Here are some Solo Scenarios I have put together for my group for slow years... also included, my take on raiding Saxon lands.

Tend to your Lands (Solo)
You gain checks in the following skills: Intrigue, Folk Lore, and Stewardship.
You (and only you) may choose to make a Stewardship check (not required). On a success, your extra attention results in an additional 1£ of Discretionary Income this year. If you fail, you take 1 Lot of Temporary Damage. On a Critical: Gain 1d6£. On a fumble, take 1 Lot of Permanent Damage.

Roll 1d20 and gain the following benefit/consequence:
1-3: Dispute amongst your commoners. You may decide the outcome and take an Arbitrary Check or make a Just roll to try to come to the "correct" decision (if successful, you can check Just). You can accept a bribe and gain £1 as well as Selfish and Deceitful check.
4-7: You spend the season quietly with your family and faith. Check Love (Family) and Prudent, Spiritual, or Temperate.
8-12: Visitor for the season. Check Hospitality and Courtesy. Spend £2 to feed the retinue.
13-16: Traveling troupe of performers visits. You can allow them to stay or tell them to move on. If you refuse them entry check Selfish, if they are allowed entry, your commoners gain a point of Loyalty (Lord). You can also choose to give your peasantry the day off to enjoy the festivities and gain a Generous check but at the cost of £0.25 in lost income. If you participate in the festivities check Dancing, Gaming, Flirting, or Singing.
17-19: Leisurely summer. Check Lazy but gain two checks in any two Skills you wish.
20: The King comes to visit. Check Hospitality and Courtesy. You may also roll Loyalty (Pendragon), if successful, gain a check in it. Gain 30 Glory. Spend £10 to feed the retinue.

Interview Candidates for Knighthood (Solo)
Interview candidates for Knighthood. To find a Knight with at least one exceptional Skill/Trait, Roll Intrigue. This roll can be modified with a -2 for every additional Exceptional Skill/Trait you'd want a bonus to. You can gain a +1 to this roll for every £1 you spend in the search. On a success, you bring on a Knight that whose first Exceptional Skill/Trait is at 18 and any other Exceptional Skills/Traits at 16. On a failure, you merely find an ordinary Knight. On a fumble, you hire on a Knight with the first Exceptional Skill/Trait at a 20, but two negative personality traits at 16, and a -5 to any remaining Skills. On a Critical, you find a Knight with the first Exceptional Skill/Trait at 20, the second at 18, and the other Exceptional Skills/Traits at 16 as well as a +6 to the Loyalty(Lord) roll. This Knight also gains one more Exceptional Skill/Trait than you rolled for (i.e. if you rolled at a -2 for two Trait/Skills, you'd end up with three Trait/Skills).

Regardless, the Knight starts with a Loyalty (Lord) of 3d6+2. You may increase this roll by a +1 for every £1 spent. Money spent to increase the odds of an Exceptional Knight do impact the Loyalty (Lord) roll.

Gain a check in Courtesy and Recognize.

Hunt Exotic Game (Solo)
You gain checks to Hunting, Spear or Bow, and Folk Lore. You may also check Prudent or Valorous as well as Merciful or Energetic.

You may make a Hunting check (not required) if you decide to try for one of the spectacular beasts in your forest. On a success, you find a good trail and possible haven for the beast. This will let you return easily with a hunting party to try to capture/slay it later. On a failure, you find nothing. On a fumble, you are ambushed by the beast and take a Major Wound. On a Critical you find an Ingredient related to the creature (e.g. hippogriff's egg, a quill from Griffen, or a manticore's tooth). This could be used to create a potent elixir.


Raid Saxon Lands (Solo)
You can raise up an army (costing £5 in provisions and preparations) and make a foray into Saxon lands for easy loot. Check Battle, Awareness, Hate (Saxons), and either Selfish or Reckless.

You (and only you) can choose to make a Battle roll (not required. For every 10 Footman Value (from these Houserules (http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?2522-Mr-47-s-Houserules)) equivalent you pay for to take on the sortie, gain a +1 to your Skill. On a failure, you suffer heavy losses, but make a small profit. You gain £1d6+2 in additional booty. On a Fumble, you suffer a great catastrophe and are driven from the lands. You or one of your Knights suffers a Major Wound and you lose your best horse, moreover you bring back no loot from the field. On a Success, your raids are largely successful: Gain £2d6+4 additional booty as well as a check in a Weapon Skill. On a Critical Success, gain £2d6+8 additional booty and choose one of the following: Gain worthwhile intelligence on the Saxons, a roll on the Saxon luck table, or a check to both Honor and Loyalty (Lord).

