Atgxtg

Yeah, but I'm not so sure if that means they weren't present. There is a tendency in period writers to ignore common things and people that everyone would know about - especially when it comes to servants. I don't doubt that there are times when knights go off alone, but I suspect that often a squire is probably there but not mentioned. Take Kay for example. We can all recall one of his squires, but I don't believe we ever hear of any other of squires throughout the saga, though doubtless he would have had them. In game terms though, I could see a knight earning extra Glory for adventuring without a squire.

Not to mention the relatively poor state of cartography. Most maps would probably be very good at detailing the areas and things close to a lord's center of power, and get less detailed and less accurate as it moved further out - especially in regards to rough terrain such as forests and mountains. Chances are the maps we can use in the RPG are better and more accurate than what they might have had at the time. When running I note that all maps "in game" are subject to error and have, at times, used contradictory maps. In some cases I've seen groups go the long way from Point A to Point B simply because they were not aware of the true distances and directions between the two.

I wonder if that is entirely true or deliberate. What I mean is that perhaps they had squires that weren't mentioned (i.e Lance scales the battlements to face off against a dozen guards; his squire steadies the ladder - no mention of the squire), or if they started out with squires but they got killed while adventuring (i.e. guard drops boiling water on Lance as he climbs the ladder, misses, and kills the aforementioned squire. Lance continues on the rest of the year without a squire). Yeah but that feeds into the whole Masochistic Medieval Christianity thing. A holy person has to suffer to prove how devout and holy he really is. Not many Saints had a pleasant life.

It does if you use the Book of Entourage. Since a squire gets 5 glory per 1000 that the knight he is attached to has, this could be a tidy sum. It was one of the first things we noticed about player squires. This could mean that the squire of Lancelot in his prime (circa 540) would get 375 Glory per year. This works out to over 2000 Glory! This seems like a bit much, but the, cosisder the sorts of things Lancelot does being Lance's squire is inherently more dangerous. Part of the problem here is that many of th young, heroic knights are first noticed when they are squires, and tend to have a lot of glory before they get knighted. Lance being the poster child for this. Of course with him he was the son of a King, was raised by the Lady of the Lake, etc.

True, but the example does hold. Still, I think we are generally in agreement here. Namely that knighting should normally occur at 21, assuming the canditate is qualified, but that status, economic circumstances, personal heroism, loyalty, etc. can alter that.

That makes sense, such characters are indeed rare. Estate Holders might be more common. In my campaign a couple of PKs have married off daughters to Estate Holders and I could see a PK training such as a squire, but that's about as far as I would probably go. I'd say even sooner, depending on the circumstances. The classic example being Arthur, who is knighted while 15 in order to become king. Constans might be another example. It is unclear if he was even knighted, but he was raised by the clergy - odd for the first son and heir apparent. I think that depends on how badly a heir is needed and what supporters/rivals/enemies are involved in the matter. I think the higher the status of the squire the greater the chances of a early knighting regardless of his qualifications.

Since it was given as one example under other land improvements, it didn't view it the same way you did, but if I had, then I would agree with you that it is possible, and generally not worth it economically in the BoM rules. Still, the message was focused on lowering Hate (Landlord) rather than economic improvement. Economically, there is really not much better than building lots and lots of apiaries or some such. It works out to a 25% average annual return on the initial investment, and that's better most investors could hope for today. Yes, there is some risk (1d2-1) of zeroing out, but the bell curve for multiple d2s helps with that. But then, you already knew that.

I could go with that. I figure commoner squires would need to slay a dragon or something to get knighted. I would let them get knighted earlier, as there are plenty of cases of such people being knighted at 18 or even 15. It ends up being more a case of politics.

It's on page 38 in 2nd edition. Yup, but that only applies under very specific circumstances: "Use this option only if you have excess native people by the method above". So if the lord has a bunch of peasants who need housing he can lower the hate score this way. But he can't just build a hamlet whenever he wishes in order to reduce the Hate score. He has to have excess villagers.

