Please correct my understanding of a feudal army

[NewJeffCT]

I've toyed with making morale checks for armies be equal to their average Will save, with a pretty low DC, and increasing levels of penalties (shaken, frightened, panicked, etc) upon failure. Has anyone produced such a mechanic?

I tend to play it by ear... if a decent sized group of PCs start mowing through a group of 20 goblins, the gobbies might turn & flee if 5 of them are dead at the end of Round 1 and the PCs are unscathed.

However, if those same 20 goblins land several good blows to the PCs, they might stick around because of their superior numbers.

 

[Imperialus]

The peasant armies have low morale, dislike being away from home, and don't have the ability to gain money or prestige from warfare like the middle classes or the upper classes can.

Example: The first crusade. The crusaders charged at the gates of byzantium, outnumbering the (elite) byzantine forces. Alexius orders his bowmen to fire warning shots. Two crusading peasants are killed; the entire army routs.

Not nessesarally. Again using Agincourt as an example there are a number of records both written and in paintings that show peasant soldiers taking french knights captive. Even if the peasant only got a small portion of the ransom of a relatively minor knight it could still end up being more money than he'd ever seen before in his life. Of course this would be like winning the lottory today, only if you pick the wrong numbers in the powerball you don't run the risk of having a limb chopped off.

 

[Imperialus]

Any suggestions on setting appropriate ransom levels? Would the average treasure for a particular EL encounter be suitable?

Well the nice thing about ransoms is that on your average battlefield the PC's arn't going to have time to sit around and loot the dead. By the time they get back to the body of Baron Boris it's entiarly possible that someone else could have gotten to him first and stripped him to his skivies. By captureing Duke Dunderhead however not only do they get his gear but they can ransom him for whatever wealth Baron Boris might have had. Also the treasure per encounter guidelines tend to assume that Duke Dunderhead would have a nice shiny stack of treasure waiting for the PC's if they killed him in a traditional dungeoncrawl. That's unlikely to be the case on a battlefield. Dunderhead would have his equipment, and that's about it. Basically what it boils down to is that you can still give the PC's the standard treasure for an encounter of his type without rocking the boat too much. You may want to even increase the total (for his equipment plus his randsom) by 5 or 10 % to account for the difficulties of sucessfully taking him alive and keeping him that way until after the battle.

To keep things simple I'd suggest that you let the PC's "ransom" their captives to someone else who can deal with them, that could be their king or a nutral party that specializes in dealing with captives. It saves them from being forced to enter prolonged negotiations with a their captives family and also keeps them from being forced to take care of the prisoner until hostilities have ended or the family comes up with the cash. It also means that the PC's see their money right away, not 12 sessions down the road when you happen to remember that Duke Dunderhead is still rotting away in the dungeon.

 

[Mark CMG]

I believe that traditionally you didn't take a captive's stuff, except for safe keeping (and perhaps to keep him from trying to escape). When the ransom is paid, he rides out with his dignity and belongings, to fight another day. He is treated well so that you, as a noble, can hope for the same fair treatment the next time you become a captive.

 

[Imperialus]

I believe that traditionally you didn't take a captive's stuff, except for safe keeping (and perhaps to keep him from trying to escape).

yeah but try keeping ANY D&D group from stealing his stuff. Heck next to killing things it's half the point of the game.

edit: That and valuable ransoms can help mitigate the relatively treasure poor environment of a battlefield. With a few exceptions most the enemies the PC's fight will have almost nothing for equipment. 50 Hobgoblin warriors with longswords and chainmail might have quite a bit of GP value but what PC is going to lug all that junk around. Ransoms let you make up a bit of that slack.

 

[Mark CMG]

yeah but try keeping ANY D&D group from stealing his stuff. Heck next to killing things it's half the point of the game.

It definitely requires a different approach than a lot of groups take. I run some campaigns where it is the norm to take captives for ransom and it often needs to be explained by the higher ups that they will brook no violations of chivalric codes. If not for the sake of the PCs themselves, then for the sake of the Duke who has hired them wanting fair treatment should he ever be captured. Once the players come to realize they are getting the proper treasure amounts (and would get less violating the codes), but by these somewhat different means, they tend to accept the paradigm adjustment.

 

[Imperialus]

That's not a bad idea at all. Of course this whole ransoming prisoners thing also only works if the two opposing sides are at least simmilar in alignment and outlook on rules of war. After all a LG society in a battle to the death with a CE empire would likely adopt a take no prisoners attitude. Also if the bad guys are trying to do something praticularly EVIL than ransoming them back still makes little sence.

Out of curiosity, when ransoming do you use a "prisoner broker"? Or do you force them to hang on to their prisoners for however long?

 

[pawsplay]

I believe that traditionally you didn't take a captive's stuff, except for safe keeping (and perhaps to keep him from trying to escape). When the ransom is paid, he rides out with his dignity and belongings, to fight another day. He is treated well so that you, as a noble, can hope for the same fair treatment the next time you become a captive.

My understanding is that traditionally you took his stuff. He is well treated, but sans some expensive gear. "To the victor go the spoils."

 

[Thunderfoot]

Not nessesarally. Again using Agincourt as an example there are a number of records both written and in paintings that show peasant soldiers taking french knights captive. Even if the peasant only got a small portion of the ransom of a relatively minor knight it could still end up being more money than he'd ever seen before in his life. Of course this would be like winning the lottory today, only if you pick the wrong numbers in the powerball you don't run the risk of having a limb chopped off.

I believe you are in error, but only in your assessment of the outcome. Yes, indedd at Agincourt the peasants took French nobles prisoner, mostly because the English knights were not really present (as stated earlier, most were on their way back to England) and the majority of the troops at Agincourt were English longbowmen and men-at-arms. There was no one AVAILABLE to take the French knights captive other than the peasantry.

However, I do believe that the nobility was then turned over to the care of the King, who requested ransom in the name of the throne.

The other major error I see is the number of troops quoted. Knights, men-at-arms and other 'elite' troops were just that elite. The majority of armies that fought until the 2nd crusade were yoemanry, peasants and the like. Bows, crossbows, polearms and such lightly armored (padded usually, if anything) and rarely a shield among them. Daggers were more plentiful than swords and a long dagger was a mighty sidearm. Of course in context of fantasy, this doesn't work because any local peasant can afford leather and sword after a couple of years of farming. The fantasy economy doesn't scale correctly.

 

[Mark CMG]

This should prove interesting to many in this thread -

http://www.familychronicle.com/agincort.htm