While reading a couple of posts (berserker attack versus giants, for instance) I was a bit perplexed. The specific item: that hitting multiple targets only damaged one of them. I even went back and reread it in KAP p 119. Wow, three times on one page it says that!

But truth is, that's not how I play it. If someone manages to strike multiple targets, they do full damage to each of them. A divided attack or defense is considered to be a separate and simultaneous act against all foes.

I even went back to my copy of the submitted manuscript. Whew, I'm not entirely nuts. None of those three entries on page 119 were in my original manuscript.

--Greg

But truth is, that's not how I play it. If someone manages to strike multiple targets, they do full damage to each of them. A divided attack or defense is considered to be a separate and simultaneous act against all foes.

I even went back to my copy of the submitted manuscript. Whew, I'm not entirely nuts. None of those three entries on page 119 were in my original manuscript.

--Greg


So then if I split my attacks, then I get to damage more than one opponent? Welcome news from both me (GM) and my play group. Is this going to appear officially on your page? Most of my players now check on that site to see if new things have come into play.

Heh...I guess I missed the wrong writeup on the book entirely. ;) A separate damage roll for each foe on a split attack just seems intuitive. :)

I used to run with knights being able to damage multiple targets, but I honestly found it to often get a bit ridiculous with knights being able to cut down whole swaths of enemies in just a few turns.

I've been happier using the rule as written in the book.

[---]knights being able to cut down whole swaths of enemies in just a few turns.I LOVE THAT PART (as long as it's picts or bandits or footmen.)! :D And I think that any 1337zor knight (like Lance) should be able to do that with ordinary knights as well.

// M

I find that combat in Pendragon is so dangerous, that allowing multiple hits helps keep the players a little heroic.

Imagine 4 knights face off against a dozen bandits - chances are one or two of those player-knights could still be seriously hurt, and if they are saxons, the fight could go either way. Being able to take out multiple foes helps the players in situations like these, where their superior quality should have an effect.

Also, I did play with the KAP5 rule for a while, and found the extra bookkeeping was tedious. First, you have to have the player roll against all of his opponents first - but NOT roll damage. Then the player has to choose which of his successes is actually the one hit. It adds an extra layer of decision-making that slows down the combat more than you'd expect (not to mention, takking players out of the moment).

Also, I did play with the KAP5 rule for a while, and found the extra bookkeeping was tedious. First, you have to have the player roll against all of his opponents first - but NOT roll damage. Then the player has to choose which of his successes is actually the one hit. It adds an extra layer of decision-making that slows down the combat more than you'd expect (not to mention, takking players out of the moment).


I've yet to actually play so this is all hypothetical for me, and I'm now not sure which way I prefer, but I probably wouldn't do it quite like that. Id just have my player state which target he intends to hit to harm as he splits up his attack. If it misses, well tough luck on him.

In all my days of playing CoC if ever I had a rules conundrum I'd refer back to RuneQuest. In RQ I seem to recall you can only split attacks once you became an expert with the weapon (100%+). However I don't remember if these were all damage inflicting attacks or not or whether you could defensively split below 100%

I've done other things to help make knights "more heroic" and speed combat up. They're posted in the files section of the yahoo group.

As for multiple damage to multiple targets....
This thread got started because of the thread about beserking wherein I wrote:
And if a knight is fighting three saxon berserkers at once than his life *should* be in grave danger. Where's the danger if the knight can cut down all three beserkers before they can act?

This thread got started because of the thread about beserking wherein I wrote:
And if a knight is fighting three saxon berserkers at once than his life *should* be in grave danger. Where's the danger if the knight can cut down all three beserkers before they can act?


The operative word there is "can".
Take a critically inspired knight with skill 24 (x2 = 48) attacking 3 berserk saxons. He now has 3 unopposed attacks at probably 16 each.
He has to hit with all 3, roll enough damage to cause a knockdwon roll with all 3, and all saxons have to fail their DEX roll (score = 13). If he fails to get any one of those, he is probably toast.

Even if he succeeds (against the odds) you can rest assured that will be a very tense round for the player.
And, again, even if he succeeds, he probably has only knoced them down - he has to finish them the next round or they'll be back up and doing it again.

It sounds like a desperate fight to me.

Take a critically inspired knight with skill 24 (x2 = 48) attacking 3 berserk saxons.

Just to check I've got this right. As I understand it you can't declare you're attacking three opponents, but if three attack you, you can divide your skill amongst them and end up wounding all three. Correct? There's a subtle difference.

Any time in melee combat with more than one opponent, you can divide your skill against them - even if technically they don't attack you (they may be trying to dodge or run away or get up from a fall, etc.)

