Two Questions about Weapons

[Wolfpack Six]

Hello all,

I was going through my KAP sources working on my own weapon summary when I got to thinking about maces and morning stars...  Here's a basic summary of the three mace-like weapons that I found:

 

Mace (KAP5.2, p. 110) : +1d6 damage vs. mail armor; 1-handed; breaks on fumble
Morning Star (KAP5.2, p. 203) : +1d6 damage vs. all targets, +1d6 damage vs. mail armor; 2-handed; no shield; breaks on fumble
Great Mace (BoKL, p. 118): +1d6 damage vs. mail armor; 2-handed; no shield; breaks on fumble

 

The standard mace is pretty straightforward.  The benefit is that it hits harder against opponents in mail armor.  Plus, it's one-handed, so you can use it with a shield.

As far as the morning star and great mace go, the way I see it, there's no point to using a great mace.  Both the morning star and great mace are two-handed weapons,  so you can't use them with a shield; plus they both do +1d6 vs. opponents in mail armor.  But, whereas the morning star gets an additional +1d6 damage vs. all opponents for being two-handed, the great mace does not.

So, my first question is: Why bother using a great mace?  What is the qualitative difference in game mechanics that would make a great mace an attractive option?  A great mace does the same damage as a standard mace, gets the same bonus vs. mail armor, and breaks on a fumble just as the standard mace does... But you can't use a great mace with a shield.  Why include the great mace as a weapon?  Using the RAW, I wouldn't bother with a great mace and just use a morning star if I wanted a harder-hitting mace-like weapon.

* * * * *

My second question is probably way easier...  Is there a summary of all the weapon types available in KAP?  Right now, it looks like you need to look in the KAP 5.2 rulebook, the GPC, and BoKL to see them all.  (I think. I don't have all the sources, so maybe there's other weapons in other supplements.)

 

Thanks,

WP6

Edited February 16, 2020 by Wolfpack Six

[Morien]

Great Mace and Morning Star ought to be the same weapon under two different names, like Great Sword and Two-handed Sword. I blame BoKL for some editing mistakes: this is not the only one.

As for the second one, I am sure someone has compiled a list, but I don't have one handy. Generally, I don't need one, since I know what the 2-handed weapons do and then the specials for swords, axes, maces and flails. So you get 8 combinations out of that, and then add spear and great spear (lance is roughly the same thing) and you are done. Well, dagger too.

 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Morien

[Username]

@Wolfpack Six I have a weapon document I assembled. I added a glaive/war scythe, but it shouldn't really rock the boat. The rest of the weapons and armors are from the GPC, BoKL and the Book of Armies. 

 

Weapons of War.pdf

[Wolfpack Six]

1 hour ago, Username said:

@Wolfpack Six I have a weapon document I assembled. I added a glaive/war scythe, but it shouldn't really rock the boat. The rest of the weapons and armors are from the GPC, BoKL and the Book of Armies. 

 

Weapons of War.pdf 250.67 kB · 0 downloads

Username and Morien, thanks to the both of you.

 

Username, where is the Quarterstaff referenced?  Is that something you made up?

[Morien]

Club has some contradictory information, but it is clear that it is inferior to a mace. Farmer's write-up says it is -1d6, but Giant's says that it is just dropping +1d6 vs. chain. Personally, I would go with the Farmer's: this way, a sword is superior against unarmored people (as it should be), but against chain, a club and a sword are just as good, as the sword basically becomes just a metal bar and with less authority on the striking end (being more balanced).

Quarterstaff I would treat either as a two-handed club (+1d6 for being two-handed, for a total of +-0 to base damage) or, if used more defensively, -1d6 damage but giving 3 armor points on a partial success. I could not find official rules for it on a quick search through KAP 5.2, GPC, BoKL, BoArmies and BoB2...

Also, I forgot to mention hammers in my list, but anyway.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Wolfpack Six said:

Username, where is the Quarterstaff referenced?  Is that something you made up?

Quite a lot of the stuff on username's document are things he made up- not that that is a bad thing, just that a lot of it is house ruled stuff. 

16 hours ago, Morien said:

Great Mace and Morning Star ought to be the same weapon under two different names, like Great Sword and Two-handed Sword. I blame BoKL for some editing mistakes: this is not the only one.

