I recall reading somewhere that characters of large SIZ may have trouble finding mounts big enough to carry them, but I can't find that rule anywhere now. Can someone point me in the right direction? One of my players rolled a 21 SIZ for his new replacement knight, so it may come into play.

How did he get 21 SIZ? Is he a saxon?

If you are using KaL, you roll 3d6+4 for SIZ. But the maximum SIZ is still 18.

To your question: I do remember something about high SIZ knights and horses, but I'm pretty sure it's not in any of the rulebooks. It's either from a discusisuon here, or Greg's website I'm guessing.

I recall reading somewhere that characters of large SIZ may have trouble finding mounts big enough to carry them, but I can't find that rule anywhere now. Can someone point me in the right direction? One of my players rolled a 21 SIZ for his new replacement knight, so it may come into play.


Here is what I am currently using

Horse too Small
If a knight’s damage bonus is greater than the damage bonus of his horse, the rider is too big for the horse, and suffers the penalty of -5 for each 1d6 (or less) of damage greater than the horse.
For example, Max the Maxed Sax Axe has a 7d6+1d6 religion bonus, and is riding a small charger of 5d6 damage. His religion bonus is ignored, since it is not based on any physical characteristics. The additional 2d6 greater than his poor steed does count, and results in a -10 penalty to his Horsemanship.

If you're going to use that as s basis, I would compare SIZ divided by 3 to the horse's damage dice, thus ignoring normal sized knights of exceptional strength.

If you're going to use that as s basis, I would compare SIZ divided by 3 to the horse's damage dice, thus ignoring normal sized knights of exceptional strength.


I always include STR as contributing to overall size.
I know different muscles of similar size are not necessarily of the same strength, the same muscle power
but at the strength of these knights, they also have big muscles.

I look forward to more options!

[crossposted with Greg]
I would personally just compare the knight's SIZ to the horse's STR, If I were to use a rule like this.

The damage stats for 4-legged animals were originally based on STR+SIZ/10, where 2-legged critters use SIZ+STR/6. This gives horses a less efficient ratio for delivering damage, which is fine - they don't have access to metal weapons and excellent levers for transmitting damage like swords and maces.
So, they can be less efficient at delivering damage- but are they less efficient at carrying burdens, which basing this on damage stat rather than their actual STR + SIZ would seem to suggest?

And then, A SIZ 14 knight who does 4d6 damage and wears full or gothic plate (or the intermediate plate+mail armour at least), could be heavier than a SIZ 20 knight who does 6d6 damage and wears mail, so is damage stat a good approximation of rider weight? Even if armour is the same, one SIZ 15 character might do 4d6 damage, and another SIZ 15 character might do 6d6.

I suspect this rule is a reaction to people raising SIZ with glory, or maybe it's because it seems silly for people to have damages higher than the horses they ride. But as noted above, it's not silly - it happens only because the formula for calculating damage is different for horses - using a lance has its own bonuses +5 skill, extra +5 v foot that usually more than makes up for that once you run the numbers.

What this rule will do I think is penalise people for raising damage stats, encouraging them to spend the glory they would have spent there on sword skill instead. There is already plenty of incentive to raise sword skill - I'd love to see more enticements to raise stats with glory, rather than discouragement. In any case, by the time destriers come around, the rule will be redundant.

PS: I love the name Maz the Maxed Sax Axe.

How did he get 21 SIZ? Is he a saxon?

If you are using KaL, you roll 3d6+4 for SIZ. But the maximum SIZ is still 18.


We are using random generation from Knights and Ladies. I thought he'd exceed the racial maximum as well, but I searched this forum before posting, and in the Racial Maximums (http://www.gspendragon.com/roundtable/index.php?topic=374.msg2869#msg2869) thread, Greg said:




In BoK&L, racial maximums are eliminated.
--Greg




However if there are no racial maximums it would seem you could have a cyrmic knight with a size of 21, a con of 24, etc. Is that correct?

Yep. I have decided so. These giants among their peers, these freaks of nature, have their mini max place in the otherwise randomized world of averages and means, medians and modes.
I think that the game system will handle it, and that GMs will deal with it according to their maturity.

--Greg


I don't really have a problem with the large knight in my game - we were just describing the appearance of the new knight and it sparked my memory. He is quite a bit more difficult to knock down than the other knights, but his STR is only 9, so he still does just 5d6 damage.

You're not the first to spot that.

That section is I'm pretty sure referring to one use of the racial maximums only, spending glory.
Here's an earlier post of mine: (http://www.gspendragon.com/roundtable/index.php?topic=674.msg5588#msg5588)




Darren - I found the comment by Greg.

