Pendragon Error?

RPGPundit · March 22, 2008, 07:05:35 PM

On page 105 of the 5e Pendragon main book (in the "glory" section) it states that bonus points from glory can be used to raise attributes without regard to racial limits.

Meanwhile, six pages later on 111 (in the "winter period" section) it states that one of the only two limits on applying bonus points is that they can NOT be used to raise attributes above the racial limit.

This seems a pretty obvious contradiction to me. Is there anything I'm missing?

Anyone know which one is the "officially" correct version? I've been playing it with racial limits as a hard limit.

RPGPundit

droog · March 22, 2008, 07:16:08 PM

No idea what applies in PD5. PD4 says 'No restrictions apply to the increase.' (p 190) Sounds like some sloppy editing.

I think of Glory as a rulebreaker: it can be used to raise stats etc without any regard to the normal rules like cultural maximums or aging.

RPGPundit · March 23, 2008, 03:54:43 AM

I see; personally I think it makes more sense to maintain the racial limits: glory is already powerful enough in that it allows you to continue raising your attributes past age 35.

RPGPundit

droog · March 23, 2008, 04:18:29 AM

I'm sure it works fine that way, though you won't get any superhuman chrs like Gawain or Lancelot.

How do maximums work now, anyway? It used to be (minimum roll + maximum roll) +/- cultural modifier.

And they're calling them 'races' instead of 'cultures' now, are they?

Warthur · March 23, 2008, 07:11:14 AM

My vote would be that Glory should be able to take you past your racial/cultural limits, if only because I really like the idea of noble deeds allowing someone to transcend the bonds of their culture.

Christopher Kubasik · March 23, 2008, 01:52:33 PM

Hi,

Greg has a list of errata for KAP5 on his website. You can check it here.

The pertinent errata for this issue is:

QuotePage 111, Glory bonus
Strike the sentence, “Only two restrictions apply to this increase: No character may increase his attributes beyond their racial maximum, and no character past the age of 21 can increase his SIZ stat.”

(emphasis added)

CK

droog · March 23, 2008, 05:24:29 PM

I shall ignore Greg, I think. Besides, I'm still using PD4.

JongWK · March 23, 2008, 05:25:19 PM

So you can increase attributes beyond their racial or age maximum? Interesting.

droog · March 23, 2008, 05:29:08 PM

Oh, I misread that! Yes, you used to be able to and it looks like you still can.

RPGPundit · March 23, 2008, 11:02:16 PM

Quote from: droogI'm sure it works fine that way, though you won't get any superhuman chrs like Gawain or Lancelot.

How do maximums work now, anyway? It used to be (minimum roll + maximum roll) +/- cultural modifier.

And they're calling them 'races' instead of 'cultures' now, are they?

I think they're actually called cultures still, I'm not using the precise lingo.

The maximums are 18 in everything for humans of any type, but each culture has a particular special bonus to one (or more) attributes, which also raises the maximum allowed by that amount. For example, Britons get +3 to Con, meaning their Con maximum is 21.

RPGpundit

RPGPundit · March 23, 2008, 11:08:47 PM

Well, that's interesting. I think that what I'll do is that for now I will keep the rules the way I've been running them, and then later on in the campaign when the Enchantment of Britain begins, I'll switch over, to reflect the fact that the magic of the land now allows for larger-than-life superknights to theoretically exist.

RPGPundit

droog · March 23, 2008, 11:14:24 PM

Quote from: RPGPunditThe maximums are 18 in everything for humans of any type, but each culture has a particular special bonus to one (or more) attributes, which also raises the maximum allowed by that amount. For example, Britons get +3 to Con, meaning their Con maximum is 21.

It must be my day for being confused, because that's exactly how it is in PD4. The formula I mentioned is actually for RQ.

JongWK · March 23, 2008, 11:16:21 PM

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, that's interesting. I think that what I'll do is that for now I will keep the rules the way I've been running them, and then later on in the campaign when the Enchantment of Britain begins, I'll switch over, to reflect the fact that the magic of the land now allows for larger-than-life superknights to theoretically exist.

I like that idea.

Warthur · March 24, 2008, 11:16:15 AM

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, that's interesting. I think that what I'll do is that for now I will keep the rules the way I've been running them, and then later on in the campaign when the Enchantment of Britain begins, I'll switch over, to reflect the fact that the magic of the land now allows for larger-than-life superknights to theoretically exist.

That makes sense to me. I've always viewed the failure of Uther as being a failure to look beyond the demands of the Britons - he was a great scourge of the Saxons, but defending your people through bloody-handed warfare isn't enough to make you a good king. What Arthur does is manage to reconcile the necessity of survival with a code of honour which transcends cultural bounds.

RPGPundit · March 24, 2008, 04:33:18 PM

Quote from: JongWKI like that idea.

I figured you would. It means that Sir Persemons will not likely benefit from it, but his son who was raised in the court of King Sauvage will get to be Legolas (only not using bows because that's not knightly).

RPGPundit