Luca Cherstich

OK.

Off course it depends on personal tastes but the point is that "How much" Roman we want Romans to be in the civitates of Britannia.

And, furthermore, even the concept of "Roman" is here very abstract, unreal and simplified compared to the reality of what we call "Romanization" (a complicated issue...better to be ignored in the fantasy KAP world).

I feel that I'll keep the "Nobilis" as a generic "Romanized/Noble" eques-style ideal (including some generic Stoic elements, but without full religious approach which seems odd for the 5th/6th cent. AD). The Nobilis ideal can be added to basic religious belief (either Roman Christian or Roman Stoic or Roman Pagan if exists) but not to real RELIGIOUS (+100 Glory) vbonus (a part, maybe from Roman Christian).

At the end of the day, it's all part of the "Old World" which should be almost dead or in its twilight during the age of Uther, mostly surviving in the few Roman civitates.

Possibly in Arthur's times most of these Roman ideals or philosophies just disappear or fade away, and chivalric ideals triumph.

However, if we want to turn "Roman Stoic" to a full religion we need to set the basic parameters of traits for character creation....what about the following?

Chaste 12/10 Lustful

Energetic 10/10 Lazy

 Forgiving 10/10 Vengeful

Generous 10/10 Selfish

Honest 12/8 Deceitful

Just 12/8 Arbitrary

Merciful 10/10 Cruel

Modest 10/10 Proud

Spiritual 8/12 Wordly

Prudent 12 / 10 Reckless

Temperate 13 / 7 Indulgent

Trusting 10 /10  Suspicious

Valorous 15/5 Cowardly 

20 minutes ago, Morien said:

I am thinking that it would work better as Stoicism (Religion). That way, you can balance it against other religions, rather than against the overpowered Chivalric.

Maybe something like:

Required Traits (at 16+): Valorous, Temperate, Just, Honest, and Prudent

Bonus: +3 Major Wound Threshold

That gives Stoicism Two overlapping traits with Chivalric, same as Roman Christianity.

Do not know if it's too much but i'm kind of thinkinf about having Nobilis AND stoicism....

Most  Roman equites in Britannia should be Roman Christian but a few are real stoic...

I'm also thinking about getting rid of the "new directed Trait: Trusting (Romans) + 3", so that it is less clunky...

At the end of the day I feel that (at least for the moment) I'll keep the same rules, just trying to be more rigid in subtracting trait points in case of no proper "chivalric" behaviour.

Furthermore, we also try to keep (at least for the Uther period) to keep the Pugnacious and Nobilis alternatives, although I guess I have to re-adapt the "Nobilis".

I was thinking about other passion-limiting things (like reducind chances of become disheartened or maddened) but, at the end, I just decided leave the to get rid of the whole passions-issue and keep things easy (passions are a too important element in the KAP system for being completely avoided).

This is my second attempt at a "Nobilis" ideal.

I have also somehow changed some traits (taken Energetic and added Suspicious) to reflect traits more typical of Romans in the BoK&L and also to further differentiate from Chivalric and Pugnacious.

NOBILIS (V. 2.0)

This Knight/Eques follows the old, civilized ways and precepts of Nobilitas and Romanitas which are even more ancient than the coming of Christianity.

A Nobilis is, by its own nature, well educated, and interested to know about the great Romans of antiquity. In this debased age the only examples of ancient virtue can be seen in ancient literature, therefore a Nobilis is always eager to learn more about them.

The Nobilis is rational and knows how to behave like a proper, virtuous noble CIVES/ citizen, worthy of his own self-respect.

A Nobilis knows that fantasies and faerie stories are real in this world influenced by Barbaric ways and traditions (whether they are Cymric or Germanic). However, the "Nobilis" knows that only a civilized, urban and "roman" way can make a society to prosper, therefore he tends to keep his thoughts more linked to the needs of the civil society, rather than to old fantasies and tales.

