|
Post by derv on Jul 17, 2021 8:40:55 GMT -6
So far this thread seems centered on the economy of a hex. To diverge a little to the idea of clearing a hex or put another way, thoroughly exploring a hex, there are some gameable outcomes that can be introduced. First, a cleared hex is a "known" hex. There is therefore no longer any chance of getting lost. Seems significant to me. Also, I like the idea of movement bonuses in explored (known) hexes. This is a tidbit gleaned from Wesely's Source of the Nile, which shares a similar six primary random terrain type system. Obviously this would be a tactical benefit to a barony keeping its holdings clear.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 18, 2021 1:31:01 GMT -6
I think a reasonable unit for realm level coin is silver bars. Historically silver bars were often worth an even number of marks such as 20 marks. If you go with a middling bar of 20 marks value, that is worth about 14L (each mark is 2/3 of a L). In a happy coincidence, 14L is one stone of weight (it's convenient when these archaic units actually match up!). If you assume every D&D silver coin is a 4p silver groat, then 1L is worth 60 sp, which means a 20 mark silver bar is worth 800 sp more or less. The silver bar idea also nicely bridges man to man scale and encumbrance system ("you find a cache of three silver bars") and the larger dominion scale. Furthermore if you want to go with a 14th century English baseline, every hide probably nets about 1 bar of income annually; 10 percent to the church, 5-10 percent for a king; about half for support of local yeoman/lesser gentry; the rest for the Lord. So a village of 10 hides would produce 5 bars of silver for the Lord/baron (just like his 5 credits), or about 4000 SP... One bar for the tithe and one bar for the king (or count), with three bars left over for local gentry. It's be very easy to say that a hex produces one bar of silver for every move factor as well (so mountains, forests, etc if undeveloped are fairly profitable representing mines, lumber, etc) which also matches his credits. Then lastly to compare against LBB, in this model a hide has perhaps 50 inhabitants. So our hypothetical village of 10 hides is 500 people, who should generate about 5000 sp in tax at 10 sp a head. If you assume a silver standard it all meshes up really nicely. Great stuff rustic313 Just chewing over the conversion between historic silver bars and D&D g.p. out loud... M&M says: "Base income for a Baron is a tax rate of 10 Gold Pieces/inhabitant of the barony/game year" (M&M p6). So M&M has this average (250 person) village generating 2,500 g.p. per year. Then, assuming (per the homework above) an average, 250 person village will farm 1,250 acres, that's roughly 10 hides (which agrees with rustic's numbers). 10 hides each generating (gross) 1 silver bar value per year makes a total of 10 silver bars per year from our average village. (The simplicity of 10 "lumps" value per average-sized village is attractive). However (and this part diverges somewhat from rustic's model) the homework above indicates that roughly two-thirds of a historic manor's productivity (i.e., its income generation) was required to keep the villagers afloat, and the remaining one-third was the income of the demesne (i.e., the Lord). So... porting that over to D&D-land, the 2,500 g.p. per annum tax the D&D-Baron could levy against this village would be equivalent to one-third of its total productivity, or 3.333 silver bars. Hence 1 silver bar is worth 2,500/3.333 = 750 g.p. in D&D-land. Taking that a bit further, a typical D&D-Baron would oversee 5 such villages, so his total annual income would be approx. 2,500 x 5 = 12,500 g.p. or roughly 16.667 silver bars @ 750 g.p. edit: Alternatively, we could perhaps ignore the villagers' portion and focus solely on what the demesne takes. In this case, the D&D-Baron's 1 average village, 10 hide, 2,500 g.p. annual income is also equivalent to 10 silver bars and hence, 1 silver bar is worth 250 g.p. 750 g.p. is near-ish to rustic's number (800 s.p., using a silver standard), but 250 g.p. seems quite different. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by rustic313 on Jul 18, 2021 8:54:14 GMT -6
From Dyer, Standards of Living in the Middle Ages...
Typical rent paid to the lord on a 30 acre parcel is 22s, plus 4s feudal aids, plus a few random fees/fines/other extractions. I think it's close enough to say total extraction by the lords secular is about 1s/acre, just round it off to keep the numbers even.
The total productivity of a yardland/virgate (1/4 of a hide) net of seed and subsistence for a single household is 3L 6s to 3L 19s (depending on if 2 vs 3 field crop rotation is is used) so the civil authorities are taking about a third of the profits. If there are two families on this land then there is basically no surplus per Dyer; they pay their rent, tithe, fees etc and consume most of what's left. Few peasants worked a whole virgate; most had smaller holdings which meant they either were at the subsistence level or were below it and had to rely on hiring themselves as laborers to make up the difference.
