Trying to adapt the Paladin character creation system into KAP, but with a wider age margin on either side and simpler/revised starting values, this is what I've worked out.



EDIT: Revised System, after input and reconsideration. I think this is the best version, the original system is down below the wall of asterisks.

Typical Starting Age: 14
Typical Knighting Age: 21
Latest Knighting Age (one can be knighted after this but gain no benefits from it): 28

Requirements for Knighthood:
~ Damage 4d6
~ Honor 13
~ Valor 13
~ Battle 10
~ Horsemanship 10
~ Two Weapons Skills 10

You start the process at the age of 14. If you choose to randomly determine your starting statistic values, you may theoretically roll well enough to qualify for knighthood without training as a squire. If you choose to skip training at such a young age, you will receive 3,000 glory upon receiving your spurs, but only if you qualify. Characters knighted before their time will recieve at most the standard 1,000. If you don't meet the qualifications at 14, or you simply want a more viable character, advance to age 15. For each year you advance in your training, you receive a fixed number of points to distribute between your statistics, and the glory you will receive upon knighting decreases.

At age 14:
ATTRIBUTES = 10 each, or 1d6+7 each. If rolled, may allocate dice where desired, but may not redistribute base points. Add cultural modifiers.
TRAITS = 10 each, or 2d6+3 each. Choose 1 trait to begin at 16. Add religious and cultural modifiers. Traits may not exceed 19.
PASSIONS = Family: 1d6+9 // Honor: [(Just + Honest + Valorous)/3] // Piety: Lowest Religious Trait.
ORDINARY SKILLS = 2 each, 1d6-1 each, or starting values from the BoKL capped at 5.
COMBAT SKILLS = 7 each, 2d6 each, or starting values from the BoKL capped at 8.
WEAPON SKILLS = (1/2 DEX) + 3, or +1d6.

Age Progression:
14: +0 Attributes / +0 Traits / +0 Passions / +0 Ordinary Skills / +0 Combat Skills /// Glory 3,000
15: +3 Attributes / +3 Traits / +1 Passions / +12 Ordinary Skills / +10 Combat Skills /// Glory 2,500
16: +2 Attributes / +2 Traits / +1 Passions / +10 Ordinary Skills / +8 Combat Skills /// Glory 2,000
17: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +10 Ordinary Skills / +4 Combat Skills /// Glory 1,800
18: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +10 Ordinary Skills / +2 Combat Skills /// Glory 1,600
19: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +8 Ordinary Skills / +2 Combat Skills /// Glory 1,400
20: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +6 Ordinary Skills / +2 Combat Skills /// Glory 1,200 }
21: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +4 Ordinary Skills / +2 Combat Skills /// Glory 1,000
22: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +2 Ordinary Skills / +1 Combat Skills /// Glory 900
23 CHOOSE FOUR: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +2 Ordinary Skills / +1 Combat Skills /// Glory 800
24 CHOOSE THREE: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +2 Ordinary Skills / +1 Combat Skills /// Glory 700
25 CHOOSE TWO: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +2 Ordinary Skills / +1 Combat Skills /// Glory 600
26 CHOOSE ONE: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +2 Ordinary Skills / +1 Combat Skills /// Glory 500
27 CHOOSE ONE: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +2 Ordinary Skills / +1 Combat Skills /// Glory 400
28 CHOOSE ONE: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +2 Ordinary Skills / +1 Combat Skills /// Glory 350

************************************************** **********************************************
************************************************** **********************************************
************************************************** **********************************************

EDIT: ORIGINALLY PROPOSED SYSTEM


Starting Age: 16
Standard Knighting: 21
Oldest Knighting (Can start older if desired, but accrues no extra benefits): 26


Requirements for Knighthood:
~ Damage 4d6
~ Honor 13
~ Valor 13
~ Any Trait 16
~ Battle 10
~ Horsemanship 10
~ Two Weapons Skills 10


At 16 Start:

ATTRIBUTES: 2d6+3 in order, OR Take 10 in All.

SIZ 10 (5-15)
STR 10 (5-15)
DEX 10 (5-15)
CON 10 (5-15)
APP 10 (5-15)

TRAITS: 2d6+3 in order on left-hand side + cultural and regional modifiers.

PASSIONS:

~ Honor = (Honest+Just+Valorous)/3
~ Family = 1d6+9

SKILLS:

Ordinary: 1d6 each
Combat (Non-Weapon): 2d6 each
Combat (Weapon): 1/2 DEX + 1d6
--------------------------------------------------------

Each year of training after 16:

Attributes: Spend 3 Points to maximum of 20. Size cannot be increased past age 21.

Traits: Spend 2 Points to maximum of 19.

Passions: Spend 1 point to maximum of 19.

Skills: +10 Ordinary, +4 Combat

---------------------------------------------------------

Glory based motivation to encourage players to qualify for knighthood as soon as possible if they get exceptionally lucky starting rolls. Note, the descriptors assume that the candidate has the means to be knighted, and is neither a surplus son or a career squire. Also note that if knighted before qualifications are met, glory is reduced by half.

Knighting Glory at Given Age
16: 2,000 - Wonderchild
17: 1,800 - Natural Talent
18: 1,600 - Major Prodigy
19: 1,400 - Minor Prodigy
20: 1,200- Early Bloomer
21: 1,000 - Typical
22: 900 - Late Bloomer
23: 800 - Laggard
24: 700 - Dimwit
25: 600 - Milksop
26: 500 - Almost Hopeless

---------------------------------------------------------
STRESS TEST

Ok, so with that all layed out, let's look at the extreme outcomes on either end to see how large a disparity between players is possible at the start. I'm not going to bother demonstrating the worst possible 16 year old knight, since he wouldn't qualify and would need to keep training.

----------------------------------------------------------

Luckiest Possible 16 year old Knight:

SIZ 15
DEX 15
STR 15
CON 15
APP 15

HP 30
MW 15
Damage 5d6

6 in all Ordinary Skills (150 points)
12 Battle
12 Horsemanship
14 Sword / Lance / Spear / Dagger

---------------------------------------------------------

Average 21 year old Knight:

SIZ 14
DEX 13
STR 13
CON 13
APP 12

HP 27
MW 13
Damage 5d6

5 Avg Ordinary Skill (125 Points)
12 Battle
12 Horsemanship
15 Sword
15 Lance
10 Spear
10 Dagger

-----------------------------------------------------------

Unluckiest Possible 26 Year Old Knight

SIZ 11
DEX 11
STR 11
CON 11
APP 11

HP 22
MW 11
Damage 4d6

5 Avg Ordinary Skill (125 Points)
10 Battle
12 Horsemanship
15 Sword
15 Lance
10 Spear
10 Dagger

--------------------------------------------------------------

Luckiest Possible 26 Year Old Knight - At this point because of the base rolls, this character has more attribute points and combat skill points than he has room for, so a player with this ammount of luck will have cashed out at 25 or earlier.

