Atgxtg

World Anvil seems better than Kana if you are paying for it, but the free version seems to be more limited.

There was a size limit of sorts for Multimissile in RQ3, with the spell requiring 1 MP per 2D6 weapon damage, probably to keep siege engines in check, but that's about it.

And the value of the lost is 10% of the value of the holding, right? So £0.5 for a typical manor. Yup, I got that part. It's 470 and my PKs have returned to Salisbury from exile and now have to deal with restoring their manors after a half dozen years of Saxon raiding. Some of the PKS will have to prioritize between restoring income or fortification. One PK even lost the family manor house after Long Knives. On the plus side I think I'll be giving some PKs a Forgiving/Vengeful roll to see if they get a "free" Hate (Saxons) check.

I can't seem to find the cost to rebuild a permanently damage lot after a raid. I assume that it's 10% of the holding's income, or £1 for a typical manor. Also, can this be done in addition to reconstruction? If not, then what is the point of rebuilding, since reconstruction is both free and can possibly recover two lots as opposed to only one with rebuild.

No and yes. Each entry can only have one image (or map if it is a location) with it, but you can paste addtional images into the text field of an entry. If you PM me I can send you a link to my campaign so you can see how I did that. Oh, you create a location, such as Britain, and put up a map there. THen you can go into the map and edit it by placing pins on the map. These pins can be links to other locations or events or some such. Again PM me an email address and I'll send you an invite so you can see the way I set it up. Yes, everything is private, as long as you set it up that way. The GM/campaign creator gets to set and control the permissions. If you want to you can make you campaign public, and let other people look at it (and I suggest you look at some of the public campaigns for ideas and ways to use Kanka's features), but you can keep it private. You get to decide just who has access to your campaign and each entry on a case by case person by person basis. So you can keep things secret from the players, or only allow certain players to have access to certain files. For instance, in my campaign eachplayer can edit the entires for thier characters, but the other players cannot.

Not that I can recall. IMO it's pretty much a waste. It's the same maps but in higher resolution, but not without any increased detail to take advantage of it.. The fact that the maps use the BoW era place names doesn't help it either. I'd say save your money for something else.

Like a trait. The idea here is to see which passion wins out, when in conflict, whereas inspiration is when a passion drives a character to attempt some great deed because/for the object of the passion. For instance a knight gets inspired to perform a mission for his liege, or impress his Amor, or to save a family member or some such. But there have to be some goal to be inspired to achieve. If you treated it as "Success:Inspired VS Failure:Disheartened" then you could end up in a situation where the character is inspired by one passion but disheartened by another, and that would be difficult to play. Yes, and a good reason why it doesn't work that way. Not every roll of a passion is for inspirational purposes. Inspiration is just one aspect of a passion. For example a character with a high Love (Family) passion would probably be more likely to be upset by the death of a child than one with a low Love (Family) passion. That is the intent. The guiding rule here is that inspiration is being to used to accomplish some specific task, not just to get a bonus. The player is supposed to declare what they are trying to achieve before they roll for inspiration (and the GM decides if the use seems valid). If the player doesn't have any sort of goal to be inspired to, then they are not going to be inspirited and get a bonus.

BioKeith mentioned Kanka.io in a post, and I've been trying it out. It is an on-line campaign manager that can be used to track a lot of game info, images, and even character sheets. It gives a nice mix of features at the "free" level, and the GM can set the access permissions to decide what the players see and if the campaign is visible to the public or not. Some of the perks to this are: If the GM gives the players access to modify entries, then the players can take some of the burden off the GM by updating things -especially stuff about the characters and their holdings. If a GM knows another GM running a Pendragon campaign, they can look to see how the other GM set something up, and even port over some entries that would be common to both campaigns (for example, an entry on the city of London, or King Uther). If's possible to add maps (or other images) with markers on them which link to other entries. So a GM could put up a map of Britian with the various kingdoms, Salsibury with the various manors, castles and other locations, that the players can look at. Entries can be set up to link to other entries. For instance, if a manor belongs to Lady Elaine, there can be a link in the manor's description to Lady Elaine's entry. The GM can set the permissions to determine if teh players can see, edit or even remove entries, and these permissions can be determined per entry, per player. That means that the GM can put stuff into the campaign manager and still keep it secret from the players, and a player can put stuff up for his characters and keep it secret from the other players (like where the hidden vault with all the coin is located). Since it is an on-line website, the players can access it to look up stuff whenever they want-which can eliminate the need to ask the GM about some things, especially NPCs, that the characters would know. It's free as the basic level, which is fairly powerful. There are higher tiers that improve some of the features (mainly the ability to upload larger images), but the free level is good enough to upload most images and even KAP character sheets (2MB size limit).

