BK&L Modifiers to Standard & Random Traits

[creativehum]

On page 46 of the Book of Knights & Ladies it says in section D. that Traits created by the Standard or Random methods are altered by the listed Regional Trait Modifiers.

However, I think I saw someone mentioned in a thread once that Greg altered that, deciding that the Regional Trait Modifiers should only be applied to either the Standard Method or the the Random Method. But I cannot find that post again.

Did Greg make such a correction? And if he did, which method is supposed to use the Regional Trait Modifiers?

Thanks!

[Atgxtg]

38 minutes ago, creativehum said:

On page 46 of the Book of Knights & Ladies it says in section D. that Traits created by the Standard or Random methods are altered by the listed Regional Trait Modifiers.

However, I think I saw someone mentioned in a thread once that Greg altered that, deciding that the Regional Trait Modifiers should only be applied to either the Standard Method or the the Random Method. But I cannot find that post again.

Did Greg make such a correction? And if he did, which method is supposed to use the Regional Trait Modifiers?

Thanks!

I think, I'm the guy who posted that, and it wasn't the regional modifiers but the individual differences that shouldn't apply to the random method. It's doubel dipping.  With the standard method raising a trait to a16 and spending 6 points allows the players to individualize their knights' personalities. But if combined with the random method it's overkill, and player that rolls his traits, adjusts them by 3 points,  raises one trait to a 16 and then add 6 more points gets too much, and can start with one or more of the religious or chivalry bonuses (old 80+ value) pretty easily. Four 16s are within reach.

However, since playing this way, I have given the PKs a 15 Valorous per KAP 5, and 6 points to adjust with (total). That's pretty much the old (KAP 1-4) random method with a 15 Valorous tossed in to blend with KAP 5..  

The regional modifiers aren't so bad, as they tend to be a +1 to certain specific traits.

 

[creativehum]

Thanks!

[Atgxtg]

Oh, as a further update we rolled up a new PK yesterday and, as written, it's not quite as bad as I first thought. Per K&L page 46, Random character do not get Individual differences, despite section D being labled "D. Modfiers to Standard & Random Traits" indicating otherwise. 

But that leave random character with only 3 trait points to play with and a much lower valor than the standard 15, so something still doesn't seem quite right. So Valor 15 and 3 points or 6 discorinary points seems better to me.

[Username]

We do all of our characters with random generated passions, traits, and attributes. It works really well and makes for great variance in characters. The +3 to religious traits helps keep everyone a "good" guy, but they get excellent flaws or if their lucky, become a paragon of virtue. The extra 3 points at the end are enough to make sure everyone has at least 1 or 2 notable traits. Also, we give everyone +3 to valorous as if it was a religious traits.

However, I find that the Homeland traits make the characters starting traits too high in random generation. Especially Logres. 

Attributes we roll all 5 and let the players assign them.

My biggest issue are the passions are that the +4 is too high. I think it should be 3d6+3. The average is right, but inevitably, someone ends up with a 19 Honor and 20 Loyalty Lord. The 4d6+1 is too swing-y though for Homeland passions 

Edited January 27, 2020 by Username

[Atgxtg]

46 minutes ago, Username said:

We do all of our characters with random generated passions, traits, and attributes. It works really well and makes for great variance in characters. The +3 to religious traits helps keep everyone a "good" guy, but they get excellent flaws or if their lucky, become a paragon of virtue. The extra 3 points at the end are enough to make sure everyone has at least 1 or 2 notable traits. Also, we give everyone +3 to valorous as if it was a religious traits.

+3 valous would help. What was hurting my old group was the 3 points during rolling, plus raising one trait to a 16 and 6 more points later in section D. Dropping the 16 and the 6 points helped, but Valor ended up a bit low. 

 

46 minutes ago, Username said:

However, I find that the Homeland traits make the characters starting traits too high in random generation. Especially Logres. 

It shopuldn't. An extra +1 or +2 shouldn't make that much of a difference.

46 minutes ago, Username said:

Attributes we roll all 5 and let the players assign them.

I assume you roll 3d6+1 and then add 3 more to whatever number is put into SIZ? 

46 minutes ago, Username said:

My biggest issue are the passions are that the +4 is too high. I think it should be 3d6+3. The average is right, but inevitably, someone ends up with a 19 Honor and 20 Loyalty Lord. The 4d6+1 is too swing-y though for Homeland passions 

That seems very unlikely, statistically. To get a 19 is a less than a 5% chance and a 20 is less than a 3% chance. Even with four passions to roll it doesn't seem all that likely. I've never had that happen with starting characters. 

