Underage Knights and Inherited Attributes

[Prometheus878]

So, I have some questions. Suppose a PK, hereafter called "Sir Thomas," dies, leaving behind an underage son and heir, hereafter referred to as "Sir Henry", who is knighted as soon as he reaches the age of 18. He has the option of inheriting his father's attributes.

1. Are these the attributes Thomas started with at the beginning of his career, or are they the attributes he had when he died?*

2. Thomas gave Henry a 15 Body^ score. Is Henry allowed to raise his Body score using Glory points and such until he reaches 21?

3. Henry dies, leaving behind young Richard as his son and heir. When Richard is knighted, does Richard inherit the attributes Henry had at 18, or 21?*

4. Henry had a child with a faerie woman, a son we shall call Aedon. Is Aedon allowed to inherit Henry's attributes if he's half-fae? With or without cultural modifiers?

*I presume the answer to these questions is "the one that's less overpowered," but I just want to be sure.

 

Edit: ^I mistyped. The Attribute I meant was Size.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Prometheus878

[Morien]

6 hours ago, Prometheus878 said:

So, I have some questions. Suppose a PK, hereafter called "Sir Thomas," dies, leaving behind an underage son and heir, hereafter referred to as "Sir Henry", who is knighted as soon as he reaches the age of 18. He has the option of inheriting his father's attributes.

I don't use this option in my campaigns, since I find it potentially very unbalancing. Not to mention being an additional twist of the knife with those players whose dynasties died in the middle.

That being said, here are my responses:

Quote

1. Are these the attributes Thomas started with at the beginning of his career, or are they the attributes he had when he died?*

B. When he died (or when Henry is chargened and begins the play, if Thomas is still alive). Same thing with Traits and Passions. No one is keeping track of the starting attributes.

Quote

2. Thomas gave Henry a 15 Body score. Is Henry allowed to raise his Body score using Glory points and such until he reaches 21?

(I assume you mean SIZ, not Body.) Yes. Nothing in the rules implies otherwise. Mind you, Henry should not have all the same skills & miscellaneous picks as a 21-year old knight, since he has 3 years less training. One option would be to use ENTOURAGE's Squires as Player characters -rules.

Quote

3. Henry dies, leaving behind young Richard as his son and heir. When Richard is knighted, does Richard inherit the attributes Henry had at 18, or 21?*

Neither. As stated in 1., the attributes would be based on Henry's attributes at death.

Quote

4. Henry had a child with a faerie woman, a son we shall call Aedon. Is Aedon allowed to inherit Henry's attributes if he's half-fae? With or without cultural modifiers?

Without Henry's cultural modifiers (whichever they are), but with half-fae cultural modifiers. In other words, the base attributes could be inherited.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Morien

[Atgxtg]

9 hours ago, Prometheus878 said:

So, I have some questions. Suppose a PK, hereafter called "Sir Thomas," dies, leaving behind an underage son and heir, hereafter referred to as "Sir Henry", who is knighted as soon as he reaches the age of 18.

 

9 hours ago, Prometheus878 said:

He has the option of inheriting his father's attributes.

1. Are these the attributes Thomas started with at the beginning of his career, or are they the attributes he had when he died?*

Where did you see that option?. As far as I know attributes (SIZ, DEX, STR and CON) don't carry over, nor should they. . Now if there is such a rule tucked away that I missed or forgotten, I suggest don't use it-it will probably ruin your campaigns. Sons and later  gransdsons would either have outrageously high attributes, due to the cumulative effects of training and glory, or they will end up unplayable weak, if dad lost a lot of points on the aging table. For istance if one of Dads attributes hit 3 the sone would start bedridden and the family line would die out. 

As far as I know attributes do not pass down. There is also a rule for passing down Passions in Knights& Ladies. But not attributes,, as far as I know.

The son goes get 1/10th of his father's glory, when he starts play or reaches 21 years of age.

 

 

9 hours ago, Prometheus878 said:

2. Thomas gave Henry a 15 Body score. Is Henry allowed to raise his Body score using Glory points and such until he reaches 21?

Like Morien I assume you mean SIZ. If using Glory Points, he may raise SIZ or any other attribute at any age. The limits on improving SIZ and the other attributes (at 35) are for training and practice. Glory supersedes that. So if you have a knight who somehow makes it to 90 and is active and earning glory, he can still raise his attributes, skills traits and passions with glory.

9 hours ago, Prometheus878 said:

3. Henry dies, leaving behind young Richard as his son and heir. When Richard is knighted, does Richard inherit the attributes Henry had at 18, or 21?*

Again, I don't see where attributes pass down, just glory, and optionally passions.  Those pass on when Richard starts, play,tturns 21, or Henry dies, whichever comes first.

