Good Gentles,

In the “Rolling Stats” thread Sharpskytten is concerned that his players have all settled on the following stats as the best for a starting PK, leading to a stream of similar characters:

SIZ 16-18
DEX 8-10
STR 8-10
CON 16-18
APP 7-9

And Morien too mentions low-Dex characters being the norm.

However strong these builds may be in mounted combat, such Move-2 PKs are extremely vulnerable in melees afoot against Move-3 foes such as Saxon warriors or more evenly built knights. Such melees can happen when defending a town, when the PKs are unhorsed in battle, or in a challenge by NPC knights seeking to take the PKs down a peg (think the Hundred Year War’s Combat of the Thirty).

Say a normal 5-relatively-new-PK party is facing five standard Saxon warriors 8 yards away. One Saxon peels off, flanks hard left, and closes to 4 yards.

At this point, the PKs with Famous levels of Hate(Saxons), Proud, or Reckless roll their Passion/Trait, and guaranteed at least two are going to peel off after this juicy, close target. This is where Greg’s Passion system absolutely reflects reality – think Agincourt, where the French actually had a battle plan that would have wiped out the English archers but ignored it once the enemy was in sight. And lest you think that was just Frenchmen being dumb/arrogant, I have seen this work not just occasionally but *reliably* in Society for Creative Anachronism melees – I don’t care how long you’ve wargamed or how well you can quote Sun Tzu, once helmets are on the excitement takes hold.

Say two PKs charge after the lone Saxon. The Saxon backpedals, leading them away from the main fight, and since he is Move-3 it doesn’t matter how well the Move-2 PKs did on any Inspiration rolls because they are never going to catch the guy until he wants them to.

This leaves four Saxons versus three PKs. When the sides close, two Saxons occupy two PKs but fight defensively. The remaining two Saxons attack the PK from different sides (Move-3 vs. Move-2 makes flanking fun and easy). When that PK drops, the two Saxons together attack the next PK in line, and the turn after that take out the last one.

Now it’s five Saxons against two PKs. Game over. And maybe next time the players will go for a little more variety in their stats.

Well, Move 2 is the norm for Knights. They are not exceptionally slow, but yes, they are slower than more lightly armored footmen. A fact that my players' knights (high STR, so move 3) have noticed while bandit hunting in chain mail: the buggers keep running away!

I would penalize backpedaling, though. I don't care if your Move is 3, you are not backpedaling faster without falling over than a Move 2 guy sprinting forward.

I would note, however, that Hate doesn't make one a total idiot automaton. That lone Saxon trying to 'lure' PKs after him? Wouldn't work in my campaign. Run after this one saxon simply because the immediate distance to him is shorter than to his 4 mates who are NOT running away, and are trying to overwhelm the knight's pals? No way! You follow this guy, I am going back to kill me some Saxons! Now, a critted Hate Saxon, especially if the guy is a 'named NPC' with history of killing the knight's kin? Then yeah, he can lead the knight to whatever ambush of his choosing. Although the PK would fight with critical inspiration, so it is a bit of a two edged sword.

Move would be more important in pre-battle / specific movement. Do you manage to get to the chokepoint before the enemies do? Can you sprint to the tower door to ram it open before they have time to bar it? Do you have enough time to rush to your friend's aid when he is down, or will you need an extra turn to get to him?

In my campaign and all that, of course.

IMO low dex is already penalizing enough, because of more frequent falling.

That +5/-5 is deadly, especially vs. fresh PKs.

The evil GM part of me likes the part where faster guys would have a flanking advantage and "just wouldn't stand still and be hit".

I'd give a +5 /-5 for an advantage in Mov.

Works both ways, so its fair ;)

I dont see how moving one extra yard per turn justifies +5, but might give -5 to hit versus quicker skirmisher, with successful Dex roll.

I dont see how moving one extra yard per turn justifies +5, but might give -5 to hit versus quicker skirmisher, with successful Dex roll.


To anachronistically quote Muhammad Ali "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee".

Its not so much the extra 1 yard movement, but the advantage in footwork, changing distances and direction that will give them an advantage in combat.

In BRP higher DEX would go first, in the KAP opposed roll, an advantage over the opponent, is not unreasonable. Just imagine how much more deadly those unemcumbered Picts could be?

