Atgxtg

At present, none. I've got one officer (castellan) another potential officer (possible Deputy Marshall) but no titled PKs. But they are all hopeful. I did have a PK King (Pennath) once, but that was a few campaigns ago. But I figured the Book of the Estate and the Book of the Warlord had to apply to somebody.

Or titled PKs vs other titled PKs. I would expect that there are probably degrees of above the salt for the nobles. I was thinking of averaging the two but that might lower the roll too much, maybe going with the glory classification would work best? Something along the lines of: Unproven Knight (1,000–1,499 Glory) =+0 Respected Knight (1,500–2,999 Glory) = +1 Notable Knight (3,000–3,999 Glory) = +2 Renowned Knight (4,000–7,999 Glory) = +3 Famous Knight (8,000–15,999 Glory) = +4 Extraordinary Knight (16,000–31,999 Glory) = +5 Legendary Knight (32,000+ Glory) = +6 Officer to: (Count =+1, Duke = +2, King = +3, Pendragon = : +7) Round Table Knight = +2

I agree but that isn't specfically spelt out in the rules. Likewise someone with 16,000 glory should probably be up there too. Maybe +1 APP per glory bracket? Maybe. I'm just relating how it is handled in the Book of Feats. I find the Honor loss to be somewhat suspect too.If anything it would probably reflect poorly on the host if they didn't seat a guest properly.

Enitely my own fault, the tesxt is quite clear. I think I might have looked at earlier version by mistake. There were also times when charging the foot solider was more tactically sound. Getting at the enemy missile troops for example. The trick was usually getting the knights to do what they were supposed to do, as opposed to rushing in for glory and ransom. That's what the Knightly PR says. Again history indicates otherwise. Well disciplined footmen were a real problem. Knights would ofter prefer to fight knights if they though they could get glory and ransoms, but cutting down rabble was a lot easier and safer, provided the knight wasn't dumb enough to keep put long enough to get mobbed. But a lot of the accounts are biased by the perception and beliefs of the time. For instance the French Knights at Agincourt believed that the reason why their ancestors lost at Crecy was because they were't chivalrous enough. Which was one of the reasons why they basically tired the same tactic that didn't work the first time. The idea that commoners could actually beat a group of knights, on the battlefield, under the right conditions, with surprise was simply unthinkable. Actually killing the horses and all that wasn't quite so easy or common, nor was killing knights. A clever commoner would drag you back to their lord for a reward, or even hold you ransom themselves. That's really how the armored foot soldiers and archers got started and made their money. Capture a knight and they are practically set for life.

In light of how the Wine Prices went over here are some prices and containers for beer. You can probably use them for ale. I believe ale had a separate set of measurements and units at one time, but we can probably get by with the one for Beer. Likewise Mead can use Beer containers. The Beer Gallon: The beer Gallon is actually larger than the wine gallon, about 4.62 liters, as opposed to about 3.67 liters. So you are getting about 25% more drink for your denarii. About Beer and Ale: All beer is brewed locally as it generally doesn't keep very long. At one time there was law in England that forbade the sale of beer more that four day old. Ale lasted longer, and was the favorite beverage of the time. Mead was also popular and kept longer than beer, thanks in small part to the honey. Beer and ale also had a lower alcohol content than their modern equivalents, which helps to explain why someone in the middle ages could drink a gallon a day. More about Wine: Just a heads-up but I had added a bit more to the Wine Price List, so if you like it you might want to give it another look. Also, would it be more useful if I combined these into a PDF instead of just posts? Ale & Beer City Great City Ale (jug ¼ beer gallon) 1d. 1d. Local Beer (jug ¼ beer gallon) 1d. 1d. Mead (jug ¼ beer gallon) 4d. 6d. Quality Cost Poor x1¼ Average x1 Good x¾ Quantity Cost Weight (SIZ), full Weight (SIZ) , empty Firkin (36 jugs, 9 beer gallons, 1/24 tun) x36 120lbs (SIZ 12) 25lbs (SIZ 3) Kinderkin (72 jugs, 18 beer gallons, 1/12 tun) x72 240lbs (SIZ 19) 50 lbs (SIZ 5) Hogshead (216 jugs, 54 beer gallons, ¼ tun) x216 (or x£1 with barrel) 700lbs (SIZ 30) 140lbs (SIZ 14) Butt/Pipe (432 jugs , 108 beer gallons, ½ tun) x432 (or x£2 with barrel) 1400lbs (SIZ 38) 280lbs (SIZ 21) Tun (864 jugs, 216 beer gallons, 1 tun) x864 (or x£4 with barrel) 2800lbs (SIZ 45) 560lbs (SIZ 28)

