If this has already been suggested here, I apologize for the redundancy.

I don't have any of the 5th edition supplementals (just the core rulebook and GPC, sorry Greg) so my grasp of the economic system is largely what I could glean from mentions of it around the forum. I know that upon a PK's death, the earls officials 'assize' his property to determine how much his inheritor has to cough up, as well as adjust the amount of resources allocated to the resident knight, or in star wars terms 'alter the deal further'. That way, no matter how rich a manors lands are, it will never be able to support it's owner at a higher or lower upkeep than ordinary for more than a generation before due assizement.

The upkeep grades are fine as they are, but it's a bit peculiar that no matter what, a normal harvest will always provide me exactly enough money to maintain myself at the appropriate status, and bumper crops always come at the exact amount necessary to go up a maintenance grade, which apparently you are obligated to do or else run the risk of being thought of as stingy.

I propose then, that the grade of maintenance listed in the harvest result table is not a fixed number, but rather a range. Instead of taking 'Ordinary' to mean 6L, take it to mean 6 < L > 9, enough to always support an ordinary knight but never support a rich one, with a variable amount of discretionary funds inbetween.

Harvest Income
Impoverished 0L+(3d20-1)s
Poor 3L+(3d20-1)s
Ordinary 6L+(3d20-1)s
Rich 9L+(3d20-1)s
Superlative 12L+(4d20-1)s
Spectacular 16L+(1d3-1)L

An average year therefore would yield the PK their 6L Upkeep cost and an additional 1.5L discretionary funds. I know a lot of people around here seem to dislike letting their players have extra money, preferring to have them be reliant on raids and story gifts, but honestly considering how expensive things like dowries, having sons knighted, paying ransom and responding to tallage costs, and taking into account that apparently Manors are MUCH harder to come by under Greg's new tables, 1.5L to spend (.75 to save) sounds perfectly reasonable to me.


If however you'd rather keep money on the tighter side, it can be reasoned that an ordinary harvest is enough to support a knight with a few shillings of discretionary funds ON AVERAGE. Reduce the above minimum values by 1L, lowering the median discretionary budget from 1.5 to .5, and allowing for the possibility of coming up slightly short, emphasizing the importance of bumper crops and alternative sources of income.

Harvest Income
Impoverished (2d20-1)s
Poor 2L+(3d20-1)s
Ordinary 5L+(3d20-1)s
Rich 8L+(3d20-1)s
Superlative 11L+(4d20-1)s
Spectacular 15L+(3d20-)s

Alternatively, if you don't feel like starting the players off with ANY net discretionary funds to begin with but still allow them to work for it, set the beginning manor income at:

(Harvest - 1)L + (2d20-1)s

which, I think you'll notice, breaks even on a median roll. Subsequent investments of 10L each will gain the manors owner an additional d20 shillings annually, to a maximum total of 5d20 (including the 2d20 you started with), at which point any further increase to the land's value will be assized away upon the PK's death.


Personally I like to apply the first table, but maybe I'm just a softy. I'd love to hear peoples thoughts on the subject.

You might be happy to hear that the new economics system in Book of the Estate and Book of the Warlord actually give you 10% Discretionary Fund. This works out to (about) £1 per manor (usually valued £10, but you are paying for more than just the knight now from it, too, such as the 3 foot soldiers per knight). The actual money per knight is about that £6 as before.

So in other words, instead of rolling 3d20-1 shillings, you could roll 2d20-1 shillings for the Discretionary Fund, and you are right at that £1 (= 20s) on average per manor.

There is one difference, though. BotE and BotW don't roll for harvest any more. There is a possibility of a raid or something harming your income, though, and Discretionary Fund is the first to go. The argument is that, well, it is discretionary. If you have to cut back from something, that is what you cut from first. On the flipside, I could see an argument of multiplying the DF by the harvest modifier, i.e. x1.5 for Good and x2 for Excellent.

You might also wish to take a look at this message, where I have adapted the harvest system to be a bit more predictable:
http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=2589.msg19431#msg19431

It is the one that I am currently using in our campaigns, and I am liking it a lot compared to the old system (Book of the Manor) where the harvest tends to fluctuate from £3 - £9 on a whim of the dice (see the arguments given in the above thread).

My beef wasn't so much at the lack of discretionary funds per se, although that was part of it. It was more to do with the fact that all income came in blocks of 3L with no variance inbetween.

I do agree that the harvest results in the GPC are a bit too random, but as I previously stated it's the only system I currently have access to for my campaign.

So I'm considering something a little closer to a more generous version of your system, while still keeping the 3d20-1 variance. And while we're here I might as well bring up my solution to (what seems to me) the uselessness of small-scale subenfoefment in the base game.

Step A)

Bad weather = 3d6+2, +/- curse or blessing modifiers.

Stewardship = Random steward (hireling) = 2d6+13 (2L/yr). The steward treats up to three of the manors under his care, assuming they are all in the same
county, as one. Fourth and fifth manors, or those in different counties, are treated as if they were multiple opponents
in combat, the steward having to divide his skill points between them. For example for an estate of four manors and a
skill of 20, the steward rolls the first 3 manors are rolled with skill 15, and the fourth at skill 5 (or whatever the PK's
preference)

= Random Wife = 4d6 (not counting woman's gift). The wife can administrate the manor she lives in at normal skill, subsequent manors
at divided skill.

= Player Knight = Same rules as the wife as regards to the number of manors, but with one exception: since he is off doing knightly
things for about 1/3rd of the year (not counting winter obviously), a knight's stewardship result for each
manor are treated as if they were 1 result worse on the harvest table, ie if he rolls a success it counts as a failure.

Stewardship Roll:
Weather roll:
Critical Success Failure Fumble

Critical 6L 5L 4L 3L

Success 7L 6L 5L 4L

Failure 8L 7L 6L 5L

Fumble 9L 8L 7L 6L

Then of course come the war events:
Was raided: -1L
Was Pillaged: -2L (-1 next year)
Was plundered: -3L (-2 next year)
Paid tribute: -1L

Civil disobedience:
Successful Hate (Lord) roll: -1L, income
Critical Hate (Lord) roll: See Revolt table, coming soon to a topic near you.

After all that, add on the additional 3d20-1 shillings as before (average 1.5L), thus you have:

Extraordinary: 10.5L
Excellent: 9.5L
Rich: 8.5L

Ordinary: 7.5L

Poor (PK run manor with ordinary harvest): 6.5L

Meagre: 5.5L
Abysmal: 4.5L


And of course, if it is your preference, you could impose a "GM doesn't like fun" penalty of -1L.

Or better yet, keep them as they are, but slap some rues on upkeep. Every penny 6L or under is spent on upkeep (just as in your rules), and a knight who makes enough to live as a superlative knight (12L), must support himself as rich (9L) or better.

My beef wasn't so much at the lack of discretionary funds per se, although that was part of it. It was more to do with the fact that all income came in blocks of 3L with no variance inbetween.


No problem making it more variable, but you might consider making the Grade of Maintenance less 'blocky', too?

Here is one suggestion (ignore the rest of the thread since some of the numbers there are very much dated):
http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=2338.msg17915#msg17915



So I'm considering something a little closer to a more generous version of your system, while still keeping the 3d20-1 variance. And while we're here I might as well bring up my solution to (what seems to me) the uselessness of small-scale subenfoefment in the base game.


I am not sure I see how the system you suggested impacts on the small-sclae subenfeofment? Could you just hire more Stewards? That is what my players do.

Also, subenfeofment was actually quite rare on the knight level, and not that common even on the Baron leveḷ, so discouraging it actually makes sense from historical perspective.



Stewardship = Random steward (hireling) = 2d6+13 (2L/yr).


Woah. That is a very high skill, on average 20, and can go up to 25. In other words, these stewards are on average like 50 year old veterans, if you use the skill progression system of Book of the Entourage. And not only that, they can use their full skill for 3 manors, while the Lady has to start dividing her skill instantly, and the Knight takes one level penalty automatically. Stewards rock in this system!

I'd lower the skill to 1d6+14 (spread 15 - 20, average 17-18). Still very good value for money, especially with your additional houserules, but not quite as overpowered.

My beef wasn't so much at the lack of discretionary funds per se, although that was part of it. It was more to do with the fact that all income came in blocks of 3L with no variance inbetween.


No problem making it more variable, but you might consider making the Grade of Maintenance less 'blocky', too?

I've thought of maybe having Household Maintenance and Equipment Maintenance as separate expenses, rather than bundling them into one.

