Weapon: The Short Glaive
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/doorknobdeity/Copyofotm10vab.gif
This weapon is similar enough to the great sword that its use is governed by the Great Sword weapon skill. Like the great sword, it deals an additional 1d6 damage. The short glaive can be used on horseback without penalty; however, unlike a great sword, it can be broken on a fumble or a tie. This weapon comes into use during the Conquest period.

The image shown is more like a long scramseax than glaive... tho' a glaive really is just a scramseax on a stick...

The only house rule that i ever used that i can think of was when a character used a two handed weapon or did not have a shield. If he did succeed but did not win I would allow him to Make a dex check. If he made it I would allow him to say that his weapon blocked some of the dmg ( as a shield would have). I let the weapon count as 2 pts of armor. Better than nothing. Also I said that every time his weapon was used to do this there was a 1in 20 chance that his weapon broke, and it was cumulative. So if you do it 4 times there is a 4in 20 chance of damaging( breaking) your weapon. I usually did not outright break the weapon unless a 1 was rolled. Instead I would say that it was warped or chipped or damaged in some way that would give the wielder a -1 to hit each time it took damage. It was an okay rule, but not used too often. Most knioghts preferred a shield! :)
But I did make my players grumble in displeasure when 2-handed axe wielding saxons gain 2 pts of armor! of course saxons luckily have crap dex. Anyway thats my only house rule.

Over all we've not had the need to generate houserules.

Here are two that we have (quoted from our website www.pendragonchronicles.org.uk (http://www.pendragonchronicles.org.uk)):


In an attempt to raise his glory, and in vain to promote himself to Countess Ellen, Sir Erec (son of the first Sir Erec) has in his employ a bard who's role is to compose and sing songs extolling the mighty acts of Erec, Sword of the Dawn. When we used the ecconomic system of The Book of the Manor he paid for the benefit, now it is simply included in the GM's description of his financial circumstances each year. The big question has been - should Erec gain additional glory for this? In our last session we decided upon the following: each year the bard should gain him 1d6 points of glory - not much, but something. In addition, we gave the bard his own score for 'Compose' and 'Sing'. If in the course of play Erec calls upon his bard, he has to roll for his success, as well as describe what he is attempting to acheive. Like all stats, these can be checked if critically succeeded in - or if there is a success at a critical moment. If he succeeds in these rolls, and the situation merits it, we decided there might be a further glory award. We also decided that should Erec's bard's Compose and Sing both go above 15, then unless Erec's status has increased accordingly, that the bard may look for enmployment elsewhere (or a substantial pay increase...)

While Erec has his bard, Sir Gaelavin has his good looks - an appearance of 18 (at the time of typing, having advanced past 35 years of age, his stats are beginning to decrease; in the Winter Phase of 499AD he lost a point in four stats!) Should this stat give him a glory advantage? For now we have deemed no, but instead decided that Gaelavin's player should activily seek modifiers for situations where his appearance might make a difference, and have the chance of acheiving additional glory that way.

Weapon: The Short Glaive
This weapon is similar enough to the great sword that its use is governed by the Great Sword weapon skill. Like the great sword, it deals an additional 1d6 damage. The short glaive can be used on horseback without penalty; however, unlike a great sword, it can be broken on a fumble or a tie. This weapon comes into use during the Conquest period.


Great picture.
This guy is obviously a Pendragon Saxon, since he is using a 2H weapon from horseback. (PK&L p 119)
;)

--g

So the Biblical Joshua was a Jewish Saxon? I knew Jesus traveled to England with Joseph of Arimathea, but I never knew there was quite this much traffic between Britain and the Holy Land.

I've got a soft spot for the short glaive/shortened military scythe/Maciejowski chopper. Even if there's doubt over whether it's actually a feasible weapon, it's got loads of style-- it's like the dual-wielded Uzis of the medieval era. I thought it would be nice to make it available as advertised to characters other than Saxons; as the short glaive is inferior to a great sword in most ways, I don't think I'm stepping on the Saxons' toes by letting other races use a two-handed weapon on horse back.

Off topic a bit, but that's a great picture. Do you have a link for it, or of anything similar? Imagery like that would look great on my soon to be made GMs screen.

The Morgan Bible is the best Bible.

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/maciejowski_images.htm
http://www.keesn.nl/mac/mac_en.htm
http://www.themorgan.org/exhibitions/exhibOnlineThumbs.asp?id=OnlineKings

I think the picture I posted is on folio 10 verso.

If the knight is a Saxon, then he is not from the early time periods. Let's see, I see him with armor, closed helm, working closely with other knights.
I see spears and one other with a sword and shield. Charge??

Weapons like this are always a good houserule, especially since someone took the time to draw it in a picture.