9 hours ago, Prometheus878 said:

4. Henry had a child with a faerie woman, a son we shall call Aedon. Is Aedon allowed to inherit Henry's attributes if he's half-fae? With or without cultural modifiers?

*I presume the answer to these questions is "the one that's less overpowered," but I just want to be sure.

One again, I don't see attributes passing down, but the child of a a mortal and a fae is a half fae. So Aedon would be a half fae and use half fae cultural modifiers, but Aedon's children have a 50-50 chance of being Half Fae or Cymric (whatever Henry's culture was).

[Prometheus878]

Thank you for the responses. The rules I am referencing are from Pendragon 5.2 core rulebook, pages 68-69 regarding "Your Heir."

 

Quote

Attributes: Attributes are calculated as usual, with the
standard 60-point distribution. If the player wishes, these stats
may be identical to the father’s.

I hope you can see my source of confusion.

It was indeed Size that I was specifically asking about. I mistyped.

So, Glory awards allow one to increase a knight's Size after the age of 21? Interesting.

[Atgxtg]

4 minutes ago, Prometheus878 said:

Thank you for the responses. The rules I am referencing are from Pendragon 5.2 core rulebook, pages 68-69 regarding "Your Heir."

 

I hope you can see my source of confusion.

Ah, now I see. What they meant is that you could spend the 60 points the same way you did for Dad, if you wanted to. So if your first character has SIZ 16, DEX 10, STR 11, CON 16 , APP 10 (assuming the Cmric bonus of +3 CON), then so could the son. 

4 minutes ago, Prometheus878 said:

It was indeed Size that I was specifically asking about. I mistyped.

 

4 minutes ago, Prometheus878 said:

So, Glory awards allow one to increase a knight's Size after the age of 21? Interesting.

Yes, Glory lets you bypass all the limits, allowing characters to have heroic attributes, traits, passions and skills. THis partially how some of the round tabel knights get such high skill and attribute scores. 

 

Note that there could be problems with a very high SIZ though. For instance a SIZ 27 knight really shouldn't be able to ride a SIZ 26 Rouncy. Now there is nothing in the rules where that is stated, but reason would indicate there there must be some sort of limit somewhere. 

 

 

[Hzark10]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Glory lets you bypass all the limits, allowing characters to have heroic attributes, traits, passions and skills. THis partially how some of the round tabel knights get such high skill and attribute scores

It sounds like you are forgetting the cardinal rule about attribute increases:  KAP 5.2, p. 133:

"No Attribute can be raised higher than its maximum cultural value (see “Character Generation”). A character’s SIZ may not be increased after he reaches age 21; further, a character cannot
increase any other Attribute (STR, DEX, CON, or APP) this way after he reaches age 35."

One reason why APP for women is important.  Evidently, APP is not held to this exact standard.

[Atgxtg]

5 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

It sounds like you are forgetting the cardinal rule about attribute increases:  KAP 5.2, p. 133:

"No Attribute can be raised higher than its maximum cultural value (see “Character Generation”). A character’s SIZ may not be increased after he reaches age 21; further, a character cannot
increase any other Attribute (STR, DEX, CON, or APP) this way after he reaches age 35."

I'm not forgetting it, it doesn't apply to glory bonus points.

Quote

KAP 5.2 p. 127, first column, second paragrather under Bonus Points

First, Attributes can be increased using bonus points, even
when already at the cultural maximum, and even after the age of
35. Thus, you might see Extraordinary knights with Attribute
values of 25 or even greater

Second, bonus points allow any statistic (Attribute scores,
Traits, Passions, or Skills) to increase freely, without the character
having to allocate training points or make a successful experience
check roll (again, see “Winter Phase”).

 

Edited April 16, 2019 by Atgxtg

[Hzark10]

All true. I was referring to beginning Attributes.  However, once game starts and the PKs are earning glory, those who do reach these vaulted heights may not get to keep them as Aging rolls and Mortal (3 rolls) and Major (1 roll) wounds tend to keep them from getting that high.

No argument, just ensuring we differentiate starting Attributes, the normal limit of them, and Glory bonus points.

[Atgxtg]

5 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

All true. I was referring to beginning Attributes.

Well, technically Glorybonus points  apply during chargen as well.  too.IF PK inherits more than 1000 glory from his father, or starts play at a 21 year old knight, with 1000 glory (or both) then the bonus points he would get would get around the cultural limits. 

And the random chargen method in K&L bypasses the attribute limits as well. About 1 in 40 characters will roll a 19, and multiple 19s are possible. So a Cmric PK will CON 22 and SIZ, DEX, STR and APP 19 is possible. It's a less than 1 in 4 trillion chance, but players are optimistic during random chargen.

5 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

  However, once game starts and the PKs are earning glory, those who do reach these vaulted heights may not get to keep them as Aging rolls and Mortal (3 rolls) and Major (1 roll) wounds tend to keep them from getting that high.

