My campaign is nearing the end of the Uther phase and my players have shown growing interest in Raiding. As I've clamped down somewhat on their constant capture and ransom routine, they are looking to supplement income with raiding instead.

I'm happy with this as it will add some colour to the downtime between game sessions. However, to avoid problems and retrofits later on, I want to make sure it's balanced from the start - as much as possible that is. So things such as repercussions, chance of success, chance of failure and or injury etc,.

At present the rules I can find concerning raiding are

Both Lordly Domains (p72) and Book of Nobles (p59) have fairly lengthy pieces about raiding but both of these works are quite old now and use terms that are no longer valid (town POP for eg). More importantly they talk about raids with armies and mercenaries. My PKs intend to raid with their family knights, so we're talking 5-10 mounted men at most here.

The GPC (p.66- Adventure: The Raid/ The Pillage) Uses a d20 resolution. Suggests that the peasant levy go too (really? marching the peasants all that way?) Also suggests that foot soldiers are involved. My PKs have no foot soldiers. Also suggests two methods - pillage and raid but there is no distinction between them (results & effects wise).

Just some thoughts.. I usually give a 1d6 chance per day of meeting a border patrol when in enemy lands. I think that should be rolled to intercept incoming raids. Also would raiding trigger trait checks in the same way Peasant Squeezes do?

See the 'Loot From Raiding' table on Greg's site:

http://www.gspendragon.com/misctables.html

This is inspired by the 'Pillaging The Saxons' event in the GPC (p158). Note that per THE PILLAGE/THE RAID most of this goes to the sponsor of the raid.

WRT the question of who you take on a raid - you bring peasant levies because (a) they are cheap, (b) you need lots of hands to gather/handle the loot (which is for the most part bulky agricultural produce or livestock) and (c) they know the sort of tricks peasants use to hide their stuff.

Regards
Luke

Thanks, Luke. I did read that table but forgot to mention it.

Taking peasants etc adds to my uncertainty here. A large, relatively slow moving group like that would be easily spotted and the whole process would be a long one. A border patrol would not have the numbers to deal with it. What would Silchester do if it was Silchester you were raiding? Nothing?

I did think a smaller group of family knights would be more practical - they on horseback so certainly more mobile. However, I did also think that the relatively few numbers would make it tough to attack a manor with even minor protection. I guess this does at least give the levy someting to do at last!

My devious PKs also like asking if they can cover up their shields so that no one will know who it is doing the raiding. True or not I have said that such an act is dishonourable, and would cost honour.

WRT the question of who you take on a raid - you bring peasant levies because (a) they are cheap, (b) you need lots of hands to gather/handle the loot (which is for the most part bulky agricultural produce or livestock) and (c) they know the sort of tricks peasants use to hide their stuff.

I agree,
but
Interestingly, my latest research indicates that lords did NOT have the right to muster their peasants!
I know I've said they could
but such is the latest result
Only the king had that right
and they were summoned by the county sheriff

However, in contrast, I know that when Sir Thomas Malory ambushed his enemy, the Duke, a warrant went out for him and several commoners, who seemed to be his manorial pals

However, for my game this only means that the lord will have to "hire" peasants
a small cost for the general effort involved

Taking peasants etc adds to my uncertainty here. A large, relatively slow moving group like that would be easily spotted and the whole process would be a long one.

Yes - note that each trait check your characters opt for represents a week of plundering activity, so you are potentially in hostile territory for a month or so.


A border patrol would not have the numbers to deal with it. What would Silchester do if it was Silchester you were raiding? Nothing?

Possibly. It takes a while for word to spread and a response to be put together. There are lots of variables here which could be used to justify anything from a lightning response (ambushed before you even get to make your first plundering roll) through to complete lassitude (make as many rolls as you want and get away clean).

Factors to consider:
- what kind of warning did the target get?
- who owns the target?
- is there a knight in residence?
- is the knight active and energetic?
- does he care?
- how far is it to somewhere that can mobilise a response?
- how active and energetic are the people in command there?
- do they care?
- what other threats does the target county have to worry about this season?

Some of these factors could be controlled by the player knights, others would only become apparent once they commit to action.


I did think a smaller group of family knights would be more practical - they on horseback so certainly more mobile.

