Pendragon questions

[Toadmaster]

I just realized we don't have a Pendragon forum here, so I guess it defaults to BRP.

 

Pendragon is one of those games I've always wanted to try but never have. I know it has gone through some changes over the years as well as several publishers. 

 

I know it has a two part game one being a traditional RPG, the other off season downtime. How would you describe the general game play / tone? Is it a fairly realistic historical game or more towards fantasy? Does it follow any particular flavor of Arthurian mythology (Mallory, T.H. White, other?) or a combination of sources?

How do magic and mystical forces play into the game? Can the players meet mythological creatures, dragons, giants, trolls, witches etc?  

 

In regards to editions is there any reason to hunt down an older edition vs buying the current Nocturnal version?

 

Thanks 

[SDLeary]

7 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

I just realized we don't have a Pendragon forum here, so I guess it defaults to BRP.

 

Pendragon is one of those games I've always wanted to try but never have. I know it has gone through some changes over the years as well as several publishers. 

 

I know it has a two part game one being a traditional RPG, the other off season downtime. How would you describe the general game play / tone? Is it a fairly realistic historical game or more towards fantasy? Does it follow any particular flavor of Arthurian mythology (Mallory, T.H. White, other?) or a combination of sources?

Fantasy. The system can be used as historical, certainly nothing preventing that, but all supporting material places things firmly in Arthurian Fantasy. A very large portion of Mallory goes with this, though any of the literary sources could add flavor.

Quote

How do magic and mystical forces play into the game? Can the players meet mythological creatures, dragons, giants, trolls, witches etc?  

In the current version, magic isn't very well defined rules wise. Magic is placed firmly in the hands of the GM to provide Wonder and Excitement, as one would find in the sources.

Greg is supposed to be working on a Magic supplement, but if you want something more well defined now then your best bet is to find a copy of 4e. That has actual rules for character generation and casting. Mind though, it is certainly NOT Vancian style magic.

Quote

In regards to editions is there any reason to hunt down an older edition vs buying the current Nocturnal version?

 

Thanks 

All the versions are somewhat the same overall, with 4e being the standout for flexibility because of magic and expanded character generation. The most current version, 5.2, is the most cleaned up of the bunch, but the streamlining goes extreme, and pulls out a lot of the flexibility that you fine in 4e. 

A spin-off is PALADIN: Warriors of Charlemagne, which deals primarily with the Roland cycle. There are a few changes that tailor it for its new focus, but I'm still going thru it so don't feel quite versed enough to comment on how effective they are.

Most newer supplements that are out focus on things that really do not hold any interest for me: manorial management and large set piece battles. The best supplement of course, is the Great Pendragon Campaign. A couple of the supplements expand this to an earlier time to cover the reign of Uther. Older supplements for for 4e and earlier extend the world and the magic. Beyond the Wall, Pagan Shore, and Land of Giants are the standouts here.

In addition to this, you can find PendragonPass by Dave Dunham. This is (as you can probably figure from the name) a Glorantha focused adaption of the Pendragon rules. In my estimation, this probably should have been the core for the New Chaosium Game, as with a little tinkering (Masteries from HQ), it could scale much easier from gritty to heroic.

SDLeary

Edited June 26, 2018 by SDLeary
Added link; information on older supplements

[Atgxtg]

7 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

I know it has a two part game one being a traditional RPG, the other off season downtime. How would you describe the general game play / tone? Is it a fairly realistic historical game or more towards fantasy?

It's fantasy, but Arthurian fantasy, not the high fantasy of Lord of the Rings, D&D and such. The game is focused around knights, that's it. While there are rules toplay other type of characters, in a standard campaign >95% of the PCs will be knights. 

The tone is a bit gritter than the typical fantasy game. It's kinda like Magic World, but without (most of) the magic. Major wounds requirement treatment to heal properly (it's possible for such injuries to get worse and kill a character) and healing can take some time (hit points, armor, and weapon damages are all about twice what you see in other BRP games, but healing is  about 3 points a week for most characters).

