Cornelius

On 8/28/2019 at 1:52 PM, Morien said:

Found it. BotW, p. 5: "Note, however, that the maximum Glory gained for any title, including those gained through marriage, is 1000 points. This is the maximum amount of Glory that may be awarded for any single event in King Arthur Pendragon."

I'll just dissent a bit from that. Not that it is that important, since it would only apply for Guinever, but I do think that she would deserve the 1500 Glory for becoming the Queen of the High King, rather than just an 'ordinary' Queen which is already worth 1000.

To be honest it constitutes what you see as the 'event'. I agree with @Morien that the marriages and getting the titles are two separate events, and thus get their own glory. The same goes for a battle. You could even separate the special event (dying heroically while defending your liege) and the rest of the battle.

While some things require to break this rule (becoming high queen or high king for instance) in most cases I would not let it happen as a single event. It is a bit like the lover's solo. You will need to get in the right position etc. Its a string of events that finally culminates into the final reward. So in the end a person will have got much more than a 1000 glory.

19 hours ago, Morien said:

I generally split the attackers evenly and then allow any of the PKs to volunteer to take on two. If no one volunteers, I will either roll randomly or make a determination (usually, the most glorious/famous is the one the opponents try to gang up on).

The advantage of this is that I don't have to think about it, if a PK volunteers, and it gives more control to the Players, also a good thing in my book.

This usually alos the way I do it. But if the situation occurs, I would have them roll battle skill. If the bandits win they can decide how everyone is attacked. If the Pks wish they can both also roll then the highest can decide how the enemies are split between them.

Of course you could also split the different combats: 

So you would have Herringdale vs bandit, Herringdale vs Wulfgar, Grigor vs Wulfgar, and Grigor vs bandit. Herringdale, Grigor, and Wulfgar need to split their attacks. 

As for ganging up upon 1. If it happens and other PKs can assist then some of the gang will split off to keep them busy, while the main of the group keeps their attention to their main goal. But be aware that there are limits in the number of men that can attack. If they were aware the PK has friends they may split up beforehand and have some attack the friends.

As @Morien said. He also answered the question of the difference between homage, fealty and loyalty in this thread:

I was smart enough to download the images before the site went down. Since it was on a site I attached the file here. It was still unfinished.

15 hours ago, Morien said:

What I ended up doing was 'forgetting' that they were supposed to be armored.

That being said... Rereading p. 46, it doesn't mention anything about an encumbrance penalty. So if the 'Leap' is more of an assisted jump, hands on the pommel and maybe even foot on a stirrup, and the DEX roll is more if they manage to do that smoothly, that would be enough for me to waive the penalty.

During combat, I usually ask for Horsemanship rolls: on a crit, you are in the saddle and can act this round, on a success you spend this round getting up, on a failure, you take this round and the next due to the horse being skittish, and on a fumble, the horse rears up and throws you down for extra 1d6 damage, and you start the next round lying down.

I see the Leap as just an oddity. So I do not incur a penalty for armor. But I must admit that using the penalty means that succeeding is really a feat that most knights fail.

As for quick getting on your horse I also normally use the Horsemanship. In book of the Battle 2nd (v1.1) rescue a friend extended melee phase (page 77) it states also that Horsemanship to get on the horse again, but no difference between critical and success: both mean you are on your horse with your friend.

On 8/19/2019 at 8:43 PM, Ringan said:

I've only recently started running a game too.  The traits and passions really set Pendragon apart from other systems.  Be sure to engineer moments where two or more different traits/passions conflict when the character's making a decision.  Bonus points if they are 16+ values, because there's an extra element of compulsion.  Each of these situations will accumulate, year over year, allowing the player to make their character their own.

This is exactly why I like this game so much. Its the drama of the knight.

How to balance his love for his family with the loyalty to his lord. Or what happens when that seductive enchantress tries to take hold of you. To you succumb to her magics or do you stay loyal to your Lady. Do you remain Just or are you merciful to the defeated foe?

I would say, but YPMV:

Armor: No. It would be a breach of hospitality. The lord of the manor is obligated to protect those who are under his roof, so keeping your armor would say that you would not trust him to keep his word and would a be a big insult to his honor.