I would say that they don't have the wherewithal to actually perform a raid if it is knights only. That is they could go in to create havoc or target a specific individual for ambush etc, but if they want to lay their hands on significant quantities of loot (ie get to make those plundering rolls) then they need to go with a decent posse of followers to do the grunt work.


My devious PKs also like asking if they can cover up their shields so that no one will know who it is doing the raiding. True or not I have said that such an act is dishonourable, and would cost honour.

Eh that's an edge case I think - on the one hand it's a legitimate ruse de guerre, on the other it's being devious and underhand (refusing to own your actions etc). I'd probably present it as 'Roll vs Honour, lose a point if you succeed' so the obsessively honourable types would tend to get dinged whilst the more disreputable folk would probably not care.

Of course - if the PKs went in with blank shields and no banners but get publicly fingered as the culprits anyway, then I'd penalise Honour again for getting caught in the subterfuge.

Regards
Luke

Taking peasants etc adds to my uncertainty here. A large, relatively slow moving group like that would be easily spotted and the whole process would be a long one.

Yes - note that each trait check your characters opt for represents a week of plundering activity, so you are potentially in hostile territory for a month or so.


Could you point me in the direction of those trait checks? Now that you mention it I do recall reading it but can't remember where.



Factors to consider:
- what kind of warning did the target get?
- who owns the target?
- is there a knight in residence?
- is the knight active and energetic?
- does he care?
- how far is it to somewhere that can mobilise a response?
- how active and energetic are the people in command there?
- do they care?
- what other threats does the target county have to worry about this season?

Some of these factors could be controlled by the player knights, others would only become apparent once they commit to action.


This is the real meat of the issue and one which cannot be solved by a simple die roll. As you would expect, my players have asked many questions concerning the whole process, usually looking to get the most reward with the minimum of risk. Quite understandable but I don't want this to become too easy and turn into a free for all cash cow.

Here are some questions that I've faced so far-
In response to raids from others - "Can I speak to my neighbours and agree that any attack will be met by all of us, if we have time. That protects us all." This is reasonable but if I say yes then no normal raid is going to be able to worry the combined might of five or six households. In the past I've always said it was a time issue, but now, with prior warning, and the slowness of the attacker, that is not so.

When raiding "Can we raid as a collective group, safety in numbers and all that." This is the inverse of the above problem. Five households and their collective levies will bulldoze any single manor.

About the earl - "Will Earl Roderick send men to help me if I'm attacked?" Again I thought this was a time issue but I was wrong. I've said that he's got more important problems to deal with and doesn’t have the means to muster his men to repel every single raid.

About the county being raided - "Will other knights get involved? Will the earl or duke of that county get annoyed or is it just tit for tat stuff that knights get up to all the time?" The first part I can't answer. Short of keeping tabs on every knight in the county and their personal agreements between each other, who knows? I guess a dice roll here of random outcomes would work.

On repercussions - "My manor is tucked away to the west of Sarum (they intend to raid east and north in Silchester and Marlborough) surely no counter raid could get that far through Salisbury without being attacked or stopped first." This sounds a good point also, unless it is the norm for several 100s of attackers to amble through a foreign county unhindered.

BTW I don't expect there to be bombproof answers to these dilemmas but I'd like to hear how other GMs would handle it.

This is how we have handled these question Ín Our Campaign (IOC) (and also some dirty tricks that the enemies have indulged in):

1. Cooperation between the manors: Definitely! If there is time. And if the knights are home. And if the enemies are not cooperating as well, like attacking all the manors at once. Or if they are not out in overwhelming force that could defeat the responding contingents in detail. All of which have happened in one time or another.

2. Collective raiding: Sure, I'd allow a collective group raiding. In fact, that is what the PKs tend to do. Of course, that means they will also have to share the loot, and a bigger group is easier to spot, and it would likely invoke a bigger response. Also, enemy can cooperate as well, like the point 1). One big raid allows them to focus their attention to it, while 5 small raids forces the enemy to decide what to respond to (or split their forces, of course).

