This is something I have been pondering about, as it seems like a bit cheesy tactic...

Lets say that the PKs are faced by an equal number of enemy knights, who are trying to stop them. Everyone has lances, and both parties perform a lance charge. Now, the PKs are really needing to get through, they don't have to actually defeat these guys, so they all declare that they are doing a Defensive maneuver. If this is legal, they get +10 to their Lance but do not do damage, and most likely just ride through the enemy lances without a scratch and continue on their merry way. Which, to be honest, doesn't sound very heroic even though considering the circumstances, it is the smart option.

Now, I could rule that you can't use the optional tactics (Berserk & Defensive) with a lance charge, but then what would prevent a guy from switching to his Sword and using that to fight Defensively? Well, the enemy would get +5, so it would be a bit more balanced, although usually the PK Sword skills are a bit higher than their Lance, in my experience.

So, any thoughts about this?

1. Smart and not a problem. The enemy will just learn to be smarter. Check to Prudent?
2. Smart but not particularly heroic. Check to Prudent and Cowardly.
3. Nuh-uh. You can't use optional tactics on a Lance Charge, because the GM says so.. (Alternatively, yes you can but the enemy can see you do it as you approach, and can use Berserk to deliver hurt to you. So it is probably a risky option.)
4. Situational. Lance vs. Lance, yes you are Cowardly for using Defensive. Sword vs. Lance? Makes sense that you Prudently try to stay alive.

I am swaying back and forth between all three options. I mean, it is not a huge problem yet, but it has happened a few times and I was thinking of nailing down my ruling on it before the next time comes around. Of course, if it actually turns out to be Cowardly, then all those Valorous 16+ knights are about to notice that there is a downside in being Famously Valorous. :P

Being famously valorous I'd go with the cowardly check. "ruleswise" however I think it's a valid manouver.

Answer #3

Thanks for the input, guys. :)

I think I will go with option 3, as it is simplest mechanically. I think I will allow a guy on foot to use Defensive against a lance charge, since he is going to need it against that +10/-5.

A fair solution would be to rule that a fighter needs to back down from an attacker, and have the room to do so, in order to use the Defense tactic. Thus your PK's could not Defend against a lance charge if their goal is to simply press forth through their opponents.

This does pose an additional problem regarding battles and maneuvers. i.e. wounder and/or desperate knights would not be able to use the Defense tactic if their unit commander has ordered an Attack.

A fair solution would be to rule that a fighter needs to back down from an attacker, and have the room to do so, in order to use the Defense tactic. Thus your PK's could not Defend against a lance charge if their goal is to simply press forth through their opponents.

This does pose an additional problem regarding battles and maneuvers. i.e. wounder and/or desperate knights would not be able to use the Defense tactic if their unit commander has ordered an Attack.


This is how I would rule it. You can not perform an aggressive maneuver (pushing through enemy lines) with a defensive tactic (backing away, focusing on not getting hurt). However, if one player knight chooses to take on TWO enemy knights, the second player knight could perhaps tag along behind. But this is probably a bad tactic, and might end up getting you flanked.

(also, why would the knight want a bunch of armed knight, ready for charge, standing BEHIND them?)

About the problem in battle, I would not make a deal out of this. Acting defensibly on a battlefield would rather be about standing close to your friends, focusing less on being aggressive. This is covered nicely in the rules by the fact that your successes counts as losses. You are not pushing as you need to be, and the maneuver might end up failing because you held back. But if all the other knights succeed and you DO push forward, your defensive character can simply tag along.

And if the entire group chooses and offensive maneuver but fights defensively? They will suffer a defeat, perhaps even being recoiled.

A fair solution would be to rule that a fighter needs to back down from an attacker, and have the room to do so, in order to use the Defense tactic. Thus your PK's could not Defend against a lance charge if their goal is to simply press forth through their opponents.


That is a good rule of the thumb, Helmward, covering all sorts of situations. I am not sure I would apply it blindly in all situations; for example, I probably would allow a PC to hold his position in a line or to defend a doorway even while using Defensive.