We know that a family of peasants (five in the book, six for our purposes) consumes (the equivelant) of about 1L per year, we say that each adult (14+) can by supported on 5 shillings (.25L), 10 shillings will support 4 children (2-14, older children who eat more partially make up for it in labor), and children under 2 eat very little and don't require any clothing other than a warm blanket (1 baby accounted into mother's expense).

Thus, the cost of living for an adult peasant with no family is about 5 shillings a year (.25L) and henceforth will be referred to as PW, or peasants wage.

The footman, by my reckoning, takes home 7 of the 10 shillings (2PW) it takes to employ him. This means that he will live in relative comfort but very likely never have a family (which makes sense for a low-level mercenary), unless he's lucky enough to survive the numerous wars worth of loot it would take to set him up for life. That is unless, the 3 footmen that come with the manor are actually meant to be 9 half-villeins who perform guardly duties for 2 days a week (alternating sundays), in place of the ordinary labor. But that's just a theory.

Pages and other children of gentle birth, cost 2PW per 3 rather than 1PW per 2.

3L to Household Maintenance can be thought of in terms of 12PW

The Knight and his lady: 5PW
The Squire: 1PW
Three Children: 2PW
One Servant: 1PW
One page (+5 Glory), additional family members/occasional guests: 3PW

The breakdown of the upkeep is of no real importance to ordinary play, but I find it adds internal consistency. Regardless of whether the player is married or has kids, normal Household Upkeep will always be 3L.

The bonuses of a higher Household upkeep:

Extra Squire at 5L and 7L
+1 Servant, +1 to all child related rolls (to a maximum of 5), and +1 to the random marriage table (also to a maximum of 5), Per 1L
Additional Page (+5 Glory) At 4L and 8L
Anything over 8L falls into the realm of conspicuous consumption.

The negatives of a lower Household upkeep:

2L: No servants, no page, -1 to all child related rolls, -1 to all courtly skills, -2 to random marriage table.
1L: No squire, -3 to all child related rolls, -2 to all courtly skills, -5 to random marriage table.


Then of course there is the Equipment Upkeep, which includes horses. At 3L, a knight does what it says on the tin (pun intended), no bonuses, no negatives. Chain armor, sword, two lances, three shields, charger, two rouncies, a sumpter.

The perks of Higher Equipment maintenance:

Every 1L above 3 gives +5 Glory (to a maximum of 4L)
Armed and armored squires! at 4L, 6L, and 8L (Note: These are not extra squires, this merely equips the ones you already have). Still not a good idea to ride with them into battle, but they'll do in a bind.
At 4L, with healthier steeds/more numerous remounts, treat travel conditions as if they were one condition better.

And the negatives of a Lower Equipment maintenance:

2L: Your armor is disheveled, -1 protection. You have two good shields, and one good lance. Your steeds are in poor shape, treat travel conditions as if they were one worse.
1L: Your armor is worn and tattered, -2 protection. You are on your last good shield. Your sword is rusty, and chipped (breaks on tie with other swords, otherwise treat as normal). Your steeds are in very bad shape, your charger is treated as a poor one (-1d6), and one of your squire is forced to walk or be left behind entirely. You are in fact more poorly equipped then a Sergeant, whose Equipment Upkeep is 1.5L with no squire and only a single, much cheaper horse.

So I'm considering something a little closer to a more generous version of your system, while still keeping the 3d20-1 variance. And while we're here I might as well bring up my solution to (what seems to me) the uselessness of small-scale subenfoefment in the base game.


I am not sure I see how the system you suggested impacts on the small-sclae subenfeofment? Could you just hire more Stewards? That is what my players do.

Also, subenfeofment was actually quite rare on the knight level, and not that common even on the Baron leveḷ, so discouraging it actually makes sense from historical perspective.



Stewardship = Random steward (hireling) = 2d6+13 (2L/yr).


Woah. That is a very high skill, on average 20, and can go up to 25. In other words, these stewards are on average like 50 year old veterans, if you use the skill progression system of Book of the Entourage. And not only that, they can use their full skill for 3 manors, while the Lady has to start dividing her skill instantly, and the Knight takes one level penalty automatically. Stewards rock in this system!

I'd lower the skill to 1d6+14 (spread 15 - 20, average 17-18). Still very good value for money, especially with your additional houserules, but not quite as overpowered.


Sorry, the steward was meant to cost 3L, not 2.

2L Steward might work out to a 2d6+8 (1 higher average than the wife, but 4 lower maximum) and Only have full skill for two manors.

You could have a wife do full skill for two manors as well, but you'd have to forego the benefits of having a wife at court, as well as cough up the 1L for a nursemaid. Stewards rock in this system A) because they cost money and B) They work full time.

I Also forgot to mention that I was planning to award 25 annual glory for each granted vavasour, 15 for gifted ones (cap at 100) MINUS the requirement of his station, ergo if he is a banneret, he doesn't get any glory for having 3 vassals, it's expected of him.

Example:
A knight has four manors. The first, his primary manor, is run by his wife who has a skill of 14 and nets him an average profit of ~7L/yr. The successive 3 are all run by a steward with skill 20, for a combined profit of 7.5. If he gained another manor, that would mean either hiring another steward, which only leaves him a margin of .5L, or divy up the stewards skill and practically guarantee that one of them will fail, which means his new acquisition will only have netted him .5L profit regardless of what he does.

The numbers are all assuming ordinary harvests, so that's why I allowed for a max skill of 25. For large estates, it's almost necessary.

So instead of pocketing the .5L, the player knight may instead to make a gift of it to one of his loyal house knights. This is basically the same thing as conspicuous consumption (At the 10/L that you proposed). If you like, the PK can also make a grant of the line, netting him and his progeny +25 glory a year per vassal until the end of the game. And, not to forget, if he get's 3 or more vassals he may qualify to become a banneret down the line.

EDIT: giant gaping arithmetical error, fixed now.
EDIT2: Sleep deprivation and math are not a good mix for me, numerous factual, theoretical, and arithmetical errors fixed.

On Second thought, I suppose that the player's wife could split her endeavors between two manors at unaffected skill if she moved back and forth between them throughout the year. The cost of a few extra mounts, an additional servant, as well as maintaining two halls in suitable condition for half a year each could plausibly be set at 2L, with the added requirement of an armed escort (probably a household knight).

I think it ought to depend on the distance between the manors, surely? I mean, if the other manor is 2 miles down the road, that is a relatively quick ride for the Lady, a return trip easily done in a day. She already has a horse. And if there are two manors, there ought to be a household knight already around to escort her, and the household probably already would include a nursemaid to look after the children anyway; not like the Lady is spending her days changing diapers. Anyway, if you wish to worry about nursemaids in your campaign, feel free. :)

I still feel that skills above 20 are so powerful, that they should not be left on a random 'no-name' NPC. Actually, I made a mistake in my earlier comment, since once you hit 20, it doesn't go up unless you use Glory (which the steward would be unlikely to gain, at least not in significant amounts) or rolling a 20 in a yearly experience check. So to have a skill of 25 on experience checks alone would take 5 rolls of 20. These guys should be much rarer than 1 in 36 that the 2d6+13 roll gives you. Even the ladies with skill over 20 should be rarer than you get from 4d6 roll. Once you have a skill over 20, the possibilities for a critical increase by a lot. This means that these super-stewards/wives will ensure great harvests, which more than offsets their cost.

Even now, the decision to hire a steward with skill 2d6+13 is pretty much a given, especially if you compare him with the £2 steward of 2d6+8 (I see you deleted that entry, though?). Once you have a high skill, again, you are disaster-proofing your estate, and since you get hit by a bad harvest very easily in BotM system, you definitely benefit from forking £3 for a steward who ensures each of your manors brings in £6 or £9, rather than actually costing you £6 extra (poor harvests at £3 from each of two manors).

So that is why I'd use something like:
£1 steward: 2d6+3
£2 steward or a lady wife: 2d6+8
£3 steward: 1d6+14

Or if you are feeling more generous:
£1 steward: 2d6+5
£2 steward: 1d6+15

You're right, I forgot about the special rules for skills over 20.


So that is why I'd use something like:
£1 steward: 2d6+3
£2 steward or a lady wife: 2d6+8
£3 steward: 1d6+14

Seems fair.