Yeah, it is the one with the infamous compound bow. I think a lot of the KAP 5 books needed to be better edited. The original KAP5 book is probably the worst Pendragon book ever. The editor didn't seem to understand the game and messed up the glory rules, and a bunch of other stuff. 

Quote

As for the second one, I am sure someone has compiled a list, but I don't have one handy. Generally, I don't need one, since I know what the 2-handed weapons do and then the specials for swords, axes, maces and flails. So you get 8 combinations out of that, and then add spear and great spear (lance is roughly the same thing) and you are done. Well, dagger too.

Lets see.. officially:

Sword (breaks no swords on a tie, dropped on a fumble) also Gladius and probably Long Knife and Scimitar

Axe (shields protect 1d6 against, breaks on a fumble) ,

Mace (+1d6 vs opponents in mail, breaks on a fumble)

Club (from the GPC, as mace but without the extra d6 against mail)

Dagger (-1d6, breaks on a fumble)

Spear (Breaks on a fumble)

Lance (does horse damage on a charge, used for horseback, breaks on a fumble and on odd damage roll)

Great Lance/Kontos  (does horse damage +1d6 on a charge, used for horseback, two handed, breaks on a fumble and on odd damage roll)

Greatspear (negates the penalty for attacking a higher opponent, breaks on a fumble, two handed)

Boarspear (greatspear with a crossbar to hold off prey, breaks on a fumble)

Greatsword (+1d6 damage, breaks non-swords on a tie, dropped on a fumble, two handed)

Greataxe  (+1d6 damage,shields protect 1d6 against,,breaks on a fumble, two handed)

Morning Star/Great Mace  (+1d6 damage,+1d6 vs opponents in mail, breaks on a fumble, two handed)

Flail (ignores shields, +1d6 damage vs opponents in mail, breaks on a fumble, hits wielder on a natural 1)

Halberd/Croiseach (+1d6 damage, negates the penalty for attacking a higher opponent, breaks on a fumble, two handed)

(Military) Hammer (+1d6 damage vs any plate, breaks on a fumble)

Warflail ( ignores shields+1d6 damage, , +1d6 damage vs opponents in mail, breaks on a fumble, hits wielder on a natural 1, two handed)

Tool/2H Hoe, shovel rake, Ccythe, Axe or Hammer (normal damage, breaks on a fumble)

Javelin/Dart (-2d6 damage, range 30)

Heavy Javelin (-2d6 damage then add 3, range isn't given but not more than a javelin.)

 

Bow (3d6 damage, range 150)

Composite Bow [there were no compound bows in the 5th and 6th centuries!]( Damage 3d6+8 in K&L range 180, but based on how Longbow was scaled down in Book of Entourage I'd suggest scaling this down to 3d6+3 damage)

Longbow (4d6+10 damage in K&L, later reduced to 3d6+6 in Book of Entourage, range 300)

Light Crossbow (1d6+10 damage, range 150 , 1 shot per round)

Medium Crossbow  (1d6+13 damage, range 200 , 1 shot per 2 rounds)

Heavy Crossbow (1d6+16 damage, range 250 , 1 shot per 4 rounds)

Arbalest (1d6+20 damage in GPC, range 250, 1 shot per 5 rounds)

Ballista (8d6 damage, range and reloading time not given)

 

Arquebus (3d6+10 damage in the GPC, range not given rate of fire not given)

 

I think that covers everything that's officially in KAP5. 

A couple of weapons, such as rocks, big ol' two handed club, sling, scimitar, cane, and long knives are hard to nail down exactly due to limited info on the wielders damage stat. 

Several of us have added an extra weapon or three to that list, filled in some missing stats

 

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by Atgxtg

[Tizun Thane]

Lance provides a +5 as well against ennemies without range (another lance or Greatspear). Otherwise, it looks perfect to me.

The short answer is: sword is the best weapon!

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

Lance provides a +5 as well against ennemies without range (another lance or Greatspear). Otherwise, it looks perfect to me.

Yes, but only on a charge, and not all the time (At least not in the Book of Battle, personally I'm all for stacking the charge bonus for opposing horsemen). 

4 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

The short answer is: sword is the best weapon!

In the game anyway. Everything else has tradeoffs. The spear gets shortchanged though, unlike every other combat weapon it doesn't have any sort of perk. Maybe it should get something, say +2 vs. mounted?

