[Lords of Men] I have it! Questions?

Games Discussion Ars Magica
41

Some virtues from the book:

Paid Rights: for women, to represent some normally forbidden right that a women has paid to hold. The sidebar goes on to note what is hard or unusual to acquire by way of paying off your liege.

Page 31 goes into detail on what various Virtues mean, and give a couple of new ones:

Elsewhere we find the meaty Optional Combat Rules. I'll note some optional rules (though you can see them all listed on the Table of Contents PDF on the Atlas product page), but the section begins with a break down of combat rounds and when to use them, initiative and when to roll it, actions and what things are NOT actions.

Actions are expanded with Reactions, Extended Actions, Option: Fast Actions (one allowed per turn, akin to free actions from D&D 3.5 if memory serves: draw a weapon, drop an item, shout an order, shoot a readied bow or crossbow is using the optional missile rules, and so on).

A section on delaying actions, how to properly use them, and what repercussions this has upon combat. Ends with Option: Interrupting Actions and Option: Fast Casting as Interruption.

Tactical Movement comes next, promising to "allow troupes to handle characters' movement on the battlefield in as much or as little detail as they wish". Examples of terrain and hazards, as well as common obstacles.

A section on Engaging and Disengaging, what the effects of each are. Option: no engagement for missile combat. Option: no missiles while engaged in melee. Option: defenders as interceptors (for those who dislike the somewhat abstract and binary nature of defending/shieldgrogging) turning defense into an extended action and thus not allowing defenders to attack while perfectly defending their charge.

Next section: Attacking and Defending: Charging on foot and on horse, interrupting a charge, Option: ready missiles, Option: constriction attacks, Option: diceless defense, Option: no defense for missile weapons (the old "Bow skill does not help you avoid getting hit with an arrow, etc."), Option: evasion (quickness related defense, made harder by heavy armors, used when a defense total with weapons is impossible or not allowed). Option: Mitigating Deadly Wounds is basically thoughts on dialing down the default deadliness of Ars5 combat if desired, allowing a wound to be reduced one level if an appropriate flaw is taken.

AND, to end with, the text of the "Baggage"

I think, in general, most knights and PC soldiers will have stats that allow them to nail even the harder Stage of Battle event Ease Factors in even a mildly outnumbered battle.

Given the formula for yout Event Total is Stamina + Leadership + Territorial Advantage + Weight of Numbers + Event Bonus...

You can expect a military focused character to have a 2 Stamina, a 5 leadership. 7 base... Territorial advantage is the difference between both sides' rolls, so that can go either way depending on who has the better intelligence, Area Lore and magical support. Not unusual for there to be a 3 Stamina, 6 Leadership military character... and they can delegate the Area Lore roll for Deployment to an underling scout if their intelligence or Area Lore is inferior (a general/leader can then decide to ignore their scout's roll/advice and roll themselves, but they are stuck with their latter roll).

So, total is from say 7 to 9, then you add Territorial Advantage if possible, and magic can make that Advantage sizeable if your raw roll can come close to your opponent. If outnumbers, failing to seize Territorial Advantage, or subpar in stats/skills, then the Baggage starts looking good.

If you're able to seize the Territorial Advantage, and have good stats/skills, then it's not likely you need that +4 boost to hit a 12 Battle Event Ease Factor.

If you're a wizard faking the role of leader, or a subpar military companion, you might choose the easier road. Stinky Pete the Bandit Lord might have a 1 Stamina, a 3 Leadership, be outnumbered and out maneuvered in terms of Territorial Advantage, and see the Baggage attack as the only Event Choice that he has a hope of pulling off himself.

42

Red (Eurasian) squirrels or your dastardly and nasty North American Grey Squirrels (in LoM I mean - I can figure out what you're likely to have on the East Coast...)?

43

If you're into playing scoundrels who are likely to attack the civilians and hangers-on, then this plays right into your hands. You get the conscience-free advantage while regular player characters might balk at it.

44

I really like this option. I know that, in my group, we have characters that will want to attack the baggage train, and others who will attack them for doing it. Interesting. :slight_smile:

E.

45

This sort of moral choice reccurs through the supplement.

The best strategy in war, according to medieval writers, is to ravage the countryside. Indeed, it's your duty to ravage the countryside of the enemy, and ravaging the countryside is kind of the main point of war, far more than sieges, because if you do it properly, then there's no food, and so no enemy army to staff the castle. Good knight ravage countrysides. William the Marshal took part in onyl a handful of sieges in his life, abut ravaged countrysides like no-one's business. Fellow TW:M II players: this is a failure in the TW:M simulation. Fixed battes are pretty rare and are seen as a failure on the part of the attacker, by some writers.

The problem with ravaging the countryside, of course, is that if your PC wants to be a heroic knight, it means that he's also incompetent in his job, according to the rock-hard pragmatism of the period. So he has a moral choice: be a skilled knight or a good one...or be a clever one and find a way to win through personal valor.

I don't want to put you off: the supplement works on three levels of assumption:

  • Your peasants love you and are well off. (Low fantasy)
  • Your peasants love you and are well off if you are good, and hate you and are miserable if you are bad, because of supernatural changes in crop yield based on your character (High fantasy, Arthurian epics)
  • you can be rich or nice, on a sliding scale, and you choose how nice you are. The problem is that Sir Blaggard hte Bastard, next door, is likely screwing every penny out of his peasants, and so he can afford more mercenaries than you. Be rich, be good, or be clever. This is the default for the book, because you really don't need a book to play "My peasants love me and are rich" sagas.

So if you like the "Do you attack the baggage train?" thing, then you may like the rest of it, too.