Finally, roll 1d20 and gain the following benefit/consequence
1-3: Pickings were slim, but easily gained. Gain £6 in booty.
4-7: You risk greatly and come back with a goodly treasure but not without some cost. Take a Major Wound in the sortie, but gain £1d6+10 in booty.
8-12: The raids were successful: lightning fast with little bloodshed. Gain £10 in booty.
13-16: You encountered a surprising amount of resistance, You gain £8 and a check in a Weapon Skill.
17-19: You find yourself challenged by a great Saxon warrior in single combat. You defeat him after a grueling battle, gaining a check in a Weapon Skill, 50 Glory, and £1d6+10 in booty, but at the cost of a either a Major Wound, a Squire, or your best Warhorse.
20: Astounding raid comes back with some strange Saxon treasure. Gain £10 in booty and roll once on the Saxon Luck table from the Book of Knights and Ladies

After a Raid, you can choose to give 50% of the Plunder to your Lord to gain a Loyalty (Lord) and Honor check.

Thanks for sharing! :)

I think I might be running a lower-powered campaign than you do (I think you decided to go with estate level landholdings, yes?), so take my comments with a grain of salt. Especially the comfort level how much money/loot is being handed out depends strongly on how much discretionary funds the PKs normally have anyway. If they usually have 1 librum to spend, geting 20 libra is a totally different impact than if they are habitually spending ten libra on something.

Also, some probability math and number-crunching to follow...




You (and only you) may choose to make a Stewardship check (not required). On a success, your extra attention results in an additional 1£ of Discretionary Income this year. If you fail, you take 1 Lot of Temporary Damage. On a Critical: Gain 1d6£. On a fumble, take 1 Lot of Permanent Damage.

1-3: You can accept a bribe and gain £1 as well as Selfish and Deceitful check.

20: The King comes to visit. Check Hospitality and Courtesy. You may also roll Loyalty (Pendragon), if successful, gain a check in it. Gain 30 Glory. Spend £10 to feed the retinue.


I like the idea of rolling for the random event. In our campaigns, we use an Extended Manorial Luck which I am I sure is floating around in a pdf format if you google it. I forget who I should credit for it, but I am sure the responsible party will identify himself. :) (Also, thanks to him.)

I singled out three things in this solo that I would like to comment/inquire further on.

1) The successful Stewardship gains £1 but a mere failure causes 1 Lot of temporary damage? I assume you will allow a normal recovery roll before accounting, so on a successful Stewardship of the steward/wife, this doesn't cause any effect? Otherwise, this seems to be a bit out of balance, unless you are tending a normal £10 manor: you potentially gain £1 but only by risking your full Discretionary Funds. With the recovery roll and about £50 estates, it seems to be roughly OK for Stewardship 10, but probably something only a PK of Stewardship 15 should be attempting. Still, it seems a bit harsh to me. I would probably go with:
Critical: Double normal Discretionary Funds.
Success: +£1 Discretionary Funds.
Failure: -£1 Discretionary Funds.
Fumble: No Discretionary Funds this year.
Now it is symmetric and slightly favors the PK at Stewardship 11+, giving a small benefit for those who spend points to Stewardship 15. Easy to remember, too, and doesn't risk the fact that if there is a raid as well, then you will worsen the hit by a mere failure.

2) Shouldn't accepting a bribe be Arbitrary rather than Deceitful? You are going against Just, after all.

3) You are playing with high stakes if it is the King who is dropping in... I would rather use the liege (the Count of Salisbury). Of course, if your liege is the King, then that's that. I think we have generally the King visiting Baron level people more than estate level people (I am playing with manorial level PKs, so a King would be right out).



Regardless, the Knight starts with a Loyalty (Lord) of 3d6+2. You may increase this roll by a +1 for every £1 spent. Money spent to increase the odds of an Exceptional Knight do impact the Loyalty (Lord) roll.


I think you said that finding knights is harder in your game, so fair enough: in our campaign, most household knights in their 30s would have a couple of skills at 18, usually Sword and Lance or Horsemanship. I don't mind the idea of trying to find a knight with specific personality traits, either, although I might make it a bit harder than just -2 to start finding more than one exceptional trait, although like said, your levels are not that high that they would cause me to flinch too badly.

The thing that gets my GM senses tingling is the fact that the money spent on the search automatically increases Loyalty, too. So you are liable to end up not only with an exceptionally skilled knight, but one who is super loyal, too. Which seems a tad of a free lunch to me, something I have an aversion to.

Off the cuff suggestion:
- Use the -2 per Exceptional Skill/Trait, but require that Loyalty is declared as one of those Exceptional Traits, or otherwise it will be 3d6+2 (improvable in play, of course).

This makes sense to me, if you are screening candidates for certain traits, certainly their loyalty would be one of the criteria amongst many. In effect, if you want to have a Loyalty 16 knight, you should put £2 down to make up for the -2 to have the same chance as before. However, this would prevent you from spending like ten libra and getting an Exceptional guy with Loyalty 20. I think such high loyalty would be better evolved during the game, not given as a side benefit.



