Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Morien last won the day on July 31 2019

Morien had the most liked content!


  • RPG Biography
    1989 D&D, the original one.
    1990s Other RPGs to follow.
    1995 GURPS. Lots of GURPS.
    2000 Pendragon. Lots of Pendragon.
    2010-ish Becoming active in Nocturnal's Pendragon Forum.
    2014 Starting to help out with the publications & erratas as part of Greg's 'Household Knights'.
  • Current games
    GMing one GPC Pendragon Campaign, and another campaign in Middle-earth using Pendragon system.
    Playing in a couple of GURPS campaign.
  • Location
    Barcelona, for now
  • Blurb
    To be honest, I chose my username based on an old RPG character of mine, not because of its Arthurian connection. I am a pasty-white Finn, actually. :P

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Morien's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (4/4)



  1. In the Step 7. The Jig Is Up, this doesn't make sense: "roll 1d20 and subtract the husband’s Vengeful Trait value" The reason it doesn't make sense is that this makes it more likely that a famously Vengeful Husband will just shrug and go meh (low result), whilst a Famously Forgiving one will demand a duel to the death (after beating, exiling or murdering his unfaithful wife, too). That text was missing in 4th edition, but present in all 5.x editions, which leads me to believe that it was a result of the 5.0 editing (which we know had plenty of mistakes) and then just continued as a legacy error. I believe it should say this, instead: "roll 1d20-10 and add the husband’s Vengeful Trait value" The -10 is there to calibrate the reaction table correctly; someone with Vengeful 10 should still be able to forgive the wife. Also, if the woman in question is unmarried, the family should be getting involved. If a marriage to the offending knight is not possible (he is already married or unsuitable), the head of the family should be rolling here to see his reaction.
  2. I'd just use the rules in Entourage, with possibly the added trait and passion checks you suggested, and whatever skill checks that they gain. Although if they are 18+, I'd just knight them early with -1 misc pick in chargen each year they are younger than 21. This is Anarchy, right? So presumably knights are needed.
  3. Bah, they are just learning to use the Dark Side at that stage. If you are using the (utterly broken) critical Passion mechanic from KAP 5.2, that is just the beginning. Soon enough they will have Hate 30+... A bit more seriously, though, I have some views on the inheritability of (especially high) Traits and Passions, too, and I tend to impose a starting passion limit of 19, regardless of the bonuses. Those are just house rules, though.
  4. I read it the same way that piersb did, actually. Your Family gets the Hate (Saxons) 3d6+6 IF AND ONLY IF the Grandfather is killed at the Night of the Long Knives. If the Grandfather is long dead, he doesn't get this event, and you skip straight to the father's events. Now Book of Sires changed this a bit, so that even if YOUR Grandfather wasn't murdered, you still got the Hate at 3d6, because of the shock and horror of the treachery of the Saxons, the slaughter of the Cymric Nobility (including the liege of the Father, if he is from almost anywhere south of the Wall and north of the Channel, except Estregales) and the subsequent raiding and occupation of the main cities and towns.
  5. Oh, mea culpa. You are talking about KAP 5.2 Salisbury Family History. I am talking about Book of Sires. Sorry for the confusion. Which is totally fine.
  6. Your GRANDfather never gets to roll on that Passion, since he is already dead. It is his death during NotLK that gives a bonus for the FATHER to roll on that Passion, but the father rolls REGARDLESS. It explicitly says: "FATHERS" (or in the case of South Counties "EVERYONE"). Trust me, I know how it is supposed to go. I was the contributing editor for the book and helped Bob to write it and plot through these various 'if...then' plot lines.
  7. If they are from Britain (and hence influenced by the Night of the Long Knives, 463), they would get Hate (Non-Berroc Saxons) at 3d6. But sure, if they are Aquitainians or from Estregales or Brittany, no worries.
  8. I thought that was a 'plain-speak interpretation' of Lancelot's challenge to any who would accuse the Queen. Edit: Actually, the 'burnt' there hints that this is the judicial duel following Patrise's poisoning, and it is Sir Bors who is speaking: "Right so came in Sir Bors de Ganis, and said: That as for Queen Guenever she is in the right, and that will I make good with my hands that she is not culpable of this treason that is put upon her. " However, I don't have the Penguin edition book so I am unable to match the language exactly. Maybe David L. will shed more light on this.
  9. I would apply it also to the Horsemanship/DEX rolls. It is supposed to represent getting swarmed by the enemy or something like that. By RAW, they are not reflexive (it only talks about the players' unit). I agree with you that in principle they should be reflexive, since the events are certainly written as if they are mirroring each side. I am also very fond of reflexive modifiers in general: if you would be getting a bonus if you were on the other end of the situation, then the enemy should, too! It also serves to make the Battles at least a bit more dangerous than they are at the moment, which is a good thing.
  10. The opposite, more likely. Thegn and heorthgeneat were introduced in Saxons!, which was kinda 4.5 edition. Before that, you just had Berserker, Saxon chieftain and Saxon raider, I think. Book of Uther and the GPC Expansion (which is part of BoU as well as a standalone) have more stats for Saxon opponents. I forget if it uses thegn or chieftain... Or might be that it just has some new enemies rather than repeat the already existing ones. And yes, no need for a unit of chieftains... You know the saying, too many chiefs and not enough braves? 🙂
  11. Easy criteria for (unimportant) NPCs (like unnamed footmen): If their remaining HPs are 10 or less, they are unconscious. If their remaining HPs are more than 10, they are running away (if they can) or surrendering (if they can expect anything more than a summary execution). Exceptions made for dramatic reasons (like, if they are defending their families, they won't run nor surrender, unless it is on terms). This does make them a bit easier foes for the PKs (SIZ 12, CON 12, Valorous 12 spearman is quite likely to fail at least one roll of the above, ~2/3rds chance), but speeds up the combat a bit, too.
  12. I do the HP roll to see if they are knocked out and the Valorous roll if they dare to continue to fight. If they are a named NPC who might show again as a recurring for, I do track attribute loss as well. But for the nameless spearmen etc, I do not bother. In battle, we generally don't bother rolling for damage during the battle rounds, unless it is an extended melee or a lance charge where your lance might break. (Note: we don't use BoB2.)
  • Create New...