[Wolfpack Six]

10 hours ago, Morien said:

Club has some contradictory information, but it is clear that it is inferior to a mace. Farmer's write-up says it is -1d6, but Giant's says that it is just dropping +1d6 vs. chain. Personally, I would go with the Farmer's: this way, a sword is superior against unarmored people (as it should be), but against chain, a club and a sword are just as good, as the sword basically becomes just a metal bar and with less authority on the striking end (being more balanced).

I think clubs definitely belong in the same category as maces, and I understand your rationale to go with the Farmers' club rather than the Giants'.  Not sure how I'd do it, myself.  Maybe make clubs the same as swords, but not have the same durability.

 

Quote

Quarterstaff I would treat either as a two-handed club (+1d6 for being two-handed, for a total of +-0 to base damage) or, if used more defensively, -1d6 damage but giving 3 armor points on a partial success. I could not find official rules for it on a quick search through KAP 5.2, GPC, BoKL, BoArmies and BoB2...

Well, I've also seen reference to a "Great Club", too (in BoA, I think), which following the KAP pattern would be a two-handed club, IMO.  I'm thinking a club would be something like a policeman's billy club while a great club would be more like a baseball bat.  Anyhow, a quarterstaff would be a two-handed weapon; but I don't know that it would be particularly effective against mail armor.  So, maybe give it the two-handed weapon damage bonus, but not the bonus against mail armor.

I realize this is delving into house-ruling, etc.

 

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

In the game anyway. Everything else has tradeoffs. The spear gets shortchanged though, unlike every other combat weapon it doesn't have any sort of perk. Maybe it should get something, say +2 vs. mounted?

The whole point of a spear is reach, IMO.  A spear can keep a combatant armed with a shorter weapon out of reach while the spear-armed combatant strikes his opponent.  So, I think what I would do is have combatants fighting against spears have to fight defensively until they're successful (representing deflecting the spear point out of the way), then allow them to attack normally.

 

5 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

The short answer is: sword is the best weapon!

And that's really tied to the durability factor, IMO.  A sword is simply more reliable, in-game, RAW.

I like the idea of swords breaking other weapons on a tie, but other weapons breaking on a fumble has never made any sense to me.  While I can see dropping my weapon on a fumble, or even striking myself in the case of a flail, I find it a pretty big leap of logic trying to get behind the idea that my weapon (e.g., axe or mace) would actually break if I'm a klutz in combat.

(I know...  Another tangent...)

Edited February 17, 2020 by Wolfpack Six

[Atgxtg]

3 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said:

The whole point of a spear is reach, IMO.  A spear can keep a combatant armed with a shorter weapon out of reach while the spear-armed combatant strikes his opponent.  So, I think what I would do is have combatants fighting against spears have to fight defensively until they're successful (representing deflecting the spear point out of the way), then allow them to attack normally.

It's certainly a major point, and in reality a telling one. Check out Lindybeige's vidoes on Spear vs. Sword on youtube to get an idea of just how much of an advatage a spear really has. But in the game the spear ends up being the worst weapon. It has no special benefit like the other weapons do. Yes, the dagger is worse, at -1d6, but at least the dagger has the benefit of being ubiquitous. 

The fighting defensively thing is a neat theory but in practice I think it would just bog the game down for a round. It not hard to beat most spearmen if you have a +10. It's ridiculously easy at +15 (defensive & mounted). I'd say for the closing requirement to be viable in game, the guy without a spear shouldn't be able to get the +10. Something like the withdraw from combat tactic might mirror it better.

3 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said:

And that's really tied to the durability factor, IMO.  A sword is simply more reliable, in-game, RAW.

More the non-durability of other weapons. It's the "sword breaks non sword on a tie" that really kills the other weapons, especially as characters get better. The higher the skill, the greater the chance of your weapon breaking on a tied critical. 

3 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said:

I like the idea of swords breaking other weapons on a tie, but other weapons breaking on a fumble has never made any sense to me.  While I can see dropping my weapon on a fumble, or even striking myself in the case of a flail, I find it a pretty big leap of logic trying to get behind the idea that my weapon (e.g., sword or mace) would actually break if I'm a klutz in combat.

(I know...  Another tangent...)

Go for it. Half the good ideas around here  and more than half of the interesting ones, come from tangents.

Honest, I don't buy swords breaking other weapons. It just doesn't happen all that much in real life. At least not much more often than swords themselves breaking. Hitting metal with a long lever isn't usually all that good for the long lever. Khanwulf an I have toyed around with the idea adapting the Weapon Quality rules from Harn, and I even got some rules for it somewhere, but I'm not sure if it is worth the trouble.

