Typo

This may be the reason, but I am looking to implement a formula to code it in the unit generator, and I need to make sure on what is behind those numbers to make the results consistent.
Thanks.

See p.6 of D@W Campaigns: Mercenary Morale. The table shows how mercenary morale is calculated.

The intent is that you simply apply the +1 modifier to a number of d20 rolls equal to the BR of the unit.

For instance, I have a BR14 army: 4 Heavy Infantry Units (BR 2 each) and one Heavy Cavalry Unit (BR6). The Heavy Cavalry and one of the Heavy Infantry have a Lieutenant. Therefore I will hit on a 15+ with those 8 d20s, while the other 6 d20s will hit on 16+.

Thanks, I knew I had seen it somewhere! I was only looking at the battles manuscript.
This makes the morale formula a bit harder to implement for humans, but I will give it a try.

The entry for “Other melee weapons” on the table for “Mounted Formations by Weapon” on chapter 8 look a bit strange. The first 3 entries are 2/5/8; is it intended that a rider with a sword moves faster than a rider with a spear or a bow on the same mount? Every other entry for the same movement rate has the same unit movement.

This is more a question than a typo: do behemoth units have charge attacks? I could not find them on their section on conversion.

DaW Battles page 22, latest draft: “must not be adjacent to any of the enemy unit(s) which h had threatened it.”

DaWB page 29: “Irregular units may not read to attack, as they lack the discipline to wait for enemy.”

In the description of officer characteristics, “A general’s morale modifier modifies the shock rolls of every unit in his army.” Later under the rules for generals, “The general’s morale modifier modifies the morale rolls of every unit in his army.” The second version seems more likely.

Also on Page 10 of the Battles PDF under “Officers”

Most recent pdf draft, page 23, Mercenary officers: “The base level, cost, and characteristics of mercenary offers are noted on the adjoining table.”

Page 31: “Workers are cannot be formed into units on the battlefield except under exceptional circumstances or with magic.”

Also page 31: “Most creatures can carry a maximum of twice their normal load at full movement. When carrying more than their normal load, their movement rate is reduced to half.” Seems contradictory.

Mules are marked as Workers, but appear to also be usable as cavalry mounts, since the dwarven mounted crossbowmen ride them.

Do centaurs count as humanoid or non-humanoid for purposes of carrying capacity?

Earplugs equipment description, page 41 - “Commanders may issue these to troops to that will face harpies on the field of battle”

Line break issues between Prosthesis and Quintain

Page 55 - “The Exotic Creatures Roster (p. XX) has a list of weekly supply cost for other types of creatures.” Cost should probably be costs?

Page 56 - “A supply line becomes blocked if the route through passes through any hexes occupied by enemy forces” seems to have one through too many.

Page 60, inconsistency between examples - “its second division has three battalion-sized units” with “its second division has four battalion-sized goblin light infantry units”. Not critical, just momentarily jarring.

Page 62 - repeated use of “dominion morale” at top of second column. Probably meant domain morale.

Page 66 - The headings for the tables of engagement types by strategic stance combination all read Mutual Awareness.

Page 69 - “You can also check out D@W: Battles rulebook for the full details” should probably have a “the” between out and D@W

Page 70-71: Example inconsistency between “The Judge divides the wolf riders into three groups of 9 wolf riders each.” and “Rolling for the first group of 4 wolf riders,…”

Are flyer units eligible to pursue a defeated army that retained its own flyers or cavalry?

Noticed some stuff in the D@W: Campaigns layout draft. Here’s Chapter 1: Armies…

Pg. # Throughout the document, table titles are inconsistent in their capitalization. For example, some tables capitalize the prepositions, some do not.

Pg. 9 The text refers to the “Cost Per Week Per Mercenary Type” table as being below, but the formatting has pushed it above the note.

Pg. 11 The text refers to the “Mercenary GP Wage per Month” table as being below, but the formatting has pushed it to the page before the note (i.e. above).

Pg. 12 The text refers to the “Unit Loyalty” table, but doesn’t point out where it is. Admittedly, it is right below the text reference.

Pg. 12 The text refers to the “Exotic Mercenary Cost Per Time Period Multiplier” table as being adjacent, but the formatting has pushed it above the note.

Pg. 13 The example at the top of the right-hand column uses the form “Marcus’s” for the possessive; not sure if this or “Marcus’” is the currently accepted style.

