A quick question about logging.
No player in my campaign will even think about doing this for just a few librum risking the chance of a permanent -1 is just not worth it.

So a lost option in my view, however I thought (actually one of my players), there are these huge forests around Salisbury, with some manor near it, why not log those?
[Even if they are owned by the Earl, why not give him half profit and all happy?]

fg,
Thijs

Reason 1.
Logging as a protected right. The earl does give logging rights, but it's a resource he protects. So if your knights wander around logging his forests randomly, they'd probably be soon in trouble.

Reason 2.
Without the infrastructure to support large scale logging, I would think you are pretty much limited to logging on your own manor (or maybe your immediate neighbours and hoping they don't notice...). Tracking all the wood across land, the armies of labourers needed, etc.

Hi Darren,
thanks for clearing that up for my too modern economical mind..

fg,
Thijs

A quick question about logging.
No player in my campaign will even think about doing this for just a few librum risking the chance of a permanent -1 is just not worth it.

So a lost option in my view, however I thought (actually one of my players), there are these huge forests around Salisbury, with some manor near it, why not log those?
[Even if they are owned by the Earl, why not give him half profit and all happy?]

fg,
Thijs


ive actually simply changed the rules for logging in my campaign. instead of wasting the forest on a roll of 16-20, i say bthat a 16-18 damages the forest so badly that you can not log again for ten years. ( Better than never again though). And you ruin it on a 19-20. Also in my campaign you can hire a master forester for 1 libra. he will ensure that you dont ruin your forest, though you still damage it on a 19-20. However since you are paying him a librum, you dont profit as much. it seems to work pretty well and allows the players to log more.

ive actually simply changed the rules for logging in my campaign. instead of wasting the forest on a roll of 16-20, i say bthat a 16-18 damages the forest so badly that you can not log again for ten years. ( Better than never again though). And you ruin it on a 19-20. Also in my campaign you can hire a master forester for 1 libra. he will ensure that you dont ruin your forest, though you still damage it on a 19-20. However since you are paying him a librum, you dont profit as much. it seems to work pretty well and allows the players to log more.


I like that idea a lot. Gives a good trade off, introduces another worthwhile retinue member and adds more choice. So far my player's have stayed away from logging for fear of losing total income and this will give them something to more to think about.

ive actually simply changed the rules for logging in my campaign. instead of wasting the forest on a roll of 16-20, i say bthat a 16-18 damages the forest so badly that you can not log again for ten years. ( Better than never again though). And you ruin it on a 19-20. Also in my campaign you can hire a master forester for 1 libra. he will ensure that you dont ruin your forest, though you still damage it on a 19-20. However since you are paying him a librum, you dont profit as much. it seems to work pretty well and allows the players to log more.


I encourage everyone to make rules to suit their own games.

I just will point out that the logging is based on a couple of premises:
you can only log your own estate
Some estates may actually include wide lands of forest but the king owns them, preserves them for hunting and for his own lumber needs
If you live out in the wilderness, with unclaimed forest all around, logging is useless since there is no one to sell the wood to.

Let's look at the size here
A manor is a a square mile or so in rich lands, let's double that to have more wasteland.
We'll be generous and say that it is a square mile of forest.
Google Earth where you live, and look closely at what a square mile is. Is there a park nearby? Go and see how many tree are in a square mile.
Now imagine those many trees providing enough half of the total money required to support a knight and his household.
Trees alone in quantity sufficient to provide what is normally provided by 120 acres of farmed land and 500 working people.
And they leave behind all the cut, cleared and broken stuff they can't use.

Such is what the opportunities for permanent loss are based upon, and I think are pretty generous.

Ten years replacement?
"For example, spruce trees grow an average of about one foot per year, and black poplar can grow by as much as three feet or more in a given year." from http://www.bruderheim-rea.ca/line_work/line_work_2004_brushing.htm

I cannot readily find the growth rate for the valuable oaks, but it is much, much slower than these softwoods.

All that having been said, I'd revise the income be 1d3+3.

From what I've been seeing on line, the growth rate for oaks, seems to be about 1 foot/year. This does vary with climate, teraain and such.

I'm not sure how big a tree needs to be before it is considered large enough to be worth logging, probably more than 10 feet tall.