3. Earl's help: Sure, the Earl will help. That is his part of the feudal bargain, to defend his vassals. Ultimately, though, if the knight is screaming for help at every small raid, the Earl might get a bit miffed. After all, the vassal's part of the bargain (as I see it) is to protect the manor as well. If he is unable to do that, perhaps the Earl starts hinting that a better man should be found. Also, I -do- see it as a time issue, too. Depends on the location, of course, but IOC the PK manors are right on the Levcomagus border. There is very little warning before a raid can reach them, and by the time the word reaches Sarum, the raid is probably already in progress. Assuming it is a bigger one, it will take the Earl some time to call enough vassals up, and then they must ride to the border. All of this can easily take a couple of days. Which is IOC the reason why the previous generation spent some money building moats and palisades, to give them a fighting chance to survive long enough for the Earl to arrive. If it is a smaller raid, well then, the enemy is hardly going to wait long enough for the Earl to arrive in any case, now are they?

4. How will a county react: IOC, badly. Granted, there can be extenuating circumstances. If the knights involved have a genuine grievance with one another, the neighbors (especially) and the higher ups might shrug and leave them to it, figuring it is personal and hence unlikely to spill over to the other, uninvolved, people. Occasional small raid might get chalked up as 'boys will be boys' and only get a stern fistshake. But if the raiding is large-scale or continuous, why then it is hurting the county. The neighbors start wondering if next year it will be them in the crosshairs (as the other manors are getting picked clean) and the Earl/Duke looks weak for not being able to protect his vassals. Also, he is losing knights, as the manors being raided get theirs killed/wounded/bankrupted/too scared for the safety of their manor to answer the muster. It will simply not do.

5. Repercussions: Apart from being the target du jour for any enemy county knight on the road, these PKs would swiftly become very unpopular with the Salisbury knights living close to the Silchester border. 'Oh, so you guys raid, get loot, stir up the hornet's nest and then leave us to be stung? Thank you so very much, ********!' Good for internal County politics right there. Also, nothing prevents enterprising Silchester knights to stir up trouble elsewhere... After all, if they can do it to Silchester, what is preventing Somerset or Dorset from doing it to them? With some extra knights from Silchester willing to help pro bono. Finally, if the PKs make a habit of raiding their neighbors, the Anarchy will be quite fun for them... They will find allies very hard to find, and the Saxon raiding parties might have Silchester knights riding with them, gleefully torching Salisbury. Also, if they are making too much of a nuisance of themselves, remember that Silchester is bigger than Salisbury. If it comes to all out war, Salisbury is going to get stomped. The Earl knows this. The retaliation 'raid' might not be a small raid of 1 knight and 50 peasants, but an actual army of, say, 100 knights and 200 footmen, turning the Eastern Salisbury to cinder. The Earl has a big incentive to prevent things boiling over to that.

EDIT: Oh, they are planning up on stirring Marlborough and Silchester BOTH? Well, good luck for them in Anarchy. With Cornwall in the West, Marlborough in the North, Silchester in the (North-)East and Saxons in the South(-East), they will have their work cut out for them. Add some counter raids from Dorset (egged on by SIlchester) and they will certainly reap what they sow. :)

Also if they do go ahead make sure to name the targets, give them families, banners, colors etc.
Vengance over generations are lovely for the story. "Hello, I`m Diego Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

Also I'd say that their biggest worries shouldn't be the enemies, let them stomp them and loot aplenty. But rather, like Moriens points out, the ramifications back home. You can't "fence" such loot without the lord finding out.
And if I were the vassal lord and my stupid vassal knights, not only raided without asking permission, then didn't share the loot, and then have the gall to expect me to help defend them? Never. That is a tripple insult to my honor and a tripple reason to do bad stuff to them for generations. As well as it is putting my whole realm and balance on the line.
Let the earl find out and punish them severely, take the loot, increase taxes, and send them on a really dangerous errand which will take them away from trouble.
Then if you really want to drive it home - have their manor raided while they were away.

Players trying to munchkin the system too much should be kept in line... ;)

Here are some questions that I've faced so far-

Here are some answers from my games


In response to raids from others - "Can I speak to my neighbours and agree that any attack will be met by all of us, if we have time. That protects us all." This is reasonable but if I say yes then no normal raid is going to be able to worry the combined might of five or six households. In the past I've always said it was a time issue, but now, with prior warning, and the slowness of the attacker, that is not so.

Why ask neighbors? This is the job of the earl
His oath is to protect his vassals
as their is to help him in counsel and war


When raiding "Can we raid as a collective group, safety in numbers and all that." This is the inverse of the above problem. Five households and their collective levies will bulldoze any single manor.

