Hi folks,

Does anyone have a definitive idea of what kind of skills NPC squires possess? In the BotEntourage, it state they get their generic Squire skill plus two others as specialties (at half base value), yet I'm seeing elsewhere (such as on character sheets) that they have their Squire skill, as well as Horsemanship, First Aid, and Battle at full base values.

If there's no one right answer, does it seem to much to make them BOTH true? Give Squires their Squire skill; First Aid, Horsemanship, and Battle at full base values, and then two specialties at half base value?

I don't want to have NPC squires statted as full characters and rather like the abbreviated version as found in BotEntourage. Any help?

I definitely would not give them Battle at full base value (I assume you mean 10, for a grown knight).

Here is how I handle squires. It is for player squires in mind, but if I need a skill for an NPC squire, it is the default I start from:
http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=942.msg8319#msg8319

For NPC squires, I'd probably ignore the non-combat skills entirely, unless there is a good plot reason not to. Generally, those skills would be based on the knight training them: i.e. a knight with Hunting 15 would probably have a squire with Hunting 10. This also prevents the PKs trying to get 'free skills' via their squires. Not that anyone has tried (exception was an NPC squire who just happened to be a good hunter, but that was a GM initiative because otherwise the Hunting 2 knights would have been unable to track their comrade down).

Yeah, I can understand not wanting to give PC access to "free" skills, but I feel like it wouldn't be such a big deal in play -- especially since it's highly likely the squire will be the next character for that player anyway. It would also seem prudent for a lord to assign a squire who doesn't have the skills a knight has, so that they may get a fuller education while under the knight's tutelage.

After thinking about it for a little, I might go with this:

Squire skill (age + mod)
Horsemanship (5 + 1/2 age)
First Aid (5 + 1/2 age)
Specialty 1 (1/2 base + 1/2 age) -- chosen by GM
Specialty 2 (1/2 base + 1/2 age) -- chosen by player


This gives players a voice in what their squire turns out, but also allows the GM to shape the squire according to what might be lacking in the group (a squire with a good First Aid roll, for example, may be invaluable).

Yeah, I can understand not wanting to give PC access to "free" skills, but I feel like it wouldn't be such a big deal in play -- especially since it's highly likely the squire will be the next character for that player anyway. It would also seem prudent for a lord to assign a squire who doesn't have the skills a knight has, so that they may get a fuller education while under the knight's tutelage.


If these are PKs to be, then no problem.

However, that 15 year old kid doesn't know much at all. I see him learning from his knight. That is where his skills come from, in my opinion. It is not as if he gets X number of skills at high level and then Y number again from his knight. No, those 3 non-combat skills at 10 is what he has picked up whilst a squire to a knight.

That is my story and I am sticking to it. :P

After thinking about it for a little, I might go with this:

Squire skill (age + mod)
Horsemanship (5 + 1/2 age)
First Aid (5 + 1/2 age)
Specialty 1 (1/2 base + 1/2 age) -- chosen by GM
Specialty 2 (1/2 base + 1/2 age) -- chosen by player



The skills are too high, IMHO. He'd end up with 15 in each at the age of 20, in other words the maximum that he might have.

If you make the age modifier (age-15) instead, then they'd end up with 10 in each for their final year, which is much better as a baseline. That is actually how I'd probably do an NPC squire:

Basic skills: 5 + (age-15)
Player chooses 1 skill per year, which gets +1. (Maybe 2?)

This sidesteps the problem of squires being walking skill banks, since their skills are what all the knights already have at a higher level. And it would result in a build (with two player determined picks) of all the basic skills at 10 + 2 basic skills at 15. Which sounds about right for a starting knight.

I like that. That's a nice way of doing it.

For NPC squires I use a simple rule. Use their Age usually. In some cases they have a background which grants a skill at a high level.

