Just to keep it to a few stats, lets look at strength, agility, dexterity and stamina.

What ot these represent in regards to the stats of an average population?

For instance, having a 12 or greater should only occur in 37.5% of the population, or a hair better than 1 out of 3.

A 13 should only be present in 25.9% of the population, or one out of four.

A lot of canon and fanon have the run of the mill "warrior" with strength, agility, dex and stamina of 12 or greater. Some of the better warriors, like knights get 13's as the base stat.

The chances of someone having a 12 or better in all stats is around 1% - which makes this run of the mill soldiers abnormalities.

SO - are these true "averages"? or are these more of a base stat? And by base I mean one that can be raised with training.

If so, do the PC's have this option? Apparently not.

I actually am in favor of the 10-11 as the base average, but depending upon one's training and occupation they can be raised at least a little.

Problem is I have never come up with a good method for it, and I am not in favor of strictly "stat training", but more in favor of a stat raising based on the skills one has.

Perhaps something like the "magical factor", I forget what it is called, from Harnmagic, where your overall skill ML is raised by the sum of your skill indexes.

Perhaps something along the lines of you get 1 point for every SI over 6 in an agility based skill, or a dexterity based skill, etc. etc., and when you reach a certain number of points that stat is raised by one or you get to roll to raise it by one.

I'm thiking of rolling a 4d6, and if you roll over your current stat you increase it by 1, perhaps to a maximum increase of 1-5, depending on what your stats was prior.

For instance a beginning 18 can only increase by 1, 16-17 by 2, 13-15 by 3, and on and on.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

As I mentioned in another thread I was thinking of moving to a system with all stats improvable. My latest thought on that was that the original stats would be set in place and skill bases all computed from that. Improving a stat such as eyesight or endurance would improve the chance of making an eyesight or endurance roll but not change skill bases. I was thinking of making any score improvable a few points.

In a different approach in some spell writeups I made the limit of ability score improvement SI/2 points above the average of (the human average and the character starting ability score).


Well, the chance of rolling above average (10.5) on every one of 13 rolls is .5^13= 0.01%. While 50% of the population should have rolls that average 10.5 or better.

You are correct in saying that only about 3% will average 12 or better (but OTOH a 12 average might include a person with a lot of 15's and 9's or 18's and 6's).

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)

You are correct, having a 12 or better in all stats also implies a mix of higher numbers.

I guess the "12" would mean a mix averaging 12. I am not sure of the formula to calculate either this or the percetage of someone averaging 12's in 4 stats or better.



I'd go ahead and up the skillbase if the increase in stats warrants it - but it would only effect the max ML, not the immediate ML unless opening a new skill.

And again, I do not like the idea of specifically training to increase a stat. I don't think in general most "stats" were trained that way in the middle ages.

There would also be certain stats that IMO would not be trainable.

Actually, only a few. With HMG stats, I'd make Intelligence, Comeliness and perhaps eyesight untrainable.

With sense like hearing and smell/taste - I think while sense, as in eyesight, they are a bit different. One's nose learns the difference in certain smells depending on what you are exposed to. The way Smell/taste is used, there is no way to increase your "smelling" ML.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

Whether a knight with base physical stats in the 12+ range makes sense depends a lot on what population you think the base 3-18 range describes. If it describes healthy adults, then one would expects only a small proportion of knights to have mostly 12+ stats. On the other hand, if the base 3-18 range covers the whole population, then a healthy adult knight being in the top few percent of the population actually makes sense.

Cheers,
De Coucy

If I allow ability scores to advance a few points regardless of starting point it really does call into question "what do those stats really represent?"

Assuming rolling ability score 3d6 with no arrangement a knight character would be as likely to have a 3 STR as an 18.

If a person started with 11 in all ability scores would it make no difference whether he went into a life of physical activity vs mental activity in his STR or INT?

