I'm looking for a rule to for unskilled skills, particularly with weapons. Example: KAP 5.1 tells us that knights may hunt with bows, but none of the templated knights in the book list a skill with a bow. If hunting is such a big part of the nobility culture, wouldn't we expect there to be skills for bow? Under what circumstances could a character have a Hunting skill of 15, and 0 in bow? Is there a way to handle this? What if a PK really needs a javelin for some reason—perhaps a flying foe that s smart enough not to come with range of the knight's sword—but has never trained with one? Can he pick one up and use it? I'm kinda surprised that KAP 5.1 says a normal spear cannot be thrown. Why not? I believe the Normans used this tactic at Hastings...

My apologies if I've missed something obvious. I've searched through both KAP 5.1 and these forums and couldn't turn up anything.


Thanks,

T.

Technically, I believe you would just have your cultural base skill level in that weapon. Thus, it could be zero, which seems oddly low. I don't know what the Cymric base is for bow.

Personally, I like 1/2 dex as a starting level for weapon skills.

NT

Technically, I believe you would just have your cultural base skill level in that weapon. Thus, it could be zero, which seems oddly low. I don't know what the Cymric base is for bow.

Yeah, there's not one listed — in KAP 5.1, at least.


Personally, I like 1/2 dex as a starting level for weapon skills.

I like that too—and I've seen it before—but didn't know if that was an official rule or a house rule.

Thanks,


T.

Personally, I like 1/2 dex as a starting level for weapon skills.


I like this too because it makes DEX a much more relevant stat. I then modify the weapon skill score slightly based on the characters culture.

I like that too—and I've seen it before—but didn't know if that was an official rule or a house rule.



It is a house rule, but one I've always used. 1/2 dex or cultural min, which ever is higher.

DEX is already a very relevant stat. I've posted my house rule for starting weapon skills elsewhere, but setting a limit of, say, 1/2 DEX, or a fixed score of 5 for weapons, or whatever, certainly wouldn't break the game.
It would alter the cultural skills though. Each culture has base skill scores, and they do list weapons (some get dagger, some get spear, some axe, etc.). These base scores aren't usually worth keeping after applying 1/2 dex.

When i was using such a system, the tweak I used;
The weapon scores listed with culture are halved, and added to the base unskilled weapon score everyone recieves.

By unmodified rules, I find DEX fairly irrelevant. You essentially have your core stats with everything else an afterthought. DEX and APP have little relevance without some type of houseruling or specifically focused gameplay. In point-buy systems this breaks the whole "buy" aspect of the system as it allows player to inflate more important stats to absurd levels. Buy systems really only work if everything is of roughly equal value or, as in Hero System, the cost changes based on function. In random role though, the person who rolls a really high DEX but a meager SIZ feels gimped.

Our solution was to make ½DEX the base weapon score then modified by culture. That kept the cultural differences in place while discouraging DEX as a dump stat.

I dont object to basing weapon skills on half DEX. (Last time I used a 1.2 stat, though, i based it on 1/2 STR.)

I do object to the idea that DEX is a useless stat though. I see SIZ as most important, CON and DEX next, about tied, followed close behind by STR. Here are things DEX is used for:
* Knockdown rolls (players with a low DEX will be at a big penalty on foot, and in my games, they have as many fights on foot as they do on horseback.) This can't be underestimated. When you are outnumbered (say, facing 2 saxons or 3 bandits), being able to stay on your feet is absolutely critical to your survival.
* Any kind of navigating the environment rolls - climbing, crossing obstacles, running through forests, etc.
* Sneaking and hiding - handy when entering the beasts lair unnoticed (or making sure you aren't the one that attracts its attention first)
* also, grappling.

