Just to be clear: when a creature states X penalty to Valorous rolls, this implies that the Coward trait gets the same X as bonus?

Just to be clear: when a creature states X penalty to Valorous rolls, this implies that the Coward trait gets the same X as bonus?

Since Cowardly is the flipside of Valorous, yes.

Just to be clear: when a creature states X penalty to Valorous rolls, this implies that the Coward trait gets the same X as bonus?

The way I run this is as follows: "Failure on a Valorous roll indicates a character’s reluctance to close with the beast for 1 round (another roll may be attempted
each round), while a fumble indicates that the character flees in terror for 1d6 rounds at least before he returns to his senses. A character who succeeds on a Valorous roll but who doesn’t wish to attack a particularly fierce creature (such as a dragon or giant whom he has no real chance of defeating) may then make a Prudent roll to avoid the combat, usually without dishonor." [KAP 5.2, page 211]

I usually take the Prudent route over the Cowardly route as a check in Cowardly hurts the PK, but a prudent check usually doesn't. But, YPMV.

Just to add, I GM it the same way Hzark10 does.

Its also good to point out that the Valorous penalty is divided among the PKs so 3 knights don't each take a -15 but instead each rolls at -5. Most knights will never succeed at -15 but half will at -5 so its a big advantage to bring friends.

And with Prudent rolls if one knight succeeds at Valorous before the others he can hold back so they can attack together rather than riding in alone to be killed horribly.

I usually take the Prudent route over the Cowardly route as a check in Cowardly hurts the PK, but a prudent check usually doesn't. But, YPMV.

I am not quite clear as to what you mean with your usage of 'hurt' by rolling a Cowardly and not by rolling a Prudent.

If you roll Valorous and fail, shouldn't you roll Cowardly? Sure, the character is Valorous most of the time, and the system is tilted that way with knights beginning with 15 Valorous. But there will always be a small chance that circumstances will overtake him and he flees for his life. This may well occur at some instinctual level but it does happen.

And the player-knight must deal with that later like he does with everything else.

Simply put, a failure on a roll does not mean an opposing trait gets check. Only on a success (or gm fiat) does this happen. Thus, if you run it as a -6 Valorous roll means a +6 cowardly, then it is more likely the cowardly gets checked and thereby increase during the winter phase.

However, it you run it as a modifier to valorous, a failure means you are not apt to close with the beast, but since your cowardly didn't go up via the modifier, your chance to succeed on cowardly remains low.

Can't say it won't, but the chances are in the PK's favor.

Is this clearer?

Simply put, a failure on a roll does not mean an opposing trait gets check. Only on a success (or gm fiat) does this happen. Thus, if you run it as a -6 Valorous roll means a +6 cowardly, then it is more likely the cowardly gets checked and thereby increase during the winter phase.

But it is rolled right?


However, it you run it as a modifier to valorous, a failure means you are not apt to close with the beast, but since your cowardly didn't go up via the modifier, your chance to succeed on cowardly remains low.

That's not what Morien said above. I don't interpret the rule that way, either. If Valorous gets a modifier and it goes up or down, then Cowardly must go up or down accordingly. If you, as a GM, decide otherwise that's another matter. The rules as writen imply this adjustment on both Traits. I admit this is a bit abstract and open to interpretation.

The other point is that you don't always have to roll for both the Trait and Opposing Trait to make a action determination. Sometimes the opposing check might be a different trait (even a "positive" one) or even a Passion. The question is really "what is the pull in the opposite direction for this check?"

In the case of these dreadful creatures, they call for valor to avoid hesitating in engaging them, but retreating is actually a Prudent thing to do--they are not like the usual knights that PKs are expected to bravely withstand! On the other hand, if the beast is threatening your Lord's daughter, the opposing check could be Loyalty(Lord) or an Amor for her; success could enable an immediate leap to the defense even though the PK's heart is water (Valor) at the thought of fighting such a cockatrice!

Does this help? The system has a ton of flexibility for directing role-play.

--Khanwulf

Does this help? The system has a ton of flexibility for directing role-play.

--Khanwulf

Yes, I quite get that. However, I would interpret it as follows:

1) Roll Valorous / Cowardly.