Kinda On average characters past the age of 35 loose attributes a nearly a point a year. So most PKs will see their attributes drop. But, odds are that attributes that reach the exalted hights will tend to stay there. Aging works out to about a point off of each over six year. So at 41 that would work out to about a point off of every attribute. But in six years the PK probably earned enough glory to get one of those points back, and the ultra high stat is a major candidate because the PK is relying upon it's benefits. Something like CON 25 or STR 25 is certainly worth keeping more than DEX 12.

 

5 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

No argument, just ensuring we differentiate starting Attributes, the normal limit of them, and Glory bonus points.

No problem, although just what the limits are depends a lot on which chargen method used. Although, I do find the random method a little suspect. A PK who rolls a 4 CON or 7 SIZ is practically non-playable. 

[Morien]

52 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

No problem, although just what the limits are depends a lot on which chargen method used. Although, I do find the random method a little suspect. A PK who rolls a 4 CON or 7 SIZ is practically non-playable. 

I would not allow the characters to exceed the cultural maximum by their random rolls alone. It takes Glory.

That being said, I find K&L way way too random, like you note. In our campaign, we use these three options instead (choose one option; APP is always rolled 2d6+4, but you can use points in 2 & 3 to increase it if you want at 1 point to +2 APP, and that is also why the starting points in 2. are 50 instead of 60):

1. SIZ 1d6+12, DEX 1d6+7, STR 1d6+10, CON 1d6+9

2. Distribute 50 points.

3. Distribute 43+2d6 points.

Afterwards, add cultural bonus and then continue with character generation. It has worked pretty well so far.

[Morien]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Ah, now I see. What they meant is that you could spend the 60 points the same way you did for Dad, if you wanted to. So if your first character has SIZ 16, DEX 10, STR 11, CON 16 , APP 10 (assuming the Cmric bonus of +3 CON), then so could the son. 

I did some checking, and I think this is absolutely the correct reading of it. I went back to 3rd Edition, and there the wording is totally unambiguous (p. 55): "Statistics are done as usual, with 60 points distributed. If you wish, these may be identical to the original statistics of the father."

Since father started with the same 60 points originally, it is clear that this is not an alternative option, but merely a guideline on how to distribute those 60 points, like Atgxtg said.

I am ever so glad for having been wrong.

[Atgxtg]

12 minutes ago, Morien said:

I would not allow the characters to exceed the cultural maximum by their random rolls alone. It takes Glory.

I'm just quote K&L. Personally i have some problems with it too. Mainly that one chargen method shouldn't have an advtage over others. But 19 vs 18 isn't a big deal, especially withthe 19 is a 1/216 chance.

12 minutes ago, Morien said:

That being said, I find K&L way way too random, like you note.

It's the problem with 3d6 rolls for attributes in a game where attributes below 10 are borderline non-playable.  I

12 minutes ago, Morien said:

In our campaign, we use these three options instead (choose one option; APP is always rolled 2d6+4, but you can use points in 2 & 3 to increase it if you want at 1 point to +2 APP, and that is also why the starting points in 2. are 50 instead of 60):

1. SIZ 1d6+12, DEX 1d6+7, STR 1d6+10, CON 1d6+9

Why the big variation between DEX, STR and CON? 

 

Overall I think 4E chargen was probably superior to 5E. Now K&L has some nice neat new stuff, but I think overall 4E was more consistent and had fewer bugs and errors. Plus some of the 5E changes (British Christianity) don't quite work so well. But then K&L would probably be less problematic with some errata. 

 

[Morien]

12 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Why the big variation between DEX, STR and CON? 

Because DEX was clearly the least useful of the three, and since CON usually got the +3 bonus from Cymric, on top. Also, the ordinary knight was 14/10/14/14/10, so clearly SIZ, STR and CON (slightly) are favored over DEX & APP even amongst the NPCs.

In short, those values were chosen so that the statistics generated would not be too much out of line compared to what the Players did with the point distribution model, where the most common build was: SIZ 16, DEX 10, STR 14, CON 10 and then using the 4 misc picks to +2 SIZ, +1 STR and +1 CON = 18/10/15/11+3.

The Option 1 gives an average of 52 stat points compared to 50 of the point distribution method, but at the cost of diminished minmaxing opportunities. The average stats (before misc picks & cultural bonus) are 15.5/10.5/13.5/12.5, meaning that it is still possible to push the character to 6d6 damage if they so choose. Even at minimum rolls (13/8/11/10 = total 42), it would still be possible to make the damage 5d6 (which is pretty much our minimum for a combat effective character, as 4d6 simply doesn't cut it vs. chain+shield of other knights), although I admit I would be very tempted to offer a mulligan on those rolls.

