Atgxtg

Sorry but you don't understand how the option is being implemented: Agility skills (tied to DEX) and Courtly Skills (tied to APP) have a minimum value equal to half the relevant Characteristic. These skill values do not decrease. So if Sir Adonis with APP 18 (and a starting value of 9 is all Courtly skills) suffers a few bad years on the aging table and wins up with APP 4, his Courtly skills do not get reduced, so Sir Adonis would still have a Courtesy of at least 9 (probably higher). Uh, that is no different that what happens if someone looses a lot of CON or SIZ now -although as I stated above, in this rule variant stat loss does not lower skills. Okay math wise this is APP/2 (round down)-6. I don't have a problem to the idea of the modifier (it's very similar to what were are implementing here), but I do have a problem with the rounding you use. KAP typically uses round to the nearest in all it's formulas so I'd probably push for 13-14: +1, 15-16: +2, 17-18 +3 and so on. Not that much more. Yes, it's a step in the right direction, but isn't worth losing SIZ or CON for. A year or two of training and practice in Flirting or some such is worth more than the point of two of APP. The problem is that now all PKs have a high SIZ becuase SIZ is so much more important than the other stats. Far more important that it should be. Starting at SIZ 18 is such a huge advanage compared to DEX 18 or APP 18 that there is no comparison. Only CON really holds its own against SIZ. Good point, but no I don't beleive you have to add modfiers for CON, or SIZ becuase they are already much more powerful in KAP, compared to the other attributes already, and the purpose of this rule was to offset that advantage. Game design wise, this discrepancy in stats is because Pendragon dropped several aspects of RQ such as category modifiers, STR/DEX requirments, and Strike Ranks that helped to balance out the attributes better. Low DEX or APP not only lead to lower skill scores in RQ, but also in a slower advanment in those skills (at least in some versions of RQ/BRP/Stormbringer, etc.). A low DEX character in RQ had a hard time in combat. I want the game to be fun too, but you can't have the fun stuff without the risk of bad stuff happening too. One of the risks of letting PKs fight fire-breathing dragons is the risk that sometimes the dragon might win, and dealing with the consequences. Not allowing for that also reduces the fun factor in some way. That said, this rule isn't going to lower skills or add negative modifiers. Sorry but all game "punish players for not investing points". Don't believe me? Try running a PK who never raises Sword up from his default value. He will get punished quite regualrly for not investing points into sword. I agree. But that's not how the rule presented works. THe way it works is that the default scores of some skills are based on DEX/.2 or APP/2. That will give characvters with good scores in those stats a boost in those skills, and characters with low scoresin those stats a somewhat lower base (although even a low APP character is going to be pretty close in courtly skills to what PKs start at now). Yes, but this isn't going to punish players. It is going to allow players more flexibility in character design and reward them for higher attributes, and that sould increase the level of fun. Right now, PKs look a lot alike with a high SIZ and CON, enough STR to catch the 5d6 or 6d6 damage stat, and low to mid DEX and APP. With this rule we could get PKS with high DEX and/or APP stats who could actually have a significant advantage against the high SIZ characters. More options = more fun.

I agree. Plus the KAP timeline does managed to mesh and reconcile a good number of contradictory sources into some sort of cohesive, inclusive whole. A GM can mix adventures based on the Welsh Triads, HRB, The Vulgate, Parzival, Tennyson, T.H. White, the films Camelot and Excalibur, plus actual historical records, and it somehow works.