Examples:
One PK had a son of a banneret as a squire. The boy was known for his intrigue, so it started with a intrigue above 10. Another PK had a third son who had joined a monastery, but when his brothers died was made a squire. He started with a high First Aid and had a decent Chirurgery skill.

The level of the skill is based on the story and their age. If they are young like the son of a banneret the skills were between 10 and 15. The former monk had a skill 15 since had was already older.

Since the squires are not really important the skill is not increased during their training years.

But that is just how I play them. otherwise I like the ideas from Morien as well.

For NPC squires I use a simple rule. Use their Age usually.

I just wing it. Skill rolls for squires tend to crop up once every twenty to thirty sessions, so it's just not worth the bother to update squire skill list every winter phase. This game has enough bookkeeping as it is :P

Another option is to give them a point in each Courtly and Knightly skill starting at age 8. So at 10, he's have a 2. At age 16, he's have an 8. If not all Courtly and Knightly skills, perhaps a narrower set of "Squire" skills.

Give him a Loyalty Passion for his lord = to his age. So that same 16 yr old would have a 3 in 4 chance of firing his Loyalty in a pinch and popping that 8 to an 18.

Why 8? Because squires traditionally start their training at age 7...

Skill = Age doesn't work for me because a 17-yr old squire could have a 17 First Aid, or Combat, or whatever. That's crazy.

What might be needed is a Squire skill — a bundle of pseudo-skills at his Age level. But a squire would not be able to use full-on First Aid with the Squire skill. Instead, he'd only be able to make his lord comfortable and maybe stabilize him for a bit until someone with the proper First Aid skill could arrive. This isn't completely satisfying, either, though because there's no natural progression from Squire to Knight at age 21. Ideally there would be.

Back to my original idea, a Squire could start with a 1 in all the Knightly and Courtly skills at age 8 and you could check them all every year. So at best, he could have a 13 at age 21 in all those skills, but many would be lower due to failed checks. Not bad, maybe.

Now this would mean that a 21 yr=old character passing from Squire to Knight would have higher skills than the official starting skill levels for his race. But I think those skills are too low, anyway. You put a boy in Courtly life for 14 years and he only comes out with a Courtesy 5 at age 21? Not likely. He should at least have a 50% chance to make a Courtesy roll, IMO. I don't know what the odds are in the check progression I described but I'm sure some of our mathematically inclined friends can figure out where the average Squire would end up after 14 years of training on any given skill starting at 1 at age 8.

Another example: a boy attends mass everyday from at least age 7 and at age 21 he has only Religion 2? No way. He has only a 10% chance to understand basic questions about the tenants of his religion. "This skill simply allows one to know the forms, ceremonies, and ideologies of a religion, as would be acquired by attending normal worship."

If you don't want to be that generous, you could grant a check every other year, or provide a penalty for the check due to his tender years, or whatever...


T.

Another option is to give them a point in each Courtly and Knightly skill starting at age 8. So at 10, he's have a 2. At age 16, he's have an 8. If not all Courtly and Knightly skills, perhaps a narrower set of "Squire" skills.

Give him a Loyalty Passion for his lord = to his age. So that same 16 yr old would have a 3 in 4 chance of firing his Loyalty in a pinch and popping that 8 to an 18.


Way too high, as you yourself note.



Back to my original idea, a Squire could start with a 1 in all the Knightly and Courtly skills at age 8 and you could check them all every year. So at best, he could have a 13 at age 21 in all those skills, but many would be lower due to failed checks. Not bad, maybe.


Better. I can run this quickly. However, I wouldn't give EVERY Knightly and Courtly skill. Just those that the knights have at 10 in the beginning: First Aid, Battle, Horsemanship, Sword, Lance. Ideally, 3 other Non-combat skills that they'd pick. This is way too complicated for NPC squires, though.