That's why I go with 10%, or 1000 Glory. That way if somebody has 4500 glory he won't get upset if seated below someone with 4100 glory. It should be, but the way the rules work you roll APP (plus modifiers) to see where you sit. Critical = Above the Salt, Success= Near the Salt, Failure= Below the Salt, and Fumble = Possibly on the Floor and a possible seating arrangement problem. So despite glory being such a big thing with seating the APP roll pretty much messes everything up. Yes nobles will get bonuses from fine clothes, fashion, and jewelry, but dice are fickle. IMO, the APP roll doesn't really work quite right, but it's the only game mechanic that uses APP in the whole game other than the aging rules.

YUp. Although with the way you describred things maybe I would be better if there were specific benefits that the wives could vie for rather than just a generic pool of bonus modifiers? That way they could work deals like "You help my husband become Castellan of Devizes and I'll put in a good word for your son with Lady Gyniss so he can get her two manors". I think the decks are both\ easier to use, because you don't have to have the table sour, and the can have the details on the card, plus the cards don't require a certain number of events (It's had to do 22 different things with dice), and can be held from round to round to be used later.

I tend to run it more by Glory brackets rather than points. I just don't see someone with 4726 Glory points having a problem seating below someone with 4725 Glory points. So anything less than about 10% difference or a glory bracket is close enough. The numerical values are somewhat abstract. Otherwise every feast is going to turn into a major conflict over seating - as seating is assigned by APP Instead of Glory, amnd by RAW the pretty girl with no glory will end up sitting at a higher table than a visiting Countess! I'd suggest you give each player two NPCs to interact with, although you can have some of the NPCs seated between two PKs and serve double duty. You can always add more during later feasts. From what I've seen most players will want to draw and play feast cards instead, anyway.

The standard tactic among my PKs is to put most of their skill on one footman and 1 point on the other. With the mounted bonuses they end up with 20+/6, and so should win (or at least will get their shield)_ against the first foe, with a good chance of critical or otherwise dropping him, and an outside chance of holding their own against the second. Umm, the evidence is sort of mixed. Most stories and Arthurian lord has knights squaring off against each other for glory (and ransoms), but a lot of documented accounts generally have them cutting down the footmen, which was a lot safer. I suspect the truth was somewhere in between.

Oh, now that makes a lot more sense!

Yeah, that roughly the idea. If whatever the wives do can affect the rest of the game then it will be significant. Otherwise it just fades tot he background. I 'm thinking some sort of pool of points that the PK can spend when making rolls at court to get permission from the lord for things, to help in getting a desired position or assignment, a modifier on the marriage table (for children), maybe some extra glory, and so forth. The game would represent the wives jocking for position at court, competing with each other and teaming up against each other to try and accomplish things.