Yea! We agree on something. I understand and share your concern here. That is precisely why I started a thread to test this out. Keep in mind that although I post here (quite) regularly, and occasionally put up a house rule or suggestion that others might like or adopt, I'm in no way someone who can alter the official rules. Morien, having contributed to some of the KAP5 supplements is "better connected" but Still there is a line devloper who would need to be convinced (not to much a host of fans) that any such change is actually an improvement and is worth changing the RAW. But, somewhat ironically, my reason for starting this thread was to test out this rule to avoid doing exactly what you fear- messing up the rules, or introducing something that will com back to bite me on the Gluteus Maxiumus. So no, I don't want to take a ax to the RAW. Part of the reason why I think this won't do so is because it is similar to the Category modifiers rule from RuneQuest/BRP, from which Pendragon was derived. Tru the modifier in KAP would be somewhat larger than than in RQ, but then there are fewer skills in Pendragon to be modified. Now as for justification, it has indeed become rather obvious over the years that DEX and APP get shortchanged in the RAW. In earlier editions this wasn't such a big deal because attributes were often generated randomly and because the emphasis was more on adventuring and deeds of valor, which tended to downplay APP. Now, in the latter editions, courtly activities have become more prominent, and such actions really do need to be fleshed out the way combat and adventuring skills are. A GM handling APP ad hoc was fine when we were just dealing with the NPC beautiful maiden that popped up in an adventure to be saved and wedded by an adventuring knight, but it doesn't do said maiden justice when she is a player character. Much the same holds true when you have magicians as player characters.

Exactly, my main beef as well. I have some problems with the implementation but those are the normal sort of questions that come up when discussing any new rule or application of an existing rule. Is a pejorative term to anyone? Even Greg used to say he came up with a new hourserule for someone or other, and he wrote the game. Many of the rules we all know and love in BRP games started off as somebody's hoserule that got adopted by the designers over time. Greg wanted the game to evolve and get better, it didn't matter to him if the improvement was a houserule or not.

No it doesn't, as "off his meds", etc. implies that said person is in need of being medicated in the first place - that the part that is supposed to be insulting. "What are you smoking?" Is more often used when somebody states something that makes little sense or is unsupported by his facts. Implying that someone is not in their normal state of mind is not necessarily an insult. Implying that they need medicate to achieve a normal state of mind, is.

If that is thier most important contribution then they could indeed be removed. That is exactly what Greg did with INT and POW. The aging rules were cribbed from RQ3. You forgot being bedridden when the values drop to 3 or less. It's not that much greater of a risk. Since stat points are lost 1 point at a time, it is extremely rare for a character to drop from active to bedridden all that quickly, as active character will be able to offset the risk with training and glory awards for quite some time, even with a low APP and/or DEX. In fact, probably longer than one with higher DEX and APP stats as the higher SIZ and CON he has will translate into better success in combat and more glory.

Or just chalk it up to all that Faerie enchantment messing up the timeline. King Arthur: 426? Wasn't last year 431?" Faerie Knight: Yes m'lord, but we don't want to rolling on the aging table just yet, soo...