But I think those skills are too low, anyway. You put a boy in Courtly life for 14 years and he only comes out with a Courtesy 5 at age 21? Not likely. He should at least have a 50% chance to make a Courtesy roll, IMO. I don't know what the odds are in the check progression I described but I'm sure some of our mathematically inclined friends can figure out where the average Squire would end up after 14 years of training on any given skill starting at 1 at age 8.


Depends how you define and play Courtesy. I am not sure if my rule-of-thumb is the common one, but for me, failure is the neutral option: you act courteously, but you do not manage to elicit a positive response, just a neutral one. So that would be what we would call good manners: you behave appropriately. A success in Courtesy means that you shine; you get a positive response/reaction. You get a favor request granted, etc. In this case, yes, Courtesy 5 is already enough for a squire who has not spent his time and energy to become a people-person. Perhaps his knight was of the old bash'em school.



Another example: a boy attends mass everyday from at least age 7 and at age 21 he has only Religion 2? No way. He has only a 10% chance to understand basic questions about the tenants of his religion. "This skill simply allows one to know the forms, ceremonies, and ideologies of a religion, as would be acquired by attending normal worship."


That is a problem of the skill definition. Again, the way I have seen Religion used in published adventures, it is more like getting esoteric, very detailed knowledge. Such as: 'Today is the feast day of Saint X, who was famous for such and such. Invoking his name when you are crossing the perilous path will protect you from the evil faeries.' Not that you cross your hands and say 'amen' a lot. Again, at that point, a knight/squire who has not been that interested might very well have just Religion 2. He knows the 10 commandments and ave maria and our father, but that is about it. Besides, the mass is in Latin anyway...

Do I think that the skills are annoyingly low? Yes, yes I do. Going strictly by the book, the PKs have only about 50% chance to Recognise a Round Table Knight (Glory 8000) that they have seen at Pentecost. On the other hand, they do provide some niche protection. (Personally, I'd combine Recognize and Heraldry. They both do very similar things and it seems to weaken either by splitting it too fine.)

EDIT: Awareness is another one of those skills that seems a bit too low, and it is hurting the game. It is GOOD when PKs see things about the world! Granted, I most often use it as a 'see ambush' skill, and I often allow all the PKs to roll to see a clue, so the chances are that most of the time, at least one of them spots something. And they tend to have at least one guy with Awareness 15+, since I told them to do that at chargen. :P



If you don't want to be that generous, you could grant a check every other year, or provide a penalty for the check due to his tender years, or whatever...


I can run that too. :P


ADDED:

Squire skills, starting at 1, 14 checks, 10000 Samples
Mean: 10.7381 Standard deviation: 1.29333228136
Min: 6 Median: 11.0 Max: 15

Squire skills, starting at 1, 7 checks, 10000 Samples
Mean: 6.7365 Standard deviation: 0.886040490046
Min: 3 Median: 7.0 Max: 8

In other words, you'd get reasonable numbers out by saying that the squires would get a check in all of their 'main skills' (those 5 starting at 10 + 3 non-combat skills + one skill at 15). But why would you wish to do that, actually? You already have a fine system in place to make adult knights. This would just require you to roll 14 times 1d20 for EVERY main skill. And what, 7 times for every other skill? Too much work, mate. Just give me the medians and lets take it from there. :P

That's awesome, Morien, thanks!

Why would you want to do it? Well, first, I'd never want to do it for every squire, but there are a few of reasons why it's worthy of consideration:

1.) All squires shouldn't necessarily have the exact same level to accomplish a thing based on their age.

2.) All squires should be able to perform reasonably well in Courtly, Knightly, and Religious skills since they've had 14 years of immersive training by the time they're old enough to be knighted.

3.) You can't give a Squire an elective skill of, say First Aid, based on his age. That means at 18 he'll be one helluva healer

4.) Which means Squires should have a separate scale of efficacy (a Squire's First Aid is not the same as a Knight's First Aid), which is unsatisfactory, because basically Squires would use separate rules from Knights — even though they eventually become knights.

