Re: Mechanical discussion

[Baelon Drakeson]

Hello and welcome!
I'm not going to answer all of your questions, as I think that Theo and Yoren covered them quite adequately.

What average combat stats should I be looking for to not get stomped?

Depends on who you want to avoid being stomped by, and who you want to be able to stomp.
If typical NPCs, then your typical opponent won't look too different than what Theo posted. If PCs... well, there's a range.
Most combat types are somewhat better in various ways than the Knight of Quality, but how so varies - higher attack rolls, higher damage per DoS, higher Endurance, higher defenses.
The most dangerous combatant is significantly more powerful than a Knight of Quality, but is so overspecialized that to stomp him you'd have to leave yourself extremely vulnerable to intrigue and jousting... which is very dangerous (and said specialist is already quite vulnerable to those, to stomp him you'd need to be even moreso).

Should I be building a character that stands out strong in one area but pretty awful in the rest or a character thats average in everything?

Up to you, but personally I prefer a middle-ground between the two. Decently strong in 2-3 areas, and try not to be too weak at anything you might be doing regularly. If you overspecialize, you will be weak in other areas. If you overgeneralize, you will be so-so at everything.

Is it possible to play a independent character that isnt affiliated to any houses?

I'm pretty sure that Reader has said 'no' about this previously.

first character I have is a old leader type character with a cohort and cadre with another cadre on the cohort. Mostly specialised in warfare and fighting while the cohort takes more of a active roll in combat. Backstory isnt fleshed out for him.

Double cadre seems overkill. Honestly, if you want to be a war leader, a cadre seems... ineffective. Our houses have full units, so even a double cadre would be well outnumbered. Better to invest those points in being a better commander, I would think. I for one also shy away from Benefits that can be lost because of a couple bad rolls... especially when they are intended to be in dangerous/deadly situations.

Second character is a highly specialised combat character with a 7 in fighting. Most of his shtick is he is not from westeros and is a follower of the lord of light with a interest in finding his half brother.

Hm. As previously mentioned, You'd probably be capped at 5 Fighting. If not, you'd also be rather vulnerable - that 7 costs a hefty chunk of your starting experience, which means not much left to make sure you aren't publicly shamed by words (intrigue) or by unhorsing (joust).

Last character is a more generalised combat character who is interested in hunting bandits with a emphasis on stealth an ranged.

As mentioned, we have one or two who are good at stealth and one or two who are ranged specialists. There's a lot of room for this sort of character.

[Yoren longshore]

Is it possible to play a independent character that isnt affiliated to any houses?

I'm pretty sure that Reader has said 'no' about this previously.

Reader said this in step by step character creation. Otherwise it seems we have quite similar opinions (Which doesn't make it more right.)

1. Choose a house. There are also a small number of unaligned slots for those wishing to play a hedge knight, foreigner or similar - however, such characters lack the protection and resources of even the most minor houses, but may be able to engineer or uncover opportunities to join a player house during the campaign.

[Darron Greyjoy]

Ok thanks for the responses just currently working on my guy and was looking over the house rules and im wondering ss it only the full plate that has the armor penalty reduced or does half plate also have a reduced armor penalty?

[Yoren longshore]

Ok thanks for the responses just currently working on my guy and was looking over the house rules and im wondering ss it only the full plate that has the armor penalty reduced or does half plate also have a reduced armor penalty?

No, half plate is still-5. We use historic realism, where half-plate was a poor mans fullplate. Halfplates could be mass forged, fullplates had to be fitted to the user. Therefore halfplates were a lot cheaper, but didn't protect as well, and limited movement.

[Loreia]

Whatever you pick, expect to be involved in the civil war, not just bandit-killing. Dealing with the inherent lawlessness caused by opportunists taking advantage of the absence of peacekeepers while the troops are away could be an offseason adventuring hook for you during the war... Scattering a few groups by taking out their leaders and possible replacements, maybe.

[Ser Jorah Holt]

As we carrying out a siege, I came across these and wondered if they might of interest to sort out the siege


http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthre ... tion-PEACH

[Theomore Tullison]

At cursory glance, I can find nothing in that post which I feel is worth considering to implement. Mostly it's adding needless complexity without solving any of the known issues with the warfare rules.