I haven't insulted you either. I did however wanted to point out that your previous post was contradcitory. namely you claimed that you resolved the situation without add or changing the rules and then introduced what is essentially a houserule as your solution. Using your same argument, I could claim that Morien resolved the same situation without adding any rules by adding a variable modifier of up to half APP to all Courtly skills. I see many ideas as valid, regardless of the source. The DEX/2, APP/2 idea actually was from someone else. I can even be convinced to change my mind about an idea. I wasn't all that wild about the APP/2 idea to begin with, and would still like to see a better alternative. The reason why I've been attemtping to test out this variant in chargen is because Morien's been very good at backing up his position. No, but if you want to convince anyone of anything you have to present you case to do so, and deal with your points being challenged, either by presenting additional evidence that supports your points, or conceding some points. No you haven't. Not really. What you have done is pointed out that per page 114. a GM can apply any sort of modifier he wishes at any time he things it is is warranted, and presented that as a solution. You have even used the rules for Distinctive Features in a way that actually contradicts what is in the RAW on page 37. No what you have done is presented a houserule that uses Distinctive Features to give modifiers of social rolls, and one that doesn't quite fit with the RAW. Now it's not a bad hoserule, although it would only really work if distinctive features were positive or negative based on APP (which by RAW they aren't), and would probably need some sort of quality modifier determined by the actual APP Stat (otherwise all APP scores past a certain point are the same), but it is now what's in the RAW, or even what is implied by the RAW. No, per the rules as written, distinctive features are not positive or negative based on APP. APP determines the quantity of the features, not that they are positive or negative in nature. Per KAP 5.2 p. 37 Distinctive Features allow for objective differences between characters with the same numerical value. A Distinctive Feature is not always a negative quality, even for a character with low APP, though you may wish to make it so. The following suggestions include ideas for both positive and negative features. No the rules state the can be positive or negative regardless of APP, which actually goes against your case of using distinctive features as the solution for APP. In fact, had you presented your solution as a houserule (which you seem to deny that is is) then you'd be on firmer ground. No, you are completely wrong on this point. Greg didn't avoid putting in specific modifiers in the game to allow the GM to apply once that fit the circumstances. They are specific modifiers all over the place: Mounted vs. Foot, rearming, DEX penalty for armor., lance charge, Inspiration bonus, etc. The information of page 114 even uses these specific modifiers as examples. The information page 114 is to help a GM gauge what sort of modifier is appropriate for a certain situation. I'd even say that the imformation of page 114 would be a lot less useful without examples of specific modifiers. So your claim here is entirely unsupported. But nowhere in the rule or examples, in any version of Pendragon, does a character get some bonus to a social skill from a high APP. If it were implied in the rules, as you suggest, then it would have shown up somewhere in the last 30+ year. The lack of such evidence does not constitute proof. If you are going to claim that such a modifier was the intention then you do need something to back you up. I think you referenced the wrong page here, as p. 144 is in the combat section as covers jousting, mounted combat and so on. However, assuming that your meant page 114, nothing about it suggests that APP and/or directed traits should be used to give skill modifiers, not does it give a nice little +5 per relvant positive feature and -5 or relevant negative feature. That is entirely your doing and constitutes a houserule. Just looking at the rule by itself, it's not a bad houserule either, except that by RAW low APP and negative distinctive features are not a given. By raw you can have a APP 4 character with a "fantastic smile" or "melodious voice" or some such, completely separating the APP score from the modifier. So it's rather obvious that your method is not what was intended by the RAW. By the RAw a APP4 character with a"melodious voice" might get a positive modifier to singing or orate, if the GM thinks so. Oh, goGo ahead report it. Triff probably needs a good laugh. And btw, this is Triff's sitem, not Chasoiium's. He pays the bills. Not that I think that the folks over at Chasoium would take the phase "what are you smoking?" as an insult. At least not in this context. You inferred some very extreme and basically unsubstantiated assumptions about the RAW with no real evidence to back you up other than the fact that the GM can apply any sort of modifier that he wants to, whenever he wants to, and then used it to justify your own houserule. Basically you tried to retcon a houserule as RAW even though your interpretation directly contradicts how distinctive features are presented in the RAW. Yes the rules allow the GM to apply any sort of modifier that he deems fit, but the lack of examples of such a modifier being applied due to distinctive features does not mean that such a modifier is implied in the rules. Just like there is no implied modifier given to combat skills by DEX. THat doesn't mean we should infer one. I don't want to upset you but you really just did present a houserule here. It's not a bad houserule either, but it is a houserule. You might want to believe it is the RAW, but it isn't. Don't take my word for that - ask anybody else here. If just one person here agrees with your interpretation as being implied by the RAW then I'll create a thread specifically to apologize to you for the "What are you smoking?", comment. Assuming I don't drop dead from shock or something first. No offense but your previous post was the broadest interpretation of implied game rules that I have ever encountered in all my years of gaming. I can't even come up with some sort of analogy, and I can usually do that with just about anything.

