|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Jun 14, 2016 3:04:52 GMT
Only if the other side failed their wage war action. Wage War is an action that can be affected by Influence, for the purposes of the people who can spend influence to impact a wage war action where does the action take place?
I.E. the Hibernian Slavers have taken a Wage War action who can spend GB/RP to influence it?
My suggestion/assumption would be that the court province of the regent taking the action is, as well as any province in which a field army is formed would be valid location to check for presence.
I'm also assuming that you can spend regency to influence any of the free actions, here I would assume that either units present or holdings in the province are enough to give you the presence required for spending influence.
I.E. the Hibernian Slavers direct their units to occupy Nemeth (DDC 8), Nemeth/ST/NSE (take your pick) spends influence to oppose the action representing partisans intercepting messages, units getting lost and general "bad luck" forcing the action to a roll and potentially causing it to fail. The Hibernian Slavers in turn spend RP to support the action.
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Jun 18, 2016 21:23:30 GMT
Only if the other side failed their wage war action. Wage War is an action that can be affected by Influence, for the purposes of the people who can spend influence to impact a wage war action where does the action take place?
I.E. the Hibernian Slavers have taken a Wage War action who can spend GB/RP to influence it?
My suggestion/assumption would be that the court province of the regent taking the action is, as well as any province in which a field army is formed would be valid location to check for presence.
I'm also assuming that you can spend regency to influence any of the free actions, here I would assume that either units present or holdings in the province are enough to give you the presence required for spending influence.
I.E. the Hibernian Slavers direct their units to occupy Nemeth (DDC 8), Nemeth/ST/NSE (take your pick) spends influence to oppose the action representing partisans intercepting messages, units getting lost and general "bad luck" forcing the action to a roll and potentially causing it to fail. The Hibernian Slavers in turn spend RP to support the action.
The action generally takes place throughout the domain in question. Limitation: (You cannot spend influence against a wage war based on shared presence in: ) Provinces in witch no military action is planned to be taken (muster, train, create field army/task force and so on)
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Jun 19, 2016 9:53:55 GMT
I have an idea, currently the better trained units are the more vulnerable they are, and since mortality is fairly strictly tied to morale, since mortality thus is a unit damage taken tie breaker, we can change it from a static tie breaker to a dynamic tie breaker.
Exsample Cavalry Morale 3.5 and mortality of 37 and Elite Cavalry would be Morale 4 and mortality 37
In the proposed Dynamic system the Cavalry's Morale would be 3.5 and mortality 35,37 (morale times 10, and then mortality tie breaker number) and the Elite Cavalry of a morale of 4 would have a Mortality of 40,37
Benefits of this system are that the more skilled a unit is doesnt make it die more in battle, futher more spells like, battle fury doesnt specificly cause to have vastly great chance of being killed, and inhibits cheap militia's or summon 1 units from being exceptional walls for other units.
Other Benefits are that the mortality score system could be simplified to a number properly between 1 and 9, and adding future/ or modifying existing units doesnt require a complete update of rewritting the mortality list.
Hope the suggestion is clear enough to be understood.
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Jun 19, 2016 21:09:39 GMT
I have an idea, currently the better trained units are the more vulnerable they are, and since mortality is fairly strictly tied to morale, since mortality thus is a unit damage taken tie breaker, we can change it from a static tie breaker to a dynamic tie breaker. Exsample Cavalry Morale 3.5 and mortality of 37 and Elite Cavalry would be Morale 4 and mortality 37 In the proposed Dynamic system the Cavalry's Morale would be 3.5 and mortality 35,37 (morale times 10, and then mortality tie breaker number) and the Elite Cavalry of a morale of 4 would have a Mortality of 40,37 Benefits of this system are that the more skilled a unit is doesnt make it die more in battle, futher more spells like, battle fury doesnt specificly cause to have vastly great chance of being killed, and inhibits cheap militia's or summon 1 units from being exceptional walls for other units. Other Benefits are that the mortality score system could be simplified to a number properly between 1 and 9, and adding future/ or modifying existing units doesnt require a complete update of rewritting the mortality list. Hope the suggestion is clear enough to be understood. Good idea, damage will be assigned to the unit with the lowest unbroken morale, with mortality as tiebreaker.
