Riding knight

[NuberT]

shieldskill isnt that important in my opinion. Usually my horse dies long before my difficulty 1 shield cracks. On the other hand you will hardly find another difficulty 1 shield on the ground.

[Toffi]

As for the lance: Torben said heavy lance for the win, normal lance isn't worth it. I don't garee on that. If you don't want to fight other cavalry primary I suggest using the normal lance, it's way faster!

AS for the builds:

I used to go without athletics for a long time cause I was proud of having a horse and not moving on foot.

Now I decided to have at least 3 athletics.

[Torp]

shieldskill isnt that important in my opinion. Usually my horse dies long before my difficulty 1 shield cracks. On the other hand you will hardly find another difficulty 1 shield on the ground.

but i also suggested a 1h sidearm, which isnt very good with only 1 shield skill

i personally have 4 since i preferred an extra shield skill over if

[Torben]

As for the lance: Torben said heavy lance for the win, normal lance isn't worth it. I don't garee on that. If you don't want to fight other cavalry primary I suggest using the normal lance, it's way faster!

AS for the builds:

I used to go without athletics for a long time cause I was proud of having a horse and not moving on foot.

Now I decided to have at least 3 athletics.

im thinking "not worth it"  cause the lance is only 5 longer than the light lance,  the light lance however way faster and less expensive.  thoughts on that toffi?

[Toffi]

im thinking "not worth it"  cause the lance is only 5 longer than the light lance,  the light lance however way faster and less expensive.  thoughts on that toffi?

Hm I tried the light lance too, but for me it happened too often that cause of maybe the shorter range (and it seems way shorter, even if it's only 5 cm) I just bounced of the enemy.

So light lance is, from my experiences and in my opinion, the worst lance. Might be that it's my timing (which is made for normal or heavy lance).

Well but you can for sure try the light lance, too. Maybe you try all of them!

[Digglez]

if you plan on wearing heavy armor, I would not split your weapon skill, or you'll be too watered down in either.  I did a 140 1h/80 polearm and my nordic champ sword was doing more dmg from horseback than a lance, while I'm wearing MAIL armor.

[tankmen]

0 athletics for 22 gens 

[Johnny_Concrete]

THIS:

Level 30 (4 420 577 xp)

    Strength: 18
    Agility: 18
    Hit points: 63

    Skills to attributes: 2

    Ironflesh: 5
    Power Strike: 6
    Athletics: 6
    Riding: 6
    Weapon Master: 6

    Polearm: 156
   
BECAUSE:
-Pure out performs hybrid in most cases.
-You will find you will hate your shield as on foot with a spear it is useless because of the penalty and it rarely saves you on your horse as people aim for the horse and your lance will just be slower if you pair it with a shield.
-So the 5 in IF will help you survive longer usually.
-There you have good riding skill so you will be fast and manoverable.
-Good weapon prof & weapon master & powerstrike so you are very effective with polearms
-and like everyone else says athletics is very important & quite alot of the time you may want to go out on foot as to save/make money(horses are alot to repair)

EQUIPMENT:
I reccommend a Heavy Lance on horseback, A Courser as your horse, Medium armor, and a side weapon such as hafted blade or quarter staff so they are cheap but rip up on the ground.

[Bjord]

Athletics is one of the most important skills in my opionion, even before power strike.

True for people who are bad at range control.

However, the less athletics and agility you have, the more defensive you'll have to be.

[krampe]

True for people who are bad at range control.

However, the less athletics and agility you have, the more defensive you'll have to be.

Ehh? When your opponent moves faster than you, you don't control the distance.

True

[Bjord]

Ehh? When your opponent moves faster than you, you don't control the distance.

True

Then you haven't fought people who excel at controlling the distance with good knowledge of their weapon's length. That's what range control means.

Being more maneuverable only grants a few more angles and positions where you can attack from and where an opponent with much less athletics can't. But that's beside the point.

[krampe]

I still don't get your point how having high athletics is less important when you have good range control?

You can be the master in range control which will be useless if your enemy moves in and out only when he wants to strike.

[Bjord]

I still don't get your point how having high athletics is less important when you have good range control?

It doesn't matter how fast he moves, if you can time your swings in a way that he runs into them as he moves closer to hit you, you will still prevail.

You can be the master in range control which will be useless if your enemy moves in and out only when he wants to strike.

I fail to see how that's relevant, but I suppose. Though, at some point he will have to move closer to connect hits. Also, I doubt people would enjoy fighting someone like that.

[krampe]

It doesn't matter how fast he moves, if you can time your swings in a way that he runs into them as he moves closer to hit you, you will still prevail.

Yes, good timing and range control are important aspects in fighting but still how do those make high athletics less important?
(dodging missiles, choosing fights, prevent surrounds by multiple enemies, etc.)

I fail to see how that's relevant, but I suppose. Though, at some point he will have to move closer to connect hits. Also, I doubt people would enjoy fighting someone like that.

It's relevant in that case when two equal "range controler" fight each other, one has high athletics one does not.
The one with high athletics will be more in control when to strike as the other especially if he has the longer weapon.
He also can bring himself in the right position more quickly to let his strike hit earlier as you already mentioned.

[Bjord]

Yes, good timing and range control are important aspects in fighting but still how do those make high athletics less important?
(dodging missiles, choosing fights, prevent surrounds by multiple enemies, etc.)

It's relevant in that case when two equal "range controler" fight each other, one has high athletics one does not.
The one with high athletics will be more in control when to strike as the other especially if he has the longer weapon.
He also can bring himself in the right position more quickly to let his strike hit earlier as you already mentioned.

Ah, I see.

Suffice it to say, I forgot to mention I was talking in duel perspectives the whole time.

But yes, athletics is highly useful in any case.