We disliked the effect that when two very skilled characters meet, the fight tended to be a matter of who manages to roll a critical first. With skills of 24, the critical is 25% of the time, which leads to the following probabilities:
1/16: both critical (take minor damage?)
3/16: Knight A criticals, Knight B does not, Knight B dies.
3/16: Knight B criticals, Knight A does not, Knight A dies.
9/16: Both roll a normal success (due to armor+shield, likely no/minor damage)

This means that there is about 40% probability that the fight ends with one blow cleaving the other guy in twain. Making it very high risk combat, much more so than the normal Skill 20 or less combats.

Instead, we came up with the following house rule:

1. If both combatants have their (weapon) skills over 20, the lesser skill is reduced to 20, and the higher skill is reduced by the same amount.
- So if Skill 24 and Skill 24 meet, the fight is handled as if their skills are 20 and 20.
- Skills 24 and 22 are handled as if their skills are 22 and 20. (Yes, this gives a big relative advantage in the number of criticals to the more skilled guy: we are fine with this.)
- Note: the primary purpose of this house rule is to make two equally skilled combatants less likely to kill one another with one blow in the first couple of rounds.

This ensures that there is less oneshotting in the first couple of rounds of combat, and it is likelier that other considerations (knockdown with its +5/-5, or fatigue) can come into play. This for us is more in line with the Arthurian narrative, when two great knights test their mettle against one another.

An alternative might be to treat it like HeroQuest and treat skill over 20 as a mastery. So when two opponents have skills over 20, then subtract 20 from the skills. Say 25 and 22 becomes 5 and 2. Against a lesser opponent, it would be as normal.

1. If both combatants have their (weapon) skills over 20, the lesser skill is reduced to 20, and the higher skill is reduced by the same amount.


My concern with this rule is how dramatically it shifts the odds of winning to the higher skilled character. Have you run the numbers with various skills like 24 vs 22, 29 v 24, 35 vs 25, comparing old chances of win/lose to new chance? Not only does the lower skilled character lose out on raw chance of success, but the proportion of critical hits is entirely in the higher skilled character's favour. Disparities like 35 vs 30 are perfectly possible with passions, and the edge goes very much in favour of the higher skilled character (who will still be likely to end the fight with a critical).

An alternative might be to treat it like HeroQuest and treat skill over 20 as a mastery. So when two opponents have skills over 20, then subtract 20 from the skills. Say 25 and 22 becomes 5 and 2. Against a lesser opponent, it would be as normal.


That's pretty elegant. Fights could get tediously long though.
Maybe a combination of the two systems:
If both characters have skill above 20, subtract 10 from both skills.
If both characters have skill above 30, subtract 20.
etc.
You'd be able to include skills above 40, then.

Though there are some oddities:
Characters with 25 vs 35 face each other - it becomes 15 vs 25.
Characters with 31 vs 39 - it bcomes 11 vs 19.

I do have my own fix for the tink-tink-BOOM problem, but it's a secondary effect a separate house rule I haven't posted yet.

Not only does the lower skilled character lose out on raw chance of success, but the proportion of critical hits is entirely in the higher skilled character's favour.


Yes, as I noted in my original post, this is so. I have not crunched the numbers, but yes, based just on the criticals, the higher skill character benefits greatly from this. We don't really see a problem with this (or if there is a problem, it is a smaller one than Round Table Knights pasting one another across the landscape in a couple of rounds), since it is already very difficult to increase your Sword Skill past 20. So if you have a sword skill of 24 vs 22, this takes at least 2000 Glory to do. So we do not mind that while facing weaker opponents, you get an advantage. Mind you, the same advantage is against you when you face more skilled/impassioned enemies, too.

I might try to dig out my knight duel program from a year or so ago and see if I can do some test matches with that to gain a better understanding on how harshly the probabilities get skewed. That they do get skewed is incontestable.