Unlike other BRP games, combat, and other tasks are resolved by rolling 1D20 under skill. If you roll the skill exactly it's a crtical. If you roll a 20 it is a fumble, unless your skill is 20-then it's a critical. Skill scores over 20 add to the die roll. So someone who has a 24 Sword skill would add 4 to his rolls. When a task is opposed, both ides roll and the highest successful roll wins, with critical successes trumping normal successes. Combat is also handled with the opposed roll mechanic, with the winner inflicting damage on the loser. If the loser's roll was successful, he gets a partial success and can benefit from his shield's protection (6 points- about half that of an RQ shield)

Pendragon has Traits and passions (it's where RQG got them), although the inspiration bonus is higher in Pendragon. 

Pendragon also has Glory. When a knight does great deeds he earns Glory  (kinda like experience points in other games, only it's more about the fame than  leveling up). For every 1000 Glory that a character earns other get a +1 to rolls to recognize him or his coat of arms. Also, for every 1000 Glory the character can raise any one rating on his sheet by 1 point, Characters, Traits, Passions, Skills, anything. Furthermore this increase can bypass the other rules or limits. A character can have a STR score of 30 in Pendragon, if he gets enough Glory to do it. 

 

Pendragon also has a timline and pace. In general you have one adventure a year, which is about one game session on average. Since the campaign is the life of King Arthur and starts before Arthur and ends after his reing, characters will age. You won't finish the game with the same character you started with. Obn the plus side, you do get to pass things on to your heirs (assuming you have any), including 1/10 of your Glory. 

7 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

Does it follow any particular flavor of Arthurian mythology (Mallory, T.H. White, other?) or a combination of sources?

It follows a combination of sources. Mallory is the primary source, but it dips into the French romances, and earlier Celtic tales to flesh it out. Newer sources, such as White and the film Excalibur are also influences to a lesser extent 

7 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

How do magic and mystical forces play into the game?

Magic in most editions of the game is left up to the GM to handle. You get more story based stuff than the flash bang spells of D&D or the utilitarian spells of RQ Battle Magic. Think Celtic Magic, with Farie Knights, Enchanted Weapons, Holy Miracles, Glamour,etc. 4th edition did have a playable magic system, but PC that wielder magic had to pay for the energy requirement spending weeks in magical slumber (Remember the bit in Excalibur when Merlin claims to have slept 9 moons because of what he did for Uther? That's just about right for that magic in the game!). Failure to do so in a timely manner means making an aging roll for each week missed. 

There aren't any magic shops, and enchanted items, do exist but they are few and far between. Most characters won't have any. Those who do will chresish them and past them on to their sons. 

 

 

7 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

Can the players meet mythological creatures, dragons, giants, trolls, witches etc?  

Yes. They can and they will. Quite a few adventures revolve around just that. 

7 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

In regards to editions is there any reason to hunt down an older edition vs buying the current Nocturnal version?

The new version  (6th Edition, which is the same as 5th),especially with the expansion supplements expands upon lots of things (just about everything), but that is sort of a mixed blessing. You get more detail but somethings take longer. You get more detailed character creation and more options, but it takes longer to write up a character, you get more detailed battles, but they take longer to play out, you get more detailed land management, but the Winter Phase takes longer to play. So it's a bit of a trade off. The nice part is that the supplements are all optional, basically expanding on whats in the core book, so you don't have to use any of them, can pick and choose, or even port them back to earlier editions. The bad part is that often the core 6th edition versions aren't as detailed as 4th edition (for example, you only get the pick method for generating characters in the core rules and need a supplement to get random rolls, or to come from someplace other than than Salisibury). Pendragon is probably more backwards compatible than RQ, CoC or Stormbringer. Not much has really changed over the years except for Glory awards and chargen.

