Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
creativehum

BK&L Modifiers to Standard & Random Traits

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Username said:

My house rules on the situation are that DEX can be used to replace SIZ for the dmg calculations if desired.

That's huge. I don;t think it is justified considering the nature of medieval weapons, but it certainly would be game changer. I've been working with STR+Bow Skill to dertmine what bow a character can wield, but it's not something most knights are going to bother with.

3 hours ago, Username said:

Plus, I allowed for a weaker and modified Double Feint rule.

I like to read more on that. I've been working on a weaker version of it myself. I have a version where the character ingore half his DEX, full DEX in armor, as opposed to the half/all of KAP4.

3 hours ago, Username said:

I also generally only apply the DEX armor penalty when it seems appropriate.

So do I. The difficulty lies in what people believe it is appropriate for. For instance in my experience it wound't apply to most of the things it applies to in the rules, but should apply to knockdown, which it doesn't apply to. After late peroid jousting armor, mail is probably the armor with the greatest penalty, because it is so flexible that it can shift and move, but it got better over time as armorers leanred how to better distrubte the weight and how to better fit an attach iut to the body. The penalty should probably go down for better armors. 

3 hours ago, Username said:

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.

That would probably depend on how strong you are, how big you are, and how much mail you have on (I hate the term chainmail, it's redundant). It's not so much that you can't keep afloat, but that without buoyancy it takes a lot more effort to do so. Maybe the armor penalty should apply to the roll to avoid fatigue instead?

3 hours ago, Username said:

Plus, I make 1/2 DEX the default for any new weapon skills they may want to pick up.

That's pretty much Morien's idea only it applied to a few other Physical skills such as Dancing. But the idea got a lot of flak.

3 hours ago, Username said:

App I count it as a trait if "notable" for annual glory.

It helps little, but obviously isn't worth as much as passion let alone SIZ or CON. Even getting APPx10 in glory each year wouldn't equal the benefits of SIZ or CON. Maybe APP could be rolled to get a modifier to courtly skills, similar to how inspiration works?

3 hours ago, Username said:

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.

By RAW they have a shot but tend to fall behind as glory goes up and players get more cards to choose from. Frankly I think a better way to handle it would be to allow characters above the salt to draw cards, but increase their penalties for failure, as they do so in front of the VIPs. 

3 hours ago, Username said:

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?

Surprised? Not really. It's still the poor stat of the lot. Hopefully that can be addressed down the road sometime. 

The way this was resolved in RuneQuest was with category modifiers, basically a minor bonus given out to skills based on the attribute scores. But skill scores tend to be used at a higher rating in Pendragon relative to RQ. For instance starting PKs in Pendragon  routinely rely on skills in the 6-10 range, while skills in the 30-50% range are the bed and butter skills for starting characters in RQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

 

21 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

That's huge. I don;t think it is justified considering the nature of medieval weapons, but it certainly would be game changer. I've been working with STR+Bow Skill to dertmine what bow a character can wield, but it's not something most knights are going to bother with.

I agree it's entirely unrealistic, but it gives an alternative to everybody being giants. And I think you could make an argument that says the speed and skill which you use the weapon, represented in terms of your dexterity, is nearly as important as the reach and weight from bigger SIZ. That's not a very strong argument, of course, but it's an argument that could be made. It's important to note, that I leave all the standard uses of SIZ still intact even for people with DEX as a replacement. Knock-down, hit points being the most important. It results in making them multiple attribute dependent. So, it's not really ideal in terms of maximal power, but I think it makes it viable.

21 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Maybe the armor penalty should apply to the roll to avoid fatigue instead?

Could work, I think just lower penalties would still work fine. Even a -5 will guarantee a great swimmer(20) will fail eventually.

21 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

That's pretty much Morien's idea only it applied to a few other Physical skills such as Dancing.

Personally, I don't really like it for character creation. I liked all of the different starting scores for most skills, just when they decide they want to learn how to use a greatsword out of nowhere.