Sword: It is seen as a symbol of your knighthood. So keeping it would be the standard. Of course suspicious lords may ask you to lay them down, but since it is your duty as a guest to protect the household it could be seen as an insult. Although of course it is the duty of the lord to protect you as a guest. Its not so big an insult as wearing amor.

Other weapons: The axes, hammers and maces carried by knights are weapons of war. Since you are not at war it would be ill manner to carry them in court. Although i would allow someone to carry a family heirloom weapon instead of a sword. 

There is a big difference between 'wartime' and 'non wartime'. 

'wartime' is all those times when a knight needs to be ready for combat. So travelling the country (sometimes filled with enemies) you wear your wargear. Fully armored and armed. So if you are at a castle under siege you will wear your armor at all times, even when the lord is holding court. Or when you are active in a joust or melee during a torunament.

'non wartime' is all those occassions when you are 'save'. Almost all courtly activity are without armor. There are exception of course, but they are exceptions. So even if the court is held outdoors, like in a falcon hunt. You are not  fully armored, although the host may make advice his guests to arm if the country is dangerous due to bandits or something. But then you could ask yourself if a falcon hunt is such a good idea. In this instances it is very bad form to carry weapons of war (like your armor and weapons).

As for hospitality there are two big rules that I use:

1) The host is responsible for the savety of his guests. If harm comes to them it is a stain on their honor. He also decides who are part of the court. So those arriving must ask permssion to enter and those wishing to leave must also ask permission. This last is usually granted, although there are enough incidents where the host puts conditions on it (paying a ransom the most common).

2) As a guest it is your duty to keep the peace. You refrain from violence aginst other guests. As a matter of fact: it is your duty to protect the honor of the host in this regard. So if the court is attacked you must help defend it as long as you are a guest.

Of course you can challenge another knight if you wish. But the fight will either occur with the acceptance of the host (and under his conditions) or after both have left the hospitality of the host.

Although the castle is a strong defence sometimes robber barons also have the backing of other (usually stronger) barons or they are at the edge of a lords land. It could be he is a pawn between bigger guys. It could be a ploy for one lord to keep another one busy. 

In Saxons! there is a sir Jauvre de Malestroit who holds a castle between Saxon and Cymri lands (on the edges of Kent). He raids both sides, but both sides also keep him in his castle because he raids the enemy as well as he is a barrier between both lands.

Also the 'Adventure of the Pitiless Tower' in Saxons! gives a breakdown of his troops and defenses.

On 8/12/2019 at 8:37 PM, Atgxtg said:

Not your fault. There were a few threads on this sort of stuff on the old forums back when KAP5 came out. Lots of experienced Pendragon GMs asked about the various changes and it came out that they were not from Greg but some sort of well intentioned "correction"

I am just glad I did it the right way all this time.  

On 8/13/2019 at 7:54 AM, Morien said:

Yes, it is possible, but it is not the default. Rules for this are in Book of the Entourage, p. 15. It is not unheard of, but it is up to the GM to allow it (a lot would depend on the story, especially who the squire is and how he has been treated so far) and there is a growing chance that the squire will find something else to do. But if it makes sense storywise and the GM allows it, sure. The obvious advantage for the PK is that the squire is more experienced and hence has higher skills. The disadvantage is that it means the PK doesn't have a squire slot free for a new squire, who can be a son of a friend/ally, and hence foster more connections and favors between knights.

Book of the Entourage also does away with Squire Skill = Age. Instead, Squire Skill starts (normally) at 15, and after that improves with a yearly roll of 6 on 1d6 until 20, after which it improves on a roll of 20 on 1d20.

Since a squire is supposed to be a training period I also agree that an older squire is a rarity. 

But this may change when becoming a knight becomes more expensive and is hard to do. Remember that even the great knight William Marshall only became a knight later in live. He did however command armies before that, so the position of knight was more ceremonial at that point.

In my game most squires get a position of power within the household of a family member. Positions like steward/bailiff, reeve, huntsman, etc.So they end their training as squire.

The Book of Knights and Ladies gives ideas for PKs from other regions. It also gives a list of the liege lords that go with it.

On 8/9/2019 at 3:40 PM, Morien said:

Not true in 5.2 (nor 5.1, although it might have been true in 5.0), bolded for emphasis: "The player decides how many points to allocate to each foe. Each Skill attempt is rolled separately, and each attack is treated separately, and each loss for the player-knight means the foe hits him for full damage. Likewise, a player-knight who strikes multiple targets does full damage to each of them."