Let them
Every earl has a band of household knights, mercenaries and footmen on hand to repel attackers
And why it takes a baron to raid a baron


About the earl - "Will Earl Roderick send men to help me if I'm attacked?" Again I thought this was a time issue but I was wrong. I've said that he's got more important problems to deal with and doesn’t have the means to muster his men to repel every single raid.

Well, this is precisely his second most important job
(the first is to serve the king)


About the county being raided - "Will other knights get involved? Will the earl or duke of that county get annoyed or is it just tit for tat stuff that knights get up to all the time?" The first part I can't answer. Short of keeping tabs on every knight in the county and their personal agreements between each other, who knows? I guess a dice roll here of random outcomes would work.

Yes, the barons will become inv0olved, and seek redress through combat for ever cow taken


On repercussions - "My manor is tucked away to the west of Sarum (they intend to raid east and north in Silchester and Marlborough) surely no counter raid could get that far through Salisbury without being attacked or stopped first." This sounds a good point also, unless it is the norm for several 100s of attackers to amble through a foreign county unhindered.

Reprisals are not as concerned with petty individual knights as the county
They will pillage what is closest to them, because the earl has not kept his men in line
or else, the earl agrees and it's him they will punish


BTW I don't expect there to be bombproof answers to these dilemmas but I'd like to hear how other GMs would handle it.

This is all too knight-oriented
the barons are the ones who lead raids, repel raids, and take revenge for raids
Or if they are favorites of the king, they go to him and Uther will deal

What about during the Anarchy Period? Do they expect the Countess to provide protection from raiders just as they would have from the Earl? Or is there more a sense of "every knight for himself?"

Would retaliation from raiding be as coordinated in that period as well, depending on where they raid, and would the ramifications of their actions be perhaps worse than in the Uther period?

What about during the Anarchy Period? Do they expect the Countess to provide protection from raiders just as they would have from the Earl? Or is there more a sense of "every knight for himself?"

Would retaliation from raiding be as coordinated in that period as well, depending on where they raid, and would the ramifications of their actions be perhaps worse than in the Uther period?


Countess still has knights sworn to her, so in principle, yes, she would provide protection. However, with threats aplenty, she will have even less reason to thank the PKs for bringing more trouble down on her head.

Not to mention, the PKs seem to be planning on provoking Silchester, still ably ruled by Uther's old war horse, Ulfius. Who is getting allied with Aelle, no less. Not. Smart. Ulfius would find it easier to retaliate, as there is no breakdown of order in Silchester (YMMV); after all, he is alive and his knights are still held to their oaths. In fact, Ulfius might find it necessary to 'protect' the Countess (who might or might not be family), as clearly she is incapable of keeping her unruly knights in order...

In general, if there has been a breakdown of order (for example in Rydychan and potentially in Salisbury as well, if the PKs get creative), then it is much more every knight for himself, and a prime opportunity to organize even an actual conquest of new manors, rather than just a regular raid. Raids would be more common, too, without the higher nobility and Uther ready to punish those who break the King's Peace, and with Saxons raiding left and right as well.

Then if you really want to drive it home - have their manor raided while they were away.


Absolutely. My wife's real-life ancestors got involved in that sort of raid- and counter-raid, generating major Hate passions on both sides. One night each side decided to launch an all-out attack on the other. Both attacks succeeded, and my wife's ancestral home got burned to the ground -- with non-combatant family still inside. They couldn't hold the land after that, and had to leave.

Generations later, her family still tells the tale.

This information has been very useful. Many thanks for the input.

I should really have searched the forum before posting because it turned up quite a lot of information on this topic, even another thread rather unsurprisingly called "Raiding". A forum member (Banesfinger) posted some rules which are quite simple and mesh with BoTM. I've reposted below. I'd probably tweak some of the values and add an extra step for repurcusions and a chance of interception etc.


Raiding

Step 1: Choose a Target
Decide where you want to raid. Is it the neighbouring manor? A Saxon occupied city? Or even a daring raid to the mainland?

Step 2: Determine Target's Difficulty
Difficulty is an abstract measure of the target's distance and how vulnerable they are. And because it includes distance, the difficulty will determine the duration of the incursion.