21 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

By RAW they have a shot but tend to fall behind as glory goes up and players get more cards to choose from. Frankly I think a better way to handle it would be to allow characters above the salt to draw cards, but increase their penalties for failure, as they do so in front of the VIPs. 

We found that issue and an issue if people end up with high glory which was too many cups/mandatory cards. We turned the cups into a group card that all characters play on. And the group negotiates which cup is selected if there is an option.

21 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Surprised?

That was a poor attempt at levity on my part. I think most characters take Charisma as a dump stat despite our best efforts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

But the idea got a lot of flak.

Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! 🙂

If anyone is interested, that thread can be found in this forum but I don't want to use my phone to find it, too much of a hassle. 

I do admit that the suggestion I made does suffer from the fact that while it does make DEX and APP stronger at chargen, once the PKs increase their skills, the impact of further DEX and APP increases is lessened to a great extent. Granted pretty much no one is increasing either nowadays anyway (save some ladies for APP and PKs reaching DEX 5 or less trying to shore it up against eventual aging), so I don't really see it as a killer argument.

However I do recognize that it would be better to have game mechanisms that support those APPs. Making DEX challenges that can be won by knights wearing armor will help. I also like the idea of making the number of feast cards depend on APP, while Glory dictates seating order. This makes more sense to me than the current feast system which is opposite. That would definitely help APP, I think. And it fits to the idea that beautiful people simply have easier time in social setting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, if DEX and APP gave some sort of modifier to improvement rolls,they would still be useful even for experience characters. Maybe ATTRIBUTE/10-1?

So 5-14 +0, 15-24: +1, 25-34: +32, etc.

That would mean that a high DEX or APP would double the chances of raising a skill over 18. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I like to read more on that. I've been working on a weaker version of it myself. I have a version where the character ingore half his DEX, full DEX in armor, as opposed to the half/all of KAP4.

Here's my house rules regarding attributes. I tried to make my house rules. I think I got them all. Also, I wrote in an absolute cap even with glory at 25 which I guess is a house rule, though I just think it was never in consideration that stats may go higher. I haven't ever approached that number, but just in case.

Explanation of Uses of Stats and House Rules.pdf

Edited by Username
Added note about cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Username said:

Here's my house rules regarding attributes. I tried to make my house rules. I think I got them all. Also, I wrote in an absolute cap even with glory at 25 which I guess is a house rule, though I just think it was never in consideration that stats may go higher. I haven't ever approached that number, but just in case.

Explanation of Uses of Stats and House Rules.pdf 120.51 kB · 2 downloads

Thanks. I gave it a quick going over and it is interesting. I don't think I agree with some of it, but it is interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Thanks. I gave it a quick going over and it is interesting. I don't think I agree with some of it, but it is interesting. 

That's all I can hope for! I would be interested in hearing what you come up with for a Double Feint if you write something up. My rules are, honestly too long, but I tried to cover the bases. In summary, I'd say my thought was Double Feint is a DEX roll made before an attack. Armor penalty applies to DEX if more heavily armored than opponent. Success reduces armor by 6 points. Failure on DEX results in penalties on your attack.

My thought was Double Feint would reduce the armor, but not tremendously so. It gives a noticable bonus so as to be worth it, I think, in challenging fights, but would not be needed or should be needed in every fight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Username said:

That's all I can hope for! I would be interested in hearing what you come up with for a Double Feint if you write something up.

Well what I was working on worked something like this (I'm going from memory):

  1. I got rid of the second roll and just combined it into the fighting roll. 
  2. The character doing a double feint gets a modifier equal to half the armor DEX modifier of his opponent (better armor means fewer gaps to exploit).
  3. If the character wins he can by pass a number of points of armor equal to half his DEX on a success, or his full DEX on a critical.

