Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
Playing the Game
Story Hour
Arthurian Adventures (in Ireland)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Roman" data-source="post: 2057083" data-attributes="member: 1845"><p>Perhaps we really ought to make the interpretation of nobility stricter or perhaps add more nobility penalties. I would suggest nobility penalties where loss of nobility is inevitable or things like: </p><p></p><p>A) If a lady dies (even a non-permanent death) in proximity all knigts lose nobility (hey that even rhymes!) </p><p></p><p>This would create situations where loss of nobility was inevitable - a lady engages in combat... and if the knight helps her, he is ganging up on an opponent and loses nobility. If she dies he has failed to protect her and he also loses nobility. </p><p></p><p></p><p>B) If you are ordered to do something ignoble by your patron (Prince Caius for most of the knights, you could change the word patron to superior to include all the knights) you lose nobility if you do not do it (but less than if you do do it), but of course you also loose nobility if you carry out the orders </p><p></p><p></p><p>C) You loose nobility when you 'cheat' even if your opponent 'cheated' first if your cheating is worse than his. Of course, you always loose nobility if you 'cheat' first. We could have ranks of 'cheating' from least ignoble to most ignoble: </p><p></p><p>Cheating that equalizes your opponent's cheating advantage is least severe and entails no loss of nobility if your opponent cheated first. Apart from that the ranks of cheating could be:</p><p></p><p>1) Receiving an unfair buff spell that improves combat statistics, Combat from horseback when your opponent is on foot, Using magic to make the non-magic using opponent more susceptible to attacks but not directly disadvantaging him, etc. </p><p></p><p>2) Ganging up on an opponent, Receiving an unfair buff spell that gives new qualities (invisibility, flight), using ranged weapons against an opponent with melee weapons, using magic to directly attack or disadvantage an opponent who does not use magic, etc. </p><p></p><p>3) Ambushing an opponent, Using magic to directly take out an opponent (the so called save or die spells), using poison against an opponent, etc. </p><p></p><p>So if an opponent cheats from the first category and is the first to do so you do not lose nobility if you also cheat within that category, but lose nobility if you begin cheating in the second and third severity category unless he does so first.</p><p></p><p>Also, the loss of nobility could be per action rather than per battle. Suppose an opponent does not cheat at all and we all gang up on him. Alll of us should probably loose nobility every round we do so, rather than a one off loss per battle. </p><p></p><p>What do you think? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, this situation has arisen numerous times already. I do not know if I speak for everyone, but I generally feel vicariously involved at least to some degree. In challenges which everybody respects this is not a problem at all since they can be resolved pretty quickly - there being no initiative order and all. In longer fights where some respect the nobility rules and others don't (which makes it necessary to cycle through everyone and prolongs the combat) I suppose it might be better to somehow involve everybody in some way, but this is not always possible and I don't think it is a big problem at all.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Roman, post: 2057083, member: 1845"] Perhaps we really ought to make the interpretation of nobility stricter or perhaps add more nobility penalties. I would suggest nobility penalties where loss of nobility is inevitable or things like: A) If a lady dies (even a non-permanent death) in proximity all knigts lose nobility (hey that even rhymes!) This would create situations where loss of nobility was inevitable - a lady engages in combat... and if the knight helps her, he is ganging up on an opponent and loses nobility. If she dies he has failed to protect her and he also loses nobility. B) If you are ordered to do something ignoble by your patron (Prince Caius for most of the knights, you could change the word patron to superior to include all the knights) you lose nobility if you do not do it (but less than if you do do it), but of course you also loose nobility if you carry out the orders C) You loose nobility when you 'cheat' even if your opponent 'cheated' first if your cheating is worse than his. Of course, you always loose nobility if you 'cheat' first. We could have ranks of 'cheating' from least ignoble to most ignoble: Cheating that equalizes your opponent's cheating advantage is least severe and entails no loss of nobility if your opponent cheated first. Apart from that the ranks of cheating could be: 1) Receiving an unfair buff spell that improves combat statistics, Combat from horseback when your opponent is on foot, Using magic to make the non-magic using opponent more susceptible to attacks but not directly disadvantaging him, etc. 2) Ganging up on an opponent, Receiving an unfair buff spell that gives new qualities (invisibility, flight), using ranged weapons against an opponent with melee weapons, using magic to directly attack or disadvantage an opponent who does not use magic, etc. 3) Ambushing an opponent, Using magic to directly take out an opponent (the so called save or die spells), using poison against an opponent, etc. So if an opponent cheats from the first category and is the first to do so you do not lose nobility if you also cheat within that category, but lose nobility if you begin cheating in the second and third severity category unless he does so first. Also, the loss of nobility could be per action rather than per battle. Suppose an opponent does not cheat at all and we all gang up on him. Alll of us should probably loose nobility every round we do so, rather than a one off loss per battle. What do you think? Well, this situation has arisen numerous times already. I do not know if I speak for everyone, but I generally feel vicariously involved at least to some degree. In challenges which everybody respects this is not a problem at all since they can be resolved pretty quickly - there being no initiative order and all. In longer fights where some respect the nobility rules and others don't (which makes it necessary to cycle through everyone and prolongs the combat) I suppose it might be better to somehow involve everybody in some way, but this is not always possible and I don't think it is a big problem at all. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Playing the Game
Story Hour
Arthurian Adventures (in Ireland)
Top