I'm currently playing in a GPC game with several other players. A few of us are starting to really get up there in Glory. My character is in the lead with 1101 Glory points, but there is another PK with 10k+ and two that are close to 8k (and another that came in late sitting at 2k and Sir Delroth the Courtly Blunderers' last remaining brother starting fresh at 17 years old).

The problem is that I've put all my character's yearly increases in Swords, as well as all of my character's Glory Points. This year (495) he'll be going in with a 30 Sword Skill (with 6D6+2 damage behind it), The British Christian Religious Bonus (several years running), and (of course) the Chivalry Bonus (started with it like most of the group). My character is also good at Courtesy, Compose, Orate, and Religion (Christian) (all at 15+), so there isn't really a balancing factor with him being poor at courtly skills.

The other characters only have 20 or 21 in their highest combat skill, and do 4-5 D6 damage.

Is this kind of disparity normal?

Admittedly I have been focusing heavily on my Sword Skill where everyone else has been putting their points back into their stats lost from Major Wounds, learning all new combat skills (like axes! Who uses axes besides those ungodly Saxons?!), improving their courtly skills past 15, and increasing passions and traits (I've done all of that with yearly training).

I'm starting to feel like the 30 Sword Skill may be just a bit too much. To challenge my Knight, the GM will have to put us against foes that usually crit just so they have a chance to damage my knight, but when these guys face off against the rest of the PK's, unless they can get in a passion (which the GM does a good job of restricting), then they are likely to be crushed. The alternative is to have my character be the focus of a bunch of archers right before the battle starts, but then I'll be spending the whole fight face down in the mud.

I really like that my character is known as the greatest swordsman in all of Logres (and since we're still a long ways off from Camelot, he may be the best in the world! ;D ), and it's really cool to step into the shoes of the kind of knight that could stand a chance against heroes like Gawaine and Percival and WIN (possibly :P ?)! However, I feel like I might be taking some of the shine away from the other players.

I have been (rightly) accused of being a spotlight hog before (I thought I was past that), and I'm a PowerGamer at heart, so what I'm really wondering is this: When should I start to scale it back? When should I stop trying to make my knight the best fighter in a group of fighters? Should I scale it back?

Any opinions or comments are welcome, even if they are extremely negative (I've got thick skin), so please let me know what you think. :D

I thought you couldn't use your yearly increases to raise skills above 20?

I'm having a hard time parsing the math here. Assuming a 485 start, how could you spend all the points you need to get the Chivalry bonus, get the Religious bonus, and also raise Sword from 15 to 30, while having high enough stats to do 6d6 damage? Even with 11,000 Glory (I'm assuming your 1101 is a typo), it seems like you must have been getting really lucky with yearly checks.

You've made a cool PC that does ONE thing very very well.

There is nothing wrong with that.

I mean, look at the starting stats that Lancelot has when he first appears.

Now the flip side of course is that you *are* a PC that does ONE thing very very well. Not a lot of different things reasonably well. (grin)

Just pray that your GM never runs the three hags adventure from the Pendragon website.

I think that you should listen to your fellow players and GM. Do they think this is a) cool or b) a problem? Talk with them!

I had a parallel case in my late campaign with a player who bought up Sword to 32. It was, in one sense, very cool; he was the best swordsman i Logres, an everybody knew it. But it also broke the system, made the other players jealous (right or wrong) and made my life very difficult; i.e. should I let him slaughter all opposition or should each combat strangely always turn out so that he had two or more opponents. Ah, Sir Gilmere, Sir Gilmere ...

After Sir Gilmere met a sticky end (Saxon berzerker, last round of Badon Hill) we made a house rule that forbade anyone from increasing Combat skills above 25 with Glory. You just may cause something similar in your group ... if they think this is a problem.

