In Normal KAP combat, one has to say hit or miss and if a hit the number rolled and compare that to the hit and number of ones foe, I propose a revision to opposed rolls in combat.

#1 CRITICAL VS CRITICAL – both characters attempt valor rolls, a character who succeeds reduces his foe's critical to a success. If charging characters use horsemanship rolls rather than valor and both lances are broken.

#2 CRITICAL VS SUCCESS - the character with the success, rolls valor, if they succeed the critical is reduced to a success vs failure. If charging the critical is reduced to a success vs failure and both lances are broken.

#3 CRITICAL VS FAILURE - the character doing the critical shatters the shield of their foe and does normal damage without any shield added to the defense of the failure. If the victim has no shield their weapon is broken even if a sword and they take double damage.

#4 CRITICAL VS FUMBLE – the character doing the critical shatters the shield of their foe and does double damage. The fumbling character breaks their own weapon even if a sword.

#3 SUCCESS VS SUCCESS - both characters take normal damage with shields added to armor, but a character may negate both attacks if they make a prudence roll, alternately they may attempt a valor roll and negate their foe's shield. Prudence trumps valor. Characters facing reckless 16+ foes are not allowed prudence rolls. If charging each other both break their lances, horsemanship rolls are how made, if successful damage is done with swords or other weapons, as above.

#4. SUCCESS VS FAILURE – the winner hits without the loser gaining the benefit of their shield. The loser's weapon is broken if not a sword.

#5 SUCCESS VS FUMBLE – the winner shatters his foe's shield and does normal damage with no shield bonus for his foe. The fumblers weapon is broken or lost if a sword.

#6 FAILURE VS FAILURE – nothing happens.

#7 FAILURE VS FUMBLE – the fumbler breaks their own weapon or their sword is lost.

#8 FUMBLE VS FUMBLE – if charging both foes break their lances and their horses ram each other and do their damage to each other. If on foot both foes lose their weapons and roll their grappling skill against each other. If in an assault of a wall, both character are knocked off the wall (or wall and latter, wall and siege tower, etc.) If shipboard both characters are knocked overboard and take one d6 damage until they succeed in a DEX roll upon which their armor is lost.

Interesting ideas.

Couple of points that you may consider features but which I personally dislike:
1) It introduces a lot more rules and rolling, slowing the game down.
2) It makes Valorous especially extremely important; equivalent to 2d6 damage in success - success, equivalent of 5d6 armor in crit - crit. Also, why does Valorous act to negate the foe's critical? Wouldn't it be better to roll Valorous to see if you yourself were brave enough to push / take the opening and thus critted? Prudent is very important as well, although mainly for dragging fights out.
3) More to the point, it does both for NPCs as well! As a GM, I am adamantly opposed to needing to roll another bucketful of d20s for my NPCs. :P

Might work well in a more Heroic style of RP, where the valorous hero cut a swathe through his less brave enemies.

I wouldn't use it in my game, though.

Too much rolling for me. It also greatly weakens the effect of being a better swordsman, which I don't like. YMMV

Needlessly complex for little or no return. No thanks.

snaggle -- Dude, you need to write your own game! You love rule tinkering too much. I'm too lazy to do that...

E

TY guys for your input.

I thought someone would notice that I put way to many weapon breaks into the design, compared to KAP's double success and tie system-the thing I will change in the first revision.

I intentionally made valor a big factor both for realism and because it strengthens player characters who start with 15 valorous and will likely have 16 in their first year of game life. People in real fights who are valiant can and often do escape critical hit situations. Fear and guilt are huge factors in whom wins a real fight, more so than training which normally fails in a real fight, unless ones foes are just as frightened and weak as oneself. In tourneys fear an guilt are not big factors because one knows no one is going to really hurt one and there are rules protecting one too. In real fights there are no rules, one does not know what ones foes are going to do and people shoot themselves in the foot out of guilt all the time.

One man really can defeat dozens, but it's many character that allows that victory over them, as fortunately not all that many tough guys are also valiant.

Wouldn't that just play out better with a valiant roll before combat, then every time you receive a wound or your side take a major loss or such.
Each miss is -5 to skill until you run away.
Less rules, less rolls, better effect.

Snaggle, I have no doubt that your generic modern Western-society male might have some quibbles with killing someone in cold blood. Heck, I probably would get my ass kicked in a hot dog stand brawl, since I would have less familiarity and higher psychological barriers to punch someone for real, than someone who has been in a couple of fights already.

However, in the context of the Pendragon combat, we are generally talking about people who have spent their whole education into learning how to kill people. The enemies that the PKs are likeliest to meet are dastardly knights who have killed and would happily kill again. Hence, I am less convinced that Valorous would be the panacea against an enemy rolling a critical.

(Addendum: Agreeing with Spoonist. Valorous would be better used as a morale roll, which is actually how we play it, too.)

But hey, no skin off my nose if you like to use such rules. I have been tinkering with an idea of applying a flat penalty to skill for facing multiple opponents, but allowing one to use that flat skill against all opponents and wound each to reflect the idea of a skilled warrior just wading through faceless henchmen. Say -5 for 2 and -10 for 3.

So a knight with Sword 20 facing three spearmen with skill 10, would fight the fight like three concurrent duels of 10 vs 10, and if he wins in one or more, he damages his opponent. In other words, skill-wise, he would be able to take on three opponents with equal odds. Naturally, terrors such as famous Round Table knights with skills 25+ would go through such henchmen like chainsaw through soft butter (15+ vs 10 in three duels, wound all if win; or simply ignore the other two and fight one duel with 25 vs 10), rather than struggle like with the current system (divided skill 9/8/8, wound only one opponent; although granted, the knight could divide his skill differently). This would be for a more 'epic' style of campaign, where heroes can wade through ranks of enemy soldiery like in Mallory, to get at the enemy king.

Snaggle, I have no doubt that your generic modern Western-society male might have some quibbles with killing someone in cold blood. Heck, I probably would get my ass kicked in a hot dog stand brawl, since I would have less familiarity and higher psychological barriers to punch someone for real, than someone who has been in a couple of fights already.

I can attest that with the proper conditioning (Boot Camp, advanced training, and duly authorized orders) that the taking of life in a time of war is "relatively easy". It help to dehumanize your opponent with propaganda (Passion-Hate: Enemy) and have these actions taken by young men before their temporoparietal area (of the brain) is fully formed, fueled by testosterone and convinced of their own immortality.

In my GPC, we like to call these people "knights".

Snaggle, I have no doubt that your generic modern Western-society male might have some quibbles with killing someone in cold blood. Heck, I probably would get my ass kicked in a hot dog stand brawl, since I would have less familiarity and higher psychological barriers to punch someone for real, than someone who has been in a couple of fights already.

I can attest that with the proper conditioning (Boot Camp, advanced training, and duly authorized orders) that the taking of life in a time of war is "relatively easy". It help to dehumanize your opponent with propaganda (Passion-Hate: Enemy) and have these actions taken by young men before their temporoparietal area (of the brain) is fully formed, fueled by testosterone and convinced of their own immortality.

In my GPC, we like to call these people "knights".


Soldiers in volunteer armies are self-selected to exclude: cowards; the meek and the merciful so killing would be much easier for them as a group. Household and vassal knights are like conscripts despite their greater training.