[Septon Arlyn]

I do like the ideas for additional rules, giving heavy cavalry and light cavalry, as well as a role for support

[Baelon Drakeson]

Support units become too powerful. +1 Endurance and +1 Fighting/Marksmanship? That's practically a free training upgrade, for multiple units, too. Not to mention the increased growth rate of units because of the extra roll on the survival chart. And then, as if EACH of those weren't too much, they grant an initiative bonus.... no. Just no.

Rules for besieging castles over time are a great idea for a more historically accurate game, but that's just not how warfare is done in Westeros. For the most part, sieges seem to be about finding ways to get people out of castles or how to get your troops into them, not knocking down walls or starving them out, so much. Actually, there doesn't seem to be much use of siege weaponry at all, really...

[Reader]

Support units become too powerful. +1 Endurance and +1 Fighting/Marksmanship? That's practically a free training upgrade, for multiple units, too. Not to mention the increased growth rate of units because of the extra roll on the survival chart. And then, as if EACH of those weren't too much, they grant an initiative bonus.... no. Just no.

Rules for besieging castles over time are a great idea for a more historically accurate game, but that's just not how warfare is done in Westeros. For the most part, sieges seem to be about finding ways to get people out of castles or how to get your troops into them, not knocking down walls or starving them out, so much. Actually, there doesn't seem to be much use of siege weaponry at all, really...

Ha, good point on siege engines. Given the descriptions of the siege of Pyke it sounds like some were used to good effect there.

[Septon Arlyn]

Yeah, which is why Lord's would be silly not to invest in support units. Support units will not win battles in their own, but use of support units in conjunction with other forces make those forces much more able to handle and thus more likely to win.

An army marches on its stomach. If you do not have dedicated support then you run the risk of your soldiers not being prepared mentally and physically for the battle.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Sure, and if support could do all that from the beginning and all houses had the opportunity to tailor their starting troops... well,it would still be way too much, but at least fair.
However, to implement something that extreme now would be a significant boost in power to the house who already has them... which I note is yours. :mrgreen:

I agree that support, scouts, sailors, raiders, etc. should have some use other than being terrible fighters and boosting the number of subcommanders a force can have... but those rules are just too much. I can see it now - every unit would be cross-trained as support - that way the odds are high (even without investing XP into those attributes) that every unit will have a +1 fighting/marksmanship, +1 endurance, and a reroll on survival charts. The risk of warfare drops considerably. Houses could repeatedly "
skirmish"
one another as "
training exercises"
and have their units rapidly advance to elite and beyond... in short, warfare would be completely broken. So, as I said before... no. Just no.

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

I almost wonder if support units should be a stick rather than a carrot. That is, rather than rewarding armies who have them with rich bonuses...punish armies who do not invest in adequate support (or who have been cut off from said support) with penalties.

That feels a bit more 'accurate' to me, in that the units' base stats would ASSUME that they were fully supplied. Anything less than that and their effectiveness declines.

It does seem like there would be a point where throwing more support units would stop being useful, hm? If the troops have enough ammo and food, and are comfortable and well tended to...having a dozen more support units wouldn't really IMPROVE them.

[Septon Arlyn]

Will power and units can be pretty easily adjusted with house actions. But Gwyn's idea of perhaps having penalities to stats might be interesting as well

[Loreia]

On "
training"
, doing something like that could carry severe penalties. Looking for any excuse to go to war with each other can breed enmity between the houses' troops and smallfolk, and with that comes an element of unpredictability. Violence taken too far, and spreading to third parties, becomes more and more likely, and when it eventually does happen, the liege lords have intervene as arbiters (as much like we did when Lord Tully did nothing while innocent people suffered because of the feud between House Bracken and House Blackwood), and they may(will) exact a toll for damages and disturbance of the peace in gold, pet projects like rebuilding a sept, loss of power and influence, and even hitting the players themselves with Status penalties(an example of an extreme penalty). On top of all this, failing to find a good in-character reason to clash can cause a house's subjects more likely to suspect or speculate the new feud is just a fun game of slaughter to their lord, and cause them to question their loyalties.

One "
training"
skirmish alone should carry enough risk to reputation and resources to encourage players to reconsider exploiting the system.