Just imagine how much more deadly those unemcumbered Picts could be?


And that probably would be my biggest grief about this suggestion. The game is supposed to be about knights. Armor is supposed to be an advantage, not a disadvantage. All unarmored bandits would get +5/-5 advantage against the knights, enough to upgrade them even singularly to dangerous opponents versus starting knights. I can't see this being a good thing when we are supposedly emulating heroic knights.

Is DEX a bit too weak? Maybe. Partially because people tend to go for either DEX 8 or 10, and there is not a huge difference between them, whereas DEX 15 would be much better (cutting your falls to half compared to 10). Thing is, as far as knockdown is concerned, SIZ 18 is even better in comparison to SIZ 13 against most human opponents, as it renders you almost immune to 4d6 strikes and cuts down the need to roll to about a half even against 5d6 strikes. Not to mention giving you HP and damage stat, too.

Some solutions for that would be either in-game challenges to DEX or tweaking the game mechanic, such as the double cost mechanism for stats over 15 and/or starting all stats at 10 and giving +2 to DEX and APP per point (up to 14, since otherwise I'll have DEX 20, thanks, for 5 points and become immune to knockdown and getting knocked from my horse unless it is 2xSIZ damage) to make up for their 'lesser' role. In-game challenges include stuff with Move, but also could include fights on difficult footing (roll DEX each turn or get +5/-5), climbing (roll DEX or give enemies more time to drop rocks on you, or perhaps roll DEX to get in a better position) or balancing (roll DEX or slip, taking damage and wasting time) instead of the 'usual' set-piece 'smash them until they break'. In short, giving DEX a more active role than a passive one (roll once you have already been hit hard enough) and really giving the players opportunities to use DEX for their advantage in the adventures would be a good thing.

Now I'll just have to take my own advice, too. :)

Just imagine how much more deadly those unemcumbered Picts could be?


And that probably would be my biggest grief about this suggestion. The game is supposed to be about knights. Armor is supposed to be an advantage, not a disadvantage. All unarmored bandits would get +5/-5 advantage against the knights, enough to upgrade them even singularly to dangerous opponents versus starting knights. I can't see this being a good thing when we are supposedly emulating heroic knights.



Please note I am not for adding any modifiers to armour. After all, Knights have been trained to fight in armour since a young age.

It was just a suggestion for a DEX advantage. Knights with high Dex would benefit.

In the GPC I am running the four knights have the following DEX stats: 12, 13, 10 and 16. They don't seem to consider it a dump stat and one of them certainly likes to point his points where he sees the most advantage.

Thinking about it you would be daft to put less than 10 in DEX anyway. Anytime you are knocked down and you require a DEX check to get up, if you're wearing armour which is most of the time you are at an instant -10 to DEX. So for 10s and less you've got to be rolling a 1 to stand up.

Anytime you are knocked down and you require a DEX check to get up, if you're wearing armour which is most of the time you are at an instant -10 to DEX. So for 10s and less you've got to be rolling a 1 to stand up.


You don't require a DEX roll to get up.

Pendragon 5th Ed, p. 79: "Once knocked down, a character needs no roll to get up again, even if in heavy armor."

Also, same page: "Encumbrance is not used to modify a DEX roll for balance unless the Gamemaster decides that it should, based on the circumstances."

Which In Our Campaign at least means that you are not rolling at DEX-10 to stay upright while wearing chainmail, but straight DEX. If it were DEX-10, then I would be even less inclined to buy DEX, since even at 20 I'd still have 50/50 chance of falling down. I'd rather sell DEX down, since it is going to be useless anyway, and get more SIZ, STR and CON to survive.

EDIT: Knockdown, p. 115: "He must now make a DEX roll, if on foot,"
No mention made for -10 DEX.

Please note I am not for adding any modifiers to armour. After all, Knights have been trained to fight in armour since a young age.

It was just a suggestion for a DEX advantage. Knights with high Dex would benefit.


Actually, it is knights with high Move who'd benefit against slower knights, which would simply encourage more STR-based builds (which we already have, thanks, to get that 6d6).

But since armor does slow people down, it means that unarmored people are faster, and thus would benefit from this houserule. For instance, bandits and picts have Move 4. So they'd get +5/-5 against pretty much all knights under this house rule. Hence why I was saying that armor would become a disadvantage. Sure, it still protects you, but +5/-5 is a big advantage to hand to your opponent.

