Jump to content

Pendragon 5.x -- Difference between editions


Recommended Posts

Does anyone have a list of the difference in text and rules between the three editions of Pendragon 5th (5, 5.1, 5.2).

For the purposes of this question, we're leaving aside art and layout. Also, the answer, "There really aren't that many differences," isn't one that interest me. What I want to know is what are the differences. 

For example, in 5.0 the rule that Knights gain annual Glory at a rate of all Traits and Passions at a value of 16+ was dropped. Edition 5.1 reinstated that rule. Things like that.

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

As I understand it, 5.2 is a layout change, art change and incorporates some via minor errata and corrections compared to 5.1. So it's kinda like a reprint of 5.1 but with different art and layout (reprints usually get some corrections) - no real rules changes. Sorry but I don't have a list of the exact corrections. So 5.2 is basically the same game as 5.1.

5.1 from 5 does have rule changes though. Again, sorry, but I don't have a list.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You can get Greg Stafford's (rest in peace, Greg) official errata for KAP5 at his Pendragon website ): http://www.gspendragon.com/pendragon_errata.html

KAP5.1 is basically KAP5 updated with the corrections from KAP5, KAP5 was Nocturnal first Pendragon book, and who ever edtited the book made some assumptions which had to be fixed. 

Here are the highlights of stuff from KAP5 that was fixed or changed with the errata/KAP5.1:

  • In KAP 5 You cannot use Glory Points to raise attributes, traits (and possibly skills) above the normal maximums. Fixed in the errata.
  • Glory Awards table missing
  • Knights who split their combat skills against multiple foes could only damage one of them if they win, returned to normal in the errata. 
  • Grapple. Whole thing was completely redone.
  • Rebated Weapons and Withheld Blows: Updated. Now either does half damage,  and doing both does quarter damage. You still use the full total for determining knockdown.
  • The double d20 method of randomly determining an opposing ability score was added to the core book.
  • Better guidelines given on when to uncheck the Chirguery needed box (reach half hit points)
  • Axe Damage updated/changed from doing an extra die against shields to the defender only gets 1d6 protection from his shield (instead of 6).
  • Ditto Great Axe
  • Rules for getting someone out of a melancholic state revised. 
  • Glory from landholding capped

 

I don''t have KAP 5.2 yet, but from what I've read the changes are mostly in layout and art. The biggest rule change is that income from manors has been raised from £6 to £10 to better fit in with the book of the estate.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, creativehum said:

One key alteration for me:

In KAP 5.0 the rule that awarded Glory equal to the value any Trait or Passion at 16+ was dropped.

In KAP 5.1/5.2 the rule was reinstated. 

Which, as far as I'm concerned, is as it should be!

Most of the stuff like that were done in error. A lot of the time Greg wasn't aware of a change in the rules until it was pointed out to him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
6 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Oh, another change in 5.2 is that Pious has been replaced with Spiritual. 

There was an ancient discussion about this, and then it finally made it into BoE p.5:

 

Quote

“PIOUS” NO MORE

King Arthur Pendragon

The Pious/Worldly label proved has over the years to be somewhat cumbersome and confusing. Hereafter, this Trait pair will be known as Spiritual/Worldly.

“Spiritual” indicates interest and inclination towards matters and values of the Unseen World, while “Worldly” indicates inclination towards the good things of life and the material world. Yes, Pagans fall on this scale too. The followers of the Old Ways should not be considered the ancient equivalent of atheists or secularists. ❧

My copy of BoE is dated 2013, but I remember the initial discussions from probably closer to '06.

SDLeary

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read about it on the Nocturnal forum. It's not really a big change. IMO, "a rose by any other name..."

Still, I get the point. You can wind up with characters who have the Religious bonus, and would be considered Saints, but who might not be Pious! Sounds like a lake of faith! So I guess Spiritual sounds better. I can sort of see someone who has the religious bonus but spends most of their time tending to the poor and sick rather than at mass. Say a Friar Tuck type. Good fellow, but a bit on the Worldy side. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

I read about it on the Nocturnal forum. It's not really a big change. IMO, "a rose by any other name..."

Still, I get the point. You can wind up with characters who have the Religious bonus, and would be considered Saints, but who might not be Pious! Sounds like a lake of faith! So I guess Spiritual sounds better. I can sort of see someone who has the religious bonus but spends most of their time tending to the poor and sick rather than at mass. Say a Friar Tuck type. Good fellow, but a bit on the Worldy side. 

In fact, while Spiritual/Worldly is in Pendragon 5.2, it is omitted from Paladin.

5.2 states that a character that is highly Spiritual may be described as Pious. It recognizes going overboard and states that extreme Spirituality might be described as Zealous or Saintly, though gives no guidance to distinguish the two.

SDLeary

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

In fact, while Spiritual/Worldly is in Pendragon 5.2, it is omitted from Paladin.

Paladin does a lot of things differently, and is written by a different author, so it's hard to judge. Overall I think I prefer KAP but then I'm more familiar with Aurthur than Charlemagne. The whole shreeddding armoron "6"es thing seems like too much to me-most knights will come out of a battle with no armor at all, but I guess it fits the source material.

Quote

5.2 states that a character that is highly Spiritual may be described as Pious. It recognizes going overboard and states that extreme Spirituality might be described as Zealous or Saintly, though gives no guidance to distinguish the two.

SDLeary

Yeah, Greg would adjust things when he felt it was necessary. The Unarmored Bonus got dropped in KAP5.1 or 5.2 because, apparently, quite a few player were trying to exploit it. I guess the same sort of thing happened with the double feint, which lead to it's removal. I suppose if someone had a high DEX before they could have gone around unarmored, with +5, and use the double feint to try and bypass their opponent's armor fairly regularly. I never saw either rule get abused, but I guess others did. 