4th edition is less detailed than core 6th edition, but a bit more "complete". Starting Characters aren't quite as powerful as in 6th edition. 4th does have a playable magic system though. But if someone is really looking to cast a lot of magic, this isn't the game for it. 

3rd edition is the same as 4th but without the magic system, or the chargen for character from outside of Salisbury..  If you do get 3rd of 4th then look for the Boy King supplement, for some good chargen rules for your early characters. You don't need it, but it helps.

2nd edition had much weaker characters, and 1st weaker still. Most of what is in those editions, especially Glory awards and NPC stats, was revised in supplements or later editions.

IMO the choice is probably between the current edition (6th) and 4th. Maybe 3rd if you can get it for a bargain.

 

Whatever edition you decide on, make sure to pick up the Great Pendragon Campaign supplement. In a nutshell, it's a full 80 year campaign. You could run an entire campaign with just the GPC. You could add more adventures, swap out adventures, take some out whatever, but you can get by with just the GPC.  Plus it gives you a feel for the game better than anything else. 

 

 

[Toadmaster]

Thank you, these were the answers I was hoping to hear. 

 

It looks like 4th ed is available at DTRPG, so I could get the current in print and a pdf of the 4th ed for the other rules fairly easily. I'm not really interested in player magic so much as just making sure there is magic in the setting. Subtle magic is what I would expect.

 

I did see Paladin at the Nocturnal site, looks kind of interesting. Guess it can't hurt to have the system branching out into other themes.

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

Thank you, these were the answers I was hoping to hear. 

 

It looks like 4th ed is available at DTRPG, so I could get the current in print and a pdf of the 4th ed for the other rules fairly easily. I'm not really interested in player magic so much as just making sure there is magic in the setting. Subtle magic is what I would expect.

You don't need 4th for magic in the setting.. You don't really need RPG style rules for magic in Pendragon becuase the PCs are knights, and will have to deal with things as a knight would. They can resist some things with thier traits, passions and stats, but there's not much they can really do about magic.

  DriveThru has 5.1 too But, it also has First Edition available for free. Download that and you can check out the basics of the game for free. 

 

2 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

 

I did see Paladin at the Nocturnal site, looks kind of interesting. Guess it can't hurt to have the system branching out into other themes.

More like the same theme but a different setting. 

[TrippyHippy]

I think other people have answered the core questions very well, and the big appeal is definitely the authenticity and frankly hard core research that really brings the Authurian setting to life. It suits long term campaigns best, although it is easy enough to run as a one shot knightly quest, etc. It can be as historic or fantastic as the remits of the source material allows. 

The only thing I would add extra is that, mechanically, it really is the most polished and elegant version of the BRP rules that I have seen. It is streamlined - less skills, less stipulations in combat, less Characteristics, more focussed exclusively on Knights, less variation in die-types - just D20 and D6s, and lots of other ways too - but still feels very 'realistic' in play. Combat is brutal, but dynamic and fast. There isn't a magic system, per se (apart from in the 4th edition), but the philosophies and paradigms of magic are very well explained, which makes it pretty easy for a referee to create the right atmosphere in a game. 

In short, it is a gem. 

 

 

[SDLeary]

11 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

It's fantasy, but Arthurian fantasy, not the high fantasy of Lord of the Rings, D&D and such. The game is focused around knights, that's it. While there are rules toplay other type of characters, in a standard campaign >95% of the PCs will be knights. 

While certainly not DnD-like, the tropes between Arthurian Fantasy and Tolkien are very similar. It would be somewhat trivial to cross over into Middle Earth with Pendragon, just need to figure out starting skills for non-warrior types, and beasties.

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

1 minute ago, SDLeary said:

While certainly not DnD-like, the tropes between Arthurian Fantasy and Tolkien are very similar. It would be somewhat trivial to cross over into Middle Earth with Pendragon, just need to figure out starting skills for non-warrior types, and beasties.

SDLeary

There are certainly similarities, but Middle Earth has a lot of high powered characters that would just outclass most Arthurian characters. You'd probably have to go all early Celtic to get to the same sort of power level.