The glory rate of your game is too rich for my taste. Just with the knights that you enumerate your group has been accumulating glory at a rate of 4k/year. If you look at the sample glory awards on Greg's site (http://www.gspendragon.com/missingglory.html) then, even if they are all religious and chivalric knights out of the gate, they have to be performing deeds equivalent to the defeat of half a dozen fearsome monsters (giants, dragons etc) every year to hit those totals. Your campaign is still a generation away from glory rich years and your guys are already emulating the 'named' RT knights in terms of their glory rate; if your campaign steps on the gas once Arthur comes on the scene (which it should IMO, otherwise you risk Arthur's appearance being an anti-climax) then they will definitely be rubbing elbows with the canonical characters in the story. Indeed they will become (some of) the canonical characters. That's a valid mode of play but it should be a choice on your group's part, not something you walk backwards into by accident.

So leaving aside unhelpful "yer doin' it wrong" style comments, I would second Skarpskytten's advice to talk it over with your group.

If the consensus is that it's not a problem and you're all happy with becoming the Gawaines, Lamoraks and Tristans of your Logres, then it's all good - you might need to work out some 'soft houserules' for your game (governing stylistic and expectation setting stuff like how spotlight is shared, the nature of the challenges you are confronted with etc etc) because the game is set up so that the sweet spot is somewhat lower than the top tier, but that sort of thing is eminently doable.

If you conclude that you've overamped things in your first decade of the campaign then that's fine too - you are going in to 495, so you have a handy reset button to hand; since, even absent valiant deeds at the battle (and that isn't going to happen, right?), the four high glory PKs are obvious candidates for an invite to the inside tables at the victory feast after St Albans. Thus you can get all of your 8k+ glory characters foully murdered by the cowardly Saxons, leaving you to reboot your campaign with some obscure cousins who have enormous boots to fill and burning hatred's to tend as things fall apart in the anarchy.

Regards
Luke

I heartily endorse Luke's reply in above, including the way to 'reset' the campaign at the Feast of Saint Albans.

Secondly, my advice to your GM would be not to put high-skill enemies against everyone to challenge your character... employ hordes of mid-level enemies. Have your character attacked by two Skill 15 knights. He will have the work cut out for him, and can still be a badass for dealing with two enemies at once. Or hordes of underlings while the Big Boss squares off with your character in a duel. Also, Lances. ;) You have high Sword skill? Doesn't matter so much when the enemy is good with a Lance. :)

Others have given great responses.

To your question "is this disparity normal?" To a degree, yes. Pendragon usually has a group of knights of wildly different skill levels. Yours is a bit more extreme than most, but not by much really. Many groups come up with some kind of house rule to limit high sword/weapon skill, but in other groups its not needed. After all, your character will die (from aging if nothing else), and there are ways to challenge a character with high sword skill. (There are published adventures where your character can die in scenes where they have no opportunity to use that sword skill!)

The best advice is to consult with the group, and see what kind of balancing is needed if any.

Secondly, my advice to your GM would be not to put high-skill enemies against everyone to challenge your character... employ hordes of mid-level enemies. Have your character attacked by two Skill 15 knights. He will have the work cut out for him, and can still be a badass for dealing with two enemies at once. Or hordes of underlings while the Big Boss squares off with your character in a duel. Also, Lances. ;) You have high Sword skill? Doesn't matter so much when the enemy is good with a Lance. :)


I agree with this in principle, but if sword is high enough, those measures wont work.
If he is facing two knights, the wise course is to ignore one, use his full skill against the other. He has the chivalry bonus, so he can survive a few hits; if he has a decent DEX or Horsemanship he may stay on his horse - but even if he is knocked off, he still had the advance (25 skill vs 20)

Likewise, the lance charge may get a +10/-5 bonus against him - which means its an even (25 vs 25). This only encourages him to raise Sword higher, so he can get the edge.

Generally, I feel the best way to challenge someone who has become really focussed at one thing, is not to try to beat him in that arena. He is really good, let it show. But pendragon has other areas - like passions and traits, various skills, that can all come into play.
You can also set up questing challenges to allow each knight to have their moment. Set up fights that aren't free for alls, but duels where each player must face their own opponent and cannot help the others without failing the quest. There's the classic lone knight on the bridge: "you cannot pass unless one of you wins a joust against me," etc. Things like thisallow each player to have their fights, without the expert stealing their thunder all the time.

