Atgxtg

Yeah, although with the Grail procession a conversion might not have been required. It's an item that has as much Pagan history to it as Christian. A lot of British Christian stuff in KAP is a mix of the two religions.

You might niot like it, but it is quite realistic and a part of GMing. I pretty have to do it every time the the does something stupid that getsa lot of them killed. There are quite a few things abotu Pendragon, as well as other RPGs, that the GM should explain to the players. For example, I do point out that using a glory bonus point to improve Play (HArp) from 3 to 4 is a waste of a bonus point. Yes it does. But I think it would be a bad rule to implement. IMO DEX doesn't help a character enough to be worth the penalty. Not all stat bonuses are equal., With skills, low values translate into lower until and therefore a skill that won't be used very often - at least not when it is important. The guy with Boating 2 might be fine to padding a boat across the lake, but not on the ocean during rough seas. You'd want the guy with a higher skill for that. Meanswhile the stat bonuses from high SIZ, STR and CONm, such as an extra d6 damage doesn't have that effect. A guy who does 4d6 damage might not hit as hard as one who does 5d6, but 4d6 can still be relied upon day in day out, where a 5 skill cannot. Yes it is. If fact it has been done. WEG's Star Wars RPG uses skill specialties that do just that. Once a character takes a specialty then it becomes it's own, separate skill and is unaffected by the base skill. If the base skill catches up to it, then the player basically "lost" points. It's explained in the rules, everyone knew about it and it doesn't cause a problem. Lots of people don't like the rule, but it is functional. I think it is when you look at the benefits of a high DEX compared to a high STR, SIZ or CON. Specifically: The benefits of DEX 20 vs. DEX 10 is a 5 point increase in most combat skills, from 5 to 10. Now in game play that's not much of a benefit. Yes the character can master a lot of weapons more quickly but, so what? Having one weapon skill, Sword, at 20 is much more useful than having a half dozen at 15. The penalties of losing DEX, if they reduced skills, would far outweigh the benefits, because high DEX helps low skills but low DEX would hurt high skills-that is the one the PKs rely on. I think it would b e a deal breaker. In addition the loss of skill would offset the "advantage" of a high DEX/APP and make those attributes the dump stat again. The PK with a 20 DEX can lose 8 points off his skill before being bedridden, while the guy with DEX with 8 can only lose 2. Yes, but examining it holistically DEX and APP are still the out stats out by far. Back when we were going with Morien's idea of a stat bonus (APP-11)/2 then DEX and APPS benefits were universal to all skills -this is the guy with Sword 22 benefited from raising his DEX 2 points as much as the guy with Sword 5, IMO moreso. But is DEX only determiners the defalt then it doesn't help the guy swith Sword 22 at all (uless he has a DEX of 43), so I don't think it will be rightfor it to hurt him. Yeah. What I wish KAP had was skill categories liek RQ. While many people dislike them and prefer to take them out for simplicity, every version of RQ/BRP that does do, including KAP suffers by having attributes that don't mean as much. Arbitrary check. The same argument could apply to orate, intrigue and courtesy- they should be spending the points. The whole idea of APP as a skill modifier of some sort presupposes that they shouldn't need to. Definitely. There will no doubt be unexpected consequences. Frankly, I don't think the DEX as a base for combat skills will help much if Sword, Lance etc. still start at 10. APP will be more useful as courtly skills tend to have a lower base. But that's just my theory. I don;'t really know what effect raising the base for the courtly skills to around 7-8 will really have. I suspect it will just speed up advancement a little for ladies but not much more than that. But I won't know what it does until I have a player trying to use the rule to his advantage. Me too, but Energetic has been tied to stamina and endurance, and have overlapped with CON and Awareness in some instances. But I think for the most part we can ignore it.