[Baelon Drakeson]

I'd rather see benefits than penalties - mechanically it's effectively the same (as what matters is effectiveness relative to other forces), but psychologically applying a penalty feels more unfair. Further, something to remember is that support units are a full unit of individuals - 100 people traveling along with the army that do nothing but provide routine maintenance and care. We're not talking about soldiers with cook-pots or digging latrines or providing emergency first aid. All of that is factored into the base rules. We're talking about 100 professionals (not levies) who do nothing (barring cross-training) but cook, care for the horses, armor, and weapons, and health of the fighting forces (I would also note that support units are no better at procuring food than any other soldier, so adding support units would actually make supply issues worse). Consider the Stark forces. Does Winterfell have 100 people dedicated to those tasks? No. Do the Ironborn take cooks and medics along with them on raids? No. Support units should be helpful, not effectively mandatory.

As for the social penalties of "
training"
... if both sides are involved voluntarily, why would anyone complain? Real world militaries engage in multinational training exercises regularly, and it's rare that anyone complains about them. The point was not that anyone would abuse the rules, I'm just a firm believer that rules sets and changes should not require narrator intervention to prevent abuse... whether that is IC or OOC intervention.

To be clear, it's not that those rules make Support units beneficial that's the problem - it's the magnitude of the benefits.
Here's my suggestion, based on Engineer units.

Support:
In Step 5 (siege, now siege and support), a commander may use an order to support a number of units up to their Warfare. A Support unit can support up to 4 adjacent units (but not themselves). First, designate which units are being supported. Once a unit is designated as the target of a support unit, they may not be designated as the target of a support unit until after the following battle round. Effectively, a unit may only be supported every other round. Then for each designated unit, the supporting unit tests Animal Handling (if the designated unit is mounted) or Healing (if the designated unit is not mounted). The difficulty is the higher of the two unit's command difficulties, as (note the these tests do not raise either unit's command difficulty). The result depends on the condition of the supported unit. If the supported unit is at full health, disorganized, or routed: the difficulty of the first order the supported unit receives this turn is reduced by 1, +1 per 2 DoS (1 for 1 Dos, 2 for 2-3 DoS, and 3 for 4 DoS). If the unit is not at full health but not disorganized or routed: the supported unit recovers 1 health, +1 per 2 DoS.

Regarding the difficulty being the higher of the two - it felt too easy to support well-trained units (which often have very low, even 0 command difficulties), but adding a static amount to the supported unit's difficulty makes it too difficult to support the upper end of difficulties. The higher of the two effectively sets a minimum (12 for green support, 3 for elite), but still allows for the difficulty to scale between different target units without introducing new calculations or much complexity. Green support only has about a 38% chance of success on a given unit (3d6 >
= 12), but about an 85% chance of getting at least one success if supporting 4 units. That sounds about right to me, as this is battlefield support - untrained units not used to war SHOULD have a low chance of success, but not be useless.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

A point of interest regarding Engineer units (and, if the above is adopted, Support units - adjust terminology to suit):
A close reading of Step 5 reveals that the units activated by Step 5 orders are not actually ordered (i.e. no command test), and multiple units may take part in the order (for instance, a commander with Warfare 5 can fire 5 siege weapons, but a given unit can only operate 4). In theory, a single unit could even be activated multiple times in one round (such as a Warfare 2 or 3 commander having 4 or more siege). It is my opinion that some combination of the following changes/clarifications should be made.

1. The commander must make a command test for each activated unit (failure only affects that unit, not the whole order;
   commander must specify which siege weapons are being activated first, and only one engineer unit can be attached to a given siege weapon).[/*jet9c2fj]
   
2. Each activation increases the Engineer's command difficulty as a received order (note, for the purposes of the suggested support rules above, this would take effect after the action is carried out).[/*jet9c2fj]
   
3. The commander may only activate one Engineer unit per order[/*jet9c2fj]
   
4. The commander may only spend one order this way per round (or one each siege and support)[/*jet9c2fj]
   
5. Scrap step 5 altogether and let engineers be ordered like any other unit.[/*jet9c2fj]

I think using both #1 and #2 (and maybe #3) fits the other rules best, but #1 adds complexity. Options 3 and/or 4 may be good for balance reasons, but both together may be too much. Option #5 ends up encapsulating #1,#2, and #3, but also adds a tactical element to siege that is probably too powerful (such as readying your engineers to fire when the enemy commander comes into range). For the record, I strongly dislike option 5 but included it for completeness.