Hunt Exotic Game (Solo)


Our Pendragon tends to be less exotic, at least during Uther Period, so I would not just let the PKs pop in a neighboring forest and find a fantastical beastie with a mere Hunting success. A critical, sure. But, YPMV as they say. I know one guy who is running Pendragon with Lovecraftian horrors in every barrow that dots the Salisbury landscape! :)



Raid Saxon Lands (Solo)


On a first glance, this seems a bit too much of a gimme, at the moment. Even with a failure, you gain £1d6+2 - £5 in preparations + a minimum of £6 loot from consequences = an average of £6+ profit. On a success, this becomes £12+ profit in average, and certainly a player who wants to raid would raise his PK's Battle to 15 forthwith. So, lets take a look at the risks:
5% fumble = no profit, dead warhorse and a major wound. This would be bad. I am assuming that the raid ends there, the raiders fleeing back home, so there are no consequence rolls.
20% failure = £6+ profit.
70% success = £12+ profit.
5% critical = £16+ profit.

Consequences:
20% Major Wound but extra 1d6+4 profit over the minimum = about 8 libra, for a total of 20 libra (assuming a success).
15% Major Wound / Squire dead / Best Warhorse, but extra 1d6+4 profit over the minimum = about 8 libra. Under current rules, the charger costs 20 libra, so this, assuming a success (+12 libra), would turn the raid into a non-profit, but you still gain in Glory and checks. If you are willing to throw your squire under the axe, then it is even more profitable.
15% minimal loot (still pretty good around an average of 12 libra on a success)
20% +2 extra loot (doesn't really change the math that much) and an extra check (which you get already on a Battle success).
25% +4 extra loot (helps a bit, especially on a failure)
5% +4 extra loot, special treasure and checks.

So, if I raid five times with these rules (for simplicity, I am taking just the most likely outcomes), I am likely to end up with something like:
1 failure with, say, +2 extra loot = £8
4 successes with:
- Major wound = 20 libra profit
- Dead warhorse = 0 libra profit as I get a new one, since I am too tender-hearted to kill off the squire.
- +4 extra loot = 16 libra profit
- minimal loot = 12 libra profit

Summing these all up, I have taken one major wound and gained 56 libras in profit, on average (it might do brilliantly or I might even Fumble the first time). This does scream gimme to me, even if you are playing with £50 estates instead of £10 manors. (In the latter case, I'd expect the expense & the profits to scale down in proportion, yes? Smaller raiding groups, smaller targets?) Even if you allow only one raid per year, absent any story consequences, this would be the obvious thing for any player to send his PK off doing. If you allow more raid solos than 1 per year, this becomes even a bigger problem, IMHO.

Quick suggestion:
- Failure gives no roll for base loot, just the consequences (which already give significant loot). Success gives 1d6+2 + consequence. Critical gives 2d6+4 + consequence.

This would reduce the loot by about 5 libras per raid, resulting in a 21 libra in profit in 5 raids, which would be roughly equivalent to doubling the DF of a £50 estate if it is 1 raid per year. I think this is still something that my players would leap at (1 major wound for 21 libra seems like a deal), although with scaled down to a single manor, 1 major wound for 4 libra would make them a bit more thoughtful, especially since it is on average just 1 librum per raid. This is clearly a case of bigger is better, since there is just one PK involved and the NPC household knights are not tracked. Having one of them bite the dust on the Major Wound results might serve as a useful brake on the raiding activity.

Hmm, actually, since you have a 1-in-20 chance of Fumbling, gaining no loot (-5 libra preparations) and losing your warhorse (-20 libra) for a total of -25 libra for that SNAFU, and you roll this up roughly once in 20 raids, it would be about L1.25 extra expense per non-fumbled raid. If you use the 50% render to treasury rule, this would mean having to put aside about L2.5 per raid, which would be between the two calculations above, about L30 average 'spendable' profit from 5 raids + L7.25 in treasury. Critical success helps a bit, but not enough to counter the big expense of a Fumble. Of course, depending on the GM, you might be able to keep a poor charger for those raiding missions and thus make it a tad cheaper to get a remount.

If you allow more than a raid per year, I would at the very least include this little additional rule:
- Attacking the same region/county/Saxon kingdom during the same year gives a cumulative -5 Battle (so -10 for the third, etc). This is to reflect the fact that they are now more alert. (This would prevent the PKs from just bleeding one place a dozen times in a single year with very little danger.)


So, to summarize this rambling commentary:
- If you have story consequences as well, and do not allow more than 1 raid solo per year, then I'd say it is balanced OK. You pay for the loot by having (usually negative) story consequences, like having the Saxons sail up the Avon to raid southern Salisbury, for instance, or a baron from Hantonne complaining that the Saxons are now attacking him!
- If you don't have story consequences and allow the PKs to raid as much as they want (even if it is 1 raid per month when not on a campaign), then it is way too generous in my opinion. I'd use the failure gives no base loot to rein in the rampant profits and then it becomes more balanced again vs. the risk. Or have the PK get captured on a Fumble, too, and now the Saxons want a big, big ransom.
- If you have story consequences and ramp them up sharply if the PK raids more, then again, I'd say it is balanced, although I would make it more risky, too, if the PK becomes too irresponsible.