Is there a reason that these values should be so low? I don't think any of these propositions go above 10--that's a 50% chance to do anything on a one-on-one skill roll, even a shield bonus. 1/2 DEX will be an average of 6 and a maximum of 9. Starting values of 5 will likewise be almost useless in actual combat. For a man born as an aristocratic warrior and apprenticed to arms from childhood, is it reasonable to assume that level of incompetence when it comes to swinging around a mace instead of a sword?

The Knights Templar were armed with lance, sword, dagger, and a "Turkish mace." French judicial duels of the late 14th century called for the use of the lance, sword, two-handed sword, battle-axe, and dagger, and at least in the Carrouges-le Gris duel, all were apparently used by both combatants quite competently.

I don't think an "untrained" value of 15 would be too powerful: knights would use either their skill value or 15, whichever was higher. Do note that if you start with, e.g. a Mace skill of 0, you would have to raise it to 16 the hard way if you want to go above Mace 15. A knight could wield any knightly weapon with confidence, and yet mastering a weapon would be no easier than under vanilla rules.

Is there a reason that these values should be so low? I don't think any of these propositions go above 10--that's a 50% chance to do anything on a one-on-one skill roll, even a shield bonus.


This is pretty much why I abandoned the idea of starting skill scores based on half stat. They are too low to be useful - especially when you then have to make opposed rolls. The only advantage of such scores, is that it makes it quicker to train up, and the idea others have posted about doubling training until reach score of 10 is just as good (arguably better) method of achieving this.

I do like my method of related skills in another thread (Your score in melee weapons is based on your highest melee weapon -5, to a maximum of 10), but that doesn't address the OP's question about using a bow.


I don't think an "untrained" value of 15 would be too powerful: knights would use either their skill value or 15, whichever was higher. Do note that if you start with, e.g. a Mace skill of 0, you would have to raise it to 16 the hard way if you want to go above Mace 15. A knight could wield any knightly weapon with confidence, and yet mastering a weapon would be no easier than under vanilla rules.

Skill value or 15, whichever is lower, surely?
That's too high for my tastes, but it wouldn't break the game - just mean characters who lived to older ages would have a slightly smaller set of things to soak up all the skill points they will be benefiting from. If you want a limit of 15 though, I'd suggest a tweak of my earlier suggestion:
For secondary melee weapons, use best weapon skill -5, to a maximum of 15. (Player knights usually get to 20 skill in a melee weapon if they live long enough.)

But why max it out at 10? If a knight is to be a good hunter (as indeed many famous knights were), is a 50% chance to hit a target under ideal circumstances what we want? And that after investing a not-insignificant number of points into it.

Skill value or 15, whichever is lower, surely?
That's too high for my tastes, but it wouldn't break the game - just mean characters who lived to older ages would have a slightly smaller set of things to soak up all the skill points they will be benefiting from. If you want a limit of 15 though, I'd suggest a tweak of my earlier suggestion:
For secondary melee weapons, use best weapon skill -5, to a maximum of 15. (Player knights usually get to 20 skill in a melee weapon if they live long enough.)

Why "or lower"? That would max skills out at 15. There would still be benefits to investing in these other weapon skills, because while a skill of 15 is competent, it isn't that great.

Actually 15 is a very good skill. It's the skill a knight has after spending his entire childhood and early adult training in it, and its a skill that many badnits, saxons, sergeants, and the like, will never achieve.

The character design system makes such a skill easy to achieve for player characters, but in terms of how common or easy to get in the game world, it's not that easy at all, and it represents a very good skill.

What about making it 1/2 Hunting skill. As most of the hunting with a bow/x-bow will be against deer and other similar sized animals make this the normal size. Apply a -5 skill mod for a man sized target and -10 for a cat or rabbit.

I like that idea.

What about making it 1/2 Hunting skill. As most of the hunting with a bow/x-bow will be against deer and other similar sized animals make this the normal size. Apply a -5 skill mod for a man sized target and -10 for a cat or rabbit.


Hunting cats? Check Cruel right now, pal.


T.