SIZ 20
DEX 20
STR 20
CON 20
APP 20

HP 40
MW 20

Damage 7d6

10 Avg in Ordinary Skills (250 points)
15 Battle
15 Horsemanship
15 Sword
15 Spear
15 Dagger

Interesting. Some constructive criticism, especially the bolded bit in the middle.

Personally, I am very leery of having such a wide fluctuation in stats and skills. It is really enough to sour some people if they are left with an utter garbage character, and I would not blame my players for asking a mulligan on such. Granted, it is almost inconceivable that you would roll 10 on 10d6 for the stats, let alone continue rolling that low for skills, too, but still.

I am also worried about the superhero characters that you can get using this method, as well as giving the Players major incentive to play squires as long as possible: those squire year training benefits are HUGE compared to what the knights get. If I were to use that, I would definitely rule that the training knight insists on the knighting of the squire as soon as the squire qualifies for knighthood. This would be a major help in flattening out the differences of bad dice luck, as everyone would still start the game more or less comparable new knights, just some would get extra glory and more time before the aging kicks in, which is not an insignificant advantage in the long run, but it would prevent them from outshining the other PKs right from the get-go.

I am more comfortable with KAP 5.2 rules, which ensure a more level playing field for the characters (although the above bolded comment would help a lot here, IMHO). That being said... In our campaign, we did introduce some variance in the stats, by offering three options:
1. 50 points. (Standard KAP 5.2)
2. 43+2d6 points
3. SIZ 1d6+12, DEX 1d6+7, STR 1d6+10, CON 1d6+9. (Average 52, but no redistributing. Many players have gone with this one.)
In all cases, APP is rolled separately (3d6, mulligan if 5 or lower), and cannot be lowered, only raised with the distributable points (+2 APP per point if APP < 10). Racial bonus is also added afterwards.

Interesting. Some constructive criticism, especially the bolded bit in the middle.

Personally, I am very leery of having such a wide fluctuation in stats and skills. It is really enough to sour some people if they are left with an utter garbage character, and I would not blame my players for asking a mulligan on such. Granted, it is almost inconceivable that you would roll 10 on 10d6 for the stats, let alone continue rolling that low for skills, too, but still.



My philosophy is to always offer flat average OR random. At 16, you can start with 10 each in every attribute, 10 each in every trait, 3 each in every ordinary skill, 7 each in every combat skill at 8 each in every weapon skill,

OR

You can roll the dice. Could be Lancelot, could be Dagonet. If you don't want to risk having a weak knight, then just take the average and spend yourself up to age 21 with average stats.


I am also worried about the superhero characters that you can get using this method, as well as giving the Players major incentive to play squires as long as possible: those squire year training benefits are HUGE compared to what the knights get. If I were to use that, I would definitely rule that the training knight insists on the knighting of the squire as soon as the squire qualifies for knighthood. This would be a major help in flattening out the differences of bad dice luck, as everyone would still start the game more or less comparable new knights, just some would get extra glory and more time before the aging kicks in, which is not an insignificant advantage in the long run, but it would prevent them from outshining the other PKs right from the get-go.

That's a fair point, what if you HAVE to be knighted at 21 IF you meet the requirements, we return to the starting attribute cap of 18, and point gains tapered down every year after 21? Also just remembered that all knights need to have at least 1000 glory, so that minus father's glory needs to be the rock bottom.

16: +0 Attributes, +0 Traits, +0 Passion, +0 Ordinary, +0 Combat 2000 Glory
17: +1 Attributes, +1 Traits, +1 Passion, +5 Ordinary, +2 Combat, 1950 Glory
18: +2 Attributes, +2 Traits, +1 Passion, +10 Ordinary, +4 Combat, 1850 Glory
19: +3 Attributes, +3 Traits, +1 Passion, +15 Ordinary, +6 Combat, 1600 Glory ***Earliest Possible Knighting with average Start***
20: +4 Attributes, +4 Traits, +1 Passion, +20 Ordinary, +8 Combat, 1350 Glory
21: +5 Attributes, +5 Traits, +1 Passion, +25 Ordinary, +10 Combat, 1000 ***MUST KNIGHT IF ABLE***

22: +5 Attributes, +5 Traits, +1 Passion, +15 Ordinary, +8 Combat, 950 Glory
23: +4 Attributes, +4 Traits, +1 Passion, +10 Ordinary, +6 Combat, 925 Glory
24: +3 Attributes, +3 Traits, +1 Passion, +5 Ordinary, +4 Combat, 900 Glory
25: +2 Attributes, +2 Traits, +1 Passion, +3 Ordinary, +2 Combat, 875 Glory
26: +1 Attributes, +1 Traits, +1 Passion, +1 Ordinary, +1 Combat, 850 Glory


---------------------------------------------------------------------
LUCKIEST POSSIBLE (Minmaxed) KNIGHT AT 21

Stats Maxed at age 21

SIZ 18
DEX 18
STR 18
CON 21
APP 18

HP 36*** Peaked at age 21
MW 18
Damage 6d6 ***Peaked at age 20

Average 8 in all Ordinary Skills (201 points) *** Combat Skills peaked at age 19, Points wasted thereby: 18
15 Battle
15 Horsemanship
15 Sword
15 Lance
15 Spear
15 Dagger

The only benefit there would be to continued squireship past age 21 for someone so lucky would be to have better traits and passions, but at the cost of greater glory.




I am more comfortable with KAP 5.2 rules, which ensure a more level playing field for the characters (although the above bolded comment would help a lot here, IMHO). That being said... In our campaign, we did introduce some variance in the stats, by offering three options:
1. 50 points. (Standard KAP 5.2)
2. 43+2d6 points
3. SIZ 1d6+12, DEX 1d6+7, STR 1d6+10, CON 1d6+9. (Average 52, but no redistributing. Many players have gone with this one.)
In all cases, APP is rolled separately (3d6, mulligan if 5 or lower), and cannot be lowered, only raised with the distributable points (+2 APP per point if APP < 10). Racial bonus is also added afterwards.
[/QUOTE]

That's all well and fine, but the point of this is to have point-spending occur year by year.

My philosophy is to always offer flat average OR random. At 16, you can start with 10 each in every attribute, 10 each in every trait, 3 each in every ordinary skill, 7 each in every combat skill at 8 each in every weapon skill,


Fair enough.



That's a fair point, what if you HAVE to be knighted at 21 IF you meet the requirements, we return to the starting attribute cap of 18, and point gains tapered down every year after 21? Also just remembered that all knights need to have at least 1000 glory, so that minus father's glory needs to be the rock bottom.


Being knighted at 21 if you meet the requirements would be better than letting the Player minmax all the way to 26. However, as your latter example shows, it is still a huge bonus.

