D&D General JMISBEST's questions. Most of them about campaign ideas that either he or A GM he knows has and wants to know what people think

[CreamCloud0]

I've just had a idea. Would it work?

A Country is losing a war so badly that its a matter of when will they lose not will they lose

So they offer to settle it a duel by champions to the foe who arrogantly agree, after all the enemy knows that their weakest surviving champion is 4 levels higher, 9th as opposed to 5th, then the strongest surviving champion of the country their invading

Yet the country that was previously winning the war lost the duel by champions

How?, simple because the king that up to that point was guaranteed to lose the war knew that despite how savage the invaders could be their code of honour would not let them attack a female that is of either noble birth or royal birth

So he assigned his 17 year old granddaughter who was only A 1st level Fighter as their champion to face the enemy champion who was A 11th level Barbarian and because the country that was losing the wars champion was A Female of royal birth the invaders code of honour would not let their champion attack their champion, which means the enemies champion forfeited, the invaded countries champion automatically won and the country that would otherwise have lost the war won the war

i feel like this wouldn't work, it sounds too reliant on the gambit of them not attacking the granddaughter meaning they stand there helplessly, i feel a proper champion would be able to still dominate the inexperienced challenger in nonviolent methods such as putting them in a grapple/hold, disarming them, or simply outlasting them with stamina.

they might also take some kind of view that 'all who enter the battlefield are treated as equal, be they man, woman or child, or pauper, noble or worker' or that the gambit itself to present a young female noble as the champion in full knowledge of exploiting their honour code is dishonourable enough that the act of defeating them wouldn't be treated as dishonourable itself.

 

[Zardnaar]

I've just had a idea. Would it work?

A Country is losing a war so badly that its a matter of when will they lose not will they lose

So they offer to settle it a duel by champions to the foe who arrogantly agree, after all the enemy knows that their weakest surviving champion is 4 levels higher, 9th as opposed to 5th, then the strongest surviving champion of the country their invading

Yet the country that was previously winning the war lost the duel by champions

How?, simple because the king that up to that point was guaranteed to lose the war knew that despite how savage the invaders could be their code of honour would not let them attack a female that is of either noble birth or royal birth

So he assigned his 17 year old granddaughter who was only A 1st level Fighter as their champion to face the enemy champion who was A 11th level Barbarian and because the country that was losing the wars champion was A Female of royal birth the invaders code of honour would not let their champion attack their champion, which means the enemies champion forfeited, the invaded countries champion automatically won and the country that would otherwise have lost the war won the war

I don't think it would work.

1. Code of honors tend to go out the window if the poo is hitting the fan.

2. Even if they wouldn't violate their code they may not see them as honorable opponents so would not feel obliged to honor the combat.

It could maybe work stranger things have happened just unlikely. Eg depends on if the Realms are mortal enemies or not and if the winning sides monarch has a sense of humor or not. Or if a ruler conveniently dies.

Could make an interesting founding myth.

 

[JMISBEST]

i feel like this wouldn't work, it sounds too reliant on the gambit of them not attacking the granddaughter meaning they stand there helplessly, i feel a proper champion would be able to still dominate the inexperienced challenger in nonviolent methods such as putting them in a grapple/hold, disarming them, or simply outlasting them with stamina.

they might also take some kind of view that 'all who enter the battlefield are treated as equal, be they man, woman or child, or pauper, noble or worker' or that the gambit itself to present a young female noble as the champion in full knowledge of exploiting their honour code is dishonourable enough that the act of defeating them wouldn't be treated as dishonourable itself.

Or in countries were slaves are send onto the battlefield, closely chained together, with the intent that they will serve as living shields for the professional soldiers pauper, noble, worker or slave

 

[GuyBoy]

Or in countries were slaves are send onto the battlefield, closely chained together, with the intent that they will serve as living shields for the professional soldiers pauper, noble, worker or slave

The Sassanians, who ruled what’s is now Iran in the C3rd to C7th CE, are often thought to have deployed chained units of slave soldiers as human shields.
Most historians consider this unlikely, and that the word “chained” is more likely to be a reference towards a form of unit organisation. So the old Wargames Research Group rules are probably inaccurate.

Regardless, I’d advise not trying to put the concept into a game, for a plethora of very good reasons.