Guns:

It's pretty clear that Greg Stafford didn't mean for firearms to play a huge role. There's the "engine" used by Salisbury in 555 during the Grail period, and arquebus-armed mercenaries show up in the Twilight period, but that's about it. That's understandable--today, guns are seen as an anathema to the chivalric ideal, the death of the knight and the rise of armies of lesser men. These noisy, dirty, smoky contraptions just don't really fit into Arthurian legend very gracefully. However, historically, knights were not always terribly reluctant to utilize firearms. By the mid-15th century, in the later stages of the Hundred Years War, artillery was often put to good use as field artillery of a sort. Joan of Arc was said by her contemporaries to be an able commander and extremely adept at using cannons on the battlefield (read http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/devries1.pdf , it's pretty cool). Later, during the Tudor period, heavily armored cavalrymen-- some of them knights-- would shoot off a brace of cavalry pistols before either engaging with sword or retreating to the back of the formation to reload. I remember seeing an engraving in a book from my childhood (the Eyewitness book on Arms and Armor) a pair of knights jousting, for lack of a better word, one with a lance and the other with a pistol; the one with the pistol was able to win due to his range advantage, which given the technology of the time was only a couple of feet longer than that of the lance. Anyway, my point is that there's historical precedent for making gunpowder more prominent.

Handguns:
Hand-held gunpowder weapons are very powerful. Because the big lead balls travel relatively slowly, they generally do not pass through their targets, as modern guns will often do. Instead, the bullet stops in the target's body, transferring all of its kinetic energy. This results in horrific wounds, and even wounds on the limbs are often lethal. Furthermore, the lead balls are not at all hampered by heavy oak shields, and as such knights do not receive the usually shield bonus against missile fire. In addition, since guns are un-chivalric (if not un-knightly) weapons, chivalric knights do not benefit from their usual +3 armor. Fortunately, guns are less accurate than other weapons, and the user of a handgun always has a -5 modifier when making an attack. Furthermore, a chivalric knight who uses a firearm in battle does not benefit from his +3 armor bonus for the rest of the encounter. Finally, on a fumble, the gun backfires rather dramatically, dealing 3d6 damage to the wielder, ignoring armor. If this results in a Major Wound, he'll probably lose at least lost a finger or two.

In the Twilight period, some knights have taken to trading in their lances for wheel-lock pistols. Though not generally considered un-knightly, it is rather gauche, and the more honor-bound knights like Lancelot and Gawain wouldn't be caught dead using such a weapon. (Mordred, on the other hand, is quite taken with these novel new tools of death, and has spent a small fortune on his collection of gilded wheel-lock pistols) These deal 3d6+10 damage and are governed by the skill of the same name, and take 10 rounds to reload (rarely done in the heat of battle, and then usually by a squire or other servant). When used one-on-one against an opponent with a lance, the knight with the pistol first makes an unopposed attack roll, and then the knight with the lance does the same. However, if the pistol-wielder hit with his shot, the lancer suffers a -5 penalty due to the shock of the impact, and if the pistolier has dealt enough damage to make the other knight make a DEX roll to stay on his horse, or caused a Major Wound, or made a critical hit, the lancer suffers a -10 modifier.

In a Battle, the knight fires both his pistols, once when missile troops fire their weapons, and then once when the melee troops would attack. After that, knights usually put away their guns for a sword, though on the Continent some knights have devised a formation called the caracole ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracole ) in which ranks of pistol-armed knights fire their weapons and then retreat to the rear of the formation to reload and give the ranks behind a chance to fire.

I'm not quite sure how to best implement cannons as field artillery in a Battle; any suggestions?

If the knight is a Saxon, then he is not from the early time periods. Let's see, I see him with armor, closed helm, working closely with other knights.
I see spears and one other with a sword and shield.

Given the mix of armours it looks like they are fighting during the Conquest period, which (if it's towards the end) is *just* enough time for a lad of 10 or so to grow up as a post-Badon fosterling and achieve knighthood. Either that or he's a saxon owing fealty to Silchester (perhaps fighting in Uffo's rebellion of 523-4).

Nice picture - I'll check out that bible for visuals to use on my campaign wiki.

Regards
Luke

Guns:

It's pretty clear that Greg Stafford didn't mean for firearms to play a huge role. There's the "engine" used by Salisbury in 555 during the Grail period, and arquebus-armed mercenaries show up in the Twilight period, but that's about it. That's understandable--today, guns are seen as an anathema to the chivalric ideal, the death of the knight and the rise of armies of lesser men. These noisy, dirty, smoky contraptions just don't really fit into Arthurian legend very gracefully. However, historically, knights were not always terribly reluctant to utilize firearms. By the mid-15th century, in the later stages of the Hundred Years War, artillery was often put to good use as field artillery of a sort.
:
In the Twilight period, some knights have taken to trading in their lances for wheel-lock pistols. Though not generally considered un-knightly, it is rather gauche, and the more honor-bound knights like Lancelot and Gawain wouldn't be caught dead using such a weapon. (Mordred, on the other hand, is quite taken with these novel new tools of death, and has spent a small fortune on his collection of gilded wheel-lock pistols)
:
I'm not quite sure how to best implement cannons as field artillery in a Battle; any suggestions?


As one who has fired replica medieval cannon, I have the following comments:

- The exact historical analogy period/tech level makes a HUGE difference in pistol reliability and usability. According to the GPC the Twilight period corresponds to the War of the Roses period, which means you don’t have wheel-locks yet – even matchlocks are rare cutting-edge tech. The caracole is not feasible when you have to carefully pour out the primer *while standing in range* and touch it off with your hopefully-still-burning slow match. Now, if you want mid-1500s tech and tactics in your campaign, that’s fine, your choice. Just be wary of ripple effects as eager players try to bring in other things that were available then.

