Corrections thread - Pendragon Core Rulebook

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Primo Cavaliere said:

Yes, the squire will start with 1.000, getting another 1.000 for knighthood and 1.000 for marriage? Meaning that at the start of a campaign you'll find knight with 3k glory?

It seems to me a great powerup

Not quite.

The PARENT of the PK ended his/her career with 6d6*100 + 2000 Glory = average 4100 Glory.

The PK will inherit 4100/4 = 1050 Glory.

Then they will get 1000 Glory from being knighted.

When they get married (during the campaign), they will get whatever Marriage Glory they will get. The Core Rulebook is silent on this, so the Gamemaster's Handbook should give the formula.

So in other words, the newly minted PK will start with 2050 Glory instead of 1410 Glory that he would have in 5.2, assuming the same Parent's Glory. If we assume the Parent's Glory was more like 2000 in 5.2, then the difference would be 2050 (or 1500, using the 2000 Parent Glory) and 1200. The increase is due to the Parent's Glory AND the Inherited Glory fraction both increasing. But it is still less than 1000 Glory difference, or that the PK gets a second prestige point at the start. I am not too worried about this.

[Sir Erwin]

On page 50, under the Random Method header the text states:

"If you roll a Religious Trait (such as Energetic for Christian characters),..."

I think either the trait or religion should be changed in the example, since energetic is not a religious trait for Christians. 

[Luca Cherstich]

p.238, "Traits and Passions" (notes on converting from 5th to 6th edition).

ON CHIVALRY:

"...You are normally not obligated to take new Passions like Station or Chivalry, but if you wish, you may generate their starting values as per the random Passion method described on p. 51."

This line works for "Station" but it is faulty for "Chivalry", as the method on p.51, where different dice are used for different passions (2d6+8, 2d6+3, 1d6+2 etc.) but the text does not mention Chivalry.

An alternative is to use for Chivalry the "1d6+6" suggested on p.74, which means all old Chivalrous PCs will not be Chivalrous anymore (as "Chivalry 15" is now a prerequisite, and there are also higher Traits' requirements). This makes sense (as the Chivalrous state now seems rarer) but the conversions rules should have been explicit on such an important topic (as the 4 points of armor can really save a PC's life....).

ON STATION:

The text on p.51 is problematic for Station too: the 2d6+3 is not enough, as the random methods includes also the 4d6+1 points to be spread among different passions, but the old PCs possibly already have a high Honor, Love (Family), Homage and Hospitality passions, where I guess such points should not be spread (this means that were risk to end up with too high Station values, summing up 2d6+3 and 4d6+1). 

I have a gut feeling (judging from pre-created PCs on p.249-251) that the best action is to suggest players of old 5th edition PCs to choose between Station 10 and Station 2d6+3. 

ON DEVOTION:

The text just says that "Love (God)" not Becomes Devotion. However, that passion was rare in 5th edition, while everybody has Devotion in 6th edition. I guess a reference to the Random Method should have been suggested here too.

I feel that characters which did not have Love (God) in 5th edition, should now choose between Devotion 5 and Devotion 1d6+2.

Edited June 19 by Luca Cherstich

[Luca Cherstich]

p.136

The whole Melee ranges description should be rewritten in a more explicit way, listing for each entry all the details in the same way.

For example, a Close Quarter Weapon can be used at -5/+5 at Normal range and dealing damage (if succesful).

Given the rules on p.135, the same Close Quarter weapon can be used at Long Range, without dealing damage, but trying to close-up for the next round. Nevertheless the text does not mention whether the Close Quarter Weapon suffers at Long Range the same -5/+5 which it suffers at Normal Range (and "common sense" should suggest so...).

Problems like these are present in the descriptions of all the four ranges.

 

Edited June 19 by Luca Cherstich

[Luca Cherstich]

p. 132, second column, speaking about order of declaration, when this is important.

• The main text suggests to do opposed DEX rolls.
• The red note on the side suggests to declare from lowest DEX to highest DEX.

