Ran my second session of Pendragon (and my first session of the GPC), still burning off nervous energy... got some questions and clarifications for the court if you good gentlemen could indulge me.


Questions relating to the GPC:

How do you pronounce Gorlois? I tried a few times and then followed the example of Excalibur and just called him "Duke (of) Cornwall"

Special Guests
These are guests at the Royal court? I initially thought this information was for Earl Roderick's court - that does make a significant difference in how information comes to the players. There is not really a question there unless my original interpretation is the correct one. (I've noticed from listening and/or reading session reports that most people do seem to run the 485 salisbury court with Madoc as a visiting guest)

In the Battle of Mearcred Creek there is an entry:
"Modifiers
Uther has superior troops: +5"

What roll(s) does this modifier apply to?
(I'm using the default battle system from KAP5.1, don't have the BoB - if that makes a difference)

It actually occurs to me now that this could be a different wording for the +5 bonus for having 2:1 to odds.

Questions relating to the KAP5.1:

Players fought the man-eating bear during the squire scenario

The module mentions that the players should take off their armor and wear only hunting garb for the hunt. Is there a discrete mechanical penalty if a player chose not to do this? (Just curious, one of my PKs would have more limb if he had been wearing armor)

Mounted combat:
A character on a horse gets a +5 bonus, and their enemy gets a -5 penalty?

I think the only reason I have a problem 'understanding' this rule is pure churlishness. +5/-5 is big swing, my grinchy instincts rebel at giving out such a large bonus.

I read the rule again and again - the knights get +5/-5 anytime they are mounted and their enemy is not - be they man or beast. But I'm just failing my generous rolls or something and can't admit to myself that being on a horse nets a 10 point swing on the dice.

Does this apply a against a man-eating bear? Does it apply against vicious saxons on the battlefield? Does it apply in a box with a fox?

The battlefield aspect is an important part. I probably made that battle way more dangerous that it was supposed to be by not giving the enemy the -5. (PKs got really lucky on the enemy damage rolls and only took a few scratches - the bear was far worse a foe than the Saxon army)

Congrats on starting the GPC!

Here's my thoughts on some of your questions. Hope it helps though it doesn't mean I'm right.



How do you pronounce Gorlois? I tried a few times and then followed the example of Excalibur and just called him "Duke (of) Cornwall"


To me this is a french-sounding name. Since I speak french here's how I think you could approximate it. It sounds roughly like:
Gor-looah. The s is silent as opposed as in english and the oi makes the ooah sounds. That said, you can punch it in Google Translate, select the French language and click the little icon and the computer voice will read it for you rather accurately.


In the Battle of Mearcred Creek there is an entry:
"Modifiers
Uther has superior troops: +5"

What roll(s) does this modifier apply to?
(I'm using the default battle system from KAP5.1, don't have the BoB - if that makes a difference)

It actually occurs to me now that this could be a different wording for the +5 bonus for having 2:1 to odds.


I believe, but I haven't used the Battle system yet, that it only applies to the first Battle roll which is executed before the first charge.



Players fought the man-eating bear during the squire scenario

The module mentions that the players should take off their armor and wear only hunting garb for the hunt. Is there a discrete mechanical penalty if a player chose not to do this? (Just curious, one of my PKs would have more limb if he had been wearing armor)


I'm actually interested about hearing the answer to this one two. Though I would rule a -5 to the hunting roll personally.

I also insist that when my characters travel in safe country, that they do so in leather rather than chain mail. But I have nothing mechanical to convince them to do so.



Mounted combat:
A character on a horse gets a +5 bonus, and their enemy gets a -5 penalty?

I think the only reason I have a problem 'understanding' this rule is pure churlishness. +5/-5 is big swing, my grinchy instincts rebel at giving out such a large bonus.

I read the rule again and again - the knights get +5/-5 anytime they are mounted and their enemy is not - be they man or beast. But I'm just failing my generous rolls or something and can't admit to myself that being on a horse nets a 10 point swing on the dice.


The +5/-5 bonus is not simply because the attacker is mounted but more due to the height difference between the combatant. You would get the same effect when one character is fighting at the top of a flight of stairs at someone below. That said, if a character charges at a non-mounted defender who does NOT use a great spear, there is another +5 bonus that makes the total +10/-5.

Yes that's one hell of a bonus but a charging knight is supposed to be one dangerous adversary.



Does this apply a against a man-eating bear? Does it apply against vicious saxons on the battlefield? Does it apply in a box with a fox?


Would depend on the SIZ of the bear. If it is big enough I would guess the mounted knight does not have a height advantage thus no +5/-5.

I think I just don't like the name Gorlois. It makes my tongue itch.