The mind of a Nobilis is also partly influenced by ancient Stoic philosophy, at least in general terms, if not with proper education regarding the old authors. A Nobilis knows how to endure pain and difficulties, as he knows that a strong mind and proper virtue can overcome anything.

The Nobilis does not lie, since he does not need to to offend his own self-respect, he is valorous and knows how to be civilized. A Nobilis is never reckeless but he is always aware that evil and danger may happen, therefore what other see as a tendency for suspicion, is just an attitude to prudency, raised to its extreme. The barbarians and uncivilized can never be properly trusted, even if they are friends and allies.

A Nobilis knows that a rational mind can overcome any difficulty, and he is ready to perform his duty, whatever happens.

On 4/4/2020 at 9:39 AM, Morien said:

For instance, I don't really use the rules for the relief: the tax you are supposed to pay when you inherit your holding, equal to the annual income of the holding. I am having hard time figuring out where the average NPC knight gets that money, especially with the 2:1 transfer rate of render to treasure, and the need to find dowries for the younger daughters, etc. I mean, assuming he lives for 20+ years, you can just about make it, by saving all of your DF, but this is somewhat counter to the implied intent that DF is mostly spent as it comes. Many PKs generally manage it, though, being much more active in adventuring and in battles, gaining loot, but the same is not usually true to the NPCs. Especially as many of them would die young in battles, too. Anyway, since I didn't bring up the relief at the beginning of the campaign, I am not about to introduce it more than half-way in.

Since you have been speaking of relief ...

If I well understood Book of Warlord p. 29, if you want to inherit you must pay TWO different taxes, one added to the other:

- "Primer Seisin" = one year of Income 

- "Relief" = £10 for common manors or, for estate holders, £5 per supported knight in the Servititium Debitum.

It sounds like a LOT of money! What happens if one does not pay?

I mean: I know that you do not use it but, if I do want to use it, what happens?

Will the Sheriff just take your holdings until you manage to get the money for the King?

And, furthermore, are these taxes also for ALL vassals (whether you are a vassal of Count Roderick or a direct Vassal of the King), right?

2 hours ago, Morien said:

Well, "other people" include Greg Stafford himself, who said that it was NEVER his intent to set it to 80, but that this was a typo since there are five religious traits (so to make it roughly equivalent, 5*16 = 80), but SIX chivalric traits (so it ought to be 6*16 = 96). At 80, the Chivalric is just so easy to achieve, rather than representing a pinnacle of heroism. Heck, we had starting characters* who had 80+ in Chivalric Traits! (Same criticism on your Nobilis idea.)

And I should have noticed this before!

Unfortunately the Core Rules (and the PK sheet on roll 20, as well as the official Chaosium KAP sheet) are all set with that 80 threshold!

We are already 4 years deep into the campaign and one knight has been getting that +100 every year ....

Now I have 3 options 

1) I tell the "Chivalric" player he is no more Chivalric and take 400 glory from him for the past 4 years .... it's not good, but it should be fair for the other PK

2) I introduce other options (like Pugnacious or Nobilis....which needs to be fixed, or other if any of you have other house rules) in order to give other options to other PK

3) ignore the situation....but the Chivalric PK will raise SO MUCH in Glory compared to others...

I'm frankly in doubt about what is fair to do.....any suggestion?

Well, I do not know, i'm just trying to create somebody clinging to old Roman ideals which are bound to disappear in the future, especially in a world like Pendragon as the gpc is going on.

That "Nobilis" is just an attempt, which can and should be changed and improved.

What about something like this???

NOBILIS

This Knight/Eques follows the ancient precepts of Roman nobilitas which are even more ancient than the coming of Christianity. The Eques is well-educated, rational, knows how to control its own passions, in order to behave like a proper, virtuous noble, worthy of his own self-respect.  He does not believe fantasies and faerie stories, as they are the products of weaker, barbaric minds. This ideals include some old, civilized ideals of the Roman elites, intermixed with precepts of the ancient Stoic philosophers. This eques does not lie, since he does not need to to offend his own self-respect, he is valorous and know how to be civilized. He knows that a rational mind can overcome any difficulty, and he is ready to perform his duty, whatever happens.