Oh, one more point... One problem of having the Battle Fumble be the main balancing issue is that once you hit Battle 20, this raid becomes a breeze. You are always successful and never fumble or fail. A license to mint coins, as they say. You definitely need, IMHO, story consequences to balance things out, or adding some SNAFU events into the Consequence table. One option would be to roll a 'Raid Challenge' first, and then try to deal with it with your skills, with one of the challenges being that you get intercepted either going in or getting out, and potentially being forced to abandon your loot if a larger enemy patrol/reinforcements are threatening to catch you. Thus, the raid could fail simply due to luck, rendering the Battle 20 guy less infallible.


My own quick raiding system used, IIRC:
1) Hunting to avoid the patrols/alarm. If you encounter a patrol, skip to 3.
2) Choice to go for the easy target (livestock) or the hard target (manor itself).
3) Battle roll to see how well it goes, giving a bonus to the next roll.
4) Opposed Weapon skills (enemy kill depending on the target) to see how the fighting goes (mainly if the enemy forts up and you'll go after him).
5) Hunting (might have been Horsemanship, I should check, although that might be only if the reinforcements arrive in the middle) to get out without tangling with the patrol/reinforcements.

So a bit more complicated, with more PK rolls, and a heavier emphasis on the getting in and out without getting intercepted along the way.

Sometimes it would help to read a bit more carefully...



Raid Saxon Lands (Solo)
You can raise up an army (costing £5 in provisions and preparations) and make a foray into Saxon lands for easy loot. Check Battle, Awareness, Hate (Saxons), and either Selfish or Reckless.

You (and only you) can choose to make a Battle roll (not required. For every 10 Footman Value (from these Houserules (http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?2522-Mr-47-s-Houserules)) equivalent you pay for to take on the sortie, gain a +1 to your Skill. On a failure, you suffer heavy losses, but make a small profit. You gain £1d6+2 in additional booty. On a Fumble, you suffer a great catastrophe and are driven from the lands. You or one of your Knights suffers a Major Wound and you lose your best horse, moreover you bring back no loot from the field. On a Success, your raids are largely successful: Gain £2d6+4 additional booty as well as a check in a Weapon Skill. On a Critical Success, gain £2d6+8 additional booty and choose one of the following: Gain worthwhile intelligence on the Saxons, a roll on the Saxon luck table, or a check to both Honor and Loyalty (Lord).


Bolded for emphasis.

Alright, this has some consequences... First of all, it is good that the losses are mentioned, although I'd probably quantify them as percentages of the raiding force, too. I'd also make the Battle roll mandatory: one doesn't simply walk to Sussex, after all. :) Although it needs to be said, if you don't roll Battle, you are not gaining nearly as much loot, so it would be better to risk the Fumble.

If you don't roll Battle and thus go straight to Raid results, the average of 5 Raids should be close to one event each from these (keeping things simple):
Consequences:
1-3: Pickings were slim, but easily gained. Gain £6 in booty.
4-7: You risk greatly and come back with a goodly treasure but not without some cost. Take a Major Wound in the sortie, but gain £1d6+10 in booty.
8-12: The raids were successful: lightning fast with little bloodshed. Gain £10 in booty.
13-16: You encountered a surprising amount of resistance, You gain £8 and a check in a Weapon Skill.
17-19: You find yourself challenged by a great Saxon warrior in single combat. You defeat him after a grueling battle, gaining a check in a Weapon Skill, 50 Glory, and £1d6+10 in booty, but at the cost of a either a Major Wound, a Squire, or your best Warhorse.

In short, you'd get on average £52 - £20 for the Warhorse (or minus one squire) - £25 for organizing the raids = £7 and one (or two) Major Wounds. Yeah, I think it would be much smarter to roll the Battle, assuming you have it at 15+. It actually becomes even worse if you are using the 50% render to treasure rule, since you will not be gaining £20 from a single raid, and hence at least part of that money needs to come from treasure -> there go your profits and more, and you are still left with one Major Wound. At that point, it would be actually be preferable to just suck it up and take two Major Wounds or find a new Squire...

Hiring more Footmen is a fool's errand, by the way. At £0.75 per footman (in those houserules as opposed to £0.5 in BotE), this is £7.5 (£5 in BotE pay) for a mere +1 to Battle. You are better off not rolling Battle at all.

1) The successful Stewardship gains £1 but a mere failure causes 1 Lot of temporary damage?
Yes, this is a "Spring Scenario" so normal Wintering happens, so you can still make out okay w/ a Stewardship/Lady roll.