|
|
|
Post by Maelgwyn ap Cadwgan (TOG) on Jun 20, 2016 13:25:14 GMT
Linde (or anyone), how did magical healing change again? I recall seeing it but can't seem to find it.
|
|
|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Jun 20, 2016 20:43:20 GMT
Linde (or anyone), how did magical healing change again? I recall seeing it but can't seem to find it. Each hit healed by a heal spell now returns 20% of the units max HP.
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Jun 21, 2016 2:00:32 GMT
Looking over the supply rules I have a few thoughts:
The rules were made to D&D v 3.5 where skill bonuses were upwards of twice as high as they are in 5th edition.(the highest differences at the highest levels)
So to even out that apparent error, all DC's (not DDC's) and modifiers that are dependent on a skill roll should IMO be reduced.
Option I like: Reduce the DDC about 20%: Reduce base DC and each increment only to 4, and reduce the seasonal penalty by 1 for each 5 as well.
If commanded by a level 4 commander specialized in warfare the proficiency bonus would be upwards of +8 (most likely +6) while the same commander with RoE rules would have had a bonus of upwards of +12 (most likely +9)
Reducing a DC with 20% will most likely make DC's that start at 15 just as hard except now they would be DC 12. Higher DC's up and to a point would become relatively easier as a DC 30 roll that by the old 3.5 rules, most likely would have been impossible, would now, most likely succeed on a roll of 19+
Other DC's in the warfare section could with advantage be reduced in the same manner.
What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by Aethor of Helna (ST) on Jun 21, 2016 2:24:27 GMT
Looking over the supply rules I have a few thoughts: The rules were made to D&D v 3.5 where skill bonuses were upwards of twice as high as they are in 5th edition.(the highest differences at the highest levels) So to even out that apparent error, all DC's (not DDC's) and modifiers that are dependent on a skill roll should IMO be reduced. Option I like: Reduce the DDC about 20%: Reduce base DC and each increment only to 4, and reduce the seasonal penalty by 1 for each 5 as well. If commanded by a level 4 commander specialized in warfare the proficiency bonus would be upwards of +8 (most likely +6) while the same commander with RoE rules would have had a bonus of upwards of +12 (most likely +9) Reducing a DC with 20% will most likely make DC's that start at 15 just as hard except now they would be DC 12. Higher DC's up and to a point would become relatively easier as a DC 30 roll that by the old 3.5 rules, most likely would have been impossible, would now, most likely succeed on a roll of 19+ Other DC's in the warfare section could with advantage be reduced in the same manner. What do you guys think? What effect will this have on adventures, both individual and group? I'm also not sure I understand, but probably because I haven't delved deeply into the supply rules. Speaking of proficiency bonuses: Ability score modifiers only apply to adventures, correct? So wouldn't a lvl 4 expert warfare commander only get +4 proficiency? (+2 base, +2 expert), or am I missing something? Whereas a Wis 18 Survival Expert lvl 1 ranger would get +8 to his adventure roll when rolling survival?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Estian the Wise (Caerleon) on Jun 21, 2016 4:34:45 GMT
DC Now | DC Proposed | Description | 5 | 4 | Units up to twice province level | +5 | +4 | For each multiplier of province level or part thereof | -10 | -8 | Autumn (harvest-time) | +0 | +0 | Summer (early crops) | +5 | +4 | Winter | +10 | +8 | Spring | +5 or more | +4 or more | Province foraged extensively this turn |
So as an example if I had 16 units trying to forage in Elmet/Camelot (province level 3) in Spring (current turn) my DDC is:
OLD - 5 (6 units) + 20 (extra 10 units = 3 1/3 (rnd. 4) multiples of province level) + 10 (spring) = 35 NEW - 4 (6 units) + 16 (extra 10 units = 3 1/3 (rnd. 4) multiples of province level) + 8 (spring) = 28
With the example commander your still screwed either way. The way the foraging rules work you either need to do it in Autumn (I.e. right after the harvest has come in) or split up into smaller armies and spread out, both of which satisfy the realism test.
