3.5e stats for King Arthur and his knights?

[redking]

Have these characters been given stats anywhere in 3.5e? Arthur and his knights appeared in 1E and 2E. Anything is welcome, including fan stats.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Have these characters been given stats anywhere in 3.5e? Arthur and his knights appeared in 1E and 2E. Anything is welcome, including fan stats.

There is a True20 supplement (very roughly compatible with 3.5, but you'll have to read the rules, since there will be some discrepancies) called Arthurian Legend (https://kupdf.net/download/true20-legends-of-excalibur-arthurian-adventurespdf_5af6cd7be2b6f59b70b44658_pdf), giving stats to all of them.

It's all pretty bad, with all of them having only NPC classes. However, the review of the book (https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10449.phtml) says that Lancelot is 30th level and not 20th level like in the pdf above, so maybe there is a better version I haven't found.

[Silly Name]

Preface: I don't think there's any official stats, so I'm going to guess a bit based on my knowledge of the Arthurian mythos.

I figure that Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table stay on the lower echelons of the 3.5 power curve, considering most of them are "just" excellent swordsmen and at best superstrong or have some weird magical charm that's not easily replicated. I think level 12 is the highest I'd go for them.

Arthur himself is a high Charisma Fighter/Marshal multiclass, IMHO. Good Diplomacy from Marshal, but awful Sense Motive. After he becomes king, his role in most Arturhian works is to sit at Camelot and hand out quests until the Battle of Camlann, and while he's surely a great combatant, Excalibur is something like... a +5 adamantine keen vorpal longsword or something in a world where almost nobody else has magic items. Oh, and he's got a swordsheat that makes him literally invulnerable. Dude was living life in easy mode.
He's definitely got Leadership as a feat, too. The knight designated as his cohort may change at different points in the story, but Bedivere and Kay are solid choices.

Lancelot is probably a single-classed Knight from PHB2. Many other knights probably are, but Lancy boy here is probably higher level than any of them and has better stats than anyone else save Galahad. Nymph's Kiss fits his backstory and character, although he definitely falls from Exalted status at some point in the narrative.

Gawain could also be a Knight (with perhaps a smattering of Fighter levels at the start?), and I have no idea on how to mechanically represent the fact he's supposed to grow stronger as the sun rises, peaking at noon.

Perceval and Galahad are both Paladins, and Galahad is probably chock-full of Exalted feats (Sacred Vow, Vow of Chastity and Abstinence for sure). He's probably got levels in the Sword of Righteousness PrC so that he can have even more Exalted feats. Bors the Younger probably gains some divine boon from being the only other knight to succeed in the Grail Quest, and he definitely had a Vow of Chastity.

Kay, if we stick only to Medieval and post-Medieval sources, doesn't stand out as a particularly exceptional knight. He's definitely got a few levels of Fighter since he can fight, but being Arthur's seneschal, I'd round him out with either Expert or Aristocrat levels to let him do his job as the guy who manages the kingdom and the court. If we go back to the original Welsh mythology, Cai had got various supernatural abilities that I don't know how to model in a coherent build.

Bedivere, hm, he's mostly Knight too. The most notable thing he does in the Arturhian legends is throwing Excalibur back in the lake. Not exactly a lot to go on.

Mordred is a quintessential Blackguard. He gets there through Fighter levels, and maybe a couple Rogue ones to fill out the skill requisites. If you don't like him having magic at his disposal, then he's just a Fighter/Rogue multiclass, imho.

But, yeah, most of the Round Table is going to be Knights and Fighters, with maybe the odd Marshal, Ranger or Rogue level depending on the character. It's not like most of them displayed magical abilities or summoned Incarnum, and most of their martial exploits are displays of chivalric prowess, like winning jousts and duels or killing hordes of enemies (although if you want some more supernatural stuff, you could delve in the original Welsh myths, but then we run back in the problem of how to model some of the stuff those characters are able to do, and many characters didn't even exist back then).

[Kurald Galain]

Preface: I don't think there's any official stats, so I'm going to guess a bit based on my knowledge of the Arthurian mythos.

That was interesting. I'd be curious to see your take on Merlin, Morgana, Dindrane (the grail heroine one), and Clwlwchwc or however you spell that. (edit) Culhwch. Right.

[Jervis]

That was interesting. I'd be curious to see your take on Merlin, Morgana, Dindrane (the grail heroine one), and Clwlwchwc or however you spell that. (edit) Culhwch. Right.

Not him obviously but Merlin is some variety of Tiefling Wizard due to his whole failed antichrist backstory, can’t pin down a level but I believe he at least has Polymorph.

[Silly Name]

That was interesting. I'd be curious to see your take on Merlin, Morgana, Dindrane (the grail heroine one), and Clwlwchwc or however you spell that. (edit) Culhwch. Right.

Agreed with Jervis that Merlin works as a Tiefling Wizard, or any other flavour of "partly fiendish" race, but Tiefling fits really well. I don't recall from what source this is from, probably a modern one, but I recall someone depicting Merlin as having some sort of "telltale eyes" that do mark him out as being half-devil, which fits perfectly with how D&D 3.5 describes Tieflings. His exact spell list varies and we probably don't have enough stuff to make a full one for him, but he has to have at least access to level 4 spells, and I'd probably up him to level 5 spells for stuff like Dominate Person and Break Enchantment. So level 8 Wizard at the very least, maybe even 10.

