In the Book of the Manor (p. 20) tells us to increase prices for fortifications from Noble's Book by x5. However, Noble's Book does not concern itself with Maintenance Costs.

How would you calculate maintenance for the fortifications in Noble's Book? Would you assume that it is calculated as a percentage of the building cost?

Thanx.

Example
Wooden Tower (Book og Manor p. 20), 30' tall
Cost: £25
Annual Maintenance: £1 (1/25th of cost to build)

Tall Wooden Tower (Noble's Book p. 54), 45' tall
Cost according to Noble's Book: £8
Cost according to Book of Manors: £40 (8x5)
Annual Maintenance as percentage of building cost: £1.6

I'm also wondering what the annual Glory rewards (and one off Trait/Passion checks, if valid) would be for the fortifications found in Pendragon 5 or the Book of Nobles.

Kath,

As a rule of thumb, the Glory award of a fortification would be its Defence Value. (A ditch & rampart seems to be the exception to this rule.)

None of the fortifications in the Book of Manor grants any checks or rolls. I would not grant any for the ones in the Noble's Book either.

Thanks for the advice about how much Glory to award for building these.

I'm now trying to work out what the difference is between a motte-and-bailey and a ditch, rampart, palisade and wooden tower, and how the defence bonuses from those stack.

A full ditch, rampart, palisade and wooden tower gives a DV of 8 (with a moat) and costs £47 to build. A motte-and-bailey costs £25 (Pendragon) or £125 (Book of Manor multiplier applied) and also gives a DV of 8. Can you get a total DV of 16 if you have a motte-and-bailey, a moat, a rampart, a palisade and a wooden tower? Conceptually, I have trouble envisioning such a castle, but if they don't stack, why would you ever build a motte-and-bailey? A ditch, rampart, palisade and wooden tower give the same DV for only £47!

I'm impressed that something this minor is my biggest mechanical (non-)issue so far - much better than most systems!

Thanks for the advice about how much Glory to award for building these.

This is Annual Glory. :) More later.

In the Book of the Manor (p. 20) tells us to increase prices for fortifications from Noble's Book by x5. However, Noble's Book does not concern itself with Maintenance Costs.


In fact, maintenance is an issue I have never addressed directly for the whole scale.



How would you calculate maintenance for the fortifications in Noble's Book? Would you assume that it is calculated as a percentage of the building cost?



I would not, just for the sake of simplicity.

At this moment, before much thought on it, I would say that the cost might be L1 per "item," where an item is a tower, 1 size wall, a keep, a gate, gateworks and so on.

Certainly the cost of maintenance for the later items is far less per bulid-cost than earlier ones--that is progress. The engineers are better and masons have more experience to build on, and the designer is from far away Italia where they have geniuses for hire.

More below.

-g

I'm now trying to work out what the difference is between a motte-and-bailey and a ditch, rampart, palisade and wooden tower, and how the defence bonuses from those stack.



Curious, I dug out my old NB and I cannot find anywhere the rule that states how this works. I hope one of the keener-eyed rule lawyers out there can find it and save my reputation for me.

The examples throughout NB show, perhaps, the reinforcement methods of encircling defenses.
Basically, a fortification inside another grants its DV to the outer defense. NB, page 31--
The inner tower on the hill adds it DV to the outer wall.
An additional bonus is that each ring has to be attacked separately. The bailey, cheap little DV 5 goes first, the tower on the hill remains.



A full ditch, rampart, palisade and wooden tower gives a DV of 8 (with a moat) and costs £47 to build. A motte-and-bailey costs £25 (Pendragon) or £125 (Book of Manor multiplier applied) and also gives a DV of 8. Can you get a total DV of 16 if you have a motte-and-bailey, a moat, a rampart, a palisade and a wooden tower? Conceptually, I have trouble envisioning such a castle, but if they don't stack, why would you ever build a motte-and-bailey? A ditch, rampart, palisade and wooden tower give the same DV for only £47!



OK, I am jet lagged at this moment and am not checking any figures today. Nonetheless, I will continue.

First, understand that it will cost a baron less to make a tower than it will cost a banneret or knight.

The cost of wooden structures will not be subject to the same multiplication rule.

Finally, by the time that William the Bastard invaded England the motte and bailey was a pre-fabricated item, carried over in ships and assembled in a day or two (historians are invited to correct me, please). When they later rode around the countryside burning and looting, they built similar forts to hide in, nearly as quickly, where they lived, to collect taxes and ready to thrash any resistance.



I'm impressed that something this minor is my biggest mechanical (non-)issue so far - much better than most systems!


