I'm preparing a full Companion game for my players around being Knights, very arthurian. And I was reading Lords of Men with one of my players and we ended in a little conflict as he was annoying by the example Knights on Page 108 having a +16 to Attack and Defense with a Longsword and a Shield.
This is because, this would mean that the Knight has a total roll of 12, that even assuming that all the people that are Knighted have a +3 in Dexterity, the "generic Knight" would have a Skill of 9 [and assuming that +3 is by itself rare, that means they will have 10~11 in the skill]
But the game world has always implied that mundanes with limited lifespan reaching above 7+ is something already super rare, something that people would be talking for decades. And a lot of examples put combat people in their 50+ with 7 in their combat skill at most.
So, what is happening with the Knight Stats? Does each Great Baron has squads of 5 or even 10 "master swordmen unique in the realm"? Are the narrative of numbers wrong?
At first I thought you were missing weapon characteristics, but then I realised you were allowing for that. I agree it does sound high at first, but I think it's explainable:
Knights are a form of cavalry, and mounted characters get +3 (or +Ride if lower, but for a knight it probably won't be) to their melee attack and defence rolls. (See pg 174 of the corebook, and also the Mounted Combat section on pg 126 of Lords of Men)
Good quality weapons can have increased weapon bonuses (the rules are in City and Guild), and knights are some of the people more likely to be able to afford them.
At least one of Puissant / Affinity with Single Weapon is probably fairly common amongst knights - the example character in the corebook has Puissant.
Indeed, the example Knight in the corebook has +17 / +17 to his Attack / Defense at age 25, which is 5+2+1 (speciality) +3 (mounted) + 2 (stat) + 4 (weapon statistics).
So +16/+16 doesn't feel unreasonable, especially assuming some of those knights are going to be older than 25.
I'd say the numbers are excessive. One good thing about Ars Magica 5th edition is that it tries to make NPCs, particularly "anonymous ones" rather average, so that focused PCs can outshine them.
The say I see it, a Knight should have:
Combat Ability 5 (which is consistent with age <30, and with the leader's Leadership being 5, too - for a Group bonus of +15)
Dexterity +1 (which, together with Single Weapon 5 or Great Weapon 5, means his Labour Point total is at a "break even point" of 6)
Unexceptional weapons, so the Atk/Dfn bonus for Lance+Heater Shield are 4/3, and for Longsword+Heater Shield 4/4.
Considering that the Knights are mounted (with Ride 3+), their stats should then be:
A specialty in Lance could boost the Lance totals to 14/13, meaning all numbers are exactly 3 short of the what's in the book. But all the table seems to be off here and there; for example, the Init bonuses are a tad off. I'll just add that I'd assume Sergeants to have a Combat Ability 4 (consistent with the Group bonus of 12) and the appropriate stats +1; levies a Combat Ability 3 (Group bonus 9) and the appropriate stats 0.
As per @Salutor above, 2 of those 3 points could plausibly be from an affinity.
The remaining point could be from assuming Dexterity +2 instead. But even so, it's a mess.
Which is why I personally really dislike this sort of abbreviated stat blocks. Sigh.
I'd say that just as you wouldn't want a Magus to have an Intelligence less than 2, a knight shouldn't have a Dexterity less than that either. I'm of the understanding that they trained in martial and physical skills from childhood so I think they would generally be pretty tidy, especially when it came to welding weapons.
Exactly. A "generic" knight is a well trained, often battle hardened warrior. A knight is not any bloke with a sword and a long pointy stick on a horse. Puissant or affinity showing up is not unreasonable.
One point is irrelevant, and the stat block is irremediably off (e.g. in terms of Init) anyways, so I am arguing for the principle, rather than for the specific case. The issue is that in the Ars Magica cosmology stats are fixed, barring supernatural intervention (or accidents). You can train as much as you want, and your Athletics will go up, not your Dexterity. You can practice writing as much as you want, but you Communication will stay where it is.
So I do not think it's unfair to assume a Dexterity of "only" +1 for the average knight, who's not been selected as a squire for his superior Dexterity (though he would probably have been set on an ecclesiastical path or something had his Dexterity been inferior). Besides, Dexterity is only one of the several important stats for a knight. Decent strength is at least as important, and Stamina and Quickness are also crucial in combat and more in general warfare. Perception is also crucial, from detecting ambushes and faints (even disregarding "unknightly" ranged weapons).
As for magi and Intelligence, I would note that a) the Gift is generally associated with superior intelligence (ArM5 p.106) and b) it's the only stat that really matters in terms of helping your master in the lab. So it's perfectly in line to assume that magi might have an "average" Int of +2, while knights might have an "average" Dex, Str and Sta of +1.
Not really, the birth order was the key to who would get the sword or the robe.
And high level ecclesiastical figures were often warlords in their own right, especially as the imperial-churchbsystem collapsed as ramification of the concordat of Worms.
None embody this better than the Archbishop of Köln, the, soon to be martyred, Saint Engelbert.
I fo agree with your assessment of knights having +1 to Sta, Str and Dex as baseline for their class.
True, but how the stats are set is implied to do with upbringing. It's implied magi have high intelligence, as they've been well educated. The field workers tend to have high stamina due to all the time working in the field, etc.
We all know dex is the alpha stat for combat. If most PCs will tend to have a certain stat block, then most NPCs should also.
Is this really the case? If you've got +2 Dex but I've got +2 Qik, my defence bonus cancels your attack bonus and I have +2 to my chance to land the first blow. Am I missing something?
My main companion character is an archer, so he doesn't expect the enemy to get close enough for initiative to count, so I may have a blind spot.
Dex trumps strength at least, as the dex bonus to hit will transfer to damage. Strength, you get what you character needs to weild the weapon of choice, unless being the strong as an Ox trope is part of the character story.
Quickness and Dex, I can see the balance.
Stamina. If you are depending on soak lots, your character will probably die. Stamina is the lowest combat priority, however, if character design is the marathon runner, etc, get stamina.
Magi aren't in the mix here, if I disregard stamina like that.
Well, given that it's entirely possible, plausible and common for any PC or NPC to have +2 in a characteristic I'd usually opt to put it in Dexterity for a knight. Of course other characteristics are important but there are limits to how good anyone can be unless you're prepared to make some characteristics negative or use a Virtue point or two for Improved Characteristics.