5.) There is no logical progression from squire to knight. The rulebook says squires are not mean to be proto-characters, but I have to ask — why not?

Seems like clever folk could devise some simple way to reconcile this.

For a super simple solution based on Age, I say give him a Squire skill and that's it—no other skills needed. The skill would encompass all the things a Squire normally is called on to do, as described in the Book of Battle, including First Aid-like functions (but without the full benefits of the full-on First Aid skill), Horsemanship, Evasion-maneuvers, Sword, and so on. But that assumes you'll never need to ask a squire to roll Courtesy, or Religion, or any of the other skills that he's been steeped in since birth.

I dunno—just daydreaming, here.

As for a success in Courtesy means you shine — I rather thought that was more like a crit. To me, a Courtesy success means you've met the expectation for Courtesy and did not offer offense. You've achieved the base expectation for proper behavior. The other person will be neutral or favorable to whatever you're trying to achieve with the Courtesy roll. A failure means you slightly offend, insult or annoy the other person, meaning the other person is not inclined to entertain whatever you're requesting. A fumble means you've really stepped in it and committed a seriously embarrassing faux pas or offered grave insult.


I'm not crazy about combining Recognize and Heraldry. One allows you to recognize a person's face, even if they don't have a coat of arms about them — could be a woman, beggar or street urchin. The other allows you to recognize a knight (or his retinue) even when they're across a field, and even when the knight's not present. One is an inherent mental facility, the other is a learned system — a skill. I'd almost rather combine Recognize with Awarensss, if there was to be a combination—they're both about mental acuity.

In fact, what is called Heraldry in Pendragon is more properly called "Armory." Heraldry is more like the skill of understanding the language, code and rules of heraldry, the meaning behind the symbols and colors, cataloging and reconciling conflicting COAs, actually painting the shields (knowing what materials to use, etc.) and so on. Herladry is the job of Heralds, just as Clerk is the job of Clerks and Diplomacy is the skill of Diplomats. Knights don't need to know Heraldry. They definitely need to know Armory.


FWIW,


T.

1.) All squires shouldn't necessarily have the exact same level to accomplish a thing based on their age.


Agreed, but unless the squire is a played Player Character, I am really not bothered by not having a full character sheet for them. The PKs are the heroes of the story, not the NPC squires. And if it is a PC squire, sure, then we can have different rules of skill advancement for them.

I did have rules back in the day for the PKs to train their squires during the Winter Phase. It was a bookkeeping nightmare for very little gain.



2.) All squires should be able to perform reasonably well in Courtly, Knightly, and Religious skills since they've had 14 years of immersive training by the time they're old enough to be knighted.


Yes. Reasonably well. Here is the thing, though. After they have had 14 years of training, they are already knights. We know from chargen that Skill 10 is already 'good enough' for a beginning knight. And we know that Skill 10 is also about average for a professional soldier (although not for a grizzled veteran).

The issue is really with the perception of what a skill 10 (or even less) means. I'll come to this later.



3.) You can't give a Squire an elective skill of, say First Aid, based on his age. That means at 18 he'll be one helluva healer


Of course not. Who is suggesting it? The only 'skill' that a squire has is 'Squire skill'. Which is pretty much just a quick check roll to see if the squire has been doing his job properly or if he screws up somehow.



4.) Which means Squires should have a separate scale of efficacy (a Squire's First Aid is not the same as a Knight's First Aid), which is unsatisfactory, because basically Squires would use separate rules from Knights — even though they eventually become knights.


No. 100% No to this one. All characters in Pendragon use the same rules, from damsels to monks to peasants. Even the animals and monsters use the same combat mechanisms to attack. There is absolutely no need to change the rules. You are too fixated on the idea that Squire Age = Skill level. It is just the Squire Skill, nothing else.



5.) There is no logical progression from squire to knight. The rulebook says squires are not mean to be proto-characters, but I have to ask — why not?