 

Inherited passions, however, can be problematic. I'd advise against allow sons to inherit their father's passions at the same score,or else GMs could see grandsons with starting passions of 20 (or more). The random method of 1d6 per4 points seems better to me, since it means that sons will usually end up with a passion a couple of points lower than their father, as maybe a cap of 20 should apply to that too. 

[Username]

38 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

It shopuldn't. An extra +1 or +2 shouldn't make that much of a difference

It doesn't on an individual level, but when you combine the bonuses with the religious bonuses and the skewing towards the positive (10.5 average roll) across the whole 13 number spread, you end up with a noticably more positive trait value. 

 

42 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

 

40 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I assume you roll 3d6+1 and then add 3 more to whatever number is put into SIZ? 

You got it. Plus the cultural stat bonuses

43 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

That seems very unlikely, statistically. To get a 19 is a less than a 5% chance and a 20 is less than a 3% chance. Even with four passions to roll it doesn't seem all that likely. I've never had that happen with starting characters. 

I was exaggerating, but I have routinely had characters with multiple higher than the minimum of notable passions. The chance of a 19 or higher is 9.26% on a single roll. Over 4 rolls you have a 33.21% chance of getting a 19 or higher. If you look at the if you are looking at 18 or higher than you have over a 50% chance over 4 rolls. The passions just skew high. It's not awful, but it's still too much.

It probably would be better to do something like 2d6+8 

55 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Inherited passions, however, can be problematic. I'd advise against allow sons to inherit their father's passions at the same score,or else GMs could see grandsons with starting passions of 20 (or more). The random method of 1d6 per4 points seems better to me, since it means that sons will usually end up with a passion a couple of points lower than their father, as maybe a cap of 20 should apply to that too. 

I make it a random roll based upon the mean roll. I skew towards bonuses (+3 or etc.) To keep the passions inline with the father, but there's a considerable variance. I usually tweak the roll to skew a little low. That way on average, the players will see the passion diminish over generations.

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, Username said:

It doesn't on an individual level, but when you combine the bonuses with the religious bonuses and the skewing towards the positive (10.5 average roll) across the whole 13 number spread, you end up with a noticably more positive trait value. 

Yes but it is intentional. Basically the knights of Logres are the cream of chilvary and the closest to Arthur. 

4 hours ago, Username said:

You got it. Plus the cultural stat bonuses

It works. I wouldn't do that though. In KAP there is really very little incentive not to put the best stats into SIZ, CON and then STR.. 

4 hours ago, Username said:

I was exaggerating, but I have routinely had characters with multiple higher than the minimum of notable passions. The chance of a 19 or higher is 9.26% on a single roll. Over 4 rolls you have a 33.21% chance of getting a 19 or higher. If you look at the if you are looking at 18 or higher than you have over a 50% chance over 4 rolls. The passions just skew high. It's not awful, but it's still too much.

Sorry but you math is off. The chance of a 19 or higher on a single roll of 3d6+4 is 4.63%. The chance of a 17 or better is 9.26%.

4 hours ago, Username said:

It probably would be better to do something like 2d6+8 

No, it would be worse. The chance of a 19 or higher on 2d6+8 is 5.56%, greater than with 3d6+4.

I plugged the the formulas into anydice 

3d6+4

#	%
7	0.46
8	1.39
9	2.78
10	4.63
11	6.94
12	9.72
13	11.57
14	12.50
15	12.50
16	11.57
17	9.72
18	6.94
19	4.63
20	2.78
21	1.39
22	0.46

output

 

2d6+8

# % 10 2.78

 

11 5.56

 

12 8.33

 

13 11.11

 

14 13.89

 

15 16.67

 

16 13.89

 

17 11.11

 

18 8.33

 

19 5.56

 

20 2.78

 

4 hours ago, Username said:

I make it a random roll based upon the mean roll. I skew towards bonuses (+3 or etc.) To keep the passions inline with the father, but there's a considerable variance. I usually tweak the roll to skew a little low. That way on average, the players will see the passion diminish over generations.

1d6 per 4 points, rounded tot he nearest,  accomplishes the same thing. A 14-17 will end up as 4d6 and that averages 14. Passions below a certain point usually don't factor in much anymore. 

[Username]

16 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Sorry but you math is off. The chance of a 19 or higher on a single roll of 3d6+4 is 4.63%. The chance of a 17 or better is 9.26%.

It isn't though  The numbers you've shown are the chance of each result happening. That is why they add up to 100%. You've stated the percentage chance of rolling a 19 on 3d6+4 or a 15 in 3d6 is the sum of the probability of the result and all greater numbers. Surely no one would complain about getting a 20 instead of a 19.