 

[Ancalagon]

Population wise its 232 families

Every family individually have between 3 members and 7 members each

To simply things any and all domains that at least 1 Pc has a position of power in, which doesn't have to be the ruler, has a mathematical average of 5 members per family

When working out the domains population in order to make it simple you work out the overall population, which doesn't include things like the ruler, the rulers family, the garrison, the rulers advisors and The Pcs, by multiplying the number of families by the mathematical average of 5 members per family

To cut a long story short because the domain I mentioned in this thread has 232 families in it it has a total population of 1,160 civilians, 47 soldiers that guard it and if he has 1 the rulers familes and if the ruler has a family before getting a domain

I will say that depending on his age, race, after all other races can earn domains in human lands, and the result of A 1D100 roll followed by A 3D10 roll his or her family can consist of anywhere between only his or her partner and his or her partner, 1 niece he adopted, 1 nephew he adopted 3 sons, 3 daughters, 3 daughters in law, 3 sons in law, 7 grandsons, 7 granddaughters, 7 granddaughters in law, 7 sons in law, 2 great grandsons and 1 great granddaughter

Hello

thank you. So, 2 comments:

1: Historically speaking, pre industrial sedentary (non nomadic) cultures rarely were able to support more than 5% of the population as military. You have roughly 50 soldiers for 1100 population, so this is a reasonable number. (well done!)

2: I've done a lot of work to calculate "tax income" a population could yield, for domain play and such. If you want to see "the guts" of my work you can see it here: Reasonable rewards , but briefly the rule of thumb is "2 gp/citizen/year", so this domain should yield about 2 320 gp/year in revenue.

I hope this is of use to you.

 

[JMISBEST]

Hello

thank you. So, 2 comments:

1: Historically speaking, pre industrial sedentary (non nomadic) cultures rarely were able to support more than 5% of the population as military. You have roughly 50 soldiers for 1100 population, so this is a reasonable number. (well done!)

2: I've done a lot of work to calculate "tax income" a population could yield, for domain play and such. If you want to see "the guts" of my work you can see it here: Reasonable rewards , but briefly the rule of thumb is "2 gp/citizen/year", so this domain should yield about 2 320 gp/year in revenue.

I hope this is of use to you.

I've worked out the ratio, because the ruler and his family don't have to fight but nearly always do they are included in both the number of civilians and the number of defenders that are either Soldiers or professional Fighters, and most of the time their literally professional fighters, meaning their of the fighter class,

I forgot to mention that rolls on tables to determine if the ruler has family give him younger twin sisters that in the country he comes from are almost 11 years younger then him that are both 4th level Thieves, his wife whose A 7th level Cleric and a orphaned nephew that he adopted whose A 1st level Ranger

The civilian population includes the ruler, his family and the civilians and the garrison and the number of people that can fight includes the ruler, if he or she can fight, and any family he has that can fight

So it has a population of 1,212 that consists of 1,160 Civilians and 52 defenders that consists 31 semi-professional Soldiers, 16 professional soldiers, the ruler and 4 members of the rulers family that are capable of defending the domain

 

[Zardnaar]

Hello

thank you. So, 2 comments:

1: Historically speaking, pre industrial sedentary (non nomadic) cultures rarely were able to support more than 5% of the population as military. You have roughly 50 soldiers for 1100 population, so this is a reasonable number. (well done!)

2: I've done a lot of work to calculate "tax income" a population could yield, for domain play and such. If you want to see "the guts" of my work you can see it here: Reasonable rewards , but briefly the rule of thumb is "2 gp/citizen/year", so this domain should yield about 2 320 gp/year in revenue.

I hope this is of use to you.

5% is difficult for modern society.

Healthy population pyramud (rare these days) 1 third are kids and 1 third old people.

Remaining 33% is roughly 50/50 males that leaves 16% males roughly of which 2/3rd to 3/3rds are fit for service.
To hit that number you're looking at at WW1/2 levels of conscription.

I think Rome had a very large standing army around 1% of the population ate up around 75% of the annual budget.

