Jump to content

Morien

Regulars
  • Posts

    1,307
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Morien

  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.)
  13. I am not a native speaker, but I read "north of the duchy" meaning in this context as being outside the duchy and towards the north. Since they were not included to the list of palaces WITHIN the duchy, in the previous paragraph (p. 263).
  14. Are they all surviving? Generally I expect the PKs arrange the marriages of their children or siblings. Often enough the old PK is dead and the guardian has arranged marriages to at least the eldest daughter, although this doesn't always happen, if the next PK is much older. After that, I have a random family event table that may generate marriage proposals for the daughters. I also start dropping hints to the players about the need for dowries. Generally, that are able to find a match since the old PK was usually quite Glorious and the current PK is likely on his way to Glory as well. So there are NPKs looking to form marriage alliances too. Also, other PKs might be looking for wives for their brothers or household knights; in our campaign it is quite common for the PKs to allow their HHKs marry a suitable Stewardship-focused lady, since their manors tend to be scattered around Britain and hence need stewards anyway. So giving the manor for a brother to care for and allowing him to marry is a fine way to establish a spare cadet branch of the family.
  15. Just to expand a bit on that... As a rule of thumb: 1. The eldest son of a vassal knight will marry the eldest daughter of another vassal knight. 2. Younger sons of vassal knights marry when they can support a family (either as favored household knights or as more highly paid esquires) and usually marry a widow of a vassal knight (the hhks) or a younger daughter of a vassal knight. 3. Younger daughters of vassal knights tend to marry older vassal knights who already have an heir from their first marriage or esquires. Naturally, all of the above gets modified by the beauty of the bride, the size of the dowry, the fame and connections of the father/brother/family/husband-to-be, etc. In our campaign, the first-gen PKs were establishing family ties by organizing matches between their sisters and other PKs. In the later generations, there are still some PK family marital alliance building, but it tends to be more between NPCs, while the PKs themselves are marrying rescued damsels introduced in the adventures. One of the advantages of having reached the Romance Period... 😛 Alas, the Players have not been too keen on playing matchmakers, so the brothers/sisters/cousins have mainly gotten quietly married in the background, or sparking some family drama due to random family events I am rolling up. For example, a vassal knight cousin of one PK fell in love in a mere younger sister of another PK, and vice versa. The prospective mother-in-law vetoed the marriage in no uncertain terms, due to the girl's paltry dowry, so the PKs had to get involved and negotiate between themselves to get the dowry up to an acceptable level.
  16. Normally, you would simply RP things out. As I mentioned in above, you can just use the random marriage tables without the modifier from the liege to find what the PK can find without the Liege's help. In particular, the Random Husband Table already assumes that it is the Lady's (possibly NPC) father/brother who is arranging the marriage, and the category she uses depends on how big her dowry is. Note that in both cases, trying to find a wife or a husband, the roll is the best you can do, and trying to back out of that marriage would be an insult. You can't just keep rolling every year and wait for a high roll; that is what accumulating the modifiers are for.
  17. The Book of the Entourage presents the updated RANDOM marriage table. Compare with KAP 5.2, p. 130-131. EDIT: Ah yes, I see your point. Normally, the knight can try to arrange his own match, which is done via roleplaying. The GM can use the table in the Book of the Entourage, but it has mainly been constructed to take into account how much good will the PK has from the liege. You could use it without that modifier (actually, Loyalty and Deeds) to mimic what the PK might be able to find on his own.
  18. Quick Googling, no guarantee of quality, but possibly of interest: https://www.shmoop.com/study-guides/literature/faerie-queene/arthegall Alas, he is missing in Book of the Warlord. There is an editorial error for sure in assigning Warwick (Warcastle) to Sir Ederyn at the end of the Boy King. It should be Sir Edelin who is the heir of Sir Ederyn (who is dead by then), and has been holding the castle during the Anarchy. Easiest 'fix' would be to change Edelin -> Artgualchar, which then would fit with the 4e timing of Kenilworth being given to the Daughters during the Anarchy by the Earl (Baron) of Wuerensis. However, if you want to go more with the Faerie Queene and BotW, then making Artgualchar the son of Edelin would work nicely, and have him take over at the end of the Conquest. Up to you. Wuerensis doesn't really play a major part in the GPC, so feel free to do what you want. In Blood&Lust, Artgualchar gets mentioned by name ONCE, at the very end. So not really a major player, and in our campaign, I switched it so that Arthur was the liege lord of Stoneleigh, instead.
  19. A few years later, 4e said. So somewhere in the early 500s. However, Book of the Warlord contradicts this. In Appendix A, Leodegrance takes Kenilworth (Red Tower) during the Anarchy and then returns it to Arthur. It is Arthur who grants it to 'The Maiden Knights', The Daughters of Boudicca, after he has upgraded the Castle, by the end of the Boy King. So This would likely push it to 514 at the very earliest, possibly even all the way to 518, as reward for fighting bravely at Badon Hill? Possible. Or perhaps even better, let the female PKs to start it, or at least act as the inspiration for the Iceni ladies. I think it would reward PK agency more this way, and let them have an impact on the world.
  20. OK. I did remember that bit, but the "a major order of female knights in default Salisbury" would have been news to me. 🙂
  21. Not so sure they need an extra penalty but -1d6 sounds ok.
×
×
  • Create New...