I'm comfortable with it being tough for pagans to achieve the chivalry bonus but have noticed that the benefits of being a religious pagan don't really stacck up against those of the other religions.

I've found this to be particularly true while running the GPC - the need to keep things moving along at a fair clip means that a higher healing rate is often unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

In addition the pure awesome of the british christian bonus can make pagan knights very sad.

I fancy upgrading the pagan bonus a bit for the GPC. I've decided to allow religious pagans to select a god or goddess that favours them. Such knights will receive a bonus on top of the +2 healing rate. I've tried to make them appropriate to the various gods listed in the main rulebook. Here goes:

Lug (Sun God): +3 HP

Bran (Lord of the Underworld): +2 healing rate (for +4 total) - lord of life and death

Math (wisdon, druids): +2 healing rate for those under your care in chirurgery

Don (Gaia, Earthmother): +3 to Knockdown threshold - strength of the earth

Ceridwen (Morrigan, death, war): -5 to unconsciousness rating with minimum 1 (you can fight on for longer but will probably die awesomely in battle)

Blodeuwedd (The maiden, spring): +3 to total whenever generating amor passions for or from ladies

Llew (warrior, resurrected hero): +2 Damage

Gwynn (dark god, winter, wild hunt): +3 to major wound threshold

Manannan (Sea God): +2 movement rate

Thoughts, feedback on balance issues and suggestions for other gods all welcome.

From a balance perspective, I think those are all much too high.
Personally I think the +2 heal rate is pretty awesome. it makes it really hard to die from wounds recieved if you are not killed outright.

A +4 heal rate (bran's gift) would mean that a character will never need surgery.
normal heal rate 2-3 +4(!)= 6-7 hp/week less d6 for deterioration = cannot die. Yes Please!!

If you do go down this path, then pagan bonus of +1 Heal +one of these gifts(Some revised downwards) might work.

on a philosophical note, the British Christian bonus Should be attractive. most of the mythos holds that The Old Gods are Failing, and christianity is on the ascendant, and Britain is surpassing Rome.

I'm comfortable with it being tough for pagans to achieve the chivalry bonus but have noticed that the benefits of being a religious pagan don't really stacck up against those of the other religions.

I agree that it is a bit underpowered. Sure, if you are close to zero HP and/or during a long year with several combat encounters it is useful. But the second is very rare (at least in my games) and the first wont happen that often. So it's not even close to any of the other bonuses in terms of usefulness (+1d6 damage, +6 HP, +3 HP AND +2 damage, etc). It should be +3 HP at least, or that and something else. The idea of an increased Major Wound threshold looks interesting!

From a balance perspective, I think those are all much too high.
Personally I think the +2 heal rate is pretty awesome. it makes it really hard to die from wounds recieved if you are not killed outright.

A +4 heal rate (bran's gift) would mean that a character will never need surgery.
normal heal rate 2-3 +4(!)= 6-7 hp/week less d6 for deterioration = cannot die. Yes Please!!

If you do go down this path, then pagan bonus of +1 Heal +one of these gifts(Some revised downwards) might work.

on a philosophical note, the British Christian bonus Should be attractive. most of the mythos holds that The Old Gods are Failing, and christianity is on the ascendant, and Britain is surpassing Rome.


Fair point - note that the unhealthy pagan with Bran's Gift will still suffer from Aggravation if not resting so it is far from immunity to death. You can already achieve this with some judicious training and glory points to get STR and CON to 35. This plus the existing +2 pagan bonus gives a healing rate of 6 and makes you immune to deterioration. The fact that none of my munchkinest players have ever done this tells me it may not be that good :)

I agree that the British Christian bonuses should be awesome. They definitely are. One Roman in the current GPC has already converted to the British church (for roleplaying reasons obviously...cough...). That said we did random character generation so the guys who started as pagans didn't pick it. I'm thinking that the religious bonus could start with the extras outlined above and then trickle off as the campaign goes through the later phases. Having a particular patron may be a hook for speciasl quests as well.

With 510 looming the pagans may get some mileage out of keeping their religious ideals as they fight through the many battles.

I'm comfortable with it being tough for pagans to achieve the chivalry bonus but have noticed that the benefits of being a religious pagan don't really stacck up against those of the other religions.