Actually, if you want to simplify it, he could also be a high-level Adept, they get most of the stuff Merlin is usually able to do. But if you include actual Wizards and Sorcerers in this, it'd obviously feel weird for Merlin to not be one.

Morgana... It depends if you want her to be an actual fey (which would make her son Yvain some flavour of half-fey), or "just" an human witch. I think Beguiler may fit her a bit more than Wizard or Sorcerer, since most of her magic revolves around disguises and enchantments. She's also often associated with potion-making, so she's got ranks in Alchemy.
As far as what specific flavour of fey she could be, Green Hag may work and you could headcanon Morgana as using magic to hide her true visage, or maybe make her a High Elf. In 4e and 5e, I may have been tempted to put her down as an Eladrin.

Dindrane is not a character I know much about, but from what I recall and a quick google search, Dindrane is Perceval's sister, and an unnamed sister dubbed the Grail Heroine of his is commonly conflated with her. Neither of them does much worthy of a "build", and the unnamed Grail Heroine principal achievement is dying of blood loss to cure a leper noblewoman. I guess we could model that as her having the Stigmata feat from BoED and using up all her CON to cure the leper, but, yeah, not exactly thrilling. She's a virtuous and saintly lady, but doesn't do anything a low-level human Expert or even Commoner can't.

Culhwch, hrm, he's a bit hard to pin down. From what I recall about the Welsh myth, most of his tale is a framing device for Arthur and his knights, and Culhwch's main contribution to the various tasks is recruting the help of Arthur and the other characters. So, he's a Diplomancer! :smallbiggrin: Maybe an Aristocrat/Rogue multiclass? He's not described as having any particular supernatural powers, but he does sneak in Ysbaddaden's castle to meet with Olwen, so he gets to be a sneaky guy, and both classes get Diplomacy as a class skill.
If you really want, you could make him a DragonLance Noble instead of an Aristocrat, since calling in favors from his cousin is what he does, and this way he gets some actual class features (however measly). Noble 4/Rogue 3 could work just fine.

[hamishspence]

Agreed with Jervis that Merlin works as a Tiefling Wizard, or any other flavour of "partly fiendish" race, but Tiefling fits really well. I don't recall from what source this is from, probably a modern one, but I recall someone depicting Merlin as having some sort of "telltale eyes" that do mark him out as being half-devil, which fits perfectly with how D&D 3.5 describes Tieflings.

In the urban fantasy series Nightside, "Merlin Satanspawn, who could have been the Antichrist but declined the honour" has flaming eye sockets in place of regular eyes.

[Beni-Kujaku]

So level 8 Wizard at the very least, maybe even 10.

I believe Merlin is much, much more powerful than that. Of course he does lowish level spells, like Invisibility, Pyrotechnics and Polymorph, but he also uses Control Weather once (create Fog on a several-mile radius to make two armies encounter and fight each other), some form of "Mass Telekinesis" or "sideways Reverse Gravity" to transport the stones from France to Stonehenge, and even Gate (or some sort of Mass Pass Into Shadow, he moves an entire army from one point to another in a night). And he does that while he's supposed to be specialized in Divination, as he was blessed with knowledge of both future and past by God and the Devil (in fact, that could just be Contact Other Planes), and was able to cast Tongues as soon as he was born to speak to his mother, and probably Vision to learn that the mayor was cheating on his wife.

In the end, Merlin is at the very least level 13, and possibly even able to cast 9th level spells. There is a reason he's supposed to be the most powerful wizard of Great Britain. He's the archetypal GOD wizard, who knows he's not the hero of the story, but will make sure that the hero succeeds in whatever he sets off to do.

[Kurald Galain]

He's the archetypal GOD wizard,

Odin and Vainamoinen would like a word with you :smallbiggrin:

[Malphegor]

Myrddin Wyllt and Merlin, fused together across all his different versions is probably just a mad faith druid or archivist who ran around the wilderness naked after some misadventures with being a sanctified template half-fiend (Merlin is COMPLICATED) decided to smarten up and help Vortigern.

Given that this didn’t go as planned he later helped Arthur.


Amusingly the tale of the red and the white dragon representing wales and england respectively is very funny in a D&D sense given both red and white dragons are kinda nasty, so to preserve the ‘anglo saxons(english are savage and vile invaders but the welsh will eventually prevail in the fullness of time when the dragon returns’ might wanna change that to a ruby dragon or a rusty steel dragon… though it being a good red isn’t entirely out of the question in 3.5.

[Telonius]

Pellinore: Ranger with Favored Enemy: Questing Beast.

[Silly Name]

-snip-

The problem here is trying to apply D&D's (and specifically 3.5's) standards on stories and characters that were not made for them. When trying to translate a character into D&D, I prefer to go for a "conservative" approach where I simply try to replicate their skills from the source, and trying to keep true to their "feel". It doesn't matter what level they end up at (for example, I find it silly to make Lancelot level 30... it's just overkill).

