fulk

Sorry...the 35% chance of doing damage above isn't right. It is more like ~50%, but you get the idea.

It is possible that I don't really understand the Mythras sorcery rules (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, which is frequently), but it is useful to consider the whole casting process. I also understand that you are not using Mythras, per se. I also understand wanting to tailor the magic to your preferences. Perfectly reasonable. However, Assume a beginning caster with Invocation 70%, Intensity 7 and Shaping 7, for simplicity. Wrack = with extended range and targets to create a Fire Ball like effect: Range ~15 m = 1 point shaping, 1 MP Targets 4 = 3 points shaping, 1 MP Magnitude 3 = 3 points shaping, 1 MP Base cost = 1MP So it costs 4 MP and takes 4 Turns to cast the spell, which has ~ 70% chance of working and which opponents can Evade, and if it works does 1d4 damage (Intensity 3), which can be maintained. So if we let the opponents have 70% in Evade (certainly high for a starting character), the sorcery has about a 35% chance of doing damage to any specific target-- not particularly high. The base damage doesn't seem too high in this situation. However, the ability to maintain damage each Turn is obviously a big deal. It also ignores regular armor, which is good for taking out tanks. On the down-side (in terms of power), the 4 MP means it takes 4 Turns to cast. That means that a reasonable fighter with 3 AP will have crossed the room and attacked the sorcerer multiple times and archers have fired at least one, maybe two shots, before the spell takes effect. To do continuing damage, the sorcerer also has to maintain Concentration. So, the dynamic is the standard old DnD situation of protecting your Magic User long enough so that he can cast a big area effect spell and take out the other side. A party with a reasonable combined-arms set up (melee and ranged characters) could take down the sorcerer pretty quickly. A well protected sorcerer is really dangerous. Damage Resistance+ Wrack is a pretty powerful combo (as you note), I agree . I think it is also worthwhile considering non-mechanistic ways of limiting power. If you think Wrack is overpowered, just don't let a beginning sorcerer have it. Let them have the Folk Magic (Cantrips) Disruption instead. Depending on the setting, the PC may not have found that spell or his patron may not have provided it. You could also place Wrack and Damage Resistance in different Schools (offensive and defensive magic), so it is difficult and time consuming to have both. In the end, of course, it depends on how you envision magic in your setting.

Ah yes. I see what you mean. I suppose it all depends on how common and powerful you want magic in your world. Changing the casting costs is an easy approach. You could also increase the rate of recovery so that wizards would get 'winded' during a fight but recover quickly for the next. One of the things I do like about 5E is the cantrips - relatively small spells that you can use all the time. The damage spells are good but do less damage than a weapon because you don't get a damage bonus. The cantrips are obviously specific to a high, common magic setting with powerful wizards and may not be appropriate to all settings. I do like the idea of lower MP costs with higher skill levels, although I'd probably use larger increments (say 20 or 25%). That would allow experience casters to throw around low level spells fairly easily. I always liked the image of a mage sitting at his desk reading a book with a magical light source while using mage hand to make tea...

Or perhaps Wrack combined Palsy for Ray of Frost...

Fireball is just Wrack with the fire damage and Shaping spent on range and # of targets. Many of the spells can just be re-skinned this way. Ray of Frost is just Wrack with ice damage and one target. However, I understand your comment. There is a certain flavor provided by having the spell description in the book.

Talislanta is one of my favorite games/settings . I have often thought of a BRP version. I think the Mythras rules would work quite well. I would certainly buy a Talislata-BRP conversion. As for DnD, I think 5E is a very well done game if you want larger than life heroes etc. If you like that style, it is great. My preference for the BRP-family is more a question of setting and style than broken rules. BRP tends to be a bit more real-world where a dagger can actually kill you in one round.

For Arthurian knights, you cannot do better than Pendragon. However, if you don't want to play a knight, you don't have many options. Pendragon has several advantages: (1) An 80+ year campaign (Great Pendragon Campaign) setting the PKs within the Arthurian time line. Fight the major battles; witness the great events. (2) Explore what type of knight you are based on your traits. Are you Just or Arbitrary? Lustful or Chaste? A Huntsman or Courtier? The trait system leads to adventure choices that define your knight. Are you Just (kill your opponent in a duel to the death) or Merciful (spare him even though it might be a bad idea)? (3) Multiple scales of play. You have your annual adventures but you also need to get married, have children, obtain land and improve your holdings. Fight a giant or lead your followers in a raid against another knight with whom you have a dispute. (4) Build a castle etc. (5) A progression of time and technology. Start out in mail, nasal helm and kit shield...you grandson can end the GPC in full white plate upon a massive destrier. (6) There are lot of supplements regarding land holding, battles, genealogy, castles, and politics. Plus the basic system has been the same for ages so most of the adventures are compatible across editions.

