Alternate Chargen Test Challenge

[SDLeary]

5 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

Being a knight is their job not their culture. The point was they come from a city dwelling urbanized British culture as you stated while they can become knights that was not their cultural identity.

Or they could be from the rural areas of the cities lands and live/work on a large Villa, and only visit their city when necessary? Thus they would have a lifestyle much closer to the nobles from the non-romanized Britons, and fit into the game as noted?

SDLeary

[Morien]

The landed knights would have manors in the countryside around the city, yes. 

[Atgxtg]

8 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Or they could be from the rural areas of the cities lands and live/work on a large Villa, and only visit their city when necessary? Thus they would have a lifestyle much closer to the nobles from the non-romanized Britons, and fit into the game as noted?

SDLeary

Theyt could, although the way the homelands tables are set up in K&L is it far more likely that they are city dwellers. 

[Atgxtg]

15 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

Again I am not concerned with there combat skills.

I am concerned with their non-combat skill which are the true mark of their cultural upbringing.

Most knights non-combat skills start fairly low (2-4). 

 

15 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

you seem to be stuck on just one skill representing the whole package, while I agree that skill is an important skill the rest of the chart also factors in and you idea washes over that.

But there isn't all that much difference in those skills among the various cultures for starting knights. Most cultures are good (above 6-10) in a couple of skills and poor (0-5) in the rest. The difference between a 3 and a 4 is not significant.

 

15 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

Just in the British cultures there are major differences in skill distribution and those distributions also change depending on the time period.

Such as?

From what I see most of the skills for most knights start at the same skill level or near enough that it makes no difference. In fact, by the core rules there is no difference. K&L varies a few things but not all that much at the lower end. Now I have no problem with Saxon PKS starting with a higher boating skill, or Romans starting with a 10 Law or some such. 

 

15 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

Doesn't need to be much difference to be different.

It does for it to be significant. In play nobody really notices if a character has a 3 or a 4 on their sheet.

15 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

You seem to have the administrative roman nobles the culture in the game represents confused with the roman legions.

No, I just don;t consider every Roman PK to be an adminitative noble. Yes there are the the high ranking Romans who run most of the cities, but not every PK is one of those Romans. 

15 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

First the roman legions were a subculture of the roman society not the Romans at large, and for the most part outside their generals (Legatus legionis) were normal not roman citizens.

The tended to be Socii or client state citizens who where indoctrinated into the roman legion culture, roman citizens did not normally if every join the legions.

 

15 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

And as the roman empire had been in decline since 410 AD and collapsed in 476 AD  roman culture in KAP is the remnants of the noble administration from the occupation that chose to stay or the British peoples that adopted the culture.

Historically I agree with you. Rome went into decline (before 410, too, but that was when they pull out of Britain), and by 476 was pretty much done. That said, the Romans in PEndragon are a bit better off than thier hostorical counterparts. Part of the difficulty here is that in order to show Arthur as the ultimate King, they made him the Emperor of Rome, and so had to have some semblance of Rome around for his to conquer to prove his worthiness. So he has batle with actual Roman-type Romans that culminate is his Contentianl campaign and the conquest of  Rome in the late 420s. 

 

15 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

So no the roman society in the game is not the roman legions it is the roman administrators, so the culture skill is fine.

It's not just the administrators, it's any Romanized-Brit who considers himself a roman citizen. 

15 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

The roman culture that you are talking about would be the Byzantines in this game and I would say their cultural skill of "Tactics" fits the conquerors that you are portraying. 

Again I'll point out that Contiential Romans, from Rome do show up in MAllory and elsewhere. It's not historically accurate, but it's part of the story. 

15 hours ago, tenchi2a said:

I don't feel its a moot point as again I am more about the total culture balance of all skills not just one or two and thru out each of the cultures skills charts their are differences not just with one or two skills.

First off there is no cultural balance of all skills. Greg even noted in K&L that Cymric characters get more than the others. As for the current cultural feel that is all from K&L The cuyltural skills were different in earlier editions (for instance in KAP 3-4 Cymric characters best cultural weapon was Sword).

 

Now again, I have no problem with the cultural skills and other significant skills of each culture. They start at higher values that the default will be anyway. The idea with the variant rule was to do something with all those skills that stat at (2).

 

But hey, after five pages of people being totally opposed to writing up so test characters to see how it actually looks, I'm willing to drop the whole idea. 

[Atgxtg]

15 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

DEX for knights in their heavy armor may not be a great stat because it is overshadowed by Encumbrance. However, for a Pict, who wears little armor, that DEX can come into play. Moving inside castles, court scenes, normal day activities where armor is not worn, and again you have DEX being used. 

I disagree first off the game isn't about playing non-knight Picts. Even a Pict PK is going to gravitate towards a high SIZ and CON.

