Jump to content

Call Me Deacon Blues

Regulars
  • Posts

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Call Me Deacon Blues

  1. Exactly... only the richest of vassals can actually afford the knighting process for their spare and younger sons. Since my players are usually pretty good at getting lots of money, I created costs of knighting packages (the equipment, horses, a small feast, and then round up to the nearest libra to cover any miscellaneous costs) to give to my group since their kids are getting to be the right age. It's on my other computer, and I only did it for Uther/Anarchy right now since that's the period we're in.
  2. See, that's actually not it, but it was the only thing I was able to pull up with a Google search myself lol
  3. I was actually referring to something I read about and now can't freaking find... but it was like a stone inscription saying something to the effect of "the warrior Arthur stood here." Something like that? I remember reading an article that said it predated any actual texts we had. Could be wrong, I love Arthuriana but I'm not too up on my ancient texts
  4. I can't really weigh too much in on this, except that if I remember correctly, the oldest reference to Arthur we've found so far was an inscription on a stone or something, and called him "The warrior Arthur." Which makes me wonder if him even being a king at all was ever historical
  5. I just linked the document to someone looking for info, someone else wrote the thing, just to be clear. And yes, I show up as Sir Deacon on there.
  6. Are you in the Pendragon Discord? Someone in there made a list of all the things said back when Chaosium had their little Zoom convention things a couple months back. SOmeone put it all in one document and David Larkins said it was all correct, I believe.
  7. How I run it, I will subtract 1 from their Passion score, and then compare some of the new lord's famous traits and passions, if they have Traits/Passions in common, it might go up 1, go down if they're opposed, etc.If that makes sense.
  8. So, as I recall, it was 3 volumes, each one covering 2 periods starting with Boy King. Then an un-numbered (presumably 3, but I dunno) number of prequel volumes covering Anarchy, Uther, and Vortigern periods. But I'm not sure the up-front buy-in is as big a problem as you think.. Keep in mind that 6th edition is mostly targeted towards new players, who wouldn't necessarily WANT a huge tome. Keep in mind the original GPC is almost 600 pages long and was like $50 when it was first printed, what, 15 or 20 years ago? Simply selling that exact book would probably cost $60 or $70 today, maybe even more depending. Putting out smaller volumes, running $20-30 or whatever, split up across several months or years, would objectively be more attractive for newer players, maybe they don't NEED the entire campaign because they like the early days or arthur, or prefer just the middle periods or something. Considering how many campaigns fail to make it through multiple periods, it's more info than you'd think. Plus keep in mind that they're adding new material, so my guess is, end-to-end, even cutting out potential duplicate pages, they'll probably clock in at over 600 pages (at least if you count Uther and Anarchy volumes, maybe not without them). Of course, I'm gonna get all pdfs anyways, most likely. Books are nice, but damn is it convenient, plus they're usually cheaper. EDIT: To put this another way; I DO own the hardcover for Paladin and it MSRPs for $60, and is only about 450 pages. So we're probably talking $65-$70 minimum for a 1 volume GPC.
  9. Incidentally, I stole the table from Paladin for my Pendragon game, and just treat Promotion as 1 step above their current station, i.e. Esquire to Household knight, to vassal with a gift manor, vassal with a grant manor, banneret with gift estate, banneret with grant estate, baron etc.
  10. Yes, they most certainly did. Evidence shows that women warriors date back to around the same time as men as warriors. But specifically referring to these cultures, I do recall that the Romans wrote quite a bit about Celtic warrior women. Now, the Romans were liars, to be clear, they made a lot of stuff up, especially about the cultures they were trying to demonize, I don't know about all the archaeologically evidence we may or may not have, but like... Pendragon takes place in a world where the HRB is an accurate retelling of historical events, I don't think it'd be that weird to take some of the writings from (admittedly well before) the period it takes place at more or less face value. Considering the Cymri as written are a mixture of the actual Celtic culture it's describing and the Normans, I don't think this is all that weird.
  11. I believe David Larkins mentioned more rules for playing Ladies, and I think possibly Lady scenarios, in Knights and Ladies Adventurous. Maybe in his podcast, when they did that Cornwall game. I really only stayed around for character creation lol.
  12. Now, that's completely different. See, they were reading their modern values into ancient stories which we... shouldn't do? For some reason?
  13. For the record, I give out checks like candy. I have a slightly higher powered game than some, but it seems fine. I give checks on all crits, most fumbles, impressive successes, succeeding on a skill that doesn't come up a lot, like, say, Religion, etc.
  14. Me too. I'm not even interested in magician characters (not clear if that's in there or not anyway). I just want it lol
  15. I forgot to mention LGBT knights, but yeah, culturally it's no real problem. You get married to get heirs, or adopt. The Lover's Solo literally had a result on the table where the lady's husband turns out to be gay or asexual lol. Paladin has rules for gay civil partnerships consecrated by the church! Just add that in, and maybe make the subtext a little more textual so people realize that's what it is lol.