The chance of rolling a 19 or 15 is 4.63%. Your calculations show as much. The 2d6+8 which has a 19 or 20 as a 8.34% chance. Still probably too high now looking at it, but the point was that removing that third die flattens out the curve resulting in greater likelihood of middle range numbers. 66.67% for the 13-17 range instead of 57.86% for 3d6+4. 

After you showing me the numbers for 2d6+8, I kind of lean to 2d6+7.

16 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

It works. I wouldn't do that though. In KAP there is really very little incentive not to put the best stats into SIZ, CON and then STR.. 

Is that not what people do when they allocate attributes? The book itself recommends it. Do you roll down the line? Do you keep it if the size of the first roll is a 10 or lower? Which should happen on about 10% of characters.

[Atgxtg]

55 minutes ago, Username said:

It isn't though  The numbers you've shown are the chance of each result happening. That is why they add up to 100%. You've stated the percentage chance of rolling a 19 on 3d6+4 or a 15 in 3d6 is the sum of the probability of the result and all greater numbers. Surely no one would complain about getting a 20 instead of a 19.

Opps. Sorry. I checked the wrong box when I printed the result. 

 

55 minutes ago, Username said:

but the point was that removing that third die flattens out the curve resulting in greater likelihood of middle range numbers

Except bell curves work in  the opposite manner. The fewer dice the flatter the curve and thus the lower the chance of results in the middle range. Hence a 2 is more likely to come up on 1d6 than on 2d6. So reducing the number of dice increases the chances of extreme results. With a single die any result is equally likely. 

Increasing the number of dices increases the range of the results, not the chances of the extreme results happening.

 

 

55 minutes ago, Username said:

After you showing me the numbers for 2d6+8, I kind of lean to 2d6+7.

 

55 minutes ago, Username said:

Is that not what people do when they allocate attributes?

No they do not

55 minutes ago, Username said:

 

The book itself recommends it.

and no the book does not  recommend assigning die rolls where you wish. The point of the random method is that it is random.and you have little to no control over the results. That's why it is listed as:

Male Characters: Roll 3d6+4 for SIZ;
Roll 3d6+1 for each other attribute.
Female Characters: Roll 2d6+2 for SIZ and STR;
Roll 3d6+1 for DEX and CON; and
Roll 3d6+5 for APP.

Note that it does not have something like:  it say, roll 3d6+1 for each attribute, assign as desired, add 3 to SIZ and apply cultural modifiers. 

Now you can do it that way, but it not what is recommended and not what most people do. If someone wants to assign their stats they use one of the other methods. 

55 minutes ago, Username said:

Do you roll down the line?

Yes. That is the intention.

55 minutes ago, Username said:

 

Do you keep it if the size of the first roll is a 10 or lower? Which should happen on about 10% of characters.

Yes. Just like we keep the  SIZ if it is 19 or higher. That' is the trade off of using the random method. Keep in mind that the standard method is to assign 60 points. By choosing to roll a player has a chance of getting a superior character at the risk of getting an inferior character. If people want to adjust die rolls and such they are essentially using a variation of the shaped method.

[Call Me Deacon Blues]

Dunno if this is helpful, I use a hybrid method, we roll randomly, but if they roll really poorly, I'll give them the difference between what they rolled and 60 in points to spend. They will have less in raw points than the ones who lucked out and got super high, but they have more control over where those points go and can therefore spend them more wisely. In my current game, my sister only had like, 56 points after she rolled, and my friend had like, 65, but that was because he rolled a really high APP, she was able to invest in SIZ, STR, and CON and is the best at combat by a pretty wide margin.

[Username]

12 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

No they do not

Sorry, I thought it was clear about making SIZ and STR the highest which is the quote I used from you. Which to that I was asking do you players not allocate STR or SIZ as highest.

 

12 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes. Just like we keep the  SIZ if it is 19 or higher. That' is the trade off of using the random method. Keep in mind that the standard method is to assign 60 points. By choosing to roll a player has a chance of getting a superior character at the risk of getting an inferior character. If people want to adjust die rolls and such they are essentially using a variation of the shaped method.

I wasn't suggesting to change the die rolls. I find it a far different meaning to say roll 3d6 5 times and assign them to say adjust your die rolls and to fit your ideas. I know those aren't the rules however, I clearly said this is what we do and only for attributes. My questions weren't meant to make you angry. I was just curious whether you'd throw a character out with 20HP or not. I know my players would be furious to be forced to make a character and have them die at the slightest breeze and their pretty good at taking death in stride. I mean we've lost some 8 or so characters at this point. Now, many of those were backups, but still. 