The problem I see here is that with chargen in KAP5 being maining done by dividing up 60 points, and with SIZ and CON being so much more useful that DEX and APP, we are winding up with PKs all being very large.

Secondly as far as court scense and normal daily activities, DEX isn't being used. How many DEX rolls do most PKs make each session? 

 

15 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

APP follows a similar route, although there are very few uses for it during combat.  But, human nature tends to make one turn towards someone who is more good looking than not. 

Yes, but game mechanics do not. In game play the APP4 character with moderate Courtly skills will outperform a high APP character with poor social skills. That was why most of agreed that something needed to be done about it.

 

Now techni2a's idea has some merit, although there are some aspects of it that would need to be addressed. For example per RAW the type of distinctive features a character has (good or bad) are not tied to APP. Now, as techni2a has pointed out, a low APP character with a bunch of good features doesn't make much sense, but I beleive the idea of the freedom here was to allow for character who might be ugly but have one good feature or vice versa.Also, some feature would natually seem to affect other rolls, for instance, if features were to give modfiers to rolls then I'd expect a character with "bulging biceps" to have good arm strength.

15 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

I believe we need to keep these skills.  Tweak the system more to make them more important rather than the opposite. 

That was part of the purpose for this. The goals were to:

1) Make DEX and APP more important that they are now

2) Help Lady characters be something more than a trophy prize for the valiant knight.

15 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

Do the skills matter? 

I hope the skills matter. Now admittedly not all skills are equal in the game, and just how important a particualr skill is can vary quite a bit from group to group. 

15 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

If so, what level do they start?

If not, why have them? But I think most if not all the skills in the game matter and are worth having.

I think the real question here is if changing the values a point or two matters much. I'd have said no, and considering that the starting values have changed in various editions, a point or two here or there won't break the system. 

15 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

Are they realistic?

Does it matter? Quite a bit of KAP isn't realistic, but Arthurian. 

15 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

How do you differentiate between starting levels based on culture?

That's based on our understanding on the culture, but is both subjective, and depends on just what view of a culture you are shooting for. 

But I think a more important question is how important are the differences in skills between cultures, especially the minor ones. Personally I don't consider the difference between a (2) and a (3) to be significant in play and more of a bookkeeping chore than any real insight into the cultures. And quite a bit of that is on shaky ground. For instance, are Irish really better dancers than Cymri? Are Romans really less Aware? BUt Iguess people think so.

 

[SDLeary]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Theyt could, although the way the homelands tables are set up in K&L is it far more likely that they are city dwellers. 

If they were on the lands that the city controlled, yet were on a villa outside the walls, they would still be considered from the city. In this way they have roughly the same living conditions as their Celtic equals (though of course they consider themselves better). They would visit the city more often, escorting their lord to his duties, their ladies on excursions to the market, or attending council themselves, assuming they have enough status. 

In this way, they already fit into the frame laid out by K&L, and the older editions.

SDLeary

[Hzark10]

7 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I disagree first off the game isn't about playing non-knight Picts. Even a Pict PK is going to gravitate towards a high SIZ and CON.

I think I might not be getting my point across. Either that, or you don't think it is a valid point.  Let me try again.

One thing I really like about RQ is the depth of nonhumans stats, cults, and such. Even a lowly trollkin can kill you.  In KAP, you have the fae, and the traditional foes of fellow Cymri, Cambrian tribesmen, Cambrian knights, Cornish knights, Saxons (all of the various subgroups) and Cumbrians in addition to the various creatures. 

The Picts are one foe that many disregard because they are considered to be really inferior.  Historically, they were not. The Romans built 2 walls to try to contain them. The first, Hadrian's Wall,  held because of it being constantly manned and tribes of Cymri living there. The second, Antonine's Wall, was abandoned almost as quickly as it was built.  The Picts were a constant thread to the Romans.  In KAP, their religion, the 'magical' tattoos, and the game depiction of these people give us the impression of kobolds, goblins, or other mass monsters who are easily mowed down as they wear no armor.  In 4th edition, the 'feint' maneuver made them quite effective. Historically, it is thought they fought with a war dog. Well, you know what happens if you are double teamed in KAP.  King Lot was one of Arthur's enemies and he had Picts at his beck and call.  Merlin's magic save the day there.

The point I am making, is the current proposed rules weaken one of the more dominant tribes/enemies to the point where either you abandon their game text or they become less then what they should be.