 

The game's sword bias is deliberate and is one of several ways the system is biased towards the player knights. If GMs started to do things to "fix" that, the game would become that much tougher for the players. 

[Wolfpack Six]

10 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

It's certainly a major point, and in reality a telling one. Check out Lindybeige's vidoes on Spear vs. Sword on youtube to get an idea of just how much of an advatage a spear really has. But in the game the spear ends up being the worst weapon. It has no special benefit like the other weapons do. Yes, the dagger is worse, at -1d6, but at least the dagger has the benefit of being ubiquitous. 

I've seen at least one of those videos.  They're pretty good.  Makes sense to me, which is why I think that the game ought to simulate reach in some simple, reasonable manner.  It doesn't sound like much of a big deal -- my weapon is longer than yours, har har har -- until I hit you before you can hit me and you're out of the fight or dead.  Then it's a big deal.

So, if I were writing the rules, I think I'd make the special benefit of spears would be the potential for a spear-armed combatant to strike another combatant with a shorter weapon.  How to simulate that, to me, without getting too complex (which I admit is often a matter of taste), would be the real question.

 

10 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

More the non-durability of other weapons. It's the "sword breaks non sword on a tie" that really kills the other weapons, especially as characters get better. The higher the skill, the greater the chance of your weapon breaking on a tied critical. 

<snip>

 

10 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Honest, I don't buy swords breaking other weapons. It just doesn't happen all that much in real life. At least not much more often than swords themselves breaking. Hitting metal with a long lever isn't usually all that good for the long lever. Khanwulf an I have toyed around with the idea adapting the Weapon Quality rules from Harn, and I even got some rules for it somewhere, but I'm not sure if it is worth the trouble.

Well, maybe I should say that I think the idea of a sword breaking a non-sword on a tie is more believable than a non-sword just spontaneously breaking on a fumble.  Anyhow, I agree that swords shouldn't break non-swords all that often, either.  Maybe on some combination like the sword-wielder gets a critical and the non-sword-wielder fumbles.  Or maybe on a tie, but the sword-wielder also rolls a critical.  It's probably a terminology thing with me, but "fumble" shouldn't mean "I break my own weapon"; fumble, to me, means I drop my weapon or hit myself, or I hit something else I wasn't aiming at.

 

10 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

 

The game's sword bias is deliberate and is one of several ways the system is biased towards the player knights. If GMs started to do things to "fix" that, the game would become that much tougher for the players. 

I'm perfectly fine with making the game tougher for the players so long as the rules are fair and reasonable.  As much as I like the KAP rules and understand that they were written to support a specific genre, I wouldn't necessarily hesitate to change a rule that doesn't make sense to me just because "But if you change the rules, my knight won't get to benefit from them!"

[Wolfpack Six]

13 hours ago, Username said:

I added a glaive/war scythe, but it shouldn't really rock the boat.

Incidentally, @Username, I think the idea of a glaive/war scythe is pretty neat: if I understand the concept right, it's a weapon designed to be more effective against leather armor, like maces are more effective against mail, hammers are more effective against plate, and axes are more effective against shields.  I don't see that idea as rocking the boat at all.  I think the only thing I would say is that Glaives are about the same length as Halberds, so perhaps they should get the same +5 bonus versus mounted opponents.

[Atgxtg]

14 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said:

I've seen at least one of those videos.  They're pretty good.  Makes sense to me, which is why I think that the game ought to simulate reach in some simple, reasonable manner.  It doesn't sound like much of a big deal -- my weapon is longer than yours, har har har -- until I hit you before you can hit me and you're out of the fight or dead.  Then it's a big deal.

So, if I were writing the rules, I think I'd make the special benefit of spears would be the potential for a spear-armed combatant to strike another combatant with a shorter weapon.  How to simulate that, to me, without getting too complex (which I admit is often a matter of taste), would be the real question.

It's a tough problem to crack without cauing othe rproblems.

Quote

Well, maybe I should say that I think the idea of a sword breaking a non-sword on a tie is more believable than a non-sword just spontaneously breaking on a fumble. 

I'd say they are about equally unlikely. Medieval (and modern weapons) did and do break but not quite so often as in game. The fumble rule is fairly easy to get around too, just get your skill to 20 or better. THe tie rule isn't. The really sticking point to me is that a crticals are 20s so the chance of a tie increases at higher skill levels. 

