Atgxtg

Mounted vs. Afoot should use the Mounted vs. Mounted table. The omission was a slight error in 5th edition. Back in KAP 4 which table you used was solely based on if the PK Commander's Unit was mounted (fiest, better table) or afoot (second,worse table). KAP5 expanded that by allowing PK units that are afoot to use the first (better) table when facing other footmen. Sonow if the PKs are on foot, facinga Saxon horde,they are not penalized.

I've seen it listed on thier site,so It looks like you can still buy it at whatever state it is currently at.

Yes indeed, several types. Take your Pict.

More. Since not all the knights might have been on the round table at the same time (almost a given, since Pelinore and Lamorak both die before the Grail Quest), all we really know is who some of the knights are and that the table was only at a full complement once. Plenty of room for PKs and significant NPKs! But a Book of the Round Table with writeup es and background of some of the members would be nice.

Oh, I will, although I suspect his ability to find it is lower than mine. My players seem to have take notesbut never look at them or keep them in order. But that was just an example.

From what research I've done and a website about the Dyke it was allegedly built by Vortigern. But as the aforementioned site is part of a site about Vortigern it might be somewhat suspect. The original name Wansdyke is Saxon, although the Dyke is probably pre-Saxon. But as KAP gives credit to Ambrosius it hard to figure out why he built it. It seems like he could have done something better with the resources in the 470s. But if it were a pre-Ambrosius fornication and was trashed by the Picts during 444-446, I could see him repairing it. I think Greg just attributed it to him in order to give it a non-Saxon name, and to emphasize Ambrosius Roman heritage. Since the campaign used to start ic.495, and this was something that took place before the PK were born, not details were needed. But as we push the timline back and fill out more of the history,it becomes more noticeable.

Actual rotating castle works out pretty well, as you no doubt are aware.

Thanks. I was going to note that, but have been having keyboard issues. I never said that it emphasized historical sources over fictional ones,only that overtime the game has shifted to placing more emphasis on Mallory and on a medieval Arthur. Cadbury/Camleot shifting to Winchester/Camelot and from Latin to Saxon place names being one noticeable example - at least if you got the KAP1 map. Oh, and no argument here, just noting some of the many minor changes that have occurred over the years. Another interesting one is how Greg made Excalibur the Sword in the Stone/Uther's Sword in the GPC when they were differernt sword before. Greg even went to the trouble of writing an article to explain that they were different swords!

I think there is still a shift towards using more Mallory over time. Back in KAP1 Greg used Cadbury Castle for Camelot, more in keeping with historical Arthur per knowledge at the time. With KAP3 Greg shifted to using Mallory as his primary source,and followed Mallory on more things.

I try to do stuff like that, but what usually messes me up is the on the fly NPKs that show up in the middle of another adventure. For example, some time back one player was having a bad night and rolling exceptionally poorly. He was a squire at a feast and wound up on the floor. Then he managed to anger a knight (feast even card, worst result) and made an new enemy. So I gave the guy a name, wrote it down (somewhere) and gave the name to the PK, who wrote it down on his event sheet. Other things cropped up and I didn't get back to the rival knight right away, and can't find his name in my notes.

Something worth thinking about is adapting non-knightly/non-Arthrian adventures occasionally. It depends a lot on the actual adventure, but sometimes the main elements of a very good adventure would work in an Arthurian setting, and a GM can run a nice "change of pace" adventure by adapting the adventure to Pendragon, or even just elements of an adventure. Sometimes modern day or even Sci-Fi adventures can be adapted this way. Often the "setting" of a story isn't actually vital to the story. .

Ah. So is Realmworks good? I've been looking for a better way to track things in my campaign. Currently I just try to keep things in documents and spreadsheets, and often I have to search through older adventures to dig up character names, stats and other details.

You could do that, but it's probably not necessary. In most cases knights have several lances, and with the way battle rounds works, they would have the chance to ready a new one if they needed to. Also, most of the PKs tend to prefer to use another weapon outside of a charge.

Yes, hence the reason why I noted that it wasn't important unless the Pks were going to go into extended melee rounds, which the need to do to capture anybody. Most of the time my PKs aren't going into extended melee. If/when they are fighting someone with ransom and they want to go after them, it 's different, and the battle round can take several combat rounds to resolve. Those tend to go by quick thought since the conditions of those round are already determined. No, to get a unit victory all you have to do is win more that you lose (or at least tie). So if the PKs all beat their opponents they get a triumph, even if they don't really do any damage past armor & shield. If it were otherwise it would be very difficult for the group to get a victory, especially in the latter periods when the armor is better. So against footmen and other low reward opponents, it's easy to just roll to see who wins, roll damage on PKs as needed and just move on. It doesn't really matter if there is another spearman or two bleeding to death on the battlefield or not. So that can speed up the battle rounds quite a bit.