- I cannot over-stress the danger factor in cannon and hand-gonne handling and the resulting emphasis on safety procedures by all surviving gunners. One missed smoldering spark will blow your hand off when you reload. Which makes for a great personality conflict between the Munchkin knight wanting his Cool Toys to fire faster and the experienced gunner getting really nervous at his boss’ requests.

- For that reason, Period cannon have a very slow rate of fire – which is why they were more used in sieges than in pitched battles. In the excellent article you cited, most of the examples are indeed sieges. So have the opposing commander who watches your cannon in operation roll Battle. On a success, he realizes that troops who charge as soon as the cannon goes off can easily reach your cannon before it has time to reload. Assuming you have nobody in the way to stop him, of course.

- I would also have troops encountering cannon/handgonnes for the first time make a Valor roll and (if mounted) a riding roll as well. Gunpowder weapons are LOUD, far louder than the biggest trebuchet. Veterans should get a plus to these rolls as they gain experience with the newfangled weapons.

Guns:
Handguns:
Hand-held gunpowder weapons are very powerful. Because the big lead balls travel relatively slowly, they generally do not pass through their targets, as modern guns will often do. Instead, the bullet stops in the target's body, transferring all of its kinetic energy. This results in horrific wounds, and even wounds on the limbs are often lethal. Furthermore, the lead balls are not at all hampered by heavy oak shields, and as such knights do not receive the usually shield bonus against missile fire. In addition, since guns are un-chivalric (if not un-knightly) weapons, chivalric knights do not benefit from their usual +3 armor. Fortunately, guns are less accurate than other weapons, and the user of a handgun always has a -5 modifier when making an attack. Furthermore, a chivalric knight who uses a firearm in battle does not benefit from his +3 armor bonus for the rest of the encounter. Finally, on a fumble, the gun backfires rather dramatically, dealing 3d6 damage to the wielder, ignoring armor. If this results in a Major Wound, he'll probably lose at least lost a finger or two.


I'm going to say in some situations the shield actually makes the wound worse.

When lead bullets hit flesh they tend to flatten out into a flat and roughly circular piece of lead. As the bullet penetrates further it will become wider and wider as it goes further into the victim, until it either runs out of energy, or exits.

Those soft lead bullets can flatten out to the size of a dinner plate by the time they exit. A good modern example is the .357 magnum . It's .357 inches and weighs about 7-9 grams when it leaves the barrel, but some manufacturers have rounds that flatten out to a rough circle 5 inches in diameter by the time it exits the body. A 5 inch open wound is going to put a hurt on just about anyone (or anything), not to mention all the damage the round did as it was flattening out.

The matchlock round is going to be about .75 inches wide (some are smaller some are larger, but .75 inches is a good average). The bullet weights about 40 grams. When it hits human flesh it will flatten out rapidly, perhaps to as much as 7-8 inches across.

Now if a that same bullet hits a shield BEFORE entry it will already be partially flattened out to say 1.5 inches across. When that hits it's already begun the process of forming itself into that flat thin object, so the process goes further. So, it could easily be a flat piece of lead 10 inches across by the time it exits the victim, IF it doesn't run out of energy before that point. The other possibility of course, is that if the victim is wearing armor besides the shield then there's a good chance the round will simply fail to penetrate the armor (since it's energy is both diminished from passing through the shield AND spread out over a wider area because the bullet is now at least partially flattened out).

Of course that's all far more detail than Pendragon needs, and in any case, I hate guns in Pendragon. I'm glad Greg included them, for those that want to use them, as well as those that might want to use the rules but set them in a more historically accurate setting (such as the Historic England of the 1400s).

Still for me they're just not "Arthurian." In fact, I'm not even keen on including crossbows or longbows. Historically, guns, crossbows, and longbows are the very things that caused mounted armored knights to lose their ascendancy on the battlefield. But then, that's what makes Pendragon, and really all rpgs, great, we can all vary the setting to suit our own needs.

Rob, do you have any citations to support your assertions about ballistics? I've never seen anything of the sort you're describing, and I'm a big of a gunbunny and my friends hunt with hollowpoints in caliburs from 5.5mm to .50cal, and muskets up to .75cal. In fact, having found a .60 cal musket ball in a chunk of pig flesh (pig was dead when shot, and cooked after) the musket ball was only slightly oval. Having found hollowpoints in mooseflesh they only expand to about 3x their diameter if they hold together. A buddy has the hollowpoint that shattered his leg; it's only about 1" in diameter.

Now, a shield will result in splintering from a musket ball. But your claims of pancaking are incredulous to this former competitive shooter. (Back in HS.)

Rob, do you have any citations to support your assertions about ballistics? I've never seen anything of the sort you're describing, and I'm a big of a gunbunny and my friends hunt with hollowpoints in caliburs from 5.5mm to .50cal, and muskets up to .75cal. In fact, having found a .60 cal musket ball in a chunk of pig flesh (pig was dead when shot, and cooked after) the musket ball was only slightly oval. Having found hollowpoints in mooseflesh they only expand to about 3x their diameter if they hold together. A buddy has the hollowpoint that shattered his leg; it's only about 1" in diameter.