2) Shouldn't accepting a bribe be Arbitrary rather than Deceitful? You are going against Just, after all.
I don't know, I think of taking a bribe as lying about being impartial.


3) You are playing with high stakes if it is the King who is dropping in... I would rather use the liege (the Count of Salisbury). Of course, if your liege is the King, then that's that. I think we have generally the King visiting Baron level people more than estate level people (I am playing with manorial level PKs, so a King would be right out).
Since they have estates, they are liege to the King. I should just change it to "Lord" and include a cost bump if it's someone more influential.



I think you said that finding knights is harder in your game, so fair enough: in our campaign, most household knights in their 30s would have a couple of skills at 18, usually Sword and Lance or Horsemanship. I don't mind the idea of trying to find a knight with specific personality traits, either, although I might make it a bit harder than just -2 to start finding more than one exceptional trait, although like said, your levels are not that high that they would cause me to flinch too badly.

Finding Knights has just become easier with the cowing of Cornwall. That's why such a Solo even exists now. But everyone was wanting to find Knights of exception so I put this together since they were looking to have specific retinues. I'll look at the Loyalty thing as it happens in play. So far only one Knight has availed himself of it and it turned out okay, but you're right. I might just make Loyalty automatic at 16 (after all, you paid well to find the Knight and chose him from a list of other candidates) and skip the second roll.



Our Pendragon tends to be less exotic, at least during Uther Period, so I would not just let the PKs pop in a neighboring forest and find a fantastical beastie with a mere Hunting success. A critical, sure. But, YPMV as they say. I know one guy who is running Pendragon with Lovecraftian horrors in every barrow that dots the Salisbury landscape! :)

One of the Knights has a back story with a bad run in with a Faerie. She has started haunting the forest near his Estate and so there are a few creatures of import skulking around there now. So, yeah... probably more specific to our game, but workable in later eras.



On a first glance, this seems a bit too much of a gimme, at the moment. Even with a failure, you gain £1d6+2 - £5 in preparations + a minimum of £6 loot from consequences = an average of £6+ profit. On a success, this becomes £12+ profit in average, and certainly a player who wants to raid would raise his PK's Battle to 15 forthwith. So, lets take a look at the risks:
Yeah, this one is going to take a bit more playtesting to perfect... You're totally right about the Battle roll option getting too good, too quickly. I think I'll have it default to Battle-5, that way you really do need to spend at least £10 on some extra mercenaries just to even offset the penalty. That would reduce the total winnings. I probably should dump the £1d6+2 on a failure as well. Another option would be to change what the Battle roll gets you. Instead of more monies, I could change it to a bonus on the second d20 roll. Say you get a -1 for Failure, +/-2 for Success, or +/- 5 for Critical (keeping Fumble the same). The +/- for Successes lets you modify the d20 roll up or down as you wish to try to get a result you prefer. The failure is a set -1 and is only there to prevent getting the 20 result (I may add a 0 to the list where you get run off entirely and end up with no loot). That way you could sway the results to something you want due to your "careful planning." That might work out better and feels more balanced.

Thanks for the insights, I'll definitely be tweaking these more.

I like the basics of your Raiding rules and would probably use them as part of an actual Adventure... I am trying to create Solo scripts people can run through without GM intervention so we can do Winters and Solos for down years quickly between sessions.

I don't know, I think of taking a bribe as lying about being impartial.


I can see that argument, but Arbitrary is the opposite trait to the just: you are making your decision not based on what is Just, but what you feel like (Arbitrary), and this time you feel like taking a Bribe (Selfish, although I might let the PK get away with just Arbitrary, that hurts enough already). You are not the witness, but the judge. Now, assuming that somehow the case got complained to a higher authority who would ask you if you tried the case fair and square and you said "sure did m'lud", than that would be Deceitful, IMHO, since now you'd be lying about taking the bribe (and possibly Honor penalty for lying to your liege, if that is who it is & if it is found out, and Loyalty penalty most likely straight away).



Finding Knights has just become easier with the cowing of Cornwall. That's why such a Solo even exists now. But everyone was wanting to find Knights of exception so I put this together since they were looking to have specific retinues. I'll look at the Loyalty thing as it happens in play. So far only one Knight has availed himself of it and it turned out okay, but you're right. I might just make Loyalty automatic at 16 (after all, you paid well to find the Knight and chose him from a list of other candidates) and skip the second roll.


I'd be fine with Loyalty 16 freebie, too, although I would be tempted to make it 15, and let the PK work a bit to see it raise to 16. Sense of achievement, you know?