Regardless of peasant standard of living, the figures are easy enough to work at 1s/acre though for civil extraction... That means a 120 acre hide yields 6L of profits for the Lord. At 3 coins per shilling (silver groats worth 4p) then that's 360 SP. That would be about 1/2 of a one stone silver bar if we round up slightly.
Dyer also tells us that you needed the following annual incomes to be in the big leagues: Lesser Gentry 5L (300 sp; own one hide) Knight 40L (2400 sp; own 8 hides) Baron 200L (12k so; own 40 hides) Earl 400L to 3000L (24k+ sp; own 80 to 600 hides)
Of course in reality most of this would be paid in kind (carts of cereals, not hard cash) but assuming a cash conversion makes this much more playable.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 18, 2021 9:21:32 GMT -6
So… how plausible do we think is M&M’s 10 gp per person?
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Jul 19, 2021 2:33:42 GMT -6
Well I think the result -- 20 acres/family of "farmed" land, 40 acres/family "footprint", or whatever -- is actually useful, even if the way of getting to it is "into the weeds". That gives a rough physical size for a given village or manor, and a feel for how much of a hex or a 20-mile-radius barony is actually cultivated or directly-used land, vs. still 'wild' (if cleared of monsters) and available for further settlement/development. What kind of monsters? I was just talking about the rule that "Territory up to 20 miles distant from a stronghold may be kept clear of monsters once cleared".
Yeah presumably some wild creatures must still live in this land - it's not going to be totally unoccupied.
I think this is to some degree an OD&D assumption which didn't carry over into AD&D that only "sufficiently dangerous" encounters show up on tables. AD&D's DMG tables include things like ordinary badgers, whereas in OD&D "Animals will generally be of the giant variety". And OD&D's "Men"-types are all fairly warlike types - no pilgrims or merchants as in AD&D.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 19, 2021 9:05:36 GMT -6
Wow. We are pretty derailed from the OP. Oh well.
Hey, do you think the 100-400 pop for villages means: roll a d4 and multiply by 100, or roll 100 d4?
The first gives unrealistic population counts (very rarely do villages always round to the nearest hundred!), but grants significant differences in size.
The second gives a more realist, random number. But pretty steadily averages to around 250 pop count. Do you think that is because that is simply what the average medieval (fantasy) village ought to be?
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jul 19, 2021 11:06:10 GMT -6
Who has time to add up 100d4? For up to 8 villages.
If you want a granular number roll (1d3*100) + percentile dice.
Or 2d4*50 if you want a bell curve.
I personally prefer clean multiples of 100.
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Jul 19, 2021 11:32:24 GMT -6
I think the intent was 1d4 x 100 probably.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 19, 2021 14:10:14 GMT -6
Who has time to add up 100d4? For up to 8 villages. If you want a granular number roll (1d3*100) + percentile dice. Or 2d4*50 if you want a bell curve. I personally prefer clean multiples of 100. Oh, I like the latter. Math challenged: how could I get it to range 100-500 (really 499) with a bell curve?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 19, 2021 22:48:53 GMT -6
4d6 -> 4-24 +1 -> 5-25 x20 -> 100-500
|
|
|
Post by rustic313 on Jul 21, 2021 0:47:30 GMT -6
So… how plausible do we think is M&M’s 10 gp per person? Pretty reasonable if you go to a silver standard. A hide yields 360 as discussed above and probably has something on the order of 40-50 inhabitants. 50 x 10 = 500. Not far off from 360 -- definitely in the ballpark. The cleric tithes seem high though. ///// For the 100-400... A quick way to get a normal curve distribution is to roll 3d4 and drop the highest and lowest.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 21, 2021 3:42:54 GMT -6
the figures are easy enough to work at 1s/acre though for civil extraction... That means a 120 acre hide yields 6L of profits for the Lord. At 3 coins per shilling (silver groats worth 4p) then that's 360 SP. That would be about 1/2 of a one stone silver bar if we round up slightly. How did we get from a historical Lord's take of approx. 6L per hide to the D&D-land equivalent "At 3 coins per shilling ... that's 360 SP"? Is there a reliable summary somewhere of price comparisons between historical and D&D prices for common goods (wheat, flour, horses, arms and armor, bows and arrows, etc.) that gives us these figures?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 21, 2021 3:52:20 GMT -6
Considering this whole discussion, I wonder whether the number of villages really matters?
