Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


  • RPG Biography
    Pendragon, D&D, M&M, GURPS, Classic Traveller, Shadowrun, Marvel Superheroes RPG a bunch more
  • Current games
    Pendragon, Marvel Superheroes RPG, and D&D 5E
  • Location
    Southern Ohio
  • Blurb
    I work as a planner in southern Ohio and make maps for work. Thanks to that, I now make maps for Pendragon!

Recent Profile Visitors

581 profile views

Username's Achievements


Participant (2/4)



  1. I used the same weight that was mentioned earlier in the thread. And based everything off of an equivalent division of the weight. It seemed to be a reasonable dimension for the dimensions mentioned (man-sized.) But, you're right. It should be factored as a volume based on the weight of the bronze in the bell. And the silver/gold price is probably better as a surface area calculation as well. As to the cost of the bronze I based it off of the cost of brass as I said since there's commercial price lists for brass pots. It's from the price list here which is a good reference, I think. http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/120D/Money.html As to the feasibility of the bell, it's not feasible. I thought we were idly speculating as to the weight of an obviously comical scene where Vikings were taken out by a bell obscenely large. Bells of this size are only find in the Asia were they are hung and hit or in Russia where they are mounted with a knocker. Most of western Europe would have used much smaller swinging bells which would only be a fraction of the size.
  2. I'd have to think it would be more or less casted as solid bronze then decorated with gold and silver during cooling. Which seems to be a relatively common 5ft x 5.5ft would be reasonable dimension for it, it seems. Which, should be roughly 100000 pounds, according to the numbers for the Tzar Bell, it would probably have about 400 pounds of decorated gold and silver. So, 400£ + the cost of the bronze. A brass cooking pot (bronze would be probably slightly less expensive then this, but I didn't have any good weights there) was worth 2 schillings in 1349. Assuming a relatively equal ratio between British Pound and a Pendragon Libra, then a Libra would be 20 schillings. I would guess the cooking pot would be 4-6 pounds, but we'll go on the low side to be safe. Based of this, you're looking at the bronze cost being roughly 25000 cooking pots (haha) or 1250 Libra Estimated total 1250 + 400 = 1650 Libra. Assuming the succeeded the first time or were able to recover their failure with no material loss. Probably very unlikely to succeed on the first try considering the state of metallurgy. Though it would definitely be possible to do.
  3. Didnt they decrease damage for many animals in KAP5? In Lordly Domains, the one with the appendix of different animals and sizes, most of them were significantly more dangerous than they are now especially the auroch. Anyways, I'm not too concerned if a bear should be a danger to a knight in armor. Honestly, a boar is probably a little too dangerous if you're wearing armor. You shouldn't be in danger fighting a bear in armor. But, it should be dangerous to face a bear in hunting leathers and with a spear. Currently though, even a 21yr rookie hunter with a 15 Spear has little reason to be afraid of a bear. Assuming a 14 SIZ, a 15 Horse skill, there's almost no concern, barring a critical, that you'll be knocked of your horse. Further, a greater skill and higher damage at a time means the knight, in his hunting clothes, will likely still out do the bear in damage. In reality though, I would say that kind of skill matchup should heavily favor the bear. That's why you'd have 2-3 men with you. Going 1v1 with a Bear should be an accomplishment for a veteran hunter, like going against a Boar is. Currently though, less intimidating than a Red Deer. Which, I guess I know of a Deer killing an emperor and can't think of a Bear doing the same, so maybe it's accurate?
  4. I find the 3d6 damage is low even with only the heavy garments as protection. I do like the Mail, but with a 13 skill, and such low damage, the bear is relatively lackluster. I think a better Bear would be 18 skill (same as Boar, or Bull Trample) then a Maul with 4d6 (1/2 of the real damage). That would be lower damage overall and help make a Bear one of the more intimidating natural beasts, which it is apparently supposed to be considering it has no modifier to Valorous. In addition, I go back and forth between giving the horseback bonus against the bear. What do you all do? I'm kind of inclined to say no horseback bonus since it's so large, but it has no weapon, so there probably should be a horseback bonus because of that and being only size 25. However, RAW the Bear would only have an 8 combat skill that way.