I was think more of the Puma not the local Tabby

What about making it 1/2 Hunting skill. As most of the hunting with a bow/x-bow will be against deer and other similar sized animals make this the normal size. Apply a -5 skill mod for a man sized target and -10 for a cat or rabbit.


A serious reply this time: I don't know about this. Starting hunting skill is a 2, without any points put into it. The NPC templates for an "Average Knight" list hunting at 10. I've had characters start with 10, with some effort. Making your Bow skill half of this means your Bow is only 5. What would it mean to say you're a 10 with hunting but a 5 with Bow? How do you kill your prey if you miss 75% of the time (all things being equal). Why not meld the two into one skill and be done with it? Someone suggested merging Swimming and Boating—this is the same kind of proposition to me. Can one be a good boater without being a good swimmer? For people that dwell on lakes and rivers, aren't they inextricable? If they don't share the same value, they should e very close—within 2-3 points.


T.

I think the argument you've made about not being able to hunt with bows if your skill is 5 or 2 can be equally well levelled at nearly all the skills. If you have skills at those levels, you really aren't very good. If you want to be good, train the skill.
On a given day of hunting with bows, a few archers might come back with noteworthy prizes (those who actually have skill, or those who manage a lucky critical), most will come back with nothing worth mentioning. I don't see this is a problem.

For hunts that are an important part of play, we use the full hunting system., For hunts which are part of larger events, or just passing the team, we just roll a single unopposed roll, and those who roll well found something worth noting. Those who fail may not have found anything, or they may have found scrawny prey that everyone makes fun of, or whatever. Occasionally we use the Hunting skill, at other times Falconry (which most player knights are pretty crap at, too), depending on the kind of hunt. I could see some hunts using the Bow/Crossbow skills, too, though I haven't done it yet.

I was basing my numbers on the fact that Knights do not use bows/x-bow as matter of course they considered unknightly weapons. I boar spear with I did not mention would be at Lance level as I believe the skill description reads.

A Master of the Hunter will have a Hunt skill of 15-25, plus will have a weapon skill Bow or X-Bow at the same level. He will have trained every day with the bow, just the same as the Knight trains with Sword and lance.

I was think more of the Puma not the local Tabby


I just noticed this post - haha.

I think the argument you've made about not being able to hunt with bows if your skill is 5 or 2 can be equally well levelled at nearly all the skills. If you have skills at those levels, you really aren't very good. If you want to be good, train the skill.

But wait—if I have a 17 skill in Hunting, and a 0 skill in Bow—what am I hunting with? My bare hands? The Hunting skill presumes a certain proficiency with the bow, and yet the RAW says I can be great at shooting a deer but completely useless when shooting at a man, or worse, a company of men amassed on the battlefield.

Likewise, a character could have a 15 Boating and 0 Swim.

Seems to me the answer maybe to review the starting skills—maybe set up some prerequisites or something. As it is, there aren't many controls so you can easily end up with all kinds of head scratching oddities like this (having 20 Sword and 0 Mace, as doorknobdeitysaid).

I have come to like games such as SAVAGE WORLDS or BARBARIANS OF LEMURIA where the skillsets are wider, like "Fighting". I could see something like this working with KAP pretty easily. Maybe you have something like "Fighting" that can never arise above a 15, but you can advance individual weapon skills after that, and pay for them like you do now. So you can be competent with a mace, but a master with a sword. And you could pick up a Spear for the first time and not have 0 skill in it. Bows would have their own category separate from Fighting since those are, obviously, two completely different disciplines.

I'm still trying to figure out why PENDRAGON characters can't throw spears!


T.

Likewise, a character could have a 15 Boating and 0 Swim.
This isn't especially unlikely. Historically lots of mariners couldn't swim, indeed some actively refused to learn (it was a superstition - by learning to swim you are tempting the fates and thus making a shipwreck more likely).