My reasoning for doing it this way are:

  1. Gets rid of an extra roll. Especially since those who have a high DEX would have been inclined to double feint a lot, if not all the time (especially at DEX 20+).
  2. This factors in for the type of armor worn and how easy it is to fine gaps and expoit it. Thus it;s easy to pull off on an opponent in padding with a helmet than against a guy in full Gothic plate. It also  keeps characters from doing it all the time, since it will reduce thier chances of winning. It also means that someone will be less likely to pull this off against a opponent unless they are better than the opponent or have some sort of advantage. This keeps this maneuver from being an easy cheap shot for Bandits and Picts (unless they gang up on a knight, Badits and Picts do that). Note that it doesn't factor in for armor worn, reason being that armor worn doesn't affect the ability to fight with the weapon so it should affect this.
  3. This keeps DEX a factor as well since a high DEX will be needed to bypass a lot of armor. Note also that no much DEX or skill will be required to bypass a little armor, so any knight might find this maneuver useful when facing lightly armored peasants and such.

 

Quote

My rules are, honestly too long, but I tried to cover the bases. In summary, I'd say my thought was Double Feint is a DEX roll made before an attack. Armor penalty applies to DEX if more heavily armored than opponent. Success reduces armor by 6 points. Failure on DEX results in penalties on your attack.

My thought was Double Feint would reduce the armor, but not tremendously so. It gives a noticable bonus so as to be worth it, I think, in challenging fights, but would not be needed or should be needed in every fight. 

It's not a bad take. I don't think it really address the reason why the maneuver was removed, namely that ti was too easy for lightly armored NPC Picts and bandits to use it to cheap shot armored PKs. Or for PKS to shun armor, and combine it with the old +5 unarmored rule. 

But as with all the combat tactics, the double feint is problematic, although, IMO the uncontrolled attack is the most  problematic.

Edited by Atgxtg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Gets rid of an extra roll. Especially since those who have a high DEX would have been inclined to double feint a lot, if not all the time (especially at DEX 20+).

That's my biggest gripe with my own rule. Generally, I like what you have. I thought about tieing the armor reduction to DEX, but I didn't want it to be too effective for high DEX characters. I wanted a small, but meaningful bonus. Something you could use in conjunction with the DEX+STR/6 DMG ruling to build an alternative character around.

Also, I feel the opposite of you in regard to armor of your opponent. It should be less useful against lighter armored opponents precisely because their protection is already so poor. If someone is wearing leathers, you wouldn't need an opening. You just need to make contact. Heavier armored opponents need to be attacked in a weak spot historically especially plate wearing fighters. Lighter armored opponents, you wouldn't need it against. 

My goal was that double feint should be used against similar or heavier armored opponents. It focuses on your speed and the heavier armored will be slower and more cumbersome so they should not attempt a Double Feint on, say, a Pict.

Using 6 Armor Reduction or half of armor whichever less means that it would always be more effective to wear extra armor. So, even a man in Chain/w Shield against a 6pt Cuiboulli would still have the ultimate armor advantage. (10pt vs 6pt assuming our second is a spear wielding Pict)  And, the lighter armored opponent still has to risk an additional roll with negative effects for failure. It still favors lighter armored combatants as a maneuver, but overall the game still strongly favors heavy armor.

There's one other advantage to running it based off of relative armor levels. It allows late period armor wears to feint each other. I did it so that if you and your opponent are both wearing the same armor then there's no modifier to your DEX. This makes late period one-handed swords a viable weapon again like in the books. The game strongly favors going to some sort of two-handed weapon in the late period because of the strength of armor. That's unarguably realistic, but (this is entirely a personal preference, of course, so if this isn't) I like the sword and shield style of fighting and wanted to show favoritism toward it. So, in a way, DEX becomes more important in this method as armor rating increases since it proves a viable way to reduce the armor amount. Not even at Gothic, but by Plate Armor, a knight in plate with a shield is hardly going to get hurt by a one-handed sword. ~55% of the time 6d6 won't hurt him. A knight with 5d6 damage can't hurt the same knight ~90% of the time. And beware of he qualifies for chivalry. He will be immune to damage ~86% of the time. And if he gets one of the armor bonus items from a luck table...  it really becomes a bunch of dice rolls while you wait for a crit. And it's worse with Gothic of course.