Now, the logical extension of this is: you can attack anyone within reach. But this could lead to apparently silly actions like this:

x x x
0 0 0

The X's are knights, the 0's are their saxon opponents. The X in the middle could say, "I split my skill against all three saxons."

That might seem a silly example, though are theoretical situations where it isn't silly. For instance, the two end X's have both been knocked over, and the middle knight is trying to get the saxons to attack him and give them a chance to get up.

Each GM (and group) has to decide for themselves whether dividing skill is appropriate or possible in any given situation.

I think you can attack any # of people within reason up to 4 per round. ( since that would be u surrounded). You should be able to dmg as well , all of the opponents. fter all, a 40 skill 4 ways is only 10 each . Not good. But you might be desperate. The only rule that I have is obvious. If you use multiple attacks with a maneuver they all have to be that same manuever. Example; defending: All split attacks must be defending. Berserk attack as well. I do not think you cansplit your attack if you plan on double feinting. That is how I see the multiple attack thing. If u are willing do decrease the skill, then so be it... do that dmg!!! ;D

I honestly found it to often get a bit ridiculous with knights being able to cut down whole swaths of enemies in just a few turns.


Cador of Cornwall is informed that a band of fifty thousand dastardly Romans are hiding in the trees to ambush his tiny party.


Then Sir Clegis to the king a little enclined,
Kaires to Sir Cador and knightly him telles:
"We have founden in yon firth, flourished with leves,
The flowr of the fairest folk that to thy fo longes,
Fifty thousand of folk of fers men of armes,
That fair are fewtered on front under yon free bowes;
They are enbushed on blonkes, with banners displayed,
In yon beechen wood, upon the way sides.
They have the furth for-set all of the fair water,
That fayfully of force fight us behooves,
For thus us shapes today, shortly to tell;
Whether we shoun or shew, shift as thee likes."


Sir Cador responds as any reasonable knight would.



"Nay," quod Cador, "so me Crist help,
It were shame that we sholde shoun for so little!
Sir Launcelot shall never laugh, that with the king lenges,
That I sholde let my way for lede upon erthe;
I shall be dede and undone ere I here dreche
For drede of any dogges-son in yon dim shawes!"

Our brave knights-- of course-- manage to beat the stuffing out of these perfidious pagans.


When the chevalry saw their cheftaines were nomen,
To a chef forest they chosen their wayes,
And feeled them so faint they fell in the greves,
In the feren of the firth for ferd of our pople.


What I'm trying to say is that maybe you should be open to the possibility of your knights blasting through entire armies like so many stormtroopers, especially as the campaign emerges from the grim-and-gritty Dark Ages and into the later periods. Everyone likes to feel like a superhuman badass, after all, and the authors of these stories knew that as well as anyone.

Any time in melee combat with more than one opponent, you can divide your skill against them - even if technically they don't attack you (they may be trying to dodge or run away or get up from a fall, etc.)...


That changes things quite dramatically... It will be interesting seeing how that affects play!

I think you can attack any # of people within reason up to 4 per round. ( since that would be u surrounded).


The rules say somewhere that you can never fight more than 3 foot opponents at once, or two mounted opponents.

I used to run with knights being able to damage multiple targets, but I honestly found it to often get a bit ridiculous with knights being able to cut down whole swaths of enemies in just a few turns.


In fact, when I did the maths to make this game I tried to make it so that a knight could ride through a crowd of infantry slashing right and left, and disabling a man with each blow.

When your character is housed in 14-18 point armor, it is even easier.
Georges Duby, a keenly insightful scholar whose works are always good to read, suggests that it was exactly this impunity of the knight over the normal man that created and guaranteed the knight's sense of class and superiority.

Combat with equals is different, of course, and done with Honor deserving of the class.

--Greg

Let us see if this does it.

http://weareallus.com/pendragon/maneuvers.html

--greg

The re-write does make it much clearer. Two quick thoughts. In the text it says,

Bonus: You can engage multiple foes by dividing your attack (or even other skills) among them. If you hit an enemy, you do full damage to all of them.

This can be interpreted by the more rule-mongering crowd, as if I hit ONE, you do damage to ALL of them regardless of the rolls. Assuming for the moment, I inspire myself and get a weapon skill of 20+. I could put 1 point each on my strongest opponents, and the rest on the weakest. I should win and thereby hit everyone for damage. Some would even take it to the extreme and say, the same level (well, I hit him with a critical...)

Suggest to fix: ...Bonus: You can engage multiple foes by dividing your attack (or even other skills) among them. If you hit an enemy, you do full damage to each one you hit.

