I had an issue come up where Pk knights fighting tough opponents will because the game has no initiative per say, during declaration phase after seeing who the 'monster will attack', then counter by fighting defensively while the other PKs use the Uncontrolled attack action. Because of this the following House rule is being looked at.

Note the last option allows the monster to change his action. This makes Dexterity more important so is why I mention it.

Initiative
Initiative is based off Move, the lowest declares first. The highest declares last.
1. Surprise
If caught by ambush Move is reduced by half, if caught by Surprise, Move is reduced to 0.
2. Duels
In a Duel if Move is tied, lowest Dex declares first
3. Final Declaration
After Last Declaration, there is still a chance to change stated actions. First declaration can be changed with a successful Battle or Avoidance roll, or though with some Monsters no roll is needed. The penalty is -5 to the next action. Last Declaration can then in response be changed in

I only declare what NPC / Monsters will do after the PKs declare.

I only declare what NPC / Monsters will do after the PKs declare.


Me too. I always done that, and just realized that's not what the rules says.

I only declare what NPC / Monsters will do after the PKs declare.


I dont think its fair, that players have to announce first, takes away from thier creative options and ignores some of the value of Move and Dex. Im looking for a clever way to increase the value of those scores why still using the Pendragon mechanics. If a house rule wont work then maybe thats the only alternative though.

The rules have you covered: have players write down their choice (p. 113, Determination Phase), or disallow defense and evasion (“These tactics are optional, not mandatory, and may be allowed or disallowed on a case-by-case basis”, p. 120, Optional Combat Tactics).

Alternatively, applaud your players for clever use of the game mechanisms and good team work. Or hand out Prudent or Cowardly checks for each knight who is prudent or cowardly in this fashion. Once they get prudent or cowardly enough, that should solve all monster fighting problems once and for all (see p. 181, Discretion And Valor, for details).


(Note: Page references are to KAP5.)

I also subscribe to the GMing school of declaring the monster actions only after the players declare theirs. Of course, I make up my mind first on what the monster/opponent will do, and only then ask the players to declare their actions. If they are making uncontrollable attacks, then by God!, they will chance the monster bashing them flat before they will get their attack!

Most monsters are high Move anyway, compared to the typical Knight of Move 2 or 3, so all the proposed house rule would do is such a case is allow the Monster to use the knowledge of the knights' actions to select its own tactic. Which, I admit, would stop the abuse of tactics.

KAP combat is much better balanced on duels than for ganging up on people/monsters.

What I do is I write down tactics for my monsters, then let the players state their action and then I reveal mine.

Then resolve, for better or worse, no changes.

This was after discussion with my players, they know I'm not changing tactics after their choises.

Since glory is personal I usually do not pit 1 big monster against a team of PKs, but try to make it a one on one battle, or if necessary 2 monsters vs 1 PK. PKs tens to use special tactics (mostly defensive) only when they are low on hitpoints and need some time before others can assist them and take the monster off their hands.

But when it is an issue I usually tend to work the same way as Morien. I think what the monster will do and then ask the PKs, but will declare its action only after I know what the PKs do. Nothing is written down. If they want to use special tactics (like the PK who is attacked going defensive, while the others go in for the kill) I usually allow it, usually with a skill roll (battle mostly). But they will have to declare that they are trying to achieve it.

Inititative
Initiative is based off Move, the lowest declares first. The highest declares last.
1. If caught by ambush Move is reduced by half, if caught by surprise Move is reduced to 0.
2. In a Duel if Move is tied, lowest Dex declares first.
3. First declaration can be changed but the cost is -5 to the next action. Last Declaration can only be changed to a standard attack.


Well, this would make DEX (and STR) really important, especially in duels. Maybe too much. If you do play test this, I would like to know how it worked out. (I'm happy with my "GM decides - Players declares - GM declares system).

Never struck this problem before, or more likely cottoned on to PKs doing it.

How I would handle it as GM, if it is say two PKs vs a Monster and it is their plan to have One Draw the Attack and one Flank.
The One taking the brunt would get the Valorous check and a Great share of the glory (75% to 25%) as they are the ones taking the risk and the other the prudent check.

Id would leave the cowardly checks for those who use fellow Pks as Bait unwitting

We had a game day yesterday, and were discussing about this subject.