Or Einstein if he was born with an 18 intelligence - would he have an 18 intelligence as an adult regardless of whether he spent his life studying physics/math vs fishing/boxing. Could he reach a score greater than 18?

For my next campaign though I am considering partly the game complexity of allowing advancing ability scores causing a headache with continuously having to update skill bases and improvement modifiers. On the one hand being able to improve ability scores to some extent seems reasonable - on the other hand the starting scores could still represent the person's natural affinity for skills involving those scores. A person with average initial scores might through intense effort gain great strength equal to that of the natural athlete but still not have his natural affinity.

There would reasonably be cases where scores were improved through magical or special means where the increases might be recalculated into the skill bases but those would be special circumstances. I would like to have the characters able to naturally increase their scores to some extent (especially regarding their mental resistance or toughness after experiencing extremes that no normal persons had ever suffered).

Perhaps giving an initial score with an improvement modifiers such as with skills relate the initial ability score to a value at 5*ability and allow that value to increase through improvement.

For example an initial strength of 12 with an improvement modifier of +0 and an initial strength "skill" of 60. Over time the 60 might improve to 65 - and an effective strength of 13 (+1) but the initial strength and improvement value would remain 12 and +0. Another character starting with an 18 STR with an improvement modifier of +30 and an initial strength "skill" of 90. With equivalent effort he might raise his STR skill to 95 for an effective strength of 19 (+1). In either of those cases all the skill bases for all the character's skills would remain unchanged.

OTOH if a divine or magical permanent increase were to occur (a much less common event) then the initial ability scores, skill bases and improvement modifiers might be changed.

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)

The formulas are complex but I figured them out and built a tool here: http://bellsouthpwp.net/g/a/garyashburn ... ceprob.exe

For 13 sets of 3d6 (39d6) the chance of averaging 12 or better is ~3.733%
the chance of averaging exactly 12 is 0.83784% though that is meaningless without context
averaging 11.5 to 12.5 is about 10%
averaging 10 to 11 is about 48% (aprox 3.5% * 13 points)

For 4 sets of 3d6 (12d6) the chance of averaging 12 or better is ~13.76%
the chance of averaging exactly 12 is 4.069%
averaging 11.5 to 12.5 is about 20%



viewtopic.php?f=5&t=12406

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)

Here is where this may not be the most realistic IMO. Someone who gets a concussion is not now "tougher" - they are actually much more likely to get another concussion.



So maybe 1 in 5 or 1 in 4 if we look at the 13+ numbers averages a 12 or better? This seems more realistic.

De Coucy wrote:



I see what you are getting at, but don't think I agree.

When you speak of healthy adults, we kick out the very old and the young, so looking at male stats only maybe we have 60% or so left.

However, there are means of accounting for the aging issues. There are aging rules to take into account the old - and the youg are rather simple to figure as well.

So with aging rules, the young and old will have their stats negatively effected - so they should then be below that 10-11 range.

The infirm though are a very minute percentage.

So really, as it stands 3-18 stats represent the "adult", not young or old stats of a person.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

maybe?

This is probably clearer:

for a smaller set of 4 sets of 3d6 there is a 17.83% chance of an average of 12+
but for the larger set of 13 sets of 3d6 there is a 3.73% chance of an average of 12+

72.5% will average between 9 and 12 on 4 sets of abilities
nearly 94% of all characters will average between 9 and 12 on 13 sets of abilities

the chance of the average falling in a range between [3 to 4]
for 4 sets of 3d6:
3 - 4 0.00%
4 - 5 0.01%
5 - 6 0.11%
6 - 7 0.99%
7 - 8 4.79%
8 - 9 14.06%
9 - 10 26.35%
10 - 11 32.39%
11 - 12 26.35%
12 - 13 14.06%
13 - 14 4.79%
14 - 15 0.99%
15 - 16 0.11%
16 - 17 0.01%
17 - 18 0.00%

for 13 sets of 3d6:
3 - 4 0.00%
4 - 5 0.00%
5 - 6 0.00%
6 - 7 0.00%
7 - 8 0.12%
8 - 9 3.64%
9 - 10 25.73%
10 - 11 48.71%
11 - 12 25.73%
12 - 13 3.64%
13 - 14 0.12%
14 - 15 0.00%
15 - 16 0.00%
16 - 17 0.00%
17 - 18 0.00%