Pg. 14 The text refers to the “Training and Equipment Time and Cost” table, but doesn’t point out where it is (below).

Pg. 14 Not a typo, but the first time I’ve noticed this:
“If conscripts are released from service by their leader, trained conscripts will become mercenaries or brigands…” all of them? Every time? Why do none of them return home to a life less dangerous?

Pg. 14 “In addition to conscripting peasants, the leader of a domain can
also levy a peasant militia…” is it just me, or does the wording of this sentence seems to imply that one cannot levy a peasant militia with also implementing conscription? I presume that is not the case, but I’m unsure whether this is ambiguously written, or a case of poor reading comprehension on my part.

Pg. 15 The last paragraph on the right-hand column should be referring to militia who are released from service, but instead refers to conscripts.

Pg. 16 The text refers to the “Follower Type and Equipment by Class” table, but does not point out where it is (above and below). The second portion of the table also has (cont.) after the title; is this standard style? What about (cont. from previous page) for clarity?

Pg. 17 The text refers to the Upkeep costs for slave soldiers as 3gp per month, and 16gp per month for ogres. Why don’t mounted slaves (e.g. cavalry, beast riders, etc.) cost more due to maintenance for their mounts? Slave goblin wolf riders suddenly seem very attractive…

Pg. 18 The last sentence of Example #1 is cumbersome, stating:
“…the slave soldiers can be trained as, e.g., light infantry or heavy cavalry, according to…”
How about:
“the slave soldiers can be trained (e.g. as light infantry or heavy cavalry) according to…”

Pg. 19 The text refers to the “Vassal Troops by Realm Size” table as being below, but the formatting has pushed it above the note.

Pg. 19 The text (last paragraph on the page) refers to the “Exotic Creatures Roster” as being on page “XX” instead of the actual page reference.

Pg. 20 The text uses no article for “Leadership proficiency,” but this is inconsistent in the document; in some places the definite article “the” is used for proficiencies.

Pg. 20 The Example has inconsistencies in the number of units or divisions. 4 divisions are created from 10 units; 2 units (heavy cavalry) in the 1st division, and the other three divisions have 3 units each (heavy infantry, light infantry and bowmen), totalling 11 units.

Pg. 20 Under the explanation for Leadership Ability, “e.g.” is used instead of i.e., when what is being presented (“4 plus Charisma bonus or penalty”) is the sole (alternate) meaning, not one example among many

Pg. 23 Under Creature Handler, “Some creature handlers are animal trainers themselves, while otherwise rely on Beast Friendship…” should read, “Some creature handlers are animal trainers themselves, while others rely on Beast Friendship…” instead

Pg. 24 Under Quartermaster, “A quartermaster is an experienced soldier who manages distribution of supplies and provision to the troops…” should read, “A quartermaster is an experienced soldier who manages distribution of supplies and provisions to the troops…”

Pg. 24 Under Siege Engineer there is no mention of replacing Artillerists and at what ratio (1:1?), even though their abilities would seem to allow them to do so…

Pg. 27 The Beastman Troop table’s line entry for “Goblin Troops” is improperly highlighted

Pg. 30 Under Size Category, “Gigantic creatures count as 24 men, s only 5 gigantic creatures…” should read, “Gigantic creatures count as 24 men, so only 5 gigantic creatures…”

Pg. 31 Under War Mounts the abbreviation “ML” is used for morale score, in spite of several previous uses of “morale score” and no prior explanation (e.g. “morale score (ML)”)

Pg. 31 Under Workers, “Workers are cannot be formed into units…” should read, “Workers cannot be formed into units…”

Pg. 31 Under Normal Movement, “Most creatures can carry a maximum of twice their normal load at full movement…” and, “When carrying more than their normal load, their movement rate is reduced to half…” are incompatible.

Pg. 32 Under Monthly Wage, “Owned, or enslaved sentient, creatures can sometimes…” should read, “Owned, or enslaved, sentient creatures can sometimes…”

Pg. 32 Under Supply Cost, “p.XX” should list the page number.

Pg. 32 Under Handler Cost, “p.XX” should list the page number.

Pg. 32 Under Total Cost, “Note that the creature were owned or enslaved…” should read, “Note that if the creature were owned or enslaved…” and, “…feel free to round them to ease of play!” should read, “…feel free to round them off for ease of play!”