Difficulty Examples Duration
Easy A neighbouring manor, farmland in the adjacent county, an unguarded road within 30 miles, etc. 1 week
Average Farmland up to three counties away, a lightly fortified manor, a guarded trade road, a village within 100 miles 3 weeks
Hard Fortified cities, small castles, land farther than 100 miles away. 6 weeks

Duration includes planning, travel time, and the battle itself. The summer raiding season is limited, as is the military obligation of vassal knights, so typically only one incursion can be made per year. Duration is also important when determining your knight's stwardship (BotM, pg.42) or if he's there to defend his manor against people raiding him (BotM, pg. 42). It also determines how much you'll have to pay your mercenaries.

Step 3: Choose your Personnel
The more personnel you bring with you, the safer you'll be and the more loot you'll gain.
The minimum number of personnel needed for an incursion:

Incursion Size Knights Lineage Men Levy
Raid 1 3 30
Pillage 10 30 300
Plunder 50 150 1,500

Knights: this is typically player characters and their family knights, who lead and plan the attack, with the ability to fight other encountered knights.
Lineage Men: knight's brothers and cousins trained to intimidate and fight the commoners.
Levy: manor personnel wused to drive the stolen cattle & sheep, ride the wagons, feed the troops and limited fighting.

Step 4: Determine Casualties
Determine the casualties your personnel take when you attack your target. Your leader makes an unopposed skill check (based on the incursion size), modified by the Target's Difficulty.

Skill Check
Raid: The leader rolls the higher of his Battle or Hunting skill. He gains a check to Vengeful.
Pillage:The leader rolls the higher of his Battle or Siege skill. He gains a check to Selfish.
Plunder: The leader rolls the lower of his Battle or Siege skill. He gains a check to Cruel.

Skill Check Modifiers for Target's Difficulty
Easy: +0
Average: -5
Hard: -10

The results of your skill check (above) will determine the Raid Casualties for each category of personnel. If you end up with more casualties than you have men in that category, excess casualties must come from another category (player's choice).

Raid Casualties Results

Skill Check Knights Lineage Men Levy
Critical - - -
Success - - 1d6
Failure 1 1d2 1d20
Fumble 1d2 1d6 3d20

For Pillage: multiply rolled casualty results x10
For Plunder: multiply rolled casualty results x50

Any time a Player Character is determined to be a casualty he instead goes into a normal melee combat (played out in rounds) against his opponent. Based on your target (e.g. Saxons, Brits), use a typical opponent from the Book of Armies (or from the KAP rulebook).

Step 5: Determine Loot
The incursions' Reward is based on the same skill check your leader made in step 4 (don't roll twice). The results are the net Libra in looted goods each knight will receive. Payment to your personnel (lineage men and levy, but not mercenaries) and supplies for the incursion (food, wagons, etc) have already been deducted from this amount.

Incursion Level Easy Average Hard
Raid £1d6 £1d6+3 £1d6+5
Pillage £2d6 £2d6+6 £2d6+12
Plunder £3d6 £3d6+10 £3d6+20

Note: in addition to possible retaliation, raided enemies will start to put up defences against return incursions. Each year of raiding the same target causes their difficulty level to increase one step. Each year you don't raid that enemy, the difficulty return's to the previous year's step.

Wow, that is a very good set of rules, I think I will try that out tomorrow as my players are very keen to raid people (they keep on complaining that the weather is mean to them).

I've decided to tweak the incursion size numbers a bit though, as I'm not sure that players would ever be able to gather 50 knights and 1500 levy unless they got the entire county to come with them, so I changed it to:


Incursion Size Knights Lineage Men Levy
Raid 1 3 30
Pillage 5 15 150
Plunder 10 30 300

I figured that these numbers are a bit more reasonable as that means that a reasonable player group could set up a pillage just with player knights, but would need to get their family knights together or other allies to do some real plundering. :)

An interesting set of suggested additional rules. I might use it as a basis if raiding comes up as a proposed activity.

I'm mildly put off by the "average" rating being anywhere within 100 miles. That's roughly raiding up to two counties away in southern Logres. And getting there, attacking, and back within three weeks implies heavy use of major roads on the trip. I would see something like that as being much more complicated in carrying out.

So, perhaps as a baseline to build from.

