Starter Set rules discussion

[RandomNumber]

Hi there,

I’m very much enjoying the Starter Set, thank you to the Chaosium team. It’s a lovely product and has landed just in time for a summer holiday read 😎

Will there be a pinned thread for errata? In the meantime, there appears to be an error in the definition of Movement rate on p.14, both in the body description under the definition of the Strength characteristic and the marginalia.

P.14 under the definition of Strength states: STR + DEX divided by 2, plus 5. It seems to be intended that it is the sum of these two characteristics that is divided by two, rather than just DEX.  The marginalia interprets the body text literally, but substitutes SIZ for DEX i.e. ([STR+SIZ/2])+5

Should the marginalia should read ([STR+DEX]/2)+5 ? That would seem to align with the calculation of movement rates in the folios

Knight	STR	DEX	Movement	[STR+DEX/2]+5	[STR+DEX]/2 +5
Clarion	14	12	18	(14+12/2)+5=25	(14+12)/2+5=18
Evrain	10	13	17	(10+13/2)+5=21.5	(10+13)/2+5=16.5
Lynelle	11	12	17	(11+12/2)+5=22	(11+12)/2+5=16.5
Avalloc	12	12	17	(12+12/2)+5=23	(12+12)/2+5=17
Tamura	14	12	18	(14+12/2)+5=25	(14+12)/2+5=18
Cadwallon	12	12	17	(12+12/2)+5=23	(12+12)/2+5=17
Cwenhild	15	10	18	(15+10/2)+5=25	(15+10)/2+5=17.5
Asterius	12	13	18	(12+13/2)+5=23.5	(12+13)/2+5=17.5

 

 

Edited July 5, 2023 by MOB

[Morien]

13 minutes ago, RandomNumber said:

Should the marginalia should read ([STR+DEX]/2)+5 ? That would seem to align with the calculation of movement rates in the folios

It seems very obvious from your calculations that this must be the case. And clearly the inclusion of SIZ was in error, too.

Also, damage is written out in the same way in the text "STR+SIZ divided by six", and if you interpret that literally, Clarion's damage should be 14+14/6 = 16.33 = 16d6, which it clearly is not.

Obviously the marginalia is in error, and movement should be interpreted as (STR+DEX)/2 + 5 and damage (STR+SIZ)/6.

[RandomNumber]

49 minutes ago, Morien said:

It seems very obvious from your calculations that this must be the case. And clearly the inclusion of SIZ was in error, too.

Also, damage is written out in the same way in the text "STR+SIZ divided by six", and if you interpret that literally, Clarion's damage should be 14+14/6 = 16.33 = 16d6, which it clearly is not.

Obviously the marginalia is in error, and movement should be interpreted as (STR+DEX)/2 + 5 and damage (STR+SIZ)/6.

Agree, the marginalia for Brawling and Weapon damage are also incorrect although they do express the body text faithfully as stated (but not as intended).

[Morien]

Just now, RandomNumber said:

Agree, the marginalia for Brawling and Weapon damage are also incorrect although they do express the body text faithfully as stated (but not as intended).

Yeah, best to draw a big red X over that bit of marginalia...

[RandomNumber]

FYI @MOB, some more errata from Book 2:

p.24 LH column, "Misery", 2nd para: "dispelle" should be "dispelled"?

p.54/55 Table 8.1 "Combat Horses" and Table 8.4 "Horse Armor" don't reconcile with one another.

• Table 8.1 states that a normal charger has STR 32 and that it "May wear padding, full or half gambeson". 
• Table 8.4 states that a half gambeson requires a horse with STR 34, two more than the STR of normal charger that is stated as being able to use it in Table 8.1.
• It seems likely that the STR requirement for a half gambeson would be lower than for full and that the "Horse STR needed" of 34 is a typo and should be 32 to align with table 8.1.

p.59 RH column, "Unconscious", 2nd para states "See the nearby quotation from Mallory" There is no nearby quotation from Mallory, sentence can be removed (perhaps the reference is in the core book but was removed from the layout for the Starter set).

My overall impressions of the Starter set from a read through of Book 2 are overwhelmingly positive. It's well written, covers what it needs to and begs to be played.  I'm looking forward to getting this to the (virtual) table. The availability of the Starter Set on Roll20 already was (I confess) entirely unexpected and very welcome.

 

Edited July 4, 2023 by RandomNumber

[SDLeary]

Opposed Resolution (Book 2, starting p.10), and the Combat Action Resolution Chart (Book 2, p.34) vary in definition. Opposed resolution states that high roll is the Winner, where as the Chart seems to state that it is success level that is what is important. For example, the Chart states that Success vs. Success results in a Tie, without regards to actual die rolls, as discussed in the mentioned section on opposed resolution.

Armor, Shield, and Parry Protection (Book 2, p.35) states a partial success being needed in order for Shield/Parry protection to count.

I'm guessing here that at some point there was a thought at simplifying things for the Starter set, but the above mentioned potential artifacts make actual combat unclear.

Edit 2

Shields on p.52 reinforces the fact that a shield needs a partial success, further calling into question the Combat Action Resolution Chart (Book 2; p.34)

SDLeary

edit 1: spelling

edit 2: additional information on combat/shields

Edited July 4, 2023 by SDLeary
need to learn how to spell :)

[RandomNumber]

47 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

Opposed Resolution (Book 2, starting p.10), and the Combat Action Resolution Chart (Book 2, p.34) vary in definition. Opposed resolution states that high roll is the Winner, where as the Chart seems to state that it is success level that is what is important. For example, the Chart states that Success vs. Success results in a Tie, without regards to actual die rolls, as discussed in the mentioned section on opposed resolution.