Now, a shield will result in splintering from a musket ball. But your claims of pancaking are incredulous to this former competitive shooter. (Back in HS.)

I'm a gun nut too. The hollow point claims are based on what I've heard about hyrda-shocks and (of all things) wad cutters from a police officer I know. I could be wrong on that part, but I HAVE seen bullets in museums and collections that were pulled out of Revolutionary war soldiers that had pancaked out to several inches across. They may have been grape shot or canister and not musket balls, but regardless they were unbelievably large

I could be wrong about the modern hollow-points, but I've seen some large caliber musket balls pulled out of soldiers in the war. I'm working on the (admittedly theoretical) idea that once it flattens on the shield a musket ball would behave like a very large wad cutter.

I will admit that the modern musket balls using reproduction black powder rifles don't seem to have the elasticity of musket balls from the 1700s. I'm not certain if it's a difference in the casting of the balls back then, the powder, or (maybe?) the fact they were mostly fired out of unrifled musket barrels whereas every black powder owner I know uses a rifle. It might also be due to the fact that most hunters I know use Minie style bullets instead of round ones, and (as I understand it) modern lead balls are produced using a drop tower method that insures they are perfectly round, where as using molds to cast bullets was the norm in the 1700s.

Off topic, but what did (do) you shoot?

Does anyone have a House Rule for Unburdened? The errata for page 117 shows this rule has been removed.

I would like some kind of mechanic for lightly-armoured/DEX fighting styles (e.g. Robin Hood). The core rules Dodging (pg 117), Defense (pg 120) and Evade (pg 121) don't really seem to apply since you cannot attack with any of those options.

Something simple, using KAP5's normal mechanics would be nice.

Does anyone have a House Rule for Unburdened? The errata for page 117 shows this rule has been removed.

I would like some kind of mechanic for lightly-armoured/DEX fighting styles (e.g. Robin Hood). The core rules Dodging (pg 117), Defense (pg 120) and Evade (pg 121) don't really seem to apply since you cannot attack with any of those options.

Something simple, using KAP5's normal mechanics would be nice.


First of all, light swords should do -1D6 of damage. Rapiers, smallswords, and the like were rarely used on the battlefield for the same reason that soldiers don’t use match .22 pistols there – you want drop-him-NOW stopping power, not certain-death-in-an-hour power.

Second, I would *not* boost the rapier guy’s Sword skill or otherwise change the combat mechanics. Well-made armor doesn’t slow down your sword arm. Yes, the other guy is faster, but he has to close with the knight to attack. And if he lunges, well, that means a primarily-thrusting weapon, so his weapon’s physical speed is countered by the fact that the knight pretty much knows what he’s going to do before he does it (mental speed).

What light armor/swords give you are endurance and speed. A brigand will bound up hills that will wind a running knight halfway up, so he’ll shoot the horses/squires and run. Or sneak up when the knight has taken his armor off at night. So I’d boost the unarmored person’s Move score (with a further multiplier for base distance travelled), reduce his travel-in-rough-terrain penalties, and reduce any penalties for moving/fighting in hot weather.

Rob, do you have any citations to support your assertions about ballistics? I've never seen anything of the sort you're describing, and I'm a big of a gunbunny and my friends hunt with hollowpoints in caliburs from 5.5mm to .50cal, and muskets up to .75cal. In fact, having found a .60 cal musket ball in a chunk of pig flesh (pig was dead when shot, and cooked after) the musket ball was only slightly oval. Having found hollowpoints in mooseflesh they only expand to about 3x their diameter if they hold together. A buddy has the hollowpoint that shattered his leg; it's only about 1" in diameter.

Now, a shield will result in splintering from a musket ball. But your claims of pancaking are incredulous to this former competitive shooter. (Back in HS.)

I'm a gun nut too. The hollow point claims are based on what I've heard about hyrda-shocks and (of all things) wad cutters from a police officer I know. I could be wrong on that part, but I HAVE seen bullets in museums and collections that were pulled out of Revolutionary war soldiers that had pancaked out to several inches across. They may have been grape shot or canister and not musket balls, but regardless they were unbelievably large

I could be wrong about the modern hollow-points, but I've seen some large caliber musket balls pulled out of soldiers in the war. I'm working on the (admittedly theoretical) idea that once it flattens on the shield a musket ball would behave like a very large wad cutter.

I will admit that the modern musket balls using reproduction black powder rifles don't seem to have the elasticity of musket balls from the 1700s. I'm not certain if it's a difference in the casting of the balls back then, the powder, or (maybe?) the fact they were mostly fired out of unrifled musket barrels whereas every black powder owner I know uses a rifle. It might also be due to the fact that most hunters I know use Minie style bullets instead of round ones, and (as I understand it) modern lead balls are produced using a drop tower method that insures they are perfectly round, where as using molds to cast bullets was the norm in the 1700s.

Off topic, but what did (do) you shoot?