I feel both methods have advantages, but please choose one (or explicitly suggest both alternatives in both texts!).

Edited June 20 by Luca Cherstich

[Luca Cherstich]

p. 186.

• "Acquiring a white horse"... should be changed, as White Horses cannot be bought. By the way, a price would be appreciated.
• Pale horses are said to be rare and fairy. This seems like a good excuse for some Glory. Unfortunately on this page there's no Glory mentioned for Pale Horses.

[Luca Cherstich]

P.249, "Adventurous Knight" has Horsemanship 15 and Charge 17.

That's a badly designed character for a pre-generated character, maybe even used for one-shot games, as "Charge" has no use out of mounted combat and therefore it will always work as Charge 15 and never at its full value of 17.

My suggestion is to change both Horsemanship and Charge to 16.

ADDENDUM:

Even if not corrected as I suggested, the Charge value among the attacks cannot be "17" but "15".

 

Edited July 2 by Luca Cherstich

[Morien]

18 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

P.241-242, on future equipment.

Plate armour for knights is missing and it should be present (as it was present in the "future" chapter in 5.2).

I see it on p. 240, Table A.3: List of Harnesses.

[Luca Cherstich]

On 6/23/2024 at 6:37 PM, Morien said:

I see it on p. 240, Table A.3: List of Harnesses.

You're right (I thought it was horse armour). By the way, that table should include a "Padding?" with each line specifying an entry like "none" or "not required", as I guess that plate armors does not require an old-style aketon to be added (is padding already included in those armor protection values?).

Although maybe a "Reinforced Mail" still requires an aketon to be worn (?).

 

ADDENDUM:.

- p.173, 2nd column, Coats of plates section mentions "brigandine Armor" but this is missing from p.240, table A.3.

Edited June 29 by Luca Cherstich

[Luca Cherstich]

P.169, "Orate"… second column.

"...failure imposes a penalty, as given below".

However, there's no mention of penalties in the following text.

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Luca Cherstich said:

You're right (I thought it was horse armour). By the way, that table should include a "Padding?" Column like it appears in the normal Armor table on p. 173 (or just say that padding is included in those values).

Padding and helmets are included in those values, and no doubt it was done to simplify things, just to give a taste of what is to come, and the detailed breakdown will be in the appropriate period books.

It is easy to see that, comparing the typical knightly armor of 10 at the start of the Boy King. Each of those armor are in +3 point steps, whereas if it didn't include the helmet and the padding, the first step would be something like 7-8 points... Not to mention pretty excessive. The 5e armor values were in +2 point steps, so armor has increased a bit, but two-handed weapons do a bit more damage as well. As does the Reckless Attack.

[Sir Erwin]

2 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

P.169, "Orate"… second column.

"...failure imposes a penalty, as given below".

However, there's no mention of penalties in the following text.

BEOWULF, on the discord server, got an official response from Chaosium on this. They said:

"When used to inspire followers, a critical success grants a +5 bonus to a single Skill or Passion of the orator's choosing, lasting no longer than one hour. A fumble imposes a -5 penalty instead for the same period of time."

[Zarkov]

On p. 97, the subsection on Non-Knighty Skill says of Industry and Chirurgery that “They do not appear on the knight’s character sheet for this reason.”

Industry does, in fact, appear on the sheet.

 

P. 120, right column at the end of the list on Honor loss: “This is not a list of absolutes; parts appear contradictory, but they make sense when dissembled into their cultural components.”

Dissembled should be disassembled.

 

On p. 177, the entry for Simple Shield says: “They are the size of a round shield […]”.

The two headings for both types of shields give different sizes, however: “Round Shield (Large)”, but “Simple Shield (Medium)”.

 

P. 207, Section How to Use Your Wealth: “When given as a gift, […] when determining the value of the Favor owed (see the following section for more details.)”

Apparently this section shifted around; section Favor is now the preceding section, starting on p. 204.