[Theomore Tullison]

I think we ought to do the Wyl siege as per RAW and then see if there's a need to change anything afterwards.

I'd try and make a simpler mechanic for support units, for example:
During Step 11: Resolution and Consequence, each support unit that took part on the battlefield and did not rout may attempt to assist a number of units up to the commander's warfare rank, using handle animal for cavalry units and healing for non-cavalry, the difficulty equal to the final discipline difficulty of the unit (after disorganization and routing, a routed unit has a +3 TN while one that is destroyed has +6 TN). On a success, the assisted unit may treat it's result for casualties as one higher per two DoS (minimum one step, but cannot be brought to a result better than intact). A single unit cannot be assisted by more than one support unit, and the assistance must take place before the causality test.

[Baelon Drakeson]

I think we should avoid affecting the survival rolls. A small adjustment there can have significant effects.
Your suggestion would basically mean that so long as at least one support unit survives, elite units would face little to no risk of losing training after a battle, so long as they do not end disorganized or worse. Even Green support can hit a TN 8 more than 80% of the time. Throw in the ability to spend glory for a reroll and warfare becomes awfully safe.

Consider that a Master of Arms holding, which costs 10 wealth and more than a year to develop adds +1 to survival rolls. Green support costs 3 power and 1 month, and can do twice as much.
Having both and spending a glory gives a destroyed unit about a 90% chance of getting an intact result. That's way too good.

[Baelon Drakeson]

While I'm thinking about Warfare, here are some ideas for other stuff I think would be good (some of which are based on the forum post that Jorah linked to).

My goal was to make underutilized or ineffective unit types useful and interesting... often this mean making them cheap and giving some sort of benefit when used appropriately - Crusaders have a cause, Guerillas have a benefit in favored terrain, Raiders are better for raiding than taking territory, etc. I have tried to err on the side of operational simplicity, and as much as possible new mechanics take place before or after the battle proper. In order to make Guerillas and scouts work I had to make some tweaks to cover and concealment, so I addressed some oddities in those rules as well. I also have added suggestions for Garrison and Warship units, to bring them in line with the other suggested changes. The Crusader and Raider adjustments inspired me to write some stuff about Parlay, too.


Units
Note that many of these units are not particularly effective combatants on their own. However, I intended them to be useful just on the basis of their special abilities.

Crusaders:
Crusaders serve a cause first, and a house or lord second. This cause must be declared when the unit is created (typically religious or political;
subject to narrator approval).

Crusaders have a power cost equal to +3, or +2 if the head or heir is an active advocate of their cause (narrator's discretion, but should be more than lip service or mere membership in a faith or political organization - the head or heir should regularly put their reputation on the line for the cause).

In addition to normal experience development, Crusaders are tough-minded and automatically receive +1 Willpower per training level above Green (so Trained Crusaders have Willpower 3, Veteran have 4, and Elite have 5). This makes them less likely to be demoralized, but also makes them harder to influence them that a battle is in (or against) their interest.

If a battle directly advances their cause, their discipline modifier is -3, otherwise it is +3. If the battle would directly hurt their cause, they begin the battle in routed status.
A representative of the cause must be present during Step 3: Parley, and each commander may make a simple intrigue against the unit's passive Will;
if one commander gets more degrees of success than the other, they may shift the Crusader's opinion of the battle one step (narrator determines starting opinion). The presence of crusaders with the same cause in the opposing army causes their commander's simple intrigue difficulty to increase by 5 (as if activating the Anointed benefit against their commander).

At the narrator's discretion, if a house acts against the crusader's cause, they may lose one or more levels of training (taking effect as if a bad Survival roll).
At the narrator's discretion, a crusader unit's cause may change due to events (such as a schism in the cause).

Garrison:
Garrison are trained to be on alert at all times. Whenever they do not have a standing order, they are considered to have "
Keep Watch"
as a standing order. (see concealment, below).

Guerillas:
Guerrillas are masters of using their favored terrain tactically, and can take advantage of their knowledge to perform hit-and-run strikes against targets of opportunity.
Preferred Terrain: At creation, Guerillas must select one of the following terrain types from table 10-3: Desert, Grassland, Hill, Mountain, Water (note: this does not allow movement in terrain that blocks movement), Wetlands, or Woods. Guerillas reduce movement penalties in their preferred terrain by one step, and treat that terrain as if it's cover rating were increased by 1 (including for concealment, see cover and concealment changes, below). Further, Guerilla units always receive the cover bonus of their favored terrain to their combat defense, even if they have not executed a Defend order.