And of course, you have to include a monster that is hard to fight with swords from time time. Maybe something that is immune to swords completely (giving the axe wielder a moment to shine), or one that requires backup skills (like the fachan, where you can only attack it if you succeed an awareness roll each round), or faerie visitations where you first need to succeed a high energetic roll to stay awake, or chaste roll to avoid being drawn into their eternal dance - failing those means your sword skill is rendered useless.

Also the GM should have situations where using the sword would cause more trouble. Like having his lover's brother, or his liege's son, etc get upset with him and challenge him to a duel. A critical here could kill, and that could be a problem...

Marcus: my best advice - suggest your GM read this thread.

Also the GM should have situations where using the sword would cause more trouble. Like having his lover's brother, or his liege's son, etc get upset with him and challenge him to a duel. A critical here could kill, and that could be a problem...

As one of my players found out, Sword 32 and Honor 16 can be a volatile combination. After several duels with local knights which he won but leaving a lot of resentment, he eventually killed a young, impetuous knight - the poor chap didn't stand a chance - which gave him a reputation in his county as a meddlesome bully and created a family feud which stated in the anarchy era and got resolved at the battle of Camlann. He was the best fighter in Logres, but had so many enemies that his position at court was nil and he and his relatives couldn't go to the privy without company for the fear of assassination ... In a game as Pendragon, in which every significant act is judged in a social context and judged differently by different people depending on their point of view a high combat skill might cause a lot of trouble ...

Yeah, and remember that a knight's enemies (especially political enemies) won't necessarily attack him directly.
There might be raids on his manor, relatives kidnapped for ransom, etc. Even just things like being snubbed at court, or facing sly innuendo and whispers causing people to withdraw from him.

Yeah, and remember that a knight's enemies (especially political enemies) won't necessarily attack him directly.
There might be raids on his manor, relatives kidnapped for ransom, etc. Even just things like being snubbed at court, or facing sly innuendo and whispers causing people to withdraw from him.


Exactly. The newly dubbed son of the mightiest of knights is just ... a noob, and easy to kill. And so forth ...

I thought you couldn't use your yearly increases to raise skills above 20?

I'm having a hard time parsing the math here. Assuming a 485 start, how could you spend all the points you need to get the Chivalry bonus, get the Religious bonus, and also raise Sword from 15 to 30, while having high enough stats to do 6d6 damage? Even with 11,000 Glory (I'm assuming your 1101 is a typo), it seems like you must have been getting really lucky with yearly checks.


I didn't use yearly raises to get above 20, but I did use them to get up to 20 (about 486-487)

We started in 484. I realise that one year isn't much of a head start, but that gives an extra year of training.

The Experience Checks were rolled in the open, and yes I did get fairly lucky.

As for the Chivalry bonus and 6d6 damage, I started with those, and started pretty close to the British Christian Religious bonus also. We're using the optional Book of the Manor, and some of the improvements you can buy help raise the "hard to check" traits. Mine was the second knight with the Religious bonus (the first was Sir Ysgaran, a Pagan knight), which I got in 490 or so.

1101 Glory isn't a typo, at the year end I had exactly 1 extra point of Glory pushing me past the 11k mark.



You've made a cool PC that does ONE thing very very well.


My knight is actually very good when it comes to courtly affairs. So good (and lucky), in fact, that he married Lady Jenna, the Earl's daughter. My GM was... prudent enough to only give me a fraction of what her listed dowry was, meaning my knight is not a bannerett, but there was still enough to make him a fabulously rich knight (after the extra $ spent on clothing his 8 app goes to a 12!).

Also, my knight has a 21 Farie Lore skill, so creatures of the fey realm are extremely familiar to him... more so than his own commoners (Folklore of 4).

Everything that a knight is supposed to be good at, my knight excells at (including other combat skills like his Spear Expertise of 21).



The newly dubbed son of the mightiest of knights is just ... a noob, and easy to kill. And so forth ...