No but it might matter if your SIZ is 16, since it would factor into your hit points. Not surprising, both because Lancelot is already established as an amazing fighter, and because the (sword?)-bridge is an usual peril that most people could relate to (the 60' fall). But had Lance been build as a high DEX PK he probably wouldn't have fared so well against the goons. We do have to remember that as Lancelot he is just going to be great at practically everything. No, not really. RQ's Balance skill would do just as good if not better. IN fact, I'd say DEX in KAP really just serves as an way not to track the skills is mimics, but does so on a way that is rather poor for game play. Whatis a PK supposed to do if they come across some DESX based challenge that they are incapable of handling? Spend the next decade imrpoving DEX during the Winter Phase? Write up a new character? And those could be put into one stat. In fact, skills could probably replace stats completely. Yes, but DEX and APP don't really help much in doing so. High APP doesn't help with social situations, and even allowing for your examples, DEX isn't worth the investment (the off chance that a PK might cross a fantastic bridge or climb out of a cave hardly is worth the investment). Maybe, but they are not rules in Pendragon. I could suggest averaging skills with the appropriate attribute to get the effective score, but that's kinda what Morien's suggestion actually does in the first place.(Sorry don't mean to sound snarky here, just pointing out that functionally that is what using DEX/2 as the base does, except with a different rate of advancement).

Well, then three things. 1. If this is a discrepancy between the game and the literature then DEX couldn't have been included to handle these situations, because it is a discrepancy; and 2. The game (especially the Romance adventures) should better emulate the literature; and. 3. If these skills are that important and come up that often, maybe they should be skills then instead of an attribute? As an attribute it becomes something that the Knight can't do much about. While an inexperienced knight could go from being an unskilled swordman to a master swordsman thought his career, it highly unlikely that a low DEX character will become a high DEX one. But I doubt they do come up all that often for most knights. I don't really see DEX and stealth being that much of an option here for a knight. It's probably the smart thing to do, but it is somewhat questionable behavior. True. I doubt that happens much to most knights though. Yes Lancelot and Gawaine have lots of fantastic adventures, but most knights/PKs probably will have such an adventure maybe once in their career, if that. Okay, how often is that going to happen? Just how many knights have to climb out of a cave in the literature? Yes, but again does this happen often enough for a player to need to factor for it during chargen? And if if does, what else can the player do about it? From an RPGing viewpoint it seems a lot like the Siege Perilious, only without the warning. Essentially DEX is acting much like a Trait.

A lot of stuff seems to be off by about 15 years. This is because in our pseudo-historical sources, such as the HRB, Constatin rules for ten years, while in the Pendragon timeline he rules for about 25 years. Some things match up, but other events, even supposedly historical ones could have occurred at some unspecified date, or have contradictory dates listed. Overall the best approach is probably to set dates for any events you wish to add around other related event in thew chronology. For example the Battle of Guoloph (or Battle of Nether Wallop) is a battle between Ambrosius and Vortigern that supposed to take place sometime around 337-340, but this is far too early in the KAP timeline (Ambrosius is still a child), and would fit in much better around 466-468 in our established timeline (when Ambrosius is fighting Vortigern). So that's about a 30 year shift.

There are some desginer notes in either KAP1 or the Pendragon Campaign (before it was the Great Pendragon Campaign) mwhere Greg gave some reasons for the shift in the timeline. Part of the problem is that the "most appropriate" century to place this is too well documented to fit Arthur in, and so Greg shifted things to a time that was less well chronicled. Also, depending on which sources you use there are some differences with the dates for some events, typically about a 15 year shift. For instance, some sources give Constatin a ten year reign and have Voertigern coming into power around 427 or so (the HRB seems to follow this), while other sources have Vortigern coming to power later (like in the GPC). History is unclear on this, which is why there is some debate over things like when (Saint) Germanicus came to Britain and how many times. Saint Patrick chronology is likewise a bit hazy. IMO this is what makes The Book of Sires and the GPC so important, as they give us the "true' history, as least from the viewpoint of Pendragon. If you are trying to fit some real even in, and it doesn't mesh with the official KAP timeline, I suggest looking at the events it is related to and fitting it in accordingly.