Your point about "the game isn't about playing non-knight Picts" should be looked at more closely.  So, I can't play a Pict? how about a Cambrian Tribesman, or an Irish warrior.  Saxon? Can you only play a tried and true Knight?  Fine, what about those who have played through the Great Pendragon Campaign a couple of times now and what to do something different? I am looking for rules that allow campaigns to set in areas other than Salisbury. Book of Sires was meant to open the whole of Logres to a campaign. There is enough background to set it in Cumbria with a little bit of work.  That way, you can have a campaign that allows one to follow GPC, but not be front and center. Gamemasters can create their own stories and can go as far afield as they wish. Some may want to play a nontraditional campaign where tribal characters are the norm in the 480's and not really get involved in the knight aspect until after the conquest phase. Where to set it? Well, the far north is a very interesting place. "Beyond the Wall" is a classic Pendragon source book that details this area. It is worth looking at for the ideas there, especially if you want to play a Pict, whether up north or in the south where Greg placed a tribe for those who wanted to play a Pict.  Just like he placed a tribe of loyal Saxons, Berrocings, in case someone wanted to play a Saxon. 

I am NOT attacking you in this. I am simply saying I think KAP has the capacity to be more than it currently is. I may be the only person who feels this. I don't think so, but it is possible. Making DEX more important by increasing defaults for weapons and some skills to DEX/2 makes that Attribute more important. So would be making Dodge or other combat maneuvers that depend on DEX.  This board is all about examining such things. 

Humbly submitted,

BobS.

[Morien]

6 hours ago, SDLeary said:

If they were on the lands that the city controlled, yet were on a villa outside the walls, they would still be considered from the city. In this way they have roughly the same living conditions as their Celtic equals (though of course they consider themselves better). They would visit the city more often, escorting their lord to his duties, their ladies on excursions to the market, or attending council themselves, assuming they have enough status. 

In this way, they already fit into the frame laid out by K&L, and the older editions.

SDLeary

Taking this topic to a new thread, here:

 

[Morien]

24 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

 

The Picts are one foe that many disregard because they are considered to be really inferior.  Historically, they were not.

No, they weren't. But they also weren't stunted, feeble folk with -3 SIZ and -3 STR, either. In fact, the Romans compare them with the Germanic barbarians, having red hair and large limbs. So if anything, it would be more just, historically, to make them have bonuses in SIZ and STR.

Given that Romans tended to lump everyone north of the Hadrian's Wall into the same 'Painted People' basket, and we have clearly Cymric people living in between the Antonine and Hadrian's walls, and that the Irish didn't seem to have much of a distinction between themselves and the Picts, itwould also be quite fair to treat them as simply Cymric.

However, in KAP, we have the tattooed, stunted people, so that is what we are left with.

For those who do not consider the Picts a threat, that is because they are not a big threat, in one-on-one against a mounted, armored knight. But start doing 3-to-1 odds night-time attacks while most of the knights are asleep (and possibly unarmored, although not after the first attack), rolling DEX vs. Awareness to see if they can sneak up on the guard(s), and I guarantee you that the PKs will HATE campaigning in Pictish Highlands. Also, the standard tactic of the Picts should be to kill the horse first and then gang up on the knight.

24 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

I am simply saying I think KAP has the capacity to be more than it currently is.

KAP can be USED for more, yes.

But as Greg said in his mission statement ( https://web.archive.org/web/20190213023040/http://www.gspendragon.com/genreandgeneric.html ), KAP is about knights. That is what it is geared towards, what its focus is.

If you want to play thieves and monks and sorcerers and Pictish cattle-rustlers, you can. But if you are playing the vanilla KAP and GPC, then you are going to be playing a KNIGHT, regardless whether your parents were Picts, Saxons, Cymri, Romans or any other nationality.

Or to put it in another way, if you are playing a Pictish Campaign from Beyond the Wall, playing Pictish cattle-rustlers stealing the other tribes cattle and vice versa and never even hear about King Arthur and his knights, you might be using KAP SYSTEM, but you are not playing a KAP Campaign, as such. To me, KAP is focused around Arthur and the Round table, in the Arthurian mythos. I am using KAP rules to GM a campaign in Middle-earth. I am not claiming that it is a KAP campaign, if you get what I am driving at.

Edited July 31, 2019 by Morien

[Hzark10]

11 minutes ago, Morien said:

Or to put it in another way, if you are playing a Pictish Campaign from Beyond the Wall, playing Pictish cattle-rustlers stealing the other tribes cattle and vice versa and never even hear about King Arthur and his knights, you might be using KAP SYSTEM, but you are not playing a KAP Campaign, as such. To me, KAP is focused around Arthur and the Round table, in the Arthurian mythos. I am using KAP rules to GM a campaign in Middle-earth. I am not claiming that it is a KAP campaign, if you get what I am driving at.

Yup, loud and clear.

But, it can be the beginnings of one.  I know you are not advocating that a campaign can't be run until Arthur arrives on scene. I am also saying that Knight A and Knight B may not be that different in armor. Not much difference in DEX 18 and DEX 9 while wearing plate armor, but put them in a court scene, or a night attack, or something similar and suddenly those DEX stats become more important. Your example of the Middle Earth campaign is an example of the system being used for more than just Arthur. Having the rules transportable and depending less on using these rules in KAP and those rules in something else means the system doesn't encompass it all when it should be.