Look at the land. In the core rules, if you roll over a 20 you get at least one manor. Now since each year may grant a PK a +1 with a successful Courtesy roll, then in 4 years they could have a 25% chance of a manor, in 9 years a 50% chance and so on. In the past, PKs would remarry when their wives died in childbirth, and within a generation of two, the PKs would have several manors. After a PK has a couple of sons, it's kinda the smart thing to do on a strategic level, and is the easiest way to get land with the least effort. . In Entourage where there are a few scattered entries of land from a co-heiress, which might support a PK and his wife, really getting a large enough parcel to support a knight and his family, that the PK can hold onto is rather difficult. The have to get a 25 or better on 1d6+modifiers. That's at lot of modifiers! Now I think the libra bonus being 1 for 1 is a bit much, but even so a player would need to get a lot of other bonuses to have a chance at the 25+. That makes it much more difficult for a PK to sit back and rely on the marriage table to give him a large estate. Now the only ones who can really pull it off are those with tons of glory, a few carts full of libra, a high loyalty and so forth, but by then the PK is probably on the aging table, so he probably won't be doing it again, and again, and again.

And a good laugh. "Childbearing Hips", "Huge Tracts..of Land" , the Ugly Truth. Funny. What about some sort of wife card game where the wives score points that they can use to buy favors and influence things at court. Something like building up a pol of points that could saved and then spent as modifiers to court related die rolls ?

Now I can accept the skill more that the wacky damages and 18 CON. I've been lookng through BoA and it looks like: Green Units have a skill in the 5-10 range (1d6+4), Average Units have a skill of around 10, Experienced ones 15, Veterans 19, and Elite 21. I can accept a 21. It just means 5 years of T&P plus one lucky roll or a Glory point. Yeah. The thing is that KAP doesn't factor in's advantages (its much faster to use than a cutting sword, doesn't require you to expose yourself, and thrusting weapons then to deliver more lethal wounds). Frankly if we could swipe somethin glike RQ's implae rule it would be fine. Something like -1d6 damage but triple damage on a critical? I know but the problem is the Romans appear in Mallory and most other sources, so It's a big part of the Legend. At least it's not as bad as the Saracens showing up a century before the founding of Islam. I'd rather have had them in lorica hamata (8), but then I've kida got the Segemetata down to the 9-10 point range win my armor supplement, and have limited the 12 point lorica to the one with the arm guards, leg guards, and face guard of the cataphracti. Then I can buy it being 12 point armor, just like light scale. . I like, but they kinda kept that as an advanced trick for elite units. Double and triple teams make a huge difference. Not only due to the need to split, but also the increase chance of not getting a shield. I'd go for that. It would help to make the plumbata and war dart useful, too. They could take the -2d6 spot of the javelin. BTW, since you had a hand in bringing the longbow back down to earth, and 3d6+6, what about the composite (man, I hope they fix that compound error) bow? 3d6+3?

Oh, here is an example sof what I mean about why the 6d6 bothers me more that the high skills: 10 Infantry (Urban Roman) Javelin (20): 3d6, Gladius & Scutum (22): 6d6 20; Lorica (12), Heavy Shield (8) MW18 Glory 15 Now first off there is the 6d6 damage for the melee weapon, but up until now the Gladius has been treated as a dagger (and is still in a few other places). So to get 6d6 dagger damage they would need 7d6! Then there is the fact that Javelins are supposed to do -2d6 but this does 3d6. So either the Javelin should do more or the Gladius do less. Then the unit has a 18 CON (MW=18) on top of that. The Javelin (20) and Gladius (22) I can accept a lot easier that the damages.

Yeah, but there is a post somewhere on the nocturnal form where Greg said to drop it. Basically where are all those other knights, who is supporting them, and why aren't they in their army? Think about it. If a PK has some older knight in his family why is the older knight defaulting to the PC's chain of command? And if those knights did that, the PK would be commanding his own eschille. And the levy is for the king's use only, but even if it weren't it really isn't unusable to defend against raids. By the time the knight could get the levy together and catch up with the raiders the enemy would have gotten to the homes and family members of the levy. Then the professional soldiers in the raiders would pretty much take the levy apart. So all the knight would be doing would be to increase the carnage from the raid and reduce his workforce.