Seems like clever folk could devise some simple way to reconcile this.


I believe I have presented at least two ideas. I also believe that the previous publications have suggested a couple of more.



For a super simple solution based on Age, I say give him a Squire skill and that's it—no other skills needed. The skill would encompass all the things a Squire normally is called on to do, as described in the Book of Battle, including First Aid-like functions (but without the full benefits of the full-on First Aid skill), Horsemanship, Evasion-maneuvers, Sword, and so on. But that assumes you'll never need to ask a squire to roll Courtesy, or Religion, or any of the other skills that he's been steeped in since birth.


No need for this. I don't have BoB, so I am not sure what 'First Aid-like functions' you mean. Note that to stop a wound from bleeding, you don't need a successful First Aid. Even a failed First Aid will stop additional damage as long as the wounded person is not treated roughly. The exception is Chirurgery Needed, but that is true even if you have First Aid of 40.



As for a success in Courtesy means you shine — I rather thought that was more like a crit. To me, a Courtesy success means you've met the expectation for Courtesy and did not offer offense. You've achieved the base expectation for proper behavior. The other person will be neutral or favorable to whatever you're trying to achieve with the Courtesy roll. A failure means you slightly offend, insult or annoy the other person, meaning the other person is not inclined to entertain whatever you're requesting. A fumble means you've really stepped in it and committed a seriously embarrassing faux pas or offered grave insult.


Lets put it like this...

Critical: You are the toast of the party. Lots of Glory (double, triple?) and great success in your request. Even a bigger requests might be favorably received, although not necessarily granted without a good reason or a favor in return. (For instance, this might, in our campaign, get you a personal audience with Arthur. Not that he would necessarily give you anything, but at least you'd get a chance to plead your case or just chitchat with him.)

Success: 'There is a man who really knows his manners!' +10 Glory (or whatever is normal for a Courtly Skill success in your game), and small requests for favor are entertained. This, as far as I know it, is the way the rules are written currently. Success is worthy of Glory. If it was just the expected norm, why would you get Glory for it?

Failure: You are one of the grey mass. You don't offend, but neither do you impress. If you were making a request, it is likely denied, unless you have a favor to cash in.

Fumble: You really put your foot into your mouth this time, and caused offense. Whoever you are talking to is insulted and, at best, would like to seek other company. At worst, you might get invited to leave the court or even challenged to a duel.

It simply doesn't feel right to me that at any courtly reception, 50% of the knights would be insulting/annoying the host. 5% is still a bit high, but I can sort of accept that as the limit of the system: after all, we like high-risk rolling, don't we? Taking down giants with one blow? The 'unrealistically common' criticals and fumbles make things more dramatic.

Finally, I believe that it is always a bad idea to punish the players from trying a roll. Thus, in pretty much any skill roll, my starting assumption is that Failure is the default option: you don't improve the situation, but you don't make it worse. So you just as well might try to use your Orate 3 to give a rousing pre-battle speech. Who knows, you might roll a 3, and what a story that will make! Whereas if you say that on a failure, the army morale will suffer, the PK with Orate 3 says that he isn't rolling in that case, because the risk of failure is so much greater than the risk of success.

Now, this might of course change if the person they are talking to/dealing with is already starting from a negative status. Maybe he is busy. Maybe he is proud and feels the PKs are beneath him. Maybe he has a reason to dislike the PKs. Then, yes, the failure could have bad results and you need to succeed to forestall the situation worsening. But in normal routine situations? A failure is no big deal. I refer you back to the First Aid results:
Critical: Great success, heal 1d3+3.
Success: Situation improves, heal 1d3.
Failure: Status quo, no healing, no damage.
Fumble: You make things worse, 1d3 damage and Chirurgery Needed.