I think it ought to depend on the distance between the manors, surely? I mean, if the other manor is 2 miles down the road, that is a relatively quick ride for the Lady, a return trip easily done in a day. She already has a horse. And if there are two manors, there ought to be a household knight already around to escort her, and the household probably already would include a nursemaid to look after the children anyway; not like the Lady is spending her days changing diapers. Anyway, if you wish to worry about nursemaids in your campaign, feel free. :)

I'm now thinking that it's not so much a matter of hiring a baby sitter as it is "Where the wife goes, the household goes". Wife, children, servants, pages, and household knights pick up and move every three weeks or so (if she is running 3 manors). I mean after all, even if the lady isn't raising the kids and keeping an eye on the servants by default, I don't think a single knight in christendom would be comfortable with his wife and her friends gallivanting around the earldom without a trusted escort. One because they might be attacked, and two because for all he knows she could use such errands as a cover for a lurid affair. Also, if the wife, the servants, and at least one of the house knights are leaving, it stands to reason that the rest of the household goes with them, unless you specifically want your children to stay at one manor in particular.

As for the issue of distance, the 'several manors at the same skill' thing only applies to manors within the same county.

So I would say that for a wife to take care of an additional manor at full skill, it costs 1L each, to a max of 3 manors (the human limit in my opinion). So the first manor (at full skill) is obviously free, the second and third cost 1L each.

I'm now thinking that it's not so much a matter of hiring a baby sitter as it is "Where the wife goes, the household goes".


Fair enough. In our games, we tend to not worry about this too much, but on the other hand, we are stricter with the distance limit. Our 'practical limit' is around 10mi radius from the main holding. Can you ride to the other manor in a day and come back? If you can, great, you don't need another steward. The limit in the number of manors a single person can look after is around three for us too.

Of course, if you go by the official Book of the Warlord rules, one steward per county is enough, regardless of the number of manors. This is because each manor does have its bailiff for every day administration, and the big decisions get kicked up the chain of command to the steward, who likely has some clerks to help with the administration if there are more manors under his care. It is just that these guys are implicit in the growing household, which is hidden in the Book of the Manor.

But, whatever system works for you guys. :)

Fair enough. In our games, we tend to not worry about this too much, but on the other hand, we are stricter with the distance limit. Our 'practical limit' is around 10mi radius from the main holding. Can you ride to the other manor in a day and come back? If you can, great, you don't need another steward. The limit in the number of manors a single person can look after is around three for us too.

Of course, if you go by the official Book of the Warlord rules, one steward per county is enough, regardless of the number of manors. This is because each manor does have its bailiff for every day administration, and the big decisions get kicked up the chain of command to the steward, who likely has some clerks to help with the administration if there are more manors under his care. It is just that these guys are implicit in the growing household, which is hidden in the Book of the Manor.

But, whatever system works for you guys. :)


The feedback is appreciated :)

My group's not due to start for another three weeks, so I'm trying to work out all the kinks to my houserules now rather than later. Speaking of which this thread's gone a bit off topic, I think I'll reevaluate and reorganize my broader changes to the economy into a separate thread.

I am curious about the peasant wage (PW = 0.25L) breakdown. Here's my understanding of how things work. Please correct me if I am missing something.

Knight

The knight is supported by 3L. Of this, 1.75L is spent supporting horses, while 1.25L is spent supporting the knight.

Of the 1.25L personal support, probably 0.5L is spent maintaining his arms and armor (his mail costs 2L and probably takes at least 0.25L a year to maintain that piece of kit alone). This leaves 0.75L for the knight's food and clothing (3 PW).

For the 1.75L horse support, the breakdown becomes a little more difficult. It appears that it takes 0.25L to support a non-warhorse. The knight has a riding horse and a pack horse, for 0.25L each. This leaves 1.25L for the warhorse, which seems excessive for pure support (I can't see care and feeding exceeding 0.5L for that one animal, double the support of non-warhorses). I see two ways to rectify this. Option 1 is that the excess 0.75L is used to pay for a replacement warhorse every 5-6 years (a type of depreciation if you will). Option 2 is to allow the 0.75L to support 3 more non-warhorses, 2 of which would be used by the 2 footmen in the knight's retinue, to get them to the battle in a timely fashion, while the 3rd might be a pack horse used by household staff.

Squire

The squire is supported by 1L. Of this, 0.25L is spent supporting his riding horse, while 0.75L is spent supporting the squire. Of the 0.75L personal support, probably 0.125L (30d) is spent maintains his arms (spear and dagger), armor (leather), and training equipment. This leaves 0.625L for the squire's food and clothing (2.5 PW). My only issue with this is that the squire's personal support seems a little too close to the knight's (only a 0.125L difference between the two).

Lady Wife

The lady wife is supported by 1L. Of this, 0.25L is spent supporting her riding horse, while 0.75L is spent supporting the wife. All of this 0.75L would be spent on food and clothing, putting her at the same level as the knight (3 PW), which makes sense.

Handmaiden

The handmaiden is problematic. Older sources say she is supported at 0.75L (like the squire without a horse), while newer sources say she is supported at 0.5L. The core rule book says she should have a horse, like the squire (she is the squire-equivalent for the lady wife after all), but I see no way to pay for it with these numbers. The handmaiden is supposed to be a member of the "noble" class, so 0.5L seems too low to me. I like to think that the handmaiden's support matches the squire's, with 0.125L spent maintaining her equipment (looms and tailoring supplies), and 0.625L providing her food and clothing (2.5 PW).

Children

The children are supported at 1L. I can see this being 2 children at 0.5L each, or 3 children at 0.33L each. I can also see the possibility that one or more of these children might be provided with a pony (support cost of 0.125L or half that of a full size riding horse). With 2 children with ponies, each child would have 0.375L for food and clothing (1.5 PW). This fits well with the other numbers, putting the children at half the food/clothing allowance of the knight and lady wife.

Footmen

Footmen are supported at 0.5L. Of this, 0.125L is spent maintaining arms and armor (leather, spear, and dagger, like the squire), while 0.375L is spent on food and clothing (1.5 PW).

Conclusion

I think the above numbers work out nicely. However, when I look at some of the support costs of professionals (such as those in Book of the Entourage), it seems like many "employees" are living better than the Knights and ladies. Most of these staff are supported at 1L or more, while the knight and wife are making it on 0.75L each (as you can see above). I have not figured out how to resolve this, and I welcome suggestions/explanations.

Upon further thought, if you look at the knight as a family unit, they are living on a total of 2.25L (9 PW - 3 for knight, 3 for wife, and 3 for children). If you assume that these "professionals" have their own families to support (along with a stay at home wife), they would have to make more than 2.25L to live better than the knight. Since most of them make 1L or 2L, they would still be living below the knights (unless the were single). I guess that's one way to rectify the issue.

On the other hand, let's look at the chaplain, who is almost certainly single. He gets 1L in support, making him live "higher on the hog" than the knight he serves (who lives at 0.75L).

Maybe he has to buy his own candles?

First, it must be said that this is a game and some simplifications were in play when designing the system, as well as the desire to keep it backwards-compatible. That being said...



Of the 1.25L personal support, probably 0.5L is spent maintaining his arms and armor


I think that is much too high for routine maintenance. Remember, there is a blacksmith whose wages are already paid for (and armourer at the estates) who can easily do routine repairs (fixing a couple of rings, etc.). The routine maintenance would be done by the squire (rolling the chainmail in a barrel with some sand to scour it from rust). And you are done. Thus, your analysis is severely discounting the amount spent on knight's own living, and thus you get those 'contradictions' in below. (Although not just from that, I'll come to it later.)



For the 1.75L horse support, the breakdown becomes a little more difficult. It appears that it takes 0.25L to support a non-warhorse. The knight has a riding horse and a pack horse, for 0.25L each. This leaves 1.25L for the warhorse, which seems excessive for pure support (I can't see care and feeding exceeding 0.5L for that one animal, double the support of non-warhorses). I see two ways to rectify this. Option 1 is that the excess 0.75L is used to pay for a replacement warhorse every 5-6 years (a type of depreciation if you will).


Warhorses were god-awful expensive to maintain compared to a 'work horse'. Not only is a warhorse significantly larger than a sumpter or a rouncy, and thus needs more food (energy), but the diet is different as well. Sumpters and rouncies would feed mainly on grass, while the warhorse would be grain-fed. This is obviously a huge difference in the cost of the food. So the five-time increase is not as impossible as you imagine. It naturally also depends on how much the horse is used, but given that the whole point of a knight is that he is an armored horseman, I can see him exercising with his warhorse pretty much daily.

