Two questions for the knowledgeable Sires and Ladies of these boards about mounted combat.

1) Can you strike multiple opponents with a Lance charge (split your Lance skill)? I would guess not but couldn't find it in the rules.

2) If a knight charges at an enemy with his sword instead of his lance, I tend to allow him to use horse damage instead of normal damage stat but not giving the +5 to skill like for a lance charge. Is that correct or is using mount damage only for lance charges?

1) Yes (if it makes sense)
2) No, mount damage only for lance

fg,
Thijs

I agree with Thijs. Especially if you allow the PKs use the horse's damage stat on other weapons, you will weaken the role of the Lance. +5 is nothing to be sneezed at, but I have many a time seen a PK with Sword 20 and Lance 15.

As for splitting the Lance skill, I would expect this to be quite rare in most situations, but could see it happening when you are charging a dense formation of steady infantry. I.e. they will get to bring more spearpoints or whatnot to poke at you. Granted, this would more often be a battle situation and normal melee rules might not apply. However, lets assume that it happens in normal melee and you roll, say, two hits. I would make you roll first one damage and if the lance gets broken, tough luck, you won't do any damage to the second opponent with your broken lance. Or maybe, if I am feeling generous, half a damage with the stump you have left of the lance.

In melee, I can't really see how you would split lance skill in most situations. You're charging headlong at some one. It's not like sword where you can strike to either side.

The one situation where you might split is if your opponents were all in line and you could strike one after the other. Seems unlikely though.

Under the Book of Battle rules I think you could split the skill, however. The melee is 'abstract' thus splitting skills represents something other than a series of individual attacks.

In the end, what ever works for you.

NT

The Lance (or any weapon) skill also governs defense, Eothar. I think it would be quite harsh to rule that you have to allow unopposed attacks from everyone else, if you make a lance charge. However, like I said, I would expect the situation where this becomes an issue to be quite rare.

In Battle, each round represents about an hour's worth of combat, if I recall correctly. Thus, the whole scale is a bit more abstract, and the splitting of the skill doesn't necessarily mean that you are constantly fighting against two opponents, just that the press of the numbers makes it more likely that some of the enemies get lucky in hitting you. IMHO and all that, of course.

OK I can understand not using horse damage for anything else than the lance. Though the horse's weight is behind the sword blow, I suppose that if the knight really struck with something else than a lance using his mount's full momentum it would risk dislocating his shoulder.

However, I still can't see splitting the lance skill except if the enemies are all one behind another.


However, like I said, I would expect the situation where this becomes an issue to be quite rare.
A PK charges at three bandits on the road. Wouldn't that be such a situation? And I don't think it is a rare occurrence.

However, I still can't see splitting the lance skill except if the enemies are all one behind another.


Of your old expections, go you must let.
Pendragon combat round does not represent a single strike or few seconds, as in certain fantasy games. A single round can be any amount of time the GM desires. As such one must look only at the number of opponents, not their exact location. [there is no grid in Pendragon!] Fighting three bandits, split your skill in three..

fg,
Thijs

However, I still can't see splitting the lance skill except if the enemies are all one behind another.


Of your old expections, go you must let.
Pendragon combat round does not represent a single strike or few seconds, as in certain fantasy games. A single round can be any amount of time the GM desires. As such one must look only at the number of opponents, not their exact location. [there is no grid in Pendragon!] Fighting three bandits, split your skill in three..

fg,
Thijs


Even with an abstract combat round. A charge is a charge. How can you skew someone than remove your lance from one target, reposition and shish-kebab someone else.

What ever works for you, but I don't buy it. A charge seems to be a charge to me. I think the nature of the lance is such that you could only split attacks if your opponents are in line. It's a big long pole. You can't swing it back and forth that easily as you ride past your opponents at speed. I could see horsemanship rolls to limit the # of your opponents and avoid unopposed attacks.

I would point out that in a previous thread I supported the idea of being able to fight defensively during a lance charge. Few agreed. If you can't fight defensively (mostly blocking), I don't see how you could make two attacks under most conditions.

Of course, it's a game and not reality. It is certainly more cinematic and in-line with some passages in Malory to allow multiple attacks. The latter might be justification in and of itself.