You read Cornelius' comment wrong, but no matter. See above, in cursive for emphasis.

I stand corrected. I used the 5.0 book indeed. Sorry about the confusion

I see no problem. As you stated the two are far apart enough to have almost no confusion.

On the other hand: Some confusion is not bad. It would only elavate the position of the younger Arthur when people think he did things the elder did.

The shock of the elder Arthur could be devestating when the players think he is to be the real Arthur. You could as a GM state that this was not entirely planned, but you will see how it plays out. When the real Arthur appears they may be jumping on the bandwagon that much sooner.

Page 119 of the rulebook explains the multiple opponent rules. It says: Up to three enemies may attack a single character on foot; only two may attack a single foe if all are mounted.

I read also that you can do only one opponent damage. So even if you win both only one opponent gets the damage. (I never knew that. So it is good to reread the books sometimes.  )

Funny enough in my game the question 'who did it?' was never answered. I assume the PKs thought it was the Saxons and the rumours were clear, but they never thought to find out. So i had never needed to think about this. 

In my game Syagrius never really played a part so would not be my first choice. Seems also a bit grand I think. his revenge seems much more personal against Madoc, and maybe his father.

Merlin could be the one. He may have had a vision on how things will play out in the future and set its course. The whole anarchy phase did set up the people to easily accept a new King. 

Centurion King. An unlikely candidate I think. He did not get any gains from it. I expected him to try and take Lindsey much sooner than in 503. That action seems more of a reaction to the sudden increase of power of Nanteleod. It could be fear of a too powerful Logres of course. But it seems a rather drastic measure and he did not use it against Nanteleod.

Margawse and Lot. That could be, but I am not sure what they would get from it. Its not as if he had the power to step into the gap afterwards. I would have believed it if he gained more power in Logres because of it.  It could be that he feared that King Uther gained to much power and wanted to split up Logres, but I do not know why he did not act against Nanteleod when he came to power. 

I also think that both the Centurion King and King Lot had respect for a strong man and leader. King Uther seemed to be that man, so I would think they respected him. Although I could believe that Margawse (and Elaine to King Nentres) poisoned the king's ear. So I would believe it more if Margawse was behind it than Lot.

Morgan is a bit too young. she has a grudge  against Uther sure enough, but that will play out later as she transfers her hatred to Arthur.

The Butler. Well you will have to think of a reason why he would do such a thing.

It looks nice. I noticed you have given each power its own land. so all the lands of Escavalon are together. But in that case you should divide Logres as well. There is no king and there are some strong lords: Duke Lindsey in the north and Duke Silchester in the south. The map of 495 gives the strongest political parties at that moment, although other powers have shifted the ones in Logres do not. So they are not unified front. In fact in 503 according to the GPC Malahaut and Escavalon fight over the spoils (being Duke Lindsey).

Also Kent and Essex join together to take London.

Not sure if Garloth is part of Lothian. The maps in the GPC say so, and  the text says King Nentres is King Lot's right hand man. But 512 Nentres is present at the battle at the the Bassus river (and killed there) as an ally of Malahaut, but Lot is apparantly not present. He could be there on his liege's orders, but I am not sure.

On 7/23/2019 at 2:57 PM, 7dot62mm said:

I too got mine this morning. The Paladin book's production values are sky-high with gilded pages and even an integral bookmark. Very, very nicely done!

 

 

Too be honest The core rulebook is great book and holds so much information. It has so much: character generation (of course), but also information on foreign cultures, it has history of how it all came to be. It also gives an outline of the future (the rise and fall of Charlemagne). It even has some adventures in it. 

There is only one major drawback: I need to find time to play the system.

19 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said:

Someone else (cannot recall off the top of my head) mentioned a homebrew system with magic as a skill which costs hit points to use.  I dont know all the details, but I thought the idea was brilliant, simple, thematic, and elegant.  You could probably extrapolate from the basic concept.

That was me.