If we take 10 lbs of grain as the benchmark for a charger (see the other thread about how much food a knight can carry, here:
http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=2936.0 )
this means about 3650 lbs of grain per year. Since 2000 lbs (cart-load) of food is £0.5, this comes to about £1. Since we knew that a rouncy needs to cost £0.25 in upkeep (to allow those squires to come to a total of £1 with the horse) and that £2 paid for a charger, 2 rouncies and a sumpter (that backwards-compatibility and also to keep it simple) it was easy to calculate that the charger should cost £1.25. Which is close enough to the quick estimate of how much it will eat.

Note that KAP doesn't require higher horse maintenance for the bigger breeds of warhorses, although in real life, the bigger the horse, the more it eats. This is one of those simplifications for the game I was talking about.

While your Option 1 has some merit (as far as replacing the warhorses go), it is not enough. A charger in Uther's time costs £20. Given the horse survival table, you are going to lose one horse (on average) every 8 years or so from random rolling alone, ignoring all the combat deaths (and my Saxons love chopping the legs of horses and then finishing the knight on the ground). Lets say a horse per 5 years, then? This requires £4 / year, which is clearly much more than you can 'save' from the horse upkeep. At the moment, this issue is handwaved away: the knight will get a replacement warhorse from his horse herd (KAP 5.1), end of story. The horse replacement was discussed during the BotW & the revision of BotE, where a point was raised that a normal vassal knight would not have a herd producing chargers, but it was decided that it would be best to leave it as it is for now.

(If someone wants to 'track' horse replacement, my suggestion would be to add a horse herd providing £4 income per year (per £10 land) and allowing it to be 'banked' for a charger, i.e. as long as you don't use the money, it accrues at 100% value until you have a £20 warhorse. So each year £4 goes into the horse pool at full value (not halved, as other treasure) and at the end of the 5th year, you can spend it for a £20 warhorse.)



My only issue with this is that the squire's personal support seems a little too close to the knight's (only a 0.125L difference between the two).


Again, if you take into account that the maintenance doesn't cost nearly as much, you'll see that the knight has a lead on the squire.



The lady wife is supported by 1L. Of this, 0.25L is spent supporting her riding horse, while 0.75L is spent supporting the wife. All of this 0.75L would be spent on food and clothing, putting her at the same level as the knight (3 PW), which makes sense.


No argument here.



The handmaiden is problematic. Older sources say she is supported at 0.75L (like the squire without a horse), while newer sources say she is supported at 0.5L.


Lady's Maid is a commoner, a servant, supported by £0.5. She doesn't have a horse, doesn't want to have a horse, doesn't even know how to ride in most cases. She travels by foot or in a cart. (Book of the Entourage seems to have a mistake on p. 41, where it states that the upkeep for a Lady's Maid is £1. We tried to find these mistakes beforehand, but some still slip to print. I added this to the Errata.)

Handmaiden (Woman-in-waiting) is a noblewoman, a squire-equivalent for a richer noblewoman (not a mere knight's wife, although an exception is made for Player-Character Ladies due to their Player-status), costing £0.75 + £0.25 for the horse. Note that by the time the knight's wife gains one of these handmaidens, she herself should be living around Rich or so, and hence much better than her handmaiden.

A Lady's Maid is NOT the same as a Handmaiden. I hope this is now clear. I know for a fact that the revised Book of Entourage spells this difference out (since I just checked it).



The children are supported at 1L.


Again, for simplification, we do not count the number of children. If one wanted to do that, then you can look at the pages (noble boys and girls under the age of squires and handmaidens) who cost £0.25 each.



Footmen are supported at 0.5L. Of this, 0.125L is spent maintaining arms and armor (leather, spear, and dagger, like the squire), while 0.375L is spent on food and clothing (1.5 PW).


Again, I think the maintaining arms and armor is severely overestimated.



However, when I look at some of the support costs of professionals (such as those in Book of the Entourage), it seems like many "employees" are living better than the Knights and ladies. Most of these staff are supported at 1L or more, while the knight and wife are making it on 0.75L each (as you can see above). I have not figured out how to resolve this, and I welcome suggestions/explanations.


My answer to this is the same that you mention in your next post: many of these professionals would be married. Remember that even stay-at-home wives would likely weave and sew, etc, and hence make an effective 'income' even if that is simply keeping the family clothed etc. However, do take into account that by the time you get to those £2 professionals, you are not longer talking about a routine entourage of a single manor knight, but of an estate holder, who is spending probably at least twice as much for his standard of living than a single manor knight. Of course the highly-paid professionals in his entourage dress and eat well!

As for the Chaplain, he has a donkey/mule to take care of, too. By the time he makes £2, see above. (Your argument, by the way, for Chaplain living better than his knight was exactly the one -I- used to argue that Chaplain should be £1, not £2.) Another thing to keep in mind is that the Chaplain is part of the knight's 'family', like the squire is. He is not a mere 'servant'. He would likely be seated right next to the knight and his lady at the high table of the manor, sharing their food & company, etc.

As for the commoner households, remember that £0.25 is enough to feed ONE MAN, not the whole family. Hence, In My Mind, this is how it goes:
£0.25 = the lower ranking servants, the housemaids and serving wenches, unskilled laborers and such. Unlikely to marry (at least the males) since they cannot support a family on their own (if they do, it is living at the edge, each new child another mouth to feed).
£0.5 = the middle ranking servants and craftsmen. They might marry, especially 'within their class', since this gives them enough funds to support a family comfortably enough.
£0.75 = the high ranking servants and craftsmen. They are likely married, since they can support a family.
£1+ = shading into the court members. The commoners at this level are almost always married.

For commoner FAMILIES:
£0.5 = struggling at the edge (can probably feed a baby or two, but once they grow up or if there are more or if there is a famine, then it is Hansel and Gretel time...) (These are the marriages that the fathers and mothers of the daughters object to: "Yes, Llewellyn the Groom is a handsome lad, but he can't support a family. Lets pick Gruffudd the Stabler instead; yes I know he is twice her age and walks with a limp, but he is a man of position and means!")
£0.75 = poor
£1 = normal
£1.25 - £1.5 = comfortable
£2+ = rich

Thanks for the reply and clarifications, especially on the difference between a lady's maid and a handmaiden.

I do want to point out p. 160 in the core rule book where it mentions the knight's wife's two maids and page, saying "all of whom would ride". That's where I got the impression that even the ordinary knight's wife's maid needed to be provided with a horse.

So, as far as equipment maintenance goes, I suppose its safe to assume these amounts are negligible, given that the knight has access to a blacksmith to help maintain his and his men's arms and armor. Given the expense of mail and swords, and the fact that shields and lances break, do you think it would be appropriate to assign 0.25L to equipment maintenance for the knight, putting his food/clothing support at 1L?

If so, you would have something like this:
Knight - 1L food/clothes, 0.25L equipment, 1.75L horses
Squire - 0.75L food/clothes (equipment negligible), 0.25L horse
Wife - 0.75L food/clothes, 0.25L horse
Lady's Maid - 0.5L food/clothes (no horse)
Footmen - 0.5L food/clothes (equipment negligible)

This puts the knight 0.25L ahead of the wife and squire. It puts the wife and squire at the same level of support. It also puts the knight and chaplain at the same level of support. Does this sound right?

If we say the knight's equipment maintenance is negligible (like the squire and footmen), then he is at 1.25L support, which is 0.5L ahead of the wife and squire, and 0.25L ahead of the chaplain. But if this were the case, why would the knight be maintained so much better than the wife, who is kept at a level equal to the squire and beneath the chaplain? Seems to me it would be better to give 0.25L of the 0.5L to the wife, so that the knight is kept at 1L, the wife at 1L, the squire at 0.75L, and the chaplain at 1L (equal to the knight and wife).

As for footmen and horses, I suppose they don't need them? I always had the impression that the full time professional soldiers (not peasant levies), that went to battle with the knights, rode to the battle on horses and fought on foot.

What about bailiffs and stewards? Are they provided with horses? What about the children and ponies? Again, p. 160 in rule book references the knight's children riding ponies.

I like your breakdown of individual and family income levels. It really helps clear things up. Also, the post you referred to on carrying capacity is simply outstanding.

Thanks for the help.

I do want to point out p. 160 in the core rule book where it mentions the knight's wife's two maids and page, saying "all of whom would ride". That's where I got the impression that even the ordinary knight's wife's maid needed to be provided with a horse.


I know that is in the core book, but that has been explicitly superseded by BotE. The issue came up whilst revising Entourage and Estates, and the end result is that KAP 5.1 is wrong on that score. Chalk up another thing for the 6th edition to fix...



Given the expense of mail and swords, and the fact that shields and lances break, do you think it would be appropriate to assign 0.25L to equipment maintenance for the knight, putting his food/clothing support at 1L?


