Morien

32 minutes ago, Boamvndvs said:

The examples from Book of the Estate show e.g. the number of employees of the estate and the production of the estate, but how many people in total live on the territory of the estate?

We can guess from two different directions (always keeping in mind that it can vary wildly depending on the local conditions and economics).

One data point is the statement that a typical PK manor of £10 has about 500 people associated with it. Assuming that the same population density would apply and total area would scale with the landholding income, it would imply that a £50 estate would have about 2500 people, altogether, in its geographical area.

The other point is looking at the total population of Logres (which should be closer to 1+ million, given the number of knights and demographics, the half a million would work for adults, but you need the kids, too), we can get a rough estimate of about the same ~400-500 people per knight. And since the estate supports 1 knight per £10, we can get 2000-2500 per £50 estate.

Add a fudge factor of 50% either way and you can probably argue anything from 1500 to 4000 for a particular estate.

Yeah, it is OK to post session reports. I'd suggest starting a thread with your Campaign Name on it, and then just keep replying to it, rather than post a new thread each time.

Since your campaign is in a homebrew-historical setting, you don't even have to worry about the spoilers of the published material. 🙂

6 minutes ago, SNaomiScott said:

Have I just missed it (not really spent much time with the Solo or Campaign books yet), or was it just not included? Is it something that's going to show up in the Knight's Handbook when that comes out?

Chargen is missing from the Starter, which is probably why you haven't seen it...

I think the pregens would all fit that rule, though. Although I was looking at Clarion, and he has Bow, Crossbow and Thrown Weapon at 0, and Two-Handed Hafted at 5. We know that the character sheets had some editing mistakes, and I have not looked if there is an errataed pdf available for download yet.

On 9/8/2022 at 7:44 PM, SaxBasilisk said:

515 - If you run Grey Knight this year, the Lady of the Lake here should probably be Viviane, not Nimue. (It may also alter the dynamic between the Merlin and the Lady of the Lake.)

The Adventure says Nimue, and I don't see any reason why it should be Viviane.

On 9/8/2022 at 7:44 PM, SaxBasilisk said:

523, p. 192 - GPC canon is that Viviane imprisons Merlin, not Nimue.

No, it is Nimue.

The Appendix 5 on the Ladies of the Lake is wrong on this one. The reason being that Nimue and Viviane occupied the same role in two different versions of the story, hence the confusion (and in the movie Excalibur, this role was given to Morgan Le Fay). But in GPC, it is Nimue. Viviane is busy in France raising Lancelot.

On 9/8/2022 at 7:44 PM, SaxBasilisk said:

524, p. 194 - "Nimue and the Squire of the Lake," and "the queen glances at Nimue, whose realm is indeed far away." - The Ladies of the Lake writeup at the end of GPC and the GPC stats indicate that it should be Vivianne who brings the Squire to court.

Agreed; here it should be Viviane, IMHO.

On 9/8/2022 at 7:44 PM, SaxBasilisk said:

Island of Fees adventure, p. 224: "Unknown to anyone for many years, the murderers are actually four of the five Orkney brothers, all except Gaheris." Greg points out that this should be Gareth - but also, Mordred is eleven, so you might consider whether he's involved.

Mordred should not be there, either, simply because he is too young, IMHO

6 hours ago, TerryTroll said:

Page 5 of book one makes it clear that you only have one Famous (16+ Trait) at creation, yet the characters booklets often have characters with more than one? Are they advanced characters or is this an error?

The Book 1 shows a 14 year old page/squire. The pregen knights are 21 or more(?); plenty of time for character growth, even with 5.2 rules.

2 hours ago, Pete NR said:

And Great Maces ? Basic damage is +2d6, but it gets +3d6 vs mail - is that cumulative ? The way it's written i'm almost sure it is, making the Great Mace really terrifying.

No, it is not. It is +2d6 for two-handed and +1d6 vs. mail, for a total of +3d6 vs. mail over the normal damage.

2 hours ago, Pete NR said:

Does the bonus damage for certain weapons apply if you're wearing both padded and mail armour ? So maces gets a damage bonus vs Mail, but does it apply if you have padding under your mail ?