I agree that it is a bit underpowered. Sure, if you are close to zero HP and/or during a long year with several combat encounters it is useful. But the second is very rare (at least in my games) and the first wont happen that often. So it's not even close to any of the other bonuses in terms of usefulness (+1d6 damage, +6 HP, +3 HP AND +2 damage, etc). It should be +3 HP at least, or that and something else. The idea of an increased Major Wound threshold looks interesting!


I've found that as well. When I was running the Boy King years ago I often had each year lasting 2 or 3 sessions. Pagans kicked ass then. Now with the focus on generational play and the GPC, the healing rate bonus doesn't shine as bright.

The extra healing rate represents vigour and primal life energy. Would a bonus to aging rolls be out of the question?

Hard to think of a way that wouldn't be too unbalancing though.

As said by others there is a difference between the usefulness of the religious bonus and it seems the pagans have the short end of the stick. While others are directly influencing the combat (more damage, more hit points) is the bonus for the pagans mostly in after the battle (heal faster). But I am not sure how they would reflect in a game.

I think I would give PK the choice. Either pick a patron god bonus or get the +2 healing rate (Bran would be the default then in your case).

BTW: Great ideas of the patron gods, and also the bonuses you grant with them.

You could extend this idea to other religions as well. For Christian PKs it would mean linking to a saint. Wotanic also has his gods. this would mean the PKs are more divers.

Religious bonuses are not perfectly balanced but I dont think its meant to be that way.

If you want to get great benefits play british christian. Its that simple.

But, for many players pagan character has its added coolness/fun factor.

To me all Christian high traits require players to be passive in courtly encounters which in turn can be boring for some players. Except when you fail those checks. ::)

Pagan have no such concerns. Infact high Proud and Lustful traits encourage this. Although going too far may lead into trouble, but that means more glory. :)

As said by others there is a difference between the usefulness of the religious bonus and it seems the pagans have the short end of the stick. While others are directly influencing the combat (more damage, more hit points) is the bonus for the pagans mostly in after the battle (heal faster). But I am not sure how they would reflect in a game.

I think I would give PK the choice. Either pick a patron god bonus or get the +2 healing rate (Bran would be the default then in your case).

BTW: Great ideas of the patron gods, and also the bonuses you grant with them.

You could extend this idea to other religions as well. For Christian PKs it would mean linking to a saint. Wotanic also has his gods. this would mean the PKs are more divers.


Thanks.

I've been working on a Silmarillion Pendragon conversion so did a section on the favour of the Valar. I thought something similar for the celtic gods might be good. Nice idea on expanding it - I'll definitely take a look at the germanic gods. I'm not so up on the various saints but I'm sure a little googling will deliver some ideas.

Religious bonuses are not perfectly balanced but I dont think its meant to be that way.

If you want to get great benefits play british christian. Its that simple.

But, for many players pagan character has its added coolness/fun factor.

To me all Christian high traits require players to be passive in courtly encounters which in turn can be boring for some players. Except when you fail those checks. ::)

Pagan have no such concerns. Infact high Proud and Lustful traits encourage this. Although going too far may lead into trouble, but that means more glory. :)


The pagan guys do tend to have fun with the boasting, drinking contests and the pretty serving girls alright.

I've been thinking about the knight who converted from Roman to British christianity. He had the religious bonus in both. Not terribly difficult as they are very similar.

If a pagan or germanic religious knight wants to convert (an awesome potential story arc) they get horribly punished as they dismantle their famous traits to try to flip the opposed ones. I'm thinking of allowing such a character to bank the 100 glory (or maybe more?) for religious ideals each year. If he eventually attains the christian bonus then the banked glory is paid out. Maybe a yearly solo like the Lover's solo might be good for such a knight?

I think the bonuses are fine as they are, for both Brit Pagan & Brit or Roman Christian.

I have a couple of players (one in particular) who favour the +2 Heal Rate as God's gift (pun intended!) to player knights and a much more beneficial 'power' than the Christian bonuses.

I tend to agree, for instance;

It is a lot easier to increase your character's hit points through yearly stat increases/glory increases (1 for 1 return on SIZ upto 21, or CON), and also to do additional damage through combat tactics, positioning and maneuvres, weapon choice, etc.

However to increase your character's healing rate through stat increases is a much heftier investment. It is absolutely invaluable for Boy King period.