On the probabilities,  mid-range here should be mid the middle range not the middle occurring number. And I mentioned this previously as 13-17 which you could dispute I suppose, and that the probability of extreme results shrinks by flattening the curve and we get a more controlled percentage of numbers while the midpoint stays close.

As I wrote in my previous post, the 13-17 range is increased by switching to a flatter curve given by 2d6. The percent of those result, our middle range in both data sets, increases. While the high end for the 2d6 curve increases probability for any one result because of the mechanism you describe, it is an overall net decrease in higher than mid range results by decreasing the variability in results. In addition, it comes with a bonus of a drop of the extreme outliers. 

Ultimately, our mid range results 13-17, acceptable passions with sufficiently low risk to be used, but sufficiently high enough risk to have a danger of failure are 66.66% at 2d6+8 while only a 57.86% for 3d6+4. This means that there's a ~42% chance of an "extreme result with 3d6+4. Yet, 2d6+X still means we still have a degree of random influence to the results. Where as, say, 1d6+11 would, in my opinion, be too static.

Why I suggested 2d6+7 is because I believe with random generation, the variability will probably work in your favor at least once and you'll end up with a higher than average roll which makes up for generally lower scores. 

@Call Me Deacon Blues I did a similar thing my first few times, but I found the minute or two of calculations and debate about when to do said calculations too tedious. If, after modifiers, the player is very low (think mostly single digits and nothing higher than 12) I'd allow the whole character to be scrapped and rolled again. We've only had it happen once though.

Edited January 29, 2020 by Username

[Atgxtg]

9 hours ago, Username said:

Sorry, I thought it was clear about making SIZ and STR the highest which is the quote I used from you. Which to that I was asking do you players not allocate STR or SIZ as highest.

No they don't. There is a marked tendency to get ahigh SIZ, although I could fix that by putting more realistic limits on the horses. CON tends to be more sought that STR. It is the second half of the hit point equation and a high CON means fewer major wounds. STR becomes a attribute that can be easily raised by younger knights (that is without glory). DEX and APP are, unfortunately, mostly dump stats-although Morien did have a soltuon for that which some poeple did not like.

9 hours ago, Username said:

I wasn't suggesting to change the die rolls. I find it a far different meaning to say roll 3d6 5 times and assign them to say adjust your die rolls and to fit your ideas. I know those aren't the rules however, I clearly said this is what we do and only for attributes.

Oh, I misunderstood your "doesn't everybody else do this/isn't that suggested in the rules" comment as a believe that this is how chargen was written up.

9 hours ago, Username said:

 

My questions weren't meant to make you angry.

 

THat's good because I'm not. Nothing to get angry about. It's your campaign you can run chargen however you like. I may or may not agree or disagree with some things or be concerned about unintended side effects or what not, but it's your game. I might discuss stuff as one Pendragon GM/player to another but ultimately it's up to each GM to run thier own game and decide on what rules to use or to houserule. 

I'm sure I'm running a few things that some other GM would do differerntly. Heck I started my campaign in 410 with the PKs using roundshields. It doesn't say that in the books anywhere.

 

9 hours ago, Username said:

I was just curious whether you'd throw a character out with 20HP or not. I know my players would be furious to be forced to make a character and have them die at the slightest breeze and their pretty good at taking death in stride. I mean we've lost some 8 or so characters at this point. Now, many of those were backups, but still. 

Yes I would. I'd also remind the player that it was their choice to roll and that they could have gone with the standard chargen and assign the 60 points. They gambled, and lost. I make that very plain to my players when ever the think of using random chargen. On the plus side they could get an play a Lancelot or a Gawaine with the random method, on the downside they could get a 70 pound weakling. 

I think that if I did it different then people would roll becuase they would know that they would get a superior character to the standard method.

 

9 hours ago, Username said:

On the probabilities,  mid-range here should be mid the middle range not the middle occurring number. And I mentioned this previously as 13-17 which you could dispute I suppose, and that the probability of extreme results shrinks by flattening the curve and we get a more controlled percentage of numbers while the midpoint stays close.

I do dispute. The probably of extreme results goe down with more dice. Basically the more dice you roll the wider the range, but the less likey the extrme results will occur. A 12 on 2d6 is more likely than a 18 on 3d6 and so on. This is something that comes up in the old West End D6 game system. In theory 10d6 damage can hurt something rolling 14d6 to soak, but it is less likely than, say 5d6 vs. 7d6. 

9 hours ago, Username said:

As I wrote in my previous post, the 13-17 range is increased by switching to a flatter curve given by 2d6. The percent of those result, our middle range in both data sets, increases. While the high end for the 2d6 curve increases probability for any one result because of the mechanism you describe, it is an overall net decrease in higher than mid range results by decreasing the variability in results. In addition, it comes with a bonus of a drop of the extreme outliers. 