Here is a quick thought experiment in reply, though. There is a jump in the critical frequency from 20 to 21 (which you have partially compensated with your special hit house rule, but we ignore that for now). Skill 21 is twice as likely to critical as skill 20. But this 'relative advantage' diminishes with each additional point. 23 vs 24 sees critical chances of 20% and 25%, a mere 1.25 times the relative advantage. Why shouldn't skill 24 enjoy the same advantage over skill 23 as skill 21 enjoys over skill 20? This gets even 'worse' if you compare skill 20 and skill 23 (5% vs 20%, x4), and then skill 26 and skill 29 (35% vs 50%, about x1.5). Of course you can argue that while the glory expenditure per point is the same, the amount of glory both have needed to use (assuming no experience) reflects the crit probabilities.

My gut feeling is that at skills 20 and 21, what will decide the battle are knockdowns and the resulting +5/-5, and the crits and hits past the armor resulting from those.

Just to calculate something quickly, using just the criticals as the main contributor for the victory (which is probably wrong, but gives a handle on the thing), lets compare skill 25 vs skill 30.

Without the house rule:
Both critical: 11/20 * 3/10 = 33/200 = 15.5%
Skill 25 crits, Skill 30 does not: 9/20 * 3/10 = 27/200 = 13.5%
Skill 30 crits, Skill 25 does not: 11/20 * 7/10 = 77/200 = 38.5%
Neither criticals: 9/20 * 7/10 = 63/200 = 31.5%
Result: Skill 30 is roughly 3 times (3* 13.5% = 41.5% ~ 38.5%) as likely to get a critical through and win the fight. Also, the fight is likely over in 2 rounds (combined probability of boom is 52%).

With the house rule:
-> Skills become 20 and 25
Both critical: 1/20 * 3/10 = 3/200 = 1.5%
Skill 20 crits, Skill 25 does not = 1/20 * 7/10 = 7/200 = 3.5%
Skill 25 crits, Skill 20 does not = 19/20 * 3/10 = 57/200 = 28.5%
Neither criticals: 19/20 * 7/10 = 133/200 = 66.5%
Result: Skill 30 is about 8 times as likely to get a critical through and win the fight. Also, the fight is likely over in 3 rounds, with Skill 30 the overwhelmingly favored contestant.

Well, that's a result, as they say in Mythbusters. :P (Mind you, Skill 30 is already beyond the pale in Our Campaign, reserved for either criticals in passion or a master swordsman being impassioned, since we use +5/+10 in passions instead +10/x2 of the rulebook. And I tend to be stingy about when they can roll their passion.)

Here is a potential 'fix' that I just thought up, which might take care of your objection... Takes a bit more math, but keeps the odds pretty much the same. Scale the skills down by the crit chance. Skill 25 has a crit chance of 30%. This is scaled back to 5% (Skill 20), so a factor of 6. Skill 30 crit chance is 55%. Divided by 6, that gives about 10%, so Skill 21.

New probabilities:
Both crit: 0.5%
Less Skilled crits: 5% * 0.9 = 4.5%
More Skilled crits: 10% * 0.95 = 9.5%
Neither crits: 95% * 0.9 = 85.5%
Result: Skill 30 is twice as likely to crit, and the player will become Sir Bitchalot.

So that didn't work. Quick fix #2, reduce the higher skill by 1.5 x amount the lower skill was reduced (round skill up, i.e. round the reduction down). So skills become 20 and 30-7.5 = 22.5 = 23. (And of course, the maximum reduction of the higher skill is equal to being reduced to 21... Since I believe that the more skilled swordsman should stay more skilled.)

New probabilities:
Both crit: 5% * 0.2 = 1%
Less skilled crits: 5% * 0.8 = 4%
More skilled crits: 20% * 0.95 = 19%
Neither crits: 95% * 0.8 = 76%
Result: Skill 30 is about 5 times as likely to paste his Skill 25 opponent. Still, this is much closer to the 3 times of the unmodified skill, and more palatable than the 8 times more likely of the unfixed house rule. Again, the fight is likely over in 4 or 5 rounds, but what can you do with such high skills?