Yeah, this one is going to take a bit more playtesting to perfect... You're totally right about the Battle roll option getting too good, too quickly. I think I'll have it default to Battle-5, that way you really do need to spend at least £10 on some extra mercenaries just to even offset the penalty. That would reduce the total winnings. I probably should dump the £1d6+2 on a failure as well. Another option would be to change what the Battle roll gets you. Instead of more monies, I could change it to a bonus on the second d20 roll. Say you get a -1 for Failure, +/-2 for Success, or +/- 5 for Critical (keeping Fumble the same). The +/- for Successes lets you modify the d20 roll up or down as you wish to try to get a result you prefer. The failure is a set -1 and is only there to prevent getting the 20 result (I may add a 0 to the list where you get run off entirely and end up with no loot). That way you could sway the results to something you want due to your "careful planning." That might work out better and feels more balanced.


I'd be careful with those +- modifiers, so that a Player can't always avoid the hurty bits. I mean, if I, as the player, was given a choice between 1d6+10 libra and my horse dying versus 10 libra straight up, I would always go for the latter. Not that I'd mind giving a choice on a critical.

I was actually thinking that making it an opposed Battle roll might go a long way towards having a nice matrix of possible results with a couple of rolls, although I do like your benefits table, too.

I don't think I am calculating the mercenaries correctly in my previous post... Probably because I used the annual cost. So 10 footsoldiers would be £2? Then I can see why it might be worthwhile to hire some of them, although then you will have to be careful that you don't make raiding a net loss of money...



Thanks for the insights, I'll definitely be tweaking these more.


No worries, I like talking about Pendragon and tweaking stuff myself. :)



I like the basics of your Raiding rules and would probably use them as part of an actual Adventure... I am trying to create Solo scripts people can run through without GM intervention so we can do Winters and Solos for down years quickly between sessions.

Yep, I dug them up and sure enough, it was more like a procedural scenario, rather than a solo, with normal melee for the fights.

I did have another, earlier raiding rules which were quicker... Those were intended for post-Battle of Lincoln raiding of Deira (inspired by the post-Badon raiding). With the Saxons freshly defeated, there was pretty much no patrols to worry about, and the PKs just needed to pick the targets and how brutal they wanted to be.

I can see that argument, but Arbitrary is the opposite trait to the just: you are making your decision not based on what is Just, but what you feel like (Arbitrary), and this time you feel like taking a Bribe (Selfish, although I might let the PK get away with just Arbitrary, that hurts enough already). You are not the witness, but the judge. Now, assuming that somehow the case got complained to a higher authority who would ask you if you tried the case fair and square and you said "sure did m'lud", than that would be Deceitful, IMHO, since now you'd be lying about taking the bribe (and possibly Honor penalty for lying to your liege, if that is who it is & if it is found out, and Loyalty penalty most likely straight away).
Fair enough. Makes sense to me.


I'd be fine with Loyalty 16 freebie, too, although I would be tempted to make it 15, and let the PK work a bit to see it raise to 16. Sense of achievement, you know?
The reason I wanted to keep Loyalty off of the list you could look for is that I think Loyalty should come into existence when you make the oath of fealty. Sure, this guy might have been super loyal to his last lord, but that has nothing to do with how loyal he'd be to you. That's kind of why I wanted the random roll and the influence from the money spent. Perhaps I could keep it random, reduce it to 2d6 + 1 for every Librum spent.


I'd be careful with those +- modifiers, so that a Player can't always avoid the hurty bits. I mean, if I, as the player, was given a choice between 1d6+10 libra and my horse dying versus 10 libra straight up, I would always go for the latter. Not that I'd mind giving a choice on a critical.
Yeah, I'd have to recalibrate the chart if I went that route.


I don't think I am calculating the mercenaries correctly in my previous post... Probably because I used the annual cost. So 10 footsoldiers would be £2? Then I can see why it might be worthwhile to hire some of them, although then you will have to be careful that you don't make raiding a net loss of money...
We're using the costs from KAP 5.1 page 166. Getting 50 footmen for a month (we changed it to season to make it easier) is £10, which basically equates down to £1 for 5 Footmen. So if I put the -5 to Battle in I do two things: 1) Force anyone with a 20+ battle to either spend cash or risk a fumble and 2) reduce the overall money gained from the Battle roll (since it will increase base costs for people with low Battle).

It also looks pretty lucrative to me
It'd be great if the amount gained went up with the number of combatants, which at the same time would make it more likely to be attacked while raiding, which would also increase loss from combat

It'd be great if the amount gained went up with the number of combatants, which at the same time would make it more likely to be attacked while raiding, which would also increase loss from combat

The first and the last ones shouldn't be all that difficult to scale. The probability of getting raided yourself would be very much location, period and story situation dependent, though? I'd imagine that in Uther's time, unless you have pissed a neighbor off, the chance of getting raided in the heart of Salisbury is quite low. Whereas during Anarchy, it is easier to assume that Saxons, bandits and other raiders might infiltrate farther into Salisbury, especially if the main army is elsewhere. That is probably more of a story consideration than something specific to the raid solo, though.