Sorry. More likely an inadvertent house-rule. Yup. I misremembered it as rolling age and the squire moving on if you get a 20+.😁 How about Age with a modifier for father's class? With +1 per 1000 Glory the squire has. The modifier to the starting squire skill seems about right (with lucky commoners being the ones most likely to be career squires), with perhaps an additional modifier for higher ranking nobles (+3) to reflect the greater likelihood of their being knighted at 18. Swiping the starting skills table (which is similar to the Stewardship mod for wives). Something like: Estate Holder, Baron: +3 Officer: +1 Knight: +0 Holy Man: -4 Foot Solider: -5 Commoner: -7

The way I read it, is that the Hate is only lowered if the lord rebuilds a common structure, not if he builds a new one. So building additional Hamlets do not reduce the Hate score. But rebuilding destroyed ones gets rid of the hate gained when they were destroyed. So it's a zero sum gain. The only way to really reduce the Hate score is to build developments per page 24. So if a Knight wanted to reduce the serf's Hate score he could build a Smithy or a Stone Bridge or give out 30 libra to the serfs, or some other combination of other developments.

Yeah, BoM is somewhat broken. If you have to use it, my suggestion is to limit the number of investments (apiaries, dairies,herds, vineyards etc.) to one or two per manor, with possible exceptions for those that wouldn't require much space, such as a Jeweler or a Scriptorium (which could be fit into a village somewhere). That's what the Book of the Estate does. MOst such investments require space, which is limited, so building too much comes as the expense of the fields and reduces the harvest . So a knight who has lots and lots of horses needs lots and lots of land to keep them, or he won't have the fields to feed them.. The major thing that breaks the rules is that without some sort of limit a wealthy knight could built lots and lots of investments, to the point where it becomes a case of perpetual expansion. Long before that the greatly increased income will cause problems. But limit the investments/improvements and you should be mostly okay. As far as Hate(Landlord) goes it is really counter to Love (Landlord). It mostly works against any attempts to build projects- the idea being that unhappy serfs will drag their feet and find ways to cause problems whereas as happy serfs with be more enthusiastic and work harder towards completing a project. The tough bit about hate (landlord) is that is is difficult to reduce. The reduction for buildings is mostly (if not entirely) limited to getting points for rebuilding common structures that were destroyed, not for adding new ones. Basically the way it works is that if raisers come and burn down a Hamlet (1/4 of a village), the serfs are homeless and so their Hate(Landlord) goes up 3 points (because according to the feudal "contract" the Lord is supposed to protect his vassals, even serfs, and see to their well being and he failed to do so, leading to resentment). If the Lord rebuilds the Hamlet, the serfs then have brand new homes to move into and their Hate drops 2 points, for a net zero effect. If a Lord were to build a Village instead, it would just mean that most of the buildings would be empty and the serfs wouldn't care about the extra buildings (they just want to have homes again) and so the Hate would only drop by 3 points, not 15. The advantage of doing so isn't the reduced Hate, but the room for population growth. The only buildings that can reduce Hate (Landlord) that are not rebuilds are developments. There are a few other ways to reduce the hate, as listed on page s 19-20, but generally it's expensive. The knight generally has to spend more on the peasants than he gets back in income. The general point being that discontentment serfs weren't merely due to a lord being greedy and grasping (ala Robin Hood) but also a factor of the harsh conditions of the time.

There already is such a rule in the Book of Entourage. Every year the knight rolls the age of the squire, as if it were a skill, and if the result is a critical the squire moves on. So most NPC squires tend to move on in a few years. Personally I'm all for applying modifiers to this roll, and I could see rolling from age 14 instead of 21, too, in order to account for those squires who get knighted early or who move on for other reasons. It sounds far to mercenary for me. I'd suggest replacing it with a opposed roll vs. Loyalty (Lord). But then that y\would require us to generate a Loyalty (Lord) passion for squires. Still I could see just rolling age vs Loyalty (Lord) once a squire hits 21.

Yup, or if the squire's circumstances change. For instance, a squire whose family loses the manor to Saxons could find himself without the means to become a knight. Or a liege lord going through tough economic times (such as during the anarchy) might not be able to maintain as many knights as before, meaning fewer openings for household knights. Uh, no. Marshall was knighted before he was 21. He didn't get landed until much later. That seems off. Since you agreed earlier that squire is basically "Knight in training" then it doesn't make sense for most squire to end up in a non-knightly position -especially one that has less status than being a squire. Positions like Steward or Huntsman are only really of higher station than squire when the holdings are large and/or the landholder is of high status. I would expect most squires to end up knighted, with those who cannot staying on as a squire. or becoming mounted sergeants with hopes of improving their fortunes in battle. No small percentage of squires die in battle too.

