The +10 to skill (especially at high skill levels) and the ability to make unopposed attacks makes the Uncontrolled Attack quite powerful, IF you have the armor to survive the first blow from your opponent and SIZ/DEX to stay at your feet against knockdown.

Lets consider two knights, SIZ 18, DEX 10, damage 5d6, partial plate + chivalric armor = 17, Sword 20. This means that about half the hits are hard enough to trigger a DEX check, which succeeds half of the time (for a total of 25% chance of falling down). Damage is also blocked by the armor half the time, and assuming a shield, most of the time. Fight is likely resolved after some falling down gives increased probabilities for critical hits.

Assuming normal attacks, the end result of a round would be:
25% A falls, no or minor damage, B stands no damage
25% A stands, no or minor damage, B stands no damage
25% B falls, no or minor damage, A stands no damage
25% B stands, no or minor damage, A stands no damage.

What if one of them (lets call him B) uses Uncontrolled Attack?
1) A strikes normally and hits, because B isn't defending. Damage is (mostly) stopped by the armor. B has 25% chance of falling down.
2) B, assuming he is still standing up, gets his own strike in. He has 55% chance of rolling a critical, 45% for a normal hit. In our group, we rule that A gets his shield against B's attack if A succeeded in his own skill roll. Although the rules are a bit hazy about this: does unopposed mean that A -doesn't- get any shield ever? Which would make the uncontrolled attack even more powerful, as it takes 2d6 worth of armor off a skilled opponent.
3) The probabilities for the whole round become:
- 25% B falls down (100% chance of getting hit, but the chances of actual significant damage are rather low)
- 34% A gets hit normally: about 8.4% of him falling down, the amount of actual damage is likely low.
- 41% A gets hit critically: about 10% chance of him staying upright, 10% chance of him falling down with minor damage, 20% chance of him falling down with major, possibly fight-ending damage
4) To put it another way:
- B's fate:
-- 25% B falls down with minor or no damage
--75% B stays on his feet with minor or no damage
- A's fate:
-- 18.4% A falls down with minor or no damage
-- 20.0% A falls down with major damage
-- 61.6% A stays on his feet with minor or no damage

But wait, it gets even better. B, knowing that he will not need a shield since he intends to use the Uncontrolled Attack anyway, opts for a two-handed warhammer (+1d6 two-handed, +1d6 vs. plate). This negates the advantage that A has for the shield, making the scored hits equivalent in penetrating damage (actually, bit better for B by 1 point). It makes the hits more likely to trigger a knockdown, too (I wouldn't count the 1d6 vs plate, so 6d6 > 17 gives 79.5% ~80%. Also, the criticals become deadly: 14d6 for an average damage of 49, certain to put A into unconsciousness with a single hit, and a Major Wound (assuming CON 14) about 96.4% of the time (fight-ender for many a knight). So the probabilities become:
- B's fate:
-- 25% B falls with no or minor damage
-- 75% B falls with no or minor damage
- A's fate:
-- 13.5% A falls with no or minor damage
-- 45.25% A stays upright with no or minor damage
-- 41.25% A gets hit by a critical and is out of combat

A's only hope to even the odds is to fight Defensively, but even then he is at a slight disadvantage against the warhammer (increased knockdown checks and 1 point more penetrating damage). Granted, giving A a hammer instead of a sword for +1d6 vs. Plate will make the fight a bit more even, as A is able to chip a bit more HP off at each hit, likely balancing the knockdown probability of B's warhammer.

One way to nerf the Uncontrolled Attack is to make it obvious, as in declaring it first. And/or allowing the PKs to change their tactics if the enemy comes at them with UA. Thus, the defender would always have the chance to negate the Uncontrolled Attack, or, thinking he has a good chance to take the 'berserker' down, risk going for a pre-emptive strike or even a mutually assured destruction by declaring an Uncontrolled Attack, too.

Any thoughts?

Aggressive Attack

The Knight forgoes his usual defensive routine to attack with emphasis on power and moving forward.

The knight recieves a d6 bonus to damage, and can retain the use of his shield. optionally he cast his shield to the ground and wield his sword in two hands in order to hack and hew like a true bezerk adding an additional +5 to his weapon skill but may not use his shield of course!

Aggressive Attack


I am not sure what is the downside here? You say that he forgoes his defensive routine but retains his shield? Is it a mutual unopposed attack? Why then would you do anything else, since you are gaining +1d6 over the other guy, who is attacking normally?

oops i forgot to put all the drawbacks from, uncontrolled attack. He goes last and if knocked down he doesnt get to go. My intention is to let him retain his shield though, if he only goes for just the d6. I dont think thats unbalanced. The flavor text is off, since he retains use of his shield.

I just wanted to start some alternative rules for uncontrolled attack as I agree its to good.

I would agree, uncontrolled attack is a bit too good. I see my PKs routinely use it versus opponents with 4d6 damage, an often vs. 5d6 too although it becomes more risky there (knockdown is a killer).