Not really. £0.25 is 60d. This is what 20 unpainted shields, 12 painted ones (or something close to that)? Given that you'd probably manage a battle with a single shield (these are not as flimsy as the viking shields), you'd have to fight in plenty of battles and duels to merit that many shields. Same with the number of lances. The only place I'd see one breaking loads of lances would be in a tournament, and I think the tournament host is usually the one who needs to provide the lances.

In short, I'd invoke the 'manly appetite' for this one. :P A 160lbs fighting man eats and spends a whole lot more calories than a 120lbs lady.

Re: Chaplain, he has his donkey/mule to take care of, too. Granted, not a huge deal, but still some. Also, since it is just a game, we decided to stick with £0.25 increments rather than try to nail everything down to a penny.



As for footmen and horses, I suppose they don't need them? I always had the impression that the full time professional soldiers (not peasant levies), that went to battle with the knights, rode to the battle on horses and fought on foot.


It is there in the name: foot soldiers. They are infantry, not cavalrymen. What you want is Mounted Infantry, which is something that I think we provided for in the Entourage: +£0.5 cost and they have rouncies and Horsemanship skill, riding to the battlefield and then dismounting to fight.



What about bailiffs and stewards? Are they provided with horses? What about the children and ponies? Again, p. 160 in rule book references the knight's children riding ponies.


See above for p. 160.

I'd tend to give £1 esquires (for example stewards) rouncies, too. This also brings them nicely to the same level of maintenance as a squire. I wouldn't do that for bailiffs, as a general rule, since they are commoners.



I like your breakdown of individual and family income levels. It really helps clear things up. Also, the post you referred to on carrying capacity is simply outstanding.

Thanks for the help.


You are quite welcome. Happy to help. :)

Mr.47, where did you get your idea for the footman getting 7 shillings for food/clothing and 3 shillings for equipment maintenance? Just curious.

I am still wrestling with how much support to assign to equipment/weapon/armor maintenance.

Looking at updated book of entourage, I have some questions.

Footmen are supported at 0.5L, armored footman at 1L, and guardsmen at 1.5L. I know the skill/experience improves with each, but does that account for the whole increase in support? Or, is equipment maintenance a part of this? To me, a 0.5L increase per level of footman seems high. Wouldn't a 0.25L increment fit better with the pay scale of other employees?

Look at the mounted sergeant, who is supported at 2L. If we say he has a poor quality charger costing 1L (instead of 1.25L), and a rouncy costing 0.25L, then he is supported at 0.75L (like the squire). That makes sense.

But, when we compare him to the armored footman, for some reason the armored footman makes more than him (1L). Why? Why should the armored footman be paid better than esquire-class people like squires and mounted sergeants? Beyond that, why should a guardsman get paid double what an esquire-at-arms makes? Does combat experience count for that much when it comes to pay? Does it trump social class? Or, are guardsmen actually esquires who have chosen to foresake mounted combat?

Let's look at the crossbowman at 1L and the armored crossbowman at 1.5L. Surely some of this high pay is given to maintain the expensive machine (crossbow) these men use, and in the case of the armored crossbowman, the expensive armor they wear.

Since there is no skill difference between the regular and armored variety of crossbowman, the only explanation I can see for the higher rate of pay is maintaining the mail. And as discussed in earlier posts, 0.5L is probably way more than needed to maintain a suit of mail. I don't see why these guys aren't paid 0.75L for regular crossbowman (equivalent to squires) and 1L for armored crossbowmen. The only way I can see them costing more is if their crossbows cost a ton of money to maintain.

Let's look at mounted foot soldiers. Why do they cost an extra 0.5L? Why not just 0.25L for cost of supporting a rouncy? These guys are not true cavalrymen after all.

Finally, as discussed earlier, a knight gets 1.25L after deducting horses. Should any of these foot soldiers make more than a knight?

What about something like this:

Poor footman 0.25L (no armor, 0.25L food, negligible equipment costs)
Footman (spearman or bowman) 0.5L (gambeson, 0.45L food, 0.05L equipment)
Armored footman 0.75L (haubergeon, 0.6L food, 0.15L equipment)
Guardsman 1L (hauberk, 0.8L food, 0.2L equipment)

Crossbowman 0.75L (gambeson, 0.6L food, 0.15L equipment)
Armored crossbowman 1L (haubergeon, 0.75L food, 0.25L equipment)

Mounted footman or Hobilar 0.5L w/o horse (gambeson, 0.45L food, 0.05L equipment)
- 0.75L with rouncy
Mounted sergeant 0.75L w/o horses (haubergeon, 0.6L food, 0.15L equipment)
- 2L with poor charger and rouncy

Footmen are supported at 0.5L, armored footman at 1L, and guardsmen at 1.5L. I know the skill/experience improves with each, but does that account for the whole increase in support? Or, is equipment maintenance a part of this? To me, a 0.5L increase per level of footman seems high. Wouldn't a 0.25L increment fit better with the pay scale of other employees?


These very same arguments were brought up during the revision of Entourage, when we nailed down the maintenance costs. I can't remember the exact rationale (I'd have to look it up again), but I do know that some arguments were to keep it simple (the x2 progression of basic types makes it a breeze to calculate), and to have the armored footmen match the £1 commander of the foot in previous version of Book of Estate. (At the start of the revision, the commander of the foot was foot soldier (£0.5) + armored (+£0.25) + veteran/leader (+£0.25) = £1, but it was decided to be easier just to combine all that to an armored foot soldier = £1.)

Play balance was of course an issue, too: the armored foot soldiers were supposed to be tough and rare. At £0.75, they would still be tough, but not that rare. Heck, I would be keen on upgrading my foot soldiers in a hurry, to be honest, and this would change the assumptions what the typical army should look like. At double the price, it gets a bit more iffy.



But, when we compare him to the armored footman, for some reason the armored footman makes more than him (1L). Why? Why should the armored footman be paid better than esquire-class people like squires and mounted sergeants? Beyond that, why should a guardsman get paid double what an esquire-at-arms makes? Does combat experience count for that much when it comes to pay? Does it trump social class? Or, are guardsmen actually esquires who have chosen to foresake mounted combat?


Some arguments in favor of the current system, apart from 'it's easier this way':
1) Those commoners might marry and have families. This drops down the amount spent on the guy's personal maintenance.
2) The higher-pay people might be getting some more spending money to put aside as savings for a rainy day & retirement.
3) They are rare enough that you'll have to pay them well to retain them.
4) Note that they bring their own equipment with them, and part of the maintenance surely goes to amortize this investment (armored foot soldiers, crossbowmen, all mounted troops).



Let's look at mounted foot soldiers. Why do they cost an extra 0.5L? Why not just 0.25L for cost of supporting a rouncy? These guys are not true cavalrymen after all.


Because mounted infantry combines horsemanship skill (a poor one to start with, admittedly) + foot soldier + rouncy. They are not just foot soldiers that are given horses, they are mounted infantry who actually can ride (and they'll get better). You can compare their fighting skills against a hobilar. At £1 each, what you lose in combat skill of a hobilar, you gain in horsemanship. If mounted infantry is £0.75, the equation starts to change. (Of course, if you drop the hobilar down to £0.75 as you did in below, this changes again.)

And, you guessed it, it is easier to have 1 mounted infantry costing the same as two regular foot soldiers.



Finally, as discussed earlier, a knight gets 1.25L after deducting horses. Should any of these foot soldiers make more than a knight?


Again, the very same question asked during the revision of Entourage. Here are some points:
1) Guardsmen are not just good. They are SCARY GOOD. You are getting Skills 17 and 5d6 damage. They will kick a regular knight's butt on foot.
2) You will also gain their bodyguard senses: Awareness 16. In fact, it could be argued that they should cost MORE from play-balance perspective, since in the other supporter section, those commoner specialists giving you the use of their skill should cost £0.5 - £1 each. So what you are getting is a guy who is not only better than a knight on foot, he is also adding a very useful and HIGH (for a supporter, 16) skill of his own.
3) They are rare and much in demand. If you don't pay £1.5, they will find someone else who will.
4) Your regular vassal knight would not hire one of these guys. They are for Barons (and maybe a personal bodyguard for an estate holder who feels like it). Thus, in comparison to their master, they do less well.
5) They use a bigger share of the maintenance for a flashy uniform than a normal knight. They are a walking announcement of the prestige of their employer, see here: http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/33/94133-004-7C39F857.jpg . Tres chic!

Would some of them be esquires? I can't see why not.



