King Arthur - R&R or RPGO?

[Vigilance]

Well I usually avoid these "what's your preference threads", but author input was requested, so I will provide some details.

My philosophy when doing the product was that it would first and foremost be an Arthurian game.

This doesn't mean that I fancy myself am Arthuriam scholar, and it doesn't mean I didn't occasionally take creative license with things that didn't suit my idea of what made a good game.

What it does mean is that Arthurian flavor came before D&D mechanics every time. This caused a lot of rules to be altered or thrown out entirely in favor of something that suited the tone better.

So alignment is out, replaced by Nobility. Eight new core classes are introduced, and the only PHB core classes the game recommends are Barbarian, Rogue, and Bard. The new classes are: Fool, Hedge Mage, Hermit, Knight, Minstrel, Noble, Priest, Robber Baron, Skald, and Yeoman.

The only PC race is human, but humans are broken down into social classes and nationalities instead of race. So you wouldn't play an Elf or a human, but you could play a Middle Class French Noble or a Lesser Nobility English Knight.

There are some rules in the campaign guide for using Elves and Dwarves as character races, but these are aimed more at NPCs than PCs.

The magic system was also overhauled, with spell points and sources of power replacing spell slots. Each new core spellcasting class has a completely new spell list, drawn from the spells in the PHB, with some new spells added in as well.

The game also has 15 prestige classes: Alchemist, Berserker, Changeling, Court Mage, Crusader, Enchantress, Lady of the Lake, Quest Knight, Saint, Black Knight, Blue Knight, Green Knight, Purple Knight, Red Knight, and White Knight.

Religion is also changed, down to two basic divinities- the One God and the Old Faith. There are many factions within each of these religions. So the Church of Rome and the Caliphate of Baghdad both worship the same One God, though they hate each other.

So that was my take. On the other hand, my impression of the SSS Arthur book was that they tried to cleave as close to the standard rules as possible. I might be wrong I have only seen the preview.

However, I do think there is something to be said to that approach.

Chuck

 

[Razuur]

Thanks for the information.

I am a firm believer that the rules should adapt to the setting, not vice versa. I know a lot of people feel differently.

I really didn't like R&Rs approach to King Arthur with orcs, undead, etc. But it is only the preview - and I will look at it closely before purchasing.

As for your product, I really was impressed with your maps, and your above description seems to be *EXACTLY* what I am looking for.

Looks like everyone is going to get a great Arthur book to fit their tastes.

As of now, I think that yours will be my pick.

Razuur

 

[Krieg]

My philosophy when doing the product was that it would first and foremost be an Arthurian game.

.../snip/...

On the other hand, my impression of the SSS Arthur book was that they tried to cleave as close to the standard rules as possible.

It is intersting that the two products seem to be targeted at very different audiences. When all is said and done they don't appear to be direct competitors.

Ironically enough that probably increases my interest in both products as it lessens the issue of overlap between the two.

 

[d4]

hey Chuck, since it might be a while before i'll be able to score a copy of your book, i was wondering if you could give a brief (one paragraph) explanation of the difference between a Bard, a Minstrel, and a Skald? on the surface, it seems like there might be a lot of overlap there...

 

[Vigilance]

hey Chuck, since it might be a while before i'll be able to score a copy of your book, i was wondering if you could give a brief (one paragraph) explanation of the difference between a Bard, a Minstrel, and a Skald? on the surface, it seems like there might be a lot of overlap there...

They are all bards certainly, but bards of different cultures, with different niches. Basically I thought Bards would be an important feature of a myth-historical setting, so I wanted as many bard options as fighter options. No one questions why you need a Ranger, a Fighter, a Paladin and a Barbarian (even though there is a bit of overlap there).

Philosphy aside, here's the deal:

The standard bard is the bard of Britain and France, uses arcane magic.

The Minstrel is the bard of Wales and Ireland, uses druid spells, gains some druidic abilities, including some entirely unique ones (such as Soothe the Savage Beast which lets his bardic music work on animals). He gets the bardic music abilities.

The Skald is the bard of Scotland and Saxony and accompanies troops into battle, both inspiring, recording their heroic deeds, and fighting alongside them. He gets the Inspire Courage and Heroism of the bard, gets the ability to trigger rage in characters, and can perform the unique abilities of the rallying cry and the clarion call to inspire or call for aid. He is also a better combatant personally than either the bard or the minstrel.

Chuck

 

[Vigilance]

BTW- as a matter of personal philosophy (mine) all the new core classes in Legends of Excalibur get an ability every level. I didnt want to make a core class that should have been a prestige class or that you wouldnt want to devote 20 levels to, so I tried hard to make multiclassing a tough choice.

Edit: Just so I dont mislead anyone- the spellcasting classes do not get a class ability every level unless you count their spells (which I did).

Chuck

 

[d4]

They are all bards certainly, but bards of different cultures, with different niches. Basically I thought Bards would be an important feature of a myth-historical setting, so I wanted as many bard options as fighter options.

ok, that's a good point and quite interesting. thanks.

one nit-pick:

The standard bard is the bard of Britain and France... The Minstrel is the bard of Wales and Ireland...

the word "bard" is of Gaelic origin, and the word "minstrel" comes from French... obviously it's too late now, but i would've switched these two titles.

 

[Vigilance]

Yeah, I actually knew that too. Since I dont change the Bard's stats, I decided it would be confusing to change his name, especially if I was calling some OTHER class Bard. So I went for a word that is a synonym of Bard and came up with Minstrel. He is basically the bard with druidic abilities replacing the thief skills and the arcane magic.

 

[d4]

Yeah, I actually knew that too. Since I dont change the Bard's stats, I decided it would be confusing to change his name, especially if I was calling some OTHER class Bard.

ok, i thought it was something like that. it does make it less confusing if you're coming over from D&D.