It does apply. All the mails assume a padding (aketon) underneath. It would make Maces' damage bonus never come into play if padding would be enough to remove it. And before you ask, yes, this does mean that in edge cases (haubergeon by itself or with an open helmet) the mace bonus can compromise the aketon, too. If that bothers you, just rule that you always get at least the padding armor bonus (or padding+helmet, if you are feeling especially generous).

59 minutes ago, Wulfgar22 said:

Not sure I understand this. No doubt me missing something again. Of the options for 108, in the event of a tie and if you have both taken enough damage...say a hit that does 5 or 6 damage (not enough for a Major Wound) but pushes you both into the 'Unconscious' zone of fewer than 7 HP and 8 HP respectively then don't you both go 'Unconscious'? If so then there is no option for both of you...just a choice for one or the other (113 or 115).

There isn't a choice for both of you, but since we don't care about him, but about you, you'd follow what happens to you. I.e. 115. After all, that is the result that matches (you go unconscious, and what happens to him is immaterial since you are unconscious and don't see it) than 113 (you are conscious and victorious and about to meet yet another challenger; you should be unconscious and the fight a tie). Makes sense?

It is enough an edge case (you have to tie and both of you have to be knocked to below UNC) that it likely happens only like 1% of the time. So probably no one had it in the playtest. Still, it would be an easy to fix, adding the guidance to the end of the big paragraph before the options:

"... fight is over. Follow your worst condition first, then his."

The other method would be to make the options into if-then-else-if structure:

Did you suffer a Major Wound, or are your Hit Points at zero or below? Go to 116.
Otherwise, are your Hit Points below your Unconscious value? Go to 115.
If you are still conscious, is he dead? Go to 112.
If he is not dead, is he unconscious? Go to 113.
Otherwise return to 105 and fight another round unless you wish to yield, in which case go to 114.

But I think the first method (add a sentence) is likely an easier fix.

1 hour ago, Wulfgar22 said:

Just played through the Solo Quest. Nowhere (that I could see) was Major Wound explained during the Bohort (or anywhere else in the Solo Quest book)...

Best would be to have it in the character sheet (as mandrill_one said), but it is not, unfortunately. It is mentioned on Number 12, and then the opponents' MW threshold (30 hp & MW 15, 24 hp & MW 12) is mentioned in various bohort entries, which by themselves would lead a newbie to assume MW = HP/2.

And of course, as was already pointed out, in Book 2. But I agree, it should be already mentioned in the solo book, so that you can just pick that book up and play through without needing to read through Book 2 first.

1 hour ago, Wulfgar22 said:

I also ended up in a situation where we both landed successful hits, both took damage and both ended up unconscious...

Oh, you managed to roll a tie with enough damage to cause a major wound/knock people out? That is a bit of an edge case... Note that it is NOT enough that you both succeed. You have to roll the same exact number, too. (Explained in p. 14 box.)

1 hour ago, Wulfgar22 said:

which isn't catered for in the options.

Well, it kinda is. You follow the option of taking a MW or being knocked unconscious.

2 hours ago, vegas said:

The morale minimum to engage is only 5, so no, I don't think that rationale explains it; if it were "better to retire and seek new, worthier opponents" then, it is the morale min that would be much higher.

 

EDIT: the minimum morale to engage and the morale loss after engagement seem to be related for all the other Encounters except this one. Perhaps it is intended that they diverge for this card, but if so, this is the outlier.

Ah, I had not read the Battle rules in that detail. For some reason I imagined that the Morale Loss would be paid before Engaging, but now I see it is after. So I think my first part is correct: After seeing that horrendous cruelty towards their beloved steeds, the PKs need to retire to enjoy a fortifying drink to steady their nerves.

They seem to differ from the Irish Kerns in that they are always trying to butcher the horse, whereas the Kerns are more about means to an end, getting the knight down from their high horse.

1 hour ago, vegas said:

Can't know for certain, but it is a safe bet that Battle Card for Pictish Knifemen should not have a morale cost of 3d6. It is a serious outlier from the others if it is intended.

I assumed that was because those pesky Picts are going after the precious horses, the savages. Bad for morale to have scores of horses screaming with split bellies, with a horde of those painted knifemen about. Nah, not worth it. Better to retire and seek new, worthier opponents.