I can accept 10%. And most of the tables follow that. What I can't accept is 35%. Yup. I'm not sold on the general assumption. Bascially I think STR training makes sense if a knight is close to the next die, but not much sense after that. Now I can accept the 10-15% that 1 or 2 points of STR training could do to the odds, but I also think that there are a lot of other things that a knight might need to work on that would be more important. Sword, Horsemanship, and Lance are vital. Not to mention any significant traits or passions. I think the skill is even more useful. The key thing is the increased chances of getting critical far outweigh the benefits of the extra d6, especially as the PK fights mounted when possible, and many opponents are footmen. Then there are the benefits of getting the shield on a parry, and of eliminating fumbling, and the ability to remain in the saddle when hit. So I'd go for 20 skill over 6d6 as far as usefulness goes. But... The extra STR (or any other stat) helps when you get to the aging table. I my current campaign one PK who skimped on his APP (7) to have better stats elsewhere ended up spending three years tranining & practice upping his APP to 10 to avoid "uglying out". I don't mind 10%, and think 15% is a little too much, but only a little. I don't mind one unit with skill 25, although I'd have been more conformable with 22/22, and the higher values get silly. I'd have much rather seen it said that they were inspired or critically inspired (same results and statistically more likely- i.e. Sons of Lugh (20x2=40). I think part of the problem I have here is that the mounted bonus is extremely generous, and makes competent footmen incompetent. The LTC needs a 25 skill just to give knights a challenge. Maybe what is needed is a way for skilled infantry to offset the mounted bonus somehow? Most medieval footmen are rabble but in KAP the Romans art the start and some of the professional footmen at the end of the campaign should be able to pose a challenge. Yeah, I think we mostly agree, and yeah the all knight table is messed up. Probably because everybody is the same and damage was one of the few ways Greg could mix it up to make them interesting. Still, I think I'll try to redo it. I also think I'll go through BoA and note the skill values for standard, poor, veteran and elite units to see if I can work out a pattern. I think that such a pattern would help with generic NPC writeups. It would be nice to vary the Saxons a bit more.

Yes, especially in KAP5. PKs get a lot more bonuses than before, especially in K&L. Qualifying for knighthood isn't even a thing anymore. That's my point. If we are going with the idea of the sample knight in the book being typical examples for the type, or even the most common examples of their types, then the Young Knight really has a difficult time getting to 6d6, and probably fewer than 10% do so. Strangely enough, most tables of Cmric knights follow that idea with maybe 1 or rarely two knight units doing 6d6. It's the all Knight army that goes crazy. Part of the difficulty is probably that in KAP5 knights are on the cups between 4d6 and 5d6. So an average knight can and probably will get to 5d6, so 6d6 is needed to show an above average knight.

Yeah. I can see two solutions to fix the table. You could expand the table beyond 20 and then add a modifier for the Period. That way, the better armors won't show up untilthe latter Periods, and mail will become less common. A second option would be to list the troops as poor, average, rich and have differet armors for each by era. Basically In the Early Peroids Mail (10) would be the standard with Poor Knights getting Haubergeons (8) and Rich ones getting Superior (Norman) Mail (11). Then in thr Boy King or Conquest Peroid it Shifts so that Norman Mail (11) is the norm, Mail (10) is for Poor Knights, and Reinforced Mail (12) is for the Rich, and so on. I can live with one or two units units (10%) on the battlefield with 6d6, with the 30-35% being okay for a Saxon army. But I can also live with the Last Century on the Roman Army table, assuming they are the best elite unit on that table and really stand out. I guess Greg had started a 2nd edition. Maybe it could be a good project for someone to go over the tables and try to correct errors? I also think the special/overpowering units should be on the alternate units list that most armies already have. That way the GM could slot them into the table if he wanted to, but not have them if he didn't like them. Yes a GM can opt not to use the tables, but the concept is nice, and a GM can also opt to take a unit out and replace it. I know I've modified some tables for play, and am doing up a Visigoth Army now so the PKs can fight them under Aetius next session (first siege/battle of Arelate), but fixing the typos would go a long way with Book of Armies. I think 85% of the problems stem from typos with the remain 15% being overpowered units that could be handled more easily by GMs, since they are more noticeable. Part of the difficulty with typos is that the numbers are playable so the GM might not spot anything odd with the stats during play. Maybe a thread where the possible typos are pointed out for correction? Generally any unit where the weapon damages don't match up with each other according to the rules would be a good candidate. Oh, and I wouldn't mind if the greatspear got +1d6 damage like all the other 2H weapons, but if so I'd like for it to apply to everybody.