The system was simple:

Each spell is treated as a skill. Certain attack spells (like a magic dart or something) would then be just the same as shooting a bow or throwing a javelin. In the setting we used this method magic was dangerous, so had its drawbacks. One  was that whether you succeed or fail you get some magical backlash (1d6, 2d6, or even 3d6 damage which heals after a good rest) . The damage was determined by the strength of a spell. Other drawbacks was that sometimes a failure did not mean that the spell failed, but acted in some unforseen and usually annoying way. For the healing it was a bit different: You took on the damage of the one you were healing. A good rest healed the damage taken. Luckily you did not get extra damage.

Some magical locations gave you a modifier to your roll. Or the backlash was reduced. The magical strength of the location determined the size of the modifier.

Otherwise treat them as skills, so you can earn checks and use training to increase them. Since we played a group where everyone had a magical ability we did not change the number of skill points that could be added, but you could do that if you wish to mix knights and magic users, so the magic users are not penalized on other skills for being a magic user. (Unless you do not mind that they lack in social skills.

On 7/22/2019 at 11:06 AM, Morien said:

The difference between DEX 16 and DEX 10 is 6 stat points = -1d6 in damage and -3 hitpoints, assuming +3 SIZ and +3 STR. So yeah, the DEX character squire would likely have only 4d6 and skill defaults 8, compared to someone who prioritized DMG with damage of 5d6 and skill defaults of 5. However, the primary weapon skill would likely be 10+ for both, as it would be a priority for both. Where the DEX 16 guy benefits is that he can afford to be a reasonably good at Horsemanship, Lance and Sword right from the start, whereas the DEX 10 guy would be forced to make some choices, as he wouldn't have enough skill points in the beginning to be good at all three. In fact, he would need pretty much all of his points just to reach the default level of the DEX 16 guy.

But isn't that what we want? That there would be some point in making a DEX guy instead of a SIZ guy?

 

Just to put in my 2c:

I use the following houserule: Instead of having a standard shield bonus on a partial success you need to succeed in a DEX roll (not modified) to gain the 6 point defense of a shield. This means that you will need a reasonable DEX score to get the bonus.

On 7/15/2019 at 4:30 PM, Atgxtg said:

I do use ICE's Robin Hood supplement as a resource on locations and adventures for KAP. 

One problem I have with using KAP for Robin Hood is that KAP is entirely geared towards and biased towards Knights who are usually the bad guys in a Robin Hood campaign. Pendragon's combat system is not very kind to unarmored heroes - even less kind that other BRP based games. All it all, it could work, but the system would need to be tweaked somehow to change the bias from chivalric knights to heroic outlaws. If you just ran the game as it, I don't think the PC outlaws would last very long. 

I think to make KAP work for Robin Hood a GM probably  would need to:

• Halve the armor protection (i.e like in RQ/BRP)
• Double the Shield protection (i.e like in RQ/BRP)
• Let parrying weapons soak some damage on a parry/partial success (once again like in RQ/BRP)
• Possibly turn some tasks important to outlaws that are covered under DEX (sneaking, climbing) in KAP into skills  (once again like in RQ/BRP).
• Incorporate some of the ideas for making DEX and APP more important/useful in game. Robin Hood stories tend to be more about stealth, wits, charm and scoial interaction than about combat. 

 

One of the fun parts is that the system makes people try to take more use of stealth, wits, charm and social interaction. Taking on a knight in full armour is suicide. 

On 7/7/2019 at 5:02 AM, Sir Carter said:

Greetings All

New to the game though I played many many years ago. I'm looking forward to starting a new game. I'm think of adding some magical Faerie lore into my adventure. When I think of Pendragon in terms of the other world of Faerie I think of movies such as Legend staring Tom Cruise as I feel it needs to be whimsical dream like and strange. I was wondering what Supplements are best to give me better details and states on the various beings and enteritis of this element of the game. Do any of you guys use the Faerie World in any of your games or campaigns? and in what form do the take? How much of a part does Faerie play? Do you use them as a Helpful influence? A trickster influence? or as an evil force? 

I'm just interested in your views on the use of beings such as Elves and Trolls etc 

 

Thanks

Steve

For me Faeries work different from the sense that they have no morality that defines good or evil as we humans do. So there are fae that destroy things. They can be seen as evil, but not to the other fae. They just are there. I had King Oberon explain it to the PKs as such: Although I would like to help destroying the Dark Hart (the nemesis of the PKs and an evil fae). This is not my power. You see I am the right hand and the Dark hart is the left hand. While his power is destruction, mine is creation. In other words I cannot destroy.