If that is a bonus. I think the problem here is that you have a different goal that K&L. The book is trying to give most characters a passion of around 15, with some variance. I think you want something lower. You might prefer something like 12+1d6.

9 hours ago, Username said:

Ultimately, our mid range results 13-17, acceptable passions with sufficiently low risk to be used, but sufficiently high enough risk to have a danger of failure are 66.66% at 2d6+8 while only a 57.86% for 3d6+4. This means that there's a ~42% chance of an "extreme result with 3d6+4. Yet, 2d6+X still means we still have a degree of random influence to the results. Where as, say, 1d6+11 would, in my opinion, be too static.

Why I suggested 2d6+7 is because I believe with random generation, the variability will probably work in your favor at least once and you'll end up with a higher than average roll which makes up for generally lower scores. 

With 2d6+7 a character would end up with an average passion of 13, which is much lower than the 15 they would get with the standard method. One of the goals of the random method in K&L is to produce characters than are about equal to those created with the standard method. 

 

[Atgxtg]

13 hours ago, Call Me Deacon Blues said:

Dunno if this is helpful, I use a hybrid method, we roll randomly, but if they roll really poorly, I'll give them the difference between what they rolled and 60 in points to spend. They will have less in raw points than the ones who lucked out and got super high, but they have more control over where those points go and can therefore spend them more wisely. In my current game, my sister only had like, 56 points after she rolled, and my friend had like, 65, but that was because he rolled a really high APP, she was able to invest in SIZ, STR, and CON and is the best at combat by a pretty wide margin.

I don't think that;s a good idea. What it does it tell the players to roll since they have a chance of starting off better and no chance of starting off worse.

To me, the random method is a gamble. The player could get lucky and roll a superman with great attributes, the religious bonus, and the chivalry bonus, but  the player could also roll someone with poor stats, bad traits and is a challenge to play. Most likely they will get something pretty close to the standard method, give or take a point or two here and there. But if the player doesn't want to run the risk of rolling up a knight with SIZ, 4, DEX 4, STR 4, CON 4, APP 4 the player should play it safe and stick to the standard method. No one is forcing them to roll randomly.

 

 

[Call Me Deacon Blues]

14 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I don't think that;s a good idea. What it does it tell the players to roll since they have a chance of starting off better and no chance of starting off worse.

To me, the random method is a gamble. The player could get lucky and roll a superman with great attributes, the religious bonus, and the chivalry bonus, but  the player could also roll someone with poor stats, bad traits and is a challenge to play. Most likely they will get something pretty close to the standard method, give or take a point or two here and there. But if the player doesn't want to run the risk of rolling up a knight with SIZ, 4, DEX 4, STR 4, CON 4, APP 4 the player should play it safe and stick to the standard method. No one is forcing them to roll randomly.

 

 

Well, when I do this, I don't give them the option for point buy instead, so in this case I sort of am forcing them to roll randomly. 

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Call Me Deacon Blues said:

Well, when I do this, I don't give them the option for point buy instead, so in this case I sort of am forcing them to roll randomly. 

Yup, you are. Back when I ran KAP 1-4 I always used the random method when it was available. I still prefer it, although it does introduce problems at times. I'm more concerned with traits though than attribute or passions. There are so many traits that some odd extreme rolls are bound to pop up, and in some strange combinations. In a previous campaign one PK's cruelty was only exceeding by his capacity to forgive. So it became an almost comical standard procedure at his court for any commoners to just beg forgiveness rather than appeal to his mercy. 

[Morien]

10 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I do dispute. The probably of extreme results goe down with more dice. Basically the more dice you roll the wider the range, but the less likey the extrme results will occur. A 12 on 2d6 is more likely than a 18 on 3d6 and so on.

While the above is true, it is not what Username was arguing about (assuming I understood him correctly).

If I roll 2d6+7 (average 14), and I want to know how many results of 16+ I get, that is the number I am interested also in 4d6 (average 14) case. The chance of getting 19 on 2d6+7 or 24 on 4d6 is immaterial, or even the chance of getting 19 on both of them (2.78% vs 4.32%, if you wanted to know).

Results of 16 or more (i.e. at least 16):

2d6+7: 27.78%

4d6: 33.56%

However, I am personally also very concerned with the range. 2d6+7 gives me a range of 9 to 19, a +-5 maximum deviation from the average. 4d6 gives me double that, 4 to 24, +-10. While it is rare, the possibility is there. Also, I am VERY concerned with rolls of 21+, which may happen with 4d6 (2.7%), but are impossible with 2d6+7, also a good thing in my book.