Game mechanics wise, there is another problem. Pendragon is geared towards armored characters (knight) and the rules are all biased towards that. Unarmored characters have a problem, and there is no parry to speak of. So most of the the characters in the Hobbit and LoTR would be toast. I think to run in Middle Earth with Pendragon you'd have to restore the armor and shield values back to their RQ ratings, and then add in weapon AP values so they can be used to parry on a partial success. But it's nothing that can't be dealt with.With a bit of work it could be a very good Middle Earth RPG. It might actually do better at handling some things better than some other Middle Earth RPGs. It's a fascinating idea. 

[SDLeary]

10 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

Thank you, these were the answers I was hoping to hear. 

 

It looks like 4th ed is available at DTRPG, so I could get the current in print and a pdf of the 4th ed for the other rules fairly easily. I'm not really interested in player magic so much as just making sure there is magic in the setting. Subtle magic is what I would expect.

In 4e you do have flexibility. The advanced character generation basically shows you what you would need to do to develop other cultures (or even non-humans), and if one of your players insists that they want to play a magician, then those rules are there as well. 

10 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

I did see Paladin at the Nocturnal site, looks kind of interesting. Guess it can't hurt to have the system branching out into other themes.

If that interests you, then keep an eye out, because someone is supposed to be working on a Samurai version of the game too, though this news was old and my have been delayed or fallen off the map.

Paladin is certainly interesting, and I think that it might form the basis for 6e Pendragon when its released. 

In fact, I just looked at Drive Thru, and they have a nice bundle of the 4e material!

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

10 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

There are certainly similarities, but Middle Earth has a lot of high powered characters that would just outclass most Arthurian characters. You'd probably have to go all early Celtic to get to the same sort of power level.

A fair point, but other than Gandalf (who really isn't part of The Party), most of the high powered individuals are firmly in the NPC realm.

Quote

Game mechanics wise, there is another problem. Pendragon is geared towards armored characters (knight) and the rules are all biased towards that. Unarmored characters have a problem, and there is no parry to speak of. So most of the the characters in the Hobbit and LoTR would be toast. I think to run in Middle Earth with Pendragon you'd have to restore the armor and shield values back to their RQ ratings, and then add in weapon AP values so they can be used to parry on a partial success. But it's nothing that can't be dealt with.With a bit of work it could be a very good Middle Earth RPG. It might actually do better at handling some things better than some other Middle Earth RPGs. It's a fascinating idea. 

Parrying exists, but it is subsumed into the actual interaction. Partial Success (under skill, under opponents successful roll) allows the character to interpose their shield or weapon. Remember that combat is a bit more abstracted than RQ; Striking and Parrying are part of each interaction. 

And remember that PendragonPass has been used for several successful long term campaigns among the Gloranthan Grognardica.

SDLeary

Edited June 26, 2018 by SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

4 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

A fair point, but other than Gandalf (who really isn't part of The Party), most of the high powered individuals are firmly in the NPC realm.

Aragon and Legolas are probably a bit over the top.  

Quote

Parrying exists, but it is subsumed into the actual interaction. Partial Success (under skill, under opponents successful roll) allows the character to interpose their shield or weapon. Remember that combat is a bit more abstracted than RQ; Striking and Parrying are part of each interaction. 

SDLeary

Yes, but from a game play view it means you have no protection if you aren't armored or carrying a shield, and not much (6 points) from the shield! That's fine for a game about knights, but you need to do something about that for other settings and characters. its what derailed someone's idea of using it for a Swashbuckling game a few years back. For something like LoTR you need to give the PCs something for a partial success-especially if the characters are unarmored. Think of how unarmored characters were in AD&D. 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Atgxtg

[SDLeary]

24 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Aragon and Legolas are probably a bit over the top.  

Hmm, perhaps, at least if going by the Jackson interpretation. I simply think they are highly skilled characters. Aragon is really not that much different in skill than a Sword or a Windlord in RQ. 