As you yourself point out, Merlin is gifted with some abilities that just don't translate neatly in the mechanical framework of 3.5. Having knowledge of the past, present and future from birth just doesn't map to any spell or class feature, and can at most be approximated via them.

With mythical characters like Merlin, the process of trying to approach their exploits and capabilites is harder because there's no fixed canon of what he did and what he was capable of. His depictions range from "mad poet with a prophetic gift" to "greatest wizard of England" up to "greatest wizard of all time", and depending on what legends you want to use as basis, what exactly you need to replicate will differ.

In any case, yes, I do agree with your examples, which may indeed raise Merlin's level. I think the best argument for him having 9th level spells is Imprisonment, which is basically a 1:1 of how Viviane seals Merlin away, a spell that should fall under the scope of what Merlin must have taught her. He still doesn't need to be outright level 20, but he must have been able to cast Imprisonment himself in order to teach it to Viviane.

[Ramza00]

This is how Fate Stay Night starts, do you really want to start the Grand Order? Do you want that stargazers?

[Jervis]

This is how Fate Stay Night starts, do you really want to start the Grand Order? Do you want that stargazers?

I’d rather have one of the ones with Nero personally

[hamishspence]

Myrddin Wyllt and Merlin, fused together across all his different versions is probably just a mad faith druid or archivist who ran around the wilderness naked after some misadventures with being a sanctified template half-fiend (Merlin is COMPLICATED)

Unholy Scion from Heroes of Horror might work better than half-fiend - it fills the same role, but is slightly more "fiendish" (both change the base creature to a Native Outsider, but Unholy Scion adds the Evil subtype as well) and at the same time, is much less overt (Unholy scions are visually indistinguishable from regular creatures).

As written though, you can't add the Sanctified template to an Evil-subtype Outsider - so he'd have to have "become nonevil" a slightly different way - through choosing to avoid evil behaviour, and do good things.

[AvatarVecna]

IIRC, early Myrddin is kinda just a classical druid, and the stuff about him being a could've-been-antichrist-but-wasnt was added later as part of making the legends more palatable to certain audiences. I'm not sure if the actual druid class would be a good way to represent him (not sure where he stands on wild shape or animal companions or non-nature-themed spellcasting), but it's possible that Wizard or even the DMG Witch class might serve us well here?

[redking]

Very interesting commentary about the various characters of the Arthurian tales. Let me set some guidelines instead so we can all be on the same page. In 2E's Legends and Lore we get a D&D style retelling of Arthur, his round table, and the other characters. Has there ever been a conversion of this into 3.5e? If not, anyone care to give it a shot?

[Thurbane]

I've got a few third party books related to this topic: I'll check them when I have a moment to see if any have stats.

https://i.imgur.com/Doa43A7.png

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/23526/Legends-of-Excalibur-Arthurian-Adventures-True20

https://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=2026

https://www.atlas-games.com/product_tables/AG3226

So Legends of Excalibur (RPG Objects, d20) has a whole chapter for this. It introduces a lot of base and prestige classes of it's own, including it's own Knight class. Most are given epic level stat blocks:


King Arthur (Knight 5/Noble 20)
Sir Galahad (Knight10/Quest Knight 10/White Knight 10)
Sir Gawain (Knight 15/Quest Knight 10)
Sir Lancelot (Knight 15/Noble 3/Blue Knight 2/Quest Knight 10)
Merlin (Hedge Mage 20/Druid 10)
Mordred (Knight 5/Robber Baron 6/Fighter 4/Black Knight 10)
Morgan Le fay (Hedge Mage 10/Druid 5/Enchantress 10)

...and many others. Not sure how useful this is for a standard D&D game, though.

[Jervis]

I've got a few third party books related to this topic: I'll check them when I have a moment to see if any have stats.

https://i.imgur.com/Doa43A7.png

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/23526/Legends-of-Excalibur-Arthurian-Adventures-True20

https://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=2026

https://www.atlas-games.com/product_tables/AG3226

So Legends of Excalibur (RPG Objects, d20) has a whole chapter for this. It introduces a lot of base and prestige classes of it's own, including it's own Knight class. Most are given epic level stat blocks:


King Arthur (Knight 5/Noble 20)
Sir Galahad (Knight10/Quest Knight 10/White Knight 10)
Sir Gawain (Knight 15/Quest Knight 10)
Sir Lancelot (Knight 15/Noble 3/Blue Knight 2/Quest Knight 10)
Merlin (Hedge Mage 20/Druid 10)
Mordred (Knight 5/Robber Baron 6/Fighter 4/Black Knight 10)
Morgan Le fay (Hedge Mage 10/Druid 5/Enchantress 10)

...and many others. Not sure how useful this is for a standard D&D game, though.

what exactly do blue/quest/white/and black knight do? Also is this dragonlance noble or does it have actual features? As a side note hedge mage and enchantress make me want to check this out.

[Kurald Galain]

So Legends of Excalibur (RPG Objects, d20) has a whole chapter for this. It introduces a lot of base and prestige classes of it's own, including it's own Knight class. Most are given epic level stat blocks:
I get that it can be tempting to give your favorite literary character the highest possible level... but in D&D terms, all of Arthurian myth is a rather low-power low-magic affair; and well below the plane traveling, saving the world, and dealing with eldritch abominations that I associate with high-level D&D. So it makes more sense to put the knights between level 5 and 10, instead of between 20 and 30.