NT

You could argue that Kay does it in Malory Book IV, Chapter III. I usually allow it - knights should be able to dispose of armed rabble!

If two people attack you, you have to split your skill in order to oppose them. Your lance skill roll is not only 'driving that pointy stick through your opponent' but also dodging theirs..

fg,
Dr Thijs

Your lance skill roll is not only 'driving that pointy stick through your opponent' but also dodging theirs..


True, but if you split lance skill you are still potentially going to do damage to both opponents. I don't see actually attacking (versus defending) two opponents as really all that realistic in most situations with a lance charge (spear might be different). If you can't fight defensively while charging (a previous thread, with which I don't agree), I don't think it makes sense to allow the splitting of attacks either. YMMV. I prefer to allow a horsemanship roll to maneuver in such a way as to fight only one opponent during the pass. An alternative would be to allow both defensive fighting and splitting attacks during a charge, but require that one of the split attacks be defensive.

That said, I don't have a problem with it if the point is to allow a more cinematic approach to combat that lines up with descriptions in Malory. In the end whatever suits your game.

NT

After reading your different opinions in the past few weeks I was getting accustomed to the idea of having lance charges affect multiple opponents.

Then going through the FAQ on Greg's website (http://www.gspendragon.com/questionsanswers.html), I get to this question:

When lance charging, I assume you cannot split your attacks between multiple opponents. Correct?

Answer: Correct.

So, that's as official an answer as we can get I guess. So if charging at one guy and two others try to stab you with their spear as you pass by, that means two unopposed attacks.

I think a distinction must be made between a joust in the lists and a massed cavalry charge. Even then, a cavalry charge could perhaps be considered in a couple of different lights: charging against other mounted knights who are charging back and charging against foot soldiers.

Have any of you watched Full Metal Jousting on the History Channel? I just watched the first two episodes on my Apple TV just last night on a whim. I wasn't expecting much beyond a reality-TV cheese-fest. I was pleasantly surprised to get some insights on jousting from the show that seems to be as close to the "real thing" as modern spectators will ever see.

The host of the show — himself a championship jouster on the international circuit (I didn't know there was such a thing)— says there's no way to joust "defensively." In jousting, above all other sports, the best defense is a good offense. This seems to me a reasonable assertion in the lists, at least. The limitations of time and vision means you have to be singularly focused on one thing — delivering the end of your lance to the target (in the case of a joust, the opponent's "grand guard" on his left shoulder). So in this situation, I might rule that there's no opportunity for split attacks, defensive attacks, dodging, etc.

However, let's say your knight is charging through ranks of countercharging knights. Under such circumstances he might have an opportunity for multiple attacks, assuming he doesn't break a lance, of course. If that happens he can't charge again (with a lance) until making a successful Squire roll (to rearm with a new lance). At any rate, it's hard to imagine a circumstance where multiple lancers would attack the same PK simultaneously. It's not like fighting hand-to-hand, where opponents can surround you and thus literally attack you all at the same time.

A fully offensive approach would extend to other types of charges too, I would imagine, excepting perhaps to a knight that finds himself deep in enemy ranks needing to extricate himself from immediate danger. I can see such a knight, beset on all sides by hostile enemies, might charge "defensively" in game terms — armed with lance or sword. But here the object is to merely stay alive until reaching the safety of one's own ranks.

As an aside, here's a very interesting article from a modern jouster who has more practical experience with the sport than any of us will ever likely have. I found it an interesting read. I found this particularly insightful:

"One of the biggest misconceptions about shock combat is that the combined weight of horse and rider is directly translated to the lance — as if somehow the horse, rider, and lance were one rigid mass. In fact, they may move down the field as one, but at the moment of impact, they react as separate units.

In reality the rider's body acts as a shock absorber, or buffer, between the lance and horse. It cannot be stressed enough that the rider's own strength and weight are the key to translating the mass of the horse into the force of impact. Although the size of the medieval warhorse gradually increased over time, the effective size of the lance and horse interface (the rider) did not."