Requirements:

-          80 + in Valorous, Temperate, Prudent, Wordly, Energetic, Honest

-          No passion at 16+ except what follows

-          Honor and ONE Loyalty/HOmage (city or lord) must be 16+.

-          Read (Latin) at 8+

Bonus:

-          +100 annual Glory

-          +3 Major Wound Threshold  

I got a problem with Chivalric: the +100 Glory annual award is making one PK advancing way too quicket than the others.

I know that he must keep the ideals, behave....etc....he does all of that.

I allowed to use it in Uther period since tthe book 5.2 says that it works in "all periods" and that bloody "80+" writing was on all PC sheets.

However, I realized that it is relatively easy to get it (80 pts) (and I've read how other people have also complained about it in the past and that it should be set at 96....but, by a matter of fact, the book says "80" and the book says "it works in all periods" (even if it is written in the "future" chapter).

I like the solution of adding a "Pugnacious" ideal typical of Uther times, and I guess I'll start using it next time.

I was just wondering: did anybody ever create ideals OTHER than Chivalric and Pugnacious?

Speaking of Uther times: I was thinking about something for Stoic Roman Equites still clinging on old Roman ideas (and maybe trying to limiting passions) ... but I'm still thinking about it.

So the question is: do we have other homebrew ideals, created by anybody? 

OK, from @Morien and @Atgxtg comments I got that there is a possibility of splitting lance without "skewering", maybe for defending, maybe because these enemies are spread all over the area.

However, if I allow this skill splitting, what about the +5 Lance Change modifier?

I feel that it should be added only to the first enemy that you charge, and not the second, but maybe this is just me. 

19 minutes ago, fulk said:

I do like the 1/2 dex as a default weapon skill, although I might make it something like 1/2Dex +3, just to give a little bump.  That would give your average knight a default of 8-9 on most weapon skills and gives the DEX 18 knight an advantage (WS12).

What about all those basic weapon skills which in the Core Rules (or in BoK&L's lists of many cultures) are lower?

For example Cymric knights start with Dagger 5 and other cultures start with weapon skill with all different values (e.g. Irish knights with Spear 5 or Picts with Spear 7, etc..) are you suggesting to start ALL of them from something Dex-derived?

So, basically ignoring most of the basic weapon skill values in either BoK&L and Core Rules?

OK, another related question, but I guess the answer is obvious ...

Lance-Charge vs two enemies.

Rules do not say explicilty but I forbid to split the skill with Lance Charge: you either charge one enemy or the other one (a "Skewer-like" lance impaling seems ridicolous...).

If it was not a Lance-Charge but just mounted Spear/Spear  Expertise vs 2 enemies I would allow skill-splitting.

Am I doing it wrong?

2 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

Tai is the best. Then Con. Then For. Then Dex. Then App. Don't tell your players

I know...but we have been exploiting Book of Feasts and somebody has been seated in wrong positions and lost some Honour because of failing APP rolls!

I've been reading KAP for long time but, compared to you all, I'm just a newbie, since I've started playing it seriously only recently.

However...why are you saying that DEX is a useless stat which needs to be powered?

Dex is used for avoiding knockdown in combat and for many, many actions...am I misunderstanding anything?

1 hour ago, Morien said:

Does it modify your skill, regardless who or how many you are fighting with? In that case, apply it BEFORE splitting. Passion & Magic Weapon bonuses would go here. Fatigue should go here, if it is a simple -5 to your skill: you are fatigued, no matter who you are attacking.