1 hour ago, SaxBasilisk said:

How would you handle this situation?

Not sure if it is canon, but I always imagined the Public Pentecostal Feast that often gets rudely interrupted by various challengers or quest givers as separate from the Round Table Only Feast (which would use the Round Table, the Public Feast does not, IMC). Happening on different days, too.

Basically, the Round Table is in its own Hall, and used for the gatherings of the Round Table, not that of the general Court. Think it as more of a boardroom or a meeting room. (Edit: I just checked The Boy King, and yes, it does mention that the King's Court is on a different floor than the Round Table Chamber.)

43 minutes ago, mj6373 said:

Just as a fun goofy question to get people talking about their campaigns, who are the oldest/longest-lived PKs you've had?

Most of our PKs die in the saddle, as it were, and seldom live past their 40s, as that is when they have enough Glory to catch everyone's attention As The Great Hero Who Really Ought to Be Doing Something About This Big Darn Dragon Over Yonder. Usually ending in either more Glory and even more high-risk quests, or, well, retiring from life.

One dragon-slayer decided that she was getting too old for this stuff, and retired to her manor to rest on her laurels. Since the Player in question stated that he wished to skip to a younger character and let this one live a long retirement, as far as we know, she is still in her manor, sipping her beer and enjoying life with her husband, kids and no doubt grandkids. She is an NPK now, current age 46, but we have not tracked her for some years so who knows how spry she still is?

Another PK got forcibly retired by losing to an opponent who took her as a prisoner. She is still a knight, but has been out of the circulation for a decade and a half, essentially a houseguest with a major noble. Granted, the relationship turned more amicable in a hurry, since he was a good guy, just one who had rather harsh rules for any challengers who lost (you come for the King, you better not miss). We have been updating her from time to time and the age is starting to nibble at her, her damage has fallen to 4d6 (might be even lower now). We were joking that the loss of her SIZ and STR while her APP remained meant that she actually looked more conventionally pretty than she had during her whole career, and while the APP finally dropped a couple of points, she is still pretty spry and healthy at 58.

We have had one PK who actually died from old age at 57, after having been bedridden for a decade or so (low DEX). Naturally, the Player was playing the son. Still, not a bad age, for a veteran of the Anarchy and King Mark's Best Buddy.

There is one Player-Lady who is probably going to outlive everyone else, but she is cheating, as she fell in love with a Faerie Lord and vice versa, opting to forsake her mortal husband (and her child was half-Fae anyway, taking her along to meet her real dad). She is more Fae than human now, occasionally showing up to help her old friends, but with most of them dead, including her foster-son who returned to the real world, she is unlikely to show up again lest the PKs seek her out specifically or an adventure happens to take them to Overthere.

In a previous campaign, there was a Player-Lady born in 516, who lived all the way to the end of the campaign, retaining her APP 20+ to the very end despite the GM pulling some shenanigans (I admit to it). She was rumored to be half-fae (and pretty much confirmed by the Fae they met), but this brought her no system benefit. Still, the Player proceeded to roll over a decade worth of 'no attribute loss' from the Aging table from 35 onwards. So, the GM being a bastard, the events conspired and she traded her unaging/long life to Morgan Le Fay in return for the safe return of her lover and liege lord, Earl Agravaine. The game effect was that she would always potentially lose at least one extra stat each year, but wouldn't you know, she continued rolling 6's in the attribute loss table from time to time, too, and used her Glory Bonus Points for the rest as needed. Thanks to her age, she went from 'annoying little sister' to the (Honorary) Aunt (or even Great-Aunt) of most of the PKs in the party, and the Countess-in-all-but-name in Salisbury, and the feud between her and Guenever brought about the fall of the Round Table. After Camlann, she sided with Mordred's sons (Good Orkney Boys) against Constantine the Lying Usurper, but alas, she was captured in the final battle and burned as a witch by the vindictive Constantine, when she refused to bend the knee to him and publicly lie that Arthur had named him as the heir (he hadn't, in our campaign)... Her children with Agravaine survived, though, marrying into the noble families of Britain, mainly in the North out of Constantine's reach.