What you could do is put a symbol for tournament, maybe with a circle and line through, to show which cards can and cannot be used at a tournament. For instance you could have some Marshall cards where the marshals are paying close attention to the knight so he should play fair or the marshal will start to call his wounds. This could be a kept card so a player could use it on someone to put them under the spotlight or catch them cheating. Maybe another card where the Marshall is distracted and a PK has the option of ignoring a solid hit (Deceitful check). A chance to ham it up and get more glory from a fight. Giving up your horse for your lord shouldn't be a big deal. It's the kinda thing that gets you rewarded, and you have a squire on hand for just such an emergency. Not rescuing your lord when he is down is a lot worse than just being selfish, it's borderline treason. Besides, if your lord goes down on the battlefield you side might have just lost the battle. The Book of Battle could help for ideas for battle cards. . Maybe both? You could have a row on the bottom of each card ( like C:+2, S:+1 F: -1, Fum: -2) that could give you the modifiers. That would be easy to track and put the numbers right there for the players. You could also vary the modifiers by the maneuver so the riskier maneuvers might have greater rewards.

Yeah except castles are somewhat rare in Pendragon. Yeah wives can defend the manor if it gets attacked but that won't happen all that often, and when it does the usual response is going to be to hole up in the manor and wait for the raiders to go away. Strill it's something fore them to do.

I wouldn't assume that. I'd assume the YOUNG KNIGHT SIZ 14, STR 11 is what an average knight would be like at age 21,after chargen, and that the ORDINARY KNIGHT raised his STR by 3 points over the years. Now, by that reasoning the average knight (SIZ 14) can never get to 6d6 damage without using a Glory Point. And that's assuming he gets to STR 18. So I'd put that well below a 10% probability. That essentially means a YOUNG KNIGHT would have to spend half of the years available for training and practice on STR plus a Glory Point to do it. And if he has a slightly lower than average SIZ it gets even more difficult. It is when they show up 30% of the time (I didn't count the 7d6 damage) on the All-Knight Army table. That's better than the Saxons. At least some of them need 2H weapons to do it. I can accept one or possibly two units of Cymric knights doing 6d6. Three if they are round table knights or some such. But six! And a 7d6 one as well? If you can swallow that the Last Ture Legion shouldn't be a problem. And then there are the Picts? Of all people in KAP they should be the last ones to get to 6d6 damage, but... 16 Shimmering Tattooed Warriors: Javelin (27): 3d6, 2-H Stone Axe (27): 6d6, 15; Leather (6), Magic (9) 20 Skill 27/27, 6d6 damage (5d6 +2H) 6 point (non-hard) leather, and 9 points of magic. So they not only had to get a really good STR to hit 5d6 damage as a Pict, but they hit the lottery (twice) to get skill 27 in both javelin and axe, then got a suit of +2 leather (the easiest part to accept) and went out and got 9 points of magical protection. Make the Last True Century look like a bunch of slackers. But wait, then there are the: 11 Grim & Serious Warriors Javelin (15): 4d6; Great Spear (16): 7d6 Magical Tattoo (8) 7d6? That's impossible for Picts outside of Glory. Also the Javelin doesn't match up. I think somebody goofed and gave the greatspear 2H weapon damage bonus. Which is much easier to achieve that 8 points of STR AFTER character generation, because there is no chance of t improving other than by training or glory. And assuming they spend all their chargen picks to do so, yest, because of the cap on skills during chargen. Outside of Chargen the two 20s in skills are easier. SIZ is fixed, and 8 points of STR is probably going to take 5 years at best, and that assuming the PK dumps 3 points from Glory into SIZ or STR. Average is mor like 6-7, it depend on how long it takes them to get their next glory point. Best case for skills is probably 2 years., with 10 being the extreme end. My point is that for an average/YOUNG KNIGHT, they don't get all those extra points and picks to bump up their character during chargen (look at their stats) and that getting to 6d6 would require half their training time and a Glory point. Okay, I'll go over the math again. I might have missed something.