We are thinking of Awareness roll to see who the monster is going for and with successfull roll its allowed to change regular attack to berserk/defence tactics. Catch is PKs get -5 in his weapon skill on the turn - regardless the roll being successful or not, and even if theres no change of plan (except with crit awareness roll perhaps).

I am not consistent - sometimes the players have the upper hand, in which case they see what their enemies are about to do and can react as they wish. Sometimes it is the other way around and they have to make their declarations blind.

Fortuna is a fickle mistress.

Regards
Luke

PS
I believe the silence of the rules on this point is in part intentional - controlling who declares first is a fairly significant too for the GM, it permits threat to be dialled up or down for a given encounter depending on how the session is going.

I am not consistent - sometimes the players have the upper hand, in which case they see what their enemies are about to do and can react as they wish. Sometimes it is the other way around and they have to make their declarations blind.

I agree - it's intentional.

I'm tempted to do it the way you describe it, but I'm curious about how it works. Doesn't the players abused this when choosing tactics? On the lines of "Okay, so that guy is attacking Sir Permvale, so I can just ignore him", "Hmm, he isn't using Defense tactics this turn, lets go crazy attack", and so forth.

Never struck this problem before, or more likely cottoned on to PKs doing it.

How I would handle it as GM, if it is say two PKs vs a Monster and it is their plan to have One Draw the Attack and one Flank.
The One taking the brunt would get the Valorous check and a Great share of the glory (75% to 25%) as they are the ones taking the risk and the other the prudent check.

Id would leave the cowardly checks for those who use fellow Pks as Bait unwitting


This is actually something that was discussed. But it seems odd that the knight making Uncontrolled Attacks is being prudent and cowardly. Though by rule mechanics as he has no chance of getting attacked or knocked down. But I in real combat, I dont see that as possible as the beast could turn around and attack the Knight doing uncontrolled attack and leave the knight fighting defensively with a wasted action just as easily. Now this abuse only happens when the GM declares first of course, if I declare the PKs must declare first they dont fight that way, they make regular attacks.

That makes me think though as Lancealot suggested. In my Initiative rule adding an Awareness or Battle roll to be able to change your action after declaration in step 3 may be a good idea. Ill try it out. Id rather not hand wave every situation by GMs Fiat.

I'm tempted to do it the way you describe it, but I'm curious about how it works. Doesn't the players abused this when choosing tactics? On the lines of "Okay, so that guy is attacking Sir Permvale, so I can just ignore him", "Hmm, he isn't using Defense tactics this turn, lets go crazy attack", and so forth.


The fact that players can adjust their tactics to the enemy declarations is an aspect of their tactical dominance - so it's a feature that flows from that particular situation, rather than a bug. Other times the situation is reversed and players have to grit their teeth and bull through against enemies who adjust their tactics according to what *their* declarations are. Other times, things are more even and everyone makes their declarations blind.

The nice thing about the simplicity of the Pendragon combat system is that its quite easy to bolt 'one time' rules onto the basic chassis to reflect the particular features of a situation, then strip them off again once you are done. For example, when I put my players up against a mob of 'low quality' opposition, the tactically sound thing for the opposition to do (assuming that 'run away' is off the table for some reason) is to use weight of numbers to try and counter the superior skill and equipment of the knights - but that takes guts and a certain confidence in the actions of your fellows, qualities that can be in short supply amongst a rabble of levies who are more used to driving a plough than standing in a shieldwall - so I get them making valorous rolls each round with only the guys who succeed getting to combine their attacks against the knights; this frequently results in a mess of ill-coordinated milling around on their part but that's an aspect of their general low grade as a soldiery.

Similarly, if I want to set up a more swash-buckling style of encounter - I might mix in Awareness or DEX contests (with only those beating the Knight's total able to close that round) to represent quick thinking, inventive use of obstacles, 'reading' opponents intentions and the like (this is a shameless rip off from the terrain rolls of Riddle of Steel by the way). Other times it will be a fight in the middle of meadow where none of that is really applicable, so I drop the idea of fancy footwork and it becomes a straight slugging match.