10 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I don't think that;s a good idea. What it does it tell the players to roll since they have a chance of starting off better and no chance of starting off worse.

Agreed, although as Deacon says, there is no choice, everyone rolls. The thing that I dislike about this is that it turns a high APP roll into a 'penalty'. Imagine that both A and B roll the same mediocre values for SIZ, STR, DEX and CON (say 11 each), and then A roll APP 16 (total 60) and B rolls APP 8 (total 52). B suddenly has 8 points to spend, which means that he can easily start the game with SIZ 18, STR 12+3 from miscellaneous picks, meaning 6d6 damage, while A, even if he puts all his miscellaneous picks to SIZ increases will still have puny 4d6 damage.

In our campaign, we give choices to the players: Distribute 50 points or roll 2d6+43 points (APP is always rolled separately, and if the player so chooses, he can INCREASE APP by +2 by every stat point he loses from other points, but he can't lower it to get points to other stats), or roll randomly each stat (1d6+modifier per stat, no substitutions). The random method gives an average that is slightly higher than 50+APP, and of course there is a chance that you happen to roll high on some of them. But then you are stuck with them. The 1d6 has a low enough range that even if you roll crappy in your stats, the PK is still very much playable. And if you roll high, well, you are a lucky so-and-so, but you are still not 18 across the board.

[Atgxtg]

12 hours ago, Morien said:

While the above is true, it is not what Username was arguing about (assuming I understood him correctly).

If I roll 2d6+7 (average 14), and I want to know how many results of 16+ I get, that is the number I am interested also in 4d6 (average 14) case. The chance of getting 19 on 2d6+7 or 24 on 4d6 is immaterial, or even the chance of getting 19 on both of them (2.78% vs 4.32%, if you wanted to know).

Results of 16 or more (i.e. at least 16):

2d6+7: 27.78%

4d6: 33.56%

Any it's 37.5% with 3d6+4.

I don't see what the problem is though. In KAP5 standard rules, Cymric knights have 15s in all thier passions which statsitcally much less likely (6.25%) with the random method than a character getting a 19 or 20 passion

12 hours ago, Morien said:

However, I am personally also very concerned with the range. 2d6+7 gives me a range of 9 to 19, a +-5 maximum deviation from the average. 4d6 gives me double that, 4 to 24, +-10. While it is rare, the possibility is there. Also, I am VERY concerned with rolls of 21+, which may happen with 4d6 (2.7%), but are impossible with 2d6+7, also a good thing in my book.

Except that passions of 21+ are impossible in K&L due to the rule that no passion can start at higher than 20. 

 

12 hours ago, Morien said:

Agreed, although as Deacon says, there is no choice, everyone rolls. The thing that I dislike about this is that it turns a high APP roll into a 'penalty'. Imagine that both A and B roll the same mediocre values for SIZ, STR, DEX and CON (say 11 each), and then A roll APP 16 (total 60) and B rolls APP 8 (total 52). B suddenly has 8 points to spend, which means that he can easily start the game with SIZ 18, STR 12+3 from miscellaneous picks, meaning 6d6 damage, while A, even if he puts all his miscellaneous picks to SIZ increases will still have puny 4d6 damage.

Yes, but that is the problem with APP (and to a less degree DEX and even STR) in KAP. It is a stat that has little use in the game (oddly it's biggest value is with aging), and is mostly use for flavor. It has some value in the Book of Feasts, but since it's better not to sit at the High table anyway, not much. 

12 hours ago, Morien said:

In our campaign, we give choices to the players: Distribute 50 points or roll 2d6+43 points (APP is always rolled separately, and if the player so chooses, he can INCREASE APP by +2 by every stat point he loses from other points, but he can't lower it to get points to other stats), or roll randomly each stat (1d6+modifier per stat, no substitutions). The random method gives an average that is slightly higher than 50+APP, and of course there is a chance that you happen to roll high on some of them. But then you are stuck with them. The 1d6 has a low enough range that even if you roll crappy in your stats, the PK is still very much playable. And if you roll high, well, you are a lucky so-and-so, but you are still not 18 across the board.

Interesting but it begs the question- Why not drop APP entirely? And if you roll; APP separately then a case could be made for DEX. While DEX is used for a bunch of phsycial taks that PKS will almost never attempt anyway, thanks to the overboard armor penalties, it's onth big use is in knockdown, which doesn't come up much as knights will alomsot always want to fight from horseback. Not only are the more mobile, and get a +5/-5 modifier vs footmen, but since PKS use horsemanship when mounted it is usually harder to knock someone off a horse than off his feet (which is probably wrong). 

