I saw the rule that says if the first attempt fails, time has run out for a new one. I assume that's true not only for the first caretaker in line, but for any others that may be behind him as well, right? You only get one shot at a healing roll per week, regardless of how many people are available to render first aid?

A related question: If a knight has half his hit points (but technically "Healthy") does he need to make a Prudent check before wading into battle? Or would there typically be any social ramifications or loss of Honor if he decided to sit one out?


M.

I saw the rule that says if the first attempt fails, time has run out for a new one. I assume that's true not only for the first caretaker in line, but for any others that may be behind him as well, right? You only get one shot at a healing roll per week, regardless of how many people are available to render first aid?

First Aid, one attempt per Wound, regardless of result.

Chirurgy, one attempt per week per character in need, regardless of result.


A related question: If a knight has half his hit points (but technically "Healthy") does he need to make a Prudent check before wading into battle? Or would there typically be any social ramifications or loss of Honor if he decided to sit one out?

I would say that any character with half or less his HP that have 16+ in Prudent, would have to roll. A success might not mean that he "sit one out" (which I think would be Cowardly, not Prudent), but rather engage, but fight defensively, engage an easier foe (take on the Saxon javelineer and leave the berserkers to healthier knights), or stay back and only engage in a crises.

Of course, a knight with Reckless 16+ would have to fail Reckless not to wade in, if he is able to move.

Thanks! I was missing the per wound piece. That helps.


T.

It's very important. This is why each WOUND (it size in HP) should be recorded on the character sheet, in addition to the new HP. Thus, you know how many times a wounded knight can get First Aid, and who many HP each wound can heal. Once a First Aid has been administered to a wound whatever the result, it is erased.

Example. After a combat, Sir Gilmere has four wounds recorded, 4 HP, 2 HP, 12 HP and 7 HP. Thats 25 HP in total, of his 31 HP, so he has 6 HP remaining, recorded on the character sheet. Sir Bumble with First Aid 12 start bandaging him up. Wound #1: Failure. The wound is erased. Wound #2: Crit! Alas, this wound won't benefit from a crit, that could heal up to 6 HP (1d3+3), since its only 2 HP large. Gilmere erases the wound and increases his total HP to 9. Wound #3: Success! Gilmere rolls 2 on a d3, erases the wound and increases current HP to 11. Wound #4: failure. The wound is erased. Sir Gilmere now has 11 HP and no wounds recorded. He can benefit from no more First Aid tries, and has to heal the lost HP naturally (and through chirurgy, since he has been unconscious and is Unhealthy).

Yeah, I find it generally takes new players a couple of sessions, and several firm reminders, to keep track of wounds properly (make each one down, cross it out when healed).

Regarding the Prudent question: I think I wouldn't require a roll, unless the character has the chirurgery box ticked. Half hit points is a relative term - someone with 20 hit points is in a fair bit of danger at that point, someone with 40 isn't in as much danger. Bear in mind, asking a player to make a rule that coulod basically force that player to sit on the sidelines during what he might see as the fun parts of the session is a risky move. Remember, the characters aren't real, the players are they to play the game, not sit around watching other people play.

Now if it looked like a knight was taking excessive risks - regularly hovering just above the unconscious level, not taking time to rest when time is available, etc., I would probably ask for a Prudent roll. I'd also point out that there's no stigma to retire to the attention of a healer if the situation allows for it, and he bring in a backup character. Letting him know that if he doesn't do that, he'll get a reckless experience check.

Thanks, guys.

Darren, I shoulda specified that, in the example cited, the PK had indeed suffered a major wound and was in need of Chirurgery. His shield arm was crushed by a berserker with a 2-handed club. Amazingly, the PK suffered no long term stat loss due to the wound, however. So there was a question of if said character should go out again after healing for a week in Yarmouth. He was a 50% HP and had just had Chirugery performed twice (once each on the prior two Sundays).

It's interesting that Sharpskytten suggested Cowardly rather than Prudent. The PK wanted to go (no Coward here) but when faced with the reality of the condition of his shield arm, thought it might be suicidal. So I let him sit it out (I only have the one player, so the watching other folks play is not an issue), so I thought he might roll Prudent instead. When I think Cowardly, I think of a healthy and hale warrior who won't walk into the dragon's lair, not a beat-to-hell warrior who can't use one of his arms...

While we're on the subject of wounds—I've been working on a hit location table—because the inevitable question is "where am I wounded". It is a valid question which presents more opportunities for roleplaying or otherwise influencing the story. I like tables for this kind of thing because they're, well--random. I like getting unexpected results and being surprised myself. I need this to be simple and fast--one roll--but it becomes trickier when weighing it in favor of head and leg wounds (which I understand battlefield archeology indicates were the most common) and considering also adjustments for different shield sizes. I think I'm getting close to something pretty elegant...

T.