Yes, that was that I thought at first too. But Morien has suggested that Attribute/3 doesn't make APP or DEX all that important. The difference between a 3 and a 6 isn't worth the attribute points. Basically neither skill is worth using except in an emergency and the year or so it saves a character on training isn't worth the the investment in attribute points. You could. I don't think itaht would be a good idea through for three reasons. First off it it would require ,more bookkeeping. Secondly, APP and DEX don't give all that much to the character, so just adding penalties makes those attributes the dump stats again. Lastly, if a loss in DEX or APP accompanies a loss in skill then PKS are encourage to have lower values to age won't hurt them as much. That is how it would work. I don't blame you for being unsure about the rule. I'm unsure too. And yes while it will help a high DEX character geta higher skill with more combat skills it actually will be a downgrade for most PKs. As it stands now all PKS start with Sword, Spear Expertise/Lance and Horsemanship at 10. With the DEX/2 rule, they'd need a 20 to get that.

Check Check, but since you knew you were going to raise your DEX you could have avoided this. It would stay 11. Lose of attributes does not cause a reduction in skill. A character doesn't forget how to use a dagger. Easily fixed by explaining it to him before hand. And honestly the player probably needs a heads up if he is wasting all those glory points on DEX. Nope. He skill would stay the same. I wouldn't do it that way, the aging table is tough enough as it is. KInda, although I didn't really suggest this with Prince Valiant in mind. It's just that every other attribute in KAP in phsyical. Don't forget Energetic. I could see swimming being under either CON or STR, or even both. BTW, why don't you think a skill should be STR based? Just curious. I can see that. Frankly a lot of the borderline cases are a stretch. Just because someone is good looking doesn't mean they can hold a tune, but that would be true of practically all the APP based skills. I'd suggest keeping recognize APP based. For two reason. First off to help make APP useful as the "Courtly Attribute". Secondly if the high APP character is spending more time at court they should be seeing and meeting more people and should be able to recognize more people. It needs testing. I think we need a half dozen of so characters written up with this rule in mind to see how it will look in actual play. Does this make APP 20 or DEX 20 too much of a headstart, or does it cancel out wit the lower SIZ and CON? I don't know. Who does? But we probably need to try and find out before implementing it. Also I'd be tempted to tie Religion to Spiritual. The idea being that someone who was devout would probably pay more attention to that stuff growing up and know a little more

I agree with Chalkline here. While the hilt helps it isn't required to use the weapon effectively (otherwise it would have had a hilt). Just treat it as a rapier, possibly with slightly lower damage ( 1D6 vs 1D6+1).The whole point of the sword-can was to give fencers a weapon that they could carry with them that used their existing fencing skills. If it used a different skill, then fencers would have no reason to carry the the sword cane. No need to reinvent the wheel.

Yeah, it is a case of just how much can you change the game before it becomes/feels like a different game? I don't thionk there is a objective way to tell. That's why every time there is anew edtion of an RPG some of the fans of a previous edition don't like it and refuse to switch. I saw it with D&D to AD&D, with AD&D to 3E (which is what led to Hackmaster), and with 3.5E to 4E (which is what got Pathfinder started, and caused 5E to come out so soon and prevent the loss of D&D to Piazo). Likewise with RQ there were splits in the fanbase when RQ3 came out, with MRQ, and even now with RQG. So it's something of a gamble, since every change risks alienating a portion of the fanbase, and possibly a decrease in sales. But on the other hand without any change nothing in a game can improve and the rules can stagnate.

Good. Part of the difficulty with female characters is that they have been marginalized in just about every conceivable way in the rules. Now some of that is due to the sources/setting, and some of it due to the focus of playing heroic knights, but the overall effect is that, as it currently stands, women are not worth playing, outside of the occasional warrior woman or magician. It's a tough tightrope to walk though, as we all want to improve them, but we still have the genre constraints. Oh, one other advatage of defaulting skills to an attribute in some way is that female characters will now get a default with weapon skills as well. Which could help those characters.