Since I don't own or use BoB, I don't actually allow optional maneuvers in Battle, so Defensive in Battle is a non-issue for me. I did recall the Mearcred Creek Battle Example, where the PK unit used Defensive while the Leader fought to prevent them from losing. As Gilmere points out, this tactic, while valid to avoid damage, has its own risks: the PK unit is less likely to do much, and probably ends up defeated in that round. So I think it is balanced within BoB.

As for why the PKs would leave armed opponents behind them? Well, in a lance charge, you are riding ahead at a nice gallop, so by the time your opponent manages to stop, turn and head after you again, you have already gained some distance. Especially if you have better horses, you can gamble that you will manage to increase that distance, and hence avoid a fight that would at least threaten to cause damage and distract from whatever the actual mission is. Using Defensive makes it less likely that some of the PKs will get unhorsed in the lance charge. Unhorsed PKs would have to be abandoned to their fate against stacked odds, or the whole party would be drawn into combat 'against their will' to save their friend. Generally, the PKs pick the latter over the former, even absent of Loyalty (Group). High Loyalty (Group) makes that a foregone conclusion, of course.

For instance, we had two situations recently:

1) Ambush by mounted Cambrian warriors outnumbering the knights by a significant margin: fighting them seemed suicidal. The PKs decided to try and punch through the ambush and ride ahead to a nearby castle for help. Alas, whilst doing so, one of the squires got unhorsed and the lady they were escorting got grabbed by one of the bandits. One knight (having high Amor) turned around and ALMOST managed to effect a rescue (failed at the last DEX roll to snatch the lady up in passing), and ended up captured himself. (There was a happy ending, don't worry.) In this case, the PKs didn't even consider using Defensive, as they were trying to clear the way for their charges, so it was a non-issue, but it occurred to me later that the Squires would have benefited from using the Defensive.

2) The Count of Salisbury sent the PKs on a punitive raid against a manor of Levcomagus, with orders to do some light damage and then get the heck out of there, rather than get stuck in a fight and hence escalate things. As it happens, they tarried to make sure that there was 'enough damage' and thanks to some poor Battle rolling and successes on the Levcomagus side, the border patrol managed to cut between them and Salisbury. In this case, the PKs had practically orders to avoid combat if practicable, so Defensive would have been the preferred option: just try to get out of there with minimum damage to all sides. Of course, none even thought to bring the topic up, and I happened to think about it only later (and hence this thread). Anyway, as it happens, two of the PKs were unhorsed, so it became a vicious melee on horseback, ending with one PK at -10 hitpoints (they managed to get him up to -1 with first aid, but alas, he breathed his last as he was carried to the Salisbury soil) and an Levcomagus knight at -6 (he perished as well), 3 other Levcomagus knights and 2 PKs with major wounds unconscious, and the remaining Levcomagus knight and the two Salisbury PKs deciding on a truce to collect their wounded and dying in hopes of saving them.

I don't see a problem with using Defensive on a lance charge. Really all it means is that you've focused so heavily on deflecting your opponent's blow that you didn't really try to hit him with your lance. The extra shield work and veering away a bit at the last moment mean you don't really attack and are just trying to avoid getting hit in the pass.

As for Cowardly checks, I think it depends on the situation. In a tournament and in front of a crowd, I'd say yes. You've agreed to the joust and the whole point is to joust. That said, if you knew the opponent was King Arthur in disguise and didn't want to hurt him out of loyalty, I'd say no cowardly check--especially if he reveals himself to the crowd afterwards.

In a battle or skirmish, your actions concerning the main goal should decide whether or not you are cowardly. Dodging an opponent to get to the damsel isn't cowardly especially if you've charged into the center of a melee to do so. Ushering the damsel away from superior force is also not cowardly. You've haven't run off without her.

YMMV

Eothar, I can see that kind of 'veer to the side' if you are only facing one opponent, and you have space to maneuver. But, if you are on the road, the space is limited. Or if the charge is launched by group of knights against another group: spreading out to allow for that kind of 'duck and weave' might allow the enemy to concentrate their own lancers against a portion of the opponents' line.