For me the Seelie court are the fae that stand for summer, growth and life, while the Unseelie court are of winter, death and destruction. But the distinction is mostly a human one. For the fae such distinctions are strange. So a nice and benevolent fae may suddenly turn into a raving monsters killing everything in his path. An example is a redcap that the players had to deal with. It helped them out several times, but also left a trail of bodies to lead one of the PKs into trouble with Arawn, the King of Winter.

In the end dealing with the Fae is dangerous and weird. For they place value on odd things. 

On 7/10/2019 at 12:20 PM, Sir Carter said:

Greetings and well met.

Just wondering how many of you use Miniatures in your games. I gather its really a storytelling game, but I've been gaming since the 70s and beyond (Yes I'm Old) and miniatures play a big part in my games if only for visual representation. I was lucky enough to find almost the complete range of Thunderbolt Mountain Arthurian miniatures 28mm on eBay a bit pricey but so nice I'm looking to collect more. And use the Ral Patha ranges to add further characters and monsters etc.

So I became curious if any others out there used miniatures. I believe there was a dedicated range produced for Pendragon back in the early 1st Edition days.

Of which I discovered I still own the Arthurian Companion by Karr which has somehow survived the last 30 years in my shed and now rescued and back on my Bookshelves  

Funny enough I never used minitiature for a KAP game. Even thou I sometimes use them for other games systems. I think this has to do with the more individual combat of a knight. Each knight fighting his own foe. There is less ganging up on one target. In such an instance relative distances between combatants are not needed. 

Another reason  is that it is less of a turn based game than other systems. You alrerady declared wwho you will attack and there is no option to switch opponents in a single combat round. So it will probably be unclear who killed the opponent as both strike hin at the same time.

22 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

To be exact, do not use passions as an easy way to turn your knight into a super sayan.

Use traits in a way dont enhance roleplaying. In normal circonstances (non-magical or exceptionnal), your player choose his actions and get a check. Never forget checks. But you don't have to roll generous to offer a marvelous gift to your friend (except selfish 16 or a magical compulsion). You don't have to roll chaste to refuse the advance of a lusty wench (except luxurious 16). etc.

As mentioned by others. Traits and Passions are the core of the system imho. It creates the drama of the questing knight. When he has to balance his love for his lady with his loyalty for his lord. Or when his valor fails him when confronted with the giant threatening his home.

They are also the anchor for a novice player. Knowing your character is honest will help you in defining the character and play it out. 

Both supplements are in the same timeframe as Pendragon. You could use Saxons! to play out the King Arthur legend only witnessed from the other side.

Aside from the issue with Saxons! as mentioned by @Morien you can use them in conjunction with the other books.

I use the Saxons! book as a sourcebook for my GPC. Especially when they are going to those locations. Saxons! has information of the Saxon Coast. I do the same with other books like Savage Mountains (Cambria) or Perilous Forest (West Cumbria). The books have some more indepth maps of the area and a description of the various kingdoms and fiefs.

By the way: If you need more background. The Book of Sires gives a good overview of these areas up to 480.

On 6/30/2019 at 3:47 AM, Wolfpack Six said:

This is tangential, but the idea of having a magic system where individual spells are used as skills is pretty clever.  How did you limit amount of uses per spell?

Spells costs hitpoints to cast. The cost depended on the spell cast (usually either 1d6, 2d6, or 3d6 damage). Strong spells had a higher cost. But this could be mitigated a bit by making artefacts in advance (you could pay the cost in advance and then cast the spell at the apropriate time. Also the location you cast a spell (crossings of leylines and magical hotspots made it easier and had a less cost to it).

But also a spell usually had a downside. And failing the spell could have dire consequences. Thus not only fumbles were dangerous, also failing could be dangerous. 

For instance my character had a healing spell. It worked as follows: You could heal up to your skill in hitpoints on someone, but must take the damage yourself. You can heal this after a good night sleep, instead of weeks. This could mean that I healed the fighter, and went unconscious as a result, but after a night sleep I was whole again. 

Most of the time if you failed the spell worked a bit too well. We had someone with a fire power, but he had set the camp in a conflageration several times due to a failed skill test. This was funny for the players, but less so for the characters.