Agree.  I had to stare at this a few times before I “got” it.  

The nodes are consistent with the results of Winners, Ties etc but the axes of the matrix are not labelled that way. For example, the intersection of “Success” and “Success” is explained as a Tie. I had expected the axes to be Winner, Loser etc. I do think the matrix works though.

AFAICT the nodes are consistent with the explanation in Chapter 2 and it’s why some nodes have no possible outcome e.g. the Character and the Opponent cannot both have a Partial Success.

[Morien]

2 hours ago, RandomNumber said:

The nodes are consistent with the results of Winners, Ties etc but the axes of the matrix are not labelled that way. For example, the intersection of “Success” and “Success” is explained as a Tie. I had expected the axes to be Winner, Loser etc. I do think the matrix works though.

Success-Success can only be a Tie, though. Otherwise it would be Partial Success-Success or Success-Partial Success.

 

[Gorelab]

I think the HP for Sir Cadwallon is wrong too. Everyone else seems to use SIZ+CON while his is just his SIZ.

[Morien]

5 hours ago, Gorelab said:

I think the HP for Sir Cadwallon is wrong too. Everyone else seems to use SIZ+CON while his is just his SIZ.

Yeah, should be 27. Adding that to the errata thread.

[alakoring]

Just got the PDF and looking through it… Characters have a Fashion skill but this isn’t in the rules. Londinium can give you -1D4 Geniality but that’s not in the rules either.

[SaxBasilisk]

Unsung passion value is 1-5 on Book 2, page 18, but 1-4 on page 20.

[RandomNumber]

I thought it odd that details for a greatsword are not provided in Book 2.  It's easy enough to add one but it seems a strange omission.

[Hzark10]

Thinking it is based on time. When did the Great Sword become a weapon? The starter set is dealing when Arthur first comes out. There are other weapons not mentioned as well, thus my assumption.

[MelronPeredor]

531 (Romance period) for the Greatsword, Hammer and Flail, so not surprising they are not in the Starter Set.

Edited July 23, 2023 by MelronPeredor

[SNaomiScott]

Here's a thing I don't think has been addressed elsewhere:

In Design Journal #6: Combat (27 Jan 2023), Michael writes that "...because we assume knights have trained at least a bit with every weapon, all Weapon Skills default to DEX/2..." but I'm not seeing this backed up anywhere in the rules.

Have I just missed it (not really spent much time with the Solo or Campaign books yet), or was it just not included? Is it something that's going to show up in the Knight's Handbook when that comes out?

(To help my poor newbies along I've included the DEX/2 rule in my house rules, but clarification would be very much appreciated here.)

[Morien]

6 minutes ago, SNaomiScott said:

Have I just missed it (not really spent much time with the Solo or Campaign books yet), or was it just not included? Is it something that's going to show up in the Knight's Handbook when that comes out?

Chargen is missing from the Starter, which is probably why you haven't seen it...

I think the pregens would all fit that rule, though. Although I was looking at Clarion, and he has Bow, Crossbow and Thrown Weapon at 0, and Two-Handed Hafted at 5. We know that the character sheets had some editing mistakes, and I have not looked if there is an errataed pdf available for download yet.

[SNaomiScott]

26 minutes ago, Morien said:

Chargen is missing from the Starter, which is probably why you haven't seen it...

This is a very good point and one I had completely failed to allow for. Though in my defence I defaulted chargen to KAP5.2 + BoS for my players.

[pduggan]

Why do the starter set characters seem to have movement rates that are roughly equivalent to the horses? 

The old calculation was a much lower rate. Are horses rates supposed to be multiplied by some kind of factor? for Trot/Cantor/Gallop? 

Also the design journal mentioned

Quote

For example, whether you play with miniatures or use theater of the mind, the game has been a little hazy on questions of where someone ends up after a mounted charge, and whether they’re able to charge again. Now, when you need to know the answer to this sometimes quite vital question, a quick consultation of your horse’s Movement Rate and the outcome of your prior Mounted Charge Action determines the post-charge distance between you and your opponent, and tells you how much space you need to get up to speed for another Mounted Charge. 

Did i miss something or are these rules not in the starter set? I can wait but I'm trying not to miss something. 

[Mugen]

3 hours ago, pduggan said:

Why do the starter set characters seem to have movement rates that are roughly equivalent to the horses? 

In order to support Monty Python style horses ?

[Morien]

18 hours ago, pduggan said:

Why do the starter set characters seem to have movement rates that are roughly equivalent to the horses? 

The old calculation was a much lower rate. Are horses rates supposed to be multiplied by some kind of factor? for Trot/Cantor/Gallop? 

Book II, p. 55 (emphasis mine): "Move: The walking Movement Rate of the horse"

Horses walk about the same speed as a human (at a brisk walk). So I would assume that the running / gallop multipliers would give a difference for the top speed.

Book II, p. 39, mentions in Mounted Charge that you need 30 yards of distance to go from stop to a full gallop for the lance charge to be effective. So in a mutual charge, you need 60 yards, I think (meeting at mid point, 30 yards from each). Since this apparently happens in a single round, it is clear that the gallop speed is significantly larger than the walking speed.

Book II, p. 44, Closing Distance table: It implies that human running speed is somewhere between trot and canter, and gallop is maybe twice as fast. There is obviously rounding going on here, so difficult to say for sure, but it is clear that max speed of a horse is higher than a human's.

18 hours ago, pduggan said:

Did i miss something or are these rules not in the starter set? I can wait but I'm trying not to miss something. 

At a quick glance, I did not see the exact multipliers anywhere, either. I probably would assume that it takes the same 30 yards to slow down and turn again.