CONCLUSION: I will be proposing this as an amended house rule to my players. Doing a quick x1.5 calculation at the beginning of the battle is not beyond their capabilities, and it keeps the intent of the house rule (two equally high-skilled knights not killing each other with one blow) intact.

An alternative might be to treat it like HeroQuest and treat skill over 20 as a mastery. So when two opponents have skills over 20, then subtract 20 from the skills. Say 25 and 22 becomes 5 and 2. Against a lesser opponent, it would be as normal.


Hmm. Now there's a thought. While that might work, it would lead to a lot of waving the sword at the air (described of course as skilled parries and blocks rather than misses). But it did wake me up to see another way to doing what we have done in our house rule.

Instead of reducing the lesser skill to 20, reduce the HIGHER skill to 20.

Thus, skill 30 vs. skill 25 becomes skill 20 and skill 15.
Both crit: 1/20 * 1/20 = 1/400 = 0.25%
Less Skill crits: 1/20 * 19/20 = 19/400 = 4.75%
More Skill crits: 1/20 * 19/20 = 19/400 = 4.75%
Less Skill fails: 5/20 * 19/20 = 95/400 = 23.75%
Neither crits or fails: 14/20 * 19/20 = 66.5%
Result: Skill 30 is about 6 times as likely to wound his opponent, but it won't be a boom. Same chances for boom. The fight is likely to last longer, while the higher skill slowly whittles his opponent down.

Me likey! I think we have a new house rule right here!

EDIT: Darn. Now I recall why I didn't do this before. It creates a problem with skill 19, UNLESS you use this for ALL skill levels. In other words, rather than giving you increased critical chances, skill higher than 20 REDUCES your opponent's effective skill. While that sounds good in principle, it does make monsters tougher (since you are less likely to cleave through their armor and hit points without increased criticals). One possibility would be to have the reduction capped off at lower skill equals 10, and the rest goes normally. This would ensure that crits stay under control until the gap is larger than 10, and then the poor sod deserves to get beaten. A consequence of this is that the knights really want to gang up on the monsters, to cause them to divide their skill (or allow unopposed attacks) until it is reduced to 10 or below.

EDIT2: No, it is not a problem after all. I mean, skill 19 is nice, don't get me wrong, but would you rather take damage without your shield or take critical hits? You'd rather take normal damage, wouldn't you? Well, you don't get that option, since your skill isn't better than 20. Sucks to be a normal guy, instead of a master. This would allow the combat to move as it is now, not altering the ability of heroes to cleave through the ranks, but would make highly skilled characters more robust against one another. So just use the rule when both have skill over 20.

Two other ways of reducing the deadliness of criticals:

1) Crit = automatic max damage, instead of x2.
So a crit with 5d6 does 30 instead of 10d6 (average 35)
Advantages: quick and less deadly
Disadvantage: takes away the pleasure of rolling these 10 dice

2) Only 20+ do crits. This means that crits become impossible for skill levels 1-19, unless positively modified for circumstances. So no more "lucky" crits from unskilled characters, during combat nor for general skills / Traits / Passions.
Note that this rule has profound changes to the system (especially for Traits and Passions!), so you shouldn't try trem only if you are thoroughly unsatisfied with the current one...

Why blunt the deadliness of critical results in combat? Embrace the lethality, it's authentic and keeps those family trees pruned. My house rule is very simple: on a tied critical, the combatants deal normal damage to one another unless both were attacking all-out, in which case both do double damage as per the standard rules. This models those pivotal moments from the literature when two knights battle on and on, only to wound each other nigh unto death. Balin and Balan. Percivale and Ector de Maris. Makes for a memorable game, the mortality.

This models those pivotal moments from the literature when two knights battle on and on, only to wound each other nigh unto death.


Except the current system doesn't, even when modified by your tied-criticals rule. Unmatched criticals still lead to Boom. Instead, the fight goes something like this:
Sir Ector and Sir Percivale meet.
1st round: Sir Ector hits Sir Percivale normally, and Sir Percivale's armor and shield keep him from being damaged (AKA 'tink').
2st round: Sir Percivale takes Sir Ector's head with a critical hit (AKA 'Boom'). End of Combat.

