I have KAP4, KAP5, and the GPC but I can't seem to find any reference to Excalibur in terms of it's game effects. Apologies if I have missed an obvious paragraph somewhere, but could someone tell me if it actually has any stats or confers any special abilities?

btw.. this is out of curiosity, I dont intend to let my players have it.

You're right and think that is on purpose. Great Pendragon Campaign mentions that its affects seem to only affect those who are of the higher nobility and it seems to mesmerize them. It is shown to the ruler of Lindsey who then acknowledges Uther, it is shown to Gorlois and he becomes a more loyal vassal. Some of my group feel he pays homage to Uther at that point, becoming his vassal.

It is not able to mind control these powerful people as Gorlois later turns against Uther, or perhaps at this point you can argue that Uther is no longer 'just' being inflammed with passion/lust for Igraine and thus Excalibur stops working.

If you reduce the sword to effects and abilities, then someone, somewhere will try to exploit its stats and either resist its effects, or manipulate it for personal/selfish game play. I don't feel it needs to be explained, other than what its effects are.

I might be wrong, but for some reason I always thought that it gave u a +5sword skill and ignored all forms of armor save chivalry. I am not sure where I think I heard it, but I thought it was a Pendragon source. Anyway, if it ever comes up in my games I have always just go with those stats anyway. :)

I remember the same values as the Saracen does.

I agree I think some things should be left a mystery and can't be summarised by a set of values, like Merlin?s magic.

Hahahahah!!! Lets face it...If you are on the wrong end of excalibur you have more to worry about than JUST it's stats!!!!!! :o

From the literature (Malory, Vulgate, de Troyes, et. al.) Excalibur has the following abilities:

1. Grants superhuman strength and fighting ability
2. When unsheathed in battle it casts a blinding light
3. "Confers sovereignty", whatever that means, maybe makes people more loyal than they would otherwise be?

The most important thing was Excalibur's scabbard, which prevented blood-loss. Morgan ditches it in a lake.

D

Both the Excalibur's and its scabbard's effects are described on KAP4, p. 333, in the equipment section of King Arthur's sheet. Excalibur gives +10 to the wielder's Sword skill, and the scabbard allows the user to take a maximum of 6 points of damage from any wound.

Eduardo Penna

Wow, that is surprising. I know +10 sword is awesome, but I thought excalibur would be way more powerful. In my campaign I think I will keep the +5 IGNORE ARMOR. That frightens me to death. I LIKE IT!!!! :P

That's what I meant about stats sometimes don't live up to the hype. I may be dating myself, but there was once an article that proved Gandalf was only a 5th level wizard (D&D). The minute you codify something, it becomes tangible and able to be discounted/discredited/beaten.

In certain ways, I do like no magic system in 5th. I do miss the 4th magic system as many cultures are more intertwined with the magic, but Arthur had Merlin and that was about it.

Arthur had Merlin, but Vivian, Morgana, Morgauss (if not presumed to be Morgana), Christian Mystics & Monks, Saxon Godari, etc all exist in versions of the tales, and in most, have some forms of power. It's nice, as a GM, to be able to say, "yup, this is how she does it," when Morgana curses the PC's for slapping Mordred around...

Wow, that is surprising. I know +10 sword is awesome, but I thought excalibur would be way more powerful. In my campaign I think I will keep the +5 IGNORE ARMOR. That frightens me to death. I LIKE IT!!!! :P


+10 to skill is often more powerful than +5 to skill & ignore armour.

Imagine two knights with skill 20 faced each other; one had your version of Excalibur, and the other had the +10 skill version.
If we ignore ties (19% of blows) we end up the following:
full half of the time, the +10 wielder wins with a critical hit; half of the remaining hits he wins with a normal hit; In total, the other guy wins only one exchange out of 4, with about 60% chance of that blow being a critical.

On a critical hit, a character with 5d6 damage is effectively ignoring his opponents armour - but even better, he is getting an automatic knockdown against most foes. That means, the next turn, he'll have an additional +5 to his skill, and the defender will have -5 unless he Defends.

The +10 skill option is superior, because of how easy it makes critical hits, and also how often it stops your opponent from hitting you.

It is the law of diminishing returns though. For eg, if Lancelot (sword 39) picks up Excalibur it makes no difference whatsoever to his fighting ability and that seems odd to me. I don't care how good Lancelot is; him *with* Excalibur has to be better than him *without* it. The no armour bonus does at least ensure that even incredibly mighty wielders of the sword still gain a tangible bonus.