That all of my players value different religious bonuses for their own various reasons supports my own thinking that there is nothing wrong with how it currently works. No one has ever said, 'bah the Pagan bonus is naff'. Anyway, it works for us just fine but I can understand that it may not for other groups :)

Another thing to consider is when two or more battles occur during a year. In one of my earlier campaigns, my character was the only pagan. I had a couple of weeks of healing bonus compared to normals and could last longer in battles. Of course, most people assume Pagans can have more than one wife, so that is also an advantage.

It all depends on what aspects the game-master emphasizes in his/her campaign. Suppose you were playing a Grail Christian knight and the game-master never brings in anything to do with the Grail?

Robert schroeder

I have found the Pagan bonus to be extremely useful. At first I thought it was underpowered but I soon realised otherwise.



A +4 heal rate (bran's gift) would mean that a character will never need surgery.
normal heal rate 2-3 +4(!)= 6-7 hp/week less d6 for deterioration = cannot die. Yes Please!!


Characters in need of Chirurgery only recover hit points naturally if they receive a successful Chirurgery roll for the week. Therefore even someone with a bonus of +7 or more could die from a failed roll and the subsequent deterioation damage. This often leads to very tense moments when PKs are low on HPs, with virtually no buffer to soak further damage, and have to make those first few rolls.

It is during moments such as these that my pagan players attract envy from the Christian ones. That extra +2 gets them out of the danger zone in roughly half as many rolls.

Having said that, I like the variety offered by Morningkiller's suggestions. I'm sure my PKs would be interested in some of those.

I always have run it that players get their natural healing rate every week regardless (at Sunday, at noon), as well as possibly suffering 1d6 deterioration if they are unhealthy, unless they receive their successful Chirurgery roll.

So the net result from failed chirurgery can be a gain in hit points (if Heal rate > 1d6 roll), no change (Heal rate = 1d6 roll), or a loss in hit points (if Heal Rate < 1d6 roll)... that even sounds like a line from the book in my head as I type it.

I always have run it that players get their natural healing rate every week regardless (at Sunday, at noon), as well as possibly suffering 1d6 deterioration if they are unhealthy, unless they receive their successful Chirurgery roll.

That is the what the rules say. Chirurgery is required to avoid deterioration, not to activate natural healing.


So the net result from failed chirurgery can be a gain in hit points (if Heal rate > 1d6 roll), no change (Heal rate = 1d6 roll), or a loss in hit points (if Heal Rate < 1d6 roll)... that even sounds like a line from the book in my head as I type it.

Indeed, see p126 of the core book:

As with natural healing, this damage [ie deterioration] occurs on Sunday at noon. The net result of the two hit point adjustments may be a gain in hit points, a loss, or nil.

Regards
Luke

I always have run it that players get their natural healing rate every week regardless (at Sunday, at noon), as well as possibly suffering 1d6 deterioration if they are unhealthy, unless they receive their successful Chirurgery roll.

That is the what the rules say. Chirurgery is required to avoid deterioration, not to activate natural healing.


So the net result from failed chirurgery can be a gain in hit points (if Heal rate > 1d6 roll), no change (Heal rate = 1d6 roll), or a loss in hit points (if Heal Rate < 1d6 roll)... that even sounds like a line from the book in my head as I type it.

Indeed, see p126 of the core book:

As with natural healing, this damage [ie deterioration] occurs on Sunday at noon. The net result of the two hit point adjustments may be a gain in hit points, a loss, or nil.

Regards
Luke


Although I do believe this is an error, it is curious that it wasn't corrected in 5.1

Either way is playable. However, I encountered problems when implementing it as written. My players, especially the pagan ones, took to ignoring Chirurgery because their healing rate (+bonus if applicable) made it almost irrelevant. Those with a Healing Rate of 5 were never seriously troubled by deterioration of 1d6 - almost always receiving a net HP gain even when severely wounded and unhealthy. I didn’t feel this worked the way the rules intended. I messed around with a few house rules before settling on using no chirurgery=no healing+deterioration in full.

This is my original post on the subject, with clarification regarding the 5.0 - and presumably the 5.1 – rules, on p2.

http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=306.0

? were you forgettign aggravation damage?

once you need Chiurgery, you start taking damage for pretty much everything you do. pretty big incentive for getting to a good chiurgeon.