Of late, nothing... I used to regularly target shoot with 5.56N, 7.62N, and 7.62Sov in a variety of rifles, a .40.40 carbine, and assorted pistols. I carried, for a while, a cz50 (.32ACP), and used hollowpoints; firing into water, I never saw a .32 expand past 1", we tested for that. Ballistic gelatin reduced the pancake effect.

as for the metallurgy: modern balls are lead, and fairly pure; archaic musket balls often had a lot more impurities. Lead itself is soft but surprisingly brittle (as anyone who used pure lead minis from the 70's can tell you).

Sorry for taking so long; I've been neglecting KAP out of general apathy.

Does anyone have a House Rule for Unburdened? The errata for page 117 shows this rule has been removed.

I would like some kind of mechanic for lightly-armoured/DEX fighting styles (e.g. Robin Hood). The core rules Dodging (pg 117), Defense (pg 120) and Evade (pg 121) don't really seem to apply since you cannot attack with any of those options.

Something simple, using KAP5's normal mechanics would be nice.


KAP3 and 4 had the Double feint manouevre, which slightly tweaked is presented below.

Make an opposed attack as normal. If you win, roll DEX, at the encumbrance penalty for worn armour (0 for nothing, -5 for leather, -10 for metal, -15 for heavy metal like full plate).
Critical: ignore target's armour
Success: half target's armour.
Fail: do no damage at all! You still stop the opponent hitting you, but fail to make an effective attack.
Fumble: and drop weapon.

This gives an advantage to high DEX characters who don't wear armour, but might lead to silliness like "we're fighting a giant - it'll kill us with any blow anyway, so take off your armour, and you'll halve it's armour points!)

To counter that, you could use the original rule, which based the penalty on the target's armour, but then the rule doesn't do what you want.

Maybe you can come up with some tweak of our own to make it work.

Trusted old Double Feint. Always liked that one. Those were the days, when Lamorak had DEX 26.

I always wondered why it disappeard in KAP 5. Did no one ever use it? Or was it to good? To poor? Or did it just lead to the kind of absurdity DarrenHill mentioned?

Im thinking of introducing it in my ongoing campaign.

I think one reason it was dropped was it adds a little clunkiness to combat - an extra roll every round.
But te main thing, I suspect, is the way it causes players to reduce their chance of success. A lot of players (the ones that are more prone to gambling) can't help themselves - they try to use it, even when their chance of success is slim (especially when the odds are against them), and they end up wasting many of their attacks (failing the modified DEX roll) while hoping for the big score (a half armour hit). As a result, they end up fighting worse than they would if they didn't use it.

I still use it in my campaign, but only those with 20+ DEX can use it, and it always has at least a -10 penalty. I kept it mainly so I could keep that DEX 26 Lamorak :)

Trusted old Double Feint. Always liked that one. Those were the days, when Lamorak had DEX 26.

I always wondered why it disappeard in KAP 5. Did no one ever use it? Or was it to good? To poor? Or did it just lead to the kind of absurdity DarrenHill mentioned?

Im thinking of introducing it in my ongoing campaign.


It is too easily abused

Maybe you can come up with some tweak of our own to make it work.

Perhaps something like this...

Side-step
If a loser of a combat round had a partial success, he may attempt to side-step. He rolls an unopposed DEX, modified by the amount of points of armour worn, with the following results:
Critical: the opponent's hit is now a miss.
Success: half the damage misses (before armour reduction).
Failure: next round you take a -5 penalty to your combat roll.
Fumble: weapon breaks/drops.

You could keep it and simply argue that it only halves the armor of creatures WEARING armour. The premise behind the ability is that you exploit a hole in the armor. Giants ( for instance) have natural armor ( tough skin) so that should not be halved since u cant exploit a chink in the armor. I like the rule if players wanna use it because it makes the dexterity score worth a little more than just staying on your feet after possible knockdown. Ive had a character with dex 17 and one with dex 6 and the only difference was that one got knocked down a few more times during the course of the campaign. I had a 23 size so i didnt get knocked down much. Granted , I would have used dex more if i had had a smaller size. But still...I like that it makes dex a little more importamnt! ;D

You could keep it and simply argue that it only halves the armor of creatures WEARING armour.

I like this idea. Some creatures do have natural chinks in their armour, but you could have some kind of manoeuvre needed to be able to target it.


it makes the dexterity score worth a little more than just staying on your feet after possible knockdown. Ive had a character with dex 17 and one with dex 6 and the only difference was that one got knocked down a few more times during the course of the campaign. I had a 23 size so i didnt get knocked down much. Granted , I would have used dex more if i had had a smaller size. But still...I like that it makes dex a little more importamnt! ;D


The bit in bold: um, that's a pretty huge difference, considering how devastating a knockdown can be sometimes.
You had made a decision with your SIZ 23 knight to avoid knockdown rolls, so DEX seemed less important - but it still would cut down your options. If you ever have to sneak around, climb a wall, or good forbid, dodge, you still need that DEX score. And there are plenty of monsters and powerful opponents capable of inflicting a knock-down roll on a SIZ 23 knight. So, DEX should still be important - just not quite as important. And that's as it should be - you had spent a lot of glory on SIZ specifically to get that benefit.