I'm not crazy about combining Recognize and Heraldry. One allows you to recognize a person's face, even if they don't have a coat of arms about them — could be a woman, beggar or street urchin. The other allows you to recognize a knight (or his retinue) even when they're across a field, and even when the knight's not present. One is an inherent mental facility, the other is a learned system — a skill. I'd almost rather combine Recognize with Awarensss, if there was to be a combination—they're both about mental acuity.


You know, I agree with you in part. It would make sense to combine Recognize and Awareness. However, Awareness already has a pretty good roll-rate, at least in our games, and is very much an important skill. Recognize has a big component of memory as well, not just the ability to see. In fact, the use of Heraldry and Recognize in the game so far pretty much assume that you get a good look. Are you getting a good look? If it is in doubt, roll Awareness.

Drop Heraldry altogether and just roll it into Recognize. Make heraldic symbols just a bonus. After all, it is a very distinctive 'recognition symbol' and it was intended to be one! I mean, how easy would it be to recognize a bunch of peasants? Not that easy, I'd say. But put every one of them in Orkney double-headed eagle livery, and you'd be sure to at least pick out their affiliation, right? Same with knights. As soon as you spot the heraldry, it should be easier to narrow the list down on who this guy was again. It is a clue, just like a mannerism or the sound of the voice or the way they walk or dress can be a clue. 'The guy with the fedora and the bullwhip, who was he again... Hates snakes.'

5.) There is no logical progression from squire to knight. The rulebook says squires are not mean to be proto-characters, but I have to ask — why not?

Seems like clever folk could devise some simple way to reconcile this.


Well, there are two things here. One is to create a player character at a certain age, pre-knighthood. And then start playing him. The other is to follow a reasonable progression of a character, but not really play him. The latter of course uses slightly different rules of progression to keep the bookkeeping down.

The link I posted in my first reply to this thread showed the system we had in place of making a PK between ages 15 and 20. However, here is a thing: You CANNOT make a character who starts with Skill 5 in the Basic Skills at age of 15, without any miscellaneous picks and skill points and extra skills, and get him to 21 with using check marks and Yearly Training. It. Cannot. Be. Done. Sure, you can get something approximating it, for a certain assumptions of where those misc points went and so forth. But you simply cannot get enough skills high enough in 6 years to match what a starting character can do.

So, if we wish to keep the 'normal' progression, we'd need to 'cheat' by starting to trace the skills earlier. For example, what you, Taliesin, suggested at 8, or, as in our game, we use 9 (9+6+6 = 21) due to inertia. I really should have changed that to the historical 7+7+7 for the new campaign... oh well. However, this is a huuuge pain, as you'd have to decide what do you learn during childhood as well. Instead, I'd not allow characters younger than 15 and I'd do this:

Page Years (9 -> 15, 6 years):
- During these years, the buy is serving as a page at the household of a family friend (other vassal knight) or the lord's court, learning the rudiments of courtly life and manners. They also start picking up the basics of knightly skills.
- At the end of the Page years, you will have the starting skill levels, except First Aid, Battle, Horsemanship, Sword and Lance are all 5 instead of 10. In addition, you get 10 points to spend on Non-Combat Skills.

Squire Years (15 -> 21, 6 years):
1) The Simple Way:
- Each year, +1 to the Basic Skills, until they are 10 (at 20). When you turn 21, you can use those 5 points to any skill you wish. (Also, if you have raised those basic skills earlier to 10, any points in excess of 10 are free to allocate elsewhere.)
- Get 2 points each year on Non-Combat Skills. However, you can't raise a skill over 10.
- Take Yearly Training: +1 to Stat/Trait/Passion or +5 skill points. Yes, you can raise a skill to 15 with those.

End result: 10 in basic skills and +5 skill points to allocate to get that Sword to 15 if you wish. 12 Non-combat skill points to allocate, which together with the 10 points from page years should get you 22 points which is enough to get three skills to 10. In addition, you get 10 skill points (2 Yearly Trainings) and 4 more 'Miscellaneous Picks' / Yearly Trainings. So this should be pretty close what you'd get if you'd just make a 21-yr old starting knight.