[AvatarVecna]

I get that it can be tempting to give your favorite literary character the highest possible level... but in D&D terms, all of Arthurian myth is a rather low-power low-magic affair; and well below the plane traveling, saving the world, and dealing with eldritch abominations that I associate with high-level D&D. So it makes more sense to put the knights between level 5 and 10, instead of between 20 and 30.

Seconded. I recall seeing Beowulf statted up in a Dragon Mag, and IIRC he was like...Fighter 16? Which I guess is fair seeing as his stories involve him basically soloing a pretty sizeable dragon, but even Beowulf isn't epic.

[redking]

I get that it can be tempting to give your favorite literary character the highest possible level... but in D&D terms, all of Arthurian myth is a rather low-power low-magic affair; and well below the plane traveling, saving the world, and dealing with eldritch abominations that I associate with high-level D&D. So it makes more sense to put the knights between level 5 and 10, instead of between 20 and 30.

I suspect the issue is not with levels, but with the WBL and magic item assumptions of a standard D&D campaign. Nothing wrong with Arthur being a 20th level fighter.

[Jervis]

I suspect the issue is not with levels, but with the WBL and magic item assumptions of a standard D&D campaign. Nothing wrong with Arthur being a 20th level fighter.

In all honesty a level 20 fighter in a low magic world is weaker than a 10th level commoner with UMD and a full bank account. If there are very few magic items then 20 fighter is reasonable

[Kurald Galain]

I suspect the issue is not with levels, but with the WBL and magic item assumptions of a standard D&D campaign. Nothing wrong with Arthur being a 20th level fighter.

No, but there is something wrong with Galahad being a 20th-level paladin, or Merlin being a 20th-level wizard. So it makes more sense to put the knights between level 5 and 10, instead of saying the mundane knights are level 20 and the non-mundane knights inexplicably aren't.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Seconded. I recall seeing Beowulf statted up in a Dragon Mag, and IIRC he was like...Fighter 16? Which I guess is fair seeing as his stories involve him basically soloing a pretty sizeable dragon, but even Beowulf isn't epic.

Eh, Lancelot has also killed giants and dragons. Then again, it's Lancelot, and him being a bit above 10th level would not be that far-fetched. The rest of them, however? Definitely below.

[Scots Dragon]

There is a True20 supplement (very roughly compatible with 3.5, but you'll have to read the rules, since there will be some discrepancies) called Arthurian Legend (https://kupdf.net/download/true20-legends-of-excalibur-arthurian-adventurespdf_5af6cd7be2b6f59b70b44658_pdf), giving stats to all of them.

It's all pretty bad, with all of them having only NPC classes. However, the review of the book (https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10449.phtml) says that Lancelot is 30th level and not 20th level like in the pdf above, so maybe there is a better version I haven't found.

True20 has adepts, experts, and warriors as the three player-character classes since it's got a system like the Generic Classes variant from Unearthed Arcana.

It is only very distantly compatible with 3.5e in concept.

[Beni-Kujaku]

True20 has adepts, experts, and warriors as the three player-character classes since it's got a system like the Generic Classes variant from Unearthed Arcana.

It is only very distantly compatible with 3.5e in concept.

Oh, that's what happened. I thought A, E and W were the same as the 3.5 NPC classes. Thank you for clarifying

[Gemini476]

Very interesting commentary about the various characters of the Arthurian tales. Let me set some guidelines instead so we can all be on the same page. In 2E's Legends and Lore we get a D&D style retelling of Arthur, his round table, and the other characters. Has there ever been a conversion of this into 3.5e? If not, anyone care to give it a shot?

I don't have that, but I do have the 1E Deities & Demigods which I'm pretty sure is the same book?

Anyhow, to summarize:



Character

Hit points
Level
Special


The Average Knight of Renown
>60
Fighter 8-10
Includes most the non-Round Table knights


Knight of Quality
>70
10-13
Includes Kay, Mordred


King Arthur
123
Paladin 14, Bard 5
Excalibur is a +5 LG sword of sharpness; scabbard halves thrusting/slashing damage. 18(52) STR


Sir Bernlad de Hautdesert (the magical green knight)
99
Fighter 14
Cannot be hurt by physical weapons while wearing his green armor. +3 axe. 18(77) STR


Sir Galahad
120
Paladin 20
18(00) STR


Sir Gareth of Orkney (knight of the many colors)
105
Fighter 17
18(52) STR


Sir Garlon (the invisible knight)
80
Fighter 13, Thief 3
Is invisible. 15 STR


Sir Gawaine
112
Fighter 17
9AM: 19 STR; 10AM: 20 STR; 11AM; 21 STR; 12AM onwards: 18(30) STR.
Galatine is a +2 weapon.