As for your point about the minimum Glory to be a knight, that is solely (AFAIK) based on the Glory Table, where less than 1000 is called a Squire. However, that assumption is with the Knighting Glory being 1000. Since you can't be a knight without being knighted and knighting netting you 1000 Glory, the minimum becomes 1000. But if you change the Knighting Glory, that assumption is no longer valid. I for one would be perfectly happy with some knights havig 500 Glory, if they have not merited more, but still be knights.



16: +0 Attributes, +0 Traits, +0 Passion, +0 Ordinary, +0 Combat 2000 Glory
17: +1 Attributes, +1 Traits, +1 Passion, +5 Ordinary, +2 Combat, 1950 Glory
18: +2 Attributes, +2 Traits, +1 Passion, +10 Ordinary, +4 Combat, 1850 Glory
19: +3 Attributes, +3 Traits, +1 Passion, +15 Ordinary, +6 Combat, 1600 Glory ***Earliest Possible Knighting with average Start***
20: +4 Attributes, +4 Traits, +1 Passion, +20 Ordinary, +8 Combat, 1350 Glory
21: +5 Attributes, +5 Traits, +1 Passion, +25 Ordinary, +10 Combat, 1000 ***MUST KNIGHT IF ABLE***

22: +5 Attributes, +5 Traits, +1 Passion, +15 Ordinary, +8 Combat, 950 Glory
23: +4 Attributes, +4 Traits, +1 Passion, +10 Ordinary, +6 Combat, 925 Glory
24: +3 Attributes, +3 Traits, +1 Passion, +5 Ordinary, +4 Combat, 900 Glory
25: +2 Attributes, +2 Traits, +1 Passion, +3 Ordinary, +2 Combat, 875 Glory
26: +1 Attributes, +1 Traits, +1 Passion, +1 Ordinary, +1 Combat, 850 Glory


That is how much they gain each year? Is there a particular reason for ramping up to a hump at 21, making it very desirable for the Players to push their knight to 21, even 22?

I'd do it the other way around: I'd front-load the early years when they are still growing up, and then make it more desirable to get knighted early by lowering the rewards from the training. Something like... (Just off the top of my head)

16: +0 Attributes, +0 Traits, +0 Passion, +0 Ordinary, +0 Combat 2000 Glory (no training done yet, so no improvement)
17: +3 Attributes, +2 Traits, +1 Passion, +10 Ordinary, +6 Combat, 1800 Glory
18: +3 Attributes, +2 Traits, +1 Passion, +10 Ordinary, +6 Combat, 1600 Glory
19: +3 Attributes, +2 Traits, +1 Passion, +10 Ordinary, +6 Combat, 1400 Glory
20: +2 Attributes, +1 Traits, +1 Passion, +10 Ordinary, +4 Combat, 1200 Glory
21: +1 Attributes, +1 Traits, +1 Passion, +5 Ordinary, +2 Combat, 1000 Glory
22: +1 Attributes, +1 Traits, +1 Passion, +5 Ordinary, +2 Combat, 900 Glory
23: +1 Attributes, +1 Traits, +1 Passion, +5 Ordinary, +2 Combat, 800 Glory
24: +1 Attributes, +1 Traits, +1 Passion, +5 Ordinary, +2 Combat, 700 Glory
25: +1 Attributes, +1 Traits, +1 Passion, +5 Ordinary, +2 Combat, 600 Glory
26: +1 Attributes, +1 Traits, +1 Passion, +5 Ordinary, +2 Combat, 500 Glory

Now the years onwards from 20 are roughly comparable to what you'd expect to get from play: experience checks + yearly training. However, while playing, you are also getting Glory, and are not limited by the character generation max values in starting skills. Not to mention, you'd 'lose' Glory by being knighted late.

Assuming average character at 21, this is already +12 attribute points (enough to push your SIZ 10 and STR 10 to 16 each, and +1 SIZ from Glory bonus point gives you 6d6 damage...), +8 trait points, +5 passion points and 45 ordinary skill points and 24 combat skill points (giving you 15 in three combat skills, which is plenty).

What about someone with rotten luck who rolled SIZ 5 and STR 5 at the beginning? Well, at the end of the chargen they'd have +17 stat points and reach a total of 27, enabling 5d6. If they rolled CON 5 too, I'd be giving them a mulligan. This squire would never have survived to become a knight, but would have been pressured to a career in the church.



LUCKIEST POSSIBLE (Minmaxed) KNIGHT AT 21


Still terrifying, although better than having stats at 20, which should be impossible without Glory (or cultural bonus). Granted, extremely unlikely that they are rolled that well.

[/QUOTE]
That's all well and fine, but the point of this is to have point-spending occur year by year.[/QUOTE]

Have you taken a look at Book of the Entourage's Playing a Squire -rules?

I'd rather try to find a system that doesn't rely on the mulligan power.

What about this?

BASE ATTRIBUTES: Change it to 7 or 2d6. Starting Points: 10+3 (worst) / 35+3 (Average) / 60+3 (Best)
BASE ORDINARY SKILLS: Change it to 2 or 1d6-1 each. Starting: 0 (Worst) / 65 (Average) / 125 (best)

16: Glory 2,000
17: +9 Attributes / +2 Traits / +1 Passions / +20 Ordinary Skills / +10 Combat Skills /// Glory 1,800
18: +7 Attributes / +2 Traits / +1 Passions / +16 Ordinary Skills / +8 Combat Skills /// Glory 1,600
19: +5 Attributes / +2 Traits / +1 Passions / +12 Ordinary Skills / +6 Combat Skills /// Glory 1,400
20: +3 Attributes / +2 Traits / +1 Passions / +8 Ordinary Skills / +4 Combat Skills /// Glory 1,200
21: +1 Attributes / +2 Traits / +1 Passions / +4 Ordinary Skills / +2 Combat Skills /// Glory 1,000
22 +1 Attributes / +2 Traits / +1 Passions / +4 Ordinary Skills / +2 Combat Skills /// Glory 900
23 CHOOSE FOUR: +1 Attributes / +2 Traits / +1 Passions / +4 Ordinary Skills / +2 Combat Skills /// Glory 800
24 CHOOSE THREE: +1 Attributes / +2 Traits / +1 Passions / +4 Ordinary Skills / +2 Combat Skills /// Glory 700
25 CHOOSE TWO: +1 Attributes / +2 Traits / +1 Passions / +4 Ordinary Skills / +2 Combat Skills /// Glory 600
26 CHOOSE ONE: +1 Attributes / +2 Traits / +1 Passions / +4 Ordinary Skills / +2 Combat Skills /// Glory 500

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luckiest Possible at 16 (Exact Same Attribute Points as Base 21 start)