In the most recent (as to time of the opening of this thread) interview ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4asgueZCvQ ), David Larkins mentioned that he loves hearing about people's picks for the pregen characters in the Starter Set and what appealed to them in the character. So I figured that might make for a nice Forum Thread, compiling people's experiences and thoughts. 🙂

Alas, since I have not played nor GMed the Starter Set yet, I cannot comment too much for myself. However, I did watch Mark Morrison's playthrough of the Sword Tournament part of the Starter Set (with his own spin on it) in Youtube, and I really liked the intensity that the player brought to 'Dame' Lynelle. Talk about having a chip on her shoulder! Poor Sir Asterius shivering in the Frozen Wastelands of the North (AKA London) was very amusing as well, that fish out of (warm) water culture shock. But I am sure that different players might have played them in different ways, so YPWV!

8 hours ago, Magpiedesigner said:

Book 1, Page 24, Entry 63 - Should it say Go to 74? The story seems to jump.

That seems correct. The story also jumps in 65 and 70-73, arguably even more. The feast just peters out, and you can imagine that there would be a fade to the start of a new scene, were this a movie.

8 hours ago, Magpiedesigner said:

Also were does Entry 74 end?

Next page, Go To 75.

2 hours ago, mj6373 said:

Look, I love Pendragon's extensive anachronism as much as anyone, but the Byzantine Empire is definitionally a successor/continuation state to Rome's fall. Just 'cause the continental character options said Byzantine characters are an option doesn't mean it actually makes any sense for it to coexist with Arthur conquering a still-existant Roman Empire. The Western Roman Empire just lives a little longer than it did historically (honestly it's only like 50 years anyway which is way less than the usual anachronisms) to fall to Arthur instead.

I get out of that simply by saying that Arthur conquered the WRE (or if I am feeling really peckish, the Kingdom of Ostrogoths with their vassals and allies), and the Eastern Roman Empire in Constantinople is doing just dandy.

1 hour ago, mj6373 said:

so I could justify him making a gesture of restoring and granting Judea to the Jewish RTPK.)

That must have made the Byzantine Empire overjoyed. 😛

From Gorelab: "I think the HP for Sir Cadwallon is wrong too. Everyone else seems to use SIZ+CON while his is just his SIZ." Correct, his HP should be 27.

5 hours ago, Gorelab said:

I think the HP for Sir Cadwallon is wrong too. Everyone else seems to use SIZ+CON while his is just his SIZ.

Yeah, should be 27. Adding that to the errata thread.

The way I'd GM it is that the two declare their preferred ranges at the start of the turn. If they start closer and one wants to open the range, that one has to win the opposed Combat Action. And same if they start farther apart and one wishes to close in.

If I am reading this correctly, if you are using a sword and face a dagger, you want to keep to Normal, but if facing a Long weapon (like a spear), you want to close to Close Quarters and render that spear useless.

To be honest, this is likely a level of granularity that I am not going to implement in my games. Getting a bit too nitty-gritty for me to track. 🙂

1 hour ago, Uthred said:

That helps to clarify it. I think I was a bit overwhelmed with all the sourcebooks and was mistaken thinking that one "had" to go through them as opposed to them being additional resources for different tiers of play. The default being that there isn't much "social climbing" is fine.

Yeah, you definitely don't HAVE to go through to become a baron. But if that is what you and your players are interested it, it is definitely possible.

In our first campaign (pre-GPC, started early 2000s), the PKs convinced their neighbors and the Earl of Salisbury that it would be useful to have a banneret (nowadays estate holder) overseeing the 'Levcomagus March', i.e. the border with Levcomagus. As this predated BotE, I had like 50/50 mix of vassals and household knights in Salisbury, so the Earl was not losing his land, exactly, just putting an extra middle management in place. One of the PKs became the banneret of about 10 vassal manors, even though he directly controlled only two (actually one, since the other was his wife's, who was also a PK).