As for the system, I'd be tempted to go with the Opposed Battle roll, as in BotE, and tweak it according to the risk factor (how big a target, how long are you staying). For simplicity, I am assuming that the raiding army is being followed by an equal amount of peasantry, who are mainly there to provide extra hands rather than fight. This means one manor can raid another manor even without mercenaries, but would have to fight 1:1 odds, and likely be outnumbered as soon as reinforcements arrive.

The defender has a Battle skill of 15.

Avoiding the border patrol:
Roll Hunting minus the number of 'lances' (knight + his attending squire and footmen). This is because a large group of raiders is more likely to be noticed.
Critical: The raiding party slips past the border patrol totally unnoticed. Thanks to the patrol being somewhere else entirely, get +5/-5 modifier to Battle (you have more time before reinforcements arrive, essentially).
Success: The raid can press on without modifiers.
Failure: Alarm is raised and the target is reinforced quicker or the raiding party is engaged by the border patrol. Apply -5/+5 to Battle.
Fumble: The raiding party is ambushed by a superior force. Roll Battle at -10/+10 (regardless of the raiding party size) to see how the battle goes (referring to the raid results table below and do the Fight; any win result is as with a Chase fight). If they manage to actually win despite the modifier, they may continue the Raid but suffer -5/+5 to Battle due to the alarm having been raised.

Odds in favor of the Attacker (in fighting men):
1:1 = 0/0
2:1 = +5/-5
5:1 = +10/-10

Time spent raiding:
1 day = 0/0
2 days = -5/+5
4 days = -10/+10
1 week = -15/+15
2 weeks = -20/+20
This represents the reinforcements arriving, under normal circumstances. Note that this does depend on the outnumbering factor, too.
The GM should adjust this based on story considerations: if the enemy is already expecting a raid, they might respond much quicker with a larger force, for example giving -5/+5 the first day and -10/+10 already on the second one. On the other hand, if the liege is hemmed in his castle by a besieging army, the raiders have no reason to fear reinforcements and are free to take their time. Indeed, the chances are that the normal manors are fully undefended in this case; on the other hand, most likely the movables have been taken to strongholds / herds driven to hide in forest meadows, so a lowered raiding loot (halved?) would be appropriate.

Attack the Manor Hall itself:
If it is just a 'regular' (unfortified) manor: You can choose to assault it. This is a Fight (see below) and you take 10% losses for that fight.
If it has fortifications (such as an enclosure): Apply -10/+10 to Battle roll AND roll an extra Fight, as in above.
The default is that the manor hall is not taken. If the (defended) manor is attacked, then the amount of loot is increased. For undefended manors, see the previous comment about time.

Raiding Saxons (Special rules under consideration):
These modifiers are to represent the fact that Saxons, while lacking knights, have a much more egalitarian society resting on free farmers who double as spearmen to defend their homes.
Thus, they tend to be individually a harder nut to crack: modify Battle by -5/+5.
On the other hand, they might be slower in answering the raid and spreading the word of an attack because of the lack of knights and horsemen.; reduce the time penalty by -5/+5 and add +5 to Hunting.

Loot gained:
Normally, this is 2 Lots of the landholding being raided, or 3 Lots if the manor is taken, too. Add +2 (+3 if the manor is taken) Lots for each doubling of time, with maximum of 3 doublings (x8 time, 8 or 12 total Lots). (Or use the BotE raiding damage table.)

So, lets see typical raiding parties:
1:1 odds: They will need 4 days to raid a target of their own size, meaning -10/+10 raid modifier. The raid is quite likely to be repulsed, especially if they were noticed by the border patrol.
2:1 odds: They will just need 2 days to raid and have the outnumbering bonus. Hence, it is 0/0 to raid the livestock, giving roughly fifty-fifty chance of pulling the raid off, unless they are spotted.
5:1 odds: After spending just 1 day raiding the place, and outnumbering the defenders by a large margin, the attackers get +10/-10 bonus if the raid is not expected.



Defender (top) / Attacker (left}
Critical
Success
Failure
Fumble


Critical
Interrupted
No problems
Manor taken!
Manor + extra!


Success
Defeated
Attacker wins: Chased. Tie, Defender wins: Interrupted
No problems
Manor taken!