Do not be too optimistic! :D

--Greg

The examples throughout NB show, perhaps, the reinforcement methods of encircling defenses.
Basically, a fortification inside another grants its DV to the outer defense. NB, page 31--
The inner tower on the hill adds it DV to the outer wall.
An additional bonus is that each ring has to be attacked separately. The bailey, cheap little DV 5 goes first, the tower on the hill remains.



So would you say it's a case of using common sense, and assuming that a motte-and-bailey with a moat, rampart, palisade and tower generally represents concentric circles of defences?





The cost of wooden structures will not be subject to the same multiplication rule.


Hmm - so would the multiplication factor listed in the Book of the Manor apply to the stone structures listed in the Great Pendragon Campaign (and in Pendragon 5th Ed itself)? For all we're not even half-way through Uther's reign (the PCs are off to Bayeux tomorrow, in fact), I've been looking ahead at the shiny toys that come with the later phases :D.



Finally, by the time that William the Bastard invaded England the motte and bailey was a pre-fabricated item, carried over in ships and assembled in a day or two (historians are invited to correct me, please). When they later rode around the countryside burning and looting, they built similar forts to hide in, nearly as quickly, where they lived, to collect taxes and ready to thrash any resistance.


I didn't know that - very cool image though.

Thanks for taking time to help answer my questions here - I can't shake the nagging feeling that I'm missing something obvious here :).

So would you say it's a case of using common sense,


No, nothing here about common sense or anything. I wrote the rule, and if it is not in print, well, it's my error. I am afraid game designers don't get a take-back when a face has no eyes. Whereas "Of course it is blind" works for a painter, "I meant to leave out that rule" just doesn't wash it.
I am still hoping that some keen-eyed rule lawyer will rush in at the last moment, brandishing a page number, "He's innocent! Stop the swordsman!!"
(If not, I'll just hope the guy accepts my sworn statement and ten gold that my left hand is most important.)



and assuming that a motte-and-bailey with a moat, rampart, palisade and tower generally represents concentric circles of defences?


Yes. Maybe when I make a re-do on this, I'll stress that more. Successive defenses is the key to castles.
Officially, in the slow version, a besieging/assaulting foe has to break through each successive layer. With a m/b it is the simplest: layer 1 = bailey, 2 = tower on the motte. Defenders/advantages of the tower contribute to the bailey.

And also (different subject here) make each Regular Gate to give a -10 DV modifier, with some appropriate changes too to Gateworks.





The cost of wooden structures will not be subject to the same multiplication rule.

Hmm - so would the multiplication factor listed in the Book of the Manor apply to the stone structures listed in the Great Pendragon Campaign (and in Pendragon 5th Ed itself)?


Forgive me, but I haven't had time to scrutinize all this to Yea or Nay that.
Here's the general rule: wood is cheaper and easier to do. But not as good as stone.
Stone is much better but way more expensive, but no one in Arthur's realm does much in wood.



For all we're not even half-way through Uther's reign (the PCs are off to Bayeux tomorrow, in fact), I've been looking ahead at the shiny toys that come with the later phases :D.

:D I am sure I will have the details sorted out by the time that you need it. :D




Finally, by the time that William the Bastard invaded England the motte and bailey was a pre-fabricated item, carried over in ships and assembled in a day or two (historians are invited to correct me, please). When they later rode around the countryside burning and looting, they built similar forts to hide in, nearly as quickly, where they lived, to collect taxes and ready to thrash any resistance.


I didn't know that - very cool image though.

Thanks for taking time to help answer my questions here - I can't shake the nagging feeling that I'm missing something obvious here :).


Someone smarter than both of us will surely discover it.

--Greg

First, understand that it will cost a baron less to make a tower than it will cost a banneret or knight.


Why is that?
What multiplier should be used then?

wfg,
Thijs

First, understand that it will cost a baron less to make a tower than it will cost a banneret or knight.


Why is that?



Prerogative of the rich and powerful. When someone important wants to hire 50 masons, and your knight does, then the masons will weigh which person offers the best long-term benefits. Also, the nobles tend to own the forests and quarries necessary to build. Finally, they have larger pools of peasants to draw upon.



What multiplier should be used then?



Forgive me, please, but I've not sat down to calculate those details out yet.
However, in general, no castles are built without royal permission. The Anarchy Period has no king and anything goes, of course. But as Arthur's strength grows, he prevents independent castles from being built. A royal license is required.
In fact, most castles are built by the king to protect his rights, not your knight's. If you need a castle on your land you'd petition the king. He will pay for it and have it built, and will keep possession of it, with one of his trusted household knights as castellan. He could of course give it (or give permission) to the local nobleman, too.