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)

Point buy for NPCs and PCs with the Veteran Rules and capping base scores at 14 before racial and sex modifiers addresses most issues, because the Veteran rules tempers low ability scores for NPCs and with point buy PCs could wrangle out an 18 or two or three 16+ and the best Sun Sign for PC profession particularly if following family profession. Based on Feanor's charts a 13 or 14 ability score is generous.

Mostly a campaign issue. I usually disliked the campaigns where the villains were always superior to the PCs when they already had most of the advantages like a Veteran bachelor knight with three base 14s means strength should be 15 and possibly 16 in his mid 20s+ ML 80+ with various weapons is formidable give him a little more wealth and social standing as a Bailiff. Even the most mediocre villain won't die if a favorite of the GM.

NPCs receive the benefit of the Veteran rules. PCs are usually penalized by starting as fresh journeymen or their equivalent in a profession.

1% for All ability scores is 10,000 or so people on Harn, the pool with only a few or more (2 - 4) ability scores [further enhanced by Sun Sign] making inherently superior at certain professions is quite a bit larger. People tend to be best at certain tasks not equally competent at all. [Nice graph Feanor]

Not everyone can make the Junior Varsity Football or Basketball Team in H.S. For the most part it is above average physical ability (Attributes) although Will and Family (Supporting or Undermining) plays a factor like lack of health insurance and the impact of an injury on the family finances despite natural ability playing in sports an unaffordable luxury. [Apprentices]. An hour or two a day of practice really tempers out even the marginal bench sitters after the first year. In some school districts it would be comparable to joining the militia, able bodied and able to fog a mirror.

Not everyone who plays Junior Varsity will make Varsity in their Senior year based on ability, many earn a letter by playing a few or more games based on their Junior Varsity service to the school. [Senior Apprentices]

College another culling. [Journeymen]

Semi Pro another culling. [Masters]

Pro Football another culling. [IMO at least three tiers Cream (includes the the Super Stars), middle tier and lower half Not All Masters are created equal].

I also use athletes as somewhat of a representation to a point of middle ages warriors as well, not as a bible of course but as a bit of a guide.

But one thing where the above rationale does not work - Being a warrior in the middle ages was more based on tradition and family then upon culling based upon stats.

If you were the son of a yeoman, you were likely going to be a yeoman. If you were the sun of a knight, you were likley to be a knight. There may have been a bit of selective culling, I.E. if extremeley unfit to be a knight you may be directed into another occupation, but this was more based upon birth order than fitness.

It's not like they took 4 knight candidates and kept the best as a knight and made the others farmers.

Now, nutrition should play a role, the better one can provide sustenance for a young person the stronger and larger they will be, though this is more genes and less nutrition, though genes play a role. I would think it would actually make sense to modify not only height by social class, but mass as well. Whether it be a frame modification or a strength modification, the son of a knight on average will fare better than a cottar. And a yeoman would fare better than a cottar as well.

But even with this, dexterity and agility I do not think would be altered by nutrition.

So your "average" knight should probably be Strength 12, dex ad and fatigue of 11.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

Yes and no. It's a game only so much can be condensed. The game addresses tradition by having the children normally follow in the family profession while actual physical training does not improve attributes permanently or temporarily like it does in the real world.

Not all knights of a poor bachelor knight will be squired in Harn because of the cost particularly if it involves purchasing a Coat of Arms at 5,000d for that younger grandson of the Clan Head with four sons at 5,000d a pop. Men at arms and careers in the church are the default unless other factors are at play (even more significant if using Kind support and only paying a salary of 1/3 or so in coin since in Harn (Not Lythia) most are paid as MH).

