Sunday, August 13, 2017

[Paladin] Special Kickstarter Preview Edition!


The Esoteric Order sits down for a special sneak peek session PALADIN, the new Pendragon-derived system currently Kickstarting!



Featuring:
Renae
Jade
Des
David S.
Sage
And...Edie the Dog

22 comments:

  1. not done with this one just yet, but I like the changes. Empassioning isn't quite as godly, but more useful overall. I'm not sure about the trait + passion, because that seems to be an automatic, if you can justify it.

    Armor damage and shield damage are both good, but requires more bookkeeping (and yet less if manor estates aren't involved)

    One thing I have noted is that some things that I felt would give massive glory in KAP, ended up being pittance. What was it, 30 glory for touching the Questing Beast? Seems like that feat should be at least 200 for the sheer rarity of it and the skill needed.

    Overall, I think its a good change up and look forward to see what else goes on. I also laughed when I heard Aquataine being attacked, I was thinking, 'wow, that was happening during KAP, its still going on?!'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, poor old Aquitaine! Keeps turning up like a bad penny.

      "What's the Aquitaine to Eleanor? It's not a province. It's a way to torture me."

      Delete
    2. erm trait + passion like the Suspicious example given early on, not that it makes Passions automatic. Just to be clear.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I'm debating bringing in the passion scaleback, because my players have pretty reliable 30+ skills in combat right now. I also really like the Dex for knockdown while mounted rather than a Horsemanship roll.

      Was there a rule given for what to do on critical ties in combat?

      Delete
    4. I'm totally on board with the Horsemanship changes. It's also now an Ordinary skill, rather than a Combat skill, which is nice and also makes a lot of sense.

      I don't have the manuscript to hand right now (on the road to Gen Con), but if there was a rule in there about tied criticals I don't remember it. Easy enough to do the "1D3 damage" house rule, if it's not there.

      Delete
    5. I also like how they made DEX more important with the change. However does wearing armor still penalize DEX? I believe it was -10 for chain and up in 5.1. Though wasn't there a rule that when you went without armor you actually got a bonus to dex because you were so used to the weight and were now much more agile? I hope it's all codified somewhere in one place now.

      Delete
    6. Ok, had to go check 5.2. Table 6.1 (p139 of the pdf) gives DEX modifier of -10 for Chainmail and has "Heavy Load? Y." Page 97 of the pdf says Encumberance of Heavy Load has a DEX modifier of -10 also, for purpose of "actions involving agility or movement, such as climbing or dodging."

      Also, "In addition, armor penalizes DEX rolls, as shown in Table 6.1: Armor.
      Cumulative modifiers may be applied to DEX rolls."

      So under 5.2 you need DEX 21 to have any chance to ever stay up if hit.

      Delete
    7. Grrr. No edit option...

      There's an tule that if a character or creature used to heavy loads goes without burden they may have +1 or +2 to Movement Rate.

      Delete
    8. I'm pretty sure--I'd have to check--but I *think* the DEX penalty doesn't apply to Knockdown rolls? However, it definitely applies to the Double Feint maneuver, so even someone like Renae's character, with their 15 DEX, is only pulling it off a quarter of the time, and it's simply not a viable tactic for average DEX folk in armor. Which is, I think, as it should be.

      Delete
    9. I wasn't really sure either, but I've also done armor doesn't penalize DEX rolls with chainmail, but plan to have it penalize with full plate.

      Delete
    10. Balance rolls, including Knockdown rolls, specifically aren't affected by encumbrance (that's on page 98 of the pdf) unless the GM says otherwise.

      Delete
  2. Is it wrong to note that the Dominican monastery would be anachronistic?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the one hand, no it's not wrong in that the word I was searching for was "Benedictine."

      On the other hand, Pendragon (and Paladin, by extension) revel in intentional anachronisms, so I'm not too fussed. :P

      FWIW, the Paladin rulebook itself mostly just refers to "monks" without specifying an order, though it does mention "Benedictines" in the section on church organizations.

      (Interestingly, the most recent Pendragon publications have circumvented the issue of monastic orders by simply referring to Black, White, and Russet Monks.)

      Delete
  3. That recap at the end made it clear there was a lot of stuff crammed into this year. In Pendragon I feel like the church reliquaries would be one year, and then the Wolf Lord would be the second year.

    And none of it really went to plan, except for Des who got to light a fire and then walk away in (presumably) slow-motion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very perceptive! It actually was two scenarios from the book: one full scenario (the bit with Sir Robber-Knight), and one scenario seed (guarding the reliquaries). I was concerned that, with no winter phase, we'd have trouble filling a full session with just the intro adventure. When will I ever learn? :P

      Delete
  4. Sounds like fun - I don't regret backing this one (though I didn't expect to).

    I will say that you seem to have missed a prime opportunity to showcase beavers' rather unique way of avoiding hunters. Those chaste traits don't check themselves! (Or it's possible that I missed it).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, you mean like this?
      https://assets.wired.com/photos/w_1500/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/lrsf.jpg

      Good point! A missed opportunity indeed. I think by that point of the session, I was trying to chivvy everyone along as best I could. Ball-biting beavers would've just been way too much of a derailment! ;D

      Delete
    2. Ah yes, just like that! I can understand what you mean, but I think that there are some derailments that you just have to accept as they come. Sacrifices have to be made.

      Delete
    3. I'm just disappointed no one had to make a Swimming roll. Nothing puts the fear in an RPG player quite like the thought of their character having to swim.

      The Arthurian Beaver is going to be a terrible enemy to behold.

      Delete
    4. Ok, totally stealing the Arthurian Beaver idea.

      Delete
    5. My thoughts for the Arthurian Beaver:

      When the dam is assaulted, the Arthurian Beaver slaps its tail in the water creating a fierce wave to unbalance its foes. Those approaching must roll Swimming at -10, or be knocked back and take 1d6 damage unreduced by Armor (but reduced by Chivalry as per normal).

      If engaged in combat, the Arthurian Beaver will use its maneuverability in the water to try and oppose its foe. Any attacks against the Arthurian Beaver are automatically opposed by its Swimming skill of 25, and on a miss the Arthurian Beaver avoids an attack. It cannot use its bite attack to parry an enemy attack, nor can it use a reckless attack.

      The Arthurian Beaver attacks with its Gnaw of 16. On a hit, it can use "Gnaw" on the enemy again, and continues to do so until it misses. For every hit, the Arthurian Beaver deals 2d6 damage which is added together before applying Armor.

      Delete
    6. I totally forgot there was an Arthurian Beaver in the episode about the Castle of Dolorous Women!

      Delete