2) The Complicated Way:
- Get the skill/trait/passion checks that you get in play. In addition, you should get a check mark in all those basic knightly skills in above from the training your knight is supposed to give you. Not getting them? Your knight must be slacking then. Sucks to be you.
- The GM ought to be generous with your non-combat skill checks, too: 3-5 per year, at least.
- Take the regular Yearly Trainings as normal.

End result: Slightly poorer than the above when it comes to high skills; you'll probably end up with 9-10 in the Basic Knightly skills, but not the +5 that the Simple Way gave you. On the other hand, you probably end up with more points sprinkled around in your low non-combat skills, so it is more or less right, if you assume a 'dilettante' build, rather than a guy with Sword 15, Lance 15, Horsemanship 15. Also, you might have improved your traits/passions more than a beginning character, 'for free' i.e. not using those yearly trainings.

But I understand that you, Taliesin, were not too troubled by having the squires differ. Certainly that should apply to played characters even more so than NPCs. :P

Thanks, Morien, for all of that. Can't reply to all just now, but a couple of high points:

First, I was so eager to engage in this topic, that I was not thinking straight, nor remembering some important bits of information correctly. My bad.

Second, there is a an Optional Rule concerning Squire development in the Book of Entourage. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. I remember not being completely satisfied with it, either, but it seemed a better option for a Squire "development track" for weirdos like me that desire such things.

See — I don't want to necessarily use these as PCs, but I do have a Squire in my campaign that is a very important NPC. Since I only have two players, I have to elevate certain characters (even Squires) to provide additional drama, conflict, and story ideas to make the stories personal for my Player-knights. So I tend to have a lot of activity around wives, squires, and extended family members. One of my PKs' squires was battlefield knighted by the PK and joined the PKs household. So an organic progression from Squire to Knight was impossible, by the rules.

The Squire rules as written probably work fine for most people; I'm just weird that way. They're more like fully realized characters in my game — sidekicks and faithful companions. Batman and Robin. Captain America and Bucky. Shaggy and Scooby-- well-- you get the idea.

I see now that we already made it clear in ENTOURAGE that the Squire roll for things like First Aid-like functions are NOT the same as a First Aid skill. And that the starting values for "optional skills" are much lower, in any event.

I don't recall now where I picked up the idea that the Squires optional skills was based on his Age. Probably from the soup of half-remembered rules from three or four different books. I shoulda refreshed my memory on the topic before jumping in mouth-first!

Anyway, I'm sure there' a satisfactory solution somewhere here. I'll revisit perhaps tomorrow. So late here...

Thanks again for your insights and passion. You make this place better.

Oh, and congrats in advance on your 1,000th post. Have some Glory!


Best,


T.

Second, there is a an Optional Rule concerning Squire development in the Book of Entourage. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. I remember not being completely satisfied with it, either, but it seemed a better option for a Squire "development track" for weirdos like me that desire such things.


Alas, I don't own the Book of Entourage, so I am unable to comment on that. :(



See — I don't want to necessarily use these as PCs, but I do have a Squire in my campaign that is a very important NPC... So an organic progression from Squire to Knight was impossible, by the rules.

Anyway, I'm sure there' a satisfactory solution somewhere here. I'll revisit perhaps tomorrow. So late here...


OK. If it were me, I'd use the simple system I suggested in above? Since it is an NPC, you don't actually have to worry about checkmarks and stuff, since you have enough bookkeeping already without doing half a dozen NPCs as well.

I'd give the PKs a lot of control about where their squires would be spending those points, too. You might even give them more flexibility: like 4 points to combat skills and 3 points non-combat skills per year (max 15, as usual). That might even be better. If it was me training my squire, I'd start with Horsemanship. Make sure that they can keep up on horseback, before starting to teach them how to really use a Lance. I'd probably push their First Aid up next, since they are the backup line in healing if no one better is around. (Or actually simultaneously since FA is a non-combat skill!) Sword 5 or 7, they'd still get chopped up in a real battle, and their role is so not to get into a fight. I'd probably leave their Battle for the last. Their role is to follow me and my orders, not to exercise tactical control on their own.