I hope to get to these economic matters asap, and invite others to contribute and speculate here.

--Greg

Thijs,

I use one price list for fortifications, regardless of the factors you are describing here. Having fun while playing is the main point, after all.

Cheers,

First, understand that it will cost a baron less to make a tower than it will cost a banneret or knight.


Why is that?



Prerogative of the rich and powerful. When someone important wants to hire 50 masons, and your knight does, then the masons will weigh which person offers the best long-term benefits. Also, the nobles tend to own the forests and quarries necessary to build. Finally, they have larger pools of peasants to draw upon.



What multiplier should be used then?



Forgive me, please, but I've not sat down to calculate those details out yet.
However, in general, no castles are built without royal permission. The Anarchy Period has no king and anything goes, of course. But as Arthur's strength grows, he prevents independent castles from being built. A royal license is required.
In fact, most castles are built by the king to protect his rights, not your knight's. If you need a castle on your land you'd petition the king. He will pay for it and have it built, and will keep possession of it, with one of his trusted household knights as castellan. He could of course give it (or give permission) to the local nobleman, too.

I hope to get to these economic matters asap, and invite others to contribute and speculate here.

--Greg



Thanks for the clarification.
Problem I foresee is that in many adventures there are these stone towers everywhere, so likely one of my players will want to build one himself. Also in my previous campaign (fully 4th edition) some players became castelans, or inherited castles and wanted to upgrade them.




I use one price list for fortifications, regardless of the factors you are describing here. Having fun while playing is the main point, after all.


I fully agree on the fun part :)
Would you be willing to share the 'one price list' since I cannot find it?

wfg,
Thijs

Problem I foresee is that in many adventures there are these stone towers everywhere, so likely one of my players will want to build one himself. Also in my previous campaign (fully 4th edition) some players became castelans, or inherited castles and wanted to upgrade them.


Yes. Arthurian Britain is not Angevin England, and stone towers abound. Heck, places like Castle Rising Castle are not only independent but in Logres itself.

And, for people who like it (like me) tinkering with castle building is a lot of fun.
But it needs some significant attention for me to do do it right. I'll try to post some stuff online as I go.



Would you be willing to share the 'one price list' since I cannot find it?

I have something that I will post to my site shortly.
Maybe it's what you want.

-g

Would you be willing to share the 'one price list' since I cannot find it?

I have something that I will post to my site shortly.
Maybe it's what you want.


I'll be looking forward to it, it seems we bot like to tinker..

wfg,
Thijs

I'll be looking forward to it, it seems we bot like to tinker..



Here is what I have: http://gspendragon.com/1whatsnew.html

Special thanks to Ben Quant for coding this.

--g

I'll be looking forward to it, it seems we bot like to tinker..



Here is what I have: http://gspendragon.com/1whatsnew.html

Exactly what I need!
I assume that height level is for a new rule that requires in order for inner structures to add their DV to the outer structures to be 1 height level higher than the outer structures??

Quick tinker questions:
How many turrets can you add?
If a turret raises the height level, can you add the entire DV bonus to the outer works or only the turret bonus?
How many towers per area?
Can you build a 'ditch & rampart' and then a 'double ditch & rampart' behind it?
Is it correct that a 'ditch & rampart' (2DV) with a regular gate (-2DV) gives no DV bonus?

wfg,
Thijs

Thanks! This really adds depth to the fortification options manors.

Two quick questions

What happens when defenses are added to existing fortification? Do earlier defenses have to be removed? For example: can a triple ditch and rampart be added to a hill fort? Could a double or triple curtain wall be added latter to a the same locations?

Have you considered doing a "Book of Castles" someday?

Exactly what I need!
I assume that height level is for a new rule that requires in order for inner structures to add their DV to the outer structures to be 1 height level higher than the outer structures??


Yes, though I'm not sure it is a new rule.



Quick tinker questions:
How many turrets can you add?

One per tower, four per keep


If a turret raises the height level, can you add the entire DV bonus to the outer works or only the turret bonus?

Only the turret bonus, if that is all that is higher than the exterior walls.


How many towers per area?

One


Can you build a 'ditch & rampart' and then a 'double ditch & rampart' behind it?

Yes, though of course you would probably start on the inside. :)


Is it correct that a 'ditch & rampart' (2DV) with a regular gate (-2DV) gives no DV bonus?