I think that I'd have one or two ambushes or "riding through enemy lands" scenarios dropped into it if my players wanted to raid somewhere 100 miles away. I might even have them do some awareness and/or hunting rolls to catch messengers before they warn whoever they're raiding, and if they fail give them a point or two more difficulty, or have some proper combat before the final raid/pillage/plunder.

The full thread is here. http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=81.msg4011#msg4011. Laid out far better I might add - that man knows his formatting.

Greg is probably working on rules of his own, but until they see the light of day these are a good starting point.

I'm mildly put off by the "average" rating being anywhere within 100 miles. That's roughly raiding up to two counties away in southern Logres. And getting there, attacking, and back within three weeks implies heavy use of major roads on the trip. I would see something like that as being much more complicated in carrying out.


I agree. I would consider a neigbouring manor as "Easy" with "Average" being anywhere else in the county or just over the border. Three counties away I would rate as Hard.

As Xarlaxes points out, the knight values at the top end are also a little high. That's nearly a county army.

Aye, I think that's probably a good idea, I can't imagine it being the "average" raid to travel 100 miles with a hundred or so armed peasants dragging cows, sheep, etc. . . .

I think there needs to be another couple of steps, chance of interception for example. As it's the job of the ruling noble to protect his vassals then you would expect armed resistance at least some of the time. With the potential for numerous raids per year and the speed at which they can happen, it's not feasible to expect the lord to muster men and repel them all. All matters considered say a D6 with a 1 or 2 meaning interception. This could be modded +/- depending upon difficulty etc,.

Then you need something to determine the potential forces at the target manor. Ideally, you would attack when the lord was away but without having a spy or scout watching the land(s) this is likely to be hit and miss (I have scouts as retinue members in my game but that's for another thread). Also, the target lord may have an agreement or alliance with his neighbours to protect each other, greatly swelling the defender’s forces. Lordly Domains, p72 onwards, has a number of tables that could be incorporated into the above rules to determine these factors.

I tried it out today, the players were very excited being at calculating how much each person would donate to the overal forces, who would lead it, etc. I also made the rule that if you were to send double the amount of troops to a place that the difficulty would go down one step, to a minimum of easy, seeing as they didn't want to raid an immediate neighbour, so they sent around 300 men, 10 knights, and 30 lineage men down to Sussex, and got the loot for an easy raid (gotta pay the extra men after all). That allows the players to balance difficulty with loot, etc.

Not sure how I'll do recriminations yet though, as they attacked a trade route rather than someone's manor, who's going to come after them? Merchants with a mercenary army?

Not sure if I would want to add too much more to the steps, as that could make it a bit overly complex, though I also limited them to one raid a year, seeing as them being able to get a max of 3d6+20 *each* is quite a lot, I also argued that if you spend the entire season raiding then your lands *will* be raided in return as people will realise you're not protecting your manors after all.

I'm thinking it might make sense for Easy to be +5, Average +0, Hard -5, and maybe have a Very Hard option at -10, or just rename the three to Average, Hard, Very Hard, as having the "Average" raid at a -5 a bit odd.

I also decided to have the checks be cumulative, so the leader got Vengeful + Selfish checks, tempted to have everyone who takes part in the raid who's a player knight get checks, perhaps if someone goes pillaging the leader gets selfish and vengeful and the other knights get vengeful, or if they're just taking part they get rolls rather than checks?

I think there needs to be another couple of steps, chance of interception for example. As it's the job of the ruling noble to protect his vassals then you would expect armed resistance at least some of the time. With the potentially for numerous raids per year and the speed at which they can happen, it's not feasible to expect the lord to muster men and repel them all. All matters considered say a D6 with a 1 or 2 meaning interception. This could be modded +/- depending upon difficulty etc,.

Then you need something to determine the potential forces at the target manor. Ideally, you would attack when the lord was away but without having a spy or scout watching the land(s) this is likely to be hit and miss (I have scouts as retinue members in my game but that's for another thread). Also, the target lord may have an agreement or alliance with his neighbours to protect each other, greatly swelling the defender’s forces. Lordly Domains, p72 onwards, has a number of tables that could be incorporated into the above rules to determine these factors.


How about if the Banesfinger raiding rules as written cover the base case with many of the situational modifiers from the Book of Battle (p. 15) as well as the aforementioned Lordly Domains modifying the Step 4 skill roll when one side or the other goes above and beyond the usual?