46

We play a pretty low fantasy campaign. Well, the covenant in the crumbling castle inside Motagne de Reims is pretty much a high fantasy place, but outside it, the Order of Hermes is pretty much hidden, and supernatural stuff is very rare. Indeed, the concept of magic for my own character is that it's "hidden deep inside" (Gentle Gift, Short-Ranged Magic, Weak Magic) but since he's trained as a knight, and is living as a nobleman, I'm really interested in this book. Been waiting for it since 5th edition came out (I really like what Ordo Nobilis did for 4th edition). :slight_smile:

Still a bit disappointed that there doesn't seem to be rules for wielding two weapons in this though. But it's a minor gripe. :unamused:

-Eirik

47

Aha - the +4 for attacking the baggage makes perfect sense now. The modifier doesn't reflect the difficulty of the task, so much as the effect it has on the opposition (i.e.: a lot of effect),

Couple of observations though:
1/ The table on p127 "Mounted Movement Rates" seems to have one more column of numbers than it strictly needs (the column immediately under "Horses Quickness (which itself refers to the column headings) seems extra?)

2/ The armour table on p140 seems to lack costs for the table titled "Body Armours" - all of the secondary tables seem to be fine though (and I guess most of the missing costs could be estimated from the rulebook)

48

I wrote the squirrel stats. And then a few weeks later in my saga Lloyd wanted a squirrel for a magical animal companion, and i worked them out again for him, having forgotten I had written them for this book. I am a CJ of very little brain!

cj x

49

We fought the Battle of Dunwich and Battle of Fornham (both 1187) using the rules in our saga, and it worked really neatly. :slight_smile: EDIT: Dunwich is technically a VERY short siege. Interestingly the results of both battles were as happened historically - they must have had Hermetic Magi interfering! (Right down to Petronella of Leicester, cantankerous wife of the Earl - I think Sheila wrote her up? -- getting washed away in the river and losing her jewels. Interestingly a lot of the campaigns outcome historically was shaped by the falling out of Petronella and Hugh Bigod's wife at Framlingham, which led to the dispersal of the rebel forces...)

cj x

50

Don't underestimate the impact of Lando Calrissian's treachery....

51

Finally read it.
The mass combat rules look interesting, but seem to be mainly for balanced armies. Not too useful for an army sent to quell a peasant uprising.
I like the combat rule options, i'll be using most of them. But no mention of using fast-cast spells as an action. I think i'll HR that they count as 2 fast actions

52

Hi,

To add my opinion, I think the book was nice overall, but I found it a bit lacking in the optional combat rules chapter. For instance, the problem with lances has not been taken care of. The rules, as they still stand, gives no advantage to a mounted knight charging with a lance over a mounted knight charging with a long sword. Weapon sizes and lengths should have been given at least an optional rule, I think.
Same goes with wielding two weapons, which have been mentioned on these forums before. I fully excpected there to be rules for this in the book.

But overall, a good book. A bit too many formatting errors in the tables throughout, but a great view on medievel society from the nobles' and peasants' perspective :slight_smile:

E.

53

Do you not get a higher initiative score with a lance???

cj

54

The lance has the same Initiative Bonus as the long sword, and it doesn't matter anyway, since you roll Initiative in the beginning of combat. Not sure if the initiative should change if you change weapons. I think Initiative is a bit strange in Ars Magica. Anyway, the way I'm house ruling this is to give a +3 to lances on the test if someone tries to interupt the charge. Likewise I give +3 to long spears when interupting charges. But stuff like this should have been included in the book. Lances were such an important part of medieval warfare. Works fine enough. :slight_smile:

-E.

55

Fast-cast spells are a reaction in Lords of Men: see the examples of reactions on p. 118. This is because, according to p. 83 of the core book, you cast fast-cast spells in response to something else. That implies you only fast-cast in response to something else, not as an action that you initiate.

That said, you can make whatever house rules make sense to you, and if you want to be able to fast-cast as an action (just to cast more than one spell in a round for example) then I can see some logic in that. Out of curiosity, why do you say 2 fast actions instead of 1?

Hope this helps,

-Andrew

56

Yeh, just never made much sense to me. Surely a mage who has mastered a spell to fastcast it, would do so any time he felt like it.

Mostly for game balance. 1 fast action would allow 4 fast-cast spells (other than those used in response). That seems far too powerful. A mastered Wizard's Leap springs to mind as being a problem.

57

On page 127 you find the "Mounted Movement Rates". The left column is titled correctly with "Gait", but the next column to the right is titled "Horse´s Quickness"... and you don´t find something like that beneath it. This Column lists figures, adequate for a slow Quickness-Value. But... there are six columns of this values and only five headlines for special Quickness-Values. This is the reason why I can´t resolve the misprint (?). Any Explanations?

Chiarina (loving the optional combat rules of "Lords of Men").

58

And another one about Mounted Combat:

The section about "Untrained Mounts" states "The benefits of being mounted described in the previous section assume the character´s steed is trained in battle." Then, we get informed that the +3 situational bonus does not apply for untrained mounts. But what about the other benefits? What about the extra action for the horse, the possiblity of wielding a lance, the fatigue levels in case of a charge and the possibility of extended actions on horseback? Any explanations?

Chiarina.

59

Just want to mention that the rules for movement (on foot, that is) doesn't take into account the Size of the characters or creatures involved. A mighty giant can't outrun a limp dwarf, for example. Which... is a bit strange. :stuck_out_tongue:

-E.

60

There will be errata for this shortly. Basically, the "Horse's Quickness" heading should span all the columns, and the correct column headings should be (from left to right):

-3 or less, -2 to -1, 0, +1 to +2, +3 to +4, +5

I'm glad you like them!