 

That was like I kinda like either saying that it has to be a natural tie (like with the fail on a 1), or the weapon Quality/saving throw idea, where the weapon breaking isn't automatic.

 

Quote

 As much as I like the KAP rules and understand that they were written to support a specific genre, I wouldn't necessarily hesitate to change a rule that doesn't make sense to me just because "But if you change the rules, my knight won't get to benefit from them!"

You should hesitate. The idea is to simulate the world of Arthurian literature, not the real world. Quite a few of the KAP rules do not make sense to me, at least as far a how things actually work, or how the dark ages really were. But those rules make sense to me in the context of the game. The whole knight bias runes deep throughout the game.  If someone rewrote the game to make it more realistic it would greatly alter the play style and tone of the game. Try experimenting with a shilitron, swiss pikemen, or longbowmen/arquebusers/arbaliisters screened by men with greatspears or halbards and see how quickly knights become not worth the trouble. It's more accurate, but it would completely ruin the tone and style of the game. 

Edited February 17, 2020 by Atgxtg

[Atgxtg]

9 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said:

Incidentally, @Username, I think the idea of a glaive/war scythe is pretty neat: if I understand the concept right, it's a weapon designed to be more effective against leather armor, like maces are more effective against mail, hammers are more effective against plate, and axes are more effective against shields.  I don't see that idea as rocking the boat at all.  I think the only thing I would say is that Glaives are about the same length as Halberds, so perhaps they should get the same +5 bonus versus mounted opponents.

It doesn't rock the boat, more like it misses the boat.  I think the +1d6 vs leather, combined with the two handed weapon bonus is overkill, since the guys wearing leather are probably going down pretty quickly anyway. I can't really see a reason for someone to prefer that over some other weapon that gets a bonus that would be more useful. Now if Brigadine counted as a form of leather it would be more useful. 

I agree it should get the foot vs. mounted bonus, and probably a hook  with a  bonus to pulling someone down from horseback. Not sure how to implement the latter but it was certainly a thing with such weapons. 

[Wolfpack Six]

7 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

You should hesitate. The idea is to simulate the world of Arthurian literature, not the real world. Quite a few of the KAP rules do not make sense to me, at least as far a how things actually work, or how the dark ages really were. But those rules make sense to me in the context of the game. The whole knight bias runes deep throughout the game.  If someone rewrote the game to make it more realistic it would greatly alter the play style and tone of the game. Try experimenting with a shilitron, swiss pikemen, or longbowmen/arquebusers/arbaliisters screened by men with greatspears or halbards and see how quickly knights become not worth the trouble. It's more accurate, but it would completely ruin the tone and style of the game. 

Well, I don't.  And the reason I don't is because while I like the underlying rules system of KAP, and I understand that they were designed primarily to support the Arthurian genre, I'm not particularly wed to that genre and can see other applications.  For example, there's the Charlemagne game which clearly uses the KAP rules as its inspiration.  Not the same, exact game, but very similar.  I'm sure others have thought or wondered about the same thing.

Also, as far as experimenting with more realistic weapons rules goes, I think the GPC does that to an increasing degree as it adds better melee weapons, more effective armor, and ultimately more lethal missile weapons (e.g., longbow & arquebus).  The whole GPC itself is a sort of chronicle of the rise and fall of chivalry.

[Atgxtg]

27 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said:

Well, I don't.  And the reason I don't is because while I like the underlying rules system of KAP, and I understand that they were designed primarily to support the Arthurian genre, I'm not particularly wed to that genre and can see other applications.

That's fine in that context. But Chelegagne, the forthcoming Ancient Greece Game and forthcoming Samurai game are not Pendragon or suppsed ot be. They are other games based on the Pendragon game mechanics. Some of us have tossed around the idea of using Pendragon for a Robin Hood tpye of RPG, and adapting the rules towards that purpose. 

 

But the point is that the rules are being addapted to the setting/genre to be played, whatever it might happen to be. Not alterting Pendragon isself to make it more reasltic.

27 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said:

Also, as far as experimenting with more realistic weapons rules goes, I think the GPC does that to an increasing degree as it adds better melee weapons, more effective armor, and ultimately more lethal missile weapons (e.g., longbow & arquebus). 