About the two-handed warhammers, how often do your players have skill at 20 with weapon anything other than sword? I think the best I've seen is Greatspear at 17 (that character was into hunting boar), developing it, beside more important sword and lance takes a lot of training.

About the two-handed warhammers, how often do your players have skill at 20 with weapon anything other than sword?


Knockdown probability of course depends on the SIZ and DEX. If the knight in question is of 'average' size, the knockdown can happen much more commonly; for SIZ 14, the probability is almost 85% that 5d6 triggers a knockdown roll. In which case, you lose your attack about half the time. Adding that in early phases, you are unlikely to have heavier armor than chainmail (10) and no chivalric bonus, you really want to have your shield, too. So Uncontrolled Attack with average size and poor armor is balanced, in my opinion. It is just when you get bigger guys and heavier armor that it breaks down.

As for the Warhammer, remember that the knight can start with any skill at 15, and already starts with Sword 10. We have had a few PKs using non-sword weapons: Flail, Hammer, War Flail and Warhammer. War Flail especially is a darn scary weapon. After you pick your primary weapon to specialize in, it is just as easy to raise as Sword.

But if we do the Uncontrolled Attack with Skill 15 participants...

A hits 75% of the time. Now, 5% of these are actually criticals, so to be generous and make things easy, lets assume that is a 'kill'. That leaves 70%, or 35% triggering knockdown rolls. Which leads to about 17.5% failure in DEX and B falling down. Also, A has a chance of fumbling his roll altogether (but lets ignore that for now), or failing and losing the protection of his shield (again, lets ignore this loss of armor -> more damage taken for now).

Assuming B doesn't fall (77.5% chance), then it is B's turn. With a modified skill of 25, B crits 30% of the time for an almost guaranteed 'kill'. He is certain to hit, 80% of them triggering the knockdown roll -> 40% falling down.

The results for both participants are:

A's fate:
Standing: 22.5% + 32.55% = 55.05%
Falling down: 21.7%
'Killed' by a crit: 23.25%

B's fate:
Standing: 77.5%
Falling down: 17.5%
'Killed' by a crit: 5%

Now if both attack normally...
Both miss: 6.25%
They tie: 3.75%
One crits, the other doesn't: 9.5%
One hits, the other fails: 35%
Both succeed, one only partially: 45.5%

Tie is actually a big win for the sword-wielder, so lets count that as a crit for A. The results become:

A's fate:
Standing: 79.35%
Falling down: (17% + 22.75%) * 0.8 * 0.5 = 15.9%
'Killed' by a critical: 4.75%

B's fate:
Standing: 81.6%
Falling down: (17% + 22.75%) * 0.5 * 0.5 = 9.9%
'Killed' by a critical: 3.75% + 4.75% = 8.5%

This calculation does ignore the minor wounds... If B fights normally, he would avoid more of them. But he overwhelmingly improves his odds of taking A out faster by doing Uncontrolled Attacks, even when the skills are only 15 and criticals are rarer.

After discussion with my players, we opted for the following houserule:

1) Uncontrolled Attack negates Defensive as before, i.e. if one combatant takes Uncontrolled Attack and the other Defensive, it will be handled as a normal fight.
2) Uncontrolled Attack gives either +5 to Skill or +1d6 to damage, when used against a Normal tactic or another Uncontrolled Attack.

More thoughts on the uncontrolled attack...

Another thing that bothers me a bit is the fact that Uncontrolled attack allows you to have an unopposed attack. Suddenly, it doesn't matter if your opponent is Lancelot or Lemmy the Lemming, you will hit both with a similar chance (granted, Lancelot might slice and dice you before you manage to strike, but bear with me...).

Lets say that I am a clumsy giant with Skill 5, damage 12d6, Thick Skin (Armor 10) and Hit Points around 80. I am facing off against a knight with Skill 20, damage 5d6 and Hit Points 30.

If we both fight normally... I will miss for sure 75% of the time, and even if I hit, the chance of the knight rolling better than 5 is rather high. The end result, counting critical, is probably somewhere around 10% range. Going by averages, the knight will probably win (albeit barely), as I run out of hit points in 8-9 rounds (unconsciousness 20).

But, if I do an Uncontrolled attack... The knight hits me, but he would hit me anyway, so no biggie. In return, I get to do an unopposed attack with skill 15 (10 in our houserules), which gives me 75% chance of smearing the countryside with his remains. Certainly enough to knock him on his ass (probably with a major wound, as my average damage is 42), and then follow-up with another killing strike. The knight loses, and I probably take one or two wounds, say 15 points of damage.

Uncontrolled attack thus gives a huge advantage to the big monsters. Mind you, this might be part of the reason, to 'force' the knights to fight defensively against the big monsters or to gang up on them. Which is all fair and well, if that is the intent. And I can understand the rationale that if you throw yourself into the enemy blade, essentially, it doesn't matter how good a swordsman he is.