Currently we have 4 players, including one who is new to the game, and things go fairly quickly. For a quick rundown: 1. GM (me) enters in Round Number, brings over Starting Battle Intensity from Last Round (takes a couple of seconds, ) 2. Players roll 3d6-10 for the random intensity adjustments and GM calculates the final Battle Intensity (takes less than a minute; it would be faster but I like letting the players roll for the random events instead of doing it myself) 3. GM Determines Unit Intensity by adding the modifiers for unit cohesion, terrain, battle zone and other factors (takes less than a minute). 4. Unit Commander rolls against Unit Intensity and then picks an allowed maneuver for the unit (typically this takes a minute or two for the Unit Commander to peruse his options and decide) 5. Enemy Unit(s) determined, PKs make opposed rolls vs. enemy (this typically takes about 4 minutes, maybe a little more if the PKs are fighting multiple enemies; also note that unless the PKs are going to go into extended melee with an enemy, there is no point in the players actually rolling damage when they win.) 6. Players make rolls for followers and squires (takes less than a minute) 7. GM determines and applies unit results, adjusts Battle Intensity (takes a few seconds). Repeat as necessary So that's around 7 minutes to get through a battle round. N actually in actual play it varies a bit based upon how the events play out. Sometimes it might take longer for the players to decide what maneuver to pick, how to divide their skill, resolve opportunities, or fight an extended battle round, but usually it goes pretty quickly. . .

I think it's all a mixed improvment. You get more neat stuff but at a price. Typically being more time spent on that neat stuff, or by losing something else you might like. For example the gPC gives you a nice solid timeline that you can use, but doing so limits some of your freedom. Of course you are free to pick and choose stuff from it too. That's easily doable with Battle. I've gotten in 9 rounds in an hour at times. Once we became family with it, Battle plays almost as fast as the core battle system. It's only when the PKs decide to go into extended combat where it can slow down a little, because then you are fitting in more than one melee round into a battle round.

Becuase it gives you more options for your PKS in battle, more options for the enemy armies, and allows the PKs actions to influence the course of the battle. The way the Book of Battle works is that the unit commander makes battle rolls and then picks an maneuver for the group during each battle round, so you get a much better feeling of what the PKs were up to during the battle, and there are times when the PKS can try something heroic than can turn the tide of a battle. You don't get that in the core book. Battle is also nice for making a epic battle feel like an epic battle. The Book of Armies is nice because it essentially gives you many options to use for tables instead of the five Battle Enemies tables in the core book. While I'm not thrilled by some of the opponent, most of the tables are nice and give a lot more diversity to the enemy ranks. As with most of the changes and additions to the rules over the years the new books add and expand upon what already exists. But, as always there are trade offs. There are times when I wish I was running KAP4 instead of 5.2. I think it did some things better. On the other hand there are a lot of nice additions in KAP5+ so it's a trade off. As Creative hum has stated you don't need any of the supplements, but I'd say you might like to use some of them. All of the supplements have something to recommend them. How useful they are depends mostly on how you run your campaign and how much you want to focus on one aspect of the game or other. For example, the Book of the Manor and the Book of the Estate only really matter if the players want to improve their lands, build defenses and so on. If they don't care about that and just want to adventure then most of that stuff is moot.

Aha! So all those strange pictographs and writings aren't about religion or ancient aliens, but just ancient GMs notes for their RPG campaigns. That actually makes sense.

Wow! Did you do anything special to track that? Some sort of database, maybe? I thought I was bad when one of my players asked me to help with a document he started to keep track of the various NPCs he encountered during the game and I expanded it to over 100 characters.

Early Body King Period, with all those big battles in such a short time, is a time when glory tends to go through the roof- for those PKs who are fortunate enough to survive. There are a couple of times li the game when this happens, and it's nothing to worry about. As for older knights the aging table eventually catches up with them, once the glory awards slow down. It might take a few years, but eventually the bad rolls come. Typically it catches up with them hard and they loose 3-4 points suddenly. I had one PK in a campaign who dropped down to 3d6 damage because the player didn't want to give up his 35 sword skill, gained through the Boy King Period.