Tristam also was arguably the second or third best knight of the realm and no slouch in the STR, SIZ and CON departments, and he didn't spend most of his career doing so. He spent much more time riding around acting like a typical Arthurian knight. Also lets look at Balance, Climb, Jump, Sneak,and Throw. Mostly useless for a knight. Balance: Why would a knight place himself in a precarious spot where he could topple over? This is really one of those things that gets forced on a knight.Like maybe some caslte where there is a custom of visiting knights having to walk a tighrope over lions on something. Nothing that should happen that often. Climb: Much the same. The most obvious use would probably be in a siege, and frankly, climbing the walls is footman's work- and knights have ladders for that anyway. Jump: Another rather if ever used skill. Sneak: Is mostly dishonorable. Throw: How often does this come up. And when it is so vital to get it right the first time? Most these "skills" are for situations that knights will generally try to avoid, and usually should be able to. TO all of you who've played or ran this game and use the default method for generating attributes, how many of you have or see player knights for whom DEX or APP were their highest attribute? How many see PKS with low DEX and APP so that the players can get higher SIZ and CON scores?

Glad you're happy. That my intention when I created this thread.. I just wanted to test out what had been the consensus solution to the poor value to APP and DEX, and I do want to thank Morien for actually doing so. One again, I don't mind revising this topic and see what we can do about things, I just didn't expect it here.

So let's settle things and prove it one way or the other. Which also have no game use. Someone could have a winning smile or broken teeth, both are distinctive features. Neither have any real effect in game pay. Certianly not to the same extent as a single point of SIZ. No, it's a problem with the mechanics, since there aren't any to cover their use. If if were up to the GM and players to implement these things" Somehow" then why do we need stats for armor? Or why bother with traits and passions, something that the vast majority of RPGs do leave to role playing. What are you smoking? Apply a +/-5 modifier to skills for features based off of APP is a change to the rules.

Okay, I'll try to explain it better. BoM was designed to let a PK run his manor in great detail, make a lot of improvements and addtions to thier manor, but it was very time consuming and was flawed in that there were no limits to the number of improvements that could be built. THuis could lead to things getting out of control with a rich PK being able to start a perpetual cycle of old improvements paying the cost to build new ones, etc.etc. BOE was designed to simply and easily allow land owners with estates (lots of manors) to be able to quickly and easily manage all of their holdings. SO it is a little less detailed than BOM, but a LOT easier and faster to use, plus it add in limits that eliminate the potential problems that existed in BoM. So BOE makes for a nice, quick way alternative to BOM that sacrifices a little detail for ease of use, speed, and better functionality. Plus BOE uses a newer, better, ecominic model that has a better foundation. Slight adjustment and clarification. But check to see which editions you have. I believe BoE was edited later to make it fit with the changes brought about in BoW, so fi you have the latest versions the two models should be the same. If not there are some realtively minor differences that won't ususally matter in play anyway.. Mostly it boils down to a knight having some servants, and a court, for whom there is now some more, hidden income, plus some foot soldiers (one of whom is off serving the king). It's really more a case of explain who takes care of the horses, or keeps the records of the court cases and such. Same answe as above. Ease of system isn't the same as familiarity with system. In fact it can sometimes make things worse. Pendragon is fairly easy to grasp, mechanically, but a bit trickier to understand as far various nuances and such. For example the game mechanics behind rolling for inspiration are easy to understand. Knowing if you should do so and when, plus the ramifications of doing so is another story. I'd suggest focusing on stuff like trait rolls, social situations, basic skill rolls, opposed rolls, combat tactics and so on in the first couple of sessions, and if you cover land at all just give them the 1 Librium to spend. You can worry about building walls and other defenses later on, as well as what improvements and investment (it's typically down to one) to make. It can be very easy to do something in Pendragon that looks like a good idea, but really messes a character up if someone ins't familr with the game. Some tactics from other RPGs just don't work out in Pendragon, and vice versa.