It doesn't make the rules any more realistic. In fact it does the opposite. What the GPC does, combat wise, is to give the game an entirely unrealistically accelerated progression of weapons technology. It essentially condense around 500 years of weapons and armor tech into 50 years, all well before it would have actually happened. It does so since, King Arthur historians and artists in the Middle Ages tended to depict Arthur and his knights with the arms and armor of the day. Thus the Knights of the round table are riding around on unrealistically big horses capable of supporting knights in unrealistically advanced full plate armor nearly a thousand year before it could have occurred. It's not realistic at all.

Even the alterations required by the newer weapons aren't all that realistic. Longbows were not super weapons that pieced plate armor as easy as in the GPC, and plate was actually made that was bullet proof yet that isn't realistically represented in the GPC. 

The GPC isn't about realism, it about story, setting and genre. Realism, such as it exists in the GPC, does so only to help reinforce the setting and focus of the game.

27 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said:

The whole GPC itself is a sort of chronicle of the rise and fall of chivalry.

Yes, that is what it is, and what any addition or change to it should remain loyal to. At least as long as it is going to remain Pendragon. I someone wants to adapt the game for another setting, then the priories change. If someone were to use it for Robin Hood, or the Knights Templar, Camelot 3000, a Superhero RPG, or Star Wars, then the rules would need to be adapted.for the setting. That's all good. But any rules for an alternate setting really should be noted as such, and not necessarily ported back to the core setting.

[Tizun Thane]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

But in the game the spear ends up being the worst weapon. It has no special benefit like the other weapons do. Yes, the dagger is worse, at -1d6, but at least the dagger has the benefit of being ubiquitous.

As a houserule, my spears cancels the malus for being on foot against cavalry, but the knight still have all his bonus. So a knight with sword 16 on his charger against 1 spearmen (10), will roll at 21 (16+5) against 10.

[Wolfpack Six]

21 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

But the point is that the rules are being addapted to the setting/genre to be played, whatever it might happen to be. Not alterting Pendragon isself to make it more reasltic.

Well, I guess that's your point.  Me, I'm fine with experimenting with the rules to see if you can make them more realistic, then see what the impact would be in how things play out.  I've always enjoyed "What if?" type scenarios.

 

21 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

It doesn't make the rules any more realistic. In fact it does the opposite. What the GPC does, combat wise, is to give the game an entirely unrealistically accelerated progression of weapons technology. It essentially condense around 500 years of weapons and armor tech into 50 years, all well before it would have actually happened. It does so since, King Arthur historians and artists in the Middle Ages tended to depict Arthur and his knights with the arms and armor of the day. Thus the Knights of the round table are riding around on unrealistically big horses capable of supporting knights in unrealistically advanced full plate armor nearly a thousand year before it could have occurred. It's not realistic at all.

You mean Dark Age-knights didn't wear plate armor?  You mean Excalibur and Le Morte d'Arthur aren't real?  My whole childhood is ruined...

 

21 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Even the alterations required by the newer weapons aren't all that realistic. Longbows were not super weapons that pieced plate armor as easy as in the GPC, and plate was actually made that was bullet proof yet that isn't realistically represented in the GPC. 

Bullet-proof plate would only be bullet-proof under certain circumstances.  It wasn't a perfect solution.  For instance, the angle of impact often influences whether or not a bullet will penetrate armor.  There's also the fact that plate armor has weak points, typically at joints, that were more vulnerable to penetration.  So, if plate armor doesn't always stop bullets in KAP, that doesn't mean that plate armor is not depicted realistically.

 

21 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I someone wants to adapt the game for another setting, then the priories change. If someone were to use it for Robin Hood, or the Knights Templar, Camelot 3000, a Superhero RPG, or Star Wars, then the rules would need to be adapted.for the setting. That's all good. But any rules for an alternate setting really should be noted as such, and not necessarily ported back to the core setting.

...If you don't want to port them back to the core setting.  This would seem to be a matter of personal preference.

As I understand it, the setting for the RAW is Dark Ages through Late Medieval.  (Which would include the Robin Hood and Knights Templar genres, come to think of it.)  Tweaking them in an attempt to reflect a little more realism, to me, isn't a bad thing, at least conceptually.  How well it would work in practice would probably depend on one's expectations.

[Atgxtg]

10 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said:

Well, I guess that's your point.  Me, I'm fine with experimenting with the rules to see if you can make them more realistic, then see what the impact would be in how things play out.  I've always enjoyed "What if?" type scenarios.