Likewise since hunting is as much about how you work the pack, intepretation of spoor and not getting lost or disoriented in the woods I don't find a character with a high Hunting skill and low/non-existent weapon skills especially problematic. They are the fellows who supervise all the supporting personnel (dogs-handlers, beaters etc) and bring the quarry to bay, so that the bloodthirsty types can get on with the actual killing.

Regards
Luke

Likewise, a character could have a 15 Boating and 0 Swim.
This isn't especially unlikely. Historically lots of mariners couldn't swim, indeed some actively refused to learn (it was a superstition - by learning to swim you are tempting the fates and thus making a shipwreck more likely).

Interesting. What era is that? The Age of Sail?

The Boating skill description reads, "... allows a character to handle watercraft, whether a rowboat, a skiff, a coracle, or a Saxon longship."

The longship notwithstanding, this skill applies as much to smaller craft. It is hard imagine people who live on the water, be it rivers or lakes, to be comfortable in a small boat without knowing how to swim. Swimming ain't that hard, folks. It's not like mastering a musical instrument or navigating the intrigues at court—If you're an adventurer type and you grew up in a place that had a nearby river, lake or watering hole it's hard to imagine not knowing how to swim.


Likewise since hunting is as much about how you work the pack, intepretation of spoor and not getting lost or disoriented in the woods I don't find a character with a high Hunting skill and low/non-existent weapon skills especially problematic. They are the fellows who supervise all the supporting personnel (dogs-handlers, beaters etc) and bring the quarry to bay, so that the bloodthirsty types can get on with the actual killing.

Huh. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I can't really envision a situation of a hunter who does no hunting himself but only comes in for the kill. I've known lots of hunters in my day—rifle, shotgun and bow hunters—and none of them meet that description. Too, they live in an age where they're not even dependent on hunting to put food on the table. I'm not saying it's an impossibility, but that scenario would seem to me the very rare exception, not the other way around.

Best,


T.

The hunting skill in pendragon is not about hunting for food. Knights do not want for food, and when they are on hard times, they don't survive by hunting deer - they do it by raiding a neighbours land and taking their liivestock or going to war.
The hunting skill is about knowing the lie of the land, exploring unknown places, and most importantly, taking part in the social hunt: where you lead beaters and hounds, directing them to drive a beast into your path so you can ride it down with a lance and finish it with a spear.

I can support Luke's anecdote about mariners not learning to swim. It's hard to find online references supporting it. There's a brief snippet on this page (http://www.cindyvallar.com/medicine.html) about the age of pirates, how mariners weren't required to swim.
Remember to tread water (in reality and in the game), you don't really need to know how to swim. Superstition aside, if you fall off a boat at sea, knowing how to swim will not save your life. If the boat leaves - you die. Being rescued by someone on the boat is what's needed. Knowing how to swim is even less useful for knights, who will usually be weighted down - if they fall in the water, they will sink, even if they can swim.

I have come to like games such as SAVAGE WORLDS or BARBARIANS OF LEMURIA where the skillsets are wider, like "Fighting". I could see something like this working with KAP pretty easily. Maybe you have something like "Fighting" that can never arise above a 15, but you can advance individual weapon skills after that, and pay for them like you do now. So you can be competent with a mace, but a master with a sword. And you could pick up a Spear for the first time and not have 0 skill in it. Bows would have their own category separate from Fighting since those are, obviously, two completely different disciplines.

I'm still trying to figure out why PENDRAGON characters can't throw spears!



That's easy. Because they haven't bought the skill. :)
The game is not an accurate simulation of real life. That said, a fighting support skill like you suggest wouldn'tbreak that game. Since your concern is more than just fighting, though, you may need to reevaluate the entire skill list - quite a bit of work. If you do it, though, make sure you share it in the house rules section!

Vikings I've heard made a point of not knowing how to swim, supposedly because a quick drowning was preferable to a long, cold, exhausting one.


Huh. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I can't really envision a situation of a hunter who does no hunting himself but only comes in for the kill.