Give credit to Greg for that one. Way back in KAP1, I think it was in the Pendragon Campaign book, Greg suggested doing that. Occasionally a PK would go mad, And I'd hold onto the sheet for ayear or two, then give it back with a few changes in skills or traits. One player got the sheet back with a couple of points in Industry, and was so horrified that he never wanted to figure out what happened while he was mad. Okay. Just a heads up, but the Morgan of the literature isn't as much of a villain as she is in modern tellings. She is much more a stereotypical female with Celtic overtones. Thus she is desirable, and somewhat mysterious, but jealous and vindictive. Most of the bad things she does is in response to some real or perceived slight against her. She's not so much anti-Arthur as anti-Guinevere. If you really want to put the mad PK through the ringer, you could have Morgan pity him in his maddened state and develop a crush on him. The the player would have to deal with the ramifications of having her like him, and the risks of incurring her wrath should he not return her affections.

Probably not. The glory award system has always been in a state of flux. If it were up to me, I'd just do a Glory Ladder along the lines of: Extraordinary: 1000 ????: 500 ????: 400 ???: 300 Very Heroic: 250 Famous Task: 200 Renowned:150 Heroic: 100 Memorable: 50 Significant: 25 Ordinary: 10 Minor: 3 Trivial: 1 I'd then rate each task or opponent according tot he ladder and bump an opponent up or down a rung based upon a particular opponent's glory total (see table below) or extraordinary abilities (i.e. faerie knight, magical sword, "best swordsman in the kingdom", superhuman SIZ or STR). The idea here would be that a GM would start at the default, and then decide if any additional factors warrant a bump up or down. Glory (Modifier) <1K (+0) 1K+ (+1) 1.5K+ (+2) 2K+ (+3) 4K+(+4) 8K+ (+5) 16K+ (+6) 32K+ (+7) Examples: Ordinary bandit = Ordinary Opponent = 10 Glory Notable Bandit = Ordinary Opponent , with 1 bump up due to fame = 25 Glory Warrior = Ordinary Opponent with 1 bump up due to better armor/professional warrior status = 25 Glory Mounted, armored non-Knight = Ordinary opponent with a bump up for warrior status and another for having a mount = 50 Glory Famous (8,500 Glory) knight = Ordinary Opponent with 5 bumps ups due to glory for 200 Glory. Small (SIZ 25) Giant is a Heroic task, worth 100 Glory Standard (SIZ 40) Giant is a Very Heroic task worth 250 glory (this is the same as a heroic task with 3 bump up due to the larger SIZ and associated stats of the bigger giant) Huge (SIZ 85) Giant is worth 500 glory (or a heroic task with 6 bumps up for increase SIZ and other stats, or a very heroic task with 3 bumps).

Third-ed (??). Besides, with the passing of time NPCs do come and go. Nothing says you can't have one die off or move on elsewhere and replace him with the other. Sometimes things like that can actually help to enhance the game. In my campaign I had a knight who had joined a knightly order accidentally show up as a member of a different order a decade later, by mistake. Instead of retconnining my mistake I gave the knight some backstory to explain why he left the first group to join the second. It make him a much more interesting character, and helped to give him a stronger personality.