The one thing I really like about 5th edition of chargen is that it forces the PKs to develop some of their non-combat skills, making for more rounded characters. It is also relatively fast and easy, as you don't have to calculate so many skill points. That being said, 4th edition was a much more complete package, and I was somewhat disappointed with 5th edition initially, when I realized that I would need to buy another book to have the same kind of options as 4th edition had with the basic book. I'll also fully agree with you about the British Christianity, and in our campaigns, we used only Roman Christianity.

[Atgxtg]

6 hours ago, Morien said:

The one thing I really like about 5th edition of chargen is that it forces the PKs to develop some of their non-combat skills, making for more rounded characters.

Odd, I find it completely the opposite. In previous edtions a PK had to qualify for Knighthood and that forced him to develop a couple of non-combat skills. In KAP5 they don't and so don't need to. Especially in K&L. Practicalyl every important skill get bumped to 10 or 15 in chargen and the PKs all wind up with ultra high Sword skills. All of the PKs who surive a few years in my KAP5 games wind up with a primary weapon skill over 20. THat was much less common in KAP4, where the players had other skills to worry about.

 

 

6 hours ago, Morien said:

It is also relatively fast and easy, as you don't have to calculate so many skill points.

I find it much slower that 4E. There are a lot more modifiers, and I preferred the skill points to the four picks, which frankly I think suck. IMO Book of Entourage's Squires rules are the way to go. Start everything off at a base, then get five or siz years of training. 

6 hours ago, Morien said:

That being said, 4th edition was a much more complete package, and I was somewhat disappointed with 5th edition initially, when I realized that I would need to buy another book to have the same kind of options as 4th edition had with the basic book. I'll also fully agree with you about the British Christianity, and in our campaigns, we used only Roman Christianity.

Yes, it's one of the things that I do not like about Mordern RPGs. Stuff is intentionally omitted from the core rules just so it can be packaged and sold as a supplement. It wouldn't have been difficult to put in the random chargen for Salisbury PKs in the core rules. What would it have taken, a quarter page?

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Odd, I find it completely the opposite. In previous edtions a PK had to qualify for Knighthood and that forced him to develop a couple of non-combat skills. In KAP5 they don't and so don't need to. Especially in K&L. Practicalyl every important skill get bumped to 10 or 15 in chargen and the PKs all wind up with ultra high Sword skills. All of the PKs who surive a few years in my KAP5 games wind up with a primary weapon skill over 20. THat was much less common in KAP4, where the players had other skills to worry about.

I take it that we are talking about the Advanced Character Generation of 4th edition here, when it comes to qualifying, since the first characters automatically do qualify (2 NC skills at 10 included at chargen). But I think I see where the power creep was introduced... When I compare the 4th and 5th edition first characters, they seem identical in attributes, traits and passions, BUT we see a shift to THREE non-combat skills at 10 (instead of two), AND those 4 misc points that are functionally equivalent to 4 yearly trainings. Thus, the 5th edition character has about 5 years' headstart on the 4th edition first character, unless I missed something. The starting skill values look pretty similar between the editions, for the First Characters.

With 4th edition Advanced Character Generation (which we used back in the day), it becomes a bit more complicated, as you start at 15 and get a a pool of skill points (depending on the Father''s Class, 30 for a vassal knight) and then 6 yearly trainings until you qualify for knighthood.

Attributes: 60, if using Designated method.

Traits: Lots of choices (including potentially +6 points after the fact), but let's go with similar to the First Characters.

Passions: Again, different options, but for ease of comparison, let's use the First Characters again, since the random method gives you much worse (in some; vassal knight dad gives a Loyalty Average of 17, but Honor average of only 11...) and Designated Method can be abused at will.

Skills: This is the main difference that I can see. First of all, the cultural starting values are much poorer than for the First Knights character sheet, so some of the points got hidden there. In order to get First Aid (10), Battle (3), Horsemanship (4), Sword (7), and Lance (2) to 10 each, a Cymric male needs to spend 18 points of his 30 points (if a vassal knight). The remaining 12 is just enough to push Awareness (5) and Courtesy (3) to 10 each, too, in order to qualify for knighthood (at the age of 15). Granted, pretty much any Family Characteristic would save you at least 5 points, likely 7 points.

6 yearly trainings to bring the character from 15 to 21: Assuming that these are all spent on skill increases, it would give 21 points (6d6 average) to spend on skills, which would make up for the 10 points the First Knight gets, and cover the one skill at 15 if we don't want to mix the Family Characteristic into this. The First Knight also has Dagger (5) and Spear (6) at higher value than the Cultural one (3 and 2, respectively), so those would account for another 6 points. Roughly comparable, in other words.