How do you pronounce Gorlois? I tried a few times and then followed the example of Excalibur and just called him "Duke (of) Cornwall"


Doesn't really matter, in my experience, as long as the players recognize who you are talking about. Duke (of) Cornwall works fine, too, and has historical ring to it as the noblemen were often called by their 'estate'.



Special Guests
These are guests at the Royal court?


For 485 - 495, yes. I think the location is a good hint. Why on earth would the Count of Salisbury have his court in Leicester? :)



In the Battle of Mearcred Creek there is an entry:
"Modifiers
Uther has superior troops: +5"

What roll(s) does this modifier apply to?
(I'm using the default battle system from KAP5.1, don't have the BoB - if that makes a difference)


Assuming my reading is correct (the old KAP battle system is a bit of a tangle), it modifies Uther's Primary (Army) Commander roll, which then gives a modifier to all the Battalion Commanders. Given that most PKs are Unit Commanders at best, it doesn't seem to influence them in any way, which is a bit odd...



The module mentions that the players should take off their armor and wear only hunting garb for the hunt. Is there a discrete mechanical penalty if a player chose not to do this? (Just curious, one of my PKs would have more limb if he had been wearing armor)


I'd be tempted to use the DEX penalty for Hunting. Wear leather armor, get -5. Wear metal armor, get -10. Might be a bit too harsh. Especially since I have allowed the PKs to weat 4-pt leather armor without penalties, so make them a bit less likely to kill when hunting. Wild Boar is still considered to rank amongst Giants and Wyrms as PK killers. :P (Poor armor, no shield and poor spear skill in comparison to Sword all combine to make boar hunting a very dangerous sport for our knights.)



Mounted combat:
A character on a horse gets a +5 bonus, and their enemy gets a -5 penalty?


By the book, yes. However, one thing you can do to even the odds is to consider that often (not always) the knight might be facing off against more than 1 footman. Put two spearmen against a mounted knight and the situation starts to look more even.

Also, in our campaign the footmen can poke the horse. We consider the knight + horse to be one creature, but by attacking the horse, the footmen:
1) Ignore the -5 for attacking upwards.
2) Stand a much better chance of wounding the unarmored horse.
3) If successful at killing the horse, leave the knight on the ground to be ganged up on with +5/-5 modifier for the footmen as the knight is struggling up.

Might not be strictly canon, but seems to work fine for us.



Does this apply a against a man-eating bear? Does it apply against vicious saxons on the battlefield? Does it apply in a box with a fox?


As mentioned in previous answers, if the enemy is big enough, it ignores the modifier. For us, a bear is big enough. A Saxon isn't. A Giant is. A gigantic Saxon Berseker -might- be, but I'd need a SIZ around 25 to rule so, most likely, so clearly not a normal Saxon.



The battlefield aspect is an important part. I probably made that battle way more dangerous that it was supposed to be by not giving the enemy the -5. (PKs got really lucky on the enemy damage rolls and only took a few scratches - the bear was far worse a foe than the Saxon army)


It applies on the battlefield and on the skirmish & duel levels. Yes, it is a big benefit, possibly even too big. But the knights were the elite of the medieval warfare, and this game is about knights, so... I find it more distressing that the knights can get the same benefit whether or not they are using £1 rouncies or £20 chargers. That doesn't seem right to me.

Battles (in KAP ed 5 at least) give WAY too much glory. We just played through Battle of Lindsey and the PKs netted closer to 1000 Glory each. Granted, they did capture King Octa, but still.

In a huge, victorious fight, you can get 90 Glory per round. And what is the risk? Miniscule, as you only need to survive getting hit once! (Sure, there is the death spiral of getting abandoned Alone on Foot, but most PK groups try to avoid doing that.) In the end, fighting a 9 round Battle is about as dangerous as fighting a Saxon or two in a duel, and nets 10 times as much glory!

You don't even need to call him the "Duke of Cornwall" — "Cornwall" will suffice. In fact, that would be the handle most people, excepting his intimates, used conversationally. You can skip "Gorlois" altogether...


T.

Also, in our campaign the footmen can poke the horse. We consider the knight + horse to be one creature, but by attacking the horse, the footmen:
1) Ignore the -5 for attacking upwards.
2) Stand a much better chance of wounding the unarmored horse.
3) If successful at killing the horse, leave the knight on the ground to be ganged up on with +5/-5 modifier for the footmen as the knight is struggling up.

Might not be strictly canon, but seems to work fine for us.


Good strategy. I tried it once, and as my GM pointed out, though a valid option, the NPC might not want to scrap a horse which is worth 20 Libram (so twenty years of a peasant salary). But this all depends on the circumstances. In a was soldiers probably don't care. Bandits probably DO care.

Here's a lingual issue that's been bugging me...

Alric is the squire of Sir Lycus.

Sir Lycus is Alric's [blank].
or
Alric's [blank], Sir Lycus.

What word goes in the blank?

i use master to fill that blank

What word goes in the blank?