Correct

--g

What happens when defenses are added to existing fortification? Do earlier defenses have to be removed?


Usually not, except in the case where stone replaces wood, of course the wood it torn down first.
It is fascinating to go to some of these old castles and look around and be able to recognize that those towers were built earlier than these, and that wall obviously newer than this. Pembroke is my own favorite example.
Gamemasters will have to exercise some judgement here, an bit fo research will reveal a lot.



For example: can a triple ditch and rampart be added to a hill fort? Could a double or triple curtain wall be added latter to a the same locations?


Yes, in these cases.



Have you considered doing a "Book of Castles" someday?


:D Yes, sir. I have. My desire for a product to be as good as I can make it often prevents me from putting half-baked material in print. but I'm working on it!

--g

:D Yes, sir. I have. My desire for a product to be as good as I can make it often prevents me from putting half-baked material in print. but I'm working on it!

--g


;D The good stuff just keeps on coming ;D

Just curious, but why no "huge round keeps?"

Just curious, but why no "huge round keeps?"

Interesting omission, I agree.
I see it's the same in Noble Book.

I think it is because none were made.
If Pembroke is just a tall round keep, I can't think of any that are larger.

Of course, your Pendagon will vary.

--G

What about the Round Tower at Windsor Castle? I think it qualifies as a keep, although it only approximates roundness.

I believe it predates 1350 so that would be, approximately the Romance period.

I always think of any printed price guides for building as a very rough quideline. Depending on your status, location, market conditions and availability of local building materials and the whim of the local lords prices WILL vary greatly. The gm will set the prices and he has a LOT of leeway to do so. The price lists are what stuff might cost in a perfect world perhaps, bit if u want a stone and there is just NO quarry then stone is way more to import. u know what i mean? ;D

also i was trying to put myself in Gregs place as a game designer and one thing i seem to have noriced about pendragon in general is that with every updated edition the game is simply different and that is because it evolves. As a person gets older and yet still continues to do research in their field they sometimes discover that their earlier research was wrong or just a bit innacurate or simply doesnt balance game mechanics. Thats why I try not to use multiple game editions , or if i do I always use the most recent rules. you learn more everyday and what you knew 10 years ago when u started writing rules might become obselete as you learn more in life. After all, that is usually te reason for updating rules in the firat place. :) anyway thats my take on it. Some people want HARD fast rules though and thats their personality so I understand that as well. There is a need to clear up descrepencies sometimes.

Just curious, but why no "huge round keeps?"

Interesting omission, I agree.
I see it's the same in Noble Book.

I think it is because none were made.
If Pembroke is just a tall round keep, I can't think of any that are larger.




Coucy in France was huge...and unique

Coucy was awesome!!!!!! A distant mirror was a fine book. It talks all about coucy. has anyone other than perhaps Greg read it?

Coucy was awesome!!!!!! A distant mirror was a fine book. It talks all about coucy. has anyone other than perhaps Greg read it?


I recently re-read it. It's a great read. I recommend it to anyone.

Thanks for the advice about how much Glory to award for building these.

I'm now trying to work out what the difference is between a motte-and-bailey and a ditch, rampart, palisade and wooden tower, and how the defence bonuses from those stack.

A full ditch, rampart, palisade and wooden tower gives a DV of 8 (with a moat) and costs £47 to build. A motte-and-bailey costs £25 (Pendragon) or £125 (Book of Manor multiplier applied) and also gives a DV of 8. Can you get a total DV of 16 if you have a motte-and-bailey, a moat, a rampart, a palisade and a wooden tower? Conceptually, I have trouble envisioning such a castle, but if they don't stack, why would you ever build a motte-and-bailey? A ditch, rampart, palisade and wooden tower give the same DV for only £47!

I'm impressed that something this minor is my biggest mechanical (non-)issue so far - much better than most systems!


based upon Nobles Book...
The defense stacking is tricky...

Number rings from outermost to innermost.
start with the DV for ring 1.
Then look at ring 2: if taller than ring 1, add it's DV to ring 1 as well.
Then look at ring 3: if taller than ring 2, add it's DV to ring 2. If also taller than ring 1, add to ring 1 as well.
Ring 4: same process; check rings 3, 2, and 1 , add it's dv as appropriate for height.
Ring 5: same process, adding if taller than rings 4, 3, 2, and 1.

In NB, one has to overcome each ring separately. So Castle A (DV 4/2/2/1) is tougher than Castle B (DV 4/2/1), as you have to crack 4+2+2+1=9 instead of 4+2+1=7 DV total, however each layer is a "round" of siege, with the possibility of a battle. I'm fuzzy on the specifics, but I've wound up calculating enough NB DV's to remember it well. Same process in Lordly Domains.