However, I rarely saw the players bothering with NC skills or raising their Dagger and Spear skills. Instead, the Family Characteristic took care of the second NC, leaving them with Sword 15 and 6 yearly trainings to spend on attributes, Lance and Horsemanship. Assuming roughly average rolling and a suitable FC, they could start with Sword 15, Lance 15, Horsemanship 15, and 4 more yearly trainings in statistics. Sure, they only had two other NC skills than First Aid at 10+, but that was enough to qualify them for knighthood, so it was not an issue.

Admittedly, the 5th edition has those 4 picks (roughly equivalent to the 4 remaining yearly trainings above) and the 10 extra skill points are enough to start with Lance and Horsemanship at 15, too, assuming the 15 skill goes to Sword. In addition, they get two more NC skills for free at 10, before adding the Family Characteristic. So they still come ahead in 5th edition, admittedly. But thanks to those two extra Non-Combat Skills, they feel more rounded, even if they are as combat optimized. I usually advised the PKs in 5th edition to put the 15 skill into their Family Characteristic skill, especially if it was Awareness, Hunting or Horsemanship, in order to get those skills to 20 (a big bonus!), so it usually meant not having both Lance and Horsemanship at 15 from the start, without sacrificing one of the misc picks.

But yes, 5th edition is more generous, it just was more generous in the non-combat skills, making the characters feel more rounded.

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I preferred the skill points to the four picks, which frankly I think suck.

What's the problem there? They are functionally equivalent to Yearly trainings that 4th edition already had. If you hate them so much, you can mandate that they all need to be used for skills, and hence have 20 skill points to play with. Or is it the +5 to skill that you object? Easy thing to houserule.

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

IMO Book of Entourage's Squires rules are the way to go.

Glad you like them.

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

It wouldn't have been difficult to put in the random chargen for Salisbury PKs in the core rules.

I was referring more to the Peoples' chapter. The omission of the random rolls was a bit strange, but then again, they were not on the First Characters in 4th edition, either. So that is probably the reason why they were missing in 5th edition.

[Atgxtg]

52 minutes ago, Morien said:

I take it that we are talking about the Advanced Character Generation of 4th edition here,

Yup.

Quote

when it comes to qualifying, since the first characters automatically do qualify (2 NC skills at 10 included at chargen). But I think I see where the power creep was introduced... When I compare the 4th and 5th edition first characters, they seem identical in attributes, traits and passions,

The're not. In 4E attributes were 3d6 except for SIZ which was 2d6+6. Now they are 3d6+1 except for SIZ which is 3d6+4. That means the average STR+SIZ is now 26 as opposed to 23.5. It one of the reason why I think the horse db need to be upped. Back in KAP1 (ave STR+SIZ=21) a 6d6 damage was a boost. Now, many PKs do the same damage as their mounts!

 

Quote

BUT we see a shift to THREE non-combat skills at 10 (instead of two), AND those 4 misc points that are functionally equivalent to 4 yearly trainings. Thus, the 5th edition character has about 5 years' headstart on the 4th edition first character, unless I missed something. The starting skill values look pretty similar between the editions, for the First Characters.

 

With 4th edition Advanced Character Generation (which we used back in the day), it becomes a bit more complicated, as you start at 15 and get a a pool of skill points (depending on the Father''s Class, 30 for a vassal knight) and then 6 yearly trainings until you qualify for knighthood.

Yeh,. In 5E it's relatively easy to get several skills up to 15 in chargen, whereas in KAP1-4 that took time. So KAP5 really accelerates the PK advancement. Since my players leared a long time ago how important a skill of 20 is in combat (can't fumble, always get thier shield) and learned to focus on getting thier primary combat skills up to 20 ASAP, KAP5 sort of turbo boosted their advancement. 

Quote

Attributes: 60, if using Designated method.

What wasn't really the norm. 

Quote

Traits: Lots of choices (including potentially +6 points after the fact), but let's go with similar to the First Characters.

Traits have gooten a lot more relgional boosts, and the ability to raise one to 16 in chargen and spend 6 points to round out, combined with British Christiany makes the Chivlary bonus incredibly easy. That's really why I think Greg finally noticed the Chivalry error after 25 years. 

Quote

Passions: Again, different options, but for ease of comparison, let's use the First Characters again, since the random method gives you much worse (in some; vassal knight dad gives a Loyalty Average of 17, but Honor average of only 11...) and Designated Method can be abused at will.

One big difference here is the default values for starting characters. Back when these were roleld getting Loyatly (Lord) to 15 could take a couple of years. 

Quote

Skills: This is the main difference that I can see. First of all, the cultural starting values are much poorer than for the First Knights character sheet, so some of the points got hidden there. In order to get First Aid (10), Battle (3), Horsemanship (4), Sword (7), and Lance (2) to 10 each, a Cymric male needs to spend 18 points of his 30 points (if a vassal knight). The remaining 12 is just enough to push Awareness (5) and Courtesy (3) to 10 each, too, in order to qualify for knighthood (at the age of 15). Granted, pretty much any Family Characteristic would save you at least 5 points, likely 7 points.

