Atgxtg

Ayup. My bad. Most poor knights typically have a substandard warhorse too, such as a War Pony. Probably something similar. Say £1 for sword, spears, shield, other miscellaneous gear, and only £4 for the feast, but otherwise pretty close. And back in first edition a knights upkeep was only £2/year, so a lot of the economics have changed, as have the prices. I believe you did up a table with the actual costs to outfit an average knight, too.

Knights & Ladies gives chargen rules for characters of other cultures and lands, and also modifies the standard characters. Each culture now has a skill, passion, or trait that is unique to that culture. It also gives stats for some new weapons and horses (although the horse stats exist in earlier supplements). It also adds several more religions to the game. Estate and Warlord give glory awards for obtaining various ranks of nobility. Estate and Warlord also give information on playing officers. Estate also differentiate Loyalty between Homage (his primary Liege Lord) and Fealty (and other Lord that he might owe Loyalty to), but that only comes up in cases where a knight gets holdings from multiple lords. Entourage gives chargen rules for generating squire characters, instead of knights, and they differ from similar rules presented in Knight & Ladies. the economics system in Estate doesn't really replace the economics system in the core rules, it replaces the one given in Manor. In a nutshell the one from Estate just means that a knight gets £1 in discretionary funds to spend each year. Feasts gives rules for running a feast, and adds cards with various events on them. Sires gives a detailed timeline for knights grandfathers going back to 439, and adds the Heritage Passion. This is a strong attachment to a knight's holding and can become a factor during those times where PKs lose thier estate to invades or are forced into exile.

He might need it but cannot afford it. There is a line in one of the books where it is noted that a liege will give his household knights a sumpter if needed, and mercs typically got paid upfront, and could probably buy one. Yeah that's reasonable. Despite the increasing cost associated with the better armor and horses of the later periods, I find that most PKs can offset a good portion of the the cost of outfitting their sons by giving them one of their spare suits of armor and a spare mount. Warhorse and armor tend to be take up the majority of the equipment costs, and after 20 years or so of play, it's's rare for a PK not to have an extra suit of armor and charger, won at tournament or battle, to pass down.

Ah, that sounds familiar.

I think it had something to do with a character sheet. Someone was asking about the family army and told to ignore it as it didn't work out right.

Yes. THe problem is if you give a PK a half dozen knights he will try to use them somehow. Yeah I think he said they should be dropped from the character sheet somewhere. I think the idea was that there were supposed more a matter of connections and influence. It shows how many knights a PK has looking out for him, and whom he should be looking out for.

According to her stats she is 61 in 558, and had lost one point of APP from her youth. The ageing table can be very forgiving at times. Especially if you have tons of glory to stave off the effects on one attribute that you desire to keep.

I think part of the reason for the confusion in the KAP books is that Greg uses Coruser a bit differently than some others, with the coruser being a hunting horse, where many sources uses it interchangeably with charger, and call a hunting horse a hunter. I've been working on some horse rule that cover some of this and generally Coursers aren't battle trained, they are hunting horses. There are several reasons why. First off not all horses are suited to be war horses or hunting horses, so finding such a horse would be rare, and training one more difficult. Secondly is the training time. Most breeds of horse cannot be ridden regularly until they are about 4 years old, and then the training to be riding horse and warhorse takes up a couple of years. So a typical warhorse is 5-6 years old to start, and training him to be a Courser too, just cuts into his productive years. So it's probably a rarity, only done for horses that are gifted to both roles.

That's sort of a classic origin story for female warrior characters. Someone kills off her father, brother, husband, whoever, and she takes up arms and goes off for revenge. Sometimes the story includes some sort of experienced warrior as a mentor who trains the woman in the weapon skills. It would work for Pendragon, too, especially if the character is from or had to survive in the fridges of the realm where feudalism isn't as firmly entrenched yet, nor as regimented, especially among pagans and Saxons. I suspect the origin is more of a cultural "escape clause" for the character, a way to make her acceptable to 20th century readers/viewers. She breaks from traditional behavior of home and family because those things have been taken from her. Ironically, such a character might be more problematic for more modern people than those in the setting.

LOL! I have a BRP variant where I used the skill category modifiers as the base chance (by not taking the -10 off the the primary stats). So a character could pick up any weapon that they lacked skill in at the same base chance. It really helped to streamline character creation and bookkeeping, as you only needed to track those things that had been improved above the base, and it is really only a minor difference in the base % score.

For a woman, they wouldn't be. She marries the Count, King, Knight, etc. and that is how & when she gets her title. I'd let it happen, but letting it happen and having it happen are two different things. Outside of the Book of Battle, or the situation with a woman getting married, it just wouldn't come up as it would require a character to do something really exceptional, like kill two dragons at the same time. I think if a knight can pull that off he deserves to get all the glory.