One can argue that when two masters meet, it should be a quick duel where the better man wins in a couple of rounds. But for me, that seems wrong. There is no reason, in my opinion, why a fight between two masters of equal skill (say 25 and 25) should be any deadlier than a fight between two veteran knights of equal skill (say 20 and 20). This is the problem I am trying to fix. As for the criticals themselves, see the separate thread about those.

(Now of course you can narrate the battle differently. In Narrator Mode, you can claim that the fight lasted for a day, and it was just in the end that Percivale's blade slipped past the defenses of weary Ector. Alas, this only works if the duel is insulated from everything else, which is rarely the case if there is a melee with several PKs, or if time is of the essence (often in adventuring).)

That's pretty elegant. Fights could get tediously long though.


Tediously long fights are true to the source material, though.

A question to the various discussants on these recent combat houserule threads - is your critique of the RAW based upon play experience once better armours are available and the influence of the RT means that knights are often benefiting from the chivalric and/or religious bonuses? Things change a bit once those factors come into play...

Regards
Luke

Oddly enough I am ok with the tink, tink boom if you look at it from a different perspective. Instead of altering the skills alter the time of the combat between the two master swordsman (people with weapon scores over 20) Say knight 1 has skill 25 and is fighting knight 2 with skill 22. Simply rule in that case their rounds of combat equal 5 rounds of standard combat. The narrative let's the battle seem epic with flurries of sword blows until one fellow lands that telling blow, the person with the higher skill is still more likely to win the combat.

i think it's very common to come up with the interpretation, but it only works if only those two people are fighting.
Instead you might have an NPC knight with 25 skill facing a PC with 22 skill boosted to 32 due to passion, while another PC with 21 skill faces two young knights with 15 skill each, and a third PC with 17 skill faces a single veteran npc with 20 skill.
Each will be taking their turns at the same time.

The five round break still works on that case, the fellow at 32 fighting the fellow at 25 roll once as do the rest of the combatants, the other combatants go through 4 more rounds of combat as per normal. After 5 rounds of combat repeat until someone else enters the combat or one of those individuals fall.

My system for handling this has been in the case of two opponents above 20 each round that transpires equates with 5 rounds for every one else.
With two opponents above 30 each round equates to 10 standard rounds

Ultimately I just extended the Fatigue rules so that after ten melee rounds, everyone gets a -5 due to fatigue; after twenty, everyone gets a -10; after thirty, a -15, after forty, a -20; and so on. We also incorporated it into the Battle rules, with one battle round being equal to ten combat rounds. Gave my players good reason to disengage for a round in the midst of battle, to rest up and reset their fatigue penalty back to zero.

There are some variations we tried, such as making people roll Energetic, CON, the lower of the two or the average of the two, or taking each additional fatigue penalty after (CON + Energetic)/2 melee rounds, but the former just added die rolls for little or no effect while the latter made for far greater amounts of bookkeeping than proved satisfying.

Looking at everybody's solutions I think I like Morien's solution the best, the one where the highest number is reduced.

This is obviously about personal preference. Some people find the so called "tink tink boom" a bug whereas I see it as a feature. I like the lethality. The most fun I've had with my group has been when the fights have been totally knife edge, a mere whisker from either a few wounded or a Total Party Kill. And the shorter the sweeter.

The lethality suits me just fine too, and my Fatigue house rules wear even the great knights down in the end. The Defensive tactic worked a little better when it did normal damage on a critical but that's where the drawn-out fights come from in the literature. Fight defensively for ten melee rounds (equivalent to an entire battle round, once again), and you reset the fatigue clock. May not help if your foe is attempting to provoke you into acting rashly.

