In K&L I have a large chart about Horses for KAP
I have since learned that their size didn't get appreciably larger than 8d6 destrier
So I am going to change the damage on the last two types (Frisian, Great Horse) since it would be less than 9d6 and 10d6
At the moment the types exist, but their damage is "only" 8d6+2 and 18d6+4
These will most likely to appear in a 2nd edition of K&L, whenever such a thing may come about
but I wanted to share the data so far

When I fiddle around with it all even the destrier may end up being a 7d6+something
which will also change the Frisian and the Great Horse

18d6+4...I'll take that horse any day.

NT

18d6+4...I'll take that horse any day.


*grin* A Giant's Destrier? :)

Going from 9d6 to 8d6+2 isn't a big change, only 1.5 points on average, with the average damage already 30 (so 5% difference). 10d6 to 8d6+4 is 3 points on average (or almost one die, closer to 10% difference). Might be simpler to just cap horses at 9d6 Frisian and be done with it? That would keep the horse breed progression nice and smooth, and the Shire Horse (Great Horse) gets introduced so late in the campaign and is so godawful expensive that I don't expect my players' knights to ever use one. They are already in awe over the destrier. :P

Especially if at the same time we put the basic knight's horse at Poor Charger (5d6) (until the price of the charger comes down to £10), we'd still have the same 'four upgrades' available during the campaign. This would also make the starting horses a bit more affordable, as they tend to die pretty easily on Saxon axes and spears, and prevent those huge loot values when you manage to defeat another knight and claim his horse.

Regarding the damage... Given that that the 'Pendragon standard' in damages is to add 1d6's rather than mess around with 5d6+1, 5d6+2 (although if one wishes to do that, they can), I think sticking to +1d6 would be the 'cleaner' option. Of course, if we will move from 'round to the nearest 1d6' in damage to prevent those 'sweet spots' (SIZ+STR = 33 -> 33/6 = 5.5 = 6d6), then this objection has less validity.

(Smoother damage progression to prevent those +1d6 hops:
SIZ+STR = SIZ+STR/6 = DMG
30 = 5.00 = 5d6
31 = 5.17 = 5d6+1
32 = 5.33 = 5d6+1
33 = 5.50 = 5d6+2
34 = 5.67 = 5d6+2
35 = 5.83 = 6d6 (technically 5d6+3, but this is close enough to 6d6 = 5d6+3.5, and this gives each +0, +1, +2 a two-value step.)

But as you see, this is roughly 1 point difference (5.17 and 5.33 lose 1 point, 5.5 and 5.67 get +1), so it isn't a huge change viewed in isolation. But due to the big jump between 5.33 and 5.5 in current system, +1d6, I have seen the PKs' SIZ+STR cluster at 33, to get the biggest bang for their buck. Using more random stats would work to alleviate this too, of course. But this is starting to veer off on a tangent.)

Just my two denarii.

I would support the 9d6 Frisian. I'm all for supporting a historical "feel" and love that KAP is moving that direction (ironically I've learned more about Dark and Medieval history through KAP than any other game I've played), but to me this seems like an easy trade off of gameplay over realism. 9d6 aligns with the existing mechanics better IMHO.

Personally I like the horses the way they are... [clear progression, always full D6's (no need to check your sheet if you have bonus), balanced against armor).

fg,
Thijs