The number that drives income generation is population; how the people are divided into villages doesn't appear to impact their productivity. The maximum population that can be supported by a hex should be related to its terrain type, and maybe also by its distance from the stronghold (i.e., level of protection). So perhaps income could all be figured out without the bother of individual villages?
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jul 21, 2021 6:35:31 GMT -6
Instead of following a villages = population = income model, a barony could start with no settlements outside the keep.
Each hex could have different development options available to the Baron depending on terrain type. Each option would yield a certain amount of revenue and manpower.
So a Grassland hex could be developed into one of several options. One option might be a "manor" yielding 1000 coins of income and 100 laborers. Another option could be "pasture", yielding 500 coins income and 20 horsearchers. This isn't an exhaustive list of options. There would be an initial cost and time required to set up each option (eg. 1 year and 5000 coins).
Swamp, mountain, forest, hills would all have other development options with their own cash/troop yields.
|
|
|
Post by rustic313 on Jul 21, 2021 14:59:09 GMT -6
the figures are easy enough to work at 1s/acre though for civil extraction... That means a 120 acre hide yields 6L of profits for the Lord. At 3 coins per shilling (silver groats worth 4p) then that's 360 SP. That would be about 1/2 of a one stone silver bar if we round up slightly. How did we get from a historical Lord's take of approx. 6L per hide to the D&D-land equivalent "At 3 coins per shilling ... that's 360 SP"? Is there a reliable summary somewhere of price comparisons between historical and D&D prices for common goods (wheat, flour, horses, arms and armor, bows and arrows, etc.) that gives us these figures? I consider a "silver piece" to be a groat, which was a very common medieval English silver coin (or a "grosso" for the Continental equivalent). A groat was worth 4 pence. I stole that from delta. 1L = 20 shillings = 240d ( pence) = 60 groats or silver pieces. 1 mark = 13.33 shillings = 160d (pence) = 40 groats or silver pieces 1 shilling = 12 pence = 3 groats or silver pieces Using this allows you to really easily use any historical price list as well... Just take the price in L/s/d and convert using the factors above. I find the D&D economy is best represented by English prices in the 14th century around the reign of Edward III, the 100 Years War, the Black Death, etc. If you assume a SP is a groat and use a silver standard then everything works out really nice and you're remarkably close to the historical sources and values. For the silver standard, you simply read any entry in SP as CP, any entry in GP as SP, any entry in PP as GP, and award 1 XP for each SP. I also like that there is a more meaningful range of treasure/coins. In the normal game, CP and SP are barely worth bothering with. With the modified silver standard, silver coins become a standard and normal reward, gold is a special treat, and gems/jewels remain the moterlode. Gold pieces represent a half noble which was a very common coin. Historically a half noble was worth 40d. In game I consider them to be worth 30d (the sovereign has been clipping the coins and debasing the gold currency!) just to keep the 1:10 math ratio easy.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 21, 2021 17:01:08 GMT -6
Then, assuming (per the homework above) an average, 250 person village will farm 1,250 acres, that's roughly 10 hides (which agrees with rustic's numbers). 10 hides each generating (gross) 1 silver bar value per year makes a total of 10 silver bars per year from our average village. (The simplicity of 10 "lumps" value per average-sized village is attractive). However (and this part diverges somewhat from rustic's model) the homework above indicates that roughly two-thirds of a historic manor's productivity (i.e., its income generation) was required to keep the villagers afloat, and the remaining one-third was the income of the demesne (i.e., the Lord). So... porting that over to D&D-land, the 2,500 g.p. per annum tax the D&D-Baron could levy against this village would be equivalent to one-third of its total productivity, or 3.333 silver bars. Hence 1 silver bar is worth 2,500/3.333 = 750 g.p. in D&D-land. I want to revisit this. While the initial assumption that 250 villagers could farm 1,250 acres is approximately true, it also assumes that the land is 100% arable. Across 10 hides, this is unlikely. In the table I calculated above (also included here for convenience), I assumed that only 50% of land is actually farmed. The rest would be bogs, woods, lakes, pasture, housing and closures, gaps between manors etc.: So, although a 250 person village will farm 1,250 acres (10 hides), it would need to occupy 2,500 acres (20 hides) in order to do so. This halves the average income per land area (without impacting productivity per person). So rather than 1 silver bar (750 g.p.) per hide I calculated above, this would deliver 1/2 a silver bar (375 g.p.) per hide. Which is pretty darn near to rustic's (silver standard) figure of 360 s.p. worked out from historical incomes. It's pleasing when we can arrive at roughly the same answer from two different directions.