The lethality suits me just fine too, and my Fatigue house rules wear even the great knights down in the end. The Defensive tactic worked a little better when it did normal damage on a critical but that's where the drawn-out fights come from in the literature. Fight defensively for ten melee rounds (equivalent to an entire battle round, once again), and you reset the fatigue clock. May not help if your foe is attempting to provoke you into acting rashly.


You know I always thought that the defensive tactic might be better if that were the case. I came into KAP at 4thed. Is that how it used to function in earlier editions?

I say it might be better because there does exist the problem of very skillful knights who would then end up fighting defensively all the time as they would virtually be guaranteed a crit and therefore normal damage (skill 30+).

My PKs use the defensive tactic fairly often (perhaps that's why I'm fine with the lethality). In my experience, knights in good health usually survive 1 crit in the 10d6 to 12d6 range - on occasion I've had them survive 16d6 - so my PKs tend to fight normally until the first crit, then switch to defensive, unless the situation absolutely dictates they fight normally to win.

I say it might be better because there does exist the problem of very skillful knights who would then end up fighting defensively all the time as they would virtually be guaranteed a crit and therefore normal damage (skill 30+).


That's why it was changed to its current form.

Sorry guys, I realize I'm about 7 months late, but I thought I'd share some solutions that I'll be suggesting to my GM in the upcoming game session.

It is fairly easy to get a combat skill up to 20. While inspired by a passion, that 20 becomes a 30. As bad as that is, my current knight has a 22 sword skill that will become a 24-25 (with a lucky experience check & 2 glory points) this winter phase. When inspired by a passion that will be well into the 30's. When you have two combatants critting on single digit numbers, you can get a long, drawn out combat as the two tie crits over and over again.

One idea I've had is giving the ability to split your skill against a single opponent once your combat skill (before modifiers) reaches 20. It would follow all the normal rules for splitting your skill, except you could do it against a single opponent.

The other idea is to have combat rolls that tie deal 1d6 damage to both combatants. Regular armor and shields do not apply, but the magical bonuses from the Armor of Chivalry and any religious bonuses to armor do apply.

That makes these bonuses much more important to knights, and will let the two combatants eventually ping each other down to next to nothing, as happens often in the stories.

Simply by crunching the numbers, having two guys with skills 34 attacking one another (crit on 6+), the probability of one knight critting and the other not is:
(1/4 * 3/4) * 2 (either one) = 3/8 = 37.5%

So your fight should be over in approximately three rounds, with the loser losing his head. Hence my problem with tink-tink-boom, as described by the original post, and why we are now lowering the 20+ skills to 20. Yes, it has its own mathematical problems, but it pretty much ensures that the fights between two highly skilled fighters are drawn out affairs. Which works for us.

I still call it a feature, not a bug. Someone who doesn't want to kill his foe would just fight defensively and draw the fight out. Two people who don't want to kill their foes would both fight that way and draw it out even further. Then you can use the rule where tied criticals cause 1d6 damage to both participants. You can also sum up each tie as the result of hours of fighting without having actual hours pass at the table.

Simply by crunching the numbers, having two guys with skills 34 attacking one another (crit on 6+), the probability of one knight critting and the other not is:
(1/4 * 3/4) * 2 (either one) = 3/8 = 37.5%
The numbers you quote do make this sort of encounter a short, sharp crap shoot; in which case the rational tactic is to fight defensively - this guarantees yourself a crit so that you avoid the 'adverse boom' case. Of course in a rational world both guys will do this and then you are in mutual auto-crit territory and the loser is the one who hits their unconsciousness threshold first.

This assumes that both guys have a reasonable knowledge of the other fellow's skill of course, but the pool of potential combatants for this sort of scenario is pretty small so most times that's a pretty reasonable assumption. Even if they don't know each other's reputation, a knight at this skill level has the luxury of fighting defensively (for an autocrit) until they've figured out how much of a threat the other guy is - so it's the smart move to make for any fight where you have no external time pressures. Both knights thus start off defensive, realise the other guy is really good and neither leaves their initial stance until the fight ends.

tl/dr version: The core combat rules imply tink-tink-boom, but the additional twiddles (esp. the mutual crit rule from the GPC) mean that the Malorian 'fight for hours until someone faints from blood loss' is how things actually play out.