Although I do believe this is an error, it is curious that it wasn't corrected in 5.1

Either way is playable. However, I encountered problems when implementing it as written. My players, especially the pagan ones, took to ignoring Chirurgery because their healing rate (+bonus if applicable) made it almost irrelevant. Those with a Healing Rate of 5 were never seriously troubled by deterioration of 1d6 - almost always receiving a net HP gain even when severely wounded and unhealthy. I didn’t feel this worked the way the rules intended. I messed around with a few house rules before settling on using no chirurgery=no healing+deterioration in full.

This is my original post on the subject, with clarification regarding the 5.0 - and presumably the 5.1 – rules, on p2.

http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=306.0

? were you forgettign aggravation damage?

once you need Chiurgery, you start taking damage for pretty much everything you do. pretty big incentive for getting to a good chiurgeon.



This is on the money. Aggravation is where it's at.

'You crit the berserker and cut him from knave to chops. You lose 3 hit points'

? were you forgettign aggravation damage?

once you need Chiurgery, you start taking damage for pretty much everything you do. pretty big incentive for getting to a good chiurgeon.


No, not at all. I did, and still do, enforce Aggravation. For sure it causes my PKs problems but only when they are conscious and able to act. I'm focusing on the times when a PK is below the unconscious threshold, incapable of action and closer to death. If you play the Chirurgery rule as suggested in 5.1, a PK can be left lying in bed (or even in a stinking rat-infested dungeon) and they will usually recover completely, even without any medical care. If that PK happens to be a Pagan then complete unaided recovery is almost guaranteed.

Personally, I don't like this, because it makes chirurgery far, far less important; pagan characters can often forgo it with few consequences. Aggravation is only going to prove troublesome to those that charge off the moment they become conscious - something that is unlikely on such low hit points unless absolutely unavoidable. Once back at decent strength they can amble along to the local quack and get fixed to remove that problem.

In my experience playing no chirurgery=no heal has added more dramatic tension to the campaign. Players with heavily wounded characters know they must seek out a chirurgeon or their character will eventually die. There is no blasé approach to wound infection, even from the Pagans.

Of course this is my interpretation based on Greg’s post from 3 years ago. Would I say it's more deadly? On paper yes, but so far I’ve only lost 1 PK this way. I have however witnessed many moments of tense anxiety during those first few rolls. YPMV.

I've been running no chirurgery = no heal too. I've reread the rules and am not sure if that is the intent but I think it works better in terms of emulating a lot of what we see in Malory.

After all if you don't need chirurgery after being gored by a boar on a hunt how are you supposed to fall in love with your lord's wife or enemies daughter after she nurses you back to health?

Of course this is my interpretation based on Greg’s post from 3 years ago.


Just read that post and well, golly gosh that is a huge change I missed that one.

Does 5.0/5.1 then correct or retract this somewhat official errata from yourself Greg?

I feel the key with chirurgery, unhealthy states and possible player abuse of the Pagan religious bonus is enforcing aggravation damage. The GM has the power in that he/she decides when the character can remove that unhealthy check, and how much aggravation to hand out.

Does 5.0/5.1 then correct or retract this somewhat official errata from yourself Greg?

No chirurgery = no healing, but deterioration does set in
If that's not the question forgive me for unclarity--please give me a yes or no on this, ok?
I'm in the midst of finishing up some new books and have only skimmed the discussion thus far


The GM has the power in that he/she decides when the character can remove that unhealthy check, and how much aggravation to hand out.

I usually play it that a character at half HP no longer needs chirurgery

Greg is there any reason why 5.1 still has it otherwise, ie healing even without Chirurgery? Is it just an editing error? The problem was discussed some time before 5.1 came out.

This really should go in the errata.

Greg is there any reason why 5.1 still has it otherwise, ie healing even without Chirurgery? Is it just an editing error? The problem was discussed some time before 5.1 came out.

This really should go in the errata.


That was my question, i.e. 5.1 was released after the note by yourself in this post http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=306.0, so should we have errata for 5.1 to bring this in line with your correction? (both previously and now again)

cheers

Greg is there any reason why 5.1 still has it otherwise, ie healing even without Chirurgery? Is it just an editing error? The problem was discussed some time before 5.1 came out.

Editing oversight--my fault
and regretably not the only one I made


This really should go in the errata.

I have posted it