It's in this thread (http://www.gspendragon.com/roundtable/index.php?topic=374.0). Read Greg's 1st and 2nd reply (especially the 2nd). Perhaps I am misinterpreting the intent, but if there are no racial maximums then what is the barrier against normal winter phase increases?


That section is specifically about the ambiguity I mentioned.
KAP 5 introduced a statement that says: Glory cannot be used to raise stats above maximum, or SIZ after age 21. This is not about normal winter training.

By errataing this statement, Greg returns the rules to their KAP 3/4 state which is this:

1) With annual training, You can increase skills, traits, passions and stats up to their maximum (except for SIZ which cannot increase after age 21)
2) With glory, there are no limits at increases at all.

The last line of that errat reads, "In BoK&L, racial maximums are eliminated." and should be understood to mean: "In BoK&L, racial maximums are eliminated for Glory bonuses."


But let's be sure - Greg: when a player rolls 3d6+4 for the SIZ or Cymric knight, is his maximum 18 or 22?

But let's be sure - Greg: when a player rolls 3d6+4 for the SIZ or Cymric knight, is his maximum 18 or 22?


I've chawed over and over on this, and it is still tough a whale meat,
BUT
my current thinking is to eliminate cultural maximums in character generation, except within the maximum possible.
Thus, in the Book of Britons

Random
Roll using the values given.
Men: Roll 3d6+4 for SIZ;
Roll 3d6+1 for each other attribute.
Women: Roll 2d6+2 for SIZ and STR;
Roll 3d6+2 for DEX and CON; and
Roll 3d6+5 for APP.

Cultural Modifiers
Certain peoples have bonuses and penalties for some attributes. These are granted to Standard, Random and intentional characters.
Apply it after the base attributes have been allotted. Thus, these modifiers can allow people to go above or below their normal restrictions.
Cymric: +3 CON
Irish: +3 CON
Pict: –3 SIZ, +6 DEX, +3 CON, –3 APP
Roman: +1 DEX, +2 APP
Saxon: +3 SIZ, –3 DEX, +3 STR

It is thus possible to have a Saxon who is SIZ 25

But let's be sure - Greg: when a player rolls 3d6+4 for the SIZ or Cymric knight, is his maximum 18 or 22?


I've chawed over and over on this, and it is still tough a whale meat,
BUT
my current thinking is to eliminate cultural maximums in character generation, except within the maximum possible.
Thus, in the Book of Britons

Random
Roll using the values given.
Men: Roll 3d6+4 for SIZ;
Roll 3d6+1 for each other attribute.
Women: Roll 2d6+2 for SIZ and STR;
Roll 3d6+2 for DEX and CON; and
Roll 3d6+5 for APP.

Cultural Modifiers
Certain peoples have bonuses and penalties for some attributes. These are granted to Standard, Random and intentional characters.
Apply it after the base attributes have been allotted. Thus, these modifiers can allow people to go above or below their normal restrictions.
Cymric: +3 CON
Irish: +3 CON
Pict: –3 SIZ, +6 DEX, +3 CON, –3 APP
Roman: +1 DEX, +2 APP
Saxon: +3 SIZ, –3 DEX, +3 STR

It is thus possible to have a Saxon who is SIZ 25


Hey.....!!!! I think I met that saxon once... Briefly........!!!!

my current thinking is to eliminate cultural maximums in character generation, except within the maximum possible.

Do you eliminate the maximum when distributing attribute points as well? (or more accurately, change the minimum/maximum range to match the random die roll method?)

(Edited due to technical difficulties)

my current thinking is to eliminate cultural maximums in character generation, except within the maximum possible.

Do you eliminate the maximum when distributing attribute points as well? (or more accurately, change the minimum/maximum range to match the random die roll method?)


To quote
Intentional
Distribute a total of 63 points for men, and 60 points for women; among the five attributes, keeping in mind the fact that the starting attributes, before cultural modifiers, must be within these ranges.
Men



Min.
Max.


SIZ
7
22


DEX
4
19


STR
4
19


CON
4
19


APP
4
19


Women



Min.
Max.


SIZ
4
14


DEX
4
19


STR
4
14


CON
4
19


APP
8
23

But let's be sure - Greg: when a player rolls 3d6+4 for the SIZ or Cymric knight, is his maximum 18 or 22?


I've chawed over and over on this, and it is still tough a whale meat,
BUT
my current thinking is to eliminate cultural maximums in character generation, except within the maximum possible.


How would this effect the annual training through winter phase? What would be the maximums there?