SIZ 14 (+2 From Glory)
DEX 12
STR 12
CON 15
APP 12

HP 29
Damage 4d6

5 avg. in all Ordinary Skills (125 points)
12 Battle
12 Horsemanship
11 Sword / Lance / Spear / Dagger

Projected Infirmity (Without Training, Wounding, or Glory): T-42 years in the future

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Average 21 (Same 60+3 attribute points as base game. Only Slightly Minmaxed, full minmax 6d6 damage and 32 hp)

SIZ 15
DEX 12
STR 12
CON 14
APP 12

HP 29
Damage 5d6

5 avg. in all Ordinary Skills (125 points)
15 Battle
15 Horsemanship
15 Sword
13 Lance
10 Spear
10 Dagger

Projected Infirmity (Without Training, Wounding, or Glory): T-37 years in the future



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unluckiest Possible 26 (Theoretically playable, As per the guidelines in the rulebook / Mulligan if that's your thing)

SIZ 11
DEX 6
STR 10
CON 11
APP 5

HP 21
Damage 4d6

3 Avg. in all ordinary Skills (72 Points)
10 Battle
10 Horsemanship
14 Sword
10 Lance
4 Spear
4 Dagger

Projected Infirmity (Without Training, Wounding, or Glory): T-14 years in the future

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scariest Possible 21 year old (Full 93 Points earned and spent at 21). IMO if a player took the initial risk to generate a random character base, knowing full well that the ^^^ above entry was a possible result, and the universe gave them 35 rolls of 6 in a row, they deserve this character sheet.

SIZ 18
DEX 18
STR 18
CON 21
APP 18

HP 39
Damage 6d6

7 Avg. in all ordinary Skills (185)
15 Battle
15 Horsemanship
15 Sword
15 Lance
15 Spear
15 Dagger

Projected Infirmity (Without Training, Wounding, or Glory): T-52 years in the future

I'd rather try to find a system that doesn't rely on the mulligan power.

What about this?

BASE ATTRIBUTES: Change it to 7 or 2d6. Starting Points: 10+3 (worst) / 35+3 (Average) / 60+3 (Best)
BASE ORDINARY SKILLS: Change it to 2 or 1d6-1 each. Starting: 0 (Worst) / 65 (Average) / 125 (best)


I think this is a mistake for several reasons, but the primary game mechanic complaint would be that by making the increase so high in years 16 to 20, no one is going to get knighted before 21st birthday. The loss of measly 200 Glory points is nothing to the power of +3 stats and all the other goodies they get by remaining as squires. This is even worse in earlier years: you would NEVER see a player wishing to say no to +9 stats and loads of skill points, in order to be knighted at 16.

(The game world complaint is that SIZ 7 is more of a child, not a 16 year old male, and CON 7 is sickly, again not a healthy teen. And while you could maybe argue that 16 year boys can be pimply for APP 7, this certainly does not hold for the fairer sex of the species.)

Instead, how about INCREASING the starting stats? I mean, many 16-year olds are close to how tall they will be (although they will bulk up with muscle, usually), and I would expect that they are pretty much as healthy as they are going to get, too. Besides, as knights' offspring, they have the benefit of the good, plentiful nutrition and hence a higher than average CON would be justifiable. We want young knights to be a reasonable option, right? Not a fool's choice.

So:
Base Attributes: SIZ & CON: 2d6+5, DEX, STR, APP: 2d6+3

This allows you to take 4 Attribute points away from the progression, too.

For example:
16: Starting values, 2000 Glory
17: +2 Attributes, +2 Traits, +1 Passion, +10 Ordinary, +5 Combat, 1800 Glory
18: +2 Attributes, +2 Traits, +1 Passion, +10 Ordinary, +5 Combat, 1600 Glory
19: +2 Attributes, +2 Traits, +1 Passion, +10 Ordinary, +5 Combat, 1400 Glory
20: +1 Attributes, +1 Traits, +1 Passion, +5 Ordinary, +3 Combat, 1200 Glory
21: +1 Attributes, +1 Traits, +1 Passion, +5 Ordinary, +3 Combat, 1000 Glory

The point here is that after the 19th birthday, the benefits of staying as a squire are not that great compared to the normal play. Meaning that if you can qualify at 19, you probably want to be knighted. Furthermore, there is also the benefit that you can bring the next generation in a bit earlier if you have to, without crippling them by that choice.

As for the skills, the same arguments are for not reducing the Ordinary skills at 16: you are only making it more desirable to start with an older character the more you cripple the young ones.

Actually, I would flatten the Starting Skills out some more:
Ordinary skill: 1d3+2
Non-Weapon Combat skills (Battle & Horsemanship): 1d6+4
Weapon Combat skills: 1d3 + DEX/2
(Min DEX 5 -> 4 - 6. Average DEX 10 -> 6 - 8. Max DEX 15 -> 9 - 11, which is good enough, IMHO, for a 16-year old.)

Granted, like I said in the beginning, I am not nearly as comfortable with such a wide range of starting characters: IMHO, neither of those players -deserves- their starting characters. One just got lucky and will dominate the game with his superhero character and making other PKs look like his lackeys, not heroes of their own, while the other one will be unhappy and try to get his character killed at every opportunity, thus wasting everyone's time, but mostly his.

I'd go ahead and flatten the starting stats out, too. Shifting from 2d6 to 1d6. This gives you ALMOST the same amount of variance in actual character generation, but will cut off those extreme tails that are causing me concern.

Base Attributes: SIZ & CON: 1d6+9, DEX, STR, APP: 1d6+7

Assuming the above stat progression, this would give (assuming Cymric +3 CON for simplicity):

Worst char at 16: SIZ 10, DEX 8, STR 8, CON 10+3, APP 8. Not great, but not a total loss, either.
Worst char at 21: SIZ 10+4, DEX 8, STR 8+4+1 from Glory, CON 10+3, APP 8. Still not great, but with (barely) 5d6 damage and HR 3, he is still very playable. (IMHO, 4d6 knight will struggle to hurt other knights in combat, while a 6d6 knight makes it look easy. Hence, my recommendation to my players is to make sure that their characters have 5d6. Most have 6d6.)

Best char at 16: SIZ 15, DEX 13, STR 13, CON 15+3, APP 13. Better than most adult knights.
Best char at 16: SIZ 15+3+1 from Glory, DEX 13, STR 13+5, CON 15+3, APP 13. Still great, with 6d6 and HR of 4, but not super in all of the stats.

I didn't bother calculating the skill progression, sorry. But thanks to flattening it out earlier, the extremes get cut off again, and the gap between the worst and the best is more manageable.

Trying to adapt the Paladin character creation system into KAP, but with a wider age margin on either side and simpler/revised starting values, this is what I've worked out.


