Blackadder23 wrote:

If you want literal royalty, the most obvious choices would be one of the Amazon Queens (Pandoros or the City in the Clouds), the Pictish King, the Viking King, or even the Witch Queen of Yithorium.

For starting characters, it might be better to think smaller though: one of the "kings" of Brigand's Bay, or a "king" in the Gal Hills or New Vinland.
 

I do mean royalty but it doesn't have to be part of a huge military power. Just enough to have marriage alliances and nobles vying control. I just need it to be big enough to have a monarchical crisis if the king should die without an heir.

I was thinking about creating a big city state on an island but The Gal Hills could definitely work. It's not terribly far from Khromarium and it won't lock the players in like an island might.

Carnby wrote:

Caveman wrote:

The Lizard Coast might work? It isolated, seems stocked with plenty of fir trees, hills and swamps, but it inhabited by Lizard-men, perhaps this culture you wish to use has carved out an niche there, far from other human settlements?
 

It's such a natural spot to place a small culture, it's where I went. One could also flip this idea a little bit, with the players trying to increase the lifespan of a lizard king, perhaps one with unusually decent relations with the human communities, something that isn't guaranteed with the king's successor.

In a similar vein of interacting with weird, non-human rulership, there's Kor, if you want to delve into ape-man spiritual beliefs. Calencia could be a good choice too, with plenty of Hyperborean ruins about.

I'm going to go with human on this one but having an adjacent species would add flavor and variety.

BlackKnight wrote:

Even though not listed, I'd put Hunters and Rangers as having the Horsemanship also. Thus giving all "Fighter" classes Horsemanship. 
 

I'm leaning towards the idea that Barbarian, Cataphracts, and Paladins all start with Horsemanship and that other Fighters get it by having secondary skills or downtime training that justifies it.

I still feel like there's actually something here that I'm not seeing though.

gizmomathboy wrote:

I think "best", "most versatile" is min-max thinking which is a way to play.

It's a bit more fun to build around an idea or something.

Sure, in my current campaign the NPC Amazonian Fighter has grand mastery in longsword and mastery in longbow. That's partly because she's the NPC from Brazen Bull. At 5th level with that grand mastery she's a wrecking machine in melee. The only better fighter in the group is maybe the 4th level berserker with a two-hand scimitar, but they typically use their +0 broadsword.

However, in a campaign I was a player I had an Amazonian Paladin that had mastery in two-handed sword. Partly for the higher average damage but because I thought it would interesting. Righteous fighter needs a righteous sized weapon :-)

I think system mastery is fine if that's your thing, its not mine though. However, when I get into a game, I think about it sometimes when I'm not playing. That's when I like to munchkin.

For my actual character. I'm considering mastering the lance with my character because I recently read the Hedge Knight by GRRM and the Black Colossus REH and both of those stories feature mounted combat with lances. I rolled soldier/mercenary for my character's secondary skills so it seems fitting that maybe I learned it there. That said, my character is pretty lowborn so I'm also considering asking my Referee about unarmed combat for him.

Okay, so you are a Fighter and you get to master 4 weapons over the course of your career. Which 4 do you pick and why? And, which one of those do you grandmaster?

BlackKnight wrote:

The other issue with cutting a "Lance" down to a "Spear" is the diameter and design. the lance near the back behind the usual guard is made slender and then has a large section that is typically fitted with a counterweight of metal. The Lance has an overall diameter of about 6" from the guard, tapering forward as it drops to the point where it's probably 2" and has a metal point. The design is for velocity Impact. Cutting it down 2" would really only make it useful as a set Pike. Trying to use it as a Spear and Pokeing it at an adversary would probably take a player a 17-18 strength to hold it and thrust it hard enough for the point to reach enough velocity to do damage, else bounce off unless they were charging. I've held a Lance in my hands, it's a b**** to bring the point up. There is a reason that they were designed to be held under the arm and tucked up along the rib cage and passively held as the rider roamed around looking for a target. Also note, they were designed for a single thrust, as the length of wood was typically a softwood, Pine, etc, as Imagine what strength it would take to hold up a 20" long 6" round piece of Oak!! The reason for the Single thrust design is as a lance, they were designed to Impale. and there was little chance of pulling it back out of the opponent in time to use it a second time, hence the reason they have squires and armsmen that would carry extra weapons into battle for their night. But you're talking High Medevil when you get there. In the Darker ages, the Nights/Fighters in armor would Lance on the first charge and drop it in preference of a Horsemance mace Flail or Axe next, then move onto a Longsword, If knocked off their horse they would use any of their weapons they still had. If losing their shield they would draw a knife or any other weapon they had left...

If you need a spear, You'd be much better off going into a wooded area, cutting a long straight sapling, and cutting it down...

I've also used s

…