This thread got started because of the thread about beserking wherein I wrote:
And if a knight is fighting three saxon berserkers at once than his life *should* be in grave danger. Where's the danger if the knight can cut down all three beserkers before they can act?


The operative word there is "can".
Take a critically inspired knight with skill 24 (x2 = 48) attacking 3 berserk saxons. He now has 3 unopposed attacks at probably 16 each.
He has to hit with all 3, roll enough damage to cause a knockdwon roll with all 3, and all saxons have to fail their DEX roll (score = 13). If he fails to get any one of those, he is probably toast.

Even if he succeeds (against the odds) you can rest assured that will be a very tense round for the player.
And, again, even if he succeeds, he probably has only knoced them down - he has to finish them the next round or they'll be back up and doing it again.

It sounds like a desperate fight to me.


Berserkers don't usually wear chain armor and they don't get shield bonuses either. Forget knocking them down; a strong knight has a decent chance of killing or knocking out those three berserkers. And if the knight is mounted...

Berserkers may not wear chain armour, but they still have 10 points of armour. They are protected by their god or kept going by their fury, or whatever.

And even if they had zero armour, a knight doing 5d6 damage has exactly 50% chance of inflicting a major wound (Berserker CON = 18), and if he does, the Berskerker has to fail a roll of 10-17 (his remaining hit points). So again, taking all 3 out, which he really needs to do, is very slim, even if they had no armour - but they do have 10 AP.

We had our best player fight 2 berserkers once in an extended battle round. He was desperate. He was inspired and had a total skill of 36! Also mounted which is a further +5 to each of them. By any accounts are player was one of the best knights in the realm. His base skill was 26. Awesome. So he got a 23 against each of em. Thats pretty good,. And he went first. He ended up killing one and not quite the other. The other gave him a near major wound and our friend did kill him at the last, but 2 h.p. away from major woud and death or at least out healing for 6 weeks! Thats just 2 berserkers against a foe with superior armor, and mounted. This is part of the reason why we have had 3 different characters end up with the passion HATE Berserkers! One had a FEAR them too I think. Or cowardly directed trait. Something fun like that. But they are quite deadly. Imagine your scenario of three berserkers and a knight. Wow. If my friend was limited to one offensive damaging attack. He would die.... And then He would probably role up a Breserker to play!!!! ;)

I agree with Palamydes. Pendragon is a deadly game. In my campaign a PC's average life expectancy is 4 game years. So I side with Greg Stafford on this issue.

Berserkers may not wear chain armour, but they still have 10 points of armour. They are protected by their god or kept going by their fury, or whatever.


I missed that. Where does it say that?

Berserkers may not wear chain armour, but they still have 10 points of armour. They are protected by their god or kept going by their fury, or whatever.


I missed that. Where does it say that?


The second sentence is my own interpretation (but fits with Nordic berserker mythology). The first part (the armour points) is listed in their combat statistics.

Berserkers may not wear chain armour, but they still have 10 points of armour. They are protected by their god or kept going by their fury, or whatever.


I missed that. Where does it say that?


The second sentence is my own interpretation (but fits with Nordic berserker mythology). The first part (the armour points) is listed in their combat statistics.


So it is. Not sure how I missed that.

As the author of the knights vs. giants post, I'm really, really glad it made you go back to the KAP5 corebook and see that it isn't in line with the rules you actually wrote, Greg! Multiple attacks make much more sense in the combat system as written, and resolves questions that go beyond just attacking two or more less skilled foes (Why don't all but one of a group attacking a single target Berserk Attack the poor chump? Because he gets a free hack at each and everyone one of the berserking enemies!). And I've managed to read about this startling, amazing and super-cool revelation a mere hour and a half before my weekly GPA game, so I'll be able to share this with my players right away! Thanks!

Eduardo Penna

Why don't all but one of a group attacking a single target Berserk Attack the poor chump? Because he gets a free hack at each and everyone one of the berserking enemies!).


Just in case a clarification is needed: the giant doesn't get a free attack against each berserking enemy.
He gets to make his attacks first, and can divide his skill up. If he has, say, a skill of 10, and faces 3 berserking nights, he could divide his skill up as 3, 3, and 4, say.

Those attacks would land before the knights' attacks.

Can I seek another clarification. Say for example the knight has a +5 bonus for being mounted. Do you add this bonus to the skill before dividing it out - or, if both opponents are unmounted, add it to each skill after dividing it out?

It's added to each target after the division.

that's correct - I think it's clarified in the errata.

that's correct - I think it's clarified in the errata.


Thanks! I'd been looking in the page mentioned upthread that Greg's just put in. It's not stated there, but in the KAP errata page.