To anachronistically quote Muhammad Ali "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee".

Its not so much the extra 1 yard movement, but the advantage in footwork, changing distances and direction that will give them an advantage in combat.

In BRP higher DEX would go first, in the KAP opposed roll, an advantage over the opponent, is not unreasonable. Just imagine how much more deadly those unemcumbered Picts could be?


My issue is the advantage would be in tactical level, groups of men moving quicker during several turns, not in single turns of individual combat. Are you sure you want to give same bonus as for horseman has over footman? Or, since horses also have greater move in addition to height advantage, would you begin to give them +10/-10? ;)

Or, since horses also have greater move in addition to height advantage, would you begin to give them +10/-10? ;)


A valid point, although if the argument is made that it is superior footwork, I can see a case of not giving this for horses. But the issue will become confused with monsters such as lions and especially wolves.

But I am also one of the naysayers as far as this houserule is concerned. I think it is a bad idea generally, as evidenced by my earlier comments. No offence intended towards the proposer, though! :)

I have not noticed the problem with low DEX. Usually Players like the shield bonus as it gives them an additional 6 points armor.

But if it is a problem I would not allow the bonus just because they have a higher Move. I would say that the enemy leader could use the higher move to create an outflank, and thus granting a bonus, while the slower knights cannot even achieve it as the enemy is faster. But it still would require a battle roll (or maybe even an opposed battle roll) to get the bonus. A battle leader who knows his men are slower than the enemy can take steps to negate the higher speed, and thus any flanking bonus that could be attained.

I have not noticed the problem with low DEX. Usually Players like the shield bonus as it gives them an additional 6 points armor.


Cornelius, I fear I do not understand what you are trying to say in the above? The shield bonus comes from having a partial success in a weapon roll; DEX doesn't enter into it.

As for your suggestion, yes, I agree that high movement could give a battlefield advantage, if the faster ones manage to make it about movement. I think the biggest advantage of movement is that it allows you to decide whether to give combat or not, or flee if things are going poorly. I could see Movement being a big deal while trying to storm a castle, or defending one. Move 3 knight might be able to overtake retreating defenders and be able to fight at the closing door, while Move 2 knight would be overtaken (if defender) or be too late to the gate. (Which is quite boring for the slow knight, so one needs to be careful to not overuse that.)

I guess Cornelius has some kind of house rule in place, getting shield bonus for successful dex roll maybe?

I find that when Moriens writes something here, I don't have to, since he is always right :D

Anyways, this might be a bit OT, but: heres a way to make DEX more relevant.

When mounted, you roll DEX (not Horsemanship) to stay mounted if you are hit and the damage is equal to or greater than your size.

This will reduce the utility of Horsemanship a lot; it would basically become a skill for races and controlling damaged/afraid mounts, but I might live with that. This rule will give the min-maxers food for thought, after all, "a knight on foot is only a man".

I find that when Moriens writes something here, I don't have to, since he is always right :D

When mounted, you roll DEX (not Horsemanship) to stay mounted if you are hit and the damage is equal to or greater than your size.


Now, now... 'usually right', not 'always right'. I am just a man and as such, fallible. :) (Now would that be Proud or Modest, hmm...) Besides, I enjoy reading other people's take on things, so don't let me discourage discussion!

We use (DEX+Horsemanship)/2 for mounted balance rolls as a House Rule. Using just Horsemanship seemed a touch too munchkin-y. Horsemanship is still used to race, travel more quickly, calm/care for the horses, and to get dismounted / mounted in a hurry. Also, if the horse takes damage during a fight, I usually mandate Horsemanship rolls to keep it under control. For example, to press in a charge against bandit archers. Given that people seem to want to have Horsemanship at 15, I think we have managed to keep it useful enough.

I guess Cornelius has some kind of house rule in place, getting shield bonus for successful dex roll maybe?

Hm. Always thought is was the normal rule, but just checked and it is a house rule. ;)
I have no idea where it comes from, as it has always been the rule.
Our rule is: On a partial success you can make a DEX roll to get the shield bonus.

Why not just use the old 'double-feint' rule from previous editions?

Why not just use the old 'double-feint' rule from previous editions?


It's broken. Just don't go there. It was removed from the game for a reason.