When you say the player wanted to go, then thought it might be suicidal, do you mean he changed his mind?

In Pendragon, it's kind of a thing that the world does not necessarily revolve around the player characters. Of course, it does, since they are the players, but it is unlike a lot of other games, where players and Gms are conditioned to 'finish the adventure.' In pendragon, you should, from time to time, have adventures where the players aren't actually able to reach the 'end', or complete the quest successfully.

If I'd been GMing that situation, and the player recognised he was too ill to continue, I'd have wrapped the year up at that point. Then I'd have looked at what was left undone, and think how that could have an effect in future years.

This approach can lead to monsters remaining undefeated over several generations, where players eventually have knights who kill the beast that killed their grandfather (who they also played). It can create recurring enemies, where the enemy knight they were trying to stop doing something, succeeded in doing that thing, and is still around to remind them of their failure, perhaps taunting them from time to time. This is how hates are born. It can lead to tragedies, where the lady the players were trying to rescue got forcibly married to some villain - which creates the conditions for an excellent illicit romance, where if the player is discovered, society will deeem him in the wrong!

So, when the opportunity arises, embrace the player's defeat, be willing to use your GM authority to say, "that's the end this year" and end things there (assuming the player doesn't insist on suicide), and think of ways to enrich the campaign by incorporating that defeat into the campaign. With just one player, you are in a perfect position to make the most of this, since if he is too injured to continue, he doesn't have to sit out while other players play on.

Thanks for the excellent advice, Darren. I've actually already done that when my wife's PK refused to investigate the really big billy goat during The Adventure of Sword Lake. S'blood, that was a lemon, but I did manage to make lemonade out of it. What happened next is very interesting. But back to Yarmouth: Aye, I shoulda done as you suggested. In fact, that was the end result, but I wasn't sure if I should resolve it with a roll, since his HP were back to half, after all (Healthy).


Best,


T.

My rule of thumb is:

1) If you are not hovering on unconsciousness and are Healthy, you can (and often should!) fight. If you have half your hit points, you are probably fit enough. Now, it depends what the situation is. If the Lord commands you to fight, you should fight. If a bunch of smelly peasants asks you to go fight a Giant for them, you are fully within your rights to tell them no; you don't owe it to them to fight the Giant in the first place. Famously Reckless people are of course an exception.

2) If you are under half hit points (and especially if you are unhealthy), then you probably shouldn't fight. Of course this hasn't stopped one knight from participating in a battle with just a hit point or two above unconsciousness. Netted him some Reckless right there and then.

In general, not starting a quest is not cowardly, in my opinion. Backing out from a fight, especially if your mates are in the thick of it, is Cowardly unless you have a good reason (i.e. you are badly wounded, or you are unhorsed and you are getting a spare horse).

Thanks, guys.

Darren, I shoulda specified that, in the example cited, the PK had indeed suffered a major wound and was in need of Chirurgery. His shield arm was crushed by a berserker with a 2-handed club. Amazingly, the PK suffered no long term stat loss due to the wound, however. So there was a question of if said character should go out again after healing for a week in Yarmouth. He was a 50% HP and had just had Chirugery performed twice (once each on the prior two Sundays).

It's interesting that Sharpskytten suggested Cowardly rather than Prudent. The PK wanted to go (no Coward here) but when faced with the reality of the condition of his shield arm, thought it might be suicidal. So I let him sit it out (I only have the one player, so the watching other folks play is not an issue), so I thought he might roll Prudent instead. When I think Cowardly, I think of a healthy and hale warrior who won't walk into the dragon's lair, not a beat-to-hell warrior who can't use one of his arms...

While we're on the subject of wounds—I've been working on a hit location table—because the inevitable question is "where am I wounded". It is a valid question which presents more opportunities for roleplaying or otherwise influencing the story. I like tables for this kind of thing because they're, well--random. I like getting unexpected results and being surprised myself. I need this to be simple and fast--one roll--but it becomes trickier when weighing it in favor of head and leg wounds (which I understand battlefield archeology indicates were the most common) and considering also adjustments for different shield sizes. I think I'm getting close to something pretty elegant...

T.


Would you be wiling to share your location table? Im of the same thinking that a good location table would be a good aid. I have some rules for wounds and even infection and amputation, so its necessary to know if a limb is struck occasionally.

Would you be wiling to share your location table? Im of the same thinking that a good location table would be a good aid. I have some rules for wounds and even infection and amputation, so its necessary to know if a limb is struck occasionally.

I will of course share it—but the truth is I never finished it. Other priorities popped up and I've neglected it since. Need to get back to it. I was going for something that had a built-in curve that could be reshaped by the size on one's shield (or no shield). So its a little tricky and I felt I was on the right path when I posted the above, but, alas, never completed the thing. Will perhaps get back to that soonish, because I'd love to have it, too! Thanks for your interest.


Best,


T.