Not exactly, but that is how it kinda played out. BoM was focused on Knights and their holdings and goes into a lot of detail. BoE is really geared more towards Estate holders -that is those who have multiple manors than are grouped together into a single patch of land, and it doesn't go into quite as much detail and is easier and faster to use. It also avoids some of the problems that plagued BoM (you ca only fit a finatel number of improvments on a parcel of land in Boe, as opposed to being able to build whatever you had the money for in BoM). So it functions well as a more economically sound, streamlined way for a player knight to handle his manor. More of an add-on, but also a stand alone book in thatit gives details on various landholders who could be the PKs liege lords. BoW is about land and land management. BoW tells you who holds what, what forces they control, and who their friends and enemies are. Think of it as theBoE sort of tells you how to design an estate, with the BoW giving you examples using the great lords of Britian. So if you want to know more about Count Salisubry's estates, what castles he holds, how many manors he has, how many knights, etc,. as well as similar information on some of his neighbors, you want to see BoW. I'd recommend using BoE to handle the PKs manors, and possibly add in one or two things from BoM (like a jousting list, which is more for one knight as opposed to the Jousting Arena) to BoE. I'd suggesting pretty much ditching BOM, especially in the early Periods, where a lot of it wouldn't really apply anyway, not work with the current economic model. With BoE it simplifies down to the average PK getting 1 librium to spend during the year. For a typical campaign, BOW is more of a reference for the GM to give you an idea of the scale of things, the size of armies and how much wealth is out there. There is some stuff for characters who achieve officer positions that could prove useful for players later, but not every PK will become an officer, so it's of limited use-especially at the start. Just take a quick peek at the economic model (Basically it boils down to the PK only seeing about 10 libra out of the manor's total production, and his ending up with about 1 librun to extra to spend during a normal year), and the defenses and improvements (from around page 78) to see what the PKs can do to/with their holding (which comes down to not that much, due to lack of space). I'd even suggest starting the PKs off as squires or household knights for a year or two before letting them inherent the family manor to give your players time to get a handle on the game system before they have to learn how to run the manor.

It would depend on what I was trying to accomplish with the magic system. If I wanted to give it an authentic Arthurian feel type of magic then I'd either go with KAP4's magic system or wait for the Book of the Magician for KAP5 (which is in the pipeline, and is worth mentioning). If I wanted a more FRPish magic system, I'd probably add POW as a stat and incorporate some variation or combination of RQ's/BRP's Battle/Spirit Magic, Divine Magic, Sorcery, Stormbringer Summoning, etc. There is so much to work with that just adding POW and BRP's BGB would probably be enough to do the job. One worry though would be the effects of such magic on the game, both in terms of diminish the knight's place in the campaign and in how the spells alter the way things work in the wold. Just adding Heal 1 to a campaign would radically alter things. Probably every knight would keep a Healer on staff with knowledge of the spell, and no one would have to worry about Chirurgery anymore. Few Knights would probably die at all, since KAP gives you until midnight to get someone up to positive hit points. And that's just the effects of adding one realtively minor spirit magic spell into Pendragon. If I wanted something somewhat Arthurian, but more low keyed than a traditional FRPG magic system, then' I'd probably take a look as the magic systems from Decipher's Middle Earth RPG, and even take a peek at C7's The One Ring. With Middle Earth having a mythical/historical Earth fell to it, Tolkeinesque magic would seem to match up will with the Arthurian setting. Ars Magica could be another possible place to look, as it integrates the magic system and magi into the medieval setting, which is a must in you want to keep the campaign more Arthurian and not just another FRPG. If I wanted to run something more like the old Welsh Stories, I'd probably consider using the Super Powers system to give each hero some special ability. My biggest concern though would be in preserving Pendragon as what it is, an Arthurian game centered around Knights. A full D&D style magic system tacked onto it could certainly work, fro a game mechanics standpoint, but would probably ruin the game as Pendragon, and it would probably morph into a more traditional FRPG. So I'd want to be careful with any magical system not to overshadow the knights. Not much point in a knight fighting a giant or dragon if the mage can just toast it with a 20 point disruption spell that does 20d6 or some such compensates for that by the heroes also knowing magic. My advice would be to determine just what you want the campaign to be like, and how much magic that would take, and then work out the ramification of it all. Then, look over what you ended up with and see if it's still what you want, and if not, tinker a bit until it is. It's had to say just what to add or how much, because that's high subjective and will vary from GM to GM.

What if you have a Loon standing on your arm?