And that's prefectly fine. My point is that much of the unrealstic stuff in the game works that way deliberately. and that any changes should be considered. Note that back when we went down this path, I said a Gm should be hesitant to change things. Not that a GM shouldn't change things.

Greater realism isn't always a good thing. It dpends upon what the goals are.

 

10 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said:

Bullet-proof plate would only be bullet-proof under certain circumstances.  It wasn't a perfect solution.  For instance, the angle of impact often influences whether or not a bullet will penetrate armor. 

Yup.

10 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said:

There's also the fact that plate armor has weak points, typically at joints, that were more vulnerable to penetration.  So, if plate armor doesn't always stop bullets in KAP, that doesn't mean that plate armor is not depicted realistically.

No but the fact that plate armor rarely stops bullets does mean that.  

10 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said:

...If you don't want to port them back to the core setting.  This would seem to be a matter of personal preference.

It is. And that's why GMs should stop and think about what they are trying to do and why before they actually do it. 

10 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said:

As I understand it, the setting for the RAW is Dark Ages through Late Medieval.  (Which would include the Robin Hood and Knights Templar genres, come to think of it.)  Tweaking them in an attempt to reflect a little more realism, to me, isn't a bad thing, at least conceptually.  How well it would work in practice would probably depend on one's expectations.

Sorry but your understanding is wrong. The setting is Arthurian. It's not really Dark Ages, Medieval or historical. The game pretty much rejects a lot of actual history in favor of the HRB. 

I think the key thing here is when you mentioned that you "were not particular ed to the genre". The thing is the majority of Pendragon GMs and players are. They expect and want Pendragon to be about King Arthur and his knights and have chivalry and all that sort of stuff, and that is more important that realism.It's a romanticized setting not a realistic one.  

Now coming up with rule changes, alternate concepts, setting, and all that is just great, but a GM should always be hesitant about changing anything as the end results could do more harm than good. It's much easier to mess a campaign up than it is to fix one after it's been messed up .This is especially true in a generational game like Pendragon, where the campaign is going to run for several years Player Knights have to live long earn stuff and sire a heir to pass it down to or the game loses a lot. 

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Tizun Thane said:

As a houserule, my spears cancels the malus for being on foot against cavalry, but the knight still have all his bonus.

Same with our house rules. Also, Great Spear gets +1d6 for being two-handed and also cancels the lance bonus. Although you can use a Spear two-handed and get the +1d6 bonus for that too. This makes Spear a very, very useful weapon versus cavalry.

As an aside, quick comment on the Spear vs. Sword... Spear loses a lot of its effectiveness in a duel against an armored opponent with a shield. It is much easier to close when a single spear poke is likely to get caught by your shield or unable to get through your chainmail, rather than impaling your naked flesh.

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

More the non-durability of other weapons. It's the "sword breaks non sword on a tie" that really kills the other weapons, especially as characters get better. The higher the skill, the greater the chance of your weapon breaking on a tied critical. 

In our house rules, we calculate the exact critical and double criticals cancel out the criticalness. Thus, a roll of 19+4=23 (skill 24) and 20=20 (skill 20) would be treated exactly like 13 and 10.

And we have the skill reduction when both fighters have skills above 20 to prevent tink-tink-boom: lower skill is lowered to 20, and the higher skill is reduced by a same amount. So Skill 30 facing against skill 25 becomes 25 vs. 20.

Edited February 17, 2020 by Morien

[Morien]

4 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said:

Maybe make clubs the same as swords, but not have the same durability.

Sword ought to be better against unarmored targets, hence -1d6 base damage, but keeping +1d6 vs. mace since that is about crushing, not slicing.

4 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said:

Anyhow, a quarterstaff would be a two-handed weapon; but I don't know that it would be particularly effective against mail armor. 

If club gets a bonus vs. mail, then quarterstaff should too. A true quarterstaff strikes with quite a lot of authority, when you swing it with a two-handed sword grip. 6' of heavy wood coming your way hurts, but note that it would still only do the same as a mace, despite needing two hands. That is not unbalanced, IMHO.

[Wolfpack Six]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Sorry but your understanding is wrong. The setting is Arthurian. It's not really Dark Ages, Medieval or historical. The game pretty much rejects a lot of actual history in favor of the HRB.