It's less work. All that chancges would be your starting value. Instead of a (3) or a (7) or a (10) you'd start at APP/2. If your APP chanceg, your ceiling would go up, but that would be as complex as I'd make it. I don't think so. Yes, social skills will improve for high APP characters, but since it takes 2 points of APP to improve courtly skills by 1 point, I don't think it is any easier. Yes someone who starts with a 20 APP will also start with 10 in all their courtly skills, but that will come at the expense of other attributes. Plus a 10 skill isn't all that great. So the character will still need to spend a couple of years/picks to get skills up to 15. About the only point where I think it could become a problem is with ultra high APP, but even then the glory used to boost APP up to say 30 is glory that would have been more effective elsewhere (like boosting Intrigue from 15-20 or 20-25). But, since we are in the R&D stage, can somebody "break" this? Try writing up a Knight of Lady with this rule and see how far you can push the envelope. Try a half fae character and max out APP and see how far you can exploit this in chargen. I suspect that for a knight you can write up a social beast who is a paper tiger in combat. A lady would be somewhat more dangerous, I think, but that was what we were aiming for. I'll admit I'm a bit concerned that lady characters only need one attribute (APP), but that's true without this rule. BTW, I really wish CON would factor into their childbirth rolls. Something like if a woman "dies' in childbirth she gets a CON roll to survive a mortal wound. As the game stands now SIZ, DEX, STR and CON have no value to a lady character. But, back to the point, try to break this and see how bad it actually is/. Maybe APP/2 is too much and we need APP/3? Maybe it works just fine. Let's try to abuse the idea and find out.

Oh, and just to throw in another idea we could have APP an/or DEX factor into the training and practice. For example if APP is 15-24 courtly skills get 2 points per point spent, if 25-34 3 for 1 and if 35+ then 4 for 1. Likewise if APP is below 5 then it take 2 points to improve by 1. THat would make it much easier to get a skill up to 15 with a high attribute.

Yes. Although APP will still be useful later in play as players won't usually be able to or not necessarily want to raise all of their courtly skills above the default. For instacne if a Lady has a 20 APP he default scores would be a 10, so she would probably better better off concentrating on one or two skills skills like Courtesy and Intrigue and rely on the default for most of the others until she getsthe first two up to a point where she is happy with them. Say 15 or even 20. Then maybe years later she might look at Orate or Compose.And, if she should happen to have raised her APP by then, so much the better for he default skills. Well as envisioned, the default just replaces the value in parentheses next to skills. No more no less. So by itself it does't change anything. Now if we wanted to increase the training cap too we could, but that would make APP so important to courtly skills as to be the dominant factor..You could wind up at a point where someone's floor is above another's ceiling (i.e APP 20 vs APP 5). Yes, plus even when the mess up they look good doing it. In some ways it can even make them seem more charming as a sort of minor flaw that prevents them from being obnoxious.

Yes but a 6 is possible in chargen. But it does seem to be very rare. It's a close as we can get. And the Guievere/Ygrain effect doesn't really factor into this. They are the only two women who get that in KAP and are said to be the most beautiful women period. So therer is more going on there than just Presence 6. It's used for anything that isn't physical/Brawn. The problem with converting Presence is that KAP has no attribute to handle intelligence, or personal magnetism, or such. APP and some traits are all we have. If we had INT and POW the conversion would be easier, but as it stands all we really have to go on is APP, some traits (liek Prudent) and Awareness. PV also makes Presence and mental abilities important like physical ones. It's one of the stylistic differences between the two games, and a hurdle in conversion. Yes, and that makes sense, too. Although I'm not sure about the Brawn 15 "Dragon" in conversion. But in KAP that Brawn would also include the "Dragon" fighting skills and natural armor. Plus the monster is several times the SIZ of Val's horse, so probably SIZ 50+. I'd probably use the LArge Cocodile from RQ3 for a baseline. SIZ 50, DEX 7, STR 50, CON 29, Armor 24, Damage 10d6, Move 6, Bite 10, Tail 6. Probably not. No one in the PV game has a value above 6. And Gawain only has a 5 in Arms. So it look like my second scale should probably apply. One thing we have to accept is that due to the differences between the games any conversion system is only going to take up so far, and after a point the GM is just going to have to make some judgment calls. Thats true with any conversion, but especially true with one RPG based half of it's die rolls around an attribute that the other lacks.