Lancelot's saga has more than just when he is armored up. He does a lot of things out of armor (and outside the bedroom). 😉

[Morien]

2 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

I know you are not advocating that a campaign can't be run until Arthur arrives on scene.

Yeah, obviously not. 

It doesn't change from the fact that the system has been designed for playing knights, not pickpocketing, lockpicking thieves navigating the underworld. Since it is designed with knights in mind, that is where the focus is and where the game works best. And it also shows where the game struggles, such as playing a lady character, especially outside the rules themselves. All the adventures are with knights in mind, and usually male ones at that. It is reasonable, given the focus and the setting, but it does mean that any Lady PC will have a rougher time of it, and so does the GM.

EDIT: If anything, giving DEX and APP something more (skill defaults) will help Ladies by actually making it worthwhile to be beautiful and dexterous. (Although I admit that I would still like to see a lover's solo minigame from the Lady's perspective, and I would imagine her APP would play a big role there, too.)

2 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

Not much difference in DEX 18 and DEX 9 while wearing plate armor, but put them in a court scene, or a night attack, or something similar and suddenly those DEX stats become more important.

Not significantly. Their courtly activities are determined by their SKILLS, not by their DEX nor even APP. DEX only becomes important when something significantly outside of the norm happens, like the previously mentioned tree-climbing to retrieve a bird. And even then, DEX 9 likely succeeds in a couple of tries. Even if there is combat, DEX 9 guy likely has a higher weapon skill (since he has not been spending yearly trainings to get his DEX that high or to make up for lackluster STR) and thus will do better than DEX 18, whose DEX will be totally useless unless he is Dodging (which itself is much inferior to fighting Defensively, as the rules stand now).

Edited July 31, 2019 by Morien

[jeffjerwin]

2 hours ago, Morien said:

Yeah, obviously not. 

It doesn't change from the fact that the system has been designed for playing knights, not pickpocketing, lockpicking thieves navigating the underworld. Since it is designed with knights in mind, that is where the focus is and where the game works best. And it also shows where the game struggles, such as playing a lady character, especially outside the rules themselves. All the adventures are with knights in mind, and usually male ones at that. It is reasonable, given the focus and the setting, but it does mean that any Lady PC will have a rougher time of it, and so does the GM.

While Robin Hood is not a KAP hero... (though the stuff about sneaking around castles and in the woods applies to a significant part of Tristram's story, which is why it is both older and more modern in content than the Lancelot-Guinevere affair)... Guinevere and Isolt are KAP heroines. I strongly support providing Lady characters with at least a bit more to do, as is argued here.

Other mini-scenarios and solos that women could do or aren't really gendered, and which are rooted in the romances, might include:

the 'tournament of ladies';

'nursing the wounded' (or even nursing the fugitive or incognito wounded as at Astolat, but there are many other examples);

'go-between in a love affair' (this can be rather stealth oriented)

'defending the manor from bandits or raiders' 

'the fairy lover' or 'negotiating with the fairies/the peace emissary'

'murder mystery'

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

I think I might not be getting my point across. Either that, or you don't think it is a valid point.  Let me try again.

One thing I really like about RQ is the depth of nonhumans stats, cults, and such. Even a lowly trollkin can kill you.  In KAP, you have the fae, and the traditional foes of fellow Cymri, Cambrian tribesmen, Cambrian knights, Cornish knights, Saxons (all of the various subgroups) and Cumbrians in addition to the various creatures. 

 

Quote

The Picts are one foe that many disregard because they are considered to be really inferior.  Historically, they were not. The Romans built 2 walls to try to contain them. The first, Hadrian's Wall,  held because of it being constantly manned and tribes of Cymri living there. The second, Antonine's Wall, was abandoned almost as quickly as it was built.  The Picts were a constant thread to the Romans.  In KAP, their religion, the 'magical' tattoos, and the game depiction of these people give us the impression of kobolds, goblins, or other mass monsters who are easily mowed down as they wear no armor.  In 4th edition, the 'feint' maneuver made them quite effective. Historically, it is thought they fought with a war dog. Well, you know what happens if you are double teamed in KAP.  King Lot was one of Arthur's enemies and he had Picts at his beck and call.  Merlin's magic save the day there.

Since your going historical here, the curent belief is that neither wall held, and that the peoples near the wall intermixed.

Quote

The point I am making, is the current proposed rules weaken one of the more dominant tribes/enemies to the point where either you abandon their game text or they become less then what they should be.

How? If Phsycial skills, such as weapon skills, default to DEX/2 and Picts start with a higher DEX, then their default weapon skills will be higher and by logical extension they will become stronger not weaker.

One problem I'm having with some of the objections to the alternative is that people are making claims and then not providing anything to back up their view. To give techni2a some credit here, his objection is that the proposed change is unnecessary becuase of how he interprets the rules is one that, while I don't agree with, did get backed up with an example and an alterative.. 