Regards
Luke

Fighting defensively is not an option if you want to win.
In one edidtion (3rd, I think), fighting defensively allowed you to do normal damage on a crit. In 5th and 5.1, and either 3rd or 4th, you do no damage on a crit. It is intended that fighting defensively only allows you to drag a fight out long enhough for someone to come to your aid.

The other idea is to have combat rolls that tie deal 1d6 damage to both combatants. Regular armor and shields do not apply, but the magical bonuses from the Armor of Chivalry and any religious bonuses to armor do apply.


Two ideas I have tred: on a tie, both fighters make opposed STR or DEX rolls, and the winner gets a +5/-5 reflexive mod for the next turn.
The idea is - when they are both highly skilled, other factors, like fitness, reflexes, etc., can help sway the battle.

I have also used: when they tie, the next turn they use their STR or DEX in place of their normal skill, the winner rolling damage, the loser getting his shield if he succeeded.

From a mathematical/theme point of view....

If you don't like the bing-bing-BOOM, then maybe lets consider a variant on Earl De La Warr's suggestion as a thought experiment.

For a DUEL between two 21+ skills reduce them with the lower deca (20/30/40) but treat double miss as double crit.
[Pasted from excel]

Crunching a fight between A 22 vs B 25 then becomes:
2 vs 5
Chance A B
67,50% double miss treated as double crit, ie 1d6 damage each no armor 90,00% 75,00%
3,75% A hits B unopposed, normal damage 5,00% 75,00%
0,00% A hits B opposed, normal damage against shield 0,00% 0,00%
3,75% A crits B unopposed, crit damage 5,00% 75,00%
1,00% A crits B opposed, crit damage against shield 5,00% 20,00%
18,00% B hits A unopposed, normal damage 90,00% 20,00%
0,75% B hits A opposed, normal damage against shield 5,00% 15,00%
4,50% B crits A unopposed, crit damage 90,00% 5,00%
0,25% B crits A opposed, crit damage against shield 5,00% 5,00%
0,25% A and B rolls the same hit 5,00% 5,00%
0,25% A and B both crits, 1d6 dam 5,00% 5,00%
100,00%

Crunching a fight between A 32 vs B 25 then becomes:
12 vs 5
Chance A B
30,00% double miss treated as double crit, ie 1d6 damage each no armor 40,00% 75,00%
41,25% A hits B unopposed, normal damage 55,00% 75,00%
7,00% A hits B opposed, normal damage against shield 35,00% 20,00%
3,75% A crits B unopposed, crit damage 5,00% 75,00%
1,00% A crits B opposed, crit damage against shield 5,00% 20,00%
8,00% B hits A unopposed, normal damage 40,00% 20,00%
3,00% B hits A opposed, normal damage against shield 15,00% 20,00%
2,00% B crits A unopposed, crit damage 40,00% 5,00%
2,75% B crits A opposed, crit damage against shield 55,00% 5,00%
1,00% A and B rolls the same hit 10,00% 10,00%
0,25% A and B both crits, 1d6 dam 5,00% 5,00%
100,00%

I have a fondness for tink-tink-boom in general. It is one of the features that gets players very invested in Pendragon. Combat is full of epic victories and defeats even when your player knight is a tough badass. With chivalry, big dungeons, heirs, spares and ransoms getting your ass kicked is not always the end of the story in KAP - indeed, it can be the beginning of a new awesome chapter.

Still I've been giving this some thought. The main issue with TTB is that the crit is determined solely by one attack roll and unless the opposing roll also generates a crit it has no effect beyond potential shield use (which tends not to help too much if you just got done by a berserker for 16d6).

I've been considering open ending combat rolls and limiting crits to when one total is both

1. A success of 20 or higher
and
2. Exceeds the opponents total by a certain amount - I'm thinking 10 points at the moment.