I find that when Moriens writes something here, I don't have to, since he is always right :D

Anyways, this might be a bit OT, but: heres a way to make DEX more relevant.

When mounted, you roll DEX (not Horsemanship) to stay mounted if you are hit and the damage is equal to or greater than your size.

This will reduce the utility of Horsemanship a lot; it would basically become a skill for races and controlling damaged/afraid mounts, but I might live with that. This rule will give the min-maxers food for thought, after all, "a knight on foot is only a man".


I dont like that because it weakens horsemanship, which is the right skill to stay mounted.

Im going to break this off in a thread for discussion but I had an issue come up where Pk knights fighting tough opponents will because the game has no initiative per say, during declaration phase after seeing who the 'monster will attack', then counter by fighting defensively while the other PKs use the Uncontrolled attack action. Because of this the following House rule is being looked at.

Note the last option allows the monster to change his action. This makes Dexterity more important so is why I mention it, thought it hasnt been playtested yet.

Inititative
Initiative is based off Move, the lowest declares first. The highest declares last.
1. If caught by ambush Move is reduced by half, if caught by surprise Move is reduced to 0.
2. In a Duel if Move is tied, lowest Dex declares first.
3. First declaration can be changed but the cost is -5 to the next action. Last Declaration can only be changed to a standard attack.

Now, now... 'usually right', not 'always right'. I am just a man and as such, fallible. :) (Now would that be Proud or Modest, hmm...)

I think false modesty is Proud ... ;)


We use (DEX+Horsemanship)/2 for mounted balance rolls as a House Rule. Using just Horsemanship seemed a touch too munchkin-y. Horsemanship is still used to race, travel more quickly, calm/care for the horses, and to get dismounted / mounted in a hurry. Also, if the horse takes damage during a fight, I usually mandate Horsemanship rolls to keep it under control. For example, to press in a charge against bandit archers. Given that people seem to want to have Horsemanship at 15, I think we have managed to keep it useful enough.

I like this rule. I don't like the need for a new derived value (I did try with a jousting system with a derived Joust-value, and the math do bog things down), but otherwise I would be tempted to use this rule.

You don't require a DEX roll to get up.

Pendragon 5th Ed, p. 79: "Once knocked down, a character needs no roll to get up again, even if in heavy armor."


It's amazing what you miss when you skim read. My players will be relieved. We're playing today as well, year 502. Can't wait.

Cheers for the clarification. I'm just rereading the whole combat section now.

When mounted, you roll DEX (not Horsemanship) to stay mounted if you are hit and the damage is equal to or greater than your size.

In fact, that is currently the rule that I use
In fact, I thought it had been changed for 5.1

When mounted, you roll DEX (not Horsemanship) to stay mounted if you are hit and the damage is equal to or greater than your size.

In fact, that is currently the rule that I use
In fact, I thought it had been changed for 5.1


Interesting. How does it work? It do make DEX much more powerful. I would guess that that means lower Horsemanship skills?

When mounted, you roll DEX (not Horsemanship) to stay mounted if you are hit and the damage is equal to or greater than your size.

In fact, that is currently the rule that I use
In fact, I thought it had been changed for 5.1

Interesting. How does it work? It do make DEX much more powerful. I would guess that that means lower Horsemanship skills?

Yes, it makes DEX much more useful
Horsemanship tends to be lower, but it is still critical for all the horsey things: riding, racing, jumping, etc

It was changed for 5.1, here is the referance Page 90, KAP 5.1

Horsemanship is also used by a mounted combatant whenever he suffers a Knockdown result from damage taken.
See “Knockdown” in Chapter 6.

Forgive me for resurrecting this thread, guys, but I think Greg said the rule should be to use DEX when testing Knockdown on a horse, not Horsemanship. That would mean the rule cited in KAP 5.1 above did NOT get changed as he thought.

Right? Or did I miss something? I'd like to put it in the errata if I have it right...



T.

Forgive me for resurrecting this thread, guys, but I think Greg said the rule should be to use DEX when testing Knockdown on a horse, not Horsemanship. That would mean the rule cited in KAP 5.1 above did NOT get changed as he thought.
Right? Or did I miss something? I'd like to put it in the errata if I have it right...


The rule is now that DEX is used to counter a Knockdown whether on foot or on horse