Does it depend on who you are attacking, their weapon or position or actions? If so, apply it AFTER splitting. Lance vs. Non-lance, Mounted vs. unmounted, etc, would go here. Most reflexive modifiers should go here. Cover goes here, since the attacker's skill is not reduced if they are not attacking someone who is in cover. Yes, this does mean that it is a stupid idea to split your skill to attack two people in cover.

OK. seems somehow clear, although still dependant on a GM's ad-hoc choice ... but I guess we still need a list or table with ALL the modifiers (as I did in Post no.1 but with correct values).

Core Rules are a mess in this case!

Yesterday I just realized that unencumbered knights without leather/metal armors have +5 on combat skill (KAP 5.2. p.119)...which I’ve never used. So I guess that a knight with just a gambeson/subarmalis/underjerkin (= padded armor) will get it!

By the way, this is another of those many Combat Bonuses which give me problems understanding when facing multiple opponents. The 5.2 Core Rules are definitively almost never clear to explain when theses modifiers must be added (except for Mounted vs unmounted, as explained on KAP 5.2 p.143).

Adding these modifiers before or after splitting the Combat Skill is, off course, a HUGE difference!

I’ve checked these forums and those in the archives, and I got some ideas and seen various opinions on the matter.

And I also understood that there’s a difference between “Situation” modifiers (to be applied AFTER) and “Tactic” modifiers (to be applied BEFORE).

And, regarding Passions, I have always played applying them before.

Given these premises, can you please comment if the following is right or not?

Passions: Critically Inspired/Inspired/Disheartened: +10/+20/-5 (all to be applied BEFORE)

“Tactic Modifiers” as per KAP 5.2, p.144-145 (all to be applied BEFORE)

-          Uncontrolled Attack +10

-          Defense +10

“Situation Modifiers” as per KAP 5.2, p.140-141 (all to be applied AFTER)

-          Unencumbered, no leather/metal armor, +5;

-          Height bonus or mounted vs unmounted +5/-5;

-          Cover modifier -5 to attacker’s roll;

-          Fatigue modifier -5;

-          Fatigue modifier -10/+10;

-          Surprise modifier +5 to attacker and unopposed;

-          Visibility -10 or -5.

MY DOUBTS (and questions!):

-          Combined Actions +5/-5 (KAP 5.2, p.140)? I suspect it is AFTER

-          Charging Lance bonus vs non-lance/non-great spear wielders +5 (KAP 5.2, p.145), I suspect it is AFTER, although I guess this is PONTLESS (how can you lance-charge 2 opponents? Impaling two people in a row???)

-          Evasion tactic (KAP 5.2 p.144) should be a combined action (+5/-5) but since it includes Dodging (KAP 5.2 p.141) the DEX stats is not divided among multiple opponents, what about Horsemanship? Furthermore, I noticed that there is a contradiction between Evasion on p. 145 (saying that this cannot be done vs multiple opponents or at least one should divide the value) and p.141 (Dodging, where it can be applied to multiple opponents without dividing Dex).

-          Regarding the Unencumbered +5 modifier: it applies to Padded Armour, right? But not to leather I guess.

MY DOUBTS on possible consequences for Book of Battle:

Book of Battle 2nd edition  p.39: Charge modifiers. I know these bonuses are are bit odd in non-battle contexts …

- What about Lance charge? I guess in Battle you can apply to more than one opponent, so I guess it's AFTER, right?

- what about the Infantry vs Infantry +5/-5 Charge? Shall I say AFTER? (I guess this does not apply to normal combat, since it should be a combined action -5/+5 with Opposite modifiers!).

I just went again through the books (KAP 5.2, Estate, Warlord & Uther) and tried to make sense of some terms, giving precedence to some book over others.
Please, tell me if this is wrong or not!

Holdings (value in CR)

Manor: most manors are about £10. Some are richer, but up to £29. 

Estate: £ 30- £ 150, although £50 and £ 100 seem to be common values.

Honour: At least £150??? Many are between £200 and £500.