Facing a robber knight guarded by a bunch of minions? Roll a contest to get the robber knight to come out and face you man to man (Honour perhaps or Pride) or a DEX contest vs the minions if you want to bypass the bodyguard and get into the main bad guy's face (bring friends to aggro the minions away after the initial round however or this is likely to go badly for you - robber knight minions won't be making valorous rolls to gang up on a knight from behind).

Like I said in my first post I am not consistent in terms of rules that I apply, although hopefully there is a deeper consistency to the *manner* in which I am inconsistent.

Regards
Luke

I do not allow the players to change their tactics after declaration. Ever.
Nor do I ever change the GMC (Gamemaster Character) to change after declaration, ever.

I switch around who declares first,depending on what's going on.
Since declaring second is such a huge advantage, I will switch back and forth in a normal melee, with the players going first one round, the gamemaster goes first the next round.

However, this is also a very subtle gamemaster tool to direct events. If the players knights are mopping up too quickly* then I make them declare first. If the GMC are too easily* getting the upper hand, then I declare their intent first,

*both these are entirely subjective decisions that the Gamemaster makes.

Thanks for the answers, Luke and Greg. I think I will try it RAW next time I run this game, and see if I like it.



The nice thing about the simplicity of the Pendragon combat system is that its quite easy to bolt 'one time' rules onto the basic chassis to reflect the particular features of a situation, then strip them off again once you are done.

KAP is definitely has an Old School streak. Many rules states that "... but it the end, the GM decides". And the basic die-mechanism is so simple and flexible.

Never struck this problem before, or more likely cottoned on to PKs doing it.

How I would handle it as GM, if it is say two PKs vs a Monster and it is their plan to have One Draw the Attack and one Flank.
The One taking the brunt would get the Valorous check and a Great share of the glory (75% to 25%) as they are the ones taking the risk and the other the prudent check.

Id would leave the cowardly checks for those who use fellow Pks as Bait unwitting


This is actually something that was discussed. But it seems odd that the knight making Uncontrolled Attacks is being prudent and cowardly. Though by rule mechanics as he has no chance of getting attacked or knocked down.


I was thinking only cowardly if the PK was deliberately using the other PK as a meat shield, without the other Pks conscent on the plan In Character. Ala Bait and backstab.

Prudent would be for if it was part of the plan, ie one PK as the shield holding the monsters attack and the other fighting from a position of protection created by the first knight.

But as I said i havent stuck this before so I could be off mark.


I like Gregs alternating declarations, as it can fit the narritive flow of the PKs and the GMC taking turns setting the scene of the combat round, the attack & hit/parry and repost and reverse.

I was thinking only cowardly if the PK was deliberately using the other PK as a meat shield, without the other Pks conscent on the plan In Character. Ala Bait and backstab.


Dont know about Cowardly (depends on the situation), but that would bring instant -5 to Loyalty (Group) in our game, plus maybe Selfish check.

Never struck this problem before, or more likely cottoned on to PKs doing it.

How I would handle it as GM, if it is say two PKs vs a Monster and it is their plan to have One Draw the Attack and one Flank.
The One taking the brunt would get the Valorous check and a Great share of the glory (75% to 25%) as they are the ones taking the risk and the other the prudent check.

Id would leave the cowardly checks for those who use fellow Pks as Bait unwitting


This is actually something that was discussed. But it seems odd that the knight making Uncontrolled Attacks is being prudent and cowardly. Though by rule mechanics as he has no chance of getting attacked or knocked down.


I was thinking only cowardly if the PK was deliberately using the other PK as a meat shield, without the other Pks conscent on the plan In Character. Ala Bait and backstab.

Prudent would be for if it was part of the plan, ie one PK as the shield holding the monsters attack and the other fighting from a position of protection created by the first knight.

But as I said i havent stuck this before so I could be off mark.


I like Gregs alternating declarations, as it can fit the narritive flow of the PKs and the GMC taking turns setting the scene of the combat round, the attack & hit/parry and repost and reverse.


Alternating declarations was my ruling on it at the time before working on a initiative rule, and we have done that for 4 games, but it doesnt work because on declarations where the pks go first they simply make standard attacks and on declaration where they go last, the knight being attacked fights defensively while the others do uncontrolled attack. They go into to Sauvage every year and nothing is a threat for them. Its a first round kill every time for them. Thats how effective this tactic is. +10 instantly to everyone skill is what it amount to. Rather than remove the combat actions. Allowing for a chance that the Beast turns on the uncontrolled attacker, just like it should be if combat was all happening at the same time, is the solution im looking for.