Yes, and like most everything else, neither is really supposed to be the end all, be all method. Way, way....back it used to just be 1/10th of the opponent's glory, or a formula based upon the combat stats of a monster. The system has been altered, adjusted and tinkered with ever since. My advice is not to tie yourself to any one formula, as they all have little flaws and discrepancies- and cannot be perfect. What I would advise is to just look at whatever the PK accomplished and consider it it terms of how great a story it would be, and then try to determine the award, using the listed awards in the glory chapter as benchmarks. For example, if a PK defeated a Saxon Warrior (35 glory) but the warrior is bigger and stronger than normal, is known for having greater than normal prowess, or has achieved a lot of glory, then he might be worth 40, 50 or even more glory. The important thing, IMO isn't so much about setting the award appropriate to the opponent's abilities as much as setting it comparable to how impressive it would be to defeat the opponent. Thus a unknown but highly skilled bandit or Pict might only be worth 20-25 glory even if they were more skilled and better armored that a young knight. So just come up with a ladder of awards based on the samples given in the books, and figure out where you think your opponent should fit, and you should end up in the right neighborhood. As for dividing awards or not, it depends on how you classify tasks. For instance, "freeing a prisoner from a tribe of giants" might be a heroic task, worth 100 glory for a single knight, but might be considered a trivial task, worth only 1 glory point for the entire knights of the round table. Dividing 100 glory by all the knights or making it a trivial task yields about the same results. The Quest of the Red Blade is considered a heroic task for the group of player knights to complete, as the adventure, like most, assumes that it will be played by a group of player knights. If a single knight were to complete it on his own, it would be a much more daunting task, probably very heroic or more, and merit more glory.

Both going to war against each other makes both passions contradicting almost unavoidable. Fighting against someone that you have sworn fealty to is acting against then and thus against the Fealty passion to them. About the only way I see a knight avoiding such a conflict is if he isn't directly involved in the conflict. For instance, the knight is assigned to defend against the Saxons or PIcts while the two Lords fight it out. That was his loyalties do not come into conflict. Is a very tough situation. Depending on the circumstances, it can actually be one of the handful of acceptable justifications for a knight to turn against his liege lord. The kinsman would have to have done some very egregious/traitorous to warrant the killing. It could easily be a situation where the knight turns to his liege and explains that he simply cannot kill his own brother/son/cousin/etc. and probably be forgiven and excused on the task by the liege lord. I would ususally force this to be a passion roll, assuming that at least one of the passions is high. 15 vs. 15 is typical, and a 16+ on either or both is probably likely. Even if a PK doesn't have much love for his family, he's probably not going to want to kill a relative. I like the concept but I find the execution to be dubious. What if someone had Loyalty (Lord) 3 and Love Family (19)? If you just let the player choose then the passion scores do not note the strength of the passion anymore, only the likihood of getting inspired by it. Greg, orginal itent, watered down somewhat due to complaints, is that the traits and passions do rule the character's actions to some extent.

Just trying to help a little here. Historically land given to the Roman Church belonged to the Roman Church and any surpluses would go to the larger church organization as a whole. So the abbot might have part of the surplus to the local Bishop, or Archbishop. Since British Christianity isn't centralized to the same extent, everything is kept more on a local level. It's much the same reason why the right to name the head of a chruch or abbey is more of a British thing than a Roman one, especially at the higher levels.

Since a medieval horse is about 4'-5' tall at the shoulders, a rider would probably be about 7-8' tall, which matches up pretty close to the height of a small giant.

It could be any of 1,2, or 3 but there is also option 4 4) Axe Abbey gets additional income from another source. IMO that would be quite likely as often lands were held by multiple lords. So over time Axe Abbey could have been given land by one lord and more land by another. As land can be bought and sold under those conditions, the abbey might have even sold some land back to the lord of the Hundred. Also IMO, most of the examples and hard numbers from BoE and BoW don't quite work out. They mostly do, but some examples seem off or conflict with other rules or examples. I think the whole thing probably could use a good looking over/edit.

If it helps... Standard giants ignore the lance charge bonus as well (due to reach) per the giant description in KAP I've negated and even reversed the height modifier depending on the SIZ/height of the creature, or if it can fly. I did up a table of human/giant heights based upon the SIZ values given in the books, the weights given in the SIZ table, the cube-square law (i.e. twice the weight means 1.26 times the height), as well as in cubits to account for the mythical 12 cubic tall Gogmagog of the HRB. It might help to give some ballpark figures to correlate SIZ and height. If anyone is interested let me know.