Titles

Household Knight: no holdings, he sleeps in the hall of his lord

Vassal Knight = He holds usually 1 single £10 manor or, in any case, not an Estate

Estate Holder = He holds an estate (at least £30)

Vavasour = Whoever holds lands from a Baron (either as a Vassal Knight or as an Estate Holder, which depends on the holding' size ).

Knight Banneret = Whoever holds lands from the King except Barons (either as a Vassal Knight or as an Estate Holder, which depends on the holding' size, although the King usually gives at least Estate-level holdings )

Baron = Whoever holds lands from the King AND has an honour-level Holding (£150?)

Glory Awards (as per Warlord p.6)

Vassal Knight 200

Estate Holder 200

Baron 200

QUESTIONS:

1)Bannerets are now Estate Holder which are direct vassals of the King ....which means that large Estate Holder serving Earl Roderick (as Sir Hywell in KAP 5.2 p.71) are not Bannerets anymore, but just Vavasours, even if rich ones? Right?

2) If anybody gets a quick promotion, he may get multiple glory bonus (for example being promoted directly from Household Knight to Estate Holder will give 200 for Vassal Knight + 200 per Estate Holder). Right?

OK, I got it.

Everybody has its own approach to this and there's not a single, one solution to solve it.

Regarding the starting all weapon skills at "10": It seems like a good solution and very easy fix, but it seems somehow to conflict with base values of in BoK&L.

If I create, for example, an Irish Knight from Estregales or a Pict one from Jagent or a Saxon from Berroc, why the "Other weapons" should start at "10" , when most of the "normal weapons skills" are set much lower?

Looking just at Uther Period (but at later periods is almost the same, with only minor changes).

Cymric: Dagger 5

Irish: Dagger 3, Spear 5, Lance 5

Pict: Sword 8, Lance 1, Spear 7, Great Spear 8, Dagger 1, Javelin 4, Great Axe 6

Roman: Spear 2, Dagger 5

Saxon: Sword 2, Lance 2, Spear 2, Dagger 1

Aquitanian: Spear 2

It's about weapons for which a PK does not have a skill value.

I do not want to over-change the basic rules in KAP 5.2, but this is cleary a "void" in the rules.

OK, I know it: this has been asked and discussed repeatedly in the history of KAP and everybody has his own house rules about it....therefore, sorry if I bother resurecting something which has been so often discussed.

Before posting this thread, I went through all this forums and the whole Nocturnal Media Forum archives and found so many suggestions, homebrew options, etc.

I'm frankly lost among the so many, possible options.

Therefore, I write this post, since I'm just trying to understand the possible consequences of any choice that I make.

My premises:

- I want to keep on using basic KAP 5.2 rules, so that the stats of existing PCs are not changed.

- I also want to keep the basic skill values of the different cultures in BK&L (on the assumption that they are "somehow" balanced ... at least in theory).

- I'm sceptic about using "default" values for weapon skills (since if based on a skill they favour one-skill over-specialization or, if based upon a stat, they may give too high basic values compared to basic stats).

- I like the Weapon Groups kinds of skills...but not for KAP, since it may mean to change the stats of all PKs.

Consequently, I'm thinking about doing the following:

1)  Make all the PCs to roll some dice for the weapon skill that they do not have (2d6 for melee, 1d6 for ranged) = the results will be their basic value

2) In alternative make the above-suggested rolls during the character creation of all the future  PKs for ALL weapon skills (including Sword, Spear Expertise & Dagger or whatever is given for the specific culture) and, if results are lower than "normal" basic values given for the specific culture, I'll keep the basic values (I know: everybody will be more skillfull with daggers!).

3) I've seen quite often the suggestion of allowing weapon skill to cost 1/2 cost until they get to "10"....what are the advantages of this system?

Thank you  in advance!

6 minutes ago, creativehum said:

OneNote supports Tags.