6 yearly trainings to bring the character from 15 to 21: Assuming that these are all spent on skill increases, it would give 21 points (6d6 average) to spend on skills, which would make up for the 10 points the First Knight gets, and cover the one skill at 15 if we don't want to mix the Family Characteristic into this. The First Knight also has Dagger (5) and Spear (6) at higher value than the Cultural one (3 and 2, respectively), so those would account for another 6 points. Roughly comparable, in other words.

 

However, I rarely saw the players bothering with NC skills or raising their Dagger and Spear skills.

That's because dagger and spear are kinda useless in KAP. Dagger is just the most inferior melee weapon in the game. It breaks easy and does less damage than anything else. The only characters I ever saw improve it were Romans, and that's because Greg would use it for the Gladius. Otherwise it just the weapon you use when you can't find something better.  Do any of your players improve it now?

Spear is the second most inferior weapon in the game. It has no bonuses yet breaks on ties and fumbles. Most of the PKs I see only use it for charges. The sole exception is a PK who has a magical spear which has powers and doesn't break. Gretspear and especially Lance are useful but not Spear or dagger.

 

 

Quote

 

Instead, the Family Characteristic took care of the second NC, leaving them with Sword 15 and 6 yearly trainings to spend on attributes, Lance and Horsemanship. Assuming roughly average rolling and a suitable FC, they could start with Sword 15, Lance 15, Horsemanship 15, and 4 more yearly trainings in statistics. Sure, they only had two other NC skills than First Aid at 10+, but that was enough to qualify them for knighthood, so it was not an issue.

I don't agree with your math here. In KAP4 the average roll for yearly improvement was 3.5, so with 2 years of training that would be 7 points. So he'd need another year to get Lance and Horsemanship up. 

Plus my players don't focus as much on raising their attributes as yours do. 

Quote

Admittedly, the 5th edition has those 4 picks (roughly equivalent to the 4 remaining yearly trainings above)

No,, much superior to those 4 years. Each pick is worth 5 points to a skill, and that's a known, fixed quality. Whereas in KAP4 you couldn't count on getting 5 points out of 1d6, or even out of four.

Quote

But yes, 5th edition is more generous, it just was more generous in the non-combat skills, making the characters feel more rounded.

No it's much more generous across the board.

Quote

K&L p. 58

1. Choose any one combat or non-combat skill at which you excel. Make it 15. (A weapon skill is a popular and useful choice.)

This is a huge benefit right there. A knight can go from 0 to 15 in a weapon skill right there. That's practically all of a characters points in KAP4. 

Let's say just assume a PK uses that on Sword as one possibility, although it is a great way to pick up one of those 0 starting weapons and get a 15.

Quote

K&L p. 58

2. Choose any 3 non-combat skills, and make each of them 10.

Is what you talking about and is another big jump for two reasons.

First off it completely bypasses the initial starting score so someone with a score of 1 or 2 can shoot up to 10. 

Secondly, getting those skills to 10 in KAP4 would have limited the ability to improve elsewhere. So now PKs are free to ignore their courtly skills during chargen. 

Quote

K&L p. 58

3. Raise any four scores from among the Traits, Passions, or
Skills.
If you raise a skill or combat skill, then it increases it
by up to 5 points.
If you raise an attribute, trait, or passion, then it
increases by 1 point.

Can all be put towards attributes or traits because Step 1 and 4 will take care of the combat skills.

If a PK wants to know how to use a Great Axe or some such then he takes that in step 1 and uses one of his picks to max out sword.

Quote

K&L p. 58

4. Add 10 more discretionary points, to be divided in any amount
among any number of non-combat skills of your choice.

If Sword is already at 15 from step 1 or 3, then this Lance and Horsemanship up to 15. 

Quote

What's the problem there? They are functionally equivalent to Yearly trainings that 4th edition already had.

No they are functionally superior. In KAP 4 take a Cymric knight in chargen and try to:

• Get Sword, Lance, Horsemanship, and Great Axe to 15
• Get First Aid, and two other non combat skills to 10 
• Raise 3 attributes or traits. 
• Get the 80 point Chivalry Bonus
• All by age 21.

KAP5 PKs start off a lot more powerful, and more well rounded.  Even if you can do it, it required a lot of lucky dfie rolls. But every single Cymric PK from Salisbury can do it in chargen in KAP5. 

 

Quote

Glad you like them.

I do. I think they are better than the ones in K&L. I think I'd have preferred Age-10, but that's just for simplicity.  But then I find the starting skills scores to be more of a pain. In most cases the differences between starting at a (3) or a (2) or a (4) are not worth the bother. It's why I'd like to have them all default to something like APP/3 or some such.

It also bypasses most of the things I dislike about KAP5 chargen. 