I like the rule if players wanna use it because it makes the dexterity score worth a little more than just staying on your feet after possible knockdown. Ive had a character with dex 17 and one with dex 6 and the only difference was that one got knocked down a few more times during the course of the campaign. I had a 23 size so i didnt get knocked down much. Granted , I would have used dex more if i had had a smaller size. But still...I like that it makes dex a little more importamnt! ;D
I agree about it making DEX more important, and also that that's a good thing.


You could keep it and simply argue that it only halves the armor of creatures WEARING armour. The premise behind the ability is that you exploit a hole in the armor. Giants ( for instance) have natural armor ( tough skin) so that should not be halved since u cant exploit a chink in the armor.I would say the eye or ear or mouth must be considered "a chink in the armor" of most creatures. keep it as is (= was)!

Eye or the mouth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOW.... How TALL IS UR KNIGHT!!!!!!!!???????? HAHAHAHAHAH just kiding. :D Its a good point.

Rob, do you have any citations to support your assertions about ballistics? I've never seen anything of the sort you're describing, and I'm a big of a gunbunny and my friends hunt with hollowpoints in caliburs from 5.5mm to .50cal, and muskets up to .75cal. In fact, having found a .60 cal musket ball in a chunk of pig flesh (pig was dead when shot, and cooked after) the musket ball was only slightly oval. Having found hollowpoints in mooseflesh they only expand to about 3x their diameter if they hold together. A buddy has the hollowpoint that shattered his leg; it's only about 1" in diameter.

Now, a shield will result in splintering from a musket ball. But your claims of pancaking are incredulous to this former competitive shooter. (Back in HS.)

I'm a gun nut too. The hollow point claims are based on what I've heard about hyrda-shocks and (of all things) wad cutters from a police officer I know. I could be wrong on that part, but I HAVE seen bullets in museums and collections that were pulled out of Revolutionary war soldiers that had pancaked out to several inches across. They may have been grape shot or canister and not musket balls, but regardless they were unbelievably large

I could be wrong about the modern hollow-points, but I've seen some large caliber musket balls pulled out of soldiers in the war. I'm working on the (admittedly theoretical) idea that once it flattens on the shield a musket ball would behave like a very large wad cutter.

I will admit that the modern musket balls using reproduction black powder rifles don't seem to have the elasticity of musket balls from the 1700s. I'm not certain if it's a difference in the casting of the balls back then, the powder, or (maybe?) the fact they were mostly fired out of unrifled musket barrels whereas every black powder owner I know uses a rifle. It might also be due to the fact that most hunters I know use Minie style bullets instead of round ones, and (as I understand it) modern lead balls are produced using a drop tower method that insures they are perfectly round, where as using molds to cast bullets was the norm in the 1700s.

Off topic, but what did (do) you shoot?


Of late, nothing... I used to regularly target shoot with 5.56N, 7.62N, and 7.62Sov in a variety of rifles, a .40.40 carbine, and assorted pistols. I carried, for a while, a cz50 (.32ACP), and used hollowpoints; firing into water, I never saw a .32 expand past 1", we tested for that. Ballistic gelatin reduced the pancake effect.

as for the metallurgy: modern balls are lead, and fairly pure; archaic musket balls often had a lot more impurities. Lead itself is soft but surprisingly brittle (as anyone who used pure lead minis from the 70's can tell you).

Sorry for taking so long; I've been neglecting KAP out of general apathy.


Forget that black powder weapons are lot lower velocity than modern smokeless weapons. Even relatively low velocity modern round such as a .45 is several hundred ft/s faster than any musket ball, but the musket ball will weigh more than any modern round. Big slow rounds behave differently than small fast ones.

Even then wound ballistics sometimes make no logical sense. Case in point: a big slow .45 will almost always do more damage than a very fast +p+ 9mm. On the other hand a .357 magnum is only slightly faster than a +p+ and firing the bullet is only .002 inches larger in diameter than the 9mm and yet generally the .357 will do more harm than a .45.

I'm told the shape also has an unexpected effect as well. Apparently modern bullets have a center of gravity that's much closer to the rear of the bullet than the front, while musket balls have a center of gravity that's equidistant from the front, back and sides, etc. Allegedly that makes a round musket ball less likely to travel in a straight line once it contacts anything solid.

I'm actually somewhat of a reluctant gun owner. I dialed 911 and was put on hold for 4 minutes when I called to report a prowler sneaking around my neighbors house. Four minutes is a lifetime in an emergency, so I reluctantly have to defend myself simply because the police can't.

You could keep it and simply argue that it only halves the armor of creatures WEARING armour.

I like this idea. Some creatures do have natural chinks in their armour, but you could have some kind of manoeuvre needed to be able to target it.


it makes the dexterity score worth a little more than just staying on your feet after possible knockdown. Ive had a character with dex 17 and one with dex 6 and the only difference was that one got knocked down a few more times during the course of the campaign. I had a 23 size so i didnt get knocked down much. Granted , I would have used dex more if i had had a smaller size. But still...I like that it makes dex a little more importamnt! ;D


The bit in bold: um, that's a pretty huge difference, considering how devastating a knockdown can be sometimes.
You had made a decision with your SIZ 23 knight to avoid knockdown rolls, so DEX seemed less important - but it still would cut down your options. If you ever have to sneak around, climb a wall, or good forbid, dodge, you still need that DEX score. And there are plenty of monsters and powerful opponents capable of inflicting a knock-down roll on a SIZ 23 knight. So, DEX should still be important - just not quite as important. And that's as it should be - you had spent a lot of glory on SIZ specifically to get that benefit.