What about something like this:

Poor footman 0.25L (no armor, 0.25L food, negligible equipment costs)
Footman (spearman or bowman) 0.5L (gambeson, 0.45L food, 0.05L equipment)
Armored footman 0.75L (haubergeon, 0.6L food, 0.15L equipment)
Guardsman 1L (hauberk, 0.8L food, 0.2L equipment)

Crossbowman 0.75L (gambeson, 0.6L food, 0.15L equipment)
Armored crossbowman 1L (haubergeon, 0.75L food, 0.25L equipment)

Mounted footman or Hobilar 0.5L w/o horse (gambeson, 0.45L food, 0.05L equipment)
- 0.75L with rouncy
Mounted sergeant 0.75L w/o horses (haubergeon, 0.6L food, 0.15L equipment)
- 2L with poor charger and rouncy


It is your campaign, do what you will. :) I don't find your numbers beyond the pale, but at the same time, I don't see any burning need to cross over to using them in place of the official ones.

What about something like this:

Poor footman 0.25L (no armor, 0.25L food, negligible equipment costs)
Footman (spearman or bowman) 0.5L (gambeson, 0.45L food, 0.05L equipment)
Armored footman 0.75L (haubergeon, 0.6L food, 0.15L equipment)
Guardsman 1L (hauberk, 0.8L food, 0.2L equipment)

Crossbowman 0.75L (gambeson, 0.6L food, 0.15L equipment)
Armored crossbowman 1L (haubergeon, 0.75L food, 0.25L equipment)

Mounted footman or Hobilar 0.5L w/o horse (gambeson, 0.45L food, 0.05L equipment)
- 0.75L with rouncy
Mounted sergeant 0.75L w/o horses (haubergeon, 0.6L food, 0.15L equipment)
- 2L with poor charger and rouncy

That seems reasonable. I pulled the 3s out of my hat honestly, going back and looking at the price list again, 1s per year on a spearman's equipment is probably adequate.

I honestly think the .5L increments are entirely to do with book keeping and nothing to do with logical consistency. Part of the problem of course is that essentially the economic system seems to have been constructed top down with very little wiggle room downwards. Because knightly expenditure was arbitrarily decided to be in the single digit pounds, pretty much everything to do with the common people is relegated to fractions and decimals. If I had a say in developing the next edition, I'd say devalue the currency somewhat. 8 fold would pretty much eliminate the need for fractional prices, common meals would cost 1d instead of 1/8 d, with everything else scaling up appropriately.

A spear man's wage would be 4L, and a knight's 48L. I think those are much easier to scale between than .5 and 6

I have read historical documents saying that a Knight's lance (knight, squire, 2-3 men) was paid 8d per day in early Middle Ages. This equates to 12L per year, which seems close to the Pendragon 10L manor. Thus, it appears the valuation of money is pretty good as is, for historical purposes, even though it requires you to work in decimals.

On another note, what is the basis for the cost of hounds? It appears hounds cost 0.75L for a dozen. That puts them at 15d each. This is a quarter of what it costs to feed a person for a year. I assume this is meat? Any idea how much meat this represents and what kind of meat we're talking about? Is this scraps from the butchering of livestock, or is it good meat that would be eaten by humans? If it is scraps that people wouldn't eat, should it really have any cost at all?

It is my understanding that a peasant's food was about 20% animal and 80% vegetable. Since meat was more expensive than grain, I can see 15d (25% of food spending) paying for a peasant's meat for the year. At 400 calories per day (about 5-6 ounces, or a third of a pound of meat/cheese per day), we are talking about 120 pounds of animal protein per year for 15d.

So, back to hounds, if we are talking about scrap meat, perhaps it is worth about 1/5 the value of good meat fit for human consumption. This would mean each hound would get 1.5 pounds of "scrap" meat per day for 15d annual cost. I don't know how much fresh meat dogs need per day to live. Does this sound right?

Also, it is my understanding that only 50% of the weight of livestock carcasses is used as human food. Maybe, in order to give the scraps some value, only half of the waste can be salvaged as dog food? This would mean you get 1 pound of dog food for every 2 pounds of meat produced for human consumption. Your hound would need 500 pounds per year (1.5 pounds/day). If a typical peasant family eats 480 pounds of animal protein per year (120 pounds x 4, for a family living at 1L), then the family could support 1 hound from the scraps of its butchered livestock.

Do you think it works this way, or does the dog boy just kill a boat load of chickens each year and feed the whole birds to the dogs? Would 15d per hound be enough to pay for all those chickens?

I have read historical documents saying...


I admire your curiosity and work here
and I don't want to discourage anyone wishing to go into this kind of detail
But I will say that you are asking questions that I, for one, have no answer to
I had some rough figures from history
I worked out some rough values for game play
They seem to work pretty well
I grant anyone the right to change whatever they wish for their own game
I am fascinated in your working these out
But I am incapable of answering them
But I do not need the penny and calorie details you are asking about
Again, please keep it up
but please don't wait for me to answer them

I have read historical documents saying that a Knight's lance (knight, squire, 2-3 men) was paid 8d per day in early Middle Ages. This equates to 12L per year, which seems close to the Pendragon 10L manor. Thus, it appears the valuation of money is pretty good as is, for historical purposes, even though it requires you to work in decimals.


I've read sources saying that during the reign of Edward I in around 1300, a knight's fee was considered land worth 40L a year or more, which isn't all that far off from 48L. Of course Edward's feudalism was a departure from traditional feudalism, but I think 1300 is as good a year for your medievally needs as any, as far as the worth of currency. You get later into the middle ages and the pound is worth less and less. Since Pendragon relies on a parallel medieval timeline taken out of the middle ages (hastings to bosworth in the span of a century) we could say 10 pounds wouldn't buy you a loaf of bread if we wanted to and wouldn't be wrong.

Since Pendragon relies on a parallel medieval timeline taken out of the middle ages (hastings to bosworth in the span of a century) we could say 10 pounds wouldn't buy you a loaf of bread if we wanted to and wouldn't be wrong.


I wouldn't go quite THAT far. I'd challenge you to show me a historical record when a loaf of bread in Medieval England cost £10. :)

I agree with Greg that quibbling about pennies and the caloric intake of hounds is getting a bit too far. Again, people who are interested in that level of detail would be better off taking HarnManor and using that as the basis of their system, simply (he says, knowing he won't be the one to do it) scaling the average HarnManor to £10 in Pendragon. Or, indeed, coming up with the numbers of your own like people have done in this thread.

As a very CLEAR example of this 'simplified for the game' is Knight's Children (£1, no matter how many). Surely, if we want more detail, THIS would be a more worthy topic than the caloric intake of hunting dogs. Furthermore, I don't know how you do it in your Campaign, but in mine, I don't actually bother counting the horses' upkeep (past that £2 per year that is part of the normal knight upkeep) in game. Horses are already an extremely poor investment (since they can die in Winter Phase and especially easily in early battles against the Saxons as they are not armored and my Saxons tend to go for the horses first); there is no way that I would make them even poorer by charging £1.25 for extra warhorses that they may have looted / gained, since this would make them even more likely to just sell the beasties.

It is true that our 'anchor' point was the £6 family knight and £4 household knight. We were not going to change that, since it would have caused oh so many backwards-compatibility issues. But the ratio of knight's wage to a foot soldier's wage (8:1) is historical. This gives us that a foot soldier is making £0.5. It was easy enough to jump from that to a basic commoner worker/servant being £0.25, and then build up from that to £1. But for example the reason why the Kennel is £1 in BotEntourage is obvious: £1 is very easy to use! We didn't actually start from the caloric intake of a single dog and calculate upwards from there. Instead, we decided that we'd like this improvement / add-on to be £1, and a dozen or so dogs sounded like in the right ballpark.

The argument about how the person's upkeep compares with that of a knight did come up, like I said, and we did identify some potential problems in this regard; for example, the £2 entourage members (which is also why the Chaplain went from £2 -> £1 in the BotE revision). In my mind, I justified this by assuming that the £2 entourage members would be supporting a family on the side, and also because those £2 entourage members are quite rare; you'll start seeing them mainly at the baron levels, and even then, the majority are £1 entourage members. And in the end, it is a game about KNIGHTS, not about the caloric intake of his dogs. :)

All in all, I take quite a lot of (hopefully justified) pride in the current economic system of Pendragon income and expenses. It scales nicely from bits and pieces of manors to single manor and all the way up to honours. The upkeep of the commoners is pretty much OK, and while some of the higher-level esquires and mercenaries take a bit of handwaving, it is a small price to pay to keep things nice and streamlined for playability (for example, we don't have any entourage members at £1.25, £1.5, £1.75, but skip from £1 to £2, and commoners are in £0.25 steps). In short, it is internally consistent enough to make me happy, it scales nicely so that I can use it for all the landholdings rather than need to come up with a new system each time, and so forth.