The +5 skill still has that problem - after all, Lancelot's 39 skill still gets no benefit. Also, two equal characters, one uses Excalibur, and his opponent gets inspired: in the official version, they are still equal; in your version, the inspired character now has the advantage.

Depending on your view of passions and excalibur, that may be a desirable result, of course.

Not to his skill, no, that remains of no consequence as far as the game mechanics are concerned. However, he does get the benefit of ignoring armour, which, while being almost trivial at such a high level, is nonetheless still a bonus that what not otherwise be gained.

I should add, I totally agree with your point about passions and excalibur. :)

I'm actually uncertain which rule I like better (re Excalibur that is). I do like the "cleanness" of a simple +10 modifier. I might just add in a strength bonus (say a boost to 21) so that a) it has some other benefit and b) it fits nicely with the legend of superhuman strength as mentioned above.

well, there is that, but since every hit is a critical, it hardly matters.

Actually I've just realised there is a difference bwteen the +5 and +10 skill for Lancelot. He often faces more than one opponent, or may be facing a monster with multiple attacks. When he splits his skill, he can benefit by both the weapon bonus, and Inspiration - even both of them together.

In those situations, there'll definitely be cases where your version is more powerful.

Still, I prefer the official version - ignoring armour seems a bit too much. Halving armour, like the old Double Feint tactic, I could probably go for in a super-sharp weapon. But that's just my personal taste.

I might use "ignore armour" for a weapon which was, say, a sword of faith, or was some kind of ghost blade.

I should add, I totally agree with your point about passions and excalibur. :)

I'm actually uncertain which rule I like better (re Excalibur that is). I do like the "cleanness" of a simple +10 modifier. I might just add in a strength bonus (say a boost to 21) so that a) it has some other benefit and b) it fits nicely with the legend of superhuman strength as mentioned above.


Maybe +10 skill and +10 STR?

>>Actually I've just realised there is a difference bwteen the +5 and +10 skill for Lancelot. He often faces more than one opponent, or may be facing a monster with multiple attacks. When he splits his skill, he can >>benefit by both the weapon bonus, and Inspiration - even both of them together.

oh yes. I didn't think of that. btw please tell me how to quote other messages properly ???

>>Still, I prefer the official version - ignoring armour seems a bit too much. Halving armour, like the old Double Feint tactic, I could probably go for in a super-sharp weapon. But that's just my personal taste.

I'm going to have to dig out my old copy of KAP4. I'd totally forgotten about the Double Feint tactic. I wonder how many people still use this? Or why Greg dropped it from KAP5.

Thanks for all the suggestions.

btw please tell me how to quote other messages properly ???

Notice above each message is a button marked "Quote" - if you click that, the original message is quoted.

You can snip text out.

You can also create quote blocks like this:


this is the text you want inside a quoted block
Which will look like this:

this is the text you want inside a quoted block

I should add, I totally agree with your point about passions and excalibur. :)

I'm actually uncertain which rule I like better (re Excalibur that is). I do like the "cleanness" of a simple +10 modifier. I might just add in a strength bonus (say a boost to 21) so that a) it has some other benefit and b) it fits nicely with the legend of superhuman strength as mentioned above.


Maybe +10 skill and +10 STR?


Simpler still: +2d6 damage instead of +10 STR (since it's going to up damage by 10/6=1.666)

I still find ignoring armor simpler.

Coming back to Excalibur:
At the top of http://weareallus.com/pendragon/1whatsnew.html , Mr. Stafford has linked an article he wrote about Excalibur and some other swords. I'd just like to add one thing to this:

In the Alliterative Morte Arthure, of which I will prattle on about if you give me the opportunity, Arthur has another sword besides Excalibur: Clarent, which seems to be a sword usually used for peaceful, ceremonial purposes like knighting ceremonies. However, when Arthur left for the Roman War and left the sword behind, Mordred (who was the regent in this version) takes it, quite probably with the aid of Guinevere (with whom he has a child or two). In the final battle, Mordred wields Clarent, Arthur Excalibur, and they kill each other gloriously. Mordred's "corruption" of the peaceful sword fits in with an overarching theme of the good going bad-- Arthur goes from being a wise, just king fighting a just war to a murderous, reckless tyrant; and Mordred goes from being a seemingly nice, humble, loyal vassal of Arthur to a usurper; Guinevere goes from being a faithful wife to an adulteress and collaborator.