Raiders:
Raiders have the same cost, abilities, and equipment as Garrison. This nets them cost reduction and a slight armor upgrade, Awareness makes more sense than Agility as they are frequently on the lookout for soft targets and valuables;
also, it makes them less likely to be surprised by hidden defenders. Yes, they will still lack the offensive power to go one-on-one with well trained and equipped soldiers, but that's not what Raiders are for.

Instead of the Garrison's discipline advantage at home, however, they receive -3 discipline when allowed to loot and +3 discipline if not allowed to loot. The command not to loot must be made at the end of Step 3: Parley by the ranking member of the Raider's house serving as a commander, subcommander, or hero (if no one from the house is serving in one of those capacities, the Raiders always loot). The ranking member may be swayed by intrigue as per normal rules (though the first action of such an intrigue will often be Quit).

Looting: after a battle, the Raider's house (NOT the commander's, if different) rolls 1d6 per (surviving) Raider unit, and keeps the highest result. For each point in that result, roll 1d6 for a random resource (excluding Power) loss. Influence is lost by the Raider's house as tales of the looting and pillaging (and worse) spread. Other results reduce the value of the holding and may result in the downgrading or destruction of holdings. At the Narrator's discretion some or all damage may be moved to other results (particularly if further reduction in Land would cause the loss of features not likely to be destroyed by raids (such as mountains) or if the downgrading /destruction of holdings causes the destruction of other holdings (such as the downgrading of a Small Town to Hamlet destroying a Marketplace or Sept in that town).
The Raider's house gains half this value (round down) in wealth - the other half is kept by the Raiders.

Sailors:
Sailors are at home with water and reduce the movement penalties for water (of any sort) by one. "
Blocks movement"
reduces to "
Very Slow movement"
. This can represent swimming or the use of light watercraft.
Boarding operation: Sailors may board enemy warships, and attempt to seize control. If a unit of Sailors routs or destroys a unit of Warships with a melee attack, the defending unit is demoted to Sailors and the attacking unit moves into the square formerly occupied by the defending unit and are promoted to Warships.

Scouts:
For every 2 scout units on the battlefield, the commander gets +1b on initiative tests (round down, minimum +1b).
When executing a Move order, Scout units may automatically execute a free Keep Watch order when they reach their destination (see concealment, below). This does not count as an additional order.
Scouts are trained to be on alert at all times. Whenever they do not have a standing order, they are considered to have "
Keep Watch"
as a standing order.

Warships
Just as Cavalry can dismount and operate as infantry, so too can the crew of Warships disembark and act as Sailors.

If a unit of Warships is targeted by a melee attack while carrying another unit, the carried unit is attacked first. If the carried unit is routed and cannot flee (because they have no square they can exit to) they count as having been disorganized twice for penalties and survival rolls (for all other purposes they are routed). If the Warship unit is destroyed (by ranged or siege) the carried unit is also destroyed. Warships grant Cover 1 to carried units (but not themselves).

Other
Suggested changes to cover, concealment, and parlay.

Cover:
Units may add the cover bonus to Stealth tests. However, units in cover also take one-half the cover value (round down) as a penalty on attack rolls (of any variety) and on awareness tests.
Note that Defensive structures grant a defense bonus, not Cover.
At the narrator's discretion, terrain features may completely block line of sight from certain positions;
when line of sight is blocked, all tests all attack and awareness tests automatically fail and all stealth tests automatically succeed.

Concealment:
Units apply the cover or defensive bonus of their terrain space on Stealth tests.
Hidden units may stay hidden while executing a Move order so long as every square in their path provides a cover bonus. They must make a new stealth test, using the lowest cover bonus on their path.
Visible units may test Stealth with a -1D penalty to hide as part of movement, so long as they start or enter a square with a cover bonus. They receive the cover bonus of the lowest square they enter (after entering into cover).