Sir Lamorak
99
Fighter 15
18(00) STR


Sir Launcelot du Lake
141
Paladin 20
19 STR


Merlin
175
Druid 14, Magic-User 15, Illusionist 10
Has psionics. 300 psionic ability. Attack modes B, C, E. All defense modes.
Staff is Staff of Many Spells and also Staff of Striking and can absorb spells like Staff of the Magi.
Can randomly foresee the future.
His demonic heritage lets him regen 1hp/melee round.
Stats are 15/19/19/18/18/18


Morgan le Fay
39
Magic-User 12, Illusionist 12
+3 ring of protection.


Sir Palomides the Saracen
93
Fighter 16, Monk 3, Bard 3



Sir Pellinore
65
Fighter 12



Sir Tristram of Lyoness
120
Fighter 17
18(99) STR



Important notes:
1E multiclassing is kinda-sorta like 3E's Gestalt. Merlin is level 16ish in terms of experience, not 39.
Percentile strength included where applicable because that's one of the ways you differentiated Fighters. Of note is that first place in the Round Table is Lancelot, second Galahad, and third Tristram - with Gawain ping-ponging between lower than Arthur and stronger than giants depending on the sun.
There's a fair number of illegal Bard levels, but I'm just going to ignore those since Deities & Demigods tends to mostly just use those as fun ability lists.


As you can clearly see, the author really likes Merlin. I suspect that he chafed at the lower power levels of the rest of the cast. According to the book, which is perfectly fair and accurate and never gravely misrepresents myths and religions, "There is a great deal of evidence to support the concept that Merlin is a being as powerful as the Great Druid [ed. 14th level AD&D druid, max level] with magical powers thrown in."

Personally I'm of the opinion that you can scale the Knight of Renown down to whatever's noteworthy in your campaign - level 6, say - and then scale down the rest as appropriate. Maybe keep Lancelot at level cap with maximum melee stats if you want to keep him as "the best swordsman of all time".
But then I'm the kind of person who thinks that Gandalf could be a 5th-level Magic User, so what do I know.

[Kurald Galain]

which is perfectly fair and accurate and never gravely misrepresents myths and religions
Hah!

I mean, the author has Launcelot as a Paladin... he clearly hasn't read his Malory :smallamused:

[Silly Name]

Hah!

I mean, the author has Launcelot as a Paladin... he clearly hasn't read his Malory :smallamused:

I mean, he could be one... He just has to constantly get Atonements and go on quests to gain back his Paladin powers!

[Tzardok]

I mean, he could be one... He just has to constantly get Atonements and go on quests to gain back his Paladin powers!

... That sounds a lot like, well, mostly everything Lancelot did, actually.

[Gemini476]

I mean, he could be one... He just has to constantly get Atonements and go on quests to gain back his Paladin powers!

See, the issue here is that in 1E Paladins can fall in two major ways:

If they knowingly perform a chaotic act, they need to seek penance from a Lawful Good level 7+ cleric.
If they knowingly and willingly perform an evil act...


he or she loses the status of paladinhood immediately and irrevocably. All benefits are then lost, and no deed or magic can restore the character to paladinhood; he or she is everafter a fighter.

I guess it's probably worth noting, though, that I think the "Launcelot" in Deities & Demigods is fallen:

This mighty knight [...] was able to use all the powers of a Paladin, until he fell from grace by being tricked into loving King Pelles' daughter, the lovely Elaine (who bore him a son, the knight Sir Galahad).
Kind of mildly interesting that they just skip over the whole Guinevere chivalric love/infidelity thing.

[Thurbane]

what exactly do blue/quest/white/and black knight do? Also is this dragonlance noble or does it have actual features? As a side note hedge mage and enchantress make me want to check this out.

The new classes introduced in this book (I have the d20 version, apparently there is also a True20 version) are:

Base (or "Core" as they call it) classes:


Fool
Hedge Mage
Hermit
Knight (different than the PHB2 class)
Minstrel
Noble (different than the Dragonlance class)
Priest
Robber Baron
Skald
Yeoman


Prestige classes:


Alchemist
Berserker
Changeling
Court Mage
Crusader
Enchantress
Lady of the Lake
Quest Knight
Saint
Spectral Knight
Black Knight
Blue Knight
Green Knight
Purple Knight
Red Knight
White Knight

...if I get a moment, I'll do a brief description of each.

[Silly Name]

See, the issue here is that in 1E Paladins can fall in two major ways:

If they knowingly perform a chaotic act, they need to seek penance from a Lawful Good level 7+ cleric.
If they knowingly and willingly perform an evil act...


I'd put most of Lancelot's failings down as "Chaotic" rather than "Evil", at least in the context of the chivalric code and ethos of Arthurian mythos, so that could still track.


Kind of mildly interesting that they just skip over the whole Guinevere chivalric love/infidelity thing.

Depending on the version, Lancelot and Guinevere may have never actually done the deed, or at least postponed it for a very long, long time.

I'm more curious as to why being tricked into loving Elaine would be classified as Lancelot's "fall from grace" of all things.


The new classes introduced in this book (I have the d20 version, apparently there is also a True20 version) are:

Base (or "Core" as they call it) classes:


Fool
Hedge Mage
Hermit
Knight (different than the PHB2 class)
Minstrel
Noble (different than the Dragonlance class)
Priest
Robber Baron
Skald
Yeoman



Is there any reason for why Fool, Minstrel and Skald are three separate classes? I can see Fool being separated from the rest, but Skald and Minstrel seem a bit too close to justify two whole different classes.