For Example Sir Arcavius with Sword 19 is fighting Sir Brastias with Sword 21. Both are impassioned taking them to 29 and 31 respectively. In the old system we would expect a crit roughly every round and a pretty short fight. If Sir Brastias rolled a 15 his total would be 26, normally a crit. In my experimental system this is a potential critical. If Sir Arcavius rolls 7 or less he ends up with a modified 16 or under and thus loses by 10 points or more, suffering double damage. If he rolls between 8 and 16 he loses to Sir Brastias but suffers only normal damage. If he rolls a 17 then it is a tie (either a standoff or d3 damage apiece ignoring armour as appropriate). If He rolls between 18 and 20 he beats Sir Brastias but does not score a critical hit so normal damage is inflicted.

Crits generated from skills below 20 count as a succesful 20 for purposes of defending so you will need a succesful combat score of 11 or higher to reduce them to a normal hit. If you fail or fumble your weapon roll you will always get critted as normal. This tweak is really designed so great fighters have a degree of active defense.

Any thoughts on how this would work or unexpected interactions with other rules would be appreciated. I'm still not sure if the 10 point difference is at the right level.

I have made two changes to the critical rules. First, a critical is not always considered "20". It is at least 20, but can be more. So, for instance, warrior A (sword 18) is fighting warrior B (sword 25). Warrior A rolls a 18 -- a crit! He is considered to have a result of 20 for the opposed resolution. Warrior B rolls a 17. 17 + 5 = 22. That is his result. As 22 is greater than 20, he wins, and hits warrior A. BUT, if you lose when making a crit, you only take normal damage, not crit damage. So warrior A will suffer damage, but normal, not critical. Had he rolled anything other than 18, he would suffer critical damage.

Second, I recently "nerfed" the critical damage to 1,5 times normal damage, opposed to 2 times normal damage. So, someone with damage of 6d6 does 9d6 on a critical. I like the lethality, but not to the point that a PK dies in every battle.

I'm interested in the idea that in a crit Vs crit, loser takes normal damage. It makes intuitive sense to me, but in practice might actualy lead to higher knight mortality in duels between high skilled knights, because knights taken out with a crit will be more likely to have been wounded beforehand. Takedowns by multiple normal wounded will become more common too though, so I think it might be a good thing overall.

Not sure about 1.5x normal damage on a crit though. I think it's likely to dial down PK mortality too much.

It's a good idea, and I even played with it for a while
I also played with both combatants rolling damage, then subtract the lesser damage from the greater, and the difference is taken by the combatant who rolled the lesser.

I actively encourage this kind of tinkering

However, the damage done and taken was very carefully calculated when I worked the numbers out, and changing it will very much affect combat with some of the monsters. The Troit Boar is one hat is at the top of my list. Take a look at it and consider the consequences when experimenting.

I am not fond of tweaking the system like this. It makes it more complicated and I like the simplicity of the system. What I have done is to make having a skill above 20 more difficult.

To increase the skill you need not 1 point from glory, but an amount of points of the current skill minus 20. So to increase a skill from 22 to 23 requires 2 points. This will prevent PK having very high skills. (Of course you still have the problem with passions, but at least it will not be around 40). Also I will use the rules from the GPC that if both crit both get 1d3 damage, without armour reduction. I have just started to use these rules, so I do not know how it works out in the end.

But I still remember a match between an experienced PK and one of the round table knight (I think it was Lancelot) during a tournament. It was a fight for love so damage was less, but due to their high skills both rolled a lot of criticals. In the end the fight took over 20 rounds, until the round table knight finally won. It was a match talked off a lot and the PK got a lot of glory, although he lost the match.

I'm not a fan because to my mind, once characters get skills into the mid 20s, that's when you throw them up against the really big nasties. As Greg says, there are some super tough hombres in the appendixes, against which your characters will need all the double damage criticals they can get. As a result they're actually not that likely to live all that long, which given the dynastic nature of the game is not such a bad thing. Go out in a blaze of glory, and all that!

Simon Hibbs