Edited by Atgxtg
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jakob said:

I know that this thread is not about the artwork ... however, I have to mention that it's such a pity that, to my mind, 5.0 has by far the best cover of the three. Giant boars and arthurian knights, that just belongs together!

Beah the triot boar cover is a beauty. I was surprised by it, too. It's not something from Mallory, nor something most people would be aware of or associate with Arthur.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Beah the triot boar cover is a beauty. I was surprised by it, too. It's not something from Mallory, nor something most people would be aware of or associate with Arthur.

It was Stewart Weick's idea (I seem to recall Greg mentioning this to me). If you look on p.2 there's an explanation.

I think it isn't entirely representative of the game. My favorite is the one on the 1st edition box, though I also like the 1st edition cover to the Kerr's Companion. The helmed tourney knight of the 5.2 edition is kind of distancing. Maybe that's the point: Arthur became increasingly flawed in later editions.

PendragonRPGCover.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jeffjerwin said:

It was Stewart Weick's idea (I seem to recall Greg mentioning this to me). If you look on p.2 there's an explanation.

I think it isn't entirely representative of the game.

Yeh, it's still a nice picture though. 

1 minute ago, jeffjerwin said:

. My favorite is the one on the 1st edition box, though I also like the 1st edition cover to the Kerr's Companion.

The box is probably the most "mainstream" King Arthur, and it's a nice piece of art.

1 minute ago, jeffjerwin said:

The helmed tourney knight of the 5.2 edition is kind of distancing. Maybe that's the point: Arthur became increasingly flawed in later editions.

It's certainly a nice piece of art. IMO 5.1-5.2 are slightly "flawed" inside by setting it in the Uther Period. Arthur doesn't "appear" in the books. Technically, they aren't King Arthur Pendragon. but King Uther Pendragon. I get why they did that. Starting halfway through Arthur's reign, as in KAP3-5 probably give most newcomers the experience they are expecting, but does so at the expense of most of the timeline and campaign, and forces anybody who likes the game and wants to run the full campaign to start over . Doubly so once they get the get the GPC. Ironically, if it weren't for the one adventure/year time flow it probably wouldn't be an issue.

It's a Catch-22. Not much they could do about it either. Ultimately I think it just means that the more you put into Pendragon the more you can get out of it. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2018 at 9:22 PM, Atgxtg said:

The Unarmored Bonus got dropped in KAP5.1 or 5.2 because, apparently, quite a few player were trying to exploit it.

Quick note: The unarmored bonus rules was never dropped. It appears, in the same wording, in every edition, including all three 5.x editions.

Here is the text from page 119 of KAP 5.2:

Quote

Note: Encumbrance affects Skills as well as movement: Whenever a knight fights without any leather or metal armor, he gets a +5 modifier to his Combat Skill.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, creativehum said:

Quick note: The unarmored bonus rules was never dropped. It appears, in the same wording, in every edition, including all three 5.x editions.

Here is the text from page 119 of KAP 5.2:

 

Sorry, apparently it was supposed to be dropped, but wasn't. There a thread over at Nocturnal on it. Perosnally I've never had a problem with the rule, but some people have ran players who try to exploit it. I would think that such a tactic would eventually backfire though.

Edited by Atgxtg
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people have had a problem with their players on one point or another in any given game... and assume it is a problem for all players. I don't know how or why people think this way... but they do. 

Honestly, I can't imagine unarmored knights wouldn't be cut down at least every third fight if they weren't wearing armor. But I suppose some groups have very lucky knights!

One important point, however: I went and took a quick look at the Nocturnal Forum. Some people were concerned that bandits would get a +5/-5 advantage when fighting against knights, since bandits seldom have armor.

However, in this matter, everyone should look at the actual rule: It is KNIGHTS that receive this benefit when fighting without armor... not anyone who fights without armor. This distinction is, of course, tremendous in terms of game effect.

Edited by creativehum
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, but I guess Greg got enough feedback for it to be changed.

I think what the potential problem is that someone getting their sword skill to 20 (which doesn't take too long if you make an effort, 3-4 year), then going unarmored, from horseback, and ending up with a 30 skill vs a footman's -5. Put Glory towards sword until you hit 24, and it's automatic critical time.

But, from where I'm sitting, it has a lot of vulnerabilities. If the Knight get's double teamed he's in trouble. And all those pesky arrows and javelins that armored PKs can usually shrug off become lethal. So if the PKs want to live dangerously I'd say let 'em.

I only had PKs go unarmored three times in all the Pendragon games I've ran, never by choice. Most my PKs value thier armor (and the skins underneath) more than a +5. 

 

 I think the same people who did this were also the ones who would fight defensively all the time. The two options combined would have been deadly in the old days.

 

 

Edited by Atgxtg
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear (again) the rule never changed. Apparently a few people did complain about the issue -- though to be honest I have now tried several google searches with different terms, and I can only find a couple of commenters addressing the issue.

If one goes to the 5th Edition Errata Greg created, one only finds this:

Quote

Page 117, Unburdened
I’ve been asked about this so many times, wherein players attempt to exploit it beyond its intention, that I suggest just eliminating the entire 2-paragraph section. There is no bonus for going without armor. If the GM must do something, then give a penalty to wear armor if not trained for it.

Note that this was never Greg making a change. It is Greg saying, "If you are having troubles with this in your game, drop the rule."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...