Actually, this:
Pg. 32 Under Monthly Wage, “Owned, or enslaved sentient, creatures can sometimes…” would probably be clearer than my suggestion if you simply drop the commas all together.

I assumed that the XX page numbers were the norm at this stage, since I don’t recall seeing any page number references that weren’t of that form. Ctrl-F XX finds a bunch.

Also if we’re hitting inclarities rather than just clear errors, the reference to Legendary Leadership in the Morale section on officer abilities section kind of threw me; I assumed it was probably the 5th-level fighting-type +morale ability, but am pretty sure that it’s not called that in the Fighter description. The example tacitly clarified it, but there were a good couple seconds of confusion.

Page 75, example: “Now Marcus can assault with (24 + 15) 49 units, while Moruvai can still only defend with 24 units.” 24+15 = 39, not 49.

The circumvallation minimum in the Blockade Quick Reference on page 75 seems off; 20 units are worth 2500’ of circumvallation, not 250’.

Sabotage description on page 77 includes the note “(as skilled commanders tend to be better at guarding their supply train)”, despite being in the Blockade section where supply trains are not relevant.

Page 77, artillery ammunition - “For the defending army (which is usually out of supply), the daily cost represents consumption of artillery stored before the siege.” Should by “comsumption of artillery ammunition”.

Page 79 - How do reconnaissance rolls for detecting siege mines work? The set of relevant modifiers is likely very different from those for locating an army. Is it just unmodified?

Page 80 - “If a stronghold built on solid rock (such as a mountain-top fortress), its foundation is too hard to easily excavate, and is unlikely to readily collapse” should read “is built”.

Hugely helpful lists - thank you! Please keep posting any and everything you find.

I’ll get to chapter two tomorrow, and I’ll try and do one per day. I’ll also point out that I am not exhaustively checking tables, as that requires far more back-and-forth than I have time for at the moment.

FRACK!!! Internet connection frigged off, eating my post. FRAAACKKK!!!

Well, at least it was faster the second time, as a lot of it was from memory. Also on the plus side, I caught a couple more things I missed on the first pass. Hopefully I didn’t miss anything I originally caught…

Chapter 2: Equipment

Pg. 40 Under Craftsman’s Tools, “Craftsman’ tools are required…” should read, “Craftsman’s tools are required…”

Pg. 41 Under Crutch there’s no mention of what a effect a crutch actually has…

Pg. 41 Under Howdah conversions are given for weights from Stone into Pounds (e.g. 6 stone (60lb)) when no prior conversions were given for anything other than capacity. Why?

Pg. 41 Under Pavilion, “…measuring 24’ diameter and 12’ in height…” should read, “measuring 24’ in diameter and 12’ in height.”

Pg. 42 Under Prosthesis multipliers are given for different construction material (e.g. silver (x5)) with no explanation as to what is multiplied. Cost?

Pg. 42 The listing for Quintain has been pushed into the text for the previous entry (Prosthesis) by the formatting

Pg. 42 Under Shield, “…the shields’ interior can be used as a mirror…” should read, “…the shield’s interior can be used as a mirror.” (misplaced apostrophe)

Pg. 42 I’m a bad person because I lol’d at the example for Surgical Saw

Pg. 42 The “Artillery” table lists weight conversions from stone into pounds for all artillery. Why?

Pg. 43 Under Crew and Rate of fire it states the negative effects of not having an artillerist; can a siege engineer replace an artillerist?

Pg. 44 Under Battering Ram, “A battering ram weighs must be crewed with 5 man-sized creatures…” should read, “A battering ram must be crewed with 5 man-sized creatures…”

Also, the damage is listed in the description, giving both standard (“4d10 shp”) and 1/10th (“1d4 shp”) damage (for wood and stone, respectively). There is some inconsistency in that artillery doesn’t do this, and these rates (x1 and x1/10th) are explained under structures, later, which could result in confusion (e.g. 1/10th of 1/10th for stone structures).

Pg. 45 Under Moveable Gallery and Moveable Mantlet it states that, “creatures gain a +4 bonus to saving throws versus Blast caused by artillery, burning oil, or similar effects.” Does that exclude breath attacks, spells, etc.? The wording of, “…or similar effects…” seems to imply so.