Rich, bored people. Like elk hunters who have park rangers lead them to the elk before being allowed to shoot them. Or coddled noblemen. That doesn't explain why it takes years of practice after becoming a knight to do something they've supposedly been doing from a young age.


Likewise since hunting is as much about how you work the pack, intepretation of spoor and not getting lost or disoriented in the woods I don't find a character with a high Hunting skill and low/non-existent weapon skills especially problematic. They are the fellows who supervise all the supporting personnel (dogs-handlers, beaters etc) and bring the quarry to bay, so that the bloodthirsty types can get on with the actual killing.

So all our knights aren't actually terrible hunters, they're actually wonderful huntsmen! It's just that they're doing the job that should be done by underlings, while their underlings are the only ones who can actually go in for the kill using a bow. This is why so many knights do the intelligent thing and kill all their prey with the lance.

(And why should we assume that bow skills would be so low? Game balance shouldn't necessarily be an issue, because you get so little Glory from using ranged weapons, and the effectiveness so much lower than melee weapons that it simply isn't worth it; realism/faithfulness to the canon is likewise out because, well, the canon is hardly bereft of young knights and squires going out hunting for deer and what have you.)

Interesting. What era is that? The Age of Sail?Round here it was common up until the 1940s. Fishermen didn't want to learn how to swim because that would make it worse if they fell in. Not until it became compulsary in school did it change.
This tradition goes way way back.

(And why should we assume that bow skills would be so low? ... realism/faithfulness to the canon is likewise out because, well, the canon is hardly bereft of young knights and squires going out hunting for deer and what have you.)


Rhetorical question: How often in the literature do they hunt with bows, as opposed to, say, lances?

Vulgate Lancelot: Lancelot, still a squire, kills a deer with a bow, later uses the bow to beat his tutor senseless.

Mallory: King Arthur pursues a hart shortly before meeting King Pellinore. Though it doesn't specifically say he uses a bow, one simply does not use a lance to hunt a deer; I'm given to understand that they're so much more agile than horses that trying to get within spear range of one is not worth the effort, unless your hounds bring it down for you to finish it off. (This seems to be a pattern for a lot of game: either kill it from afar, or have your dogs/servants corner it or otherwise slow it down so that it might be finished off at close quarters; this is the pattern in, e.g. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, where Gawain's host hunts with dogs, and finishes off stag, boar, and fox all with a sword)

Erec et Enide: Ditto, but a stag. Also: "And so the affair is arranged for the next morning at daybreak. The morrow, as soon as it is day, the King gets up and dresses, and dons a short jacket for his forest ride. He commands the knights to be aroused and the horses to be made ready. Already they are ahorse, and off they go, with bows and arrows."

Yvain: Yvain, while mad, steals a bow and arrow from a "youth," kills a deer, and eats it raw. Not really relevant, but wow.

The Once and Future King: Goes on for entire chapters about hunting. Not contemporary, but very much a valid inspiration, I think.

I think all of the non-swimming seafarers y'all are describing are sailors from the Age of, well, Sail. I will concede this point, no problem. We're not talking about Sailors— we're talking about Knights that have available to them a Boating skill. What would it mean for owners of small craft—1-3 people max—to be expert boaters and yet not know how to Swim? I just can't get my head around it.

@doorknobdiety: Nice find on the hunting citations. That's what I'm talking about, and I think it's what one would expect.

@Darrenhill: No, I don't expect a realistic simulation. But these three points: being great at one weapon and having 0 skill in another, not being able to throw a spear though you're otherwise proficient with a spear, being a grand hunter but unable to shoot a bow, being a keen Boater (not Sailor—which is a different profession altogether) and not being able to Swim—I can't get my head around it. I mean, there's no relationship between the skills at all. This seems like an old-school RPG convention to my mind and it seems like this could be addressed in a number of ways without redesigning the entire skill set from the ground up. You could do it with linking related skills, or basing "unskilled" skills on attributes, or having prerequisites, or having groups of skills. I'll give it some more thought.