You know, I didn't actually read Paladin character generation system in detail, and a lot of my criticism can be laid at their door rather than yours. Like the 2d6+3 in Attributes & Traits (I prefer 1d6+7 better). I admit I also dislike the fact that the starting skills are rolled. While I can see an argument for it, for me it pales in comparison to the simplicity of having set starting values of KAP. (Which could be simplified even further: just have everything start at 3.)

But I am happy to recognize that people's tastes vary. I am more of a 'design a character' type of guy, rather than 'lets see what the dice gods give me'.

Heh, I found this in step 7, after aging the squire and gaining points:
"As soon as a character qualifies for knighthood, he should be knighted and the squire aging procedure stop. Intentionally putting off your knighthood to gain better statistics is both unrealistic and wrong."
I am naturally in full agreement. :P

You know, I didn't actually read Paladin character generation system in detail, and a lot of my criticism can be laid at their door rather than yours. Like the 2d6+3 in Attributes & Traits (I prefer 1d6+7 better). I admit I also dislike the fact that the starting skills are rolled. While I can see an argument for it, for me it pales in comparison to the simplicity of having set starting values of KAP. (Which could be simplified even further: just have everything start at 3.)

But I am happy to recognize that people's tastes vary. I am more of a 'design a character' type of guy, rather than 'lets see what the dice gods give me'.

Heh, I found this in step 7, after aging the squire and gaining points:
"As soon as a character qualifies for knighthood, he should be knighted and the squire aging procedure stop. Intentionally putting off your knighthood to gain better statistics is both unrealistic and wrong."
I am naturally in full agreement. :P

The reason that "must knight as soon as able" works for Paladin is that it starts with characters very nearly done, start useful skills much higher as default, has higher requirements, and only spans 6 years at most. I like to think that in KAP, there's some kind of special significance to doing things in groups of 7. Become a Page at 7, become a squire at 14, Become a Knight at 21, Have a wife and son by 28, Begin to age at 35, heir becomes squire by 42, Heir becomes a knight and you retire at 49.

I'm mostly trying to throw things out and see what sticks, as far as the rolling goes. The thing I want to emphasize is that if your player doesn't want to roll their character randomly, they don't have to. They can take default base attributes and skills, and then point-buy their way up to 21, with the same stat totals as if they had just done the standard character generation. What I'm aiming here for is:

Worst Possible Rolls: Minimum Viable Character at 21
Non-Rolling or Average Rolls: Default Stat totals at 21
Best Rolls: Viable Character at 16, Beefiest Within Reason at 21.

Now, what constitutes "minimum" viability and "reasonable beef" will necessarily vary between group and the kinds of adventures you run. The idea isn't that the average player would choose to start younger than 21, that's precisely the year most are knighted. The idea is that you can roll to try and reach average or higher stats before 21. If you roll poorer than average, that's ok because you can spend a few years past 21 training yourself up to normal-ish.

Your way is actually slightly more generous than mine, 62+3 points at 21 with average or default start.

Your Scariest Possible 21-year old is exactly as scary as mine, just marginally less pretty, SIZ 18, DEX 18, STR 18, CON 21, APP 15



With the groups of seven idea in mind, let's try this on for size. Generate from ages 14 to 28.

ATTRIBUTES: 1d6+7 Or Take 10

14: /// Glory 3,000
15: +3 Attributes / +3 Traits / +1 Passions / +12 Ordinary Skills / +10 Combat Skills /// Glory 2,500
16: +2 Attributes / +2 Traits / +1 Passions / +10 Ordinary Skills / +8 Combat Skills /// Glory 2,000
17: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +10 Ordinary Skills / +4 Combat Skills /// Glory 1,800
18: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +10 Ordinary Skills / +2 Combat Skills /// Glory 1,600
19: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +8 Ordinary Skills / +2 Combat Skills /// Glory 1,400
20: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +6 Ordinary Skills / +2 Combat Skills /// Glory 1,200 }
21: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +4 Ordinary Skills / +2 Combat Skills /// Glory 1,000
22: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +2 Ordinary Skills / +1 Combat Skills /// Glory 900
23 CHOOSE FOUR: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +2 Ordinary Skills / +1 Combat Skills /// Glory 800
24 CHOOSE THREE: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +2 Ordinary Skills / +1 Combat Skills /// Glory 700
25 CHOOSE TWO: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +2 Ordinary Skills / +1 Combat Skills /// Glory 600
26 CHOOSE ONE: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +2 Ordinary Skills / +1 Combat Skills /// Glory 500
27 CHOOSE ONE: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +2 Ordinary Skills / +1 Combat Skills /// Glory 400
28 CHOOSE ONE: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +2 Ordinary Skills / +1 Combat Skills /// Glory 350

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So then the way it is now, I don't think you even need to mandate knighting at given ages. As long as years after 21 give you fewer points than you'd get from adventuring.

LUCKIEST 14: SIZ 13+1G, DEX 13, STR 13, CON 13+3+1G, APP 13 /// Damage 5d6, HP 31 * Better attributes but fewer skills than average full-grown, missing glory point used on famous trait.
LUCKIEST 16: SIZ 18+2G, DEX 13, STR 13, CON 13+3, APP 13 /// Damage 6d6, HP 36 * About as good as it gets. +2KD potential -4HP potential. Combat Skill Points no longer useful past this point.
LUCKIEST 21: SIZ 18+1G, DEX 13, STR 14, CON 17+3, APP 13 /// Damage 6d6, HP 39 * Advancing past here actually hurts combat ability for a few years.
SCARIEST 28: SIZ 18, DEX 15, STR 18, CON 18+3, APP 13 /// Damage 6d6, HP 39

As you can see, the luckiest rollers have very little incentive to make it all the way to 21, since the Attribute gains are somewhat canceled out by the loss of glory points.

AVERAGE 14: SIZ 10+1G, DEX 10, STR 10, CON 10+3+2G, APP 10 /// Damage 4d6, HP 26 * Would be theoretically viable on the basis of attributes, but insufficient traits, passions, and skills.
AVERAGE 16: SIZ 15, DEX 10, STR 10+1G, CON 10+3, APP 10 /// Damage 4d6, HP 28 * Minimum Viable Knight, famous trait either religious trait or valorous, very low skills. 1G on famous trait.
AVERAGE 18: SIZ 16+1G, DEX 10, STR 10, CON 11+3, APP 10 /// Damage 5d6, HP 31
AVERAGE 21: SIZ 18+1G, DEX 10, STR 12, CON 10+3, APP 10 /// Damage 5d6, HP 32
AVERAGE 24: SIZ 18, DEX 10, STR 15, CON 10+3, APP 10 /// Damage 6d6, HP 31
AVERAGE 26: SIZ 18, DEX 10, STR 15, CON 12+3, APP 10 /// Damage 6d6, HP 33 *No Additional Skills, Traits, or Passions Past this point if you want full HP
AVERAGE 28: SIZ 18, DEX 10, STR 15, CON 14+3, APP 10 /// Damage 6d6, HP 35

