05-06-2021, 09:06 AM | #181 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?
Quote:
The introduction of the shorter (but still high damage) duelling polearms changed the calculus quite a bit, especially when combined with the various techniques and perks from MA that increase their flexibility.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
|
05-06-2021, 09:34 AM | #182 |
Join Date: Apr 2019
|
Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?
I may be restating something thats already been said.
But this whole thing revolves around the Title "Knight" and what "should be associated with it", is a subjective question not a historical one. Subjective to the World it applies to, unless the attempt is to recreate a specific person from historical records (in which case Char Points dont factor in, except at the end when you tabulate the point value to get there). Sean Connery was a Knight. Bono is a Knight along with Elton John, Clint Eastwood is a Knight. How are you resolving this with your issue of martial prowess? And these are people that ACTUALLY are KNIGHTED, not a subjective discussion. A Knight is a title, conferred by "an Authority" of some variety. That's pretty much it in terms of how it applies globally and generically. (Im pretty sure I was made a Knight of Peanut Butter by the Jif company back in the early 80s) Even historically there were Knights with and without land, Knights with and without martial prowess, Knights who were educated and some who were dumb as stumps. Its just a TITLE. Like being a "Doctor"... well of what? can you do surgery? No Im a Doctor of Law... But your a Doctor!?!? This is basically what this whole debacle is about. The GM sets a value for the Title Knight with some kind of Lens that contains what ever the GM says are specific advantages, disadvantages, and skills required to have the title in his world. The rest of the chatter is just people getting prissy because THEIR vision of "Knight" differs, but not a single one of you is exclusively correct, and you are all probably completely correct in your own game. The answer for the Original poster is "Knight has a value equal to what you set it in your game. If that's just a a Title, if that's a list of martial skills, if that's a list of Status, advantages, disads, and skills, or some other combination of factors is up to the GM and determined by its value in the setting" If the player wants to use his points to have that Title then he takes that Lens. If its not worth it to him then dont take it. The value of the Lens should be relative to its value in the Game. ......If you aren't using status and royal courts and peasants and horses/spaceships and swords then its pretty much just a title, and shouldn't cost much (so if your just about dungeon crawling its really really pointless to care or maybe a 1pt "reputation Quirk" for flavor, Congrats Bono, that and $1.20 will get ya a cup of coffee) . .....If on the other hand your playing a game that involves political intrigues and situations where a Knights Title will open doors and make it possible to bypass barriers or purchase controlled items, skip difficulties in the adventure(s) possibly even allow you to exercise Legal powers then it may well be worth it and have a value that has nothing to do with Martial prowess and your Mercenary is nothing more than a generic Bodyguard that needs to keep his mouth shut in the presence of his betters. It all comes down to the Game, the setting, the GM... not historical accuracy circa 1502 London (unless that happens to be the setting the GM has chosen) Yes in Reality a Landed Knight is probably a higher point char than a Merc regardless of overall martial skills, HOWEVER this isnt reality and the point of the CP value is to give all players an even chance to contribute to the game, not to every situation. |
05-06-2021, 02:33 PM | #183 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?
Quote:
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
05-06-2021, 08:10 PM | #184 | ||
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dreamland
|
Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
05-07-2021, 07:20 AM | #185 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?
Quote:
I originally just intended to consolidate, but then opted to change the required specializations into optional ones, with an increase in difficulty to match.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
|
05-07-2021, 11:16 AM | #186 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
|
Re: Are knightly characters inefficient?
This has been batted back and forth a lot, but I think I can answer OP's question completely in one sentence:
The activities and goals of traditional fantasy adventurers are not realistic, so realistic characters will not be efficient fantasy adventurers. Corollary: This is one one of the reasons traditional fantasy adventurers tend to react explosively when you expose them realistic societies - they are literally not built to fit in. |
05-07-2021, 01:30 PM | #187 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Are knightly characters inefficient?
Quote:
This is generally a case of bad GM'ing (but an easy one to fall into - I'd probably be guilty of it) rather than bad character design. If the GM is good at keeping characters relevant, nobody is likely to feel cheated. Sure, the Knight isn't quite as good in a fight as the Brute - but he's the guy who warmed up Lord Hanton for the Rogue to convince him to invest in the party, he's got the connections that allowed the Wizard access to the Great Library to research an upcoming dungeon (and even helped with the research, figuring out which fallen Noble House was previously located there by the heraldry, which gave a better idea of what to expect), and the Ranger can always count on him to have her back when she goes hunting for game - or orcs. As I said before, however, the players can help the GM here, by suggesting ways their secondary traits/skills can be used to further the party's goals. In the above cases, perhaps the Knight's player asked the GM if he could use Status and Savoir-Faire to already know a friendly nobleman contact, asked about using the same to hook the Wizard up with better research facilities (and then asked about using his own knowledge skills to help), or made it a point to follow the Ranger on stealth missions, asking the GM to let him keep his distance so as not to risk being seen and thus ruining her stealth, but be available to help with finding tracks, noticing traps, etc.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
|
05-07-2021, 02:34 PM | #188 |
Join Date: Sep 2018
|
Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?
Knights are generalists and generalists never seem to be as effective as specialists. But let me address some points.
While knights need a lot of advantages to be modeled correctly those advantages are only a sunk cost in a setting where those advantages aren't given weight. More relevantly many of those advantages would only be available to a narrow number of character types so your wizard or mercenary may not be able to have to authority or social mobility of the knight, perhaps not even the wealth. Knights are known for being well-rounded in their pursuits, so if they're made correctly, yeah, there's going to be a lot of skills. That said not every knight is a falconer and in a game where a knight is a useful character falconry would potentially be a useful skill. Also your Wizard likely knows Literature, cooking, politics, History and a number other skills that are survival skills inside the tower. Your peasant Mercenary knows how to farm or how to raise sheep, probably how to pack a mule, and he's probably a noteworthy fisherman or weaver. Characters have skills. Being a master of none is rough in a lot of cases, so is being a specialist. Your peasant mercenary doesn't know how not to be an embarrassment in court he's going to have to wait outside when you speak with the Duke. Your Wizard doesn't know the first thing about camping, she's going to stand there looking useless while people set up camp. The knight probably has skills in both venues and more. He won't be the best in most situations but rarely will he be shut out of helping the party. |
05-07-2021, 04:21 PM | #189 |
☣
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
|
Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?
It all depends on the campaign. I've played in campaigns where a military officer was far less effective because of all the points they had to waste on combat and field leadership skills.
__________________
RyanW - Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats. |
05-09-2021, 07:02 AM | #190 | |
On Notice
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sumter, SC
|
Re: Are knightly characters ineffective?
Quote:
__________________
Help make a digital reference for GURPS by coming to the GURPS wiki and provide some information and links (such as to various Fanmade 4e Bestiaries) . Please, provide more then just a title and a page number. |
|
Tags |
character design, knight |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|