 

P. 242f, a small typo: Table B.1.1. has entry no. 20 as “Semé”, but the illustration on the next page uses the spelling “Semy.”

 

On 6/23/2024 at 6:51 PM, Luca Cherstich said:

P.169, "Orate"… second column.

"...failure imposes a penalty, as given below".

However, there's no mention of penalties in the following text.

That should be p. 109, by the way, it’s just that the 0 looks a bit like 6.  🙂 

Edited June 25 by Zarkov

[Vortimer]

Chapter 13: Solo Scenarios, page 214, 1st column, Both the "Visiting the Royal Court" and "Visiting a Lord's Overlord" entries reference the Solo on page 217. The Solos are actually on p. 218. In addition, on page 218, the latter Solo is named, Visiting With A Great Lord.

[Luca Cherstich]

p.134, "Determing Knockdown".

This section lacks two important things to be useful.

• There is no mention of the penalties suffered by a fallen character ( a reference to p.147, Height Advantage, with its -5/+5 modifier, should be due).
• More importantly there is no indication about what is required to stand up after the fall. Stand-up rules are not only missing here, but are nowhere to be found in the book (unless I'm blind).

A possible solution is to add the 5.2 rules for standing up: wasting an action in the movement phase of next round.

To be added as a possible solution: check the discussion and comment by Morien about an old suggestion by Greg Stafford (allowing to fight defensively while standing up).

 

Edited June 25 by Luca Cherstich

[Zarkov]

P. 76, table 4.2.

The entries for Failure and Fumble read:

“Failure   Passion Crisis; see ‘For Dole and Sorrow’”

“Fumble   Lose 1 points from the Passion.”

However, on the following page (p.77) under “For Dole and Sorrow”, the second paragraph says “A failed or fumbled roll on Table 4.2 […] is one way to trigger a Passion Crisis.”

The table does not reflect this. Either the table entry for Fumble should also include a reference to the Passion Crisis rules, or the mention of fumbled rolls should be deleted from the sentence on p. 77.

 

P. 116, right column, second paragraph

“Since only combatants are part of the group, no offense is given to accuse peasants and clergy of being afraid.”

to accuse should be by accusing.

 

On p. 232, Step 7: Horse Survival

Second sentence reads: “Liege Lords replace ordinary sumpters and rouncys for their household knights.”

However, two paragraphs below that, the section Horse Survival Roll says “All Household Knights get new animals from their lords as needed to maintain the minimum stable of one charger, two rouncys and one sumpter […]”

The former excludes replacement chargers, the latter includes them.

(Also, the capitalisation of Household Knights/household knights is not consistent.)

 

P. 234, second paragraph of Childbirth

“Before the birth of a child, a Prestige Reward may guarantee a healthy childbirth or to determine the gender of the child.”

The to should be deleted.

 

 

[Morien]

11 minutes ago, Zarkov said:

The former excludes replacement chargers, the latter includes them.

Latter is correct. The Liege Lord is responsible for (single) chargers of their household knights, too. If a specific household knight has gained extra horses and is keeping them for his own use/wealth, the Liege Lord is not responsible for them.

[Morien]

17 minutes ago, Zarkov said:

P. 76, table 4.2.

The entries for Failure and Fumble read:

“Failure   Passion Crisis; see ‘For Dole and Sorrow’”

“Fumble   Lose 1 points from the Passion.”

However, on the following page (p.77) under “For Dole and Sorrow”, the second paragraph says “A failed or fumbled roll on Table 4.2 […] is one way to trigger a Passion Crisis.”

The table does not reflect this. Either the table entry for Fumble should also include a reference to the Passion Crisis rules, or the mention of fumbled rolls should be deleted from the sentence on p. 77.

Actually a bigger errata, on p. 77...

It lists Melancholy and Madness as the results of the Passion Roll, which is wrong (you don't get those from the initial roll, but only in the Passion Crisis roll, later on).