Also I know they're obviously referring to Robber Barons in a feudal sense, but I can't kick the image of a tophat-and-monocle, Mr Burns-style villain suddenly being thrust into Camelot.

[Kurald Galain]

Depending on the version, Lancelot and Guinevere may have never actually done the deed, or at least postponed it for a very long, long time.

I'm more curious as to why being tricked into loving Elaine would be classified as Lancelot's "fall from grace" of all things.

Because Elaine tricked him by pretending to be Guinevere; so if Launcelot was keeping his oath by not sleeping with Guinevere (i.e. king Arthur's wife), here's when he broke it.

[Silly Name]

Because Elaine tricked him by pretending to be Guinevere; so if Launcelot was keeping his oath by not sleeping with Guinevere (i.e. king Arthur's wife), here's when he broke it.

But sleeping with the wife of his king would fall under Chaotic, though, wouldn't it? I agree that this was a case of Lancelot giving into temptation, but it's hardly his most heinous break of the chivalric code of honour.

[Jervis]

Also I know they're obviously referring to Robber Barons in a feudal sense, but I can't kick the image of a tophat-and-monocle, Mr Burns-style villain suddenly being thrust into Camelot.

A elderly industrialist in King Arthur’s court

[Kurald Galain]

But sleeping with the wife of his king would fall under Chaotic, though, wouldn't it? I agree that this was a case of Lancelot giving into temptation, but it's hardly his most heinous break of the chivalric code of honour.
Sleeping with a random married woman may be chaotic, but for an ordained knight to sleep with the King's wife? I'd call that High Treason and very evil. Indeed, this sets in motion a chain of events leading to the ruin of the country.

[loky1109]

This is Evil because this is Selfish.

[redking]

Sleeping with a random married woman may be chaotic, but for an ordained knight to sleep with the King's wife? I'd call that High Treason and very evil. Indeed, this sets in motion a chain of events leading to the ruin of the country.

Yeah. In our modern era we have "no fault divorce". What Lancelot did was not only a grievous offence against his liege (Arthur, the king), but by turning the king into a cuckold Lancelot undermined the very stability of the realm. Some people may say "so what if Arthur is a cuckold". The problem with that is that many of Arthur's subjects would assume him unworthy to rule, and would at least expect Arthur to execute the law and execute the fornicators and adulterers.

ADDENDUM: This article on Wikipedia describes treason in Arthurian legend (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_in_Arthurian_legend#:~:text=Lancelot%20is% 20accused%20of%20treason,his%20escape%20from%20the %20court.). What is interesting is that Lancelot's betrayal is considered treason under both Germanic and Roman customs.

[satorian]

Treason is a legal transgression, and legal transgressions need not map to moral ones. A chaotic character can commit as many violations of the law as she wishes, and never be considered to have made a moral failing.

What "Evil" is in DnD is hard (and perhaps a bit silly) to define, but most discussions in the rule books tend to require a mens rea, not of a scofflaw, but of maliciousness. It'd be hard to ascribe malice to Lancelot. Careless, momentary selfishness (not the same as Neutral Evil principled uncaring of the other's needs selfishness), but not malice.

[Ramza00]

I'm more curious as to why being tricked into loving Elaine would be classified as Lancelot's "fall from grace" of all things.

So many different King Arthur myths that why it was bad will be contradictory.

But in the Percival versions of the Grail Knight, it is forbidden for any grail guardian (and thus seeker) to do a philandering. Thus it does not matter whether it was Guinevere or Elaine, but Lancelot feels shame for he was either raped or he earnestly had sex for he wanted Guinevere but it was actually another woman disguise / magic and thus he is filled with shame. (And in some versions he threatens to kill Elaine and her being pregnant saves her life.)

The Fisher King is both injured but also is tied to the concept of bastards. If he has a thigh injury (groin injury in actuality but euphemisms are used) he can not produce male heirs and must use things like his daughters and marriage to continue his line. Likewise the Grail Guardian and the Wasteland is about ones sacred responsibilities and obligations so philandering and bastards are a big no no. After all we are talking about property here!

Edit: Oh I forgot to mention but this too is contradictory over time and space, a thigh injury is sometimes a symbol / punishment signifying one was a naughty philander in the past. Thus there is an element of irony in the fisher king and why he needs a grail knight. The king was naughty in the past, he was the not perfect guardian you see, but now ironically he can not have a new heir and thus it is up to the next generation. Any man can get his daughter pregnant, but to be worthy of being a lord and also a person who is in the thrall of the King, a servant of King Arthur then the deed must be done in the proper way and thus all the courtly love stuff, yet men are also horny and not always following a chivalric code that was somehow connected to religion, chivalry, and Christ imagery in this culture of the time.

Note though we are talking about 400 years of romances and told in many cultures with multiple languages so we can not create a universal story. Other versions have other explanations. Things do go in and out of fashion and the entirety of the land we call France and the UK (now) were not one culture with over 100 different languages being spoken.