In your campaign, you can do what you will. As I have often said in these forums, I tinker with the rules all the time. :) There is no Secret Pendragon Police to come and confiscate your books if you are using house-rules to make the game more to your liking.

Well all this business about the caloric intake of dogs and the petty expenses of the countless unnamed peasant npc's is purely academic, mostly to better understand the setting better and try to reason out what makes sense for us. No one's knocking your economic system morien, it is one to be proud of :)

Anyway the 3d20 was a nice idea, but coupled with the fact that I was running with the pre-nerfed heiresses and random dowries, we have three players with motte-and-bailies in 493, and just 3 or so years ago the PK's were able to raise an army and sack levcomagus when the steward pillaged a manor of one of theirs and kidnapped the knight for ransom.

We're drawing close to the anarchy, so what I think I'll end up doing is let the players keep the fruits of their outrageous fortune, but make a blight roll in on Uther's poisoning and death, which doesn't drive any of them into poverty but is enough to pretty much eliminate whatever surplus they previously had been expecting, which I believe is a very medieval way to solve the problem :P

Well all this business about the caloric intake of dogs and the petty expenses of the countless unnamed peasant npc's is purely academic, mostly to better understand the setting better and try to reason out what makes sense for us. No one's knocking your economic system morien, it is one to be proud of :)


Thank you, appreciated. :)



Anyway the 3d20 was a nice idea, but coupled with the fact that I was running with the pre-nerfed heiresses and random dowries, we have three players with motte-and-bailies in 493, and just 3 or so years ago the PK's were able to raise an army and sack levcomagus when the steward pillaged a manor of one of theirs and kidnapped the knight for ransom.


That's... pretty hefty going, given that In My Campaign, Levcomagus has a couple of dozen knights to call on + foot soldiers + the city militia who would certainly fight against a mercenary army bent on sacking the city. Also, Duke Ulfius as the liege lord of Levcomagus would certainly get involved, too, rather than abandon his vassal's town to be sacked. YPMV, of course, and if you are handing out demesne manor income for free (which it shouldn't be), no wonder your knights are swimming in money!

A good way to nerf that free demesne money (other than to say 'sorry, I made a mistake, demesne means you have a household knight from there rather than a vassal knight, so you'll need to hire one', which would be my preference, and not giving them ANY discretionary funds from enfeoffed manors; that 3d20 belongs to their vassal knights) is to keep in mind that this income is mainly in perishables (food), so if you want to store it for later, you'll have to convert it to Treasure at 2:1 ratio: £2 food = £1 Treasure. Of course, you might prefer not to deal with that in mid-campaign.



We're drawing close to the anarchy, so what I think I'll end up doing is let the players keep the fruits of their outrageous fortune, but make a blight roll in on Uther's poisoning and death, which doesn't drive any of them into poverty but is enough to pretty much eliminate whatever surplus they previously had been expecting, which I believe is a very medieval way to solve the problem :P


You could do that. The other thing that will pinch them is once those Saxon tribute demands get under way, since I was charging those per manor: you will pay in proportion to your lands. Also, you can easily have total chaos erupt in Salisbury at the start of Anarchy, with Levcomagus (with Silchester backing) raiding with vengeance and possibly allied with some would-be-usurper SoB seeking to oust the Countess. This kind of internal strife would cause a lot of potential headaches for the PKs... assuming they even survive the Infamous Feast. Sounds to me that they might be getting up there in Glory and Status to be honored with a seat at the party... :P

Additional expenses during our Anarchy Phase:
Building the walls of Sarum: £1 per manor per year for 5 years.
Tribute to Saxons :£1 per manor per Saxon Prince per visit.
(In your campaign, you can easily double the Saxon demands (in GPC it is closer to £3 each, what with the Standard of Living class drop), or even the wall building costs. I decided on £1 each since I figured that was reasonable to pay: getting raided would hurt more.)

I also made a small mistake (or not) at some points where the text said that the Saxons were demanding double tribute, which I took to mean that each of the two princes present wanted double tribute EACH, rather than that the total Saxon tribute was double because there were two princes. Oh well. :)

In any case, none of my players felt that they were in any way swimming in money, and had to resort to Squeezing their peasants ('this is for your own good, stop whining') to raise the required tribute.

And if your players decide that their knights won't pay, then the Saxons might come to raid their lands. Or, even, you could have the Countess saying that since they have all this income from those demesne manors, they could bring an extra knight each, for the good of Salisbury. And then see how high their Loyalty scores are (16+? 'Glad to, my lady.').

You misunderstand, I am completely aware of servitum debitum and the automatic expenses that apply to secondary manors. The math was fine, they just ha a lot of manors through marriage. For example at the moment one player, Sir William de Codford, is a knight banneret (land from marriage, title from deeds) with 4 demesne (personal, not free) manors and 4 enfoeffed ones (no money for Sir William whatsoever).

Based on the 8L model I've proposed earlier, this is the breakdown of the estates income (20L):
8L Knight
3L Four footmen (one of which serves garrison for the earl)
4L Earl's Tax
4L Church Tax / Sacrificial Offerings, or a mixture of the two.
1L Manor Reeve and Family

With that model, a two manor estate looks something like this:

Land Rents: +16L *Base fixed Income, two knight's fees
PK Upkeep: -8L
House Knight: -4L
2 spearmen: -1.5L *Raised in cost from .5 to .75, two additional footmen required to garrison and keep order in unoccupied manors (stationing house
knights without landing them is cheating, they stay with the player's household, wherever they keep their caput major)
1 Steward: -1.5L *Also made slightly more expensive in loose proportion to the new knightly upkeep, an understeward such as this is required in every
manor.
Base Profit = 1L
Harvest Surplus: ~3L

That's around 4L in spending money in a given year, without any upgrades to the land. Now as I said, the heiresses and random dowries I used in my campaign were the un-nerfed ones, so we've got two Banneret equivalent landholders in the party. With four demesne (personal not free) manors, the base profit goes up to 3L, and the harvest Surplus goes up to ~6L, with the possibility of up to 15 pounds net profit, 12 if I pressure the player into living rich.

And that's not even including improvements. When I designed the improvements I sort of forgot the harvest surplus existed, so on top of the profits above, all the estates of 'William, Lord Codford' and 'Greil, Lord Wallop' as I like to call them, have all their manors in the 10L-12L range.

So, on top of siege loot from Bayeux, ransoms, war steeds of unhorsed opponents, and five years of investing as much as they could and squirreling everything else away, in 490 the party mustered up between them a force of about 300 or so professional retinue soldiers and mercenaries.

They didn't tarry about raiding any hamlets on the way, they simply marched right up to the town and laid siege. I explained to them, as the steward speaking to them from atop the gatehouse, that word had been sent to the duke and that even as they spoke Ulfius was calling up his army. Of course such things take time. Silchester is a big place, and Blains' messenger had only just departed the morning of the besieging armies arrival. I explained to them out of character they had about a week to get in and get out before Ulfius arrived. Luckily this being mid-Uther period and Levcomagus esentially being little better than a market town, the defenses were a ditch and palisade affair with an adjoining motte.

I nearly cried when one of my players (William de Codford) recited the entire Harfleur speech from Henry V to the onlooking steward and defenders (the 'surrender now or we'll scour your pitiful little city of the face of this earth' speech). He definitely got a few hidden little bonuses for that. Anyway, much rolls later and the assault succeeds, yielding the towns riches the player knights, just about recouping them for the army, and then upon taking the keep, the stewards strongbox and some fifteen noble captives make them rich men again.

Of course, Ulfius is pissed. The Party managed to beat him across the Salisbury border, but the Duke is out for blood. His begins pillaging the border manors, calls up the rest of his force and marches on Salisbury. With great luck, some excellent strategy, and one or two player deaths, the knights of Salisbury are victorious against the army of Silchester. Uther is finally called in to mediate, ransoms and bloodmoney are exchanged but no land changes hands and noexcecutions are ordered.

I believe there was a rather important battle we had to skip for that whole affair, I've forgotten. But all in all that was a pretty fun year, despite the over inflated player coffers.