I tend to use Knight, Mentor, Master or even Lord. Depending a bit on the context.

Good strategy. I tried it once, and as my GM pointed out, though a valid option, the NPC might not want to scrap a horse which is worth 20 Libram (so twenty years of a peasant salary). But this all depends on the circumstances. In a was soldiers probably don't care. Bandits probably DO care.


Well, it all depends. After all, are those footsoldiers really getting to keep the horse (and the resale value is £10, probably divided amongst several footsoldiers)? Where would the bandits be selling these clearly illegally obtained warhorses (since who will believe that a bunch of scruffy looking woodsmen are horse breeders)? And what about Saxons, are they going to bother with warhorses that are expensive to feed and troublesome to use (the traditional Saxon reliance on shieldwalls)? Pretty much the same for any revolting peasants, too.

Sure, a knight might definitely be thinking in terms of the value of the horse, but even there, the knight on top of the horse is likely at least as valuable if not more (ransom £12 - 18). Not to mention that you'd still have to win the fight, which is a whole lot easier without that bastard having a horse, which is of course a valid consideration to all of the footsoldiers, too.

Not saying that it is always preferable to kill the horse first. For instance, if you are armed with a great spear, you might as well poke at the knight (which is a bit odd considering the historical use, but still). Or if you have enough mates that you are likely to knock the knight off his perch without killing the horse, good for you.

i use master to fill that blank




I tend to use Knight, Mentor, Master or even Lord. Depending a bit on the context.


Fair enough. Master is probably the most accurate, but it has a certain amount of baggage. Mentor seems ok. It's a bit informal though.

Sir Knightly
If you can, please start a new thread with a new question
Just so an old man can find stuff later on



Here's a lingual issue that's been bugging me...
Alric is the squire of Sir Lycus.
Sir Lycus is Alric's [blank].
or
Alric's [blank], Sir Lycus.
What word goes in the blank?

Lord

Sorry, I'm fighting against old old habits on 'proper' forum use. I feel like a monster starting a new a thread. Especially when I already have another thread near the top of the forum. I will endeavor to resist that compulsion.

Here's a lingual issue that's been bugging me...
Alric is the squire of Sir Lycus.
Sir Lycus is Alric's [blank].
or
Alric's [blank], Sir Lycus.
What word goes in the blank?

Lord


I would have thought that might cause confusion. Even as a squire wouldn't their lord be the Earl? Or...

Looking up the actual definition of "lord" I see that I was operating under a false premise. So many pseudo-medieval settings treat "Lord" as though it were a meaningful title in it's own right that I had internalized that.

I've struggled with the exact same issue, SirKnightly. Technically a knight might not be a "lord" in sense of a titled landowner, but I guess it's still the proper form of address from Squire to Knight.


T.

I've always liked using the term "Charge" although I'm not sure if its accurate at all.

Alric is the squire of Sir Lycus.

Sir Lycus is Alric's charge.
or
Alric's charge, Sir Lycus.

ok here is my take on the follwoing questions How do you pronounce Gorlois?

I actually respell it and use this for my games and it may not be correct but it works for my games glo·ri·ous [ gláwree əss ] The Duke of Cornwall.

In the Battle of Mearcred Creek there is an entry:
"Modifiers
Uther has superior troops: +5"

What roll(s) does this modifier apply to?
(I'm using the default battle system from KAP5.1, don't have the BoB - if that makes a difference)

It actually occurs to me now that this could be a different wording for the +5 bonus for having 2:1 to odds.

I don't have my bokks with me but if you have KAP 5th eddtion the battle tables in the back of that rule book have a modifer table for the dm to generate results of each battle the above modifer is refreing to the first roll of the battle made by the battle Battlian commander this would be Uther Pendragon then it goes on to another battle table to determine what type of enimies the players are faceing using a d20 and uses the above battle modifer to say Knights are mounted while saoxns are a foot. I don't have 5.1 so I can't compare I have run the merced creek battle 5 times so far for multiple beginning sessions at the store and use the battle tables just fine rember GPC was written to be used with 5th edtion rules and some rules changes might not be reflected in the new batle tables this is just a guess on my part but I use the battle tables form 5th eddtion rule book just fine with using the modifers out of the GPC, and before I got the GPC I realy did not undersatnd why the 5th ed rule book was written like it was then afeter I got it and read through the GPC I finaly understood what greg meant when he said in the other forem we had going about magicians not being in pendragon and why thier was no magic rules. I also relized in my opionion that if you try to use otherbooks with the gpc you will need to modify your campagin I have dune alot of revisions to my game it took me a year to figure out stuff and I am still not compleatly staisfied with the changes, but happy I can modifey it for my games and to accomidate my players as greg says your game will very, and mine has evolved into a 4th/5th hybriad eddtion of KAP. I hope this helps!