This is precisely why that idea you had of basing skills off of APP and DEX realled helped, as it made those two attributes valuable. 

 

Even those who think that APP is important for roleplaying and apply situation modifiers for it and so on, have an uphill battle proving that APP 18 is a valuable as SIZ 18, because, it isn't. Even for ladies! 

 

 

[Username]

13 hours ago, Morien said:

While the above is true, it is not what Username was arguing about (assuming I understood him correctly).

Yes, exactly this on all accounts. Though I have to say, I only started to look at this after my first 20 passion  at character gen. An un-failable passion removes much of the drama, I think.

 

13 hours ago, Morien said:

In our campaign, we give choices to the players: Distribute 50 points or roll 2d6+43

That's interesting. Why do you set the points as lower than the 60?

34 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but that is the problem with APP (and to a less degree DEX and even STR) in KAP.

You're entirely right here, any roll or points put into DEX or APP is a penalty. And I'd say STR is suboptimal until you have an 18 SIZ. At which point you need a 15 STR. 6D6 damage is pretty viral to combat. 

This is the reason, I think, the game went to a point buy system and I let them assign their 3d6 rolls. It's too great of a penalty to force a player to play with a 12 SIZ, 16 DEX, 12 STR, 12 CON, 17 APP. Those are good rolls too assuming Cymric. 8, 15, 11, 8, 16 assigned could make for a great character. But, 24 hit points and 4D6 damage with chain means you're dead. You may as well just trash the character because you won't survive 485. I'm not going to make someone waste their time in a rather long character creation that way.

We, like many other, use various house rules to make APP and DEX more useful, but it's not enough to make them as good as SIZ or CON. The best I've managed to do is make DEX as good as STR and APP comparable to original DEX or slightly better.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Username

[Atgxtg]

20 minutes ago, Username said:

You're entirely right here, any roll or points put into DEX or APP is a penalty. And I'd say STR is suboptimal until you have an 18 SIZ. At which point you need a 15 STR. 6D6 damage is pretty viral to combat. 

Unfornately. I think ther eis a clear heriacry with SIZ and CON being the primary stats, STR a secondary stats, DEX getting an honrable mention and APP being a joke. 

20 minutes ago, Username said:

This is the reason, I think, the game went to a point buy system and I let them assign their 3d6 rolls.

Well originally it was a completely random method, which was fair and downplayed the disparity among the stats. It didn't matter if SIZ was more important that DEX since chargen was random. Except, maybe, Saxons came out a little ahead.

The 60 point method was really a secondary option for those players who felt that they always rolled poorly, or who wanted to be sure thay didn't have a terrible stat that would ruin a character (i.e. CON 4). In KAP3 that was extended to the rest of chargen and made the standard method.

 

20 minutes ago, Username said:

We, like many other, use various house rules to make APP and DEX more useful, but it's not enough to make them as good as SIZ or CON. The best I've managed to do is make DEX as good as STR and APP comparable to original DEX or slightly better.

I think the best solution so far was Morien's where the Courtly skills started at APP/2 and Physical/Agility skills started at DEX/2. It might make an 18 APP worth it to a courtier as it would raise all his courtly skills to 9.  It would alos help ladies, for whom APP is thier best stat, and who are supposed to focus on courtly skills. 

But, I'm open to other suggestions.

One thing that could help DEX is to reduce to excessive DEX penalties. I've worn mail and it's nowhere near as encumbering as the game make it out to be. Ironically the one DEX base roll that it doesn't affectin the game, knockdown, is about the only thing where mail presented a problem to us in real life. Basically the armor shifts your center of balance. With time and training someone could probably adapt to it, but we tended to either over or under compensate. 

Maybe the old +5 skill bonus for knights unarmored could instead apply to the DEX penalty for trained vs. untrained opponents in armor?

 

 

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

This is precisely why that idea you had of basing skills off of APP and DEX realled helped, as it made those two attributes valuable. 

Yep.

We also use a houserule that the courtly (skill) glory is APP Glory, not flat 10 Glory. So someone with APP 18 will be getting 18 Glory for a successful skill use at court. Also, we play through a Spring Court each year, and have a mechanism for rolling APP+Glory/1000 during it, which gives you chances for checks & Glory, or on a Critical, you get to dictate an encounter somewhat, usually a chance to ask a favor from the liege or some such, or just picking an encounter that gives you a check to a trait you really want to get (bit of a waste in my opinion, but hey, if that is what you want...). So while a low APP is not as bad as a low SIZ, a high APP is definitely desirable thing to have.

