Luca Cherstich

As a further note, I feel that Book II should explain what happens to Melee Distances after a charge. If somebody mounted with a lance charges and hits a sword wielder they will possibly start next round still at Long melee distance. If he fails and the swordman wins they'll possibly be at Normal melee distance. Nevertheless, considering how the physicality of a charging horse works it seems odd to me that the mounted attacker remains in Normal melee range in both cases.

Book II, the Fabled Realm, p.19, Table 3.1. A failure triggers a Passion Crisis roll. A fumble lowers the passion by one point but no Passion Crisis roll is mentioned. This clearly contradicts page 20 "....a failed or FUMBLED roll on Table 3.1: Unopposed Passion Roll Results is one way to trigger a Passion Crisis." It is obvious that the fumble entry should be read as "Passion Crisis, Lose 1 point from the Passion". The same problem is also present on the quickstart p.4, table 1.1.

and the other thing that this stuff, from a graphic point of view, is still in an "draft form". No images, no layout, just text. It really looks like an (incredibly good) homebrew material written by a deeply devoted pendragon lover. I had no idea it was an officially commissioned book.

Thank you! I had no idea that it was a pirate pdf of an officially commissioned work... I'm sorry about it. This pdf was in an old hard disk and I frankly do not remember how I got it or who gave it to me, since it's something it was in an at least-decade old folder. I really hope the 6th edition of this will come up, sooner or later, as this is definitively something that I would buy.

Hello, among my old files I found the pdf "lands of Tristram" by Jeff Erwin. I maybe downloaded it so many years ago and I forgot about it. I guess it's all homebrew material....but it looks very good, especially given that I need to send my players to Cornwall!. Does anybody knows if there was an attached map anywhere? Thanks a lot!

OK! It seems like the whole situation is messy enough in terms of published events that I can change what I dislike as much as I want without conflicting with anything in the GPC (at least with this version of the GPC....only God know what the future 4-volumes GPC will tell about it). I just hope next KAP edition will have some form of better Gazeteer or Atlas for each time-period (maybe one per each of the 4 GPC volumes).

@Morien thanks a lot for the information. That's some good material for being inspired to create a story.

As per title, does anybody knows what happens to the "Marche" after the Uther period? Do we have any published names for Heirs and/or Sons of the Duke?

Listen, I'll stop using whatever word you feel it's offensive but, please, I never accused anybody of "moaning" and "whining" only because they have different opinions.

If the word "she-knight" is insulting I beg your pardon. I'll stop using it. As a non-native English speaker (and maybe also as a non-English/non-American, living in a different context, where these issues are felt in a way more relaxed way) I did not realize the amount of sexist offense that word implies for you. From now onwards I'll call them "female knights" but, frankly, I do not feel I'll speak again about it soon,, since tones here have been over-exagerated on that topic. It is not really worth discussing it anymore. On the other hand, if you really think that my different opinion was just "moaning", please, check the number and length of my posts above. I was the first person raising the problem, but I just stopped replying when I've seen there was no point in speaking about it. I just accepted that my opinion on the matter will not change anything for anybody in Chaosium. And now again: I'm eager to see KAP 6, I'll just ignore what I dislike and enjoy the rest.

That would be awesome. I agree with so many of Atgxtg's arguments on female knights, but I also accept as a matter of fact that my opinion will not change that part of KAP 6. And KAP6, from the few other details thus far revealed, really seem to be an interesting book to have (I'll just keep on ignoring those odd she-knights at my table). Therefore, let try to focus on other details! And, in that sense, I really hope that the game will give more opportunities for "traditional" Ladies to be played in canonical female roles, but also having more options than just that Industry skill. In this sense, some new Court/Social mechanics would be really welcome, and not just about ladies, but also about knights. And also, maybe, new systems for so many other details of nobles, ladies & knights' lives (Music? Trobadours? Medieval fashion? Chess and other games? Some decent Falconry rules?).

Thanks a lot! Any news about the Book of Castles?? ( Maybe @sirlarkins ??) I've been waiting for that book since forever!!

That kind of things are a problem for me... I guess I'll stick with Sir Elad.

It depends on how many female knights NPC we will see in future books and future GPC. Furthermore, if all options are open, it would be nice if KAP6 would also expand on the bad and messy consequences on having common "fighting dames" in your pseudo-medieval Logres (inheritance, childbirth, inherited glory etc...) like Atgxtg was explaining above.

Off course They Should tell people to play KAP as they like with knights of whatever gender or sexual preferences they like. However, if your read above that she-knights will start now to be common in Salisbury. That's definitively a change about the default approach. While, at least for me, the default should be the old Traditional approach which was in Mallory as well as in all the old chivalric literature (knights are men, with some unique, quite special female warriors). And, more than anything else, if we start seeing important NPCs changing gender in the GPC, that could be a problem for those, like me, who want to remain traditional and maybe also buy the new books.

So, the game will present us options.... But it is clear that the default expectations about female knights is changed. One question about the setting: will this change affect also the new, revised multi-volumes GPC and the NPCs there? All the barons and knights in the GPC are obviously male (as they should traditionally be), will you change that? And, furthermore, will we have for example something like starting PKs been trained by some Old Dame She-Knight instead than good old Sir Elad?