Stealth tests are made against the highest passive awareness (cover penalties apply) of: the closest unit(s), any unit that currently has a standing order of Keep Watch (and is in range, see Keep Watch below), or any commanders, subcommanders, or heroes attached to any of those units (technically, they test against all those units, but any failure makes the unit visible, so testing against the highest has the same effect). Units with line of sight blocked by terrain features are excluded. Hidden units are focused on staying hidden, and cannot detect other hidden units.

If a visible unit attempts to move through a hidden unit, the moving unit stops, the hidden unit becomes visible, and the the commander of the moving unit may choose to spend an order to immediately have the moving unit make an attack at -1D on the previously hidden unit.

Commanders and subcommanders attached to a hidden unit may only issue orders to that unit or adjacent units. Orders issued to other units automatically reveal the location of the (sub)commander's unit.

Order: Keep Watch
The unit observes the battlefield, looking for hidden units. If this unit was hidden, it now becomes visible.
The unit makes an awareness test. Any bonuses to attack from high ground or attached heroes/commanders apply.
Compare this result to the passive stealth (cover bonuses apply) of each enemy hidden unit within 20 yards per Awareness rank of the unit.
On a success, the hidden unit is revealed.

Standing Order: The unit may detect hidden units when they move, and receive +1 on their passive awareness for each +1b of higher ground that they would have against the moving unit. Unlike other standing orders, there is no "
active"
component to this.

Parlay
For the most part, we have completely ignored this step. However, I think that is a mistake. i think part of the problem is that the limited mechanics in the Parlay step offer little incentive to try and talk one's way out of a battle. Battles being forgone conclusions takes some of the drama out of it. In addition to the two unit-specific elements (Crusaders and Raiders) introduced above, I think that the Parlay section should actually involve a negotiation... which may include challenges of personal combat, attempts to get a faction of the opposition to turn to the other side, etc.

A parlay is typically restricted to the commander and/or a designated emissary, plus one additional person per status of the commander/emissary. Typically these will be representatives of factions within an army (banner houses, mercenary leaders, crusader representatives, etc.), trusted advisors, and of course, guards. A commander may choose not to send anyone, but this means they automatically lose any intrigues for influencing raiders, and no one may issue or accept personal combat challenges.

Unlike a normal intrigue, this negotiation is backed up with an obvious and present threat of force. The commander/emmisary make opposed Warfare(Strategy) tests, with a +1 for every two units in their army (the defender counts units fighting from a defensive holding twice). The winner gets +1 Intrigue Defense per DoS, and half that value (round down) extra Influence per DoS when using Intimidate. The attacker must start Malicious and the defender must start at Unfriendly or Malicious. Note that the attacker's disposition is considered known for the purposes of the Adept Negotiator benefit. If a yield is accepted or one side is defeated, the battle is averted. If either side quits, the battle goes forward as normal. A negotiator may switch to combat as usual, but this will of course incur hefty Influence penalties (TBD by narrator) and possibly legal action or retributive attacks... but it may be deemed worthwhile if it provides an otherwise inaccessible route to victory. In such an occurrence, a new round of Parlay may begin... but of course one side or the other may have additional leverage in the form of hostages.

[Septon Arlyn]

I do like the those suggestions. Particularly the parlay section.

[Darron Greyjoy]

I have been thinking about possibly making a warg and im wondering what sort of animals would be a good idea to use for the animal cohort part. Also is there any other of the books that have more animal stats?

[Baelon Drakeson]

What kind of animal is best depends in part on where you are from, and what animals you may have formed an intense bond with, and what role it plays in your character's routine behaviors. If your character has spent a great deal of time in the wilds, many wild beasts could be appropriate, again, depending on the region. City and castle folk do not typically spend a lot of time with wild animals, but horses, hunting dogs, hawks, or ravens could make sense, or even more pet-like animals like cats (or vermin... I could see someone who was imprisoned for a long time bonding to a rat, for instance).

Something to consider is how the animal would be received in civilized areas. The Stark kids' direwolves were only somewhat accepted at Winterfell, and that was largely because Ned gave permission. Elsewhere they were typically required to be locked up because people were afraid of them. Some places might even want a hunting dog to be confined to kennels or equivalent.

Are you still planning on the red priest character, or something new? If you are, it would be interesting if it was something not typical in Westeros... a zorse, or some sort of exotic bird, perhaps.