OKay. That doesn't fit well with the cinematic Robin Hood, nor with many of the legends, which tend to have Robin facing off with Sir Guy or the Sheriff of Nottingham in a sword duel. If you look at the legends Robin and his Merry Men don't shoot that many people. There is a lot of truth to that. Unfortunately the Pendragon game mechanics sort of work against that in favor of the soldiers, especially if they are knights. In the legends and ballads Robin and his men usually catch lone travelers or small groups by surprise and rob them with little resistance, if any. Robin's men rarely confront anybody in an actual fight, and run away from, and later harass and harry soldiers sent into the forest after them. What fights that do occur tend to be with small groups and with melee weapons, not longbows. I think that for it to work as a game though, some melee fighting for the PC must be allowed for. Also, all those skills covered under DEX should probably be turned back into skills so that the PCs can improve them. I don't think it would be all that great if, in order to improve stealth, all PCs needed to raise their DEX. I think we'd wind up with every outlaw having a 20 DEX. TO sum up, I really think that while Pendragon can be adapted for a Robin Hood setting, the game would need to be customized to work in that setting, much like how Chaosium has always done to adapt their game systems to a particular setting. I think any GM who wants to do this should take a long look at the RAW and the reasons why the various rules work the way the do and then replace the bias towards knights with one towards outlaws. I think there probably should be some sort of "Righteousness Bonus" for outlaws that are breaking the law but still do good things. And Glory should factor into the peasantry's Love(Outlaws) score, and rules will be needed to improve it (much like how a Knight can do so by building stuff or taking less income). One of the main reasons why Robin and his men aren't caught is because the peasants know he is a good guy and appreciate all the help he has given them.

Not your fault. There were a few threads on this sort of stuff on the old forums back when KAP5 came out. Lots of experienced Pendragon GMs asked about the various changes and it came out that they were not from Greg but some sort of well intentioned "correction"

I don't disagree. It does give a possible reason. It's just not one I'm sold on. But again that's just my opinion. If some GM wants to go with that reason, that's fine. I don't really think it matters much who did it anyway, as no one will ever know, and the effects are the same. Of course one thing to remember here is that the whole "all the nobles die off is something from the GPC not from Le Morte or the RGB . It might come from some source, but it is a deliberate departure form the main sources. That is one way to interpret things, if you want to believe Merlin was behind it. Another way, and one which I think has slightly more support in the primary sources is that Merlin and Uther had secretly made arrangements with the great lords of Logres for Arthur. It would explain why things went the way they did in the early years of Arthur's reign. But again, that is just I agree. Now since Merlin is supposed to have some ability to foresee future events he could indeed know exactly how far he could push things without Britain falling to pieces. So yes he could. But I just don't by into it. Yes, and it's why Merlin can be blamed for anything that happens in the saga. No matter what the event, in theory he could have foreseen it and done something. But I think that also depends a bit on just how much future knowledge a GM believes Merlin has. I suspect Ulfius was probably in on it from the start, and maybe a few other key lords. Namely the ones who were so loyal to Uther than they could be expected to do this for him after his death. But it's just a pet theory I have that seems to fit the "facts" as they have been presented.

That could work. Several swashbuckling style games use an advantage track of some sort and this could work in a Robin Hood KAP adaption, as KAP has something of an advantage mechanic already. How would crticals work? -10 or a hit? Oh definitely. One of the things that has happened over the years is that Knights have generally gotten bigger and stronger and that has changed the game somewhat. PArt of the reason for this is the changes in chargen over the years (SIZ 3d6 to 2d6+6 to 3d6+4). Just about everybody hits harder now.

Here is a simple method: Compare the monster's average damage roll to the average hit points of a PC (typically 12). If it is less than half the PCs hit points, then it's a minor threat ( 1/4 point) If it is equal or greater than half the PCs hit points, then it is a serious threat (1/2 point) If it is equal to of greater than the PCs average hit points it is a lethal threat (1 point) If it is equal to 1.5 times the hit points or greater than a deadly threat (1.5 points) If it is twice or more of the hit points it is an overkill threat. (2 points) Add another half point for each 1/2 multiplier of Hit Points This won't be prefect but should prevent a GM from inadvertently outclassing the PCs.