Anyway, fast forward to the next generation, and the new banneret, an NPK (due to timeskip and inheritance shenanigans, ignore it for now) joined Sir Kay's new invasion of Normandy, as the King of the Franks had started reclaiming counties and duchies conquered by Arthur during the Roman War. (This was a rewritten French War about Guenever's cousin.) Thanks to some excellent rolling in an important battle as well as having sunk a lot of extra money for mercs (as the PKs did too), Sir Kay rewarded the Banneret with a minor Barony of Mortain, of about 40 manors, as long as he could claim it from the current owners, which he did with the help of the PKs. So yeah, they ended up with their banneret being also a Baron in Normandy, and of course with them having manors in Mortain, too. But there wouldn't have been anything to prevent a PK doing the same, although without the resources of a banneret, it would have been more difficult to impress Sir Kay. Another PK (an RTK) actually got offered the crown of Bulith during the Cambrian War, but that would have required his son to marry a tribal princess to seal the alliance, and the lad decided that she wasn't comely enough. So the war continued and the PK died in the fighting.

In our current campaign, two of the PKs married two younger daughters of the King of Ergyng, and are thus earmarked to gain small estates in there once the King kicks the bucket. Other past PKs have held estates from time to time, but lost them either due to war or because they were simply gifts rather than grants. Another PK has a 'pseudo'-estate, a collection of 5 manors, just scattered around Britain and not officially an estate. And since I am a big softy when it came to investments, they are currently living it big during the Pax Arthuriana. But little do they know... 😛

Mind you, nothing prevents the GM and the players to play a high-powered game with the PKs becoming barons or even more by the end of the campaign. Indeed, there is something to be said about having baronial level PKs debating whether to stand with Arthur or Lancelot or gasp Mordred in the end.

While the Book of the Warlord implies that the baronial PKs ought to be retired from adventuring, you don't have to do that in your campaign. Plenty of kings and princes and dukes and counts and barons in the Round Table who adventure regularly and rely on their officers to keep things running back home.

Vassal knights are relatively rare and in a sense, they gave already 'won'. Most would not advance further. PKs may be the exception, being often able to gather a lot of Glory and doing big adventures. Thus they may win more manors, either outright or via marriages to heiresses (albeit not at the beginning when they are fresh young knights) as rewards for their quests.

Roderick likely doesn't have enough lands to spare to elevate one to a Banneret, not to mention that in BotW, that title is given only by the King. Even an estate holder would be rare inside Salisbury.

Finally, there is always conquest, too. Anarchy offers challenges but also opportunities, as does wars against the Saxons, the French and the Irish.

So yeah, it depends a lot on what the GM has planned and what the players are interested in. By default, the PKs might earn a manor or two but not advance in titles.

You could see about tinkering with maps like this:

As you said, Hundred Maps are available for Salisbury, but AFAIK, there are no manor level maps. Frankly, I don't see any need for such, either, in my campaigns. I generally just say that the border is somewhere between the two manorial locations, if it becomes of interest.

My starter set box arrived, very nice. Of course I had it as an pdf since the order, but nice to have the physical copy as well. The paper is slightly glossy, like a magazine with plenty of pictures. Not that I have bought a magazine for ages, so who knows that they feel like now. Been ages since the last physical rpg book, too, as I tend to go for the pdfs for the cost and portability, too.

I was a bit worried about the appendices, but fortunately each appendix (if multiple pages, so B and D) are attached to one another. B is a leaflet and D is just a four pages, so A3 (equivalent) folded in the middle. That being said, I probably would have preferred a single appendix 'booklet'. I keep worrying that I will lose them. I would also have liked the character folios to be thicker and stiffer paper (the same material as for the battle cards would have been nice). I'd definitely worry about putting a pencil through one unless the surface is both hard and smooth. I think I would definitely use the folios more as display items and give the Players less fancy 'every day' character sheets to do their markings on. And of course my gripe about having just 1d20 rather than 2d20, and all 6d6 being of the same color rather than 5d6+1d6 to make axes and maces and hammers easier to roll. Minor gripes, in the pursuit of perfection. 🙂

I did play the solo with my wife and my brother (adjusting it for two players was quite easy to do even on a fly), and it was very fun. I think one of them (my brother) became Arthur's Squire and an eventual RTK, while as my wife's more brash character ended up with just a career as a household knight. I would be inclined to say that this is my new favorite intro adventure to any RPG, reminding me of the solo in the old Red Box Basic D&D set.

I am looking forward to unleashing the Sword Campaign on some folks, too, but I think my current group would prefer to continue the campaign that has been on a hiatus. I might ask them if they want to have the Sword Campaign as a 'not everyone could make it' backup campaign.