Are you just going to use HQ for the HeroQuests, or to handle the whole campaign? I think just doing it for the HeroQuests is a bad idea as players will have a harder time judging their abilities and if they are ready to go on a HeroQuest or not as their actual game stats won't be the same. If, on the other hand, you want to charge over entirely to HQ it is a bit easier as the players will have the chance to become familiar with the new system, and how their characters work in it. Which ever way you are going with it, make sure to give the players some sort of "dry run" adventure in order to learn the new system and how thier players can function in it. As for RQ to HQ conversion, based on the info from earlier editions of HW/HQ, I'd say Mastery in RQ (90%+skill) is probably equal to two masteries in HQ, instead of one. So you could convert skills over at Skill%/2-5. But I'd also suggest making sure that a character ends up with enough keywords, bumping stuff up to the 13 minimum (appox 36% in RQ).

Thank you for the indext, and..WoW and 18 page index.

That is an interesting question, but also one that can be applied to anything in the line. Several other books have gotten updates and revisions. I think a more important question that if it would be profitable is does keeping it the way it is helpful or harmful to the line? I think the latter. Sure, Chasoium can make money by selling the PDFs but if that leads to confused and frustrated GMs and players who stop playing or buying Pendragon products because of it, Chasoium ultimately looses more than they gain. It's really bad when a company relates incompatible supplements for the same game and setting. I'll also add that with the various editions and revisions of Pendragon they really need to note which supplements are for which edition of the game in order to avoid confusion and loss of customers. Yeah, I think most of the missing improvements would fit into two or three pages and a random harvest table and manorial luck table taking another page each. So it wouldn't take much new material. And most of the retinue stuff is convered under Entrounage.

Yes it does, but it is your house rule, not something included in Estate or other supplements, so we don't have any sort of offical variable income with the new ecomonic model. I take it that the expanded manorial luck table is another houserule? I'm not saying that bad, only that it's not something that is offically part of the game or something that most GMs are aware of. Oh, I agree it doesn't add much, but it does add some things. IMO it is the last KAP5+ supplement to buy as over 90% of it has been superceeded and it is somewhat incoptaible with the newer, better economic model. The rules in BoM usually lead to filthy rich PKs. Well I miss the random harvest rolls, although I'd rather simply it down to one roll with factors such as weather and improvements working as modifiers. For instance something like replacing the flat +10 with a 3D6 roll with the various costs, and income of things acting as modifiers. Now I can see why estate eliminates that, for several reasons, especially after trying to handle several manors with BoM, but I'd like a random roll as an option for single manors. I like (and ported over) the smaller jousting list for £1 as something that makes a bit more sense for a knight to have at the family manor instead of the the jousting arena (which makes more sense for an estate holder or warlord to have). There are a handful of other improvements, such as the winery, mostly those from latter Periods that aren't in Estate that I'd like to see return in some form, not that it would be hard to covert them using the other improvements that exist in both BoM and BoE as a guideline. I'd like to see the return on the manorial Luck table. No doubt a few other things, but I'd have to go over BoM to remember them. It's not that I fond anything wrong with Estate, I would just like to keep more of the good stuff from Manor in some way. Yes I can come up with my own solutions but I think an updated Book of the Manor that was compatible with Estate and Entourage would be a nice thing and make BoM more marketable. I also think it could be fairly easy to do since most of the groundwork has already been done between Estate and Entourage. Right now, Manor is the one supplement that most of us recommend people not buy, as it causes more confusion and problems than it's worth. I agree, although the nice part is that functionally we get to do so, anyway. It pretty much boils down to a £1 per year +improvements in discretionary funds, so it's not a big deal. Plus the detailed breakdown does help players who want to maintain a larger army or have a larger retinue. Plus the somewhat confusing nature of it all helps to keep the whole "I'm a knight, I can't be bothered with bookkeeping, let my wife and steward keep track of it" spirit of the setting, which I think is much better than the sort of shopping mall. theme park feel of BoM, where land management becomes a major focus of the game.

None of the supplements are necessary, although the GPC probably comes close. That is one of the nice things about KAP is that a GM doesn't need the supplements to run it. But the supplements can all help to enhance game in some ways. The Book of the Manor has some things that I I hope could be retained, such as variable harvests, state of the land, random events, and even a few manorial improvements.So I think it still has some value, but it is definitely at the bottom of the list now. Perhaps, someday, Manor could be updated to the Estate ecomic model, and streamlined a little? Yeah, as I mentioned, you don't really need Estate to use Warlord, but probably need it to fully understand the economics. Estate really shows you how much income a manor is really producing, and how little of it the knight actually sees.