As for DEX, we have a houserule that the mounted knockdown is actually (DEX+Horsemanship)/2. I think Greg issued a ruling that it would be DEX all the way, all the time, too. Both of which keep DEX somewhat more interesting. Furthermore, we have quite a lot of combat on foot, too, so DEX definitely plays a role. Again, not so much that the players would prioritise it, but similarly, it is not an utter garbage stat. Quite agreed about DEX tasks being almost impossible for an armored knight, which is a bit of a pity. I am very tempted to flip it around a bit and give unarmored people a bonus rather than knights a penalty...

[Atgxtg]

43 minutes ago, Morien said:

Yep.

We also use a houserule that the courtly (skill) glory is APP Glory, not flat 10 Glory. So someone with APP 18 will be getting 18 Glory for a successful skill use at court.

I think that is nice mechanically, but not so great logically. I mean if that glory is affected by APP why not other glory? I liked the glory = skill rating or die result better, especially with the APP based default. 

43 minutes ago, Morien said:

Also, we play through a Spring Court each year, and have a mechanism for rolling APP+Glory/1000 during it, which gives you chances for checks & Glory, or on a Critical, you get to dictate an encounter somewhat, usually a chance to ask a favor from the liege or some such, or just picking an encounter that gives you a check to a trait you really want to get (bit of a waste in my opinion, but hey, if that is what you want...). So while a low APP is not as bad as a low SIZ, a high APP is definitely desirable thing to have.

Interesting. 

43 minutes ago, Morien said:

As for DEX, we have a houserule that the mounted knockdown is actually (DEX+Horsemanship)/2. I think Greg issued a ruling that it would be DEX all the way, all the time, too. Both of which keep DEX somewhat more interesting.

THe average helps. I think DEX all the way probably hurts Horsemanship skill too much. One idea I had was to make the cut off point from skills equal to an attribute rather than 15. Then DEX and APP would be really important for character improvement, but that would really lower everyones skills across the board.

43 minutes ago, Morien said:

Furthermore, we have quite a lot of combat on foot, too, so DEX definitely plays a role.

How did you manage that? I have a hard time prying the PKS off of horseback, even in situations where being mounted should hurt them. For instance last adventure the PKs had to cross a rocky land bridge at low tide. Doing so required DEX rolls (or horsemanship if mounted) and most of the knights opted to go mounted as their horsemanship was much higher than their DEX. It got problmatic for them when the Sea Griffin came out of the water. 

43 minutes ago, Morien said:

Again, not so much that the players would prioritise it, but similarly, it is not an utter garbage stat.

No, DEX has some use, but mostly in things that knights wouldn't be doing, like sneaking about. 

43 minutes ago, Morien said:

Quite agreed about DEX tasks being almost impossible for an armored knight, which is a bit of a pity.

Yes, because any reasonably intelligent player will avoid attempting tasks they they will expect to fail at. Such things tend to become the last resort. 

43 minutes ago, Morien said:

 

I am very tempted to flip it around a bit and give unarmored people a bonus rather than knights a penalty...

I was thinking of doing something similar. Basically taking that +5 knights get/used to get when fighting unarmored and applying it to the DEX penalty. So knights trained to wear armor would be -5 in mail instead of -10. Meanwhile a Pict or bandit  who scavenges a suit of mail would be -10. 

[Tizun Thane]

9 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

think DEX all the way probably hurts Horsemanship skill too much.

It is my houserule as well. My players still make plenty of horsemanship rolls, and do not consider horsemanship a "dumb" skill at all.

[Atgxtg]

16 minutes ago, Tizun Thane said:

It is my houserule as well. My players still make plenty of horsemanship rolls, and do not consider horsemanship a "dumb" skill at all.

It would certainly make DEX more significant than it is now.  

[Username]

My house rules on the situation are that DEX can be used to replace SIZ for the dmg calculations if desired. Plus, I allowed for a weaker and modified Double Feint rule. I also generally only apply the DEX armor penalty when it seems appropriate. Swimming for example. Though I agree the chain penalty is way too high. If you're a competent swimmer, you won't drown immediately in chain. Plus, I make 1/2 DEX the default for any new weapon skills they may want to pick up.

App I count it as a trait if "notable" for annual glory. We do a good number of Feasts which is helpful. We've changed that system a little too. Giving competitive geniality bonuses for the ones above the salt for any successful rolls even though they can't draw cards that way they have a shot at winning. I apply a negative modifer to some interactions if the knights is below average. And a bonus to some skills if your app is above 15 and a smaller bonus at 20 though no one has ever felt like spending glory points to get that high. Surprise?