Actually, the newly dubbed son of a PK, (if they are allowed to be created as the current rules state, without any artificial nerfing) can be quite powerful.

Assuming that my knight makes it to Bannerett status, that's +5 to any skill. With a starting 15 sword skill, that becomes a 20, then +1k Glory from being knighted, and another +1k Glory from being my knight's son it is possible to start with a 22 sword skill.

I'm pretty sure that's why my GM is forcing us to create characters from scratch when we make our current knight's sons. I've got a terrible disagreement on that subject, but it's for another forum.



The glory rate of your game is too rich for my taste. Just with the knights that you enumerate your group has been accumulating glory at a rate of 4k/year. If you look at the sample glory awards on Greg's site (http://www.gspendragon.com/missingglory.html) then, even if they are all religious and chivalric knights out of the gate, they have to be performing deeds equivalent to the defeat of half a dozen fearsome monsters (giants, dragons etc) every year to hit those totals.

We have, individually, been getting almost 1k per year, the 1k we startd with in 484, then 11 years later I'm at 11k. Some years we don't get a full 1k, other years we get more than that... ususally years with big battles like the big fight in 490(almost 2k from that battle alone).

Also, we're not exactly sticking to the one year one session routine. Most of the time we get through a year in two sessions. Other times it takes four. We aren't exactly knuckle draggers either, we're making good use of that time! We're making allies, defeating enemies as they crop up, and generally making darn sure we all get checks to "Energetic" every year (that last one is a joke, we're not all powergamers). What I'm saying is that we get more done in a normal year than a normal group of knights usually do (judging from other posts I've read); so we're getting as much Glory as we're earning.



If you conclude that you've overamped things in your first decade of the campaign then that's fine too - you are going in to 495, so you have a handy reset button to hand; since, even absent valiant deeds at the battle (and that isn't going to happen, right?), the four high glory PKs are obvious candidates for an invite to the inside tables at the victory feast after St Albans. Thus you can get all of your 8k+ glory characters foully murdered by the cowardly Saxons, leaving you to reboot your campaign with some obscure cousins who have enormous boots to fill and burning hatred's to tend as things fall apart in the anarchy.

Unfortunately, I do not believe that my knight will fall prey to the Saxon trick that is to be played at the feast. Waaay back in 488, my knight vowed to never drink alcohol (I don't do it, so I usually put that into any character I play). Later on, another player spoiled the suprise for me: Anyone who drinks the ale/wine/etc at the feast is poisoned and dies. My character won't be partaking, so he should be good to go... If he survives the battle leading up to the victory feast that is. :o

Anyways, thank you all for your comments, they are most helpful. I hope you enjoy your gaming sessions, and congratulations to Skarpskytten for finishing out the GPC! I hope our little group can finish it out also... although it will be something like 200 sessions of playing if things keep up like they have been! ;D

The newly dubbed son of the mightiest of knights is just ... a noob, and easy to kill. And so forth ...


Actually, the newly dubbed son of a PK, (if they are allowed to be created as the current rules state, without any artificial nerfing) can be quite powerful.

Assuming that my knight makes it to Bannerett status, that's +5 to any skill. With a starting 15 sword skill, that becomes a 20, then +1k Glory from being knighted, and another +1k Glory from being my knight's son it is possible to start with a 22 sword skill.


Where do you get that +5 Bannerette bonus from? No background I can think of gets a +5 bonus to sword, and if it did, it would be the standard +5 to a skill you get in character design, that is limited to a maximum of 15.
Aside from family characteristics (which never apply to Sword) there are only two by-the-book ways to get a starting skill above 15.
In Book of Knights and Ladies, many father's classes give bonuses to skills that can raise a skill above 18: none of them increase Sword.
In the old Knight's Adventurous (incorporated into kAP 4th edition), some father's classes gave a bonus to Sword: Mercenary Knight gavce +3, and Lord (which means Baron and above) gives +2, for instance. These would raise a skill to 18/17 respectively. Bannerette is listed and doesn't get any sword bonus.