Instead, it should list (from the Starter Set, Book III, p. 20):
"
- Passion Crisis: See details below
- Lose 1 Point from the Passion: The
character automatically loses 1 point from
their Passion as they question their beliefs.
The Gamemaster may choose to trigger a
Passion Crisis as well if circumstances call
for it, as described below.
"

[Luca Cherstich]

Actually, given all the above mentioned confusion, on p.77 the title "For Dole and Sorrow" should be changed to "For Dole and Sorrow (Passion Crisis)" to enhance comprehension 

Edited June 26 by Luca Cherstich

[Luca Cherstich]

P.147, second column, Slam results.

The results are confusingly explained.

- if total damage is greater that target's size both character and target fall to the ground (Which I suspect make them subject to the -5/+5 Height modifier from the same p.147).

- if damage is twice the size th opponent is "knocked prone". The mechanical effects of this condition are not explained anywhere.

Is maybe the target becoming "immobile" as per page 148?

Edit: the "crit" part says "only the opponent"....now I got it!

Edited June 26 by Luca Cherstich

[Metalzoic]

From reading this thread, the Grey Knight correction thread and a bunch of the other topics it seems like this release has a ludicrous amount of mistakes, oversights, confused rules, missing explanations etc... especially for the 6th revision of a game that they've been working on for several years now. How did this even get released in this condition?

[Zarkov]

1 hour ago, Morien said:

Actually a bigger errata, on p. 77...

Very good, I had missed that entirely. Forest, trees. ^^

[Luca Cherstich]

2 hours ago, Metalzoic said:

From reading this thread, the Grey Knight correction thread and a bunch of the other topics it seems like this release has a ludicrous amount of mistakes, oversights, confused rules, missing explanations etc... especially for the 6th revision of a game that they've been working on for several years now. How did this even get released in this condition?

I kind of feel the same, but mostly because Pendragon is for me the best RPG ever done (and this edition is also full of so many excellent things), therefore everything wrong hurts. To be frank: I've published my own things (not necessarily rpg-related) where I've done too many errors. I know what it means when you read a thing too many times and errors and typos become invisibile. Therefore I feel bad pointing too much a finger at Chaosium.

On the other hand, speaking only as a customer (who knows nothing of Chaosium's inner business) I'm now used to buy PDFs, print them and make my own corrections with a pencil, as I do not want to waste a good Chaosium-printed copy. I'm grateful that they left the possibility of hiding the background in PDFs, allowing to save so much ink.

I vastly prefered when they used to sell the PDFs first, exploit the customers' finding the corrections, and printing later on. However, as I said, I'm just a customer, and I know nothing of Chaosium' economic business and the reasons behind their choices. If I have to choose between the publication of faulty books and no publication at all, I vastly prefer the first option, as we have all have waited too much for Pendragon 6. Let hope they'll produce the GM and Noble books soon (with not too many errors), as those books seem to be essential parts of 6th edition!

 

Edited June 26 by Luca Cherstich

[SDLeary]

Not necessarily a correction, but a clarification. 

"Dispensing Low Justice" is listed as a heading under the Stewardship skill (pp.132-133). Is the intent that Stewardship cover this? I ask because "dispensing justice" is not listed under the main Stewardship listing, though could be subsumed under "administration". And the section "Dispensing Low Justice" does not mention Stewardship at all.

If the placement of this subsection is correct, then would Stewardship also belong to the skill group "Knightly", as this could be practiced by the Steward/Seneschal of the manor, who may also be a Knight?

SDLeary 

Edited July 2 by SDLeary

[Luca Cherstich]

P.159, Weapon Defaults.

"All Weapon Skills start with a base value equal to the character's starting DEX/2. Default Skill levels are set at character creation, based on the character's DEX at age 14."

This should be changed as follows to be consistent with p.51:

"All Weapon Skills start with a base value equal to the character's starting DEX/2, except Brawling whose base value is STR/2. Default Skill levels are set at character creation, based on the character's DEX and STR at age 14."

 

 

 

"