For example, a baseline Easy raid assumes a neighboring manor (1 knight defender) who gets the usual amount of warning (peasants in the field look up and start screaming while the raiders charge in).

+5 Superior scouting force: Raiders know *exactly* where the defending knight, key loot, and gaps in the defenses are and can plan accordingly. Perhaps a squire has a very high Hunting skill and Awareness score and wants to prove himself, or a travelling peddler heading that way is willing (for a price) to scout while there, or dedicated scouts in the retinue per Sir Pramalot?

-5 Inferior scouting force: The defending knight’s lady has worked long and hard to win the love (not mere obedience) of her people, especially of the foresters dwelling between her enemies and the manor proper.

+5 Outnumber 2:1. Raiders attack with double the numbers listed. This increases the odds of success but the loot has to be split (a manor has only so much wealth, even if you have more people to carry it).

-5 Outnumbered 2:1. The defender has another knight and/or extra family men to help, either on-hand or arriving before any serious damage is done. Perhaps one of the faerie is willing to give the defender enough warning to not only get the manor ready, but to call in the defending knight’s friendly neighbors as well. What the faerie wants in return is up to the GM. This assumes that normal raiding plans are to loot and run before normal defender's reinforcements could get word, armor up, form up, and arrive.

This approach can, of course, be used to give the PKs ideas to defend *their* manors too.

I tried it out today, the players were very excited being at calculating how much each person would donate to the overal forces, who would lead it, etc. I also made the rule that if you were to send double the amount of troops to a place that the difficulty would go down one step, to a minimum of easy, seeing as they didn't want to raid an immediate neighbour, so they sent around 300 men, 10 knights, and 30 lineage men down to Sussex, and got the loot for an easy raid (gotta pay the extra men after all). That allows the players to balance difficulty with loot, etc.

Good to get an actual field report. This will help me immensely when my own PKs start raiding.



Not sure how I'll do recriminations yet though, as they attacked a trade route rather than someone's manor, who's going to come after them? Merchants with a mercenary army?

Or the lords of the lands from where they came? It's very difficult to act this way and not ruffle someone's feathers.



I'm thinking it might make sense for Easy to be +5, Average +0, Hard -5, and maybe have a Very Hard option at -10, or just rename the three to Average, Hard, Very Hard, as having the "Average" raid at a -5 a bit odd.

Agree. Going through the different permuations 3 categories felt too restrictive. Also, making "Easy" the norm at +0 doesn't seem right. IMHO your suggestion is spot on.


I also decided to have the checks be cumulative, so the leader got Vengeful + Selfish checks, tempted to have everyone who takes part in the raid who's a player knight get checks, perhaps if someone goes pillaging the leader gets selfish and vengeful and the other knights get vengeful, or if they're just taking part they get rolls rather than checks?


I always thought they were, in the same way as Peasant Squeezes. I would have any knight taking part get the same ticks. Leader or not, your intent is the same as is the share of your loot.

Not sure how I'll do recriminations yet though, as they attacked a trade route rather than someone's manor, who's going to come after them? Merchants with a mercenary army?

I also decided to have the checks be cumulative, so the leader got Vengeful + Selfish checks, tempted to have everyone who takes part in the raid who's a player knight get checks, perhaps if someone goes pillaging the leader gets selfish and vengeful and the other knights get vengeful, or if they're just taking part they get rolls rather than checks?

It seems to me that raiding merchants is far different to the Arthurian mind than raiding manors.

One can argue a raid is an attack on the other knight, not his peasants. After all it is the knights land, and they are his peasants, they can be bought and sold, so they are a form of property.A knight has a duty to protect his peasants. So in raiding another manor it is partly the failure of the other knight in his duty that makes the raid successful. Sir Guy Who-Lives-Over-There should have protected his peasants, but he didn't, so because of his failure I get stuff. In a way its similar to jousting with the winner taking the loser's armor.

On the other hand raiding a merchant on a road is brigandage. It's stealing from commoners and that seems less than noble. Beyond that merchants on the king's roads are under the king's protection, so stealing form them is arguably treason.

I'd dock my PKs a point of honor for stealing from merchants, and possibly dock them a point of love (arthur) as well.

Well, this is the anarchy period they're doing it in (in my case) and they attacked Saxon merchants, so I don't think honour or the king applies, but definitely in a period of sanity it would be a big no-no.