Yeah, and it makes it a bit harder to stat up characters too. Not so much between PV and KAP but within PV depending on if a GM uses the optional rule or not. One interesting thing is that by converting and using the average of the KAP stats it actually takes about 9-12K glory to get a +1 to Brawn in PV, but raising APP enough for a +1 would only require about 3000 Points so it average out to around 6-7.6K per +1. Presence is more useful that APP though. Come to think of it, PV might be a good palce to look to try and find ways to make APP and ladies more significant in KAP. The only stat in KAP that correspond to Presence is PV is APP, although DEX could become the Dexterity and Agility skills in PV. I doubt culture would make much of a difference. Most PKs would probably covert over as Brawn 4/ Presence 2. Especially once you average out 3 or 4 (with DEX) attributes to get Brawn. Yes, Saxons are bigger and stronger by culture, but in play since PKs are spending points as they see fit they either compensate for their weaknesses or double down on their strengths, so I think the conversion process should handle that okay. For a test case a Saxon PK with SIZ 20, DEX 10, STR 13, CON 12, APP 8 would probably come out as 4/2 based on APP and the average the other 4 (or even 3 if you make DEX skills) attributes. Me too. It is a rough conversion. While it mostly works, I'm sure there will be cases that need to be fine tuned a bit here and there due to the differences between the games. Especially with very experienced characters. PV sort of caps things at 6 while KAP is more open ended. So someone with Sword 25 and Sword 35 would be very different in KAP, but both would have a 6 skill in PV -- unless we raised the 6 cap. Maybe we could adapt the specific Brawn and Presence rules for skills? That way someone with a really high skill in one weapon could note it in their skill description Like Arms 2 (Excellent Swordsman) and get a bonus coin or two when applicable. Or we could use a different conversion factor. Something like: 1= 3 (1-3) 2= 6 (4-8) 3= 11 (9-14) 4=18 (15-22) 5=27 (23-32) 6=38 (33-44) This would push out the upper up of the stat and skill range, and allow easier conversion of KAP monsters, like so: 7= 51 (45-58) 8=66 (59-74) 9=83 (75-92) 10-102 (93-112)

I agree a lot of the rules in KAP deliberately favor the knight, increasing and advantage they had (like +5/-5 for mounted) or minimizing things that would work against them (Pike formations). Of course historically the sword was actually a secondary weapon, but this is Pendragon. But spear does neet some sort of upgrade. Only dagger is worse. That could help. As I mentioned with the data, shields and half sword technique seem to cancel out most of the 2H spear advantage, and 1H spears don't do as well . Good because we'd disagree. IMO the breakage ability more than offsets any advatage the other weapons have. In all my years of playing kAP I've never seen a player get though a battle with an axe, mace or such without breaking it. Yup. In fact one of the tactics used in the simulation was for an armored opponent to just rush in and take the hit, as most attacks wouldn't get through the shield, let alone any armor. I'd rather keep the break on a fumble and go to dropped on a tie (sword excepted) the main reason is that if you take two combatants, both highly skilled, the swordsman is going to win just because of the increased number of ties, and broken weapons. If Sword 30 goes up against anything but a Sword (or Greatsword) 30, then there will be a broken weapon 55% of the time. Not a bad houserule, but a major chance in how things are handled. Me either, but I do thing they should get something. Plus in a real fight they would just stab people at a distance with the lance/spear instead of closing in with the sword. But I can see lance being sperate becuase it it a lot harder to use one than to use a spear, and footmen shouldn't be good lancers by default. RQ has rule where combat skills from horseback are capped by ther Ride skill, but I can see why Greg didn't do that in Pendragon- it would negate most of the height bonus from being mounted. Spear Expertise covers that. Not really. The line between knife and sword is a very blurry one. The Gladius wasn't used to chop as much as to thrust. It's basically used like an improved 1H spear. From what I've read and see the real advatage was when used with the Large Shield. It could be used from behind the shield without exposing oneself the way they would have to with a swining weapon. Plus they could get about three attack s to one from an arming sword. All true, I wish Greg hadn't made the dagger the default Roman weapon in KAP4, at least not without some sort of compensation in formation fighting. How about if dagger defaulted to DEX now the way grappling and brawling do? So the character would lose a die of damage, but have a backup weapon that they will be reasonalby competent with on little to no training. The misercord and other specially "cous de gras" type daggers could be special weapons that get introduced in the Later Periods (after Plate). I was thinking they would have a penalty to use in combat, and so mostly be used to finish off defeated opponents rather than as a fighting weapon.

