Atgxtg

Which one of the 47 species of African Swallows are you inquiring about, and is it unladed or carrying a coconut? Also to calculate airspeed velocity we'd need to know what the wind speed and vector was, so we can adjust the ground speed of the Swallow accordingly.

Thanks! So now we know how big they are.

The new KAP5 British Christians do. The older Roman ones, not so much. I don't know if it is an "unfair" advantage Is it fair that "good" knights get an extra 3 points or armor or that those who are virtuous according to their faith get other bonuses? I think the basic idea is that it reflects the literature, and that Chivalry is more of an ideal than an actual way of life, so most knights should be found somewhat lacking. A British Pagan character from Salisbury with a starting total of 74, is only 3 points behind and can get the bonus just as easily, thanks to the bump. Well, the 80 was, according to Greg, an error, not a failure. Just one that he never caught until recently. That makes sense too, since values for starting knights have generally increased with newer editions.

Because I misread his post, not by design.

NO almost about it. Christian PKs from Salisbury generated using K&L start with 77 points towards the Chivalry bonus, can bump one trait up to 16, and have 6 discretionary points. So they can get the Chivlary Bonus in Chargen if they want it. And without going to great extremes in traits either. And I think that's what tipped Greg off to the 96 vs. 80 after all these years. They did just that on the form fillable PK sheets. So 96 is , apparently the new "official" value. Based on the post that Greg made that raised the threshold to 96, I think that pretty much what he had in mind. I just don't know if he worked something out. Greg was working on lesser bonuses that wouldn't be "Chivalrous" but work out as some lesser bonus. I just don;t know if he had it worked out and passed it on. Why increase the bonus to +4? I think what Greg was working on, based on his post, was probably something like: 80= +1, 10-25 glory/year 98 = +2, 25-50 glory/year 96= +3, 100 glory/year Only that the lesser bonuses weren't going to be called Chivalry, and that there might be new bonus from other traits. He might have had something similar in the works for the religious bonuses too. It's not one player nor is it unfair. It's simply a case of the Chivalry bonus being much more easily obtainable in KAP5+, especially when using Knight & Ladies than was intended or was the case in the past, due to all the trait modifiers.

Thanks. So STR 8-9, SIZ 11. Yeah, that would work. Enough STR to use a bow or lance.

+20%, what's the height advantage in RQG? I don't think handedness would be worth more than that.

That's only partially true. Pretty much every official KAP scenario had some mandatory trait and passion tests ,or at least ones that were mandatory to succeed at the adventures. Yes, but in a lot of ways that's just icing on the cake. Virtuous traits are not supposed to be treated as something the GM uses to destroy PK. People who are playing valorous knights or chaste ones, etc. expect to face such challenges, and in a way look forward to them, as they show that their character is indeed brave, chaste or whatever. Many such challenges have rewards for succeeding too. In my current campaign, one PK, with a high Proud nearly got into hot water with the Countess. He was a master Falconer and helped her recover a lost falcon, and she had noticed his ineptitude in finding a wife (he repeatedly failed his courtesy rolls to find a match, every year) and offered to help him. But he had to deal with his Pride when she pointed out he was lacking in the social graces. He could easily have taken offense and lost out on her help, and most likely insult her in the process, as he probably would have failed the courtesy roll required to decline her help gracefully. So a potential chance for help could easily have turned into a PK alienating his liege lord's wife, and having to deal with the consequences. But, the point of this thread is about the change in the required total for the Chivalry bonus. I for one, think that one of the reasons for the change might just be that the old 80 point requirement is very easy for characters to get in KAP5+, especially the "standard" characters from Salisbury if using the Book of Knights & Ladies, where starting characters could begin only a couple of points shy of 80. Yes, having high traits will lead to challenges, but the armor of honor, extra annual glory, and the social benefits of being "chivalrous" will be worth it. For instance, take a look at the old Tournament of Dreams adventure.A Knight with 16 in all his Chivalrous traits is going to have a distinct advantage in that adventure pretty much in every encounter. While there are some trait tests in the adventure, a high value in a chivalric trait helps the knights, not hinder them.

Thanks! Looking it up, it seems it dates back to the late 1400s, so late Middle Ages. I usually give the height advantage to someone who is above on a stairwell. I still have doubts about the reversed staircase being any better though, or if it made enough of a difference to matter in RQ combat. I wonder if there should be a left handed vs. right handed bonus in RQ? Or, maybe there is one already, and it's been factored into Dragonewt stat, since everyone else appears to be right handed?