 

[JMISBEST]

I had a Dnd Idea Last Night that will sadly never get used but I was visiting my parents most of yesterday and a lot of today and only just got back to my place and I wanted to know what people think

A Fighter of Lawful Good Alignment that's of Noble Birth employs 3 Very Young White Dragons that are famous for being the only 3 White Dragons of Lawful Good Alignment in the entire world, naturally most pheasants and a lot of commoners hat know of them but don't actually know them distrust them simply because their White Dragons and justify it as then being scared that 1 or more of them will lapse into the Lawful Evil Alignment of most White Dragons

So the questions a 2-parter

The 1st part it right for A Fighter of Lawful Good Alignment that's of Noble Birth employs 3 Very Young White Dragons that are famous for being the only 3 White Dragons of Lawful Good Alignment in the entire world

The 2nd part is it right that pheasants and a lot of commoners hat know of them but don't actually know them distrust them simply because their White Dragons and justify it as then being scared that 1 or more of them will lapse into the Lawful Evil Alignment of most White Dragons

 

[JMISBEST]

Back in 2,009 I planned to do A Dnd Campaign but it got cancelled after the players had already created their characters

1 big headache was that I was using background, history, social class and family tables A mate had made, which resulted in 1 of my 5 players creating A Noble Born Player Character that was the heir of The 5th most powerful Baron in the world

So tell me, if the campaign had gone ahead how would I have avoided the massive headache that would have come from having A Noble Born Player Character that was the heir of The 5th most powerful Baron in the world?

Here's what I remember about this problem character

The character in questions player had the best luck I’ve ever seen A Dnd Player have when generating his families Social Class

The 1st 1D100 roll was A double 0, which to anyone that has forgotten counts as A roll of A 100, the 2nd 1D100 roll was A 80 and The 5D10 roll came up as A 38, I could be wrong but I think the players rolls were 2 8's, 1 9, 1 7 and 1 6, but even if I'm wrong he definitely rolled A 38. Sorry about initially putting the wrong numbers

That means that The Character in question was the heir of A Noble that held The Title of Very Senior Baron that rules A Massive Barony that has 3 Vassals that are all Minor Landed Knights that all rule A Small Agricultural Fiefdom

 

[CreamCloud0]

Back in 2,009 I planned to do A Dnd Campaign but it got cancelled after the players had already created their characters

1 big headache was that I was using background, history, social class and family tables A mate had made, which resulted in 1 of my 5 players creating A Noble Born Player Character that was the heir of The 5th most powerful Baron in the world

So tell me, if the campaign had gone ahead how would I have avoided the massive headache that would have come from having A Noble Born Player Character that was the heir of The 5th most powerful Baron in the world?

Here's what I remember about this problem character

The character in questions player had the best luck I’ve ever seen A Dnd Player have when generating his families Social Class

The 1st 1D100 roll was A double 0, which to anyone that has forgotten counts as A roll of A 100, the 2nd 1D100 roll was A 80 and The 5D10 roll came up as A 38, I could be wrong but I think the players rolls were 2 8's, 1 9, 1 7 and 1 6, but even if I'm wrong he definitely rolled A 38. Sorry about initially putting the wrong numbers

That means that The Character in question was the heir of A Noble that held The Title of Very Senior Baron that rules A Massive Barony that has 3 Vassals that are all Minor Landed Knights that all rule A Small Agricultural Fiefdom

hmmm, my first thought is to distance their direct connection from the baron's power, or make that connection bring more trouble than good,

• the character is the heir but their claim is not yet validated until they prove themselves wothy of it without it''s benefits in their adventures, and until they do they'll only have the minimum boons available to them from the position.
• they're the heir but throwing around their name, money and influence is going to draw all kinds of opportunists, kidnappers hoping to ransom them, assassins from rival families or just muggers on the streets.
• they might have been subject to some sort of discrace or scandal that the family has cut them off as best they can or the family as a whole tries to distance themselves from using their own name in public (don't want to be known you're the heir of the family that got rich off of exploiting their workers or who skimped on the materials used to build that monument that collapsed after only a month).
• they've been sufficiently distanced from their homelands that their family's name, while not insignificant, doesn't carry the direct oomph it usually would.

-they were an illegitimate heir, born out of marrage or with a maid or prostitute or drunken one-night-stand or somesuch, the baron might not even know they exist.
-they are publicly assumed to be dead for some reason, and their use of their name/title is seen as crassly impersonating the dead