No, I don't think it is.  The Arthurian setting is anywhere from Dark Ages or even late Roman to late Medieval, at least in terms of the technology that is represented.  I don't think I've seen it put anywhere else in literature or in film, though I admit that I probably havent read or seen it all.  Still, no dinosaurs, no cars, and no laser guns or space ships.  Lots of horses and swords and such.  So, I'm gonna go with Dark Ages to Medieval.

[Wolfpack Six]

19 minutes ago, Morien said:

Sword ought to be better against unarmored targets, hence -1d6 base damage, but keeping +1d6 vs. mace since that is about crushing, not slicing.

Yeah, I can see swords being better against unarmored targets.

 

19 minutes ago, Morien said:

If club gets a bonus vs. mail, then quarterstaff should too. A true quarterstaff strikes with quite a lot of authority, when you swing it with a two-handed sword grip. 6' of heavy wood coming your way hurts, but note that it would still only do the same as a mace, despite needing two hands. That is not unbalanced, IMHO.

I was thinking more in terms of weight.  Would a club weigh as much as a quarterstaff and, thus have the same degree of crushing effectiveness against mail?  Maybe having it do the same damage as a mace (one-handed) is the way to go, as you suggest.

 

[Wolfpack Six]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Greater realism isn't always a good thing. It dpends upon what the goals are.

No, it's not.  I like realism; I also like streamlined.  The balance between the two (how much is too much?) always seems to be the question.

 

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

I think the key thing here is when you mentioned that you "were not particular ed to the genre". The thing is the majority of Pendragon GMs and players are. They expect and want Pendragon to be about King Arthur and his knights and have chivalry and all that sort of stuff, and that is more important that realism.It's a romanticized setting not a realistic one.  

Well, of course I enjoy the genre.  I would never have explored the game if I didn't.  I just don't think that tweaking rules to be a little more realistic will necessarily torpedo the knights and chivalry and all that sort of stuff.  In fact, it might even strengthen it.

On a related note, I see that you're exploring the idea of tweaking bows and crossbows by tying them to draw weight, which is a very realistic way of going about the subject, and one that I can and do appreciate and support.  Now, it's been a while since I've read any of the source material, but I just don't recall bows having a major role in Arthurian literature or the Arthurian legends as a whole.  Pendragon is about King Arthur and his knights and has chivalry and all that sort of stuff... but I don't recall King Arthur or his knights being archers or even facing many archers.  (No doubt they did, but no big examples come to mind.  What comes to mind is buff dudes in plate armor charging at each other on war horses with lances, then getting off their horses and wailing away at each other with swords or whatever.)  Why bother pulling on that particular thread when the added realism wouldn't really contribute to the romanticized setting?  Or do you think it would?

 

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Morien said:

Same with our house rules. Also, Great Spear gets +1d6 for being two-handed and also cancels the lance bonus. Although you can use a Spear two-handed and get the +1d6 bonus for that too. This makes Spear a very, very useful weapon versus cavalry.

Sort of makes sense. Every other two handed weapon does an extra d6. I'd be inclided to let spears vs. calvary use the oppoent's mount's damage stat.

1 hour ago, Morien said:

As an aside, quick comment on the Spear vs. Sword... Spear loses a lot of its effectiveness in a duel against an armored opponent with a shield. It is much easier to close when a single spear poke is likely to get caught by your shield or unable to get through your chainmail, rather than impaling your naked flesh.

Yeah, or even if the warrior with the spear is useing a shield (loss of reach).

1 hour ago, Morien said:

In our house rules, we calculate the exact critical and double criticals cancel out the criticalness. Thus, a roll of 19+4=23 (skill 24) and 20=20 (skill 20) would be treated exactly like 13 and 10.

Wouldn't it be easier to just use the t eh actual die result (19 and 13) to determine ties.

1 hour ago, Morien said:

And we have the skill reduction when both fighters have skills above 20 to prevent tink-tink-boom: lower skill is lowered to 20, and the higher skill is reduced by a same amount. So Skill 30 facing against skill 25 becomes 25 vs. 20.

That makes sense if skills get that high. Fortunately, I've manged to murder off the PKs, keep the skill scores from getting that high. Seriously, weapon skills in the 30s are much more of a thing in KAP5 than before. Probably due to the removal of the  requirements to getting knighted that existed in previous editions. In the old days a good percentage of character had to spend several years to get the skill and Loyalty (Lord) scores to acceptable levels.