UNLUCKIEST 20: SIZ 17+1G, DEX 8, STR 8, CON 8+3, APP 8 /// Damage 4d6, HP 29 * Minimum Viable Character, valorous famous trait.
UNLUCKIEST 21: SIZ 18+1G, DEX , STR 8, CON 8+3, APP 10 /// Damage 5d6, HP 30
UNLUCKIEST 28: SIZ 18, DEX 8, STR 15, CON 8+3, APP 8 /// Damage 6d6, HP 29



Let's stack the knights up at their most efficient ages.
LUCKIEST 16: SIZ 18+2G, DEX 13, STR 13, CON 13+3, APP 13 /// Damage 6d6, HP 36
AVERAGE 21: SIZ 18+1G, DEX 10, STR 13, CON 10+3, APP 10 /// Damage 5d6, HP 32
UNLUCKIEST 28: SIZ 18, DEX 8, STR 15, CON 8+3, APP 8 /// Damage 6d6, HP 29

That's not too bad a disparity, I think. Then look at the most extreme disparities at the end:

SCARIEST 28: SIZ 18, DEX 15, STR 18, CON 18+3, APP 13 /// Damage 6d6, HP 39
AVERAGE 28: SIZ 18, DEX 10, STR 15, CON 14+3, APP 10 /// Damage 6d6, HP 35
UNLUCKIEST 28: SIZ 18, DEX 8, STR 15, CON 8+3, APP 8 /// Damage 6d6, HP 29

At that stage, there's only a 10 point disparity between

The fighting abilities of the best 28-year-old squire aren't really all that better than the average 28-year-old squire, and by waiting this long he's wasted at most 12 years of his game lifespan, and 1,650 glory. At the absolute latest, he should have stopped at 21. The average squire has better HP than the worst squire, but he already had at 18. It takes him until 24 to reach 6d6 in this example, but that's only it's assuming 10 each starting place instead of the 10.5 average you'd get if you'd rolled it. If either SIZ or STR had started at an 11 instead of a 10, the average squire would reach 6d6 at 22.

Your way is actually slightly more generous than mine, 62+3 points at 21 with average or default start.


Easily fixed by reducing the benefit from the training. However, I do see it more as a feature, since random rolling is a bit more robust to minmaxing. SoI don't mind the random rolling having a slight benefit over the assignment method. Of course, if you are going by average rolls instead of assignment, this is not an issue.



Your Scariest Possible 21-year old is exactly as scary as mine, just marginally less pretty, SIZ 18, DEX 18, STR 18, CON 21, APP 15


Uh... how so? I am giving only 8 stat points from training to 21. This is the stat line I get:
Best char at 16: SIZ 15+3+1 from Glory, DEX 13, STR 13+5, CON 15+3, APP 13. Still great, with 6d6 and HR of 4, but not super in all of the stats.
DEX 13, APP 13, rather than your earlier "everything at 18 +3 CON" perfect stat line I was commenting on. By the way, the difference between DEX 13 and DEX 18 is significant. One only falls 10% of the time, the other 35% of the time, 3.5 times as often.

In this iteration, your scariest differs only by +2 DEX from mine, so I am having less issues with that.



With the groups of seven idea in mind, let's try this on for size. Generate from ages 14 to 28.

ATTRIBUTES: 1d6+7 Or Take 10


This is I obviously like. :)



14: /// Glory 3,000


Is it even possible to qualify skill-wise at 14?



15: +3 Attributes / +3 Traits / +1 Passions / +12 Ordinary Skills / +10 Combat Skills /// Glory 2,500
16: +2 Attributes / +2 Traits / +1 Passions / +10 Ordinary Skills / +8 Combat Skills /// Glory 2,000
17: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +10 Ordinary Skills / +4 Combat Skills /// Glory 1,800
18: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +10 Ordinary Skills / +2 Combat Skills /// Glory 1,600
19: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +8 Ordinary Skills / +2 Combat Skills /// Glory 1,400
20: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +6 Ordinary Skills / +2 Combat Skills /// Glory 1,200
21: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +4 Ordinary Skills / +2 Combat Skills /// Glory 1,000


Personally, I'd be tempted to even out the curve from 15 to 17 and again from 18 to 21, making it more of a step function to make it easier to remember, but that is a minor tweak.

More important comment is on the skill points. As said, I would rather front-load them more and give fewer points in squire training, although in this case, you are starting with two years younger character than earlier, which could impact on the suggested starting skills.



22: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +2 Ordinary Skills / +1 Combat Skills /// Glory 900
23 CHOOSE FOUR: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +2 Ordinary Skills / +1 Combat Skills /// Glory 800
24 CHOOSE THREE: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +2 Ordinary Skills / +1 Combat Skills /// Glory 700
25 CHOOSE TWO: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +2 Ordinary Skills / +1 Combat Skills /// Glory 600
26 CHOOSE ONE: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +2 Ordinary Skills / +1 Combat Skills /// Glory 500
27 CHOOSE ONE: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +2 Ordinary Skills / +1 Combat Skills /// Glory 400
28 CHOOSE ONE: +1 Attributes / +1 Traits / +1 Passions / +2 Ordinary Skills / +1 Combat Skills /// Glory 350

So then the way it is now, I don't think you even need to mandate knighting at given ages. As long as years after 21 give you fewer points than you'd get from adventuring.


Yes, but I would give them at least the equivalent of a Yearly Training, which is still what unplayed characters (player missed the session) usually got. This is more than what they get in 26-28. In fact, I would be tempted to transition to Yearly Training after they turn 21, and just give them two of those (must choose different options and not raise skills above 15). That would make the step at 21 really harsh compared to the previous, and hopefully induce all the players to have their squire knighted.



LUCKIEST 14: SIZ 13+1G, DEX 13, STR 13, CON 13+3+1G, APP 13 /// Damage 5d6, HP 31 * Better attributes but fewer skills than average full-grown, missing glory point used on famous trait.
LUCKIEST 16: SIZ 18+2G, DEX 13, STR 13, CON 13+3, APP 13 /// Damage 6d6, HP 36 * About as good as it gets. +2KD potential -4HP potential. Combat Skill Points no longer useful past this point.
LUCKIEST 21: SIZ 18+1G, DEX 13, STR 14, CON 17+3, APP 13 /// Damage 6d6, HP 39 * Advancing past here actually hurts combat ability for a few years.
SCARIEST 28: SIZ 18, DEX 15, STR 18, CON 18+3, APP 13 /// Damage 6d6, HP 39

As you can see, the luckiest rollers have very little incentive to make it all the way to 21, since the Attribute gains are somewhat canceled out by the loss of glory points.


Hmm. Not so sure about that. You definitely wouldn't want to be knighted at 14, not even with that extra 1000 Glory compared to knighted at 16. Those five points of lost SIZ will hurt, four if you use the extra Glory point to counteract one, and the skills would be crap.