I am still hoping that some keen-eyed rule lawyer will rush in at the last moment, brandishing a page number, "He's innocent! Stop the swordsman!!"
(If not, I'll just hope the guy accepts my sworn statement and ten gold that my left hand is most important.)

"Unhand that man! I mean--release him!"

In the Nobles Book, the Mott & Bailey is Area 2/1 and looks like this:

DV 5/3 Special Cost 25L (versus the full cost of 38L)

Outer works (AREA 2) - double ditch & rampart (3), wooden palisade (3), gate (-2), gateworks (1): DV 5)

Inner works (AREA 1) - motte (0), wooden pallisade (3), postern gate (-1), gateworks (1): DV 3

So the Mott & Bailey is benefiting from covering a larger Area and has a discount. Also it does state on page 52 that concentric castles can have cumulative defenses if the inner rings are higher than the outer ones. The motte saves on buying a higher inner pallisade and tower, too. And you can put a small village (POP 1) inside it.




In NB terms the "tower with palisades that covered the same area as the Motte & Bailey" would be DV 9/1, Area 2, cost 41L (205L with the x5 modfier) and not be able to add the inner DV of 1 to the outer DV. It could however, protect a POP 1 settlement.

One that covered only 1 Area would cost 30L in NB (150L with the x5 modifier), but have DV 9/1, (and not be able to add values together).


Outer works (Area 1)-- DV 9, 19L (add 11L for Area 2)
Double (Full?) Ditch & Rampart (DV3) 4L
Moat (DV +4) 2L/Area = 4L
Wooden Palisade (DV 3) 6L
Gate, regular (DV -2) 1L
Gateworks (DV 1) 5L

Stronghold - DV 1, 11L
Wooded Tower (DV 2) 5L
Gate, regular (DV -2) 1L
Gateworks (DV 1) 5L

Great work Atgxtg.

Page numbers?

Thank you for being helpful.

Great work Atgxtg.

Thou are too kind.



Page numbers?

The Motte & Bailey is on page 31
THe Info on Rings of Defense being cumulative is on page 52, under Concentric Castles distinctive characteristic #1:

1. Successively higher curtain walls built close to each other for cumulative Defensive Value while attackers must assault each wall in turn. This building method results in very tough castles packed within a small area.

Since it is in small type and italics it is easy to miss the cumulative DV bit.

Information about each layer needing to cover a larger area and that the inner layers must be higher than the outer layers to stack vs is also on page 52 under concentric castles. The motte allows the inner walls of the Motte & Bailey castle to be higher than the outer walls.

It is even possible to extrapolate the costs for higher walls, making something like Camelot a nightmare to assault, assuming it is properly defended.





Thank you for being helpful.


You are most welcome.

In case it was missed, that cumulative defence for multiple rings applies only to concentric castles, and not to the ones in earlier periods/phases.

In case it was missed, that cumulative defence for multiple rings applies only to concentric castles, and not to the ones in earlier periods/phases.


Quite true. I think that it would apply to Motte & Baily castle though, since the motte would raise the inner wall and stronghold above the outer wall naturally.

It would certainly make them more popular for a starting castle, especially if the benefit could carry over to the stone keep that would eventually replace the wooden one.

It would make sense, economically and historically, and help to explain the development of the concentric castle. But the Nobles book doesn't specifiy one way or the other, so I guess it's up to the GM to decide.

Quite true. I think that it would apply to Motte & Baily castle though, since the motte would raise the inner wall and stronghold above the outer wall naturally.

It would certainly make them more popular for a starting castle, especially if the benefit could carry over to the stone keep that would eventually replace the wooden one.


I thought it said that it does. It works for anything that looks over the other walls.

So, blast through the the for DV of 8, then go on after the tower on the motte with its 3. Two successes required.




It would make sense, economically and historically, and help to explain the development of the concentric castle. But the Nobles book doesn't specifiy one way or the other, so I guess it's up to the GM to decide.



I offer my authorial suggestion as well.

Finally, considering that real heavy siege equipment doesn't come in historically until the 12th century and largely causes the change over to stone, I am thinking that there may be no DV available in the earlier period.
Then it is, and offense has the upper hand
then stone is used, and deense is king aain

--Greg

IIRC The motte & bailey was treated as a special case to account for that, so it's DV didn't quite follow the normal rules. I don't have my book handy so I can't check, but that's what I remember.