hi knights,

I'm relatively new to the game, just reading through a 4th Pendragon to get an idea as to how the game works. Anyway, I've seen in the combat section that wounds are divided into light, major and mortal. It seems like major and mortal can be nasty. How are Gamemasters dealing with the infliction of them? Are you just saying you get X amount of HP damage and a Major/Mortal wound? Or are you being more specific than that?

I was thinking of adapting an old MERP critical hit table to give the player exact detail as to what happened. I'm not sure what to think about that though, things like arms get chopped off in it. Or the head of a knight could get cleaved. If I went this route it'd add another degree of nastiness to the game, which is ok with me.

ArmerdBear

Pretty much 'you took X hp from that, which is a major wound' and then move on.

I would be wary of using something like RM/MERP critical hits because I wouldn't want to get locked into a major maiming or something via the dice. I prefer to fiat that sort of thing according to narrative necessity and KAP is deadly enough without introducing extra stuff via a table.

Regards
Luke

At the minimal I'd like to have something set up so I can tell the knight/player how he defeated his foe without me having to make it up all the time. Or at least have it something on hand that I can use when the knight wants to know what happened.

Some of those tables in MERP are deadly. If I were to convert them Id have to water them down to just descriptions of the blows.

I started thinking about this when I read in Pendragon about Sir Balin(was that who it was?) deheaded Viviane. I haven't seen anything in the game where the use of the sword would lead to that. Hence I started pondering a more descriptive system to be used.

ArmerdBear

Balin rolled a critical success and killed the lady in one blow. Mortal Wound in excess of what First Aid could heal on a critical (i.e., she dropped to -6 hit points). Let's say Balin is a strong lad who does 5d6 damage, so on a critical success he'd average 35 point of damage and max out at 60. Viviane gets average CON and SIZ for a woman, making her hit points (15 + 9 =) 24. He has a pretty good chance of killing her with a crit.

I was thinking of adapting an old MERP critical hit table to give the player exact detail as to what happened. I'm not sure what to think about that though, things like arms get chopped off in it. Or the head of a knight could get cleaved. If I went this route it'd add another degree of nastiness to the game, which is ok with me.


KAP was not designed to facilitate one-legged or one-armed or half-brained PCs. The combat system is designed to be fast and minimally detailed. If I want a more "realistic" melee that last x5 or x10 times to play as to fight, then I will play RQ.

However, I really always loved the Fumble Table, and I would LoL at Hargrave's critical hit tables.
I can imagine having a CRITICAL HIT RESULTS TABLE
I would probably design it to overall reduce the chances of fatality from a critical hit, even from the "mortal wound in excess of First Aid," which excellent Sir Undead Trout* has pointed out.
I can imagine saying, "Well; you have a choice, dead or one arm."
However, the difficulties of writing rules for one-armed, one-legged, or half-brained knights makes me feel as Macbeth must have felt as the saw the Birnam Wood approaching him--deep dread. Fortunately for me, I can just decide it's not worth it and ignore it, and MY wife is glad such a rules-jungle is just a phantom for me. :)

*[btw, Michael, your excellent grasp of the rules makes me sure Sir Undead Trout, "that stinking fish" to his enemies, is a Roman Knight. :D)

*[btw, Michael, your excellent grasp of the rules makes me sure Sir Undead Trout, "that stinking fish" to his enemies, is a Roman Knight. :D)

I'm thinking Sir Trout is from Somerset or the Severn Valley. Bit of the Innsmouth Look, if you know what I mean. Always something fishy going on. Always. ;D

I was thinking of adapting an old MERP critical hit table to give the player exact detail as to what happened. I'm not sure what to think about that though, things like arms get chopped off in it. Or the head of a knight could get cleaved. If I went this route it'd add another degree of nastiness to the game, which is ok with me.


KAP was not designed to facilitate one-legged or one-armed or half-brained PCs. The combat system is designed to be fast and minimally detailed. If I want a more "realistic" melee that last x5 or x10 times to play as to fight, then I will play RQ.

However, I really always loved the Fumble Table, and I would LoL at Hargrave's critical hit tables.
I can imagine having a CRITICAL HIT RESULTS TABLE
I would probably design it to overall reduce the chances of fatality from a critical hit, even from the "mortal wound in excess of First Aid," which excellent Sir Undead Trout* has pointed out.
I can imagine saying, "Well; you have a choice, dead or one arm."
However, the difficulties of writing rules for one-armed, one-legged, or half-brained knights makes me feel as Macbeth must have felt as the saw the Birnam Wood approaching him--deep dread. Fortunately for me, I can just decide it's not worth it and ignore it, and MY wife is glad such a rules-jungle is just a phantom for me. :)

*[btw, Michael, your excellent grasp of the rules makes me sure Sir Undead Trout, "that stinking fish" to his enemies, is a Roman Knight. :D)


I thought about the one legged/armed knight thing and I'd just treat that knight as dead/retired. Time for the knight to make some sons or have his heir take over in his knightly duties.

What in the world would a lord do if his knight became worthless?

ArmerdBear

What in the world would a lord do if his knight became worthless?

Administer his lands until the knight's son comes of age or, if without a son, award those lands to the next person in line to inherit... usually a brother or uncle, but occasionally a daughter.

How worthless? I mean, off the top of my head I can think of a leper king, a mad king, and a blind king. I'm sure the rules work differently when you're at the top of the pecking order, but perhaps it indicates that administration was entirely possible even when the person supposedly in charge was severely incapacitated.

If you simply mean not combat-fit, then I can't imagine that would merit confiscation of the fief--again, I'm writing this all as I think of it, but I would think that so long as the knight could still supply military aid (his levy and perhaps a knight proxy), perhaps simply show up and not necessarily be expected to personally fight (as the Abbot Sampson did for Richard I, though again as an abbot things were probably different), and that would be enough to retain his fief, at least.

I'm not sure what would happen. There appear to be responsibilities for different knight levels. Knight Vassal has to server 40 days a year at war, serve 3 months for castle garrison duty and offer advice to their lord. I'd think the Lord would want those things in return for any land gifted to the knight. I'm nut sure what happens if its granted, that seems more permanent. Maybe I have gift and grant mixed around.

ArmerdBear

I would imagine that if the knight was maimed and could not fight he would still NOT be stripped of his holdings or anything. Its a bad precedent to set. i mean u want ur vassals to fight for u , but should they get maimed u strip them of rights , then they probably wont fight too hard ;) LOL BUT perhaps since he cant use his equipment anyway he could equip another knight in his stead or pay scutage?