1a) Failed Valorous, success Cowardly: cries in terror, flees, panics, freezes, faints, whatever.
1b) Success on Valorous (could choose to act Cowardly as per the rules, but won't).

2) Bravely faces the beast (Valorous).
3) Roll Prudent / Reckless (fight it alone, go against it head on regardless of tactics? Reckless. Fight as a group? Try different tactics to face the beast, like someone distracting it, etc., create a plan to face the beast? Prudent.)

Yes, it's quite flexible. However, I get the feeling that everyone is reluctant to have their players roll Cowardly, deferring to other Traits.

Sometimes a knight's fear get the better of him and he runs like a Coward. He faced death and caved in. Now he has something to atone for. It's not the end of the world. It may cost him that Valorous 16, but that's the price you pay. Even heroes have moments of weakness.

Now, I tend to warn the players BEFOREHAND that there an impending situation where they will be tested. If the players choose to engage in that situation, they roll. They made their choice so no complaining afterwards.

KAP 5.2, p. 211:
"Failure on a Valorous roll indicates a character’s reluctance to close with the beast for 1 round (another roll may be attempted each round), while a fumble indicates that the character flees in terror for 1d6 rounds at least before he returns to his senses. A character who succeeds on a Valorous roll but who doesn’t wish to attack a particularly fierce creature (such as a dragon or giant whom he has no real chance of defeating) may then make a Prudent roll to avoid the combat, usually without dishonor."

This to me implies that even if you fail, you would not roll Cowardly any more. The Failure in Valorous is enough to freeze you against these terrifying foes, while a fumble would make you flee in Terror (and get a Cowardly checkmark, I'd argue, for that show of cowardice even if that is perhaps the smartest thing to do).

Morien, nothing in that statement contradicts table 4.1, KAP 5.2, p. 85 or any other Trait rule for that matter. My sole curiosity was about the creature modifier itself.

Either you are missing my point or I am missing yours. :)

The Valorous roll vs. terrifying monsters is not a straight up Trait Roll, but a Trait TEST. You HAVE TO succeed in Valorous if you intend to attack the creature (although I do allow Defensive fighting if you are attacked yourself). You CANNOT choose to act Valorous. If you fail Valorous, you fail, with the listed consequences for the failure; thus, you never go on to roll Cowardly.

Now, it is arguable if this is a good thing, but it is the way it is currently written.

And I agree with Morien as that is how I run it. The modifier is to valorous. If you fail, you do not necessarily run away, BUT you do NOT have to roll on the cowardly trait. Thus, there is no competing sides of the trait.

A little rough, but this is how I would handle things.

Valorous vs Creature Critical Success Failure Fumble
may attack may attack won't attack this round check to cowardly

If able to attack, roll Prudent vs. Reckless
Prudent (wins) won't attack, withdraw attack only with numbers depends check to reckless
Reckless (wins) will attack will attack depends check to Prudent

I'm sorry. I keep reading that section and I don't see it that way. First, you make the distinction between a Trait Roll and a Trait Test. Please point me to the rules where that distinction is made. Assuming we ignore the Cowardly roll for now, when do I roll Cowardly if not against fearsome beasts? Against normal humans? In Battle? When someone casts a 'fear' spell? You see, if you introduce an exception, that exception can be applied to whatever to whatever the GM fancies.

My 2 cents: in fact, it seems that there is no distinction in that section between a "roll" and a "test".

In my opinion there is one single difference with the normal Trait roll, at par. 5: "if a creature has a modifier, then a character must always make a Valorous roll before attacking it". This suggests that everyone must test Valorous, not just those with a 16+ score.
So, my guess is that both the Valorous roll and the (optional) Prudent roll work almost exactly like normal Trait rolls: If you fail, you roll the opposite Trait, which is also modified according to the fiend's characteristics.
However, the Valorous roll is probably mandatory for all knights, whatever their (modified) Valorous score is.
Specularly, the section's wording suggests that the Prudent roll is optional for everyone, and you are not forced to roll it (although you probably should) if you have (modified) Prudent 16+ and succeeded on the Valorous roll.

The rules as writen imply this adjustment on both Traits. I admit this is a bit abstract and open to interpretation.
This is the answer I like the most