An alternative idea that I had was that the fight would be conducted normally, but the guy with the Uncontrolled attack gets hit first, if his opponent rolls a (partial) success. So in this case, taking the giant vs. the knight fight:
Giant attacks with skill 15 vs. knight skill 20. If the knight wins, he doesn't only hit the Giant, but also sidesteps the strike from the Giant. If the Giant wins but the knight had a partial success, the knight still does damage FIRST, and only then the Giant's strike is resolved (for instance, the Giant might lose enough hit points to fall unconscious and thus not have time to land the blow).

This alteration would nerf the Uncontrolled attack a bit. It would still be a smart strategy for the big and mean monsters, but it would not be instant death for the knights.

Any thoughts?

Uncontrolled attack thus gives a huge advantage to the big monsters.

Page 119, KAP 5.1
"However, most creatures should not use the Optional Combat Tactics listed elsewhere in this chapter, even if those
options are available to the characters, with one exception: Assuming those rules are used, creatures may dodge
as needed."

I don't know how controlled a giant swinging a tree at your head really is to begin with.

The only thing I'd add to uncontrolled attack or 'wreckless attack' as I prefer to call it, is a wreckless check everytime it's used. If used more than once in more than one combat per year, they get an automatic increase in wreckless.

When they get to 16. That will be the only attack they ever use even against giants.

Page 119, KAP 5.1
"However, most creatures should not use the Optional Combat Tactics listed elsewhere in this chapter, even if those
options are available to the characters, with one exception: Assuming those rules are used, creatures may dodge
as needed."

I don't know how controlled a giant swinging a tree at your head really is to begin with.


And page 120, KAP 5.0, too. Still, I tend to deal with Giants as big monstrous humans. I see no reason not to allow a giant to fight defensively for example. Especially since the line between a big Saxon and a small giant blurs.

In any case, the problem of allowing an unopposed attack persists. Granted, most of the time it is not a big issue, which explains why we have managed to play the game so long without the topic coming up, but... Imagine, if you will, a big Saxon with a two-handed axe and a Norman Chain mail (SIZ 20, Skill 10, Dmg 7d6/8d6 vs. shield, Armor 10) against an old, experienced knight in reinforced chainmail and shield (Skill 20, Dmg 4d6, Armor 12+6).

Now, the chances are that the experienced knight, in normal combat, would chip the Saxon down to size. Or at least make a very creditable showing of it, as he would hit the Saxon several times for every hit from the Saxon. But as soon as the Saxon switches to Uncontrolled attack (+10 skill), he is trading blow for blow, and his damage on average is 10 vs. 4 from the knight. Not only that, but he is very likely to send the knight on his ass from the first round. Thus, Uncontrolled Attack becomes a 'sure way' of winning the battle for the Saxon.

However, if one were to keep it a contest, the Saxon would have 50/50 chance of having his hit parried, while he would certainly take damage himself. Thus, the math changes a bit. Sure, one could argue that it still makes sense to do an Uncontrolled attack (chance of knocking the knight down, still 1.25:1 advantage in damage), but it is much more touch and go. Furthermore, it would make it harder to hit a skilled opponent, which is the way it, IMHO, should be.

Uncontrolled attack becomes even more advantageous when facing against a less skilled opponent. Lets pit our Saxon against a lowly skill 10 spearman (Dmg 4d6). Now, if they fight normally, the chances are (ignoring criticals and fumbles for simplicity) 37.5% Saxon wins, 37.5% Spearman wins, 25% both miss. The fight is probably over in three rounds or so, and both participants may take a wound, the Saxon's big axe cleaving the poorly armored footman in twain. Probabilities are that if the Saxon hits first, he doesn't take any damage, so we count this as a 0.5 wounds as it is a toss-up which one lands a hit.

However, if our Saxon is smart, he does Uncontrolled attack straight away. This boosts his skill to 20, a sure hit. The footman has 50% chance of hitting, so the same 0.5 wounds as before. But the fight is over in the first round, the Saxon wins and only risks getting hit once. Even with making it a contest, he would manage to boost his to hit chance to 87.5%, a very clear benefit, but would at least give the poor Spearman -some- chance to defend. (Hmm, +5 to skill, our houserule, would make the Saxon's chances: 25% miss (16-20), 25% sure hit (11-15), 25% sure hit (1-10, Spearman 11+), 12.5% hit (1-10, Spearman 1-10 but lower), 12.5% parried (Spearman's roll higher) = 62.5% to hit vs. 50% chance to be hit. Still beneficial (x1.25 odds), but mainly in order to make the fight over more quickly, 2 rounds instead of 3. +5 no contest makes it 75% to hit vs. 50% to be hit, x1.5 improvement of the odds, i.e. landing 3 strikes for every 2.)

The huge benefit of getting +10 to skill when your skill is already 20+ (critical chance) has already been dealt with in my earlier posts. This was just to bitch about the unopposed attack and how that skews the odds.