It's different if both are wearing Gothic and using two-handed weapons then it stays as expected. But, if you're smart, you'd go for sword and shield, double down on chivalry, and take your sword skill to 20 while then dumping every glory point into it and be invincible while trying to land a critical. That late in the game, most characters should have over 6k glory. Mostly just from being old. So, we're looking at a reasonable shot at 25+ sword skills. Which is a great chance at criticaling in a battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Username said:

 

That's my biggest gripe with my own rule. Generally, I like what you have. I thought about tieing the armor reduction to DEX, but I didn't want it to be too effective for high DEX characters. I wanted a small, but meaningful bonus. Something you could use in conjunction with the DEX+STR/6 DMG ruling to build an alternative character around.

Yes that DEX+STR thing is going to impact things. I'm not htat fondof it becuase SIZ and mass should be in the damage equation. Maybe (SIZ+DEX+STR)/9? That way DEX could help, but not negate SIZ entirely. 

30 minutes ago, Username said:

Also, I feel the opposite of you in regard to armor of your opponent. It should be less useful against lighter armored opponents precisely because their protection is already so poor. If someone is wearing leathers, you wouldn't need an opening. You just need to make contact. Heavier armored opponents need to be attacked in a weak spot historically especially plate wearing fighters. Lighter armored opponents, you wouldn't need it against. 

But that's the point. Against someone in heavy armor it is harder to find a weak spot, thus the penalty is higher. For instance, leather has a -5 DEX modfier, so doing the double feint would mean a -3 to skill. But if the character wins he could bypass half his own DEX in protection, which is almost certinaly more than the 4 points the leather provides.

Conversely if up against someone in  Full Plate (16 protection, DEX -10), the character will be fighting at -5, and half DEX will probably only reduce the protection by 5-6 points. So the character will probably need a crtical for full effect.

 

What I mean by "Not much skill needed to bypass light armor" above was that if a character has a significant skill advantage against a lightly armored opponent, such as a PK vs. a bandit, he might want to take the -3 and go for the double feint to bypass the bandits armor. It's almost a freebie. 

30 minutes ago, Username said:

My goal was that double feint should be used against similar or heavier armored opponents. It focuses on your speed and the heavier armored will be slower and more cumbersome so they should not attempt a Double Feint on, say, a Pict.

Yes, but the problem in gamew terms was that the PIcts, having nothing to lose and being "one shot" NPCs would go for the double feint becuase they have nothing to lose. So all it did was up the mortality rate for PKs. You can get the same thing by having every Saxon pull the uncontrolled attack. Sure most of them will drop before they can attack, but they were probably going down anyway. THe few who do get an attack off will probably drop a PK. 

30 minutes ago, Username said:

There's one other advantage to running it based off of relative armor levels. It allows late period armor wears to feint each other. I did it so that if you and your opponent are both wearing the same armor then there's no modifier to your DEX. This makes late period one-handed swords a viable weapon again like in the books.

If you take the DEX peanlty out of the double feint, which I did and always have you don't have that problem. Reasltically, a feint is skill based, and if skill is unmodief feint shouldn't be. 

30 minutes ago, Username said:

 

The game strongly favors going to some sort of two-handed weapon in the late period because of the strength of armor.

No it doesn't, although based on Greg comments, it was supposed to. In truth, one handed sword and shield is better than any other weapon in the game, and two handed weapons are not worth the loss of a shield.The greataxe can be something of a problem, but swords break axes on ties, so the fight still favors the swordman at high skill levels. Especially when you consider the axeman doesn't get any benefits for a partial success, and can't soak the same damage that the sowrdsman can.

30 minutes ago, Username said:

 

 

That's unarguably realistic, but (this is entirely a personal preference, of course, so if this isn't) I like the sword and shield style of fighting and wanted to show favoritism toward it.

The game already favors sword and shield to an unrealistic degree. The sword breaks non-swords on a tie, and the shield provides extra protection on a partial success, which is usually enough to soak the hit. Sword doesn't need more help.