But I've read lots of posts where "this is bad, it will ruin X" but then there is either nothing to back the statement up, or what reasoning people give doesn't match up with how the proposed rule variant works, and the argument doesn't make sense. People claim that changing the defaults will ruin the cultural balance and so forth, but give no example or explanation how it will do so.

I created this thread specifically so that people could indeed write up test characters using the alternate method so we could all see what the effects ould be and determine if it was viable or not. But, except for Morien, rather than actually doing so, people just what to argue as to why we shouldn't even test out the idea with sample character that will never be played. 

Have we reached the point where we can't even test out new ideas in a forum thread to see  how the look before we condemn them?

 

I do not see how having physicals skills default to DEX/2 hurts PIct characters, the ones with the highest DEX score, in anyway. .Could you please explain to me how it does so?

 

 

Quote

Your point about "the game isn't about playing non-knight Picts" should be looked at more closely.  So, I can't play a Pict? how about a Cambrian Tribesman, or an Irish warrior.  Saxon? Can you only play a tried and true Knight?

Hzark10, that is a main point about KAP. It is a game about Knights. All the rules are "knight-centric". That's why the mounted bonus is so great compared to other games, even other BRP games (it's a +10% modfier for the rider in RQ, but a +25%/-25% reflexive modfier in KAP. It why armor protection isabout double compared to other BRP RPGs (becuase knights will be the ones with more armor) and shield protection halved (becuase everybody uses a shield). Reduced the mounted bonus to a +2 to for rider (only), make mail 5 points and shields 12 poin ts, and suddenly the footmen will be giving knights a real fight. It's also why combat tactics such as the Schiltron and mixed units of Pikemen and archers are glossed over in the book of Armies and Book of Battle- to preserve the knights dominance.

Pendragon is a game about knights. So no, by RAW you can't play a Pict, Cambrian Tribeman or Irish Warrior. At least not in KAP5, since there are no rules for creating one. KAP4 was a bit differernt in that regard, but the game was still knight-centric.

Quote

  Fine, what about those who have played through the Great Pendragon Campaign a couple of times now and what to do something different? I am looking for rules that allow campaigns to set in areas other than Salisbury. Book of Sires was meant to open the whole of Logres to a campaign. There is enough background to set it in Cumbria with a little bit of work.  That way, you can have a campaign that allows one to follow GPC, but not be front and center. Gamemasters can create their own stories and can go as far afield as they wish. Some may want to play a nontraditional campaign where tribal characters are the norm in the 480's and not really get involved in the knight aspect until after the conquest phase. Where to set it? Well, the far north is a very interesting place. "Beyond the Wall" is a classic Pendragon source book that details this area. It is worth looking at for the ideas there, especially if you want to play a Pict, whether up north or in the south where Greg placed a tribe for those who wanted to play a Pict.  Just like he placed a tribe of loyal Saxons, Berrocings, in case someone wanted to play a Saxon. 

If you want to do something differernt then you will need do either do some work or drop back to KAP4, which is different than KAP5+. In KAP4 Picts still have the double feint tactic to keep DEX useful. In KAP5 they don't. In KAP4 random chargen is included in the core rules, so just what a PK had for attributes was random. Not in KAP5. In KAP5 PKa get a pool of points and are given no incentive not to have a high SIZ and CON at the expense of DEX and APP. So now we are seeing lots of big, clumsny, plain looking PK "ogres" becuase that is what the game rewards.

But the thing is the proposed variant actually helps all those non-knightly PCs (including Lady characters) by making DEX and APP more useful. So all those cultures that get DEX and APP bonuses will actually get something useful (slightly higher skills) from it. 

 

Quote

I am NOT attacking you in this.

I'm not viwing as an attack. I'm just trying to understand your objection.

Quote

I am simply saying I think KAP has the capacity to be more than it currently is. I may be the only person who feels this.

I agree with you that it does. But I think that in order for it to be more than it is, other aspects of the characters, such as DEX and APP have to be more useful than they currently are. 

Quote

I don't think so, but it is possible. Making DEX more important by increasing defaults for weapons and some skills to DEX/2 makes that Attribute more important. So would be making Dodge or other combat maneuvers that depend on DEX.  This board is all about examining such things. 

What?!

First you say the proposed system would weaken PIct characters, then you advocate doing the very same thing. I'm confused.

Edited July 31, 2019 by Atgxtg

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

Yup, loud and clear.

But, it can be the beginnings of one.  I know you are not advocating that a campaign can't be run until Arthur arrives on scene. I am also saying that Knight A and Knight B may not be that different in armor. Not much difference in DEX 18 and DEX 9 while wearing plate armor, but put them in a court scene, or a night attack, or something similar and suddenly those DEX stats become more important.

Uh, how? How does the 18 DEX guy go better at court than the 9 DEX guy? I don't see a single thing anywhere in the rules or any supplment where DEX helps in a social situation. Oh, wait, I did think of one thing, the Leap.