Only if he knew enough to do it. I've been running KAP since KAP1 back in the 80s, and no player ever took advantage of any of those rules or options. Most players didn't uses the double feint that often, although there was a 20 DEX PK who did; no one went into a fight without armor if they could help it; and they only fought defensively when they felt a greater need to defend themselves. So I think we played it mostly as it was intended, not how it worked out mathematically. But I also think that there is a bit of power escalation going on between KAP4 and KAP5 so some things become more pronounced.

Yeah, snobbery at it's finest. It's good to be a knight!

Yes, I think so. It's just trying to figure out if what he actually gets is what we think he gets, and the ramifications in play. I think that the high DEX character will be at a disadvantage for damage, probably a serious one at first due to stat loss for being young, as well as having fewer hit points. But he should be more rounded in combat skills at the start, which could mean: Faster Advancement towards Knighthood: Getting the required skills up to 10 or more would be possible for some PKS by age 15. Potentially higher skill scores overall: A higher starting score means the squire could max out a skill at 15 sooner, and have more chances to improve the skill above 15. More rounded Combat Skills: With a higher default and 5 points of free extra training per year, the squire should easily have high or even max scores in multiple combat skills. A DEX 16 character who just puts all 5 points into one knightly skill each year could have six knightly skills at 13 without normal training and practice. Just a few years of training and practice could make these all 15s and leave the player with some extra training and practice for other things. Potentially a more rounded character overall: If combat skills are higher, then the player might be free to spend more points from Training & Practice on other skills. Potentially the ability to catch up in SIZ, STR and CON: Since Combat skills will start off higher, and will get 5 points of additional knightly training each year, a high DEX character could opt to spend his Training & Practice on improving SIZ, CON and STR, and could conceivably catch up with the high SIZ characters here. But, the reverse is true as well, so it mostly balances out. Potentially being able to raise traits and passions in order to net more glory or qualify for a bonus: With the knightly skills covered, the player can afford to spend some training time elsewhere. Potentially being great at many skills: A high DEX, high APP squire could start with high skill scores across a lot of skills. This could make the character very useful as he would probably be the first or second best in the group at just about everything. That could mean a lot of little glory awards for skill successes, discovering more things during an adventure, and generally having more options open to him. This could really help if the players is working towards an officers position or some such. Potentially not being able to improve anything with the 5 points per year in extra training due to having all the knightly skills maxed out at 15: I have to stop and do the math here, but I do wonder if a high DEX character who focuses on his knight skills early on could max all his knightly skills out by age 16 or so and then have no place to put the 5 extra points of training. All in all it seems like a good idea.

That was the reasoning behind removing it, as was explained to me. Terminology aside, only fighting defensively and all-out attack/berserk cancel each other out- although they have been modified in later editions too. Fighting Defensively no longer does damage on a critical success.Apparently some players were taking advantage of it in an offensive fashion. by fighting defensively when they had high modified skills to get a better chance of doing damage than they would otherwise. For example, let's say two average knights, both with Sword 20 are fighting. Normally each would have a 50% chance of winning a given round of combat, as thier skills are equal. But if one knight fought defensively, he would have an effective skill of 30, and critical 55% of the time doing damage. Even when he doesn't critical, his lowest result would be an 11, meaning that he can only lose and take damage, when he rolled a 9 or less (45%) and his opponent rolled a 10 or greater (55%), or about 25% of the time. I've read that this was one of the arguments against the +5 when unarmored bonus knights got, and why Greg eventually decided to remove it, and it might be tied in with the double feint thing. An unarmored knight in the above situation would have a modified skill of 35, critical on a 5 or greater (80% chance) and with a minimum result of 16 could only lose and take damage when he rolled a 4 or less (20%) and his opponent rolled a 5 or greater (80%) or 16% of the time.

I must be difficult to fly those falcons in the great hall though.

Let me see if I'm following you here. So a starting squire would being with his phsical skills (basically the same ones as the knghtly skills) at DEX/2, or about a 5 instead of a 3, then advance normally from there. That seems okay but... I'm wondering about the player who starts with a high DEX, say 17-19 in chargen, and begins with physical skills in the 9-10 range. It could work out to a nice headstart, but then, the lower scores in the other stats should offset that somewhat-especially with the -3 to SIZ and STR from age.