Pg. 45 Under Screw it states that, “Each bore deals 3d10 shp of damage to wooden structures and 1d4+1 shp of damage to stone structures…” but this is at odds with the “SHP” entry on pg. 47, which would mean 3d10 shp to wood and 1d4-1 shp (or better, 1d3 shp) to stone.

Also, see the note for Battering Ram above.

Pg. 46 Under Siege Tower see the note for Moveable Gallery (pg 45) above.

Also, a huge siege tower lists its drawbridge as only 10’, as well as being on the 5th floor, 75’ up, all identical to a large siege tower. Is this correct?

Also, I know virtually nothing about classical siege warfare, but the siege tower entry states, “External crew generally stand outside the tower and pull it with ropes.” How do these crew members avoid being slaughtered when so exposed? The wikipedia (I know, I know!) entry for Helepolis suggests the crew pushed the tower from behind (though it doesn’t explain how). Please illuminate the darkness of my ignorance…

Pg. 46 Under EQUIPMENT AVAILABILITY ON CAMPAIGN the paragraph beginning, “An army of even modest size will be accompanied by a baggage train…” should be moved to before the “Army Size/Market Class” table for clarity. It’s a personal, minor thing, but starting a sub-section with a table is cumbersome. The next sub-section on STRONGHOLDS AND STRUCTURES suffers from the same problem, but there is no introductory text to move.

Also, “…as shown on the adjacent table…” should then read, “as shown on the table above.”

Pg. 48 Under Arrow Slit and Battlement: see Moveable Gallery (pg 45) above

Pg. 48 Under Wall it states, “Walls may be built up to 200’ high, but cost is doubled.” Is the cost doubled for anything over 60’ high?

Pg. 49 Under The Typical Labourer, “…every laborer has a construction rate of 1 2/3 sp…” should read, “…every laborer has a construction rate of 2/3rds sp per day…” for both correction and clarity.

Also, “…differentiate between unskilled laborers, skilled laborers craftsmen, and engineers…” should read, “…differentiate between unskilled laborers, skilled laborers, craftsmen, and engineers…” (missing comma)

Also, “Workers may be unskilled laborers, skilled laborers, craftsmen,
and/or engineers…” should probably be moved to directly after the sub-heading. I would also suggest the following for clarity (though it may be more trouble than it’s worth):
"The Typical Worker: Workers may be unskilled laborers, skilled laborers, craftsmen, and/or engineers.

If you don’t want or need to differentiate between unskilled laborers, skilled laborers, craftsmen, and engineers, you can simply assume that every worker has a construction rate of 2/3rds sp per day. Every 3,000 workers will construct 500gp per day. This is a good option for large armies on long campaigns.

Unskilled laborers might be peasants, slaves, prisoners, conscripts, or even mercenaries on labor detail." This improves clarity, but introduces another term that would need to be updated in subsequent paragraphs (although some already use the term “workers” interchangeably with “labourers”).

Also, undifferentiated labourers has a construction/wage rate lower than unskilled labour. Why? Balance? I seem to recall this being asked and answered before, but I can’t find the reference…

Also, “Characters with just one rank of Siege Engineering proficiency count as skilled labor, not siege engineers…” should read, “Characters with just one rank of Siege Engineering proficiency count as skilled laborers, not siege engineers.”

Pg. 50 Under CONSTRUCTION SITES it states, “Thus a project built with a work force of more than 3,000 workers will end up costing more (in gp of wages paid) than the labor cost of the project. However, the project will get built faster.” After reading this several times, it’s perfectly clear, but on initial reading it seemed counter-intuitive. The last sentence is the sticking point, as for workers beyond the first 3,000 the rate per labourer is SLOWER. Just wanted to mention my initial reaction.

Pg. 50 Under CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS the paragraph beginning, “Alternatively, raw materials may be bought with cash at a market…” should be moved to before the “Back to Basics” sub-heading for both clarity and continuity with costs and methods of obtaining construction materials.

Pg. 50 Under ASSISSTING CONSTRUCTION WITH MAGIC, “This construction rate only can be used on ditches, moats, and earthen ramparts!” should read, “This construction rate can only be used on ditches, moats, and earthen ramparts!”