Yeah so Guinevere would have a default of 20 in all her courtly skills. Which is high, but a lot lower than the +25 she would get with the +1 per point over 15 rule. I suspect it really is less a case of her being that much better due to APP and more a case of people letting stuff like using the wrong fork slide because she is a babe.

Well, to go somewhat with Morien's original idea, and to keep the bookkeeping simple, I was thinking that the Attribute could just set the default. So if someone had APP 13 and a default of 6 and raised their APP to 14 their default of 7 would go up but their Courtesy of 15 would not. This does limit the benefits of APP a bit, but not to the point where APP Is only useful during chargen, since not all skills will be raised higher than the new default. Fort example a lady with APP 20 would, if using APP/2 have a default of 10 in all her courtly skills which would be about 3-5 points better than if we used the APP>16 or (APP-11)/2 rules. And those defaults would allow her to focus on one or two courtly skills to get them to 15. Okay how about this for a start? Skills by Attribute Table APP based Skills: Compose, Courtesy, Flirting, Folk Lore, Intrigue, Orate, Recognize, Romance Borderline Cases: Dancing, Faerie Lore, First Aid, Gaming, Heraldry, Play ( ), Read ( ) 0, Recognize , Religion ( ) Singing, Stewardship, Tourney CON based Borderline Cases: Awareness, Hunting DEX based Skills: Boating, Dancing, Swimming, all Combat Skills Borderline Cases: Dancing No Attribute Skills: Falconry, First Aid, Heraldry, Hunting, Play ( ), Read ( ) 0, Recognize , Religion ( ) Singing, Stewardship, Tourney Borderline Cases: Compose, Faerie Lore, Gaming, Heraldry, Play ( ), Read ( ) 0, Recognize , Religion ( ) Singing, Stewardship, Tourney Borderline Cases are those where there is a case for the skill to be covered under a different attribute or where the attribute's claim on the skill are tenuous. To reflect cultural preferences we could give each culture some bonuses to certain skills.

Yup, plus it would be easy to keep those bonus later, when the stats go up. If you know the default value is stat/2 then you know that upping DEX from 11 to 12 will raise any weapon skills up to 6, and a Lady who improves her APP from 15 to 16 would improve all her default courtly skills, letting her focus on a couple and relying on the default for others. A couple of skills might be hard to classify to a attribute, due to the lack of INT, but a flat default of 5 could work, as could just listing them in the cultural mods. I'll do up a list and we can see how it looks.

Here is a rough conversion to get the ball rolling. Attributes: I was thinking that Brawn would cover STR, DEX, CON and SIZ with Presence covering APP. At a 3.5 ratio from KAP to PV, to make a PV3= a KAP 10.5 (rounded to 11), plus an extra 3 points for SIZ. Maybe modified for the description (so someone notes as being agile would get a bonus to DEX over the other stats). So: 1= 4, 2= 7, 3=11, 4= 14, 5=18, 6=21 with SIZ being 3 points higher, and all that capped by cultural limits, and modified by culture. Skills: could be on the same scale. AGILITY and DEXTERITY should probably influence the DEX stat too. Fame: In KAP5 Fame and Glory seem to be on the same scale, that wasn't quite the same in KAP4, but in KAP5 Glory seems to have gone up a bit. I'd also considering add 1 to the max for skill scores per 10,000 glory to reflect the higher skills possible in the advanced game plus the effect of Glory points in KAP. Traits: KAP traits would start at the base values modified by culture and religion. If a character has a trait in PV that equate to a KAP trait or passion then it would equal a trait of 16 in Pendragon. A doubled trait wqould equal a value of 19 or 20 in Pendragon. I think that would cover most things and give us a starting point. Look at Val.s stats he looks okay, but as his combat skills all max out at 5 , which would be a 18, but a +4 for 47K glory would bring that to 22, which I think fits for a Round Table knight with 47,000 glory.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I did sort of crunch the numbers on Lindybeige's tests. I assumed equally but moderate skilled (10) combatants, which frankly doesn't match with what he said (the had no spear experience), and I also doubt that even the experienced re-enactors are all that experienced with swords compared to actual soldiers who wielded them in battle but based on the test results and equal skill (10) I came up with: Match Results Modifier 1 H Weapons vs. Spears 3 vs. 9 -5/+5 Sword & Buckler vs. Spears 2 vs. 4 -3/+3 Longswords vs. Spears 2 vs. 4 -3/+3 Greatswords vs. Spears 0 vs 4 -10/+10 Half-Swords vs. Spears 3 vs. 3 0/0 Sword & Shield vs. Spears 6 vs 7 -1/+1 Sword & Shield vs. Spears & Shield 6 vs 0 +10/-10 Now a few of things to note: This assumes equal skill (10 for both combatants, where as according to Lindybeige the swordsmen were experienced with swords while the spearmen were not, so the bonus might be greater. The sample size on most of these tests are so small that the confidence level is of the results is very low, under 25% for the first example, and it drops from there. That's significantly lower than the confidence level of a political candidate following through on a campaign promise. So take these results with all the salt you can afford. A shield really changes things, as does half-swording. So in play a lot of this would equal out.

