Jump to content

Morien

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1,144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Morien

  1. "The Marche (Cambria border): Held by Sir Edaris, baron of Leir’s Castle." Duke Edaris is the Duke of the Marche from Uther's coronation onwards, and is the son of the previous Duke. Given that Aurelius seems to have the tendency to raise up local leaders to Dukedom (Gorlois in Cornwall, Corneus in Lindsey), it would make sense that Edaris is a local lad, too.
  2. Giving this thread a bit of a bump as we have had some newcomers who might benefit from reading this thread. Also, some definitions and words of warning: Demesne manor: a manor you control directly. You are still required to bring a knight per manor, so if you have your own manor and gain another manor, you need to hire and maintain a household knight. The costs are already included in normal accounting, so you can just use the additional manors explanation on Point 3 in my original post. You do not get the whole £10 as free money to spend as you wish, as you have expenses associated
  3. BioKeith got it right. Each Battle Round is an abstraction covering a chunk of the battle, usually around 0.5 - 1 hour. One opposed Weapon roll (assuming one opponent) and that is it. Then the ebb and flow of the battle tends to push the combatants apart, and new enemies might appear (enemy unit roll). Admittedly, both Book of Battles 2 and I myself allow the PKs to charge back in, if they have pulled back / disengaged for a round, which might give them the Lance charge bonus again, if their opponents do not have lances ready (often the case, in the midst of a battle). I prefer to center
  4. I am kinda partial to using the Trio from Book of Uther, especially if the PKs have had some encounters with them beforehand in Uther's Court.
  5. We played our first playthrough of GPC (from Roman War onwards, since we had done tabletop with the Boy King up to Badon before GPC was published) using mainly Skype and IRC for chat and dicebot, and then phasing Skype out for TeamSpeak3. In our current playthrough (485 onwards, now at 535), we still use TeamSpeak3 for voice, since we had so much trouble getting everyone's voice to work in Roll20, but we use Roll20 for rolls and drawing on the campaign map to show where the knights are going, and so forth. We don't use a tactical map. I am also playing in a Pathfinder game, where the
  6. Given how many changes there were between GPC and BotW, no one would blame you for changing things around. While I happily mine BotW castle tables and baron tables for ideas, I certainly don't feel constrained by them in game. Looking at my notes, I see I did use Sir Edar of Leicester in our campaign, but I took the "Baron of Lambor" to mean that he was a usurper, and portrayed him as such when the PKs met him during the Morgan's Marriage escort mission. Also, YPWV. Frankly, if your Pendragon Campaign is exactly following GPC, I would suspect that something has gone wrong! Your own
  7. Yeah, I think you are right: http://satnightpendragon.blogspot.com/2008/02/499-capture-of-leicester.html Edar seems to have been one of the Player-knights in that campaign. It is not an EXACT match, like BotW Edar calling himself 'Baron of Lambor' while the PK Edar was Count of Leicester and an enemy of "the Count of Lambor". But it is close enough that I am convinced that you are correct, and that explains why "Baron of Lambor" is in quotation marks when he is first introduced in the Anarchy castle list.
  8. The Marriage of Count Roderick: "Travel to Leir’s Castle to visit Sir Edaris, Duke of the Marche and his daughter, Lady Rosalyn. The trip from Sarum to Leir’s Castle in County Lambor via Corinium takes a week. Lady Rosalyn is an attractive girl (APP 15) of fifteen (b. 466). The Player-knights will easily pick up stories of her open-handedness in the Duke’s court (notable Trait: Generous). Rosalyn has a dowry of half a dozen manors and, having two brothers, is third in line to inherit." Book of the Warlord has Sir Edar, Baron of Lambor, ruling over Leir's Castle (Lei
  9. Yes. Hiking the Chivalric Bonus to 96 points rather than 80 makes a big difference in the armor levels. Also, have the NPKs switch to Warhammers (pollaxes) for +1d6 two-handed and +1d6 vs. Plate when the armor technology gets far enough. 5d6+1d6+1d6 = 7d6 starts hurting, let alone 8d6. Add +4d6 critical on top of that and Major Wounds will show up to wreck a PK's day.
  10. The same text is already in 5.0, which predates BoB. I took that to mean whether to use your Inspiration to boost your Lance or your Sword skill. But it is possible that the idea of limiting Passions to a single round was already in Greg's mind back then. I know that I was very much stricter with the Inspirations after the PKs criticalled their merry way through all the Boy King Battles. Just pop the Loyalty (King Arthur) at the start and then cut your way through the enemies with Sword 30+... And of course, at the time we used 4e, with its follower's bonus, so that was usually another +6...
  11. It is a change from the main book, where (5.2, p. 92) it is stated: "This Inspiration lasts for the length of the task at hand, but never for more than one full day." It is a reasonable assumption that if you are getting Inspired to 'Defeat the Saxons in this Battle', it would last for the whole battle since it is less than a day. However, this is very broken, especially with the +10 Inspired Bonus. It will turn every Battle into a series of criticals from the PKs, as we found out in our first playthrough during the Boy King Period. Which is why, I believe, that Greg changed it in BoB to
  12. I think that would work quite well. I do like the fact that Energetic plays a role, although an argument could be made that it should be CON instead (physical stamina rather than a mind set). In the older editions, this is what happened when both combatants chose Defensive: the fight is resolved normally but the round takes an hour or so. It still doesn't counter tink-tink-boom effect, although at least it moves one tied criticals into a some kind of resolution.
  13. I was actually thinking about the PLAYERS hesitating, not the PKs. To answer your question, though, if the female knights are rare, I could see a male knight hesitating, especially if he is chivalric. There is actually an adventure involving the ladies-in-waiting of Morgan Le Fey that explores this issue, in the Blood & Lust. However, I am not sure this is a big issue anyway, as usually you are supposed to take the knight as your captive anyway, rather than stab them in the face. So it would be more of a "Surrender, Sir Knight! I have the advantage!" and that advantage would stay even