|
|
|
Post by rustic313 on Jul 22, 2021 15:13:12 GMT -6
Completely agree it's nice when things match up! I do have one minor pedantic note that doesn't affect the math. Historically a hide was a unit of assessment/economic value, not a set number of acres. In really fertile areas a hide might be smaller; in less fertile areas perhaps larger. Areas with industry might be assessed as hides (or as a fee consisting of multiple hides) even though they are very few acres! This actually makes our lives easier as it's a nice abstraction. Much like the lords of yore we really don't care about the exact acreage, improvements, etc. We just care how many taxes we can squeeze out. So rather than saying a village is 10 hides, half of which are waste land, it's probably more accurate to say that a village is 5 hides in size with an equal portion of land set aside as waste. That's why I like my move factor ROT above ("villages per hex equals 4-mpve factor"). It basically assumes that the percentage of the hex that is waste land increases as the hex terrain gets rougher. That could mean that a mountain hex has a beautiful meadow in a valley with one village worth of normal 120 acre hides growing wheat and barley. It also could mean that a mountain hex has sprawling animal husbandry and subsistence hard scrabble farming with one village worth of hides taking up 360 acres each. Either way the number of hides for tax purposes and population estimation remains the same.
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jul 22, 2021 19:34:19 GMT -6
Papers and paychecks! Raaaalf.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 22, 2021 19:40:29 GMT -6
rustic313: Totally agree. The 120-acre hide is just a convenient average to work with. In reality, hides varied widely, as you point out. One thing I'd add is that "waste" land wasn't always cleanly separated from "arable" land; they could be inter-mingled (per the illustration linked to up thread). dicebro: suspension of disbelief
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 22, 2021 23:50:15 GMT -6
That's why I like my move factor ROT above ("villages per hex equals 4-mpve factor"). It basically assumes that the percentage of the hex that is waste land increases as the hex terrain gets rougher. I really like this approach too, and I think it will stick. However, I'll prolly need to adapt it to cover the main climate and topography variants. E.g., tundra is as easy to pass over as grassland, but it has limited agricultural potential. edit: interestingly, U&WA p17 has: <<All terrain penalties are as stated in OUTDOOR SURVIVAL>> which is immediately followed by a list with a couple of differences to OS: Hex | OS | U&WA | Clear | 1 |
| Woods/Rough | 2 | 2 | Desert | 2 | 2 | Mountain | 3 | 3 | Swamp | 4 | 3 | (cross) River | 3 | 3 | (cross) Ford | 1 |
| Trail | 1 |
| (mountain) Trail | 1 | 2 |
In my mind, the desert terrain prolly has the least productivity potential (lacking water, life) of the hex types, despite not being the most difficult terrain to move across.
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Jul 23, 2021 7:01:14 GMT -6
rustic313 : Totally agree. The 120-acre hide is just a convenient average to work with. In reality, hides varied widely, as you point out. One thing I'd add is that "waste" land wasn't always cleanly separated from "arable" land; they could be inter-mingled (per the illustration linked to up thread). dicebro : suspension of disbelief waysoftheearth: as long as it’s willing!
|
|
|
Post by rustic313 on Aug 7, 2021 14:47:06 GMT -6
So... back to clearing hexes instead of Papers & Paychecks.
BTB: "Clearing the countryside of monsters is the first r1equirement. The player/character moves a force to the hex, the referee rolls a die to determine if there is a monster encountered, and if there is one the playel/ character's force must remove it. If no monster is encountered the hex is already cleared."
The question here is, "can more than one hex be cleared in a day?"
Normally you just check once per day for an encounter (except for the fastest travel modes where you check twice):
"At the end of each day (turn) the referee will check to see if a monster has been encountered."
If you allow a PC to gallop on horseback around their new domain then clearing it takes as little as a few days. If the force has to spend a day in each hex to be entitled to the check then it takes weeks.
I think its logical to require a day per hex. We're talking about two dozen square miles (more or less); galloping through might reveal the most obvious of monsters but it doesn't seem logical that the PC would come across every monster in the domain on the first gallop through. I also like the idea of slowing the game down a bit to make territory development a more deliberate investment (time is money after all for adventurers) or to encourage outsourcing the clearing to henchmen (which makes a nice option for some side adventures for the players to run low to mid level henchmen characters for awhile). Finally, I can see that monsters might start keeping their heads down after the PC has cleared out the first few lairs, and its going to require more time and effort to thin them out.