But by RAW the 9 DEX guy could be just as good a dancer (or better) than the 18 DEX guy as DEX doesn't factor into things in anyway. 

3 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

Lancelot's saga has more than just when he is armored up. He does a lot of things out of armor (and outside the bedroom). 😉

Yes, and he is Lancelot. That's what makes him a terrible example. His capabilities are so superhuman that he can be help up as an example of anything, because he can't fail. Using him as example of the importance of non-combat abllities holds as much water as using him as an example of the importance of combat abilities. It doesn't matter really what the task is becuase if a knight can succeed at it, Lance will. Using him as an example is like making the case for PKs to start with 39 in all thier Knightly skills (like Lance).

Tristam is a slightly better example, as he could (possibly) fail. He won't, but at least he might. 

 

The thing is though, if a GM were to run a Robin Hood type of game with lots of sneaking and jumping and such, then Sneak, Jump,. Climb, etc. would be brought back into he game system as skills (as they had been in other BRP games). Greg rolled those abilities into the DEX attribute in KAP because such things were not that important in the world of Pendragon.

[Tizun Thane]

In my current campaign (533), I have a PK with Dex 24. He put 18 in Dex, a cultural bonus of +1 and some glory points (nearly all of them). Of course, he is weak elsewhere, especially in For and Con. He became some kind of ninja.

The "build" is viable:

• very good at jousting (obviously)
• very good at sneaking and climbing, especially when he put down his armor
• good with the double feint (never understood why it was deleted in the current edition)

It's very interesting so far, and the player is very creative with his abilities.

[jeffjerwin]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Tristam is a slightly better example, as he could (possibly) fail. He won't, but at least he might. 

He's not invincible. In fact he fails a fair bit, just not really that much in combat (he almost dies fighting Marhaus, however). Mostly poor decisions... He is after all, discovered in the woods with Isolt, so he must have failed a Hunting roll somewhere.

As an aside Lancelot's main vulnerabilities (besides Guinevere) seem to lie in these DEX-based situations. He never fails, of course, until the Grail Quest, when he fails badly.

Gawaine should be Dexterous as well, as his survival of the deadly Marvelous Bed in the Conte du Graal shows.

Really, what is the issue here is that every Arthurian major hero has got excellent statistics, better than anything but lucky rolls for random stats would provide. The rules make the vast majority of PCs the equivalent of second- or third-tier heroes. Nor are these stats for these heroes the result of extraordinary Glory; all of these characters have these innate abilities in their teens or early twenties, before they even are admitted to the Round Table. In essence, the game may need a sidebar explaining that heroic tier characters (with higher starting statistics) belong in a style of campaign where the PCs rival or replace some of the main heroes and heroines, but the standard campaign does not work that way: they are the characters, who, while famous and well-regarded, are more likely to be followers of these heroes or rescued by the heroes than be the leaders of the Round Table.

I do think that 'high-level' campaigns, where Lancelot doesn't exist, and is replaced by a PC or group of PCs, for example, should be an option.

Overall, the most mundane and ordinary use of DEX is for jumping from battlements or tower windows, and avoiding dying. This doesn't require a supernatural environment, and is a frequent event when avoiding husbands and fathers. DEX will be more useful when KAP has a fuller Romance sub-game (for knights and ladies alike) and when some of the more Otherworldly enchanted castle/Grail adventures are out there for the game.

[Morien]

7 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

very good at jousting (obviously)

How? The Knockdown roll when you are on horseback is Horsemanship, not DEX.

Also, as has been pointed out, Double Feint doesn't exist in KAP5. I can understand why someone who halves the enemy's armor 70% of the time would be pretty puissant, but on the other hand, a character who does 7d6 damage all the time (SIZ 24, likely +2d6 or even +3d6 over the DEX guy) would be pretty tough cookie, too. And arguably, even harder to knockdown (on foot or on a horse) than a DEX 24 guy.

Edited July 31, 2019 by Morien

[Morien]

5 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

I do think that 'high-level' campaigns, where Lancelot doesn't exist, and is replaced by a PC or group of PCs, for example, should be an option.

Maybe not Lancelot nor Galahad, both of whom are so perfect as to not fail, but the other named RTKs, sure, like Gawaine, Lamorak, Palomides, Bors, etc...

But yeah, fully agreed on the high-powered start sidebar would be desirable. I am pretty sure I wrote something on Nocturnal Forum about how to make this happen. I think I was saying something like +10 stat points and 10 extra yearly trainings (double both if they are like Gareth level 'I duelled Lancelot to a stand-still at 18'), and then do Experience checks and Glory at the end of each adventure, potentially running several adventures per year, if you want to get that Glory rocketing upwards in a couple of years.

[Hzark10]

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

First you say the proposed system would weaken PIct characters, then you advocate doing the very same thing. I'm confused.