  5. @Morien I agree totally. X5 is about what I do. That way if you go on a hunt and a whole chase and you kill a bear at least everyone gets 12 Glory out of it. And if you do it by yourself, it should be worth more than a wimpy peasant. Which it isn't currently. At that point, then I'd consider reducing the cost for killing a bear with a bow. @Atgxtg Bears are wimpy. This has always struck me as odd considering boars and bulls are these brutal mankillers. Which, considering everything, isn't that unusual, but at least a bear should be able to hurt somebody. They're like glorified wolves. Which, actually, in my opinion are more dangerous because they usually are in multiples. Bears are barely more dangerous than a hart.
  6. I'm not sure I'd reduce the glory for animals on a hunt killed by ranged weapons. Morien is right, of course, according to the rules, but the glory for the natural beasts are already so small it seems pointless. I personally don't do reduce the glory to 10% unless the player does it against a higher value target. A bear gives 10 Glory so it hardly seems appropriate to act in a historically knightly mannner and still be given 0 Glory for the act especially since it's a hunt and not something truly glorious like a mythical beast or knight. I would possibly consider it because this is a quest, but not for the game itself. I already feel like the incentives to hunt are a plenty sparse glory-wise. I usually give out the whole number to each member of the party (5-15 Glory) I do like having some jerk sneer at them and giving an opportunity to make checks, but I would set it up as if some respected older knight gives the advice and then some upstart knight scoff at the lack of Glory from the act and the rest of the knights present just let it go.
  7. Well, on this subject, I'd like to see the Book of the Entourage get a print on demand option too if possible.
  8. I agree with @jeffjerwin here. It definitely fits well into the later periods to run around with a crossbow since their supposed to be the equivalent of the Renaissance. I'd even go a step further and say that the use of bows for certain hunting activities would be used in the earlier period. I'm thinking for the hunt of Harts and other members of the deer family. As to what to do with the knights non-existent ranged weapon skills, I've always let them roll 2d6. Or, I would let them default to 1/2 their DEX. For the hunt as squires though, their definitely supposed to take it on with spears and armor. This is more of a quest then anything. A bear can be a very dangerous opponent to an unarmored knight, let alone a squire. I really like and use the old hunting rules from the Lordly Domains book. It's got a good set of stat blocks in the back for animals, the falconing rules are enjoyable and more interesting, and there's some good details on hunting too. You can get it on drivethrurpg.com for $8.
  9. Totally agree. We roll up the traits with 3d6 which is, I think, the best way to do it. You always get really interesting characters that way. I like passing on Passions (Not all of them of course. Love for example doesn't get passed on), but with a random flair. I usually let the players choose too if a passion is passed on. Personally, I'd be hesitant to even give a bonus or anything to skills since those can get quite out of hand fast.
  10. I turn the passions into a number of D6s plus modifier to come in close but maybe a little under the father's. Example, 15 is 3d6+4, but 12 is 3d6+1. 16 is 4d6+1. For traits, we give some points pre-squiring and let them shape the children's traits towards the old characters notable traits. Usually just a few points. With religious traits, they're more than similar enough. I think Paladin has a mechanic for inheriting some skills. Someone else would know better. I haven't looked at my version in a few months.
  11. I'd start in 506. I think the Anarchy is really important for prepping the ground for Arthur and not making him into some sort of Mary Sue. It's going to be rough, but if you're thinking of doing 30 years of Pendragon, I'm sure you've got a good group who can handle dystopia.
  12. Morien really knows his stuff here, so I doubt it was released in English. For what it's worth, I haven't heard of it either.
  13. Thirded(?) If that matters. I had always presumed that even if Lot took over young that he had inherited a strong Lothian that was in a dominant if not the dominant position in the North.
  14. The gamemaster character document lists Lot as born in 467. Which seems fine to me. He clearly inherited his lands to some extent and expanded them himself. Which I think is where his comment about a beardless boy comes from. Not so much that Arthur is young, but that he's young and inexperienced and of an unknown birth unlike Lot himself who clearly wants the position. Or it could be a clear case of hypocrisy of age. A pretty common thing for people. I agree with Morien on the other Kings though. Make sure to introduce Uriens when you're there. That way he doesn't come across as such an unknown.
  15. I usually have them roll a courtly skill and roleplay off it and if they do particularly well there may be glory involved. Then we have a few interactions with the host and we're done.
  • Create New...