    Not all figures would be available (no dragons likely to be running around), but certain figures could be deemed as appropriate by the BR site, and speciality units would already be available for those who would want to expand the game. Battle resolution is fairly quick, and would resemble more of a big encounter in an adventure rather than a whole new set of rules. The rules for setting up a battlefield would have to be tweaked slightly (if we wanted to go to the trouble), but that way we would not be making up a new war-gaming system, just referencing people back to an existing 3E product (which I am sure wizards would appreciate).

    Just a thought.
    Kill 'em all, let the God's sort them out!!

  7. #67
    Senior Member ausrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Warsaw, Indiana US
    Posts
    162
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Has anyone read the book "Cry Havoc"? It is the D20 massive combat rulebook written by Skip Williams and Monte Cook and published through Malhavoc press.

    It seems to blend very well into standard D20 rules and is very flexible (allowing you to design your own units, incorporate pc's, and individuals on the battlefield and producing results exceptionally similar to if you played the battles out in the standard D20 combat scale), and being written by two people who worked on the original D20 design for WoTC I would expect as much. I just bring this up because it appears there are a lot of people out here working really hard trying to reinvent the wheel. Now I know it would take some adjustments to fit Birthright, I've been hitting my head on the wall about that myself. But it would make a possible launch pad to consider.

    The main adjustments I am running into problems with are the appearant differences in economies in 3rd Edition (and consequently the Cry Havoc book) and Birthright. It seems that roughly the pay for a soldier would be about 1s per day if a unit of 200 soldiers would have an upkeep of 1GB every Domain Turn. Well, Cry Havoc states that a soldier gets 2s per day per npc class per lvl (and absolutely no mention on if your units were made out of Fighters instead of warriors, I'm assuming for that advantage they would get more). Also, I am wondering, if Mustercosts are based on equipment (I would imagine that atleast to some degree they would), then equipping a Knight with Full Plate, Full Plate Barding, Heavy War Horse, and Shield, lance, etc. costs about 5k gp, now make that 200 knights and that is so not the 6 Gold Bar muster cost in the original Birthright, however, equipping a longbowman costs roughtly 100gp, granted more than the 2 Gold Bar Muster Cost for them, but not really in line with the ratios. a 6GB muster of Knights owns 500GB worth of equipment and a 2GB muster of Archers owns 10GB worth of equipment. So you could almost assume equipment doesn't effect mustercost much, but at the same time, if you were to make units with superior and more expensive equipment they would perform far better. And in reality nothing is free so somebody has to pay for everything, I know I couldnt' afford 500GB worth of equipment on 4GB a year income. Not sure how to resolve this issue, but welcome to input, I just thought I would share my findings and what I'm banging my head with. (note it seems the original BR just took 2X the Upkeep cost of each type of unit except for a few higher demanding equipment ones it made the ratio 3:1, however if you are going to make a system that blends seemlessly with existing D20 rules that is going to cause some loopholes, for example say kingdom A killed kingdom B's unit of Knights, looted their corpses and sold the goods at 50% market, then did the Finance free action to convert that into GB they could then hire Many units of knights. If this was a video game I'd publish a patch for that. :P
    Regards,
    Ausrick

  8. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    ausrick schrieb:



    >This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

    > You can view the entire thread at:

    > http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...ST&f=36&t=3027

    >

    > ausrick wrote:

    >

    >

    >

    >

    ...

    [snipped comments about muster costs compared to D&D equipment costs]



    The difference between the Birthright muster costs and the cost of

    equipment was mentioned long ago already before the BRCS ever started.

    The assumption made then was that the muster cost of the army units is

    not the cost to gather able soldiers, train them and pay for their whole

    equipment with the muster cost, but assuming a feudal society, that

    those soldiers come to serve with some of their own equipment as feudal

    obligation to their liege lord.

    bye

    Michael

  9. #69
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    [snipped comments about muster costs compared to D&D equipment costs]

    The difference between the Birthright muster costs and the cost of
    equipment was mentioned long ago already before the BRCS ever started.
    The assumption made then was that the muster cost of the army units is
    not the cost to gather able soldiers, train them and pay for their whole
    equipment with the muster cost, but assuming a feudal society, that
    those soldiers come to serve with some of their own equipment as feudal
    obligation to their liege lord.
    bye
    Michael
    In the case of knights and their supporting troops, definitely. In the case of a regent raising his own standing armies, I would also assume that equipment is "bought" not at market price, but essentially wholesale price, as most lords witht he facilities to muster and equip troops hire their own armorers, bowyers, and weaponsmiths to make weapons and ammo for the troops. So if you want to really go nitpicking, maybe look at the price of crafting arms and armor, then factor in the retainer (labor) fee for the smiths, and you might come somewhere closer to the real cost of eupipping a unit.

    Most specifically in the case of knights and full plate: knights, more than any other unit type, are the ones directly supported by a feudal system. Knights aren't paid and equipped with their liege's gp, they are paid in land, and they are expected to use that land to afford their own arms and armor, and provide a fighting contingent of men-at-arms in addition to their own service. That's basic feudalism at its core, as Michael wrote.

    In truth, I doubt most knights could actually afford full plate armor if it's as expensive as printed in the PHB. Half-plate and banded mail are likely far more common armor types for common knights; only the wealthiest of knights could afford the luxury of full plate armor I think. Whole companies equipped with full plate would be something reserved only for the wealthiest and best-equipped of Anuire's chivalry - like the champion knights of Avanil, Boeruine, the WIT, or maybe the MOC.

    Osprey

  10. #70
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by ausrick@Apr 15 2005, 03:45 PM
    Has anyone read the book "Cry Havoc"? It is the D20 massive combat rulebook written by Skip Williams and Monte Cook and published through Malhavoc press.

    It seems to blend very well into standard D20 rules and is very flexible (allowing you to design your own units, incorporate pc's, and individuals on the battlefield and producing results exceptionally similar to if you played the battles out in the standard D20 combat scale), and being written by two people who worked on the original D20 design for WoTC I would expect as much. I just bring this up because it appears there are a lot of people out here working really hard trying to reinvent the wheel. Now I know it would take some adjustments to fit Birthright, I've been hitting my head on the wall about that myself. But it would make a possible launch pad to consider.
    The problem is that we can't use the Cry Havoc material as such for this product.

    Even the portions that are OGL won't fit into the "contract" that the site has - specifically the portion about the material being jointly owned by WotC and the authors.

    IMO a better combat system to use would be that from "Fields of Blood" published by Eden. It is a less complex system than that of Cry Havoc and fits the BR system closer. The average unit size is 100 individuals vice the 20 or so for Cry Havoc.

    Fields of Blood also has battle magic and translates standard spells into battle field effects. It has a domain section real similar to that of BR using Resource Points (RP in FoB) that equate to 100 gp (similar to a GB in BR). It also has means of creating your own unit types.


    I would also like to see the upcoming WotC product on Mass Combat for its use.

    The biggest problem here is that the BRCS was designed to be a stand alone product using the 2nd ed material and not requiring anyone to have to purchase any d20 books other than the core 3 (PHB, MM and DMG) in order to play (or to get the info from the SRD).

    I would like to eventually see a supplement (or web supplement) that provides conversion of whatever we end up with for these 3 systems for those who wish to use them instead (the 3 being Cry Havoc, Fields of Blood and the upcoming WotC Mass Combat system).

    This topic is one that Doom has mentioned in the past - that the system in the BRCS should be a simpified one (like it was in 2nd ed) and that if anyone wanted a more detailed one they could suse one of the existing published ones instead.
    Duane Eggert

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.