30 minutes ago, Username said:

So, in a way, DEX becomes more important in this method as armor rating increases since it proves a viable way to reduce the armor amount. Not even at Gothic, but by Plate Armor, a knight in plate with a shield is hardly going to get hurt by a one-handed sword. ~55% of the time 6d6 won't hurt him.

Not exactly. You have to factor in for skill. A shield becomes more likely to protect as skill goes up. A knight with a 15 sword skill isn't going to get that shield 25% of the time. Likewise very high skill radically increases the chances of a critical hit, which in turn doubles the damage and solves the plate armor problem.

In play, that guy with Sword & Shield in Plate is probably going to be taken down by another guy in plate with sword & shield, rather than a guy with a two handed weapon, since it's much better to work on getting Sword 22 than to get Sword 11, Greataxe 11. Most PKs typically get Sword to 20 while fairly young and then devote some glory bonuses to improve their crit chance. In most cases, it's not effective to work on sword and a two handed weapon, and it's better to be very good (21+) with sword than to be good (16-20) with a two handed weapon. You win more often, take less damage, and critical more often.

30 minutes ago, Username said:

A knight with 5d6 damage can't hurt the same knight ~90% of the time.

Again, not exactly, since you are ignore both the likelihood that the  shield comes into play and the likelihood of a critical hit. 

30 minutes ago, Username said:

And beware of he qualifies for chivalry. He will be immune to damage ~86% of the time.

No. For this to be true the knight with the shield would need to have a skill of 20 and the guy opposing him the same or less. Also, neither would get any sort of bonus, such as inspiration , religion damage bonus or anything else. In play this is going to come down to a crtical hit.

And if you put one of those guys with a two handed weapon, he probably losses since he can't take the same amount of damage and all those nicks will get through and add up.

 

 

30 minutes ago, Username said:

But, if you're smart, you'd go for sword and shield, double down on chivalry, and take your sword skill to 20 while then dumping every glory point into it and be invincible while trying to land a critical. That late in the game, most characters should have over 6k glory. Mostly just from being old. So, we're looking at a reasonable shot at 25+ sword skills. Which is a great chance at criticaling in a battle.

Yes, that's sort of a trusim in the game, except that 6K glory is probably on the low side. Glory tends to breed more glory. By the second or third generation the PKs can be coming into the game with over 2K, and with one of regions or chivalry (much harder to get now) bonuses getting a 250 per year becomes quite possible. Skill 25+ Sword skill is also not only possible but usually preferable to almost anything else the PK can do with their glory. 

In my current campaign, all but one one the current PKs have a skill over 20 in their primary weapon. One PK is young ans just hasn't gotten sword to 20 yet, another one wields an magical unbreakable spear  and so uses spear expertise, and the Saxon uses a Greataxe but still laments the loss of a shield. In my last campaign we had a PK who got his sword skill of to 35. He was old and only did 3d6 damage, but crticalled most of the time. His biggest worries were getting outnumbered and uncontrolled attacks. Two handed weapons just meant (soon to be) unarmed opponents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2020 at 2:59 PM, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but the problem in gamew terms was that the PIcts, having nothing to lose and being "one shot" NPCs would go for the double feint becuase they have nothing to lose. So all it did was up the mortality rate for PKs. You can get the same thing by having every Saxon pull the uncontrolled attack. Sure most of them will drop before they can attack, but they were probably going down anyway. THe few who do get an attack off will probably drop a PK. 

And that is what a good gm is aware of.  When I was examining the Picts, I found they used dogs to a large extent.  In skirmishes, dogs were another threat to a knight. In battles, the gm needs to try to emulate what the Picts would do. Double-feints would be good, but when in a unit, the combined arms of sword-shield man, backed up by spearmen, who in turn are backed up with javelin throwing Picts make a solid enemy.  Dawn attacks, feints and retreats, and so one. Try to make each enemy a bit different, and the players will appreciate it.