People should be free to play as they like, even with a whole female knights group of warrior dames married to calm gentlemen peacefully tending their manors at home... But the genre is what it is, with its strict genderized Male Knights/Female Ladies paradigm. I just fear that the assumed default will be changed.

Listen...I'm old-style, and I feel that female knights are completely contradicting the genre that this game evokes. I feel that 5th edition did a great work explaining the traditional/non-traditional mode. Warrior women should be exceptional individuals, as they are throughout all European chivalric literature ....but I know many people play KAP with male/female knights at a 50/50 rate. And I have not problem with everybody playing as they like at their tables...as far as female knights / warrior dames do not become taken for granted as common in the core rules. That double knight figure makes me fear that from now onwards the "50 male /50 female " rate will be the default assumption. I just hope to be wrong about it. I would rather prefer the Ladies' options to be expanded.

Need time to properly consider this but the Pre-made PCs now have "arming swords", and we got "aketon" counted separated from "Coat of Plates" and "Great Helm"....that's interesting!!! The new Passion Results seem also to make sense. Thanks! I'm less enthustiastic on the she-knight on page 19 ... By the way, I'm eager to learn and read it properly when the book will be published!!

I have done the same thus far, but I kind of like the way it standardize the Vow and not fulfilling it. Maybe I should have a look at it....thanks!

I bought a pdf copy of Saxons! I know it's an old edition, and I know it is supposed to be mostly for playing Saxons....but I found a couple of very interesting rules, and I was wondering about how (and IF) to incorporate them into my regular KAP games, or whether it is worth to. The first rule is about "lineage" which seems like a great idea for Cymric and Roman knights too (Saxons! p.67-69, 127 and 136). I like the way it gives you some "recognition" of your ancestors, some glory per year and possibility to lose such a connection is some other families claim to have a better link (e.g. you fail the Love Family winter phase roll). However....I'm not sure if this can really be used "as it is" for knights, since the glory they inherit from fathers (especially if one uses Book of Sires) is quite high, which means that they will all get very famous lineages. The second rule that I like is about "Honor (Battle Boast)" (Saxons! p.122-123) which give you Honor bonus to a specific task but, if you do not perform it, you lose honor. The author suggests to use also for other Pagans....but I was wondering whether this can be used also fro Christian knights making solemn vows to perform a certain duty. Does anybody have any experience trying to adapt these rules to knights, preferably compatible with KAP 5?

I found this Homebrw system, maybe I can integrate it into the Estate siege system, just to create some variety and open up to PC's roles in the siege. I've yet to properly work on it and really think about it but, for the moment, I kind of like it. https://chivalry-is-magic.obsidianportal.com/wikis/siege-rules

So, do you integrate Intensity into the months-long siege? Or is Intensity only relevant to the specific assault?

Thank you all for all these suggestions, it looks like I'll have to take inspiration from multiple sources and try to make a system of my own, summarizing different things. I would like to keep the Siege skil, as well as a level of compatibility with Book of Estate/Warlord, etc. In this sense, I've noticed a certain difference about how DV is dealt in different books. The GPC and Estate/Warlord, for example, have totally different DV values. - A Motte & Bailey in the GPC page 16 has DV 5/3 - However, a Motte & Bailey in Estate p.81 has DV 5/11/2 (and the same values can be seen in lists of the Warlord sourcebook). In both systems (GPC and Estate) Assault Gear/Siege Equipment diminish DV....however, after making all subtractions, there's another HUGE difference about how the remaining DV is treated. - In GPC p.17 each point of DV is added to the Siege skill - In Estate p. 79 & 82 each point of DV adds +5 (!!!) to Combat skills and the Siege skill of the defenders. It is obvious that from the GPC to Estate, Greg Stafford changed idea about the strength of castles, and especially about Motte & Bailey which becomes incredibly more effective. Not only Motte & Bailey's DV is so much better, but it gives FIVE times the bonus it used to give before. I feel that, while writing some homebrew stuff of my own, I'll try to be as much consistent as possible with the more recent Estate system, expecially since I use Estate in my games. However, at this point, I'm really curious about what DVscale/system will be used by the next Book of Castle....although I feel that we'll have to wait a lot before discovering it.

I love castles and I love sieges, and Castles under sieges are one of the most dramatic setting to play a great story....but unfortunately KAP rules does not really help in this sense. We've been waiting for Book of Castles for ages (and that's really the book in which I'm most interested in!)....but since this is bound to happen only after KAP 6, I guess that another 1-3 years will pass before we see Book of Castle... In the meanwhile, what Homerules on Sieges do you use? I mean the mechanics in GPC or Estate for Siege are easy.....but far too quick and too simple for my tastes. Does anybody come out with some way to do Siege in a more proper way? Maybe a way to integrate Siege into the Book of Battle rules??? I'm looking for something which have some kind of battle rounds where one can intertwine the story, as we can do now with the battle system, and definitively not a Siege which is resolved with only one roll. Thanks a lot!