I think the change makes sense, as the bonus' available have decreased so the targets should as well to keep the expected results the same.
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Jun 21, 2016 12:55:29 GMT
Looking over the supply rules I have a few thoughts: The rules were made to D&D v 3.5 where skill bonuses were upwards of twice as high as they are in 5th edition.(the highest differences at the highest levels) So to even out that apparent error, all DC's (not DDC's) and modifiers that are dependent on a skill roll should IMO be reduced. Option I like: Reduce the DDC about 20%: Reduce base DC and each increment only to 4, and reduce the seasonal penalty by 1 for each 5 as well. If commanded by a level 4 commander specialized in warfare the proficiency bonus would be upwards of +8 (most likely +6) while the same commander with RoE rules would have had a bonus of upwards of +12 (most likely +9) Reducing a DC with 20% will most likely make DC's that start at 15 just as hard except now they would be DC 12. Higher DC's up and to a point would become relatively easier as a DC 30 roll that by the old 3.5 rules, most likely would have been impossible, would now, most likely succeed on a roll of 19+ Other DC's in the warfare section could with advantage be reduced in the same manner. What do you guys think? What effect will this have on adventures, both individual and group? I'm also not sure I understand, but probably because I haven't delved deeply into the supply rules. Speaking of proficiency bonuses: Ability score modifiers only apply to adventures, correct? So wouldn't a lvl 4 expert warfare commander only get +4 proficiency? (+2 base, +2 expert), or am I missing something? Whereas a Wis 18 Survival Expert lvl 1 ranger would get +8 to his adventure roll when rolling survival? Ability scores only modify adventure DDC's, but ability scores always modify DC's. Warcraft rolls have DC's rather than DDC's and are modified by ability scores
|
|
|
Post by Maelgwyn ap Cadwgan (TOG) on Jun 21, 2016 13:12:15 GMT
Sounds quite reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Jun 21, 2016 18:15:16 GMT
Hmm i wonder if the commitment of guards during a battle, from the EIA could be adapted to this campaign.
As maybe something like.
Commit the heavies to break through the enemies lines. The side committing the Heavies roll a 1d6, with a +1 if having heavy advantage, and affected by commander dice modifier(+1/0/-1), if the result is under 3, no extra gains are made in breaking the enemy, 3 or 4 increase the morale table your side do by 1, 5+ increase the morale table your side do by 1.
This will put your heavy units into the thick of it, and they will be taking all the damage your side receives,if you run out of unbroken heavy units you rout.
The defending side responds by taking advantage of units in this exposed position and roll 1d6, with a +1 for bow advantage as the tight packing of units become easier to hit, and affected by commander dice modifier(+1/0/-1), if the result is under 3, no extra gains are made in exploiting exposed the enemies, 3 or 4 increase the casualty table your side do by 1, 5+ increase the casualty table your side do by 1.
Id like to hear other peoples thoughts on this.
|
|
|
Post by Aethor of Helna (ST) on Jun 21, 2016 18:27:01 GMT
Rule-wise, it sounds interesting. I think it's better to apply it to Cavalry; rule-wise because pursuit seemed underpowered? But besides that, in terms of flavor, knights and other cavalrymen specifically trained to charge to break the ranks of the enemy. A failed or successful charge could determine the outcome of a battle, as the enemy infantry might rout, or the cavalry might break ranks and fail their charge.
Since heavy already gives a morale bonus, potentially giving them an additional morale bonus might be too much?
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Jun 21, 2016 18:48:43 GMT
Remember Cavalry already have a dice roll modifier from advantage, which i believe is as good as heavy advantage's improvement of the morale damage table.
So this option should rather be compared to the pursuit capacity.
|
|
|
Post by X-Nemeth on Jun 21, 2016 20:05:55 GMT
Morale table is much better than DRM. Also do remember you cap out quickly.
|
|