  14. Admittedly one of the reasons for us to switch to flat criticals was to diminish the advantage of high damage dealers, including PKs. 6d6 is already a huge advantage in normal combat. Allowing them to hit 12d6 vs. 8d6 or 10d6 that normal people hit is just encouraging the Players to minmax the strength higher. But when it is a difference of 9d6 or 10d6, the minmax benefit is slightly lessened.
  15. When you have Giants doing 12d6 on a normal hit (average 42 hp, a guaranteed MW for most people) and 16d6 on a critical (average 56 hit points, RIP), the players still dread getting criticalled against. The old 24d6 is pretty much impossible to survive, and due to the Giant usually either missing (losing the opposed roll) or criticaled (smash), it meant that either the PKs survived unscathed, or one or more of them were turned into pink mist. A berserker should not be able to regularly one-shot a knight in plate armor to death. If they critical and get very lucky with the damage dice, may
  16. Oh, I don't doubt it. I was mainly curious if there would be a mental hesitation based on the sex of the opponent (mainly, if the opponent is a female; I am sure we all know the joke about the female CIA trainee). I mean, if someone is trying to kill your character, and part of the character's career is combat and killing the enemies (or capturing them, in case of knights), then probably that killing happens right back. But I have noticed, as I stated, that I need to make that extra adjustment if the GM is making a point of mentioning that the enemy happens to be a woman (especially in campai
  17. Not all things are equal to others. Simply because magic exists, it doesn't mean that all people are mages. But as you said, you don't care about that. Which is fair. Your Pendragon Will Vary, as Greg was prone to saying. Me, I like to keep the campaign a bit more grounded (up to a point given the faeries, monsters, and anachronistic society and technology; they are more of an overlay for me). IF the people in KAP are regular humans, then they, as a population, have some average characteristics that can be broken down by sex and by culture (or to use an outdated term, race, since BotK&
  18. Agreed with weasel fierce; women warriors existed in some cultures but they were not common as in a significant fraction of the army. Sieges, sure, drop stuff from the wall. In the more industrial age, guns are a great equalizer. Also the more massive armies of post-French Revolution meant that you are taking even teen boys off the street who might not be all that muscular compared to a grown woman. That was the usual cover for women in the civil war armies, pretending to be young man to explain the smooth cheeks and higher voice.
  19. No need for PKs to roll damage. Yes, unless they are in the back, having retreated to get first aid and deliver prisoners. Enemy units roll opposed weapon skill. If they are outnumbered they need to divide the skill between PKs. Easiest to let PKs double up their attacks i.e one enemy rolling vs. two PKs. There used to be a unit size roll in 4e. It is likely a relic. Adding an event of PKs being outnumbered would help. I do it all the time with footmen. I ignore the events table and use the scripted events instead. Speeds up the game too. Non scripted battles I recommend pr
  20. In our campaign, I made the distinction between the 'old mercenaries', the FitzGeralds, and the newer ones (Butlers, de Ganis). This was useful as it also made it easier to showcase the friction between the newcomers and King Anguish with his in-laws (I had Gerald marry Anguish's OTHER daughter, although on hindsight, having Maurice marry her would have been better. Oh well, I was following history on that one.). Anyway, this animosity is important, as it explains why the de Ganis blame Anguish for the death of Sir Hugo, and hence set up the situation for Tristram to champion Anguish, and thus
  21. Not flintlock rifles. Smoothbore matchlocks (arquebuses). As I implied in my previous answer, the sorcerer in King Mark's service is possibly a Chinese alchemist (I made him explicitly so in our playthrough of GPC). So you get the whole Battle of the Engine during the Grail Quest, so clearly gunpowder exists. I didn't introduce arquebuses straight away. Instead, part of the peace deal with King Mark (in early Twilight) was that he handed over the secret of cannon-making and gunpowder, and what do you know, Mordred was placed in charge of the Camelot Cannonworks. Fast forward to Camlann and...
  22. At the risk of derailing the thread I myself started... Slavery is morally wrong. Full stop. However, prior to it being made illegal in the UK, it was not only legal, but very profitable. So you had a lot of wealthy, politically influential men invested in the slavery. There is also a thing called ex post facto laws: making something illegal and punishing the people after the 'crime' has already been committed (and being legal at the time). So from the rule of law perspective, as well as getting the anti-slavery law passed, it was necessary to compensate the owners for taking away their p
  23. Yep, quite agreed with this, as well as with the earlier idea of having some Hunnic visitors earlier. Arthur does fight the Romans and in GPC, they have Magyar horse archers at Saussy. Easy enough to make them Huns, especially since they use the same stats anyway. Also, when it comes to depictions, unfortunately the pictures in BoK&L are not that great when it comes to Huns... it looks more like a Spanish Conquistador talking to a Longbowman in a fantasy helmet. I'd definitely hope that they'd replace this with a more Turkic or even Mongolian look if the Huns come up again as a playab
  24. Avars start their conquest of Pannonia around Twilight Period. Pannonia (Carpathian Basin) was ruled by the Gepids before that. Magyars shouldn't show up until latter half of 800s, and they settle in Pannonia at the end of that century. So they'd definitely be anachronistic. I'd much rather have Huns (or Bulgars, below) running around as mercenaries in the Roman armies that Arthur fights than Magyars. Bulgars have been around in Byzantine sources since late 400s, and are often used interchangeably with Huns, as you pointed out.
×
×
  • Create New...