Morien

Pretty much what Voord 99 already said. In our campaign, Jenna was married off to the new Praetor of Levcomagus (an ambitious Vassal Knight who ensured Ulfius' safety in the aftermath of the Infamous Feast, and a personal enemy of the PKs; I killed Blains off in the Infamous Feast, since he hadn't really had dealings with the PKs in person) in order to get his alliance against Syagrius, who had kidnapped Ygraine and tried to conquer Salisbury with a mercenary army funded by the royal treasury he had seized (canonically Llud's Hall, but I moved it to Devizes since we had a PK manor there, predating BotW). Anyway, that led to a combined Salisbury-Levcomagus army defeating Syagrius' mercenaries, but the alliance took a turn for the worst when Salisbury submitted to Cornwall (with Ellen marrying Mark) and then became friendly with Wessex, too. Some raiding, sieges and atrocities later, the Salisbury-Levcomagus feud was back in full swing. The situation deteriorated further in the Boy King era, as Robert died in battle, which left the Praetor as the legitimate claimant of Salisbury, but firmly in the anti-Cornwall, pro-Arthur camp, unlike the majority of the PKs. They did their damnest to kill him dead at the Battle of Terrabil, but failed thanks to the actions of the lone 'loyal' PK, who had switched sides, and managed to drag the -3 HP Praetor to safety before another PK managed to finish him off. Since Arthur won, the other PKs ended up relocating to Cornwall, where Mark had just become the new King and ready to welcome the Glorious, loyal Salisbury knights to his court. In the end, it is whatever makes for the best story for your campaign, and what option the player knights are pushing for.

The Perilous Forest, p. 92: The Adventurous Bed Kinda repeated in: GPC, p. 350-351

If you want, you can say that if you are following the leader, you cannot ride faster than the leader. Anyone farther forward has to become their own leader, until the main party catches up. Chances are, if they have low hunting, they would fail quickly. On the other hand, most of the staying on track during a chase is actually done by the hounds (you don't actually look for tracks yourself at this point anymore, that was earlier). So as long as you follow the hounds, you should be fine. The quality of the hounds is abstracted by the leader's Hunting, perhaps? This would be one way of simply rolling for the leader, even if one of the followers is several steps ahead. In any case, I would still roll only one obstacle, since the idea kinda is that if there is a creek that the animal has crossed, then all the hunters need to cross the same creek.

Well, Balin does break the Hospitality first, by killing Garlon at the feast, and Garlon presumably unarmed as well (since there is a mention made that Balin would have been expected to go in without his sword, save that he refused to do so by the custom of his land, so Garlon, as a native, would have been without a sword). So Pellam is totally in the right for wanting to avenge himself on his churlish guest who has just murdered his unarmed brother under Pellam's own roof (and implied protection, as the Host). I doubt Pellam would have reacted as badly, had it been a fair duel outside of his castle (of course, Garlon probably would have just turned invisible and murdered Balin instead). We do see similar things elsewhere as well, the Orkneys sticking together (save for Gareth) even when it means doing some dishonorable things in pursuit of their vendetta against de Galis.

Another potential thing is to split the party. You don't really need EVERYONE at Camelot, for instance. Granted, some of the hunts are much easier if you have more knights present, but in principle, you can easily enough split the party in two if you have two good hunters already. That allows you to lower the travel time to 16 days total, with two hunts (stag+crane, unicorn+lion) for each group, and one group handling the mouse while the other does what is needed in Camelot. Hence, the total expenditure of days can be closer to 20, which would give a week's grace to heal in between if really necessary.

"Keep track of the days as they pass. As Sir Ector indicated, the Player-knights have only 31 days to gather their menagerie and travel to Berwyn. After fourteen days have passed," I firmly believe that the "fourteen" here is an error and it should be "31". Perhaps a remnant of a previous draft and once the writers/playtesters went in to calculate how many days it would take to complete this quest, they realized that 14 days is not enough, and it should be a month? But the earlier 14 days was not corrected in the third sentence. In any case, that is how I would GM it in my campaign, for Sir Ector is a man of his word. If he says he will wait 31 days, then he will wait 31 days. As well as other game reasons you mentioned.

Sounds fair to me. Also, in the end, you are the GM. If you think something makes more sense in your campaign, especially something location-specific like the horse breeds, go for it. (Of course there are some things that one should be careful about changing without considering the consequences, but I doubt the war ponies would cause issues.)

That is correct. Once you occupy the same position as the Prey (#0 position) at the end of the Pursuit (i.e. after checking if you overcome the obstacle), you move to Abay. That is what "Once hunters have caught up to the quarry," means, but it could have been underlined more. Just to comment on a related issue: The Honor loss ought to only apply if the Hunt is an arranged social activity by the Host, to honor a guest. If it is just a bunch of friends hunting together, there is no designated host nor a honored guest, so you wouldn't lose Honor for not waiting. But if this is part of a court visit, the Count throwing together a big Hunt in honor of King Arthur, who is participating, then yes, you should wait!

Well, you still have the names of the Cymric conquerors in there. Again, that is up to you, but if you want to check this link out, it has some suggestions for the Saxon princes: https://greathall.chaosium.com/Pendragon Forum Archive/index.php/t-2617.html

This is actually a misunderstanding caused by the obscure way that GPC presents these two fellows. They are actually Cymric conquerors, granted their new estates by Arthur after the Battle of Badon. 4th edition was clear about Earl Celyn of Sussex and Earl Kynniarc of Kent (Kinniarc in GPC) being Cymric/Christians. GPC lists them amongst the Saxon kings, and then compounds the error by referring to 'Prince Celyn of Sussex'. Again, Rule 0. If you don't care about it, no worries. It is your game, have fun. I just figured I'd let you (and anyone else reading this thread) know.