[Gemini476]

Also, of course, note that Lancelot's thing is just that initially he had that chaste courtly love with Guinivere (somewhat socially acceptable, at least in literature)... but then some century later courtly love had fallen out of fashion, so later authors write it as a bad thing and more straight-up infidelity.
Hence why Galahad is created as the new "perfect knight" (and steals Percival's grail stories).

[Kaviyd]

There is a True20 supplement (very roughly compatible with 3.5, but you'll have to read the rules, since there will be some discrepancies) called Arthurian Legend, giving stats to all of them.

It's all pretty bad, with all of them having only NPC classes. However, the review of the book says that Lancelot is 30th level and not 20th level like in the pdf above, so maybe there is a better version I haven't found.

Your book link is to the True20 version of the book, while the review link is for the D&D 3.5/d20 version. I remember picking up the d20 version when it came out.

But your reference to bad NPC classes makes is a bit off, as the names of the True20 PC classes are Adept, Expert, and Warrior -- in other words, the names of the d20 NPC classes. But that by no means should be taken to mean that they are at the same power level as d20 characters with NPC classes -- as you would be able to tell from their feat lists, which are far longer than the corresponding d20 lists would be as True20 characters get at least one feat per level. This book is a conversion to a slightly different game system.

Edit: PDFs of the D&D 3.5/d20 version of this book can be found at drivethrurpg, sold by RPG Objects.

[Seward]

Kind of mildly interesting that they just skip over the whole Guenevere chivalric love/infidelity thing.

That would be the chaotic acts. If Guenevere wasn't barren (and again Arthur failed at his ONE JOB as king, producing an heir) then it might have messed with the succession, but Arthur's only kid is his incest-bastard, so Mordred had inside track on becoming king even without burning the kingdom down. Indeed if it had been Arthur that was infertile, Lance might have been doing the kingdom a favor if Guenevere suddenly had a son, but we know that wasn't the problem because 1 night with his half-sister and boom, pregnant. So Arthur just picked the wrong wife, and didn't have the fortitude to do the right thing for his country and find a way to have a kid with somebody fertile (that was NOT his half-sister sorceress etc)

Honestly, for a lot of the time Lancelot didn't do anything but have bad thoughts, and when he had them he rushed away from Camelot until he ran out of monsters/quests to do. It was annoying to other knights because he didn't leave much for them to do.

In the end yeah, it was a problem. But Lancelot was tacked-on to the Arthur legend later. The real screwup was sleeping with his half sister Morgan and generating Mordred, who burned the whole thing down. Lancelot's fall was more of the same decay, stemming from a different sin. But Arthur was the king and as he goes, so does the land.

Arthur's an Aristocrat, Key is a fighter, Gawaine a barbarian, Agravaine a rogue, Gaheris a bard or maybe a social rogue (everybody liked him but he was in no way a paladin). All the spellcasters were women, and all were pretty much problematic. This GM has issues, or his players do. Fallen Lancelot kills most of them eventually, some by accident. (that scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where he randomly butchers a wedding party isn't actually that different from the scene where he rescues Guenevere and kills everybody in a frenzy, including some of the folks who admire him most, and who he likes best)

The next generation isn't a lot better, although Galahad at least doesn't fall. But he takes himself out of the action too, by achieving the grail quest and deciding he was done. Leveled up, got the magic items and his player didn't show up for the sessions where he was supposed to win the war with Mordred. Jerk.

[Kurald Galain]

Arthur's an Aristocrat,
He is nevertheless one of the best fighters in the books.


All the spellcasters were women,
Merlin's a woman now?

[Seward]

He is nevertheless one of the best fighters in the books.


Merlin's a woman now?

Merlin is a GMPC, not a player. He's never around when you need him, except to drive the railroad plot. Or sometimes to be the guy who trained the female spellcasters in the party before they started play.

As for Arthur, he was only a good fighter because he was the GM's SO or something. He was showered with magic items. He was the Perseus of Britain, who got level 10 gear at level 1 before he tried to do anything.

[vasilidor]

Before anyone other than Merlin knew who Arthur was, he was raised and trained as a squire. Being a squire does include combat training, and sometimes the possibility to ascend to knighthood. Because 3.5 nerfed the Fighter so hard it is not really possible to accurately portray the range of skills these people often had in just mundane matters. They knew history, heraldry, riding, animal handling, climbing, hunting, diplomacy, could read their opponents skill, and often more.

[Gnaeus]

The Arthurian legend is one of the earliest examples of Fanfic. Dozens or hundreds of authors over almost 900 (arguably 1100) years. With different writers emphasizing different characters and elements of the story. Adding, removing and altering characters and there isn't actually a good reason why Fate Zero's Arthur is less valid or authoritative than Mallory's. So there is no wrong answer. If you want to say they are exactly as powerful as they need to be to fill the role you want them to play in your story, you are acting in the finest tradition of Arthurian authors. I think I could defend anything from low epic to E6 based on what sources I was using and what I wanted in my story.

Geoffrey of Monmouth says Arthur single handedly killed more than 900 people in a single battle. Bedwyr is said to have slain warriors "by the hundred* and to kill faster than any three warriors. Sir Kay can grow to huge or gargantuan size (the size of a tree), is immune to fire, his wounds are unhealable and he can hold his breath for 9 days. Also, he's unkillable "unless God should accomplish it". In other stories, Arthur is an aristocrat, Bedevere is a butler and Kay is a buffoon. That's got to be close to a 20 level range. In Green Knight, Gawain solos a ton of monsters off screen without author finding it important enough to describe.