Also, if you compare 16 vs. 21, there is again additional 4 stat points (5-1 from Glory), not to mention the host of skill (38 + 12), trait (5) and passion (5) points. Again, I think most players would push to 21, given the option.

However, with that said, it is probably something that is easier to be left alone. Since if we insist on people getting knighted as soon as they fulfil the minimum requirements, then we will see knights with skills of 10 and very little else. (Or people minmaxing by keeping one skill at 9, in order to boost their Sword and Lance to 15.)



Let's stack the knights up at their most efficient ages.
LUCKIEST 16: SIZ 18+2G, DEX 13, STR 13, CON 13+3, APP 13 /// Damage 6d6, HP 36
AVERAGE 21: SIZ 18+1G, DEX 10, STR 13, CON 10+3, APP 10 /// Damage 5d6, HP 32
UNLUCKIEST 28: SIZ 18, DEX 8, STR 15, CON 8+3, APP 8 /// Damage 6d6, HP 29

That's not too bad a disparity, I think.


As I said in the above, I disagree that the Luckiest's player would agree that the knighting at 16 is his best option. You should use this line as comparison, not that it makes a huge difference in derived statistics:
"LUCKIEST 21: SIZ 18+1G, DEX 13, STR 14, CON 17+3, APP 13 /// Damage 6d6, HP 39 * Advancing past here actually hurts combat ability for a few years."

However, I do agree that the disparity here with the starting characters is not too bad, although the Unluckiest one is still quite disadvantaged. But see below about the chances of that happening.



Then look at the most extreme disparities at the end:

SCARIEST 28: SIZ 18, DEX 15, STR 18, CON 18+3, APP 13 /// Damage 6d6, HP 39
AVERAGE 28: SIZ 18, DEX 10, STR 15, CON 14+3, APP 10 /// Damage 6d6, HP 35
UNLUCKIEST 28: SIZ 18, DEX 8, STR 15, CON 8+3, APP 8 /// Damage 6d6, HP 29

At that stage, there's only a 10 point disparity between


Did your thought get cut? I see 7 point difference in DEX, 3 in STR, 10 in CON and 5 in APP. That is a total of 25 stat point difference, as you'd expect from the spread of 5d6. Fortunately, such outliers are at 0.01% mark and having both show up in your game would be even rarer.

5d6 has a deviation of about 3.8 points. Meaning that you'd have about 95% of your characters within +-7.6, or about 10 - 25 from 5d6. Of course, we are talking about small number statistics here with player groups of 2-6, so there is always a chance of someone being extremely lucky/unlucky. But it is much better than 2d6 spread.



The fighting abilities of the best 28-year-old squire aren't really all that better than the average 28-year-old squire, and by waiting this long he's wasted at most 12 years of his game lifespan, and 1,650 glory. At the absolute latest, he should have stopped at 21. The average squire has better HP than the worst squire, but he already had at 18. It takes him until 24 to reach 6d6 in this example, but that's only it's assuming 10 each starting place instead of the 10.5 average you'd get if you'd rolled it. If either SIZ or STR had started at an 11 instead of a 10, the average squire would reach 6d6 at 22.

I think that by tweaking the post-21 training so that it is undesirable to continue training is enough to discourage people from doing so, save when they have to because of very bad rolling.

Am following this thread with interest. Next generation of PCs will start as squires and probably want to knight asap.

I'm also expecting one to be a lady-knight. Now I know there is a trend to ignore the suggested stat differences between men and women, however the player wants to sign up for a harder road and I'd like to explore the implications with the development path you're working on in this thread.

BoK&L suggests random female characters start with 2d6+2 SIZ and STR, 1d6+2 less than males or an average of -5.5 in each (-11 stats versus maximum). They do get a +4 to APP.... All this means however, that an aspiring female squire is going to have some serious growing to do in order to hit minimum knighting stats. Now if you're starting all squires at 1d6+7 in attributes other than APP, how might the SIZ/STR penalty be represented? As a buy-off that slows growth? (So every other stat point only reduces penalty by 1, until it is zero.)

Yes, we could simply say "a female squire/knight is going to be a physical outlier already in order to qualify, so ignore penalties!" And I very well might do this, but since I only have 2 PCs stat disparities are not going to create a table issue and as this is Uther period 4d6 damage is a bit less of a problem.



As a note, I'd probably still take the detailed cultural skills as base from BoK&L--do you think that would throw off maturation skill points? The book suggests 16-y.o. squires/maids drop any starting skill by 3 points or to 5, whichever is higher. All this obviously tanks female combat skills--which are thin anyway in BoK&L, meaning that one would knight later to meet minimum requirements.

Speaking of minimum requirements: why is "Trait at 16" in there? You can start a KaP knight with no Traits at 16+ if you choose, so that requirement seems arbitrary and (perhaps) intended to gate immediate knighthood prospects to characters receiving Trait bonuses from culture (and who rolled well).

--Khanwulf

Now if you're starting all squires at 1d6+7 in attributes other than APP, how might the SIZ/STR penalty be represented? As a buy-off that slows growth? (So every other stat point only reduces penalty by 1, until it is zero.)


Easy. Decide what 'female modifiers' should be, like -2 SIZ & STR, +1 DEX, +3 APP (off the top of my head) and use that for the female knights who want to start with a physical disadvantage as warriors.



As a note, I'd probably still take the detailed cultural skills as base from BoK&L--do you think that would throw off maturation skill points? The book suggests 16-y.o. squires/maids drop any starting skill by 3 points or to 5, whichever is higher. All this obviously tanks female combat skills--which are thin anyway in BoK&L, meaning that one would knight later to meet minimum requirements.


My gut-feeling I would look at the rules in Book of the Entourage (p. 16) about making a Squire Character. But admittedly, those were not really intended for 'maiden decides to pick up a sword'. The boys, after all, start basic sword training already during their page years while girls do not.

I have not done any detailed analysis on the number of skill points, but I would imagine that if you take a 14-year old lady-in-waiting, you would focus more on patching up their weapon skills than worrying about their embroidery. So in such cases, as a GM, I would allow them to use some of their non-combat skill points to raise the combat skills, to illustrate this need to patch up the lack in their training. Which would address the starting skill imbalance.



Speaking of minimum requirements: why is "Trait at 16" in there? You can start a KaP knight with no Traits at 16+ if you choose, so that requirement seems arbitrary and (perhaps) intended to gate immediate knighthood prospects to characters receiving Trait bonuses from culture (and who rolled well).


Just guessing, but probably because KAP 5.2 gives one Famous Trait to new knights at chargen, and this way, new knights all have that one Famous Trait. The requirement is not in Paladin.

Am following this thread with interest. Next generation of PCs will start as squires and probably want to knight asap.