My experience from fencing (Italian sabre) for the last few years is that Initiative doesn't really exist the way we model it in games. Of course, in the game, we need to order actions some how. But in my experience, some one decides to attack. The first attack is just a set up to draw a specific reaction (parry, riposte), then a counter riposte etc. It is more strategy than speed. Games like The Riddle of Steel or Burning Wheel do combat more along these lines. Pendragon has no initiative and just opposed weapon skill rolls. As for action points (in BRP or Mythras), I think they should be based on skill level, not dex etc. Skill level = time. Getting your opponent to run out of time is how you hit them. You don't need to be fast, you need to be efficient, which is skill not dex (directly). Just a pet peeve. I kind of dislike the fixed number (SR, dex) version of initiative because certain characters always go first. I could see something more like Dex +1d4 as more fun because quick characters would usually go first (always against some opponents) but not always against some one with similar Dex.

Re the original question, I'm for both modern place names and older ones where relevant. I don't really care which comes first, as long as both are there. The modern place names just make it easier to locate place on a map and are more intuitive in terms of my mental understanding of geography. I absolutely hate having to look through the appendices of BoEstate, BoWarlord etc to figure out the modern name of some location so that I can figure out where it is. If I were writing the game, I'd base the core rule book and most other stuff off of Malory, which is familiar to most people. However, I would certainly buy supplements that allowed conversion to a more historical dark ages or to a more mythological Celtic/Welsh interpretation of the setting. I think the game mechanics certainly allow it. I would love gaming in a more Mabinogian-ish setting.

Ah. OK. I don't have CF.

I agree. For one, if the hunt is organized as a chase, you should chase. The knight doesn't get to alter the "rules" of the hunt. I think we all agree that (at least in KAP) they would never use them in battle or against another knight. However, the idea that a knight would never touch a crossbow or have no knowledge of archery doesn't work for me. RE Gaston, it is often noted that if one is railing against an activity...it probably means people are doing it! Apart from hunting, the Pope outlawed crossbows for use against Christians, but plenty of soldiers still used them and kings still employed such soldiers. Later in the middle ages, there are examples of extremely fine crossbows or even fire arms. Make them expensive...and the upper classes will like them for certain purposes, like hunting.

When he and Isolt are living the Cave of Lovers, he certainly uses hound and bow to hunt for food, although apparently it wasn't necessary as he and Isolt were sustained by love (how nice). Certainly, going Dagger-a-Tusk with a boar is more Valorous, but I think the point is that the text implies that knights (or at least Tristan) were perfectly comfortable owning and using bows for hunting. Again, knights would never deign to fight with them, but hunting is just fine. Plus, in most cases, the hunt is going to be a big event, and the lord is going to decide what type of hunt is conducted each day.

I think it would be +30%. +15 from their cultural skills and +15 from the bonus points. Could be wrong.

Another observation. I've been reading Tristan and Isolt recently. When they leave Mark's court, Tristan specifically takes his hunting bow. It is mentioned twice in the scene: once as a hunting bow, once as a crossbow. I have been reading a translation (not fluent in medieval German), but clearly Tristan, a master of the hunt, uses a bow or crossbow of some sort. While the Thomas/Gottfried version of Tristan isn't specifically Arthurian, it clearly expects that knights would both hunt with a bow/crossbow and specifically own one. In KAP, I expect that knights would never fight each other with crossbows, but would certainly be proficient and hunt with them without loss of honor.

Bows were certainly in use for the hunt. William II Rufus was killed in 1100 during a hunt by an errant bow shot from William Tirel, a nobleman, who supposedly was aiming at a stag. The attribution of the errant shot to Tirel may or may not be true, but it does suggest that it was not unthinkable for a noble to be hunting with a bow. I expect knights would actually be proficient in bows and crossbows for castle defense and hunting. They just wouldn't use them in battle etc. YPMV of course.