Just looking one post up (not to pick on you Vasildor, the point you were making is valid), 12th century Arthur WAS a squire with all that entails. 6th century Arthur the Romano British chieftain was not, as knights as we think of them wouldn't exist until Charlemagne.

[Gemini476]

Putting all the lore discussion aside for a moment...

One thing to keep in mind for "official" stats, I guess, is that they tend to be fairly... simple. Single-classed characters with maybe one prestige class, two if you're feeling spicy - and often with prestige classes created specifically for them, with the base classes being either from the PHB or from the book in question due to WotC policy.

So your typical Knight of the Round Table might be something like a Fighter 5/Knight of the Round Table 5, with the elites like Galahad being Paladin 10/Knight of the Round Table 10. King Arthur might be Fighter 5/Aristocrat 5 or something along those lines, stretched out into higher levels depending on the specific author's design philosophy.
A significant amount of the feats would probably be Skill Focus, Weapon Focus, maybe even Toughness depending on the author's laziness. It's no secret that they just slapped on Toughness whenever they couldn't think of appropriate feats - the Tarrasque takes it six times.

Also, well, this makes for simpler statblocks. Depending on the story there's between 100-300 Knights of the Round Table, after all, or 12-1,600 in more extreme cases.

[hamishspence]

12th century Arthur WAS a squire with all that entails. 6th century Arthur the Romano British chieftain was not, as knights as we think of them wouldn't exist until Charlemagne.

"Equites" was the Roman equivalent - sometimes translated as "knights"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equites

[Seward]

edit...never mind. A digression on Roman civic and military organization violates forum rules.

Lets just say a story based on a Roman-raised military officer, however nobly born, wouldn't have the same skills as an Malory-style Knight of the Round Table (or any other knight described in those tales). The equestrian class in the above link was more a civic rank (and wealth-type category) than a military one.

[Scots Dragon]

Just looking one post up (not to pick on you Vasildor, the point you were making is valid), 12th century Arthur WAS a squire with all that entails. 6th century Arthur the Romano British chieftain was not, as knights as we think of them wouldn't exist until Charlemagne.

The Arthurian tradition is mythological and folkloric rather than historical.

[Gnaeus]

The Arthurian tradition is mythological and folkloric rather than historical.

Ok. But a lot of that myth and folklore is set in analogs of historical periods. I've read stories about Arthur as a Romano British, and the Celtic tales make him look like a Welsh petty king. I'm not saying you can't read a medieval romance and stat Arthur the flower of chivalry. I'm saying starting with the assumption that Arthur was raised as a squire is no more authoritative than saying he was an officer in some auxilia cavalry or he didn't really gain his full powers until he had to fight Meliodas. Calling a romano-british Arthur a knight of the high middle ages is like calling Mallory's Arthur a Navy Seal, and only a bit less separated in time.

It's like if we statted superman and started with "well obviously he can fly and shoot heat rays". You aren't wrong. But you could also point to 1940 superman who couldn't do those things. Different author, different time, different equally valid interpretation of sameish character.

[Seward]

It's like if we statted superman and started with "well obviously he can fly and shoot heat rays". You aren't wrong. But you could also point to 1940 superman who couldn't do those things. Different author, different time, different equally valid interpretation of sameish character.

On the nose analogy. I agree.

The root of the legend dates back to some events in Wales, where the legend first turns up in a history (7th century? 8th century, can't remember. It predated my 9th century Crusader Kings 2 Wales Nationalist kingdom computer game setup, so I was able to use it as justification for my behavior and shamelessly name my kids after the characters in the earlier stories - no Lancelot, but the Orkneys, Guwenefair (spelled several ways so I could name several daughters, Morgain, Morgause etc). As with the later Robin Hood legend, later writers (and in some cases politicians/nobles with an axe to grind) modified it to suit their tastes.

Although my favorite mutation of that kind is Ivanhoe. The author just wanted to write King Richard and Robin Hood fanfic where they teamed up, and Ivanhoe was just there to drive the plot.

[Gnaeus]

The root of the legend dates back to some events in Wales, where the legend first turns up in a history (7th century? 8th century, can't remember.plot.

The root of the legend is unclear. There's a 6th century source that mentions the battle of Badon Hill/Mons Badonicus, but without naming Arthur, only Ambrosius. Bede dates the battle around 490-500 but still no Arthur. A 9th and 10th century source put Arthur at Badon Hill but no legend details other than Arthur killing 900 barbarians single handed. The first written account of Badon Hill with details of the Arthurian legend is Geoffrey of Monmouth in 1136 (so already 600 years after battle, and firmly into mythology/folklore territory). The Red Book with the Welsh sources was written later, but appears to include oral tradition sources from earlier (maybe MUCH earlier, but may not originally have involved Arthur at all, they look like christianized mythology). Historically, we have at least 3 guesses for the exact date of the battle, multiple possible sites, with folk traditions placing it all over great Britain and the possibility that there was a second battle at same site.