Good point on the importance of DEX vs SIZ.

Greg also suggested a rule on the battles section that basically prevents big strong types from riding little horses, which I think should be added to the cannon. IIRC if your knight does more damage than a horse of a given size, then he cannot ride the horse. He's just too big. So a big strong 8D6 knight is not going to be able to ride a little pony. It does a lot to discourage excessive size early in the GPC when horses are small and armor is weak, which is when excessive size would otherwise be most useful. Massive damage is quite handy in dispatching the thinly armored knights of 485 but no one wants to walk everywhere. On the other hand, size 23 is quite handy when fighting knights in gothic plate during the twilight era.

I'm not clear though, on what you meant by spending glory on SIZ?

It is too easily abused

As "unburdend" then. Ill drop the idea, methinks.

I always thought this rule only applied to those *wearing* armour too, but I can see how anything could be fair game.

The first time my players saw this tactic being used was when a knight of Silchester tried it during a tournament.. "typical underhand sort of thing you'd expect from them" they all hissed. They now view it with disdain.

I wonder, as Berserk gives a check to reckless, would it be too much to check Deceitful when double feinting?

I always thought this rule only applied to those *wearing* armour too, but I can see how anything could be fair game.

The first time my players saw this tactic being used was when a knight of Silchester tried it during a tournament.. "typical underhand sort of thing you'd expect from them" they all hissed. They now view it with disdain.

I wonder, as Berserk gives a check to reckless, would it be too much to check Deceitful when double feinting?


not in my opinion.

I'm not clear though, on what you meant by spending glory on SIZ?


He means the bonus points you get for clocking up 1000 glory. Assuming Sir Giganto isn't a saxon, he had to have used at least 5 to get to SIZ 23.

Regards
Luke

I'm not clear though, on what you meant by spending glory on SIZ?


He means the bonus points you get for clocking up 1000 glory. Assuming Sir Giganto isn't a saxon, he had to have used at least 5 to get to SIZ 23.

Regards
Luke


Exactly. I don't want to penalise someone who has devoted that much effort to increasing their size, when I'm not penalising someone who has, say, put the same effort into increasing Sword (from 20 to 25), especially when Sword is often the better option anyway. That would simply lead to everyone increasing Sword when they want to improve their combat ability - it reduces the variety of viable characters, making things less interesting.

Hello All,

I have a few rules that I use. First, I have players use scores over 20. So, if I roll a total of 26 and a player as a 28, then the player gets to roll damage. In my mind, it degrades all the great role play and effort a player put to get a Sword, Battle or whatever to a 25, 30, 35 or even a 39, the max score for my games.
Secondly, I added the special success to my KAP games. I have a chart and I give a bonus for special and a big bonus for critical. As examples, a player that rolls a special combat roll gets to deal max damage for the weapon, while a special First Aid gets to heal 2d3 hit points. The use of specials has really toned down combat and added a fresh dimension to my KAP.
Finally, I replaced Major Wound with hit locations and the special effects associated with them. It adds realism and also saves players from some of the nasty effects of just having a general hit point pool.
The rest of what I do is flavor, such as I use the 6th century as the main backdrop instead of the 12th-14th. I love having a Pagan Persia and the Byzantine Empire as a strong force. My players in my current campaign even prevented the Plague of Justinian.

Regards,
Alan Day
aka The Pagan Knight

I have a few rules that I use. First, I have players use scores over 20. So, if I roll a total of 26 and a player as a 28, then the player gets to roll damage. In my mind, it degrades all the great role play and effort a player put to get a Sword, Battle or whatever to a 25, 30, 35 or even a 39, the max score for my games.
Secondly, I added the special success to my KAP games. I have a chart and I give a bonus for special and a big bonus for critical. As examples, a player that rolls a special combat roll gets to deal max damage for the weapon, while a special First Aid gets to heal 2d3 hit points. The use of specials has really toned down combat and added a fresh dimension to my KAP.
Finally, I replaced Major Wound with hit locations and the special effects associated with them. It adds realism and also saves players from some of the nasty effects of just having a general hit point pool.
The rest of what I do is flavor, such as I use the 6th century as the main backdrop instead of the 12th-14th. I love having a Pagan Persia and the Byzantine Empire as a strong force. My players in my current campaign even prevented the Plague of Justinian.


All hail RQ! :D

Sounds like a great campaign.
If yo get a chance, send me the stats for your Persian Pagans!

Hello Greg and Everyone,

Interesting that you would relate it to RQ, when my entire exposure to RQ directly is through some screen shots of covers from the Web.
As for Pagan Persians, I have not had to develop them to greatly, yet, plus they are not really Pagan, that is what the Byzantines call them. They are, of course, Zoroastrian. My players have not expressed much interest in things beyond Constantinople. They are internationally famous Welshmen, that love their homeland, but have traveled quite a bit.
What I use for the Persians is:
For infantry, average knight stats, with spear in place of sword, bow skill for the Horsemanship and sword in place of lance. Also, 6pt leather armor in place of mail.
For Sassanid cavalry, I use cataphracti from Boy King, except that I switch the lance and bow scores, replacing lance with spear. Also, I replace the great sword with regular sword skill.