I think I am inching more and more towards Helmward's suggestion: Defensive implies trading space for time, retreating to make blocking / enemy missing more likely.

I think I am inching more and more towards Helmward's suggestion: Defensive implies trading space for time, retreating to make blocking / enemy missing more likely.


I don't think fighting defensively is entirely based on just moving backwards. That certainly plays a part, but it also involves trading attacks for a more defensive stance, focus on better shield work etc. Even if you're charging ahead, you can still focus on avoiding getting hit (shield work) as opposed to hitting some one.

I can certainly see modifiers for maneuvering space. I can see only +5 instead of +10 for lack of space to maneuver, but I wouldn't completely negate the possibility of fighting defensively. The same could apply to fighting on foot in more confined situations. For example, atop a castle wall there isn't necessarily much space. Your ability to fight defensively would be hampered since you can only really back off not move from side to side. You don't have the complete set of options even if you can move backwards.

In fact, in a lance charge against two opponents, I don't see how you could attack both opponents in a pass with lances unless they came in file. A knight wouldn't have the time to strike left and right with a lance during the pass. In splitting attacks, you would almost certainly have to fight one opponent defensively (defending with your shield but not attacking with your lance), while attacking the other (or ignore one and attack the other, which seems like a good way to die).

YMMV of course. Regardless, I would not give a Cowardly check. The rule book specifically states that Defensive Fighting is not considered dishonorable. It is still fighting. It's goals just differ.

NT

I don't think fighting defensively is entirely based on just moving backwards. That certainly plays a part, but it also involves trading attacks for a more defensive stance, focus on better shield work etc. Even if you're charging ahead, you can still focus on avoiding getting hit (shield work) as opposed to hitting some one.

I too figure that fighting defensively requires dodging, moving back, shield work, parrying with weapon and so on
which is why I do not allow defensive maneuver while charging--none of those options are available on a charging horse which must go in a straight line


I can certainly see modifiers for maneuvering space. I can see only +5 instead of +10 for lack of space to maneuver, but I wouldn't completely negate the possibility of fighting defensively.

In my merciful moments I might allow a +5 despite my comments above


The same could apply to fighting on foot in more confined situations. For example, atop a castle wall there isn't necessarily much space. Your ability to fight defensively would be hampered since you can only really back off not move from side to side. You don't have the complete set of options even if you can move backwards.

In fact, in a lance charge against two opponents, I don't see how you could attack both opponents in a pass with lances unless they came in file.

I agree.


A knight wouldn't have the time to strike left and right with a lance during the pass.

A knight can never strike right in a lance charge. It would dislocate his shoulder. The impetus of a lance charge requires that the lance be aqt an angle, held in the right hand/arm, and over the saddle's pommel/horse's neck.
Spear fighting from horseback is different.


YMMV of course. Regardless, I would not give a Cowardly check. The rule book specifically states that Defensive Fighting is not considered dishonorable. It is still fighting. It's goals just differ.

yep

RE striking only LEFT with a lance. I agree. I had forgotten about that.

This observation has ramifications for the lance charge. If charging past two opponents, only the one to our knight's left can gain the benefit for charging with a lance (damage based on his horse, lance skill, etc). He is in the normal jousting position. The one to our knight's right might be able to attack, but it would have to be a regular spear attack. A lance charge would dislocate his shoulder.

A lot has been said already. This is how I would rule it:
1) I see a lance charge as another special maneuver, the same as berserk and defensive. And you cannot perform two special maneuvers at the same time. you cannot go berserk and be defensive at the same time.
2) Also Defensive is more a static maneuver, while the lance charge is a dynamic maneuver. Defensive means you try to hold your ground and while you dodge and weave and may even give some ground, but in essence you want to remain in your place. A lance charge is the opposite of it. You want to go fast and use the momentum of the horse to knock your opponent over.

So if the PKs decide to remain standing and try to avoid the charge they can go defensive. As said earlier the charge brings the attacks along side each other and each end up facing away. the end result will be almost the same although the distance will not be so great and the PKs do not have the momentum of the charge.