Pg. 51 Under ASSISSTING CONSTRUCTION WITH MAGIC in the sentence that reads, “Apply 500gp towards the stronghold’s construction cost per wall of stone spell cast…” the word spell should not be highlighted in bold based on previous usage

Pg. 51 Under ARTILLERY AND SIEGE EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION, “The normal limits regarding construction sites not apply to artillery and siege equipment…” should read, “The normal limits regarding construction sites do not apply to artillery and siege equipment…”

Pg. 51 Under the “Spells Cast/Construction Effect” table spell-name highlighting in bold is applied inconsistently

Reading the Campaigns chapter, I see 1 2/3sp is being used consistently. Maybe “one 2/3sp” sould be better? I still find the original kludgy.

Page 80 - “Artillery and siege equipment do not count against maximum number of units”, while clear and concise, might benefit from a ‘the’ after ‘against’.

Under what circumstances might a besieged defender be able to defend with a number of units larger than his stronghold’s unit capacity… ?

Increasing the BR of all defending units by 1 is an interesting mechanic that makes 0.5 BR units (or 0.25 BR units like kobolds) dramatically more effective… just sort of curious to see the math on that one.

Sort of surprised medium ballistae are no better than light ballistae during assaults.

Can cauldrons be deployed by the attacker in an assault?

Do lieutenants provide a +1 to unit attack throws during assaults, as they do during normal campaign combat?

Page 82 - “Multiply the encounter distance by the ratio of the height of the stronghold walls relative to the height of a man” doesn’t really need the ‘relative’.

Page 83 - Really minor nitpick, but “a leader who sees his supplies dwindle and his army’s morale collapsing” should be either ‘dwindling’ or ‘collapse’, rather than mixing gerrunds with present-tense verbs. I’d go with dwindling.

Do spoils of war apply from each assault, or only at the end of the siege (sort of a ‘high risk, high reward’ thing) ?

Page 83 - “sometimes all that matter is who won” → matters. Probably… this might be technically correct as is? But awkward.

Page 84 - Example: “These count as [(4 x 1) + (2 x 8)] 24 bonus units,” should be 20.

Also on 84, “If Moruvai’s stronghold were an island-fortress, it would take Marcus 54 days to capture it instead of 18”. Island modifier is x4, and 18 x 4 = 72.

Page 87, Mercenaries event - Clarify that non-human mercenaries do not have a 25% chance of being veterans?

It would’ve been neat for say bloody flux, with its low lethality, to have been unusually virulent.

Would also have been interesting to have good / bad omens be more probable; the soldiery are a superstitious lot, and will find omens in anything. Another good possibility there would be for ‘divine intervention’, which is to say making sacrifices to appease the gods and avert ill fortune or curse one’s enemies.
Upon further consideration, that sounds like a good idea for some divine spell research…

Oh, that’s what Legendary Leadership was referring to! Huh.

If you get local guides, then they leave, can you retrace your movements through the terrain they led you through? Likewise, is +strategic movement an ability Explorers can get via proficiency? Just feels dissociative to combine this explanation with this effect, and not make it available by other means. (I guess that sort of applies to much of this table; I guess these results are all reasonable outcomes for particularly good or poor planning on the PCs’ part. Severe weather - Don’t invade Russia in the fall!)

Ministers - “d6 clerics of level 1d4 announce join the campaign and begin ministering to the troops.”

How does the iniative victory from Plans Discovered work in situations where there are more than two armies in the area?

Siege train problems - “otherwise, it saves a normal man.”
Also “remember that repair rate for wood is 5 shp per gp of construction rate” could use a ‘the’.

Spy Caught - In the case where there were no spies infiltrated, the text states that you caught and killed a turncoat. Is his subsequent interrogation necessarily by magic, or is non-lethal capture possible? Does a (speak-with-dead’d) turncoat know things about the enemy army, or is that intended just for actual spies?

Does Calm Amidst the Storm cancel all other vagaries of battle if multiple are rolled on the d4?

Culmination is not bolded.

Debris, Heavy - “breached stone wall” should probably be plural, in keeping with the rest of the sentence.

Deserters - “PCs and NPCs from their side may attempt to rally them to return to the fight by making reaction rolls.” That’s a rather meta way of putting it :stuck_out_tongue:

Marauders - would read better as “own sinister ends”

Page 92 Example - “Marcus’s army is trapped in the Waste with enemy straddling its lines of supply.” Enemy needs a ‘the’ or ‘his’ or something.