OK! I confess my ignorance

Update on KANKA!

They are great people, as I've sent them a private message by Facebook and and they have replied immediately!

It looks like Kanka has not yet the feature that I want (the chronology which updates the ages of ALL the NPCS), since the "calendar" option, for the moment, is not linked with characters' ages.

HOWEVER, they say that this is one of the next fixes they will do later this year.

In the meanwhile, they gave me 2 solutions:

- I can create my own API (I do not know if I can manage doing that, but I'll maybe try!)

- They told me that by THIS WEEK they will add an option for Bulk Editing NPCS which include also ALL the AGES of ALL the NPCs. In a few words: after each winter phase, I just need to go there, select all the NPCs and add "+1" to the Ages' entry.

It may work!

@creativehum

OneNote seems simple and fine and possibly worth my time (especially since it seems to be way safer to trust than other platforms), although maybe it requires more time to build the whole thing and it is less dynamic, lacking tags and similar things....however, I'm frankly also considering it.

@BioKeith @Atgxtg

I've been going through Kanka and it really seems nice, and I'm tempted to really commit my time to it.

However, I've just noticed one possible issue...and I'm asking you, since you seem definitively expert about Kanka.

Do we have any way in Kanka to establish a chronology/rolling years kind of feature?

I'm asking it since I've noticed that "age" in Kanka's characters is a free text field....which means that after EVERY WINTER PHASE I should manually update ALL the years to ALL the NPCs.

This may frankly become a nightmare!

I'm approaching a Campaign Manager to fix this kind of things, so maybe an automatic "update Age" for all the NPCs is fundamental to me, especially regarding the always-enlarging PCs families.

Maybe I can leave the "age" entry blank, but it sound a bit dumb.

Any suggestion?

@kilgs

Does World Anvil has this feature?

Does it have a chronology which automatically update all NPCs' ages as I change the current year?

I understand that many people in the world play D&D and do not care about these issues, but I would be really surprised If no campaign manager has anything like that, given how many good RPGs have a "passing-years/offtime" mechanics (e.g. KAP, One Ring, Paladin, RQ Glorantha) or just an offtime mechanics which can be used for passing years (e.g. carousing in Conan 2d20). 

@BioKeith @Atgxtg

Kanka seems interesting...I was thinking about a wiki in Obisidian Portal terms, but Kanka sounds smarter.

I just have a few things that I've not got:

- Can characters have 2 images (portrait + heraldry)?

- I still have not found where's the place to inserta a single map and to be linked with all the places ...

- Is everything that I put on Kanka private, right? Only people which I give permissions to can see and read my stuff, right? 

On 3/12/2020 at 11:04 AM, Tizun Thane said:

If they don't know, they roll one passion against the other

I was just thiking...what happens if rolling passions in this "trait-like" way?

Do you treat them like trait or do you consider results as Success:Inspired VS Failure:Disheartened?

And, if so, one can become Disheartened by a failure + Inspired by a Success in the opposite passion, or inspired by both....isn't it a mess?

Maybe I would just use them as conflict traits, with not consequences on Inspiration/Disaheartening

@Username

ABOUT MAPS:

Thanks a lot for the maps! I'll definitively reference you if I use them.

I always have many doubts about what one can put online or not, whether there's some copyright break or not.

I guess a private-kind of wiki (accessed only by GM+players) should not have these problems but again, I confess my ignorance and I'm asking before doing anything wrong.

ABOUT WIKI:

I'm still in a phase where I enjoy doing my Wiki....but I understand what you say, and that it may become a choir, especially after a few years in the GPC.

And I also understand that players need to memorize NPCs and things...however I would like to have a very light kind of wiki. Something where each page has a few lines on the NPC + Heraldry/Portrait, just to give the visual sense of things to my players.

We are playing online in these "COVID days", so maybe for the moment I can try with the wiki, but possibly sooner or later I'll do as you said.