I'm also expecting one to be a lady-knight. Now I know there is a trend to ignore the suggested stat differences between men and women, however the player wants to sign up for a harder road and I'd like to explore the implications with the development path you're working on in this thread.

BoK&L suggests random female characters start with 2d6+2 SIZ and STR, 1d6+2 less than males or an average of -5.5 in each (-11 stats versus maximum). They do get a +4 to APP.... All this means however, that an aspiring female squire is going to have some serious growing to do in order to hit minimum knighting stats. Now if you're starting all squires at 1d6+7 in attributes other than APP, how might the SIZ/STR penalty be represented? As a buy-off that slows growth? (So every other stat point only reduces penalty by 1, until it is zero.)



Yeah, the difference in attribute points right off the bat on the basis of gender alone is no bueno in my opinion. What would be better would be to apply the differences as cultural modifiers, in my opinion.

Give your lady squire:

-2 SIZ
-2 STR
+3 CON (As Normal)
+4 APP

Note that this also means that this also changes her maximums to 16 SIZ and 16 STR, she'll need glory points to reach 6d6.

Instead of flat 7, their starting points ought to be 1d6+

5 SIZ
7 DEX
5 STR
10 CON
11 APP

That way, at Fourteen your girl character will have, on default, 8 SIZ, 10 DEX, 8 STR, 13 CON, 14 APP. She'll need five points to get to 4d6, She'll have 6 points at age 15, counting her 2GP, also giving her 27HP. She would be better served by waiting until 21 though, because by that point she'll just be able to nudge her way up to 30 HP and 5d6 with her 1GP: 17 SIZ, 10 DEX, 10 STR, 13 CON, 14 APP.



Yes, we could simply say "a female squire/knight is going to be a physical outlier already in order to qualify, so ignore penalties!" And I very well might do this, but since I only have 2 PCs stat disparities are not going to create a table issue and as this is Uther period 4d6 damage is a bit less of a problem.


I am generally inclined to err on the side of equality on the grounds that she wouldn't be a squire if she were too dainty to do the job, but it's entirely up to you. As far as 4d6 goes, from my own experience, it is very noticeable, even in the Uther period, unless you're not planning on going up against other knights. 4d6 is only an average of 14 damage, that bounces right off mail+shield. I suppose a remedy would be to favor axes and maces, but that's still a pretty sizable disadvantage given breakage.



As a note, I'd probably still take the detailed cultural skills as base from BoK&L--do you think that would throw off maturation skill points? The book suggests 16-y.o. squires/maids drop any starting skill by 3 points or to 5, whichever is higher. All this obviously tanks female combat skills--which are thin anyway in BoK&L, meaning that one would knight later to meet minimum requirements.



I assume that the female skills are meant for lady characters, not squires. Being good at fashion isn't inherent to possessing ovaries (although some knight might think this in character), that's just the skillset noblewomen are trained in instead of warfare. In the case of your female character, I would give her the 'male' starting skills, since the assumption is that they were given a masculine education.

As far as whether it throws off the skill maturation, you only need to make two adjustments. Cap the Ordinary Skills at 5 each (leaving 51 total between them) and cap the Combat Skills at 8 each (Total of 41).

BoKL gives you 65 skill points total by 21 (assuming you use all 2 of the stat raises on skills) +116 base for a sum of 181, in this system you get 90 Skill points by 21 +90 base for a sum of 180, 182 if you hybridize the starting values (51+41 base).

Since you aren't randomizing combat skills however, no characters are going to be able to qualify for knighthood until 15 at the very earliest.




Speaking of minimum requirements: why is "Trait at 16" in there? You can start a KaP knight with no Traits at 16+ if you choose, so that requirement seems arbitrary and (perhaps) intended to gate immediate knighthood prospects to characters receiving Trait bonuses from culture (and who rolled well).

--Khanwulf

Bingo, I initially put that there forgetting that having a famous trait was optional, and I wasn't considering the BoKL cutural trait bonuses. Th best way to do this would be to simply let the players pick 1 trait at 16 instead of rolling 2d6+3. That way they could go straight to getting valorous out of the way at 14 if they want to.

When I go for rolling random my basic chargen rule is that everyone rolls and then can choose to use any set of stats rolled by any other player.

Obviously with a lot of players you tend to have a party of higher stat people but I find with the usual 4 I get that it works out. Especially since you have to roll for specific stats, you don't get to move the numbers around, you have to use them in order.

I've only used variable starting skill ratings in my last mini-campaign and to do so I divided them into categories with a base rating for knights dependent on stats.
Knightly (battle, horsemanship, awareness, hunting): Based on average of DEX+EDU
Combat (weapons): Based on average of STR+DEX
Courtly: Based on APP
Scholarly: Based on EDU
Common: Based on DEX, but you're a knight so why do you want them? :p

EDU is stolen from BRP and based largely on social class and culture (Romans get +2, otherwise vassal knights are 2d6+3)

Then you get all the skills in each category at 1/4 base value, a few at 1/2 and one or two at full.

Thanks guys. Followup:

Q: so is BotE considered preferable to BoK&L for squire characters based on order of release?

Back the points on female squires:

Yes, agreed--there are essentially two tracks for female characters who are taking a try at knighthood.

1. They were raised for it, like the boys, and as such should have minimal physical penalties (I like Mr. 47's version best) and skill points per squire normal.

2. They were raised as maidens and this "career change" is sudden and gloriously unplanned. Use BoK&L for skills. Stats... probably still should use a minimalistic variance version (Morien or Mr. 47) since the point is for the character to succeed after being thrust into a life of arms following someone's ill-advised oath/bet/whatever. Being "too dainty" simply wouldn't work for good story, or at least would create more comedy (and frustration).

And of course, there is the zero-variance option for egalitarian play. I'm comfortable, however, in asking such a PK to invest the GP into reaching the higher damage values--that seams like a nod to realism.

By the way, Mr. 47, I really like the idea of using attribute modifiers for female squires/knights as part of their cultural package. This could enable modeling cultures who are not post-Roman British and expected less elegance and more violence out of their women. I'm thinking of the legendary practices of the Alans, for example, who supposedly wouldn't permit a girl to marry until she killed a man in battle!

Edit: this is also a good place to point out that the penalty women get to Valorous (-1d6+3) should also be at best a cultural modifier and probably dropped if they trained for arms like the boys. (See BoK&L p.46)

Uther period standard knightly armor is hauberk+shield, so average 13-14 points depending on rolls. Yes, 4d6 is going to struggle with that... for my exact case this *shouldn't* be a problem, because I know the player is going to dump points into skill and compensate through crit-hunting. We'll see however!

--Khanwulf

Thanks guys. Followup:
Q: so is BotE considered preferable to BoK&L for squire characters based on order of release?


As far as I know, yes.