It is set in Arthurian Brtian. It's a different take than the one Greg went with in KAP but they are similar enough for both to have an Arthurian setting. Yeah, Val travels all over, but that all fair game for KAP. Last session my PKs got caught in a strom at sea, and I was thinking a lot about Val's trip to America, and wished I had done the same to my PKs. You're preaching to the choir. I started my current campaign in 410 AD, and SIRES will be an invaluable aid for establishing a timeline from 439-480. Now while most of the big events were available from the timeline in KAP5, Saxons!, Pagan Shore ,other supplements, the HRB, and other soruces, SIRES, much of the information is contradictory, and SIRES really helps in establishing an "official" version of things. I could do a conversion sheet. It wouldn't be all that hard. The only tough bit would be to account for the ultra high scores possible for experienced characters in KAP, but glory could help there. Naturally, as KAP tracks more stats a lot of stuff would need to be dropped or added in the conversion process, but the default scores would work there.

I as thinking in terms of the base chances for other stuff. But then I'm tempted to ditch the begging skill values in parenthesis and go with something like DEX/2 and APP/2 for most skills, with a couple of bonuses to some skills. If you look at the tables most skills start at around 3 points +/- a point or two. Yeah, it would need to get a modifier in combat, like a -5 , or maybe -2/+2 reflexive vs longer weapons both to to balance it out, and to reflect the difficulty in hitting the right spot. If double feint still existed (why Btw I'm working on trying to fix), it could have just gotten a bonus towards that. Yeah. It needs something and that would help. Plus most peasants lack the discipline to hold formation so it would help them much. That would also help with the Romans, as elite units wouldn't need weapon skills in the 20-25 range, but could be just as effective with skills in the same 15-20 range as the other elites, but with a formation bonus.

No, but feel free to start one. Daggers and Spears could use a little love. The problem is a 1H spear doesn't have a reach advantage, becuase you generally have to choke up on the grip. A 2H spear would. I was watching some reenactments on youtube, one in particular by Lindybeige where he ran dozens of spear vs sword tests and based on his results (which are only one sample, but most of the other experienced reenact ors no youtube seem to have a similar option): 2H Spear vs Sword is a big advantage for the spear- the spear won every match, and this was with reenactors who spent little time with a spear and some time with a sword.. is much more even. In fact the advantage shifted to the sword, since the swordsman could use his shield to push the spear out of the way while stepping in to finish the job. Formation fighting that is a group of guys with 1H Spear & Shield vs another group with Sword and Shield favored the spearmen again, as the spearmen could cover each over and help each other out. I did up some tables with reflexive modifiers that seemed to fit with the sample data, but am hesitant to use it in play, as it would tend to favor footmen with greatspears over mounted knights with swords. So like the longbow, schiltron, Swiss pikemen, and firearms it is probably best glossed over and ignored until the last few years of the campaign. I can did it up and post it. The modifiers are significant, based on the data, and that's assuming that the sowrdmen and spearmen were equally skilled, when in fact the swordmen were more skiled (so the modifiers would be higher) . One big problem IMO is the sword breaking non-swords on a tie. It's fine normally, but since a critical =20 then a Swordman with a 25 skill fighting someone with a non-sword with a 25 skill means a lot more broken weapons, as all those critical become ties and broken weapons. I'd do something similar but probably only increase the normal shield bonus (-5) up to -7 as there is only a partial overlap of shields and coverage.