Regards,
Alan Day

Steel Maces

By the later periods, when plate armor becomes plentiful, maces lose much of their punch. Chainmail is now worn mostly by the lower ranks, and so the mace is being replaced by the military hammer. This doesn't really feel right to me; maces were still used often in the later periods, often, as far as I can tell, in tournaments (when the lower classes who could only afford outdated chainmail would generally not be present). In addition, I'm almost positive that by the 14th century, there were all-metal maces; I'm pretty sure there's one in the Metropolitan Museum of Art's collection, even though it's not on their website, and the Wikipedia article on maces features photos of all-metal maces, though those ones look to be ceremonial rather than functional.

Anyway, would it be prudent to give maces a boost in the Tournament Period, when the average knight is wearing partial plate? An all-metal mace would, like a sword, not break on a fumble or on a tie with a sword; however, unlike a sword, it does not break other weapons on a tie.

I'm a newbie and haven't wanted to fiddle around with the mechanics much. The only change made thus far is to figure out the manor/harvest results at the beginning of the year instead of at the end of the year. It is really good for driving story ideas throughout the year.

Steel Maces

Anyway, would it be prudent to give maces a boost in the Tournament Period, when the average knight is wearing partial plate? An all-metal mace would, like a sword, not break on a fumble or on a tie with a sword; however, unlike a sword, it does not break other weapons on a tie.



Probably not unreasonable if you're after historical reality versus some in game mechanic. I believe that the regulations that Charles the Bold (mid to late 1400s) issued for armament of his heavy calvalry mention the requirement for a mace, but nothing about swords. And there were certainly all metal maces by this period.

First, please use all steel maces if you wish, in your game.
Heck, have a mithril one!
If you want, you can outfit your entire band of player knights in mithril--it's your game! :D

My discussion here is academic, and I'd love to be refuted.
And also from a game design perspective?





Steel Maces
Anyway, would it be prudent to give maces a boost in the Tournament Period, when the average knight is wearing partial plate? An all-metal mace would, like a sword, not break on a fumble or on a tie with a sword; however, unlike a sword, it does not break other weapons on a tie.



I am curious about what, exactly, would be prudent--what is the "it" there?
Prudence is very hard to put into a game--maybe prudent is not the right word?

Is the purpose of this to not break in melee against a sword?



Probably not unreasonable if you're after historical reality versus some in game mechanic. I believe that the regulations that Charles the Bold (mid to late 1400s) issued for armament of his heavy calvalry mention the requirement for a mace, but nothing about swords.


Oh, that is cool.
Although swords were still the knightly privilege, and carried even if only as a secondary side arm.



And there were certainly all metal maces by this period.


Yes, and there's a suit of plate armor for a dwarf and another for a giant--I've seen them. But how many of them were there that were actually used? I know these guys were big thugs, but I'd like the opinion of someone who's used an all-steel mace, or some such weight. I've never read of anyone using one, not even in the literature!

Charles' ordinance were fairly specific. The mace was to hang on the right side of the saddle....

Many of the surviving maces and warhammers I've seen from the 1400's or later that I've seen are all metal. Most look pretty businesslike to me--not ceremomial.

This is a good site for pictures and information http://www.myarmoury.com/home.php.

This site http://www.thearma.org/ has a lot of information about historical western martial arts, including drawings from medieval and rinascimento fencing manuals, which include longsword techniques.

By the time of full plate, shields and one handed swords were not used particuarly much. The common sword would have been a war sword or 'longsword', which could be used one or two handed. On foot it was used two handed and there were special techniques for fighing in armor including half-swording where one hand is placed on the blade and one on the pommel. The sword is then used a bit like a can-opener to pry into the weak spots in the armor. Or you might bash some one with the pommel....

Here http://www.chronique.com/Library/Armour/armyd1.htm is a description of how to arm a knight from 1450. Cool stuff.

I've seen a number of references to knight or men-at-arms carrying a lance, mace or ax or warhammer on the right side of the saddle, longsword on the left side of the saddle, dagger at the right hip and shortsword at the left hip.

In Pendragon, I'd suggest giving a penalty for using a shield while in full plate...just me...

NT

http://www.myarmoury.com/review_mrl_gmace.html
According to this website, Germany in particular produced lots of functional all-steel maces; the author cites Oakeshotte, a Victorian expert on arms and armor.

By "prudent," I meant would it make any sort of game sense to do so? I mean, I think of these maces as being iconic of the late medieval period along with Gothic armor, but that's the point when maces are least practical in game terms. Making them unbreakable would keep them competitive when most knights no longer wear chainmail, but I worry that would sort of overshadow swords.

Making them unbreakable would keep them competitive when most knights no longer wear chainmail, but I worry that would sort of overshadow swords.


Of course, the fact that they were common during the gothic armor period and later suggests that they WERE effective against plate armor. You could probably still give them +d6 against partial plate and plate armor. Or perhaps, a bonus to knockdowns...but not actual damage.