  16. I apologize for keeping going after the mod said to stop. According to the pm he sent me, I have apparently driven Atgxtg off of this forum lol. Anyways, I'm very excited about 6th edition. Even some of the changes I might not even really like. Because I'll be able to benefit from the new material and new ideas, and for anything I don't, it's not like the RPG police will break down my door and take my older edition books away from me. EDIT: I'm being told via pm that clearly chivalrous/religious traits and cultural attribute bonuses have been removed, even though none if the characters qualify for any of these bonuses and it's just a quick start guide and it's not relevant to the adventure at hand and the pregen characters all have a total of 63 attribute points which is the correct total for Cymric characters and that when David Larkins did that podcast episode using Knights and Ladies Adventurous cultures and cultural attributes were still a thing. And that this is a plot from the far left.
  17. No, see, that's totally different. That was a change to the setting Greg made in order to appeal to players in his group that were uncomfortable playing something other than the default. Not the same thing at all, see? I'm very consistent in my thoughts on this game!
  18. The way I play it, noble children are either on the knightly track, lady/courtier track, or religious track. Earlier in the campaign, it's expected that men become knights and women ladies, but as it goes on, it becomes more accepted to go into either role. You can switch tracks partway through, like Constans did, but skills might suffer a bit, and generally most don't. Inheritance works as normal, except replace sons with knights and daughters with courtiers, religious children don't inherit at all.
  19. You're NOT LISTENING, this IS what Greg wanted! He wrote must of the damn thing, including this. I get it, you want Pendragon to be your safe space, but the facts don't care about your feelings.
  20. Hey, start reading page 52 of the 5.2 Core Rulebook, starting at the heading Non-Traditional Women. Read through to the end of page 55. There's even a picture of one on page 53. So. yeah. This is not a new development. This section even exists in the 5.0 book, page 41 through page 43, with a different picture of a woman knight on page 42. I could go on, but I don't really think I have to? It's already there. It's ALREADY part of the game, and you CAN'T say that Greg Stafford didn't want it there.
  21. Has anyone mentioned, knows and is willing to tell, or figured out some of the new derived stat formulas? Damage seems consistent with what it was before, though by that formula, the Courtier Knight should have a damage of 4d6, not 5d6. That might be a misprint though. I'm honestly kind of at a loss for the new movement rates. I've tried a few different formulas, none of them seem to work, and that's assuming it's still based on STR and DEX in some way, which I think IS the case, but I'm not sure how.
  22. I have a player who's interested in this option for his next character, and I'm not a huge fan of the rules as written. My tentative ruling is the same in regards to how the skills work, but you get 2 rolls, both made with a -5/+5 reflexive bonus; however, you don't have to split your skill to attack 2 targets (of course, more than 2 does require splitting). I also think it might be okay to fight with the defensive tactic on one weapon, but not the primary one. Haven't playtested this yet though, I'm really split as to whether or not this is just good enough to be a viable option, too punishing, or so good everyone will want to do it. Not sure if the reflexive makes it all work, or if maybe I should add an additional -5 to the fighter.I do also play a high power, high Glory game, and the player's current character has an Axe skill of 39, and it hasn't broken the game at all (sure, he's unbeatable in one-on-one combat, but add just a single additional enemy and it's no longer a guaranteed crit, plus to get it this high he had to sacrifice damage capability, so he's not necessarily felling his foes with his hits). It's a few years in game before his heir even becomes of age though, so I haven't gotten too far down with it.
  23. Praetor Jonathel is mentioned in gpc in 500, I believe. So presumably he became Praetor after St. Albans. Though I could be wrong, isn't a Praetor a Roman city authority? I think he's just in charge of Dorchester, though I could be wrong.
  24. So, I generally agree that if a weapon is broken, it's unusable, full stop. I think I did have a player use a broken lance once for some reason though at least once, but I don't remember context or what I ruled. Off top my head, I'd say at best, any broken weapon should be -1d6 damage and a -5 to your skill. Maybe even make that reflexive. I already house rule that similar skills can also sub in for weapons at a penalty, like you can use the Axe skill to wield a great axe with a -5 penalty, -10 of the skills are more tenously linked like axe and mace or greatspear and halberd, -15 if there's hardly a connection at all, like dagger and greatspear (at least they both stab) or sword and axe. And -20 of there's basically nothing in common for how they're used, like axe and spear. It's hardly ever come up, and the decisions are more art than science. I would probably rule that a great weapon broken might count as the smaller version without taking the additional penalty, depending on how it broke. Maybe.
  25. Interesting, I own Paladin and never even knew they were in there. Right now in the GPC where I am (and I think in the whole book actually), all sieges have been scripted, and since knights generally don't assault the walls, regular BoB rules for the occasional assault a position have been fine for me. I bet I could find a way to bolt the Paladin siege rules to some version of BoB though.
×
×
  • Create New...