Failure
Heavily defeated
Defeated
Interrupted
No problems


Fumble
Totally defeated
Heavily defeated
Defeated
Comedy of errors



Manor + extra! = Attackers raid the manor, too. In addition, the defenders fumbled so badly that something extra was gained, such as capturing a knight (and his horse) or a Saxon thegn with his family, etc. No losses thanks to the surprise.
Manor taken! = The defenders screw up or are surprised badly enough that the attackers manage to take the manor hall, too, for more loot, although the residents manage to flee/evacuate. No losses thanks to the surprise.
No problems = Got in, looted what was easily lootable, got out. No losses.
Chased = Raid was a success, but now the enemy reinforcements are catching up. Decide: drop half the loot to slow the pursuers down, or fight (see below). If you fight, 10% losses.
Interrupted = You are still gathering the loot when the enemy reinforcements are arriving. Drop everything and run, or fight (see below) to gain 50% of the loot. If you fight, 10% losses.
Defeated = The raid is repulsed. Fight (see below) to see how badly it went for you. 10% losses.
Heavily defeated = The raid is repulsed. Fight (see below) at -5/+5 to see how badly it went for you. 25% losses and you are captured on a failure or a fumble.
Totally defeated = The raid is a total failure. Fight (see below) at -10/+10 to see how badly it went for you. 50% losses and you are captured on any losing result, including a partial success.
Comedy of errors = The raid is a failure, but so was the defense. It becomes one of those 'this never happened and we will not speak of it again' situations, where the livestock does more to chase the raiders away than the defenders did (those geese are vicious!). Dignity is the only loss here.

FIGHT
Roll one opposed resolution vs. Skill 16, damage 6d6 opponent, no bonuses for lances or horseback (enemy knights have those too and Saxons have the numbers to make up for it). Resolve the situation normally, except if you fumbled vs. a win or were knocked unconscious by the enemy hit, you are also captured. If you have household or vassal knights, roll their Homage (Loyalty). On a success, one of them saves you but is captured instead of you. On a critical passion roll, he lays into the enemy with such a fierce elan that he drives them back, allowing you and him retreat together. If you manage to critical, the Gamemaster may let you take a prisoner, or some other extra loot (horse, armor, etc).
To calculate the casualties, multiply the casualty percentage by the number of knights, and subtract one knight for every 100%. Then roll 1d20 vs. the remaining percentage to see if you lose one more. Example: You have 5 NPC knights and suffered 25% casualties. 5 times 25% is 125%, so you lose one knight and have a 25% chance of losing a second one (1-5 on a 1d20 roll). You can treat the foot soldiers similarly, if you wish to have the exact number.
Half of the casualties (if you suffered any) are wounded. If you won your own Melee roll, the enemy was driven back, allowing you to collect your wounded before retreating. Otherwise, the wounded were left behind and may have been captured (especially if they are knights). You may try to ransom them.


Disclaimers / Thoughts:

I have not tested this system yet, nor done detailed calculations on how it would play. Note that while a L50 estate has a good chance of raiding a mere L10 manor, the benefit is rather small, about L2. The +10/-10 will ensure in most cases that it is a clean raid, though, with only minor risk of rolling badly (mainly by fumbling the opening Hunting roll). Attacking a larger manor (L20) would be possible, but then the odds become 0/0, meaning there is a good chance that they will have to fight for it or that the raid get repulsed even before they get there.

This is also somewhat more complicated than the one Battle roll and one table roll that cheeplives had. Another difference is that I am assuming that while the raider is using just his own men & allies rather than mercenaries, there is no cost in launching the raid. This can be debatable, especially if the raid is a long distance one (more than a couple of days' ride away), or if the raids are done more often (thus starting to encroach on the time the peasants are spending off the fields by participating in raids).

As for the Saxon special rules, I am still mulling over those, but I think they would be reasonably balanced: the Hunting bonus & the extra time helps to counteract the fact that they are tough opponents individually and have loads of spearmen (or axemen). So in the case of a normal L50 estate, you'd be rolling at +5/-5 but also be able to spend twice as long = twice as much loot if you succeed. On the other hand, I would be fine just treating them as any other Cymric manorial holding in a solo, too. This is fiddling with details at this point.


EDIT:

I do like the fact that there is a random element in cheeplives' table. It is impossible for the Player-Knight to predict exactly what the situation is, so something like a 1d6 or 1d20 roll with different outcomes (bad, neutral and good) would be a good thing to add. It would add to the risk when things might go slightly differently after all.

Something like:
d20 Result
01 The liege is visiting with a force suitable to his status. Recalculate the odds and only then roll Battle for the Raid success.
02-03 A neighbor is visiting. Double the enemy garrison and recalculate the odds, before rolling Battle.
04-05 Old Fox: The defender is an old veteran with Battle and Weapon 20, but his inform body means that his damage is only 3d6.
06-07 Hero: The defender is not willing to cower when there is battle to be had! He will force a Fight, and his Weapon skill is 20. However, if you win, you will take the manor, too.
08-13 No special event.
14-15 Would-be Hero: This novice defender thinks he is great, but he isn't. He will charge out, but has only Weapon 12 and damage 5d6. If you win, you will take the manor.
16-17 Conflicting commands: Thanks to some misunderstanding/delay, the enemy gets -5 to Battle.
18-19 Absent landlord: No one at home! Feel free to loot the manor, too, without a fight.
20 Treasure unguarded: Not only is the manor unguarded, but there is extra treasure there, too! Gain double the usual amount of loot, and half of it is already in treasure (instead of render)!