Quote

I was referring more to the Peoples' chapter. The omission of the random rolls was a bit strange, but then again, they were not on the First Characters in 4th edition, either. So that is probably the reason why they were missing in 5th edition.

Well, that goes back to KAP3. With the new edition the chargen section was a lot bigger than in KAP1 and the simpler chargen was included instead, and the advanced chargen  was in a supplement. But KAP4 put it all back in. So it could have been included in KAP5. 

Edited April 17, 2019 by Atgxtg

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

The're not. In 4E attributes were 3d6 except for SIZ which was 2d6+6. Now they are 3d6+1 except for SIZ which is 3d6+4. That means the average STR+SIZ is now 26 as opposed to 23.5. It one of the reason why I think the horse db need to be upped. Back in KAP1 (ave STR+SIZ=21) a 6d6 damage was a boost. Now, many PKs do the same damage as their mounts!

If it wasn't obvious, I was comparing KAP 5.2 character generation to 4E, not K&L. If you want to talk about truly overpowered character generation, look at Book of Knights or Saxons! (4.5 edition...). I agree that K&L is even more generous than 5.2, but it is not in the main rulebook. The Designated method is, so that is what I compared it to.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

This is a huge benefit right there. A knight can go from 0 to 15 in a weapon skill right there. That's practically all of a characters points in KAP4. 

4E first characters has the exact same choice of 1 skill (combat or non-combat) to 15. I agree that it is a big bonus to get a non-Sword to 15, or a non-combat skill like Hunting to 15. However, Sword is the default weapon.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

I don't agree with your math here. In KAP4 the average roll for yearly improvement was 3.5, so with 2 years of training that would be 7 points. So he'd need another year to get Lance and Horsemanship up. 

Suitable FC saves 7 points -> Sword 15, Lance and Horsemanship 11. Two yearly trainings and getting slightly above average 8 points (3.5 rounded up twice) -> Lance and Horsemanship 15. Close enough. (Yearly training is more generous in 5th edition, too, being 1d6+1 = average 4.5 = 5 points, where that +5 per pick comes from.)

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

No,, much superior to those 4 years. Each pick is worth 5 points to a skill, and that's a known, fixed quality. Whereas in KAP4 you couldn't count on getting 5 points out of 1d6, or even out of four. 

Only if you are adamant on squeezing the maximum skill points out of the misc picks, which my players rarely are. YPWV. Also, within 5th edition, those picks are functionally equivalent to the yearly training, as explained above.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Do any of your players improve it now?

As I may have mentioned in other context, we give ALL weapon skills at 10. This gets rid of the master swordsman being a total incompetent with a club -problem, as well as addresses your minmax choice of using the 15 raise to a non-Sword. Now it doesn't matter since they all start from 10. This also encourages Players to actually train other weapons up, since they don't waste 2 - 3 years getting them from 0 to 10, and can instead go from 10 to 15 (usable)  in one year or so. It is quite common for the PKs to have two melee weapons (Sword and Axe or Mace) at 15+ now. Dagger is still not a favorite, though. That -1d6 is a killer, and there is not enough wrestling to warrant its use. A couple of PKs picked Spear as their second weapon, mostly for character reasons.

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

KAP5 PKs start off a lot more powerful, and more well rounded. 

Didn't I already come to the same conclusion in my post that you quoted?

[Atgxtg]

18 hours ago, Morien said:

If it wasn't obvious, I was comparing KAP 5.2 character generation to 4E, not K&L. If you want to talk about truly overpowered character generation, look at Book of Knights or Saxons! (4.5 edition...).

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.

18 hours ago, Morien said:

 

I agree that K&L is even more generous than 5.2, but it is not in the main rulebook. The Designated method is, so that is what I compared it to.

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.

 

 

18 hours ago, Morien said:

As I may have mentioned in other context, we give ALL weapon skills at 10.

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.

18 hours ago, Morien said:

Dagger is still not a favorite, though. That -1d6 is a killer, and there is not enough wrestling to warrant its use.

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.

 

[Morien]

14 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

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.

DEX/2 would be fine. Even Romans start with max DEX 20, so it would give a default of 10. DEX/3 is a bit too little, IMHO. I would even be fine with DEX-5, to give it a bit more oomph. After all, you VERY rarely train more than a few weapon skills, so it is not such a big deal to give even 15 defaults for DEX 20, IMHO.

20 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

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. 

I would allow this in Grappling (probably after winning it first), perhaps, but not in normal combat. Otherwise, Dagger would be superior to Sword even against a chainmail.

24 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

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.

That would make it preferred for formation fighting, sure.

[Khanwulf]

50 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

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.

 

Was thinking about this on the way in today.

Spear has been so common a weapon because it is effective in a formation and can keep an opponent out of range. It's also cheap. Daggers have been backup weapons because they are easier to carry and employ during a grapple, effectively. They are also narrow enough to force the point between chain links even if you can't find a softer chink. 