Then, my bad in this as I did not mean to say the proposed system would weaken Pict characters. I think the proposed set of rules would strengthen Pict characters.  DEX would have more of an impact in doing the change.

 

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Hzark10 said:

Then, my bad in this as I did not mean to say the proposed system would weaken Pict characters. I think the proposed set of rules would strengthen Pict characters.  DEX would have more of an impact in doing the change.

 

Oh. I'm okay with people being for or against the variant, but got confused as to who is on what side in this debate. 

 

[Atgxtg]

9 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

He's not invincible. In fact he fails a fair bit, just not really that much in combat (he almost dies fighting Marhaus, however). Mostly poor decisions... He is after all, discovered in the woods with Isolt, so he must have failed a Hunting roll somewhere.

More likely got beaten in an opposed roll. One of the sublte changes in KAP 5 is that more rolls end up being opposed than before. IMO that's mostly a good thing as it helps to keep the game challenging for those with skills over 20. In my games when a character  is trying to track someone who is covering his tracks, I used an opposed roll, modfied by things like twerrian and how hard the purcsued character worked to cover his tracks (the more work he puts into it, the harder he is to track, but the slower he travels, so the faster he is caught up with if beaten).

9 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

As an aside Lancelot's main vulnerabilities (besides Guinevere) seem to lie in these DEX-based situations. He never fails, of course, until the Grail Quest, when he fails badly.

Which is because the Grail Quest is a spiritual challenge, and he is morally compromised by the affair.

9 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

Gawaine should be Dexterous as well, as his survival of the deadly Marvelous Bed in the Conte du Graal shows.

Maybe. It's hard to judge from a single even as even a DEX 4 Character can get lucky.

9 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

Really, what is the issue here is that every Arthurian major hero has got excellent statistics, better than anything but lucky rolls for random stats would provide. The rules make the vast majority of PCs the equivalent of second- or third-tier heroes.

I'd say the majority of PKs are probably less than third tier heroes, but the potential for second or third tier is there. First tier is pretty much out of reach, excpet, perhaps for PKS who got really lucky with random character generation ands that streak held out for the first several years, allowing them to get a jump on the glory train.

9 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

Nor are these stats for these heroes the result of extraordinary Glory; all of these characters have these innate abilities in their teens or early twenties, before they even are admitted to the Round Table. In essence, the game may need a sidebar explaining that heroic tier characters (with higher starting statistics) belong in a style of campaign where the PCs rival or replace some of the main heroes and heroines, but the standard campaign does not work that way: they are the characters, who, while famous and well-regarded, are more likely to be followers of these heroes or rescued by the heroes than be the leaders of the Round Table.

Yes, but that's kinda the problem. With standard chargen a PK isn't going to be that good. With random chargen it is remotely possible but very unlikely. 

9 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

I do think that 'high-level' campaigns, where Lancelot doesn't exist, and is replaced by a PC or group of PCs, for example, should be an option.

It is if the GM opts to allow for the uses the Intentional Shaping method of chargen and allows the PKS to have such stats. It would be unsusal, but if the GM wanted to let a PK be raised by the Lady ofd the Lake and essentially be Lancelot, then he could allow for such superb stats. A cmapaign where the PKs take up the roles of the great knights of the round table, and maybe even King Arthur himself, could be interesting, but tricky to write and run.

9 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

Overall, the most mundane and ordinary use of DEX is for jumping from battlements or tower windows, and avoiding dying. This doesn't require a supernatural environment, and is a frequent event when avoiding husbands and fathers. DEX will be more useful when KAP has a fuller Romance sub-game (for knights and ladies alike) and when some of the more Otherworldly enchanted castle/Grail adventures are out there for the game.

Yes that might help, but frankly it's still a poor man's attribute compared to STR, CON and SIZ. I still believe that it needs something, as does APP.

[Atgxtg]

11 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

In my current campaign (533), I have a PK with Dex 24. He put 18 in Dex, a cultural bonus of +1 and some glory points (nearly all of them). Of course, he is weak elsewhere, especially in For and Con. He became some kind of ninja.

The "build" is viable:

• very good at jousting (obviously)

I don't see why this is obvious. Per RAW the DEx wouldn't help with jousting at all. OR are you using this or some other variant that make DEX play a factor here.

 

11 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

• very good at sneaking and climbing, especially when he put down his armor

Yup, that would be a given.

11 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

• good with the double feint (never understood why it was deleted in the current edition)

What I was told was that knights wouldn't use it (because of the armor penalty) but Picts and other lightly armored characters would, so it made the game too deadly for knights. Now I never applied the armor penalty to the double feint (I figured if it didn't affect weapon skills it should affect tactics used with weapons) and wasn't worried so much about Picts using it (It kept them from being a joke). I'd love to see in back in some form, and have been working of an alternate version where it applies a penalty to the weapon skills to avoid some armor (like -5 for half DEX). 