Which books you use/want will depend a lot on your playing style. Obviously the core rules and GPC are the most necessary. If you focus primarily on the big picture of battles and adventures and don't get caught up in the details, those two a probably enough. If you want to know the hidden economics and who is in your household, you might want Estates/Warlords and Entourage. Uther and Warlords give a lot of "fluff" background that is very cool if you like that sort of thing being detailed for you. However, you could also just decide who owns Castle X as fits your campaign. I would suggest that there are not really any necessary rules in either book. I personally find that level of background a bit restrictive some times. As Morien noted, the primary result of Estates and Warlords is that 10L supports one knight and 3 foot soldiers and figures you 1L to spend. I would suggest it is much simpler than Manors. You don't do any estate management. You just get 10L. The hundreds thing is just a gimmick for keeping track of larger holdings. You can easily still organize everything around manors as Morien does. You could very easily do without Estates & Warlords, but Estates does have rules for investments, some minor fortification rules, and similar things. Warlords has random holding generation that will scatter your Honour all over Logres...and a lot of castle defensive values for various periods. Again, what is your playing style? Do the players care whether their manor has carved lintels or an orchard? Entourage is really only necessary if you want to have detailed NPCs following you around. Otherwise, you can just pay 1/2L for a foot soldier. If your Wife is a real-ish character, the supports in BoEntourage might be the way to go, but if she's just in the background producing heirs, then you don't need it. Like most people, I use a mix. I got obsessed for a bit with land holding and got a hold of the Domesday Data, which Greg also used for Estates/Warlords. I made an excel file that lets you chose individual holdings and their "value", writes up a charter, and then maps out their location use another software (R-stats) so that I can easily map player or NPC holdings as they get complex. The excel file follows Estates and Warlords, sort of, but doesn't use either manors or hundreds but individual vills listed in Domesday. Totally unnecessary...but I enjoyed building it. In the end, 10L gets you 1 knight and 3 soldiers. At the same time, I've always been a fan of the old Nobles Book. As for Battle, the BoBattle and Core Battle rules differ quite a bit. BoBattle is much more detailed with the conroi choosing different maneuvers each round. I personally like the core rules better as they are a bit more simple. At least most of the time. Sometimes BoBattle can be more fun, but again you need to like the detail.

I think the default assumption is that you are paying them adequately and that we're talking about the base loyalty value here. Assuming the adequate treatment, longer-serving troops would likely have higher loyalty because they have more personal relationships and such in the household and mesnie. Obviously there would be modifications to the base loyalty. New, green troops brought into the castle just before the Saxons show up might be grateful. Abused and underpaid troops might be less loyal. Also in the present context (and in previous publications like Nobles Book), loyalty ~ morale. So one would expect veteran troops to have higher morale. They are more experienced, more confident and less likely to break. Weapon skill seems like a good gauge, especially since most knights start with Main Weapon 15 and Loyalty (lord) 15.

I can certainly understand not wanting to shell out $$ for a new edition if there aren't real changes that make the game better. However, better is to some extent a matter of taste. There isn't really anything wrong with the Nobles Book or Lordly Domains, but the flavor is certainly different than BoWarlords or BoEstate (or BoManor). As Atgxtg notes, v5 is a bit all over the place because of changes in ownership. If I remember correctly, publication of the KAP5 core rules had a lot to do with getting something in print again and incorporating some changes. Realistically with such a simple game mechanic, not that much is going to change from edition to edition to some extent. My personal favorite is still KAP4. Partly, it is what I first found and started with. Partly, it has lots of stuff in one place. As for setting, I think I would prefer the core rule book to start in 531 or so with Arthur as King or maybe 510 so PKs can be involved in the early wars, perhaps with some info on equipment by time period so that people could bounce back to 485 w/o GPC and run Uther-based adventures.

Very true.

I agree. I typically forget. I think it really depends on how you play the game. Part of the point of BoEntourage is to micro manage these characters, instead of just assume everyone is doing their job, but I tend to forget. If you are mostly adventuring and not in the minutia of running your estate, for example, wives and squires don't really matter much. You can have an anonymous squire roll (15) and don't worry much about what your wife (or husband) is doing. It might matter in your game whether your wife insults a visiting lord (fails her Courtesy roll) or you might just run everything though the PK.

My advice is to not overthink and try to game the mechanics. Sure you could hire poor quality soldiers and let them improve...to be underpaid regular foot soldiers. But in my game, those underpaid, now skilled foot soldiers would just leave for better paying jobs...or something. Just make PKs pay 1/2L for skills in the range of regular foot soldiers. Otherwise, soldiers leave. Really, the economics system in KAP is just not designed for tinkering. One of the big mistakes, in my opinion, was dropping knights value (KV). That made some of the difference more obvious and gave better value for better troops. I was fond of KV. Also, don't forget to apply 'Superior Troops' type modifiers for skirmishes or battles.

Yes. It's frustrating. 5.2 was a bit of missed opportunity in many ways. It would be nice to consolidate things and have a coherent set of values and rules across all publications for v6.

Absolutely. I don't think it is even an Edition problem. It has been every subsequent publication. I think KAP would do well from a full KAP6 with all the supplements brought up-to-date and inline in a coherent manner. I don't know if people would buy all that, but I probably would.

Put simply, Manor vs. Estate is a legal definition not a monetary one. Obviously, estates would tend to have higher value, but the values doesn't really matter. It is an estate, because the king called it an estate when that conglomeration of land was first put together. Similarly, adding together multiple manors does not produce an estate. They are just multiple manors. Now, multiple generations into a campaign, the holder might just start calling a group of manors an estate, and hope that no one really remembers anything other than that his family has had 50L worth of land for a while...and hope to pull it off. If I remember, an Honour in KAP is >100L and gives 'Baron' status to the holder if held directly from the king per Baroniam. I think in the RW it was land with a servitium debitium of 20 knights.

It would be good to figure out what the rates are for KAP6. All the costs in BoCastles use the lower rate.