Guilty as charged. That's probably part of it.. The game is so simple and easy to grasp, that there is little to be confused about. Greg really did a great job of streamlining and simplifying an RPG down to something non-gamers could pick up in a game session, yet the game is still a full rich complete game. It was a minimalist RPG that was still more comprehensive and capable that most minimalist RPGs today,. And that was over 20 years ago. The other thing it has that probably cuts down on the PV chatter is that it covers the same ground as Pendragon, and anyone who like PV will probably love Pendragon. Most of my players would rather play a Pendragon Campaign than a Prince Valiant Campaign. I've ported PV adventures over to KAP and vice versa though. Maybe a character conversion sheet from one to the other would help. A lot of adventures could be statted to work for both games.

It wasn't, and that is the crux of out disagrement. Standard chargen in 5.2 isn't substainlly differernt that KAP4. And Yes, Green Knight's three improvements per Winter Phase was overpowered, mostly because it meant a PK could increase multiple attributes each year, and still train. Ah, I was using K&L because it contained the Random Method. My players have been playeing KAP since KAP1, and back then the Radom method was the norm. Yes, the 60 point option for attributes was there, but trains and passions were all random. In KAP3, we disliked the simplified chargen and went with the "full" chargen from Knight Adventurous, and this, with some minor adjustments, was the same method used in KAP4. But K&L added a lot more modifiers, and a lot more ways for PKs to adjust their stats. Now I read some posts on the Nocturnal forums where Greg mentioned that the Individual choices were supposed to stack with the random method (they didn't in KAP4), despite it being worded that way in K&L. In K&L a PK gets to change and one trait to 16 and has 9 points to shift the values around with. In older edtions of KAP he just got 6 points to play with. The "change one trait to 16" was really supposed to be something to differntiate those characters who took the default values from each other. But in K&L it leads to the PKs all being paragons of virtue. I though you just did that for LOTR, not that it was a KAP houserule. But even so, it's not how it works in the RAW. If the RAW started off with 10 in all combat skills, then a lot of those bonuses wouldn't be so huge. I've considered weapons defaulting to DEX/3, or DEX/2. Yes it needs something. So does Spear. I was thinking that since knights used to use poignard and other such daggers to thrust through the gaps in armor and finish opponents off, maybe daggers could ignore half of an opponent's armor protection. That would be worth losing the damage die for. Spear needs something too. I was thinking of maybe adding in a shield wall, with a bonus of some kind (say 1.5 times shield protection and/or cover for the over lapping shields). Spears (and Galdii) could be used to fight in that formation without breaking it up, whereas most other weapons require more room.

Yeah but the brother wouldn't get 1/10th of the Glory of the previous character. The lack of a desire to wed could simply be to lack of experience with Pendragon, or the familiarity with Pathfinder. In most RPGs the passage of time is a lot slower, and someone who writes up a 21 year old knight in those games might expect it to take years of real time before the character is old enough to retire or the son ready to take over. So another 21 years might take 4-5 years of real time in a D&D or Pathfinder game. The players might be expecting something similar in Pendragon, and not realize that 21 years will go by in around 5 months. Most of my PKs really didn't get it until after the first campaign, where only a couple of characters managed to get landed and secure a family line early on, and it gave them a huge advantage later on when they could pass down glory, land, and possessions while the other PKS had to basically start over from scratch. By the middle of the campaign, securing an heir became a major concern. If you want the PKs to focus on getting married, teach them by example, have a non player knight with some land, and maybe a superior horse and armor, die without issue, and watch as the land and cool stuff escheat back to the liege lord, and how some other knight winds up with the manor. Then show another knight who has an heir and how everything passed down to him.

Well the only official reason is the wording in the rulebook. That said, there are some examples in previous editions where the inspiration modifier was applied to attributes, such as the Berserk using it to boost his SIZ. So I think most of us would allow it.