 

[Tizun Thane]

9 hours ago, Morien said:

How? The Knockdown roll when you are on horseback is Horsemanship, not DEX. 

RAW, if I remember correctly, you choose beetween Dex and Horsemanship.

I am using Third edition rules anyway, where there was only dex. And, I read somewhere (in the Old Nocturnal Forums?) that Greg Stafford himself was using Dex as balance checks even when mounted, and said the Horsemanship gig was a typo.  Maybe my memories are all wrong, but's the "Dex rule" is working just fine when horsemanship is problematic.

BTW, it's a great way to make Dex relevant, especially in the later phases of the campaign, when tournaments are everywhere.

9 hours ago, Morien said:

Also, as has been pointed out, Double Feint doesn't exist in KAP5. I can understand why someone who halves the enemy's armor 70% of the time would be pretty puissant, but on the other hand, a character who does 7d6 damage all the time (SIZ 24, likely +2d6 or even +3d6 over the DEX guy) would be pretty tough cookie, too. And arguably, even harder to knockdown (on foot or on a horse) than a DEX 24 guy.

I never felt the double feint was a broken rule. It's working just fine. And yes, maximising SIZ remains a better choice.

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Tizun Thane said:

RAW, if I remember correctly, you choose beetween Dex and Horsemanship.

Nope.

KAP 5.2, p.138: "He must now make a DEX roll, if on foot, or a Horsemanship roll if mounted."

But yeah, it was changed for 5th edition, probably to give Horsemanship something to do since it was otherwise very little utilised.

KAP 4, p. 157: "When unbalanced, the knight must receive a successful DEX roll, whether on foot or mounted."

We ended up houseruling that while mounted, you roll (Horsemanship+DEX)/2, since we wanted to keep DEX in there, too. But even if this rule were to be changed back to just DEX roll on horseback as well (and I am not sure if that is a good thing; inexperienced horsemen should have more trouble staying in saddle; Horsemanship or DEX, whichever is lower, would be an option, though), I still don't think that it would make DEX strong enough vs. SIZ, since high SIZ is still the best way to avoid even having to roll Knockdown.

1 hour ago, Tizun Thane said:

I never felt the double feint was a broken rule. It's working just fine. And yes, maximising SIZ remains a better choice.

Dunno. One of my big issues with Double Feint is that in ALL other cases, the way you control your Sword is your Sword Skill. But suddenly, a master swordsman has harder times getting through the gaps and joints in armor than a pickpocketing streetrat? Also, how do you go for the gaps with something like a flail? So I wasn't particularly sad to see it go, and I do see Greg's point that with typical DEX values (10-14) modified with -10 due to armor, Double Feint makes no sense and just makes unarmored combat more and more attractive (especially with the old rule adding +5 to skill, too), and this is very counter to the reality and the knightly mythos.

I do see how this acerbated the problem of DEX having even less to do, but as pointed above, you really needed a very high DEX in order to be able to use it effectively. I don't think any of our knights used it, when we were still playing 4th edition. And as you agree, even with the Double Feint in the books, maxing out your SIZ remains a better option.

Hence the need to come up with ways to give DEX more relevancy.

There was an alternative option being expressed which was that rather than try to balance the stats by their usefulness, balance instead their COSTS. This is something we tried out in our Middle-earth campaign (in part), by making SIZ cost 2 points while other stats were just 1 point. What ended up happening was that the players usually didn't max out their SIZ (unless they wanted to play a hulking giant of a man, which one player did... I think he ended up with SIZ 24 or so with Glory bonus points). This was because SIZ was so expensive and buying STR and CON instead seemed like a better deal: a few points of SIZ and then STR & CON. Now, we didn't do it (yet), but lowering DEX and APP to 0.5 points might work nicely, BUT... you still need to give them something to do, especially APP. In our Middle-earth campaign, we did use the DEX/2 and APP/2 defaults for some skills, which did encourage the courtier to get his APP to 20. Also, we gave APP Glory for skill use, instead of a flat 10 Glory.

[Morien]

6 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Now I never applied the armor penalty to the double feint

KAP 4, p. 156; "... the Double Feint tactic, which requires a DEX roll. Normal modifiers for encumbrance and footing apply."'

KAP 4, p.165: "... attempt a DEX roll, as modified by armor, load carried, footing, etc."

Emphasis mine. YPWV, just wanted to quote the chapter and verse.

Also, in 4th Edition, wearing armor DOES give you effectively -5 skill, since fighting unarmored gives you +5 to skill if you are used to fighting in armor (knights, but I would argue the sergeants as well). The knights' recorded weapon skills are effectively 'in armor' with a -5 already included.

KAP 4, p.162: "Unencumbered: Knights not wearing armor, and carrying items no heavier than a weapon and a shield, gain a combat modifier of +5."

I am happy to see that rule gone.