[Darron Greyjoy]

What kind of animal is best depends in part on where you are from, and what animals you may have formed an intense bond with, and what role it plays in your character's routine behaviors. If your character has spent a great deal of time in the wilds, many wild beasts could be appropriate, again, depending on the region. City and castle folk do not typically spend a lot of time with wild animals, but horses, hunting dogs, hawks, or ravens could make sense, or even more pet-like animals like cats (or vermin... I could see someone who was imprisoned for a long time bonding to a rat, for instance).

Something to consider is how the animal would be received in civilized areas. The Stark kids' direwolves were only somewhat accepted at Winterfell, and that was largely because Ned gave permission. Elsewhere they were typically required to be locked up because people were afraid of them. Some places might even want a hunting dog to be confined to kennels or equivalent.

Are you still planning on the red priest character, or something new? If you are, it would be interesting if it was something not typical in Westeros... a zorse, or some sort of exotic bird, perhaps.

The characters location wasnt set in stone but his main thing was being a expert in animal handeling and warging. Was tinking general carrer for a noble houses animals with them being a minor noble.

If it was a bird I imagine it would be fine if it was in a cage or just letting it fly about the civilised area, none flying animals im not sure how it would work.

I didnt hear any word from reader after what I sent him regarding the character so I dont know whats happening with it but im bouncing around some other caracter ideas at the same time and just looking input.

Problem I see with a exotic animal is that the animal being rare it just being stolen from the character and he wouldnt exactly have anyway of stopping it beside warging into it but that has its own problems including from my reading of the book animals being not that good at defending themselves with little to no armour.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Proposed mechanics for the Drakeson joust. I posted this (a few tweaks have been made since) in a private forum a while back, but have not gotten any feedback from Reader. Posting them here for public review in case I missed anything glaringly obvious. With the regional joust attracting "
over 500"
knights, and 512 being an even power of 2 (giving a full bracket). That's a lot of rolls to make to do it all: 9 rounds, 511 matches, up to 1533 passes, up to 6132 die rolls. That's why I feel some simplification is in order.

First, I'd like to to this as a classic joust - no foot battles! Run passes until someone falls. If both fall in the same pass, tiebreakers are total lance DoS (against current opponent) and then status. (In the unlikely occurrence that two competitors become mathematically unable to hit each other (through injuries, etc.) it is considered a draw - neither advance, and no ransoms)

512 knights makes for 511 matches over 9 rounds.

PCs &
significant (i.e. competitively skilled) NPCs face 6 rounds abstractly, leaving the top 8 who have 3 more rounds to go.

The first 6 rounds of competition are abstracted into 3 jousts.

Run a joust against three opponents: A knight, a hedge knight, and a knight of quality. Injuries and Wounds accumulate as normal, the lessened overall damage to be abstracted away as having recovered between bouts.

If you defeat all three opponents, calculate a score by the following:
1) For each opponent unhorsed in the first pass, +10 points
2) For each opponent unhorsed in the second pass, +5 points
3) For each DoS done (in lance charges), +1 point.
4) For each DoS done to you (in lance charges), -1 point.
5) For each time you were unhorsed, -5 points. (note: only comes into play if there is a simultaneous unhorsing.)
Status breaks ties, Reputation 2nd tiebreaker, Tournaments 3rd, if we somehow get beyond that, order by Baelon's discretion (which may be by random draw).

The top 8 scorers will be our Final 8 and compete in the quarterfinals, run as a traditional single elimination:
Lane 1: 1st vs 8th
Lane 2: 3rd vs 6th
Lane 3: 4th vs 5th
Lane 4: 2nd vs 7th
Semi-finals are the Lane 1 victor vs the Lane 2 victor, etc.

Ransoms: The ransoms in the top 8 are as standard.
Each of the three preceding rounds is in abstract for 2 rounds, so should be worth up to double ransom.
If defeated by the knight: roll 1d2-1.Receive a ransom for that many knights, then must pay ransom for your horse and armor as normal.
If defeated by the hedge knight: roll a 1d2. Receive a ransom for that many knights, then must pay ransom for your horse and armor as normal.
If defeated by the knight of quality: roll a 1d2. Receive a ransom for that many hedge knights and 2 knights, then must pay ransom for your horse and armor as normal.
If defeat all three challenges but NOT in the top 8, Receive a ransom for 2 knights, 2 hedge knights, and 1 knight of quality, then must pay ransom for your horse and armor as normal.
If in the top 8, Receive a ransom for 2 knights, 2 hedge knights, and 2 knights of quality, plus standard ransoms in the quarterfinals and beyond.