24 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but from a game play view it means you have no protection if you aren't armored or carrying a shield, and not much (6 points) from the shield! That's fine for a game about knights, but you need to do something about that for other settings and characters. its what derailed someone's idea of using it for a Swashbuckling game a few years back. For something like LoTR you need to give the PCs something for a partial success-especially if the characters are unarmored. Think of how unarmored characters were in AD&D. 

These numbers can be easily adjusted though, buckler 6, medium 9 or 10, kite or scutum-ish 12, and you really don't unbalance the game. And if you go back to The Boy King, you already have "Legionary Shield (9-points)".

In fact in PDP, you have weapons parrying 3 points, and shields 9. Large Shields are 12 points, but impose a -5 to skill. Hell, you even have shortswords, which do -d6 damage. 

SDLeary

Edited June 26, 2018 by SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

Oh sure. I even said that it wouldn't be a hard fix. Just that it's something a GM needs to be aware of and do something about before running.

I'd just revert to RQ3 shield values (Greg just cut them in half for Pendragon)  and armor values (Greg just doubled them for Pendragon) for a start, Medium Shield 12 (so it can stop most of the damage from a sword hit by itself), Kit Shield 16, Legion Shield 18. I'd either use the RQ3 AP value for weapons, or just give them a default score based off of skill. 1/4 skill would work out nicely for weapon and shield parries. 

Like I said earlier, it would be interesting. I was considering adapting BRP Magic World to a LoTR game, but Pendragon LoTR could be interesting. Especially ifadapting stuff from The One Ring. Cultural Virtual and Rewards are a good fit for Pendragon. 

[simonh]

On 6/26/2018 at 2:19 AM, SDLeary said:

In addition to this, you can find PendragonPass by Dave Dunham. This is (as you can probably figure from the name) a Glorantha focused adaption of the Pendragon rules. In my estimation, this probably should have been the core for the New Chaosium Game, as with a little tinkering (Masteries from HQ), it could scale much easier from gritty to heroic.

Wow, I remember David used to send out copies by mail back in the 90s if you sent him the postage. I've got mine in a box up in the attic. Good times.

[Atgxtg]

On 6/26/2018 at 1:08 PM, SDLeary said:

Hmm, perhaps, at least if going by the Jackson interpretation. I simply think they are highly skilled characters. Aragon is really not that much different in skill than a Sword or a Windlord in RQ. 

Yeah, but a Windlord RQ is definitely over the top for Pendragon. It clashes with the whole gritty Dark Age/Medieval vibe. Imagine how much the tone of a Pendragon game would change if you added RQ Sprirt Magic or D&D magic.

Yes, mechanically you could port over Spirit Magic without much trouble. You'd probably want to add a POW stat, and change +5% to +1, but rules wise, it would be a snap. But having the knight running around with Bladesharp 4 and Heal 6 would radially change how the game feels and plays. And with D&D magic, just one D&D Cleric with all that healing would warp things.

Again, it's easy to make modification to Pendragon, RQ (the first BRP game) turned out to be a very flexible and adaptable system. Just look at how different Pendragon is to other D100 games (okay, it isn't a D100 game, but it's a close relative) and yet it's easy to port stuff over from RQ/BRP and such. 

 

But my point was Pendragon isn't high fantasy. Yes, you could make it high fantasy, but that's not what the game and setting are, and we were describing it to somebody. 

[Al.]

Whenever I've run PenDragon at cons (which I've done many times) I always have a sheet on the table stating

This is Literary Fiction not Historical Fiction

King Arthur is the Land

Do the Right Thing

 

The system works brilliantly when there are real social constraints and expectations (I've used it for Samurai/Saborai, Celtic, Dr Who and Archaen games without any trouble, and I don't think that I'd use any other system for any of those settings now)

I found the 4e magic system really interesting to read but horrible in play.