Above all, remember the Romans never conquored the Picts. They simply walled them off - the success of that depends on who you talk to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

And that is what a good gm is aware of.  When I was examining the Picts, I found they used dogs to a large extent.  In skirmishes, dogs were another threat to a knight. In battles, the gm needs to try to emulate what the Picts would do. Double-feints would be good, but when in a unit, the combined arms of sword-shield man, backed up by spearmen, who in turn are backed up with javelin throwing Picts make a solid enemy.  Dawn attacks, feints and retreats, and so one. Try to make each enemy a bit different, and the players will appreciate it.

The Picts major advantages are that the mostly attack from ambush and can blend into the terrain. They can be formidable enough, since they don't fight like knights. 

 

But as far as the double feint goes, apparently it was removed partial because of it being used to nerf PKS by Picts, and by unarmored knights with the unarmored bonus, and fighting defensively, in a very munchkin manner, they never really should have worked for long.

7 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

Above all, remember the Romans never conquored the Picts. They simply walled them off - the success of that depends on who you talk to.

Mostly due to the terrain. Had the Picts lieved in Salsibury Plain the ROmans would have conquered them, or driven them off. Wallin the Picts off semmed to mostly work, since it limited where theycould attack. THe Irish and Scotti eventually took them out, but they were migrating into the area, unlike the Romans who mostly wanted resroces and glory from Brtian, not the actual territory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Wallin the Picts off semmed to mostly work, since it limited where theycould attack.

Or perhaps more importantly, how easy it was to get back home with loot, especially the livestock kind.

Climbing over a section of the wall when on foot wasn't too difficult; a couple of assistants with a shield would have made for a perfectly serviceable 'elevator'. It was hauling the cow over the wall that was the issue. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Morien said:

Or perhaps more importantly, how easy it was to get back home with loot, especially the livestock kind.

Climbing over a section of the wall when on foot wasn't too difficult; a couple of assistants with a shield would have made for a perfectly serviceable 'elevator'. It was hauling the cow over the wall that was the issue. :)

That's why they stole Roman catapults with the cattle When the Romans left Britain the Picts had no choice but to break open holes in the wall for the cattle. ;)

Or maybe the breeches were from problems gauging the range? :blink::lol:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

That's why they stole Roman catapults with the cattle When the Romans left Britain the Picts had no choice but to break open holes in the wall for the cattle. ;)

Or maybe the breeches were from problems gauging the range? :blink::lol:

SDLeary

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As this is the current BoKL thread...

 

In age, for starting women, it says that all calculations are made assuming the character is 16 years old. But later, in the skills section, it says that if you are 16, you use handmaiden skills instead of the main lady skills. If so, do the standard tables assume you are 21 years old? If so, why does the book tells you at the start you are suppossed to be 16 years old, but then the table is for older ladies and the "standard" starting age sends you to a subrule?

 

I'm confused :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Clophiroth said:

If so, do the standard tables assume you are 21 years old?

I believe so, yes.

Quote

If so, why does the book tells you at the start you are suppossed to be 16 years old, but then the table is for older ladies and the "standard" starting age sends you to a subrule?

My guess is that the tables were made for 21 year olds, since that is the standard starting age for male knights, who are the default characters. And then it was easier for Greg to just fiddle with the starting skills of 21-yr old female characters to have a comparison case, and then use the same 'younger character' rule to send both male and female characters to the same subrule.

That being said, it is (presumably) your campaign, so I could see 3 options:

1) Start the lady characters at 21, too. No adjustments necessary.

2) Start the lady characters at 16 and use the rules on p. 57 to adjust the skills as indicated.

3) Start the lady characters at 16,  but do not lower their skills. This would give the female characters significant advantage in skills, to make up for their societal disadvantage (especially if you are playing in pre-Arthur times, or even pre-Romance).

Edited by Morien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're right about the stating age being 21 mostly because that was the default for knights and Pendragon is so knight-centric. 16 is probably a better starting age for ladies, but they would probably end up a bit over skilled compare to males.

I was thinking that maybe we could do something like what was done with player squires in  the Book of Entourage, namely:

4) Start the ladies at 14, with  Chirurgery, Courtesy, Dancing. First Aid, Flirting, Industry, Intrigue, and Stewardship starting at 5. Then give them 2 extra points of training each Winter Phase.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...