Other thoughts on the time per hex to clear?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2021 15:38:11 GMT -6
If you're high enough level and have sufficient gold and influence, couldn't you divide a sizeable force of fighting men under commanders who report to your main PC and clear off a bunch of hexes simultaneously? That's my theoretical approach. Seems more efficient and quick.
|
|
|
Post by rustic313 on Aug 7, 2021 15:58:39 GMT -6
If you're high enough level and have sufficient gold and influence, couldn't you divide a sizeable force of fighting men under commanders who report to your main PC and clear off a bunch of hexes simultaneously? That's my theoretical approach. Seems more efficient and quick. Maybe... By the book a small party has a good chance for evasion (especially groups of 1-3 individuals, or maybe up to 9). So it seems plausible to use small teams to rapidly scout, ID encounters, and then generally evade to report back. Typically the evasion odds are around 70% (95% if well mounted and faster than the foes) for these small groups. The levels of these characters don't matter for purposes of the evasion rolls so in theory three level 0 scouts on decent horses are just as effective as a Level 4 knight and his squire if you just want them to see what's in a hex and escape to report back. Monsters typically don't even bother trying to parlay unless the party is obviously strong, which is a nod for small groups of high level characters being able to avoid encounters through reputation, shows of magic and good reaction rolls ("Monsters will automatically attack and/or pursue any characters they "see", with the exception of those monsters which are intelligent enough to avoid an obviously superior force"). In theory a level 9 Lord accompanied by two decent henchmen might be able to intimidate some monsters into parlaying instead of just automatically attacking. If you're going into hexes with larger groups of soldiers the odds of evasion go way down, and the scarier monsters or larger bands aren't going to be too intimidated by 20 or 40 normal men on horseback, so that means they're going to fight their way out of most encounters. I honestly don't see most groups of normals surviving multiple wilderness encounters, even if stiffened with a "hero" (level 4) officer and some other level 2-3 henchmen types. Even in an "open" terrain hex encounters include things like 30-300 brigands, 1-6 x 6 HD wyverns, 2-20 x 4 HD werewolves, 2-16 lions (of 2+ HD each), 3-18 x 4 HD ogres, or 1-4 dragons. As a quick WAG, typical wilderness encounter opponent hit dice is something like 20-165 and can be much more. To have 3:1 superiority (and thus be able to prevail in encounters with minimal casualties and maybe even force a reaction roll) a force of hired men would probably have to be at least 60 men strong and well officered with some henchmen who have levels... and even then they are going to get wiped if they come up against something that needs special sauce to kill (werewolves need silver), can inflict significantly morale effects (dragons, mass casualties, etc), is on the larger side of "number appearing," and so on. Frankly armies under 100 men seem like they'd just be monster snacks in the wilderness. THe best approach is probably to scout with a small fairly competent team (of 1-3 people) to ID encounters, then mass appropriate forces to go clear them out. The hired help (normal soldiers) in large numbers can probably cope with most encounters under the "men" and "giant" columns but I see henchmen or PCs with class levels being needed for a lot of the other wilderness options.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2021 16:08:37 GMT -6
If you're high enough level and have sufficient gold and influence, couldn't you divide a sizeable force of fighting men under commanders who report to your main PC and clear off a bunch of hexes simultaneously? That's my theoretical approach. Seems more efficient and quick. Maybe... By the book a small party has a good chance for evasion (especially groups of 1-3 individuals, or maybe up to 9). So it seems plausible to use small teams to rapidly scout, ID encounters, and then generally evade to report back. Typically the evasion odds are around 70% (95% if well mounted and faster than the foes) for these small groups. The levels of these characters don't matter for purposes of the evasion rolls so in theory three level 0 scouts on decent horses are just as effective as a Level 4 knight and his squire if you just want them to see what's in a hex and escape to report back. Monsters typically don't even bother trying to parlay unless the party is obviously strong, which is a nod for small groups of high level characters being able to avoid encounters through reputation, shows of magic and good reaction rolls ("Monsters will automatically attack and/or pursue any characters they "see", with the exception of those monsters which are intelligent enough to avoid an obviously superior force"). In theory a level 9 Lord accompanied by two decent henchmen might be able to intimidate some monsters