Doesn't it. Personally I don't see Merlin doing it for a couple or reasons. First, Arthur is too young to be king and killing off Uther and the nobles in 495 makes it much harder to the Brits to hold onto the country until 510. Now, maybe, Merlin had a prophecy that showed him how it would work out , but I figure he could have waited. Secondly, the more I look over things, the more convinced I am that Merlin and Uther had made arrangements with the other lords of Logres to Arthur. The way various Lords just jump onto Arthur's bandwagon, and the way Igrane recognized him all look like a big setup. But that's just my opinion.

That's a possibility, but doesn't handle the typical cinemaitc Robin Hood duels where two characters sqaure off with swords and no shields. In BRP/RQ weapons can soak some damage. In KAP they don't. That's why I suggested taking a page out of RQ3 for armor and parry AP scores. There actually is a Dodge tactic in KAP already, the problem is that it takes the place of fighting back so it is rarely used. I don't think they need death mitigation-but a way to prevent fights from being one roll encounters. Yes, but then you run the other problem of people being too tough, plus it doesn't match the setting. Generally the winner of the pic sword duel comes out of it unscarthed or with a scratch on his cheek or shirt. And not bad brainstorming at that. It's just that Pendragon is so heavily optimized for Knights, and biased in their favor that it puts the heroic commoners from a Robin Hood campaign at a major disadvantage. SO to work out the rules need to be de-optimized for knights and instead optimized for heroic outlaws. Maybe something like a partial success stopping damage equal to the die roll? For instance if a character is beaten but rolled a 8 he would block 8 points of damage. A Shield would stop another 6 (per Pendragon) and armor could be halved.

There probably isn't anything specific because there aren't any Saxons at Uther's Court to interact with. No doubt any, some , or all of the various Saxon kings and their sons were suspected, and they are the "default" culprits. The list of possible suspects in the BoU is really just an alternate for GMs who want someone else to blame, and they needn't be the only suspects either. Pretty much anybody who suffered because of Uther, Aurelius, or his family line could be out for revenge. Some relative of Vortigern could be a good possibility, as could whoever lost out on Cornwall or Silchester thanks to Aurelius' invasion. A case could be made for just about anybody. .

There was an errata file for KAP5 on Greg's site, but basically if you have 5.1 or 5.2 you don't need to worry about it.

And bad to read the book at other times, especially if said book is King Arthur Pendragon 5th edition. KAP5 5.0 was improperly edited/proofread by someone who didn't really understand the game system and who "corrected" a lot of things in a way that would appear to make sense to a typical gamer, but not in the way the rules were intended to work. The "only damages one opponent rule" was one such example.Another example is that KAP5 states that you cannot raise STR, SIZ, etc. above maximum with glory, when in fact you can. Both of these things (plus a host of others) were officially corrected later, when bunches of Pendragon players asked Greg about them (and why the rules were different from previous edtions). In almost every such case KAP5 was in error.

Mostly because it doesn't solve the problems. Most BRP games have a parry mechanic, and place greater emphasis on the parry weapon's protection than the armor's. This means that a shilled character can get around will little to no armor, providing he can make his parry rolls most of the time. But Pendragon, instead of having alternating attacks and parries, uses a opposed roll with a "winner take all" approach. The basic difficult in a Robin Hood style game using KAP rules is that KAP puts heavy emphasis on armor as the primary means of defense/avoid damage. This is somewhat augmented by shields. As there is no parry, per say, any unarmored or lightly armor PC who losing an exchange of combat will almost certainly take a major wound, or worse. Since every PC will lose a melee combat roll sometime, this would pretty much make the Robin Hood campaign non-viable. Any attempt to modify the KAP rules to make them work for Robin Hood will need to address this somehow. Just how is the question, and there are multiple approaches. One would be to lower the values of armor, increase the protection from shields and add some protection for partial success for un-shielded characters. Another is to use DEX to soak damage. Adding a RQ2 Defense score doesn't really help with the problem. Not unless you want to assume that every PC and singincant NPC has a very high defense scores and that has it own problems and tends to slow the game down. It might not be a bad idea on it's own, although there are a few problems with Defense in RQ2 that would have to be dealt with (namely that once defense started to improve it could become the dominant factor in a fight), but it would't help much with the Robin Hood idea. In a nutshell, what we need is a way for lightly armored characters to be able to hold their own in a melee. In KAP a character without armor (or in leather) is probably going to drop if he gets hit-especially in KAP5, where 5d6 and 6d6 damage stats are more common. in RQ/BRP the parry did this. In KAP, weapons don't stop any damage and a shield is only worth 6 on a partial success- which isn't that much when most opponents are doing four or five dice damage.