The OriginalMagicWorld magic rules work surprisingly well alongside (with the advantage that the zap-bang-flash spells can just be removed if desired or kept if required)

A friend of mine had a simple lifeforce magic system in a one-off con game which worked brilliantly (my Celtic Witch could heal as many HP as she sacrificed Con of victims for example)

I'm confident that one could run a D&D/Pathfinder level of high-magic-fantasy quite easily

[Atgxtg]

2 minutes ago, Al. said:

I'm confident that one could run a D&D/Pathfinder level of high-magic-fantasy quite easily

No doubt. I'm not claiming that you can't, or that you shouldn't or that it would be difficult to do so. I was just stating that Pendragon is Arthurian Fantasy not the "High Fantasy"common to most FRPGs. 

[Toadmaster]

I'm curious about the armor comments. I see that there have been supplements for vikings, picts, and saxons all of whom I assume are less well armored than the default knights. Did they not address armor in any of these supplements?

 

 

Thanks for pointing out 1st ed is free on DTRPG. I've picked that up and if I like what I see I believe I'll go back and get that 4th ed bundle.

 

It sounds like Pendragon is like most BRP related games where edition differences are fairly subtle, so easy to mix and match. The additions to 4th ed simply being additive, not major changes in the common rules?  

Edited June 28, 2018 by Toadmaster

[simonh]

1 hour ago, Toadmaster said:

It sounds like Pendragon is like most BRP related games where edition differences are fairly subtle, so easy to mix and match. The additions to 4th ed simply being additive, not major changes in the common rules?  

That’s right, each edition might have tweaked a few things here or there, but as with new Call of Cthulhu editions, the main changes were expanding the material and adding in content from supplements and scenario packs that could usefully go into the main book. So sometimes a scenario might feature a monster, or a new skill, or a supplement might add in character generation options for a new homeland, and these would end up in the core rulebook in a later edition. 4th edition was the ultimate expression of this, a real kitchen sink and tons of fun but a bit clunky.

With 5th edition, Greg stripped it all back down and focused on what you need to get going with the Great Pendragon Campaign. It’s really the rulebook for the GPC, more than the GPC being a campaign pack for 5th edition.

Edited June 28, 2018 by simonh

[SDLeary]

14 hours ago, simonh said:

Wow, I remember David used to send out copies by mail back in the 90s if you sent him the postage. I've got mine in a box up in the attic. Good times.

I had been going by the web site posts, but was able to get my hands on a copy of Enclosure 1 with the insert still in tact. 

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

3 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

I'm curious about the armor comments. I see that there have been supplements for vikings, picts, and saxons all of whom I assume are less well armored than the default knights. Did they not address armor in any of these supplements?

The armor is addressed in the core rules, though most of the others start off with leather or cuirboilli, if anything. These supplements are really cultural supplements that expand on the descriptions in the main book than anything else. 

Beyond the Wall (northern Brits and Picts) ads Pictish Heathenism to the range of faiths, and more magical traits. It also has rules to create a Pictish Shaman.

Land of Giants is Beowulf more than Vikings. It ads the Scandinavian and Finn culture(s), Norse Heathenism and Runes, and Ships.

Pagan Shore expands the Irish culture, adds info on the Aos Si, geases, and peculiarities of Irish Druidism, such as bards and satirists. 

Saxons is really Pendragon from the point of view of the Llogyr/Logres Saxons. Culture and faith like the others, Berserker magic, and another take on Runes.

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

I'm curious about the armor comments. I see that there have been supplements for vikings, picts, and saxons all of whom I assume are less well armored than the default knights.

Yes and no. Since technology advances at about six times the normal rate, such characters in the early phases on the game, at least the warrior types aren't to far behind in the armor departmen, and the non-warriors are about as well off as the British non-warriors.  In the latter phases they are outclassed by the wealthier PCs but still only a couple of points behind the rank & file guys. Plus it's not like the better armor isn't available through trade or warfare. If a Saxon warrior gets lucky and drops a knight oufitted in Gothic Plate he can certainly upgrade. 