Anyway I think just reducing the harvest Surplus from 3d20 to1d20 ought to fix the problem. The gradation bit will have to be thrown out the window, or else I'll have to come up with a few more money sinks that DON'T just make the players more money. I tried getting the lustful sir Greil to take on a 1L mistress as it would be in character with his wife getting pregnant nearly every year. His response was to simply 'seduce' in the royal etruscan sense, his 17 year old step-daughter by his second wife. That's going to come around to bite him in the ass eventually, don't you worry, but my players being primarily strategy gamers most of them don't want to spend any money that isn't required of them or doesn't give them some tactical advantage. I actually let Sir Greil invent the tournament about twenty years early just to give him something to spend on until anarchy.

I see, thanks for the explanation.

I would have been somewhat harsher re: Sacking of Levcomagus. That is not mere raiding and skirmishing, that is making war, and they are mere knights. Especially if they managed to miss BATTLE OF LINDSEY due to that and by association, causing Ulfius and Roderick and their armies miss that battle, too. I'd been tempted to make Uther LOSE that battle as the result of two of his richest barons not showing up with their armies. After which, my Uther would be looking to assign the blame and for heads to chop off. But YPWV. :)

Come Anarchy and Saxon raids, one option you could exercise is burning some of those fine investments. As strategy gamers, they surely know this is what raids do. :P

Please do not take my posts as a criticism of this elegant game and it's economic system. On the contrary, if I did not find this system so outstanding, especially in its scalability between manors and estates, I would not devote so much time and energy to deciphering the "possible" details lying underneath the numbers presented in the rules.

I am familiar with harn manor and I appreciate its detailed approach. However, I like the Pendragon numbers better, especially the 0.25L as the basic unit of support for one adult.

The purpose of my posts is to get feedback on "possible" explanations for these things. There are some things I would house rule, but I would like to reason it out first to make sure my house rules have merit.

I do not wish to hijack this thread, so I will probably start a new one to have a place to put my ideas and get feedback.

Again, a big thanks to the designers of this game for the work they have done.

I see, thanks for the explanation.

I would have been somewhat harsher re: Sacking of Levcomagus. That is not mere raiding and skirmishing, that is making war, and they are mere knights. Especially if they managed to miss BATTLE OF LINDSEY due to that and by association, causing Ulfius and Roderick and their armies miss that battle, too. I'd been tempted to make Uther LOSE that battle as the result of two of his richest barons not showing up with their armies. After which, my Uther would be looking to assign the blame and for heads to chop off. But YPWV. :)

Come Anarchy and Saxon raids, one option you could exercise is burning some of those fine investments. As strategy gamers, they surely know this is what raids do. :P


Bear in mind, the assault on Levcomagus wasn't vengeance for a few russled cattle or singed barns, it was a rescue mission. The steward had kidnapped Sir Greil and his entire immediate family with the exception of his younger brother, who he happened to have vassalized. The steward wouldn't give him up, confident that Ulfius would get there before the attackers got in, he was wrong. Having gotten in, mercenaries did what mercenaries do to towns. I contemplated having the steward threaten to massacre the entire hostage family, but playing him as prudent, he decided that would not be a wise ultimatum to deliver to the army below his keep, his own family being present.

The 'war' ended in one battle. Ulfius raided a few manors along the way to sarum but was halted and turned back after a battle about ten miles down river. The death toll on either side was not devestating, but both realized neither was well equipped to make gains in the others territory, so it ended the way most baronial disputes end, they called in the king and it was over. Don't get me wrong, Uther was pissed. But I felt he couldn't really start lopping off heads on one side without lopping off heads on the other, so I handwaved the punitive executions.

Now if you want to talk about backlash in the anarchy, oh boy way ahead of you. There's been a strong anti-player faction in Salisbury since 486, that was already of comparable strength to the party before this, but now with the 4 knights whose manors were burned by Ulfius, and two or three families who lost sons in the player's war. If we are working on the assumption that Roderick has around 20 direct vassals, the number of them that hate the player's guts after this incident is looking like about 10 vs. 5 players. That's 17 manors and a town vs. the players 22 manors and 2 castles (I really was not kidding when I said the heiresses and marriage tables were a bit of an issue), and the anti-fan club is growing yearly, with 11 manors currently neutral, and of course the remaining 50 belonging to the earl.

For example, Greils squire also happens to be step-son, and also the heir to Imber (if you've read my campaign blog you'll know that his father, Sir Bloigne, was bitten in half by the dread beast in 485). His sister is the step daughter that Greil raped when I suggested he get a mistress. If he didn't have reason enough to resent the man for marrying his mother and usurping his father place, or resent having to cook for, dress, and be at the side of him every waking hour, the sister will have sent him over the line. He's coming of age and into his manor just in time for anarchy :)

Anyway I've gone off topic again, but I thought the situation needed clarification.

Actually, I think I've had a eureka moment, if I enforce a 2L increase in upkeep for every secondary manor, return to the 6L standard and then tweak the harvest results table once more, and that should fix the problem.

Stewards:

1L: 10 skill
2L: 1d6+9
3L: 1d6+14
4L: 1d6+19

Wife has a skill of 2d6+8

The steward's (and wife's) range of effectiveness is up to 5 manors within the same county, or spread over an equivalent distance. If a seneschal or high steward is hired, or happens to be married to the PK, they grant a bonus equal to their own skill - 10, divided among subordinate stewards, rounded down. The High Steward is necessary , because low stewards who are more than twenty miles away (farther than the neighboring county) from the seneschal or the lord's residence start taking corruption penalties to their effective skill. -2 for Stewards out of range, subsequent -1 for every additional increment up to a maximum of 5.

So, the new budget sheet for Sir William de Codford, Banneret, looks like this:

Lands and Rents (35.35):
Codford, Caput Major. 9.65 L/yr
Boyton 7.65 L/yr
Sherrington 8.85 L/yr
Corton 9.20 L/yr

Upkeep: 9L (rich)

+ Improvements = (3.65 + 1.65 + 2.85 + 3.2) = 11.35
- Codford Motte; Garrison (10 footmen) = 10(.5) = 5L
- Excellent Steward = 3L

Profit = 3.35 + 12d20s

High Steward (Wife) Stewardship 11
Under-Steward, 3L grade (Salisbury) 15 +1

Harvest result might look like this:

Spectacular (crit stewardship fumble bad weather): Improvements + Harvest Surplus x 4
Excellent: Improvements + Harvest Surplus x3
Rich: Improvements + Harvest Surplus x2
Ordinary: Profit as Normal, Improvements + Harvest Surplus (3d20s)
Poor: Improvements, no harvest surplus.
Meagre: No harvest Surplus, grosse income halved.
Barren (fumble stewardship, crit bad weather): No Harvest Surplus, grosse income quartered.


Finally I think I'll stick a cap on improvements, 1d6 pounds worth, with +1 for manors on a river, and another +1 for manors on a major road. At 10L to 12L worth I imagine a manor start's qualifying as a small town rather than a collection of farming villages. I'll have to ponder on that a while.

Gone a few years now and it's working like a charm. The only real problem is that going into this change (brought about by uther's illness ;) ) is that the player's already had invested an ungodly amount of money into manor improvements, but hey, improvements can burn 8)

I've even tested out the system for the earl (extremely simplified).

I had to reevalute the hidden manor surplus to

6L knight
2L Four Footmen
1L Earl's Tax
1L Reeve
10L Church Tithe and/or Pagan rites
15L Goes to Market (If the burgess family lives off of 1.5L on average and there are 100 manors in salisbury, then ((100x15)/1.5)x5, Salisbury supports an urban population of around 5,000 which I'm happy with.


50 manors held directly (improvements handwaved), each supporting a household knight

Land Rights, Tolls, Licenses, and Court Fees: 10d6L

Upkeep: 100L (from the 2L per manor)

+ Sarum: 50L

+ Upavon: 15L

+ Earl Tax: 100L

- Mercenary Retinue (15 Men at arms (2.5e), 50 armored footmen (1e), 35 archers (.5e)): 105L

- Extra Upkeep for Household Knights (They're men of the earl by god, they should look it!): 50L

- Five Stewards (3L grade): 15L

Profit: -5L + Harvest Surplus (simplified) 8d20L + Perks 10d6 = 105L on an average year, just enough to accommodate some tribute ;D

Personal Force (300):
50 Knights
15 Men at Arms
50 Armored Footmen
85 Archers
100 footmen

Vassal Force (200):
50 Knights
50 Archers
100 Footmen

Salisbury Marches with 500 men.

Population: ~50,000; 45,000 serfs at 450 per manor (30 more than in the book, sue me) 5,000 non-farmers