That works on multiple levels. First off being left handed he would have disrupted the phalanx, because his spear and shield would have been on the wrong sides to link up with the others. Also, the left hand side was called the Sinister side, which is where that word get associated with evil, misfortune, and something being wrong. So the left handed one who betrays his fellows fits right in with all of that. Interesting. Not sure how good that would actually be though. While it would help the left handed defenders, it would also help right handed attackers. Seems like a zero sum thing. Do you know the name of the castle?

Yeah, and interesting enough, slashing blades like that seem to have better hand protection, than thrusting swords.

We all do. But I think we realize that the "economics:" of such games don't hold up. Players would somehow have to carry around tons of gold to buy the magical items available, and then the merchants would somehow need to find a place to store it, or a way to get it to someplace safe. It can be quite relevant, depending on the game and just how rich the players are. For example, in D&D, where gold is common, but people can get buy on silver and copper, subsidence level economics isn't relevant. Gold in D&D is really used mostly to buy better magical gear, and living conditions aren't an issue. But, in a game like Pendragon or Harn, with a more medieval economy, where the coins don't flow as freely, then subsistence level economics might be quite relevant. In Pendragon, magic is so rare and precious to be unavailable for purchase, and one gold coin (£1) is about how much it takers to feed a peasant family for a year, or a few guards. It's also about the amount of discretionary funds a landed knight has each year. So yeah, subsistence level economies can be quite relevant, if the game is using a historical economy where subsistence wasn't e automatic. It's why the price of a common sword becomes a non-issue in D&D after a certain point, but is still a tidy sum in some other RPGS.

, I wonder what trait to roll for Patient? Ah well, at least we know it's still on the way. I just hope there nothing in SIRES that will cause any major problems from my 410 AD campaign. I doubt things can get too far out of whack as long as I stick to the scripted timeline for the births, change of kingships and such. Put your cursor in between the sections you want to break and do two carriage returns. That should divide the quote into two sections, like I just did with your quote.

I agree. If, say, 10% of the population is left handed then there is a 10% chance of an opponent being left handed, regardless of what hand you fight with. But... one thing here is that most people were trained to use their right hand, so even left handed swordsmen probably fought "rightie". It would have been frowned upon in a lot of older societies. Even unclean. For something like formation fighting or jousting using the left hand would have been unacceptable. In fact, up to fairly recently they used to try and "correct" left handed people to use their right hand. And there was an incident with a priest a few years back who got into trouble at a new church for passing the collection plate with his left hand. In the country where he was sent to the left hand is used for the dirty tasks, and using it to pass the plate was viewed as being disrespectful. .

It might be. The under 4'11" bit matches with Earth "Pygmies". The 2D4+3 was for them. Part of the problem here is that one the one hand people probably want some variation when generating characters, let on the other hand the SIZ table get's condencsed at the low end. SO you want someone to be small, but you don''t want them ending up smaller than a housecat. We could alter the 2D4+3 to 2D3+4 or even 1D6+4 or something similar. If we apply the cube-square rule for the Errinoru we'd probably end up with a weight of around 25 pounds, or SIZ 3 ish. But I'd suspect we might end up with stats closer to the RQ3 Halfling, namely STR 2D6 and SIZ 2D3.

Generally people didn't risk damaging their expensive swords with a parry. That's what shields were for. You don't really start to see swords used to parry on Earth until well after the Viking age.

So we might be able to assume that they are a littel faster, but tire qy\uicker. That suggests multiple mounts and skirmishing tactics. So that's about one-third of their own mass, about the same as for a warhorse. And that's about SIZ 8 per RQ3/CoC SIZ. The 20% was one of the official guidelines for calvary horses in the 19th century, and what many horse people say is the upper limit for daily riding. Some say it should be 10-15% but most information supports the 20% for a calvary mount. Now, if you assume a 14-15 hands high horse of about 1000 pounds (say SIZ 34) you get about 200 pounds (about SIZ 15) for rider and gear. That seems decent for calvary horses. Most soldiers would probably weigh less than SIZ 15, and so they would have a little weight left over for gear. I'll accept that. It provide more support for their using skirmishing tactics and" hit & run" style attacks, where they can take advantage of their greater mobility and minimize their weaknesses. Yes, grain fed ostriches would probably get bigger, and selective breeding could make them stronger. Using hoses as an example, we could probably expect about a 6 point increase in STR and SIZ for such animals over time. And yes, Praxian ones, could have some in world justification for better speed/endurance than their terrestrial counterparts. But the same could be true for their riders. It might be that Ostrich riders are small but strong for their SIZ. In fact, considering how horse nomadic cultures developed, it seems quite likely. With RQ rules, as long as the riders are strong enough to use a bow or hold a spear (about STR 9) then they should be able to be effective with a lance charge or as mounted archers. Considering the higher speed and lower stamina compared to horses, I'd suspect that Ostrich riders probably have a string of mounts, similar to horse nomads, and probably take advantage of their speed to fight in "hit & run" raids. MAybre lance charge when it's sound, and bows otherwise.