3 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

Did they not address armor in any of these supplements?

No because there is no need. The game is focused/biased/slanted towards the knights. So the average viking, Pict and Saxon isn't supposed to be on equal footing. Heck, he literary isn't, as he is on foot while the knight is on his destrier, getting a +5/-5 height bonus. If a particular Saxon chieftain or whatnot is supposed to be a challenge, then they just give him a better set of armor (they'd take if it they could get it), or a bunch of friends (numbers can make all the difference). 

And of course they don't have to fight the knights on even terms either. Picts can usually see in the dark, move stealthily, and attack from ambush, perhaps in magic tatoos r covered in woad-so things are quite a cakewalk for the knights. 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

Thanks for pointing out 1st ed is free on DTRPG. I've picked that up and if I like what I see I believe I'll go back and get that 4th ed bundle.

You're welcome. First edition is good, but the Glory awards are too high, and starting characters a bit too weak and timid. One good monster can have the players scatter like firs levels facing an AD&D dragon. 

3 hours ago, Toadmaster said:

It sounds like Pendragon is like most BRP related games where edition differences are fairly subtle, so easy to mix and match. The additions to 4th ed simply being additive, not major changes in the common rules?  

Ya know, probably not. In fact is probably has some of the most changes between editions. But it just that most the changes are modular and tend to expand and fill out what was already there. The glory awards was a big change, but it is like changing the XP awards in D&D, significant, but doesn't really affect play.

[Atgxtg]

Oh, also, since damage is a number of d6s ([STR+SIZ/6]) you get a bell curve, so armor gets more important around the 14 point mark, since it determines if you take damage or not. Same with shields. 6 points doesn't sound like much, but when the average damage is 14, a 6 point shield combined with light mail armor (8 points) is enough to turn a sword blade half the time, and keep most cuts minor. 

[Toadmaster]

This is the bit I was responding to regarding armor. I would assume picts, saxons and such would have similar issues so thought perhaps that may have been addressed in those books?

Of course fantasy vs reality, an armored knight against rabble was something like a tank vs infantry without AT weapons.

 

On 6/26/2018 at 9:30 AM, Atgxtg said:

Pendragon is geared towards armored characters (knight) and the rules are all biased towards that. Unarmored characters have a problem, and there is no parry to speak of. So most of the the characters in the Hobbit and LoTR would be toast. I think to run in Middle Earth with Pendragon you'd have to restore the armor and shield values back to their RQ ratings, and then add in weapon AP values so they can be used to parry on a partial success.

 

 

[Atgxtg]

43 minutes ago, Toadmaster said:

This is the bit I was responding to regarding armor. I would assume picts, saxons and such would have similar issues so thought perhaps that may have been addressed in those books?

No, because that's not the focus of Pendragon. The game is based on the knights. And the supplements for Pict and such are still for the same Arthurian setting, so there is really no adjustment to help picts, saxons and such to survive in combat.  Things can be rather tough on Pict characters. One good hit and they are probably down and out. 

43 minutes ago, Toadmaster said:

Of course fantasy vs reality, an armored knight against rabble was something like a tank vs infantry without AT weapons.

That's more like Pendragon. For the most part a knight will complete outclass rabble in this game, and be fairly immune to attacks. Of course someone can get lucky, score a crit, the knight can get knocked off his horse by the force of a blow, get overwhelms by sheer numbers, and so on. But for the most part the knight is going to have a skill advantage, a +5/-5 height advantage, 6-12 (or more) advantage in armor protection, break non-swords on ties, have a squire on hand in case he needs help, and should cut through most rabble like a tank though infantry without AT weapons. 

 

But every so often somebody with an AT weapon does show up. Longbows (5D6)and especially crossbows (1D6+10 to 1D6+16)are nasty; somebody who is really good with their weapon, or a monster, or other knights all come up the AT weapon category.