The 400gd prize will be split among the four semifinalists: champion gets 150gd, 2nd place gets 100gd, 3rd &
4th get 75gd each.

Note: though the tourney is assumed to take place over multiple days, per Reader's off-season rules, daily abilities can only be used once.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Proposed mechanics for the Drakeson joust. I posted this (a few tweaks have been made since) in a private forum a while back, but have not gotten any feedback from Reader. Posting them here for public review in case I missed anything glaringly obvious. With the regional joust attracting "
over 500"
knights, and 512 being an even power of 2 (giving a full bracket). That's a lot of rolls to make to do it all: 9 rounds, 511 matches, up to 1533 passes, up to 6132 die rolls. That's why I feel some simplification is in order.

First, I'd like to to this as a classic joust - no foot battles! Run passes until someone falls. If both fall in the same pass, tiebreakers are total lance DoS (against current opponent) and then status. (In the unlikely occurrence that two competitors become mathematically unable to hit each other (through injuries, etc.) it is considered a draw - neither advance, and no ransoms)

512 knights makes for 511 matches over 9 rounds.

PCs &
significant (i.e. competitively skilled) NPCs face 6 rounds abstractly, leaving the top 8 who have 3 more rounds to go.

The first 6 rounds of competition are abstracted into 3 jousts.

Run a joust against three opponents: A knight, a hedge knight, and a knight of quality. Injuries and Wounds accumulate as normal, the lessened overall damage to be abstracted away as having recovered between bouts.

If you defeat all three opponents, calculate a score by the following:
1) For each opponent unhorsed in the first pass, +10 points
2) For each opponent unhorsed in the second pass, +5 points
3) For each DoS done (in lance charges), +1 point.
4) For each DoS done to you (in lance charges), -1 point.
5) For each time you were unhorsed, -5 points. (note: only comes into play if there is a simultaneous unhorsing.)
Status breaks ties, Reputation 2nd tiebreaker, Tournaments 3rd, if we somehow get beyond that, order by Baelon's discretion (which may be by random draw).

The top 8 scorers will be our Final 8 and compete in the quarterfinals, run as a traditional single elimination:
Lane 1: 1st vs 8th
Lane 2: 3rd vs 6th
Lane 3: 4th vs 5th
Lane 4: 2nd vs 7th
Semi-finals are the Lane 1 victor vs the Lane 2 victor, etc.

Ransoms: The ransoms in the top 8 are as standard.
Each of the three preceding rounds is in abstract for 2 rounds, so should be worth up to double ransom.
If defeated by the knight: roll 1d2-1.Receive a ransom for that many knights, then must pay ransom for your horse and armor as normal.
If defeated by the hedge knight: roll a 1d2. Receive a ransom for that many knights, then must pay ransom for your horse and armor as normal.
If defeated by the knight of quality: roll a 1d2. Receive a ransom for that many hedge knights and 2 knights, then must pay ransom for your horse and armor as normal.
If defeat all three challenges but NOT in the top 8, Receive a ransom for 2 knights, 2 hedge knights, and 1 knight of quality, then must pay ransom for your horse and armor as normal.
If in the top 8, Receive a ransom for 2 knights, 2 hedge knights, and 2 knights of quality, plus standard ransoms in the quarterfinals and beyond.

The 400gd prize will be split among the four semifinalists: champion gets 150gd, 2nd place gets 100gd, 3rd &
4th get 75gd each.

Note: though the tourney is assumed to take place over multiple days, per Reader's off-season rules, daily abilities can only be used once.

Thank you for posting this, Baelon. It'll help a lot. I do agree that simplification is needed in order to streamline it. Thoughts from yourself and anyone else on how to do that would be great! My only thought is to have a simple daily roll for the minor NPCs as a group, allowing us to focus on the PCs and major NPCs. A successful joust roll for the NPCs leads to a roll to determine which NPC (from a numbered list/chart) get to joust with the PCs in each round. I am not good at mechanical stuff though, so that may have a glaring problem I'm unaware of.

[Sponsored content]