It's worth to remember, Leondegrance, that Uncontrolled attack, Defense and Evasion are called "Optional combat tactics" ... "... and may be allowed or disallowed on a case-by-case basis". It's a very important rule.

Alternating declarations was my ruling on it at the time before working on a initiative rule, and we have done that for 4 games, but it doesnt work because on declarations where the pks go first they simply make standard attacks and on declaration where they go last, the knight being attacked fights defensively while the others do uncontrolled attack. They go into to Sauvage every year and nothing is a threat for them. Its a first round kill every time for them. Thats how effective this tactic is. +10 instantly to everyone skill is what it amount to. Rather than remove the combat actions. Allowing for a chance that the Beast turns on the uncontrolled attacker, just like it should be if combat was all happening at the same time, is the solution im looking for.


Or you could give those unopposed attacks "free" for the monster vs. each uncontrolled attacker, which you could say Berserker text is implying. ;)

Never struck this problem before, or more likely cottoned on to PKs doing it.

How I would handle it as GM, if it is say two PKs vs a Monster and it is their plan to have One Draw the Attack and one Flank.
The One taking the brunt would get the Valorous check and a Great share of the glory (75% to 25%) as they are the ones taking the risk and the other the prudent check.

Id would leave the cowardly checks for those who use fellow Pks as Bait unwitting


This is actually something that was discussed. But it seems odd that the knight making Uncontrolled Attacks is being prudent and cowardly. Though by rule mechanics as he has no chance of getting attacked or knocked down.


I was thinking only cowardly if the PK was deliberately using the other PK as a meat shield, without the other Pks conscent on the plan In Character. Ala Bait and backstab.

Prudent would be for if it was part of the plan, ie one PK as the shield holding the monsters attack and the other fighting from a position of protection created by the first knight.

But as I said i havent stuck this before so I could be off mark.


I like Gregs alternating declarations, as it can fit the narritive flow of the PKs and the GMC taking turns setting the scene of the combat round, the attack & hit/parry and repost and reverse.


Alternating declarations was my ruling on it at the time before working on a initiative rule, and we have done that for 4 games, but it doesnt work because on declarations where the pks go first they simply make standard attacks and on declaration where they go last, the knight being attacked fights defensively while the others do uncontrolled attack. They go into to Sauvage every year and nothing is a threat for them. Its a first round kill every time for them. Thats how effective this tactic is. +10 instantly to everyone skill is what it amount to. Rather than remove the combat actions. Allowing for a chance that the Beast turns on the uncontrolled attacker, just like it should be if combat was all happening at the same time, is the solution im looking for.

This sounds more like a roll play and less role play to me or in other terms 'abuse' of the rules. The optional rules are 'abused' imho and they handle more from a game technical point of view.
Then I would simple disallow the movements or let the players declare first. If they want to go for tactics and thus bait the opponent (and role play the attempt) then I would allow the players to declare first.

Alternating declarations was my ruling on it at the time before working on a initiative rule, and we have done that for 4 games, but it doesnt work because on declarations where the pks go first they simply make standard attacks and on declaration where they go last, the knight being attacked fights defensively while the others do uncontrolled attack. They go into to Sauvage every year and nothing is a threat for them. Its a first round kill every time for them. Thats how effective this tactic is. +10 instantly to everyone skill is what it amount to. Rather than remove the combat actions. Allowing for a chance that the Beast turns on the uncontrolled attacker, just like it should be if combat was all happening at the same time, is the solution im looking for.

I really dislike it when the letter of the aw is exploited this way
If it was my game, I would simply require the players to always declare first
very simple
Tell 'em I said so

Personally the easiest way to get over this was to simply have the skill rolls determine the event of which character goes first the player or the npc cause if the npc wins the roll the person getting attacked won't know to go on the defensive until either they get the crap kicked out of them or they make a heraldry/recognize roll to know anything about the opponent. It also works the same way for the npc's they may not have the necessary skills to know that the player knights are people you should avoid like the plague because they will mow through them like a scythe through wheat.