Call Me Deacon Blues

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, if you've got 4th edition, I wouldn't worry about getting 5th. The only changes in 5th, 5.1, and 5.2 are artwork and editing and a few-odd rules clarifications/updates. I actually prefer Book of Knights and Ladies for character creation, but they are planning on doing a new version of it, Knights and Ladies Adventurous, for 6th edition so i wouldn't worry about it unless you can get it in a sale/bundle, or you really want rules for foreign knights because the new one isn't going to include those rules last i heard.

Does anyone know who has rights to these adventures? Chaosium or whoever does French publishing, or even somehow the authors? I would love them to get an English translation if at all possible.

Also, don't forget that either one of them would need weeks of chrirurgury, so even without fudging things or foul play, either one could easily still die of infection along the way. Especially Gorlois, who really does need to die here in my opinion.

Probably are knights of the Count, maybe a few of the richer vassals as well. Keep in mind that the family ha served the county for around 4 generations, these families are precisely where he'd draw from for knights. BoKL also has a tale to roll for lord that I use sometimes also. Household knights, as the name implies, loud in the household of their lord. They definitely get some free time of course, to adventure and visit family, and since Roderick has a lot manors, he probably has men checking up on them pretty much all of the time, even when he's not there, so they would be spread out across his holdings, not just always by his side.

Well, the Count would spend a bit of time there, when he's out on progress. Probably has a household knight or two that stay there pretty much all the time. Certainly at least some guards and servants, even when not in use

So, generally speaking, any family knight would be a household knight, unless decided otherwise. Most knights are household knights, relatively few vassals. Honestly, I'd either make the players themselves household knights, or if you're using the Book of Knights and Ladies, you can roll for it, which is my preferred method (I actually use a very slightly different system based on the one from BoKL, which I could share if anyone wanted it). To actually answer your question about wealth, if they're a household knight, they'd basically be Ordinary all the time, maybe poor during leaner years, especially if their lord isn't like, one of the powerful barons like Count Salisbury. If they're a vassal knight, it depends on their land's worth, a single 10 libra manor would keep them at Ordinary, 30 libra in lands would make them rich, etc. Mercenary knights would probably hover around poor and ordinary, depending on if there are wars to be hired in, and how successful those wars are.

Yeah, I think it's traditional for a Lord to give his knights gifts, and to get gifts from them in return, and it all kind of cancels itself out, generally. There was a year in GPC where Uther gives everyone more lavish gifts than usual, I believe, that might be a good indicator of things. I could see value in a chart showing the kinds of things that would be given as gifts, but have no mechanical benefits, and maybe an option on the chart for rolling on better tables. Since I generally try and keep all the dice either d20s or d6s when dealing with Pendragon, maybe have the first table be normal items, but on a 20, roll on the next table, and same on the next table, getting progressively better. Then, maybe due to yearly actions or Glory or something, you might get bonuses on the table. Something like that.

Well, when I do this, I don't give them the option for point buy instead, so in this case I sort of am forcing them to roll randomly.

Dunno if this is helpful, I use a hybrid method, we roll randomly, but if they roll really poorly, I'll give them the difference between what they rolled and 60 in points to spend. They will have less in raw points than the ones who lucked out and got super high, but they have more control over where those points go and can therefore spend them more wisely. In my current game, my sister only had like, 56 points after she rolled, and my friend had like, 65, but that was because he rolled a really high APP, she was able to invest in SIZ, STR, and CON and is the best at combat by a pretty wide margin.

Ah, I see. Sorry for the confusion there, I guess that would be appropriate by that definition, but the GPC never refers to her as such. I typically reserve Dame for female knights only, and I might be wrong but that's the only way I can remember the term being used in supplements.

I don't really have an answer to your questions, as I'm currently playing the only non-solo Pendragon campaign I've ever ran (by which I meant me as the GM and one player, not just me, though with certain tools I think that would be workable), and we're not quite to the Anarchy yet. That, and the war with Lancelot, and possibly the crowning of Arthur, are the only big points that I think could really lead to major disagreements, though I am likely forgetting at least some of them. I will ask if by Dame Elaine, you mean Countess Ellen? As far as I remember, the only Elaine mentioned in the GPC is the middle daughter of Ygraine and Gorlois, and anyway neither one of them are knights. I think the core book might waffle on whether or not female knights are referred to be "dame" or not (I think it had some other meaning at some point? Don't rightly remember), but I don't think that would be the appropriate terminology. I could be wrong on this, though.

Maybe they're planning a late-phase sourcebook? Not really sure what, if any, long-term Paladin plans there are. As for the question at hand, there are absolutely things to steal from Paladin, but everything is flavored very differently. There is a slightly different family events table, generally a better one, but it also doesn't really have an option for "nothing," or "rumors," which... bothers me a bit. I've sort of lazily cobbled together a combo of the tables though, so it's doable. The solos are very much flavored towards Paladin, but there's a couple neat things in there.

So, this is probably not helpful, but here's how I deal with clothes/gems: Basically, a knight is always able to maintain their clothes at their expected standard of living (so I don't bother checking for degradation most times), with Ordinary clothes costing 1 L, Rich 3, Superlative 5, and Spectacular 7. You don't get a bonus for wearing the clothes you're expected to wear, so if you want to get a bonus, you have to spend extra, with a cost of 1 L per APP bonus; most of the knights in my group right now are ordinary, so they'd have to spend 2 L to get a +1 bonus, but one is a Banneret now, and is Rich, so has to spend at least 4 to get a +1 bonus. You can supplement this with jewelry and other finery, but not only is there a threshold, they only add half their value to APP. So basically, an Ordinary Knight would have to have finery equal to 4L to get a +1 bonus; Rich, 8L in finery, etc. The combined total for their clothes and jewels is capped at their APP, so an average or ugly knight can still only get to a certain level. Now, this does meant that it costs richer knights more money to get bonuses, but I feel like it all kinda works out in the wash, because they have more money to spend on stuff like this. Plus, I include a free set of clothing equal to what their maintenance was this year, as well, so if a Knight who is normally supposed to be Ordinary decided to live as Rich, he automatically gets a set of Rich clothes costing 3 Libra, giving him a +2 bonus, and the Rich knight living as Superlative gets the same bonus, but it's much more likely he has extra money to spend on maintenance than the ordinary knight, since he can cover the difference right from his discretionary fund, while the Ordinary knight needs to have at least gotten 2 extra Libra somewhere or other.