On other hand, I'd try to make sure that they reach the 'requisite' 10 in all basic skills, preferably earlier rather than later. That way, they'd be technically proficient enough to become knights if they actually earn it early in game. Also, while First Aid of 15 sounds excellent in a squire, I'd probably not push it up that high, since I'd recognize that they need other skills as well to make their own way in the future. As a GM, I'd also cap those 'trained skills' to the level that the training knight has to prevent 'entourage abuse': if you want your squire to have First Aid 15, you'd better have it yourself at 15 as well so that you can train him. Although I'd accept you 'farming out' that training to an entourage healer, or, in a pinch, your lady wife who hopefully has higher skill in First Aid. In the latter case, though, it would be the Yearly Training points, unless the knight spends a lot of time at home.

So I'd probably do something like:
16: Horsemanship 9, First Aid 8
17: Horsemanship 10, Lance 8, First Aid 10
(Lance or sword first? I went with a Lance with the idea that if things are truly desperate, that +10 of using Lance on horseback against a Saxon raider on foot might be the safer option than +5 with a sword. Also, the rest of the non-combat skill points would start going to whatever skills I wish to train the squire in.)
18: Horsemanship 10, Lance 10, Sword 7, First Aid 10
19: Horsemanship 10, Lance 10, Sword 10, Battle 6, First Aid 10
20: Horsemanship 10, Lance 10, Sword 10, Battle 10, First Aid 10.

Assuming that the GM agrees for some 'accelerated training' of using those Yearly Training picks to +10 skill points, the squire would be reaching the minimum skill levels needed at the age of 18 (with one skill at 12). So in half the time it canonically takes. This is plenty accelerated in my book.

EDIT:
Note that the above 'bunching of skill points' is 'breaking the rules' as you cannot get +4 to a skill by checkmarks in one year, whereas using an even spread of skill points can be handwaved as 'oh, he just succeeded in the check'. I am not particularly troubled by that, but if you are, then just use the system like described in my previous post: +1 to each Basic Skills and 2 non-combat skills per year. That still leaves you to fudge the final year, but 1 year is better than 6 years of fudging. :P



Thanks again for your insights and passion. You make this place better.

Oh, and congrats in advance on your 1,000th post. Have some Glory!


Thank you for the kind words. I am just one voice amongst many other passionate players and GMs that frequent this Forum, making it a very nice, useful and inspiring place to post and communicate with fellow players and GMs. (I won't name names, since that would take too long. :) ) I do seem to be the most eager to blab on about my own opinions and experiences while running the game. I'd hesitate to use the word obsessed, but I do check the Forum daily. :P Perhaps even more often while there is a discussion going.

Besides, you are one to talk about passion, Taliesin. I still remember when you were an eager whippersnapper, making your first posts on this Forum, and look at you now! How many published Pendragon books have you as an Editor now, hmm? :)

And appropriately enough, this is my 1000th post. Ding! :)

Since it was asked, FYI


The rulebook says squires are not mean to be proto-characters, but I have to ask — why not?

Because running two characters in a game leads to an awful lot of coordinated action executed in a tremendously unrealistic manner.
OTOH
In strict game terms, the squire is there to do a bunch of things that a full character would feel robbed to do, like hold horses or run a message back to the castle.
AND
It is an opportunity to save a player knight by giving him a weapon or horse during a fight.
AND
It's tough enough to fun one character!

However, I have no objections to others dealing with squires as they wish. YPWV! I only made the game for others to enjoy as they will.
Making them into characters with a personality, past, and kinship connections broadens the base of the knights.