The question is what can they do during the Winter Phase besides rolls for aging and skill improvement? I think they would need to be something to cover courtly behavior and some new ways for women to gain glory. Like maybe glory for being best dressed at court (fashion +1 per £ spent, up to 10), the most courtesy (courtesy) and so forth. Feasts help. Perhaps some sort of way to gain favor at court which their husbands could use to their benefit? Like maybe a modifier to rolls when interacting at Court, like Geniality points (Favor Points?) that the wives could build up and that their husbands could spend to their benefit, either to influence rolls at court, marriage prospects and so forth. Basically I think there needs to be something for the women to do, and a way for that to affect the rest of game somehow. I don't know how the Book of the Magician will do it, but the occasional adventure where a wife takes over could add something. In the stories lots of quests are driven by women and it could be a nice card to give women to play. Likewise a lot of the romance revolves around carrying a lady's favor at a tournament, and that could be played up a bit more. Also, just how much say could a wife have if a PK wanted to do something? She might be able to voice her opinion but if the husband says, "I want to build a ...." what can she do about it. All in all it's a great idea that long overdue, but it really needs to be fleshed out a lot more to make it worthwhile. In KAP4 several players tried playing wives but they just sort of did nothing most of the time, because the adventures weren't designed for them.

I've seen that online. I was thinking that it could be interesting if that were mixed in with Book of Entourage somehow..

Yeah it was. Opps. I don't think the formula is correct there. The big drop offs don't seem to make sense. Yup. I don't, next section will explain why Why? There is nothing in the game that suggests that a a Knight is rolling 2d6+6 for STR or SIZ in KAP5. The average for KAP 5 is SIZ14.5, STR11.5 for a total of 26. So we can probably assume that the average knight has increased his STR by 2-3 points to get it to 14. That's not what I'd call low-balling Now in KAP 4 it was 2d6+6 and 3d6, so it would have been 1 point of SIZ and 3-4 points of STR so maybe the new knights have been shortchanged a point of SIZ and STR compared to KAP4, but that's hardly low-balling. One big difference between the skills and stats is that skills are much easier to raise, have a higher ceiling as far as training goes, and can be improved no matter your age. SIZ is pretty much Glory only, and STR will be glory only after 15 years. So the average knight isn't going to get to 6d6 before the aging table kicks in. Conversely skills can always go up. A character with a SIZ below 15 can't get to a 33 without spending glory (K&L character have a slightly better chance), due to the caps on STR and SIZ.and that eliminates half of the characters right there. It SIZ 3d6+4 in my copy. Did they change that? You players do that?Put all 4 picks into STR and SIZ? Well that skews the odds for them,. but I don't think it's fair to assume that to be what most knights will do. There are skills passions and traits to consider. My players tend to focus on getting skills and traits, with maybe a point ortwo into attributes and possibley a point into Loyalty (Lord). Only if they have very good rolls to begin, or good rolls and put all their picks into improving SIZ and STR. Getting two skills at 20 isn't all that hard to do or take that much time. For the average knight STR+SIZ 26, that would mean raising stats, probably STR due to age, by 7 points. Something that could only be done with training or glory, and possibly past cultural limits (so Glory). I think that would be quite rare. PKS can do it because they get more glory and other bonuses than most knights.