So, here are a few potential fixes, though this is not really the thread for it:

1. Daggers may be employed as a weapon/skill during a successful grapple [this is core rules], and if so halves opponent armor values; use Dagger skill instead of DEX. (Grappling may also prevents shield use--this is unclear.) A dagger may be readied and used to attack the same round at no penalty.

2. Spears receive a reach bonus (+5) on the first round of combat or when employed in formation (one or more allies on each of the right and left), so long as the opponent is not also employing a spear/polearm.

[There is no reflexive penalty because the assumption is that the opponent will attempt to get in under the spear and attack with full value. He's just more likely to get hurt and if he does then that means his attack was stopped. The proper sequence is to fight defensively the first round against a spearman while closing in and then destroy him round 2. If he's in formation that won't work however--just bring your own spears. The spearman OTOH will prefer to fight one round, and on the second round disengage, then reengage round 3.]

Note that spears were very effective versus chain because they could get into the links in ways that swords found harder; swords were more effective on light armor, and always a good backup weapon.]

3. All weapons are dropped on a fumble. A spear, axe, polearm or mace fumble on the same round in which the opponent scores a critical results in a broken weapon. Frequently swords, maces and axes are secured to the knight with a lanyard and may be retrieved the next round with a reflexive penalty (+5/-5). Spears and polearms fumbled are at the mercy of the combat and may be more easily prevented from rearming--especially if the owner is ahorse. [This reduces the breakage rate to 1 in 400 for regular combatants.]

Edit 4. Combatants in a shieldwall formation (close shield use, one or more allies on both right and left) receive cover (-5) to attempts to attack them. 

--Khanwulf

Edited April 18, 2019 by Khanwulf

[Atgxtg]

7 minutes ago, Khanwulf said:

Was thinking about this on the way in today.

 

So, here are a few potential fixes, though this is not really the thread for it:

No, but feel free to start one. Daggers and Spears could use a little love.

7 minutes ago, Khanwulf said:

1. Daggers may be employed as a weapon/skill during a successful grapple [this is core rules], and if so halves opponent armor values; use Dagger skill instead of DEX. (Grappling may also prevents shield use--this is unclear.) A dagger may be readied and used to attack the same round at no penalty.

2. Spears receive a reach bonus (+5) on the first round of combat or when employed in formation (one or more allies on each of the right and left), so long as the opponent is not also employing a spear/polearm.

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)

. 

7 minutes ago, Khanwulf said:

3. All weapons are dropped on a fumble. A spear, axe, polearm or mace fumble on the same round in which the opponent scores a critical results in a broken weapon. Frequently swords, maces and axes are secured to the knight with a lanyard and may be retrieved the next round with a reflexive penalty (+5/-5). Spears and polearms fumbled are at the mercy of the combat and may be more easily prevented from rearming--especially if the owner is ahorse. [This reduces the breakage rate to 1 in 400 for regular combatants.]

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. 

7 minutes ago, Khanwulf said:

Edit 4. Combatants in a shieldwall formation (close shield use, one or more allies on both right and left) receive cover (-5) to attempts to attack them. 

--Khanwulf

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.  

[Atgxtg]

47 minutes ago, Morien said:

DEX/2 would be fine. Even Romans start with max DEX 20, so it would give a default of 10. DEX/3 is a bit too little, IMHO. I would even be fine with DEX-5, to give it a bit more oomph. After all, you VERY rarely train more than a few weapon skills, so it is not such a big deal to give even 15 defaults for DEX 20, IMHO.

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.

47 minutes ago, Morien said:

I would allow this in Grappling (probably after winning it first), perhaps, but not in normal combat. Otherwise, Dagger would be superior to Sword even against a chainmail.

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. 

 

47 minutes ago, Morien said:

That would make it preferred for formation fighting, sure.

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. 

[Khanwulf]

12 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

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):

I've seen the same videos, observed reenactments myself, and generally read literature by folks who've put their bread-and-butter into writing on it. I think we're in the same place you and I, but differ on how fiddly to make a correction to KAP's overly-generalized approach to the weapons.

I'll make a thread for this.

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

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 hardly seems worth the trouble, having those little one point tweaks. Having most physical skills start at DEX/2 and social skills at APP/2 could work, and give those two stats a rather important role at the character generation. Additional advantage is that then you don't have to remember if the Cymri have 2 or 3 in Flirting...

[Atgxtg]

11 minutes ago, Morien said:

Yeah, it hardly seems worth the trouble, having those little one point tweaks. Having most physical skills start at DEX/2 and social skills at APP/2 could work, and give those two stats a rather important role at the character generation. Additional advantage is that then you don't have to remember if the Cymri have 2 or 3 in Flirting...

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.