Interesting discussion, all.


T.

Vulgate Lancelot: Lancelot, still a squire, kills a deer with a bow, later uses the bow to beat his tutor senseless.



That's a few more examples than I remembered. I stand corrected :)
I'm envious that you've read the Vulgate though, i've never been able to get my hands on a copy.



@Darrenhill: No, I don't expect a realistic simulation. But these three points: being great at one weapon and having 0 skill in another, not being able to throw a spear though you're otherwise proficient with a spear, being a grand hunter but unable to shoot a bow, being a keen Boater (not Sailor—which is a different profession altogether) and not being able to Swim—I can't get my head around it. I mean, there's no relationship between the skills at all. This seems like an old-school RPG convention to my mind and it seems like this could be addressed in a number of ways without redesigning the entire skill set from the ground up. You could do it with linking related skills, or basing "unskilled" skills on attributes, or having prerequisites, or having groups of skills. I'll give it some more thought.

Interesting discussion, all.


T.


Pendragon is a very old-school system - it really hasn't changed much since the 1st edition (1985).
It's possible to tweak the skills, but in doing so, you are introducing a focus on things that Pendragon really doesn't care about that much (like boating/sailing). Melee weapons are an exception, but Greg has stated why doing them the way it is was an intentional design decision, it's one that makes sense even if it does offend realism sensibilities.

Back to hunting: when you say hunting to an American, it probably brings to mind shooting, going with bows, etc. When you say it to a Brit, it brings to mind chasing animals down with hounds, and finishing them off with close quarters attacks. That's why i don't really care about the lack of archery skill. If i run a hunt in Pendragon, it's nearly always going to be a lance/melee based affair.

Also, that is what the system assumes too - the detailed hunting rules in various editions have all been entirely concerned with the lance/spear method. This makes sense too - which is more interesting? Having the players get invfolved in a melee conflict and risk damage, or hang back and roll archery a dozen or more times till the beast finally falls (have a look at what damage bows do in the systemn, compare them to the hit points and armour of typical decent sized hunting beasts like bears and boars...).

Now occasionally (especially after this discission), i can see my self running the occasional hunt for smaller gamer using bows, but this will be a side affair, exactly like the use of falconry skill. It will be resolved with a one or two rolls, while the characters are interacting in other ways (courtesy rolls, energetic, proud, etc.,) things to showcase their characters rather than play out a blow by blow hunt to see who catches the deer).

Vulgate Lancelot: Lancelot, still a squire, kills a deer with a bow, later uses the bow to beat his tutor senseless.



That's a few more examples than I remembered. I stand corrected :)
I'm envious that you've read the Vulgate though, i've never been able to get my hands on a copy.

Oxford World's Classics put out a translation of Lancelot of the Lake, though somewhat abridged in places. Penguin Classics has translations of The Quest for the Holy Grail and The Death of King Arthur. I don't know if the Merlin bits have been translated yet, however, though there is a mid-15c English translation here (http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/melbifr.htm).


Also, that is what the system assumes too - the detailed hunting rules in various editions have all been entirely concerned with the lance/spear method. This makes sense too - which is more interesting? Having the players get invfolved in a melee conflict and risk damage, or hang back and roll archery a dozen or more times till the beast finally falls (have a look at what damage bows do in the systemn, compare them to the hit points and armour of typical decent sized hunting beasts like bears and boars...).

I think when discussing bow-hunting, nobody's talking about boars (though funny you should mention it--yesterday when I was looking this up, in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight this is exactly what happened, bowmen failing to harm the boar until the knight himself stabbed it to death). At the same time, hunting deer with a bow, without quite so much assistants from dogs and servants, is a recurring event in both medieval and modern Arthurian literature, to say nothing of the adventures that can befall knights when doing so.