Tizun Thane

6 £ for a normal upkeep, including close family (wife and children) 9 £ for a rich upkeep 12 £ and beyond If you want to keep it simple, don't bother with harvest at all. Actually, the rules included in Book of Estate are very simple.

Thank you! It's a great list ^^ My quibbles: Baudwin is mentionned as well in the adventure of the Castle of Joy. He is a bishop and a knight. I think he retire as an hermit. Bagdemagus did not die in 536. He died during the Grail Quest Boso is count of Rydychan. Tor (in Malory, and therefore in the GPC) is the son of Ares, and the bastard son of Pellinore

RAW, yes. As a houserule, I always "forget" to apply the -10 to the leap

The best adventure is probably in Saxons! when the wife of a character is kidnapped by a robber baron. It contains good NPC. Otherwise, in the Dragons of Britain #1, there is robber knights in his castle. His "lord of pain" nickname strikes me as a really evil dude. I would make him a fiend. Maybe this lord of pain wants to marry the heiress to enforce his claim. Maybe she is in a nunnery or something...

Ulfius knew from the start. Ulfius schemed with Uther and Merlin the whole "seduction" of Ygraine. He was even turned into Brastias during the infamous night when Arthur was conceived. I think it is stated in Malory, but it is all explained in the Vulgate. So, it was staged.

In the French Vulgate, they said that Leodegrance welcomed in his house all the surviving knights of the first Round Table after Uther's death, which explains the whole thing. It's a good basis. BUT. The list of RT knights is not static. Each year, especially during the wars, you can suppose that a few died, retired in an hermitage, etc. All the great names stay however until the last years. Half the RTK are supposed to die during the Grail Quest, but few are named, all secondary (Bagdemagus, Calogrenant, Yvain l'Avoutre). In my campaign, after 540, I considerer that the Round Table a complete. There is no room for the new heroes, which can generate frustrations.

True. Maybe you can make one roll with the lower of the two skill/DEX. On a success, only half the armor.

RAW, if I remember correctly, you choose beetween Dex and Horsemanship. I am using Third edition rules anyway, where there was only dex. And, I read somewhere (in the Old Nocturnal Forums?) that Greg Stafford himself was using Dex as balance checks even when mounted, and said the Horsemanship gig was a typo. Maybe my memories are all wrong, but's the "Dex rule" is working just fine when horsemanship is problematic. BTW, it's a great way to make Dex relevant, especially in the later phases of the campaign, when tournaments are everywhere. I never felt the double feint was a broken rule. It's working just fine. And yes, maximising SIZ remains a better choice.

In my current campaign (533), I have a PK with Dex 24. He put 18 in Dex, a cultural bonus of +1 and some glory points (nearly all of them). Of course, he is weak elsewhere, especially in For and Con. He became some kind of ninja. The "build" is viable: very good at jousting (obviously) very good at sneaking and climbing, especially when he put down his armor good with the double feint (never understood why it was deleted in the current edition) It's very interesting so far, and the player is very creative with his abilities.

As usual, I agree with everything. 😀

+1 If you want to give a robin hood feeling to your pendragon game, just give to unarmored character an armor equal to his dex (even a shield is an armor).

And yet, there are factual mistakes in it. For example, Not at all. All of these are compendium of adventures (quite good, for the most part actually). You mean, tales of mystic tournaments? The Spectre King is not a rewrite of the Grey Knight Adventure. They share one element (an undead knight) and that's all. They're both good by the way.

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.

A man after my own heart. Welcome!

Hello! Just curious, so... What are you looking for in Pendragon? The arthurian feel? The dynastic game? The gritty setting, yet full of light?

As stated previously, you can't really expand your estate per se. But you can of course construct new investments to maximise profits. On the other side, the investments are precarious, especially during raids. Saxons just love to burn orchards and to steal herd Yes, of course. But each widow's estate must have neighbours. It can be a special bait in game. In my current campaign, one of my PK realize (to my dismay) that a pretty widow of 25 was a neighbour. This widow was the previous wife of the same player. I didn't realise at the time that the estates were so close, but they were. The player married the same woman twice with two different characters! At least the player remember her name...

I always use the following formula: 1 manor = 500 inhabitants So 1 manor of 6 £ under the old rules? 500 inhabitants 1 manor of 10 £ under the new rules? 500 inhabitants A little estate of 120 £ according to the BoE (new rules)? 12 x 500 = 6000 inhabitants

In the arthurian lore, knights can always travel with their armor in the countryside. It's not realistic, but it's part of the genre. If you prefer a more gritty game, it's up to you.

You misunderstood me. Yes, why not. But if you raid a powerful foe, you should be aware that he can strike back. It's not about smacking down the PK. It's about choices and consequences. During the Anarchy, the Saxons are menacing. The GM should never forget that. If the PK are thinking "it was easy. Saxons are weak.", there is a problem. Nanteleod is supposed to be the last hope. And then he dies...

If you feel it's too gutsy for you taste, don't do it. Send a messenger without any political value, even a prisonner released with a message. But it's a felony and a great breach of hospitality to kill or capture a host or a messenger. It will cost you massive loss of honor and hospitality, and worst, your reputation. After that, no one will trust you or treat with you. But it's possible, of course. It's the Anarchy after all! Why not? It could even work (even if the Saxons don't follow the 1 K/2F rule). After that, they will learn there is a word called reprisal. Saxons are not stupid, and they want to be feared. Personaly, the year after if the raid succeeded, I will sent a large force of Saxons to teach a lesson.

Like in the books.... It was my idea as well

Did any of you use Grail Christianity in your campaigns ? I always feel that it was a confusing concept, very "new age", and not very practical for the game.

Of course! My campaign is currently in 533, and I want to settle Meliagrance/Méléagant as a villain before 538, to initiate their "acquaintance" as you say. I will buff him to be a real menace, just a few years before his greatest accomplishment... The tricky thing will be to keeping him alive, I fear. If he dies anyway, I suppose same faerie prince named Melwas or Meliagaunt could remplace him. That's the richness of the arthurian lore!

It's the big adventure of the Beyond The Wall supplement (3e edition). I like the feel of it, and it will be on the table for the next gaming session. I will probably add a nucklelavee encounter somewhere because I like them so much since Bard's tale ^^ Did any of you play it? Any tips?

Thanks to both of you. I will try to implement some of your ideas...