Warriors die or are injured to badly to perform their duties so there are usually new openings with comparatively low pay for the risk according to canon. All things being equal military recruiters are going to choose the more physically adept promising candidates when seeking new recruits especially at the upper tier where it is extremely expensive to train, equip and knight in Harn unless they are using their clan coat of arms.

Nobility [Both Men and Women] receive that blanket extra 2" [Basically +10 pounds and a +1 to ST] and additional longevity a benefit of good food and breeding a benefit the wealthy freemen do not receive. Urban poor lose a little height and longevity.

So martial training in and of itself in Harn does not improve abilities, while social class does. Almost contrary to what actually does in the real world [Good balanced diet and exercise].

The soccer player Stamina or Endurance at the beginning of the season and still mechanically the same (not temporarily improved a point or two for conditioning) at the end of the season is a mechanical attribute static in Harn while the skill mastery will normally improve.

Harn doesn't do a really good job of addressing that issue IMO but it is difficult to design something that addresses it without making the game more complicated.

The height is part of it - but as much or more of it is the mass a well nourished person will have. The 2" for nobles is probably about right, though extra mass would make sense too. Though I also think the son of a cottar would be at -1 like the urban poor, and those comparatively well off would get maybe a +1 on height and better mass (Those with at least 60 acres roughly for rural types, for urban types it's more problematic.

I use some houserules for height, weight, and strength. Weight (lean body mass) is +1% for every point over ten, and -1% for every point under 10. Frame is less of a factor - 8% + or - per frame catogory, and the only frame that alters agility is massive with a -1.

A numerical score, somewhere in the 5-20 range is assigned for size, and then strength is figured by (Size+Size+Strength)/3. So somone with size 20 (over about 250 pounds) is going to have a minimum strength of 14.



I guess I could put the requirement and cost of a Coat of Arms on the ideas that should be done away with thread . I look at it differently - 5000d is the cost for a "New" Coat of Arms. If you are part of a clan that already has a Coast of arms, a knight can "subordinate" I think the term is or something like that, a slight variance in the coat of arms that designates that wearer. Maybe for a fee of 500d.

The true cost of knights is their training, armour, upkeep, mounts and the mounts upkeep - and this is a significant cost already - no need to arbitrarily increase that price.



It's again, not really picking the best ones out type of selection, it's that in general the first son will be chosen unless very inept and there is a second or third son as an option.

The First son can be 5'8" and even if the second son might be 6'2" - as long as the first son is not lame, mentally ill, etc.

I would think it would be a similar situation for Yeomen as well.

A think in order to get the correct frame of thought, it has to be thought of as many years of tradition with a family renewing it's feudal obligations with the new "heir" to these responsibilities, most often the first born son. If you think of it in this manor as opposed to an NFL training camp, I think the picture will be more accurate.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....

My example cited a younger grandson (second generation) knight of the Clan head two steps away. His sons are gentle born but at best they can display the clan badge for the purposes of this example the wife is common born or second generation herself. The four sons each require their own 5,000 d Clan Coat of Arms if they are going to be knights unless you P-Harn let's them utilize Fighting Order Coat of Arms or Clan adoptions.

Personally I like a less regimented approach to a Coat of Arms.

In 1066, there was no such thing as a coat of arms, by the 15th centuryyou have many of the advanced rules.

Harn seems to represent a 15th century type coat of arms. I like the idea that major houses will have coat's of Arm, maybe some very wealthy manor lords - but most use the coat of arms that they swear fealty to.

And these can be real simple, though I think it would make sense to ahve a way in which the Lord, his close familia, knightly followers and general troops display the caot of arms.

Maybe for the Lord one style, the family slight varations, and the knights that swear fealtyto him for the most part using a similar symbol ob their shield. The commoners that serve in the musters might have a cloth badge or something similar.

_________________
Hmm Gurthang. What a nice name for a sword....