Where? Did you check it for ostriches with with riders? And did you check for how long they can do so? The world record for a horse is 88kph, which is a lot faster than 48kph, and faster than an Ostrich. But it is a sprint. Cheetahs can sprint faster than a horse, but they aren't as fast over any kind of distance. Looking at the video you provided that "race track" is awfully small, and those birds aren't going anywhere near 70kph. I have serious doubts that a 150kg (SIZ 20ish) bird is going to be able to carry a full sized man for very long. Warhorses get limited use, and can carry about 30% of thier weight, so a 150kg bird would probably be limited to about 45kg (SIZ 7) rider if battle. If the bird was supposed to carry someone around all day, like a rider horse, then the rider would be limited to about 20% of the mounts weight. To be a reliable mount and main means of transportation for a people, and nor just a sport, then the animal must either be able to carry a rider all day, or that a string of such animals can do so. Real world math indicates that a horse can carry about 20% of it's weight all day (although Less is better), and about 30% of it's weight for shorter durations (such as a warhorse). Now does your research shows that Ostrich can carry more weight for a longer time than a horse? With a rider? Nor are they going anywhere need 70kph, or riding for any length of time.

Yeah probably closer to "provide for a family". KInda. In most cases it's not really payment in cash money, but instead the value of goods and food. So someone who gets ahead probably has an extra chicken or two. True, but that's probably more due to the limited focus of most RPG campaigns. Most GMs tend to run games of murder hobos wandering from place to place, killing monsters, and spending treasure looted from their enemies to upgrade their equipment. But, if a GM is running a setting where the PCs have to interact with society in any way, then the ramifications of wealth become important, since the PCs sending money can have a great impact on a local merchant or even a local economy.

I don't think there are any official ones anywhere, yet. By height and weight (under 100 pounds) they would come in at lower than SIZ 8 in RQ3 and possibly in RQG. RQ3 touched a little on Earth cultures, but not much (we got Vikings and Saxons). Pendragon gives us more to go on, but isn't actually RQ, gives somewhat different stats for Vikings than RQ, and uses a different SIZ table. However, if we go with average SIZ in KAP5 and RQ we probably would end up in the right ballpark. I doubt the numbers would diverge by more than a point or two. Britons, Romans SIZ 14.5 (average in Knights & Ladies, but because KAP uses a different SIZ formula that work out to closer to SIZ13 In RQ3 ) Saxon, Dane SIZ 17.5 (SIZ 15 in RQ3 Vikings, which is about right for KAP to RQ3 SIZ) German, Spanish, Italians (Otrogoths) SIZ 16.5 (probably about SIZ 14 in RQ) Huns 12.5 (probably about SIZ 10 in RQ) Picts 11.5 (probably about SIZ 8.5 in RQ) So we could probably assume Pygmies are as small or slightly smaller than Picts, so maybe 2D4+3 or so for SIZ? Now in real life muscle mass is somewhat linked to overall mass. Or, basically you ca'tn have 100 pounds of muscle if you only weight 70 pounds. It's a square cube relationship between strength and mass, which would be about a two-thirds relationship in RQ and related games. So if Pygmies were about 5 points lighter in SIZ terms than the RQ average man, they would probably average about 3 points lower STR than an average man. So probably about a 2D4+3 STR. Now RQ has species such as Ducks who are smaller and not as strong as humans. SO we could compare these stats to theirs.

Seriously., there will be conflicts, and if one side can't put up enough resistance to make warfare unappealing then they wouldn't have lasted. So all the mounts must have practical vluae relative to each other to continue. Exactly, which points to a method of combat where the rider's SIZ isn't as much of an issue. I could easily see smaller riders being effective in such a role. Although just how effective rhinos would actually be in a charge is also up for debate.

Maybe, but if said mount was completely inferior to the other mounts you wouldn't last long in a war.

Good Luck with it. It could be quite a project.

Well, the Book of Sires is supposed to do something similar with Pendragon. I think something along those lines could work for Glorantha-at least for a particular region, say Dragon Pass, and for a certain number of years, maybe a century or two. In some ways it could be easier in Glorantha, because the calender and date for given events more firmly established, and there is less contraction among the sources. It would be a project though. And even if someone did start earlier, there'd be little support material to help them. All the older RQ stuff only goes back about a decade in Gloranthan time. So if a GM pushes the clock back by 20 years, he won't have much to help him work up adventures.

No they're not. Horse and ostriches speeds are comparable. Especially since the best speeds for Ostriches don't include riders, while best speeds for horses generally do. So I wouldn't assume a speed or mobility advantage for the Ostrich riders.