into parlaying instead of just automatically attacking. If you're going into hexes with larger groups of soldiers the odds of evasion go way down, and the scarier monsters or larger bands aren't going to be too intimidated by 20 or 40 normal men on horseback, so that means they're going to fight their way out of most encounters. I honestly don't see most groups of normals surviving multiple wilderness encounters, even if stiffened with a "hero" (level 4) officer and some other level 2-3 henchmen types. Even in an "open" terrain hex encounters include things like 30-300 brigands, 1-6 x 6 HD wyverns, 2-20 x 4 HD werewolves, 2-16 lions (of 2+ HD each), 3-18 x 4 HD ogres, or 1-4 dragons. As a quick WAG, typical wilderness encounter opponent hit dice is something like 20-165 and can be much more. To have 3:1 superiority (and thus be able to prevail in encounters with minimal casualties and maybe even force a reaction roll) a force of hired men would probably have to be at least 60 men strong and well officered with some henchmen who have levels... and even then they are going to get wiped if they come up against something that needs special sauce to kill (werewolves need silver), can inflict significantly morale effects (dragons, mass casualties, etc), is on the larger side of "number appearing," and so on. Frankly armies under 100 men seem like they'd just be monster snacks in the wilderness. THe best approach is probably to scout with a small fairly competent team (of 1-3 people) to ID encounters, then mass appropriate forces to go clear them out. The hired help (normal soldiers) in large numbers can probably cope with most encounters under the "men" and "giant" columns but I see henchmen or PCs with class levels being needed for a lot of the other wilderness options. You make a strong argument indeed. Perhaps it's better for a sufficiently leveled group of high level characters to collaborate in this enterprise, then. Maybe a "You scratch my back and I'll scratch your back" deal. The domain for a great Superhero is cleared first, then he helps his Wizard and Patriarch friends later. Old friends who came up through the dungeon dives together, and now they shape the future of the surface world, right? What a story. Full circle.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 10, 2021 16:35:29 GMT -6
Another idea:
Roll 1d4 X 100 for population range.
Then roll 1d100 for the variation within that range.
So, e.g.: I roll a 2. So we are in the 200 range. I roll a 55. So we have 255 people.
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Sept 15, 2021 23:39:18 GMT -6
Another idea: Roll 1d4 X 100 for population range. Then roll 1d100 for the variation within that range. So, e.g.: I roll a 2. So we are in the 200 range. I roll a 55. So we have 255 people. Makes sense if you want more variation... but that would give you villages of 100-499 (or 101-500) instead of 100-400.
Not that this would be a problem...
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Sept 16, 2021 17:13:18 GMT -6
Makes sense if you want more variation... but that would give you villages of 100-499 (or 101-500) instead of 100-400.
Not that this would be a problem...
Yes, that is what works for me. Anything less that 100 I would not consider a full settlement. I rank my settlements and that has implications IMC, esp re: settlement hedge against magic. 1. 100+ 2. 200+ 3. 300+ 4. 400+ 5. 600+ 6. 900+ 7. 1200+ 8. 2K+ 9. 3K+ 10. 4K+ Each settlement level grants an equivalent bonus to saves vs. magic. (This helps explain why the world isn't just some giant magocracy).
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Oct 6, 2021 0:09:24 GMT -6
Makes sense if you want more variation... but that would give you villages of 100-499 (or 101-500) instead of 100-400.
Not that this would be a problem...
Yes, that is what works for me. Anything less that 100 I would not consider a full settlement. I rank my settlements and that has implications IMC, esp re: settlement hedge against magic. 1. 100+ 2. 200+ 3. 300+ 4. 400+ 5. 600+ 6. 900+ 7. 1200+ 8. 2K+ 9. 3K+ 10. 4K+ Each settlement level grants an equivalent bonus to saves vs. magic. (This helps explain why the world isn't just some giant magocracy). Hmm, that's an interesting thought.
However, I tend to assume the idea is that many (most?) high-level magic-users tend to go into research / item making and so it is generally clerics and fighters that rule. (There may also be a social aspect, with warriors preferring to follow a fellow warrior or a cleric... perhaps this is why as written fighters and clerics collect taxes at name level with strongholds?)
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 6, 2021 1:12:02 GMT -6
Each settlement level grants an equivalent bonus to saves vs. magic. (This helps explain why the world isn't just some giant magocracy). Also, there's the popular notion that running water provides protection against magic and evil stuff and also that it creates witch stones which make that protection somewhat portable And that various militant/templar Orders are dedicated to eradicating all fey and M-Us.
|
|