Year of the Phoenix did that, although I think attributes started a bit higher than 3d6. the Chill RPG did that as well, as did the old Star Frontiers RPG, although both of those use % based attributes.

Well generally the players shouldn't be making Stewardship rolls. Typically a knight manor was seen to be his wife or his Steward, and the players should use their skill scores instead.

Let me clarify a little. I am working on something for horses, specifically rules for training them, as well as something on the various types and breeds, and stuff for special horses. The idea is that a knight could buy an all white or all black horse or some such, or one with a higher STR or CON than normal and so on. All of which would drive up the price for the horse. Now there is a site online that gives some annual glory for horses of unusual color, but I was thinking that if I just treated the price of the horse as conspicuous consumption it would probably work as well or better than an annual award, and help push knights into purchasing such mounts due to the glory they would receive. So something like an all white charger that cost 4x the normal price would also net the knight 40 glory. An all Back Destrier would be worth 132 glory (I know, but it also costs a fortune) and so on. I think this would encoruange PKs to buy more special horses as there would be glory in it. .

I've been wondering if we should start counting all the various purchases PKs make (armor, horses, clothing, jewelry, etc.) as conspicuous consumption and thus award the PK glory. Up until now I consider the game benefits of better stuff to be it's own reward. I think treating it all as conspicuous consumption would help a bit to explain and justify knights buying fancier horses of special color, etc. rather than just the horse with the best damage. I also think it would help a lot for female characters and courtiers in general, as all those extra fancy suits of clothing would net the character more glory. So it would open up the door for wives to gain more glory by buying more dresses, getting their hair done and so forth.

I know the feeling.Originally the game was a bit more open as to which version of Arthur to use, but as the game has evolved it has generally drawn closer to Mallory's version. I've been saying that Pendragon could do with a book of alternate versions. A Welsh version where all the heroes are warriors with special powers (almost superheroes), a post Roman version where Arthur leads the last remnants of the Roman military. I think that stuff all has possibilities, both as their own settings and to add to the core setting. In my current campaign, I started it back in 410 and have played up the decline and loss of technology with the Romans. At the start of the campaign I had a handful of engineers who could work stone in the old Roman fashion, but as they died out the people lost the ability to build stone fortications - until the rise of Arthur.

That's because each generation remade Arthur to fit their own views, and today we are stuck with a hodgepodge. It's worth a look. The restricted roles for women stem from the game primarily using Mallory and the HRB as the primary sources, with everything else being tacked on. But a GM can run a different version of the Arthur Legend if they desired, or expand the core version a little to including female warriors (which did exist historically in the post Roman period) or even female knights (who also existed historically, but in rare numbers). I think the only real problems with female knights in the game are that of inheritance and succession. Would land pass down to the eldest son or daughter of a female knight? Or maybe just to the eldest child? A Gm would need to work that out. Oh, and a few people here are working on trying to make playing Lady characters more interesting and significant. THey can be run now, but it really takes a good GM and players to make it work in a rewarding fashion.

Yes, for most women it could be treated as a 13 or 14 ,the average CON for a Cymric character. That reduces the mortality rate to something like 3%.

LOL! Yeah appearancce and height and weight were set up so that it cost more to be average, as that kept the Fame score down, so that a PC wouldn't be recognized.

Yeah, but RQ didn't have xp. There were some other APP base effects in the game, but it was the weakest stat. One RPG that made Appearance important was the old James Bond RPG. In that game Appearance greatly modified the chance of seduction, which in turn could improve an NPC viewed a player character.

I think the Solo system could do with an update. Frankly I think characters getting a few checks from solos is fine -especially as most of the checks would be for things that they's probably get while adventuring, and a skill can't get multiple checks.

What are they like? I haven't picked up Paladin as my group would prefer the Arthurian setting and also because most of the rule changes haven't won me over.

Which would suggest that landed knights should be more likely to get a Folk Lore check than a household knight, due to the greater interaction.

It can be, but depending on what you are trying to learn it could take a certain amount of knowledge before someone could learn something significant from a failure. For example, if you don't know anything about a language then you could try to read it for years and not pick up anything. But as far as general play goes, most skills are attempted multiple times, so getting a check isn't all that hard. The hard bit is the roll to improve, once someone has gotten good.

True Do we have any idea of chance for conception in Middle Ages? The we could adjust the math. From what I've read the mortality rate in Pendragon is about ten times this historical rate. I suspect one of the reasons why childbirth was one of the leading causing of death was because people had larger families back then. So a 1-2% mortality rate, and a family of ten, and 10-20% of women will die in childbirth.