I typically find a manor that looks interest ing is in a good spot (ie. close to someplace important or near a spot for adventures) and then research the history of the place and see if there is anything interesting about it, before deciding. That British history site I linked to previously is good for that sort of stuff. In my current campaign: One PK got Broughton due to it being near the border and there being a widow, and border raids from Sparsholt. Another PK got Durnford after being raised to deputy Marshal, in order to be close to Sarum. I had originally earmarked the PK for Montisfont and casteallncy of Du Plain, but the player declined the castellancy to continue adventuring. Something that slowed his advancement by decades. A third PK got Grateley Manor after defeating an evil knight who had slain the previous land holder and his family. As the evil knight had a band of followers, including a redcap, the place was difficult to reclaim, and the Count granted the knight the manor. After some research I discovered there was an old Roman villa nearby and the PK cleared that out and used it as his home. After his death, it was damaged by Saxons and his heirs moved to the manor at Grately proper. The fourth PK never got his own manor, but instead was made seneschal of Little Langford, by his knightly order, who in turn were granted the land by the Count. THis was shortly after the PKs had helped to cure a plague, and were granted the ruins of the hillfort at Groverly Castle.

The major problem with the "old names" is that nobody out side of the writers knew where or what the locations were. It was as if we were suddenly transported from Brtitian to some fantasy world. It was similar to how US schools ties to covert kids to the metric system a few decades back, with the same result. I think the "old names" would have worked better if at least some of the better known names, such as Sarum, were kept to help people navigate. Pendragon had generally been good with the way it integrated Roman place names with the later names places are known by today. I think a similar approach might have worked to introduce the new "old names", but the approach used pretty much doomed the "old names" to failure. Most people will rather stick with the names they know than to a bunch of names they do not, especially when there is little incentive for them to do so.

All those cable sports channels and somehow I missed that.

Could be fun, but it also could be a disaster if you are using the Book of Battle. In BoB the options available to the unit commander and his group are based upon the results of an opposed Battle skill roll. SO an unskilled commander would result in the group not having many options and either standing their group against two units, or worse. Good chance of a TPK, and we all know how much fun those are.

Well, assuming that any of the KAP5 supplements matter with KAP6, I'll support that idea. There are some new place names that are okay, and work, especially those that cover previously unidentified areas, but a lot of the renaming just made things more confusing. It's pretty bad when a long term GM doesn't know where the Earl (Count)'s castle is. If we are having trouble, I can only imagine what the learning curve is like for a new GM. Considering that there is a list of place names and the nature of PDFs, It wouldn't seem all that difficult to put the alternate place names in parentheses, such as Du Plain (Motisfont) or some such.

Therte is an old Iroage Age Hillfort near there, Groverly Castle. I also looked up the nearby manor of Little Langford at the British History site I mentioned above, and found out the place has a chace and a local custom of the serfs being able to go into the forest and and gather wood on one day a year.

Oh, I find this site: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/search to be a good place for information of manors and other places. It uses the Doomeday book and some other soruces to give to an overview and history of places, and often has building plans, size of manors, incomes, bits of local lore and color, and the names and arms of whoever held a place. It might be helpful to others.

This might help a little: Most of the place names in Book of Warlord, and Book of Uther were later retconned back to the names they were referred to in earlier books (basically, later Anglo-Saxon names) as most people had a hard time figure out which new place was where. So you don't have to take any of the newer place names as they are. There is a list posted in a thread here taken from the old Nocturnal Forums that explains what new locations names from BoU/BoW are known by today. I'll post a link if I can find it. I think this might be it: https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/9867-location-name-changes/?tab=comments#comment-146356 A Book of Salisbury was announced some time back, and I agree with you that we need one. Since Salisbury is the home campaign area for the vast majority of Pendragon campaigns, it would make sense for it to be covered in more detail. "Salisbury" as it exists in Pendragon doesn't exist today, with it lands being parts of other counties, especially Wiltshire. The £10 rent/income for manors is a average income and also a somewhat arbitrary value. We do not really know what the actual size and income of a Knight's fee was. We can get some values from sources such as the Domesday Book, but those are for a specific date and taken out of context.