Whichever rule set you are using, without house rules a player knight son of a bannerette is limited to 15 sword skill like everyone else.

The newly dubbed son of the mightiest of knights is just ... a noob, and easy to kill. And so forth ...


Actually, the newly dubbed son of a PK, (if they are allowed to be created as the current rules state, without any artificial nerfing) can be quite powerful.

Assuming that my knight makes it to Bannerett status, that's +5 to any skill. With a starting 15 sword skill, that becomes a 20, then +1k Glory from being knighted, and another +1k Glory from being my knight's son it is possible to start with a 22 sword skill.


Where do you get that +5 Bannerette bonus from? No background I can think of gets a +5 bonus to sword, and if it did, it would be the standard +5 to a skill you get in character design, that is limited to a maximum of 15.
Aside from family characteristics (which never apply to Sword) there are only two by-the-book ways to get a starting skill above 15.
In Book of Knights and Ladies, many father's classes give bonuses to skills that can raise a skill above 18: none of them increase Sword.
In the old Knight's Adventurous (incorporated into kAP 4th edition), some father's classes gave a bonus to Sword: Mercenary Knight gavce +3, and Lord (which means Baron and above) gives +2, for instance. These would raise a skill to 18/17 respectively. Bannerette is listed and doesn't get any sword bonus.

Whichever rule set you are using, without house rules a player knight son of a bannerett is limited to 15 sword skill like everyone else.


I think the son of a Banneret gets 5 skill points that can go anywhere (knights and ladies p.59) so a starting sword of 20 is possible - going to 22+ in the winter phase when you cash in your glory.

I had a player knight with Sword 26 for a while. He was way better than his fellows but it was not always a good thing. He had to fight a lot of impassioned, bereaved sons and brothers which made things tough. His comeuppance came when I ran the Adventure of Morgan Le Fay's challenge from Blood and Lust. I don't want to spoil it but let's just say critting a sword roll is not always for the best.

If a player wants his knight to kick serious ass then that is fine. It is important that this doesn't negatively affect other players fun. A few heraldry/recognize checks from the enemy should be all they need to decide to gang up on Sir Ninja rather than face him in a fair fight.

Yep, your right. "+5 skill points" and it says that these points can push skills above 15. I never saw that.

It might be meant to mean skill points to skills, i.e. not to combat skills. Its unclear what interpretation is correct.

Oh yes, well spotted. I missed that too.
However, it is listed as +5 skill points, not +5 to a skill.
I believe that this is +5 skill points to be spent the same way character design skill points are spent (put it wherever, but max is 15), unlike the other entries which state a specific skill. There were other backgrounds that gave a sword bonus in the rpevious edition (like the Lord Knight) ands the sword bonus has been removed from them. It doesn't make sense that the Bannerete would be better than, say, Lord Knight or Officer. I think the bonus they get is one of flexibility (5 points they can put anyway) but not power (cant increase above 15).

That's the way I'd rule it anyway. I hope it's errata'd!

Unfortunately, I do not believe that my knight will fall prey to the Saxon trick that is to be played at the feast. Waaay back in 488, my knight vowed to never drink alcohol (I don't do it, so I usually put that into any character I play). Later on, another player spoiled the suprise for me: Anyone who drinks the ale/wine/etc at the feast is poisoned and dies. My character won't be partaking, so he should be good to go... If he survives the battle leading up to the victory feast that is. :o


Alas, even this is not enough to save the character... After all, those dastardly Saxons might have poisoned some other dish instead/as well! After all, they are NOT worried about collateral damage, and even if the ladies of the feast snuff it as well, so what? It wouldn't change the campaign dramatically, as most of those ladies would not be the highest of the land, as they would be home, taking care of business.

Or King Uther / some other high noble might be handing you the goblet personally, inviting you to drink to the health of the King. Will you refuse? What was your Loyalty (Pendragon) again? :P

Of course, if your GM and the other players do not worry about your character being unbalanced, then no worries. Just saying that there are ways to give the character a memorable plot death, if your character proves unbalancing.