"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.

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 with the new manor. These are the usual manors that the PKs gain from heroics, if any. Enfeoffed manor: a manor held by a vassal knight sworn to you; he keeps any excess income so you only get his services for your army (think of your relationship with your liege, this is similar). These almost never happen until you are at least on a banneret/minor baron level yourself, in post-BotW world. However, unfortunately they were very common in the 5.2 (and earlier) heiress write-ups as they were not corrected for 5.2. See Point 4 in my original post. Note that the Demesne vs. Enfeoffed is a matter of perspective; your PK's starting manor is your PK's demesne manor, but the Count would call it an enfeoffed manor, as it is held by a vassal knight sworn to him, rather than controlled directly by the Count. Speaking of changes, Greg changed Banneret to mean a battlefield promotion by the king, gifting an estate to a worthy warhero. This is different from the older 5.x definition where a banneret is just a knight lord who has enough lands. The current equivalent is an estate holder, but it should also be noted that an estate is a single legal entity. It is not enough to gather a manor here and a manor there. They do not become an estate until the king (or if they are all from the same liege lord, him) agrees to make them one. Once they become an estate, you can't split them up between your sons anymore, so it is not always a good idea. Also, see Point 5 in my original post: just because you married an heiress, her lands are not YOURS. You are simply controlling them as the husband, but the inheritance is connected to her bloodline. So they do not go to your eldest son, but to HER eldest son (who can be from an earlier marriage, or who can be your younger son if you were married before). Gift vs. Grant: A gift manor is for the life of the recipient of the gift. For example, a PK does something suitably heroic and the Count rewards him with a gift manor. The PK then dies at the Battle of Lindsey. The gift manor reverts back to the Count. A grant manor, by contrast, is inheritable (the default starting manors and the manors held by the heiresses, save for Widow's Portion, are grant manors). If the PK dies, his eldest son will inherit the grant manor. It is also possible for the gift manor to be transformed into a grant manor (often requiring future heroics worthy of such a reward). Gift manors are a way for the liege lord to reward his knights without permanently giving away land, but he still should not be throwing them away like peanuts. As always, Rule 0 applies: Have fun. If you want to hand over manors left and right, that is your prerogative. If you want to play a high-power campaign where the PKs become counts and barons in their own right, good for you. These are just to explain how the things were supposed to work.

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 my battles on a single extended melee. That is the main event, where the PKs can show off their heroism and can influence the flow of the story. BioKeith had some good examples. The PKs' personal enemies are good options as well, if they happen to be on the opposing side. This extended melee is fought with normal combat rules rather than with just one combat roll, and is over when one side is defeated (captured, killed, fleeing).

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.

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 voice is handled with Zoom, and Roll20 is for tactical map combat. Alas, I do not have experience with other virtual tabletops.

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 story is more important than GPC, after all. Of course, my campaigns were already off the rails pretty quickly. The first campaign started pre-GPC, so I didn't realize that Robert was not supposed to be an adult during Anarchy, and I ended up killing him off during the Roman War. In the second campaign, the PKs decided to ally with Cornwall (Ellen marrying Prince Mark, who became the new Regent), ending in a fight against first Nanteleod and then Arthur, with Robert (who had switched to Arthur's side after being captured) dead in a battle against Prince Galegantis. Which left the Praetor (Steward) of Levcomagus (PKs' personal enemy) as the heir to Salisbury thanks to the marriage to Jenna that the PKs had orchestrated in early Anarchy. So the PKs ended up exiled to Cornwall, which worked out since the now-King Mark was happy to welcome the loyal knights to his court. Just to mention a couple of examples.

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.

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 (Leicester) during Anarchy, whose position is confirmed by Arthur by 518. Easiest thing to make him Edaris' eldest son, even though the Duchy of the Marche gets dissolved (as Duchy of Silchester is after Ulfius' death/retirement). In 4e (531 AD), Barony of Lambor is ruled by Sir Blamore de Ganis, but Leicester is under Lindsey. So perhaps Edar had two daughters, the eldest getting Leicester and marrying the Duke of Lindsey, while the younger gets other territories and marries Sir Blamore. Then again, 4e still used territorial nobles, so this might not compare easily with BotW situation.

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.

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...

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 last just one battle round. We use the one battle round or an extended melee rule nowadays in our campaign.

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.

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 if she reveals that she is a woman. Then again, I subscribe to the notion that if it is a knight, it is a knight. Thus, female knights are treated as knights in the battlefield. You lose no Honor whatsoever for hitting them as hard as you can.

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.

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, maybe then. A berserker already does 8d6 or more damage against knights. 12d6+ on a critical, and getting a bit lucky with the damage dice or the PK fails to get the shield, and even with a better armor, death is a possibility. It just isn't a (near) certainty, as it would be with 16d6+1d6 axe. The issue with berserkers and giants being one-hit-kill monsters is that there is nothing that the Player can do about it, save for have his character run away. And unless I, as the GM, want to have a 5% chance per roll of killing a PK off, that limits how I can use those monsters. I don't want to kill a PK each time they meet a giant (since the fight usually takes several rounds and the Giant is dividing its attacks, meaning several rolls per round), so under the old rules, I pretty much couldn't use Giants as opponents at all. We have been using 4d6 critical as a houserule for years now, and the Players are still dreading facing Giants and berserkers. The threat is still there. It is just more manageable rather than gamestopping with the constant PK deaths.