Read the entire article here. (http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php)

All that said, it would be interesting if Horsemanship played more of a roll in jousting. I could see each pass requiring unopposed Horsemanship rolls. A Failure might indicate a -5 penalty to the Lance skill for the round. A normal success = no bonus. A critical success = +5 to Lance skill. A Fumble means the knight doesn't even make it to the point of impact — the horse balks or the rhythm of the charge is otherwise botched. The knight is embarrassed, or maybe even thrown and hurt. New round. I don't want to overcomplicate things, but currently Horsemanship plays no roll in the success of a charge — especially since the errata that says you roll DEX to resist being unhorsed.


Enjoy,


T.

"I don't want to overcomplicate things, but currently Horsemanship plays no roll in the success of a charge — especially since the errata that says you roll DEX to resist being unhorsed."

I'm not seeing a note of this in the errata forum or on Greg's website.

Ah — good point, Sir Knighty. It may never have made it's way to the errata forums, but I'm pretty sure it has been issued on these boards nevertheless. I will try to find the thread...

Ah — here 'tis:

http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=2024.msg16690#msg16690


I'll copy to KAP 5.1 errata while I'm at it.


T.

Thanks. I felt like I seen other mentions of that errata but I couldn't find a source.

I'm not sure I like that errata, but getting into that would be very off topic for the thread.

Well, there was some discussion around it in that thread, so you should find some insights on the whys and wherefore there...


Best,


T.

"I don't want to overcomplicate things, but currently Horsemanship plays no roll in the success of a charge — especially since the errata that says you roll DEX to resist being unhorsed."

I'm not seeing a note of this in the errata forum or on Greg's website.

Nonetheless, it is true.

"I don't want to overcomplicate things, but currently Horsemanship plays no roll in the success of a charge — especially since the errata that says you roll DEX to resist being unhorsed."

I'm not seeing a note of this in the errata forum or on Greg's website.

Nonetheless, it is true.


Huh? It isn't Horsemanship to resist being unhorsed? Or did I not understood something (again)?

Huh? It isn't Horsemanship to resist being unhorsed? Or did I not understood something (again)?


It was changed by Greg, as stated in the thread that Taliesin posted:
http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=2024.msg16690#msg16690

Now, errataed, DEX is always used for balance rolls to resist knockdown, whether on horseback or on foot.

(We use (Horsemanship+DEX)/2 on horseback as a house rule.)

"I don't want to overcomplicate things, but currently Horsemanship plays no roll in the success of a charge — especially since the errata that says you roll DEX to resist being unhorsed."

I'm not seeing a note of this in the errata forum or on Greg's website.

Nonetheless, it is true.


Huh? It isn't Horsemanship to resist being unhorsed? Or did I not understood something (again)?


Sir Dom - in my campaign, we are using 1st edition rules, where Ride is used instead of Dex

Huh? It isn't Horsemanship to resist being unhorsed? Or did I not understood something (again)?


It was changed by Greg, as stated in the thread that Taliesin posted:
http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=2024.msg16690#msg16690

Now, errataed, DEX is always used for balance rolls to resist knockdown, whether on horseback or on foot.

(We use (Horsemanship+DEX)/2 on horseback as a house rule.)


Thanks Morien for repeating the information.
To me it seems like Horsemanship is not that useful anymore but I've read your post in the previous thread and I see uses I haven't thought of before.

How often is the PDF updated with the newest errata? It seems that this change and especially the switch to 96 glory for Chivalric Knights have been known for a while. I do not want to put pressure on Greg and the Nocturnal staff but maybe this is something that a volunteer could help with.

Can't remember where I saw this in the rule book or in the book of battle but there was a rule which allowed an extra D6 damage I'd charging with a sword.

I'd also cap that to the highest of the riders or horses damage in case the riders damage bonus is bigger than the horse.

How often is the PDF updated with the newest errata? It seems that this change and especially the switch to 96 glory for Chivalric Knights have been known for a while. I do not want to put pressure on Greg and the Nocturnal staff but maybe this is something that a volunteer could help with.


I think Nocturnal and Greg are still mulling the idea of a KAP 6th Edition and that no errata are likely to be issued to the 5.1 PDF until a decision has been made.


Best,


T.

Can't remember where I saw this in the rule book or in the book of battle but there was a rule which allowed an extra D6 damage I'd charging with a sword.

I've change that again so that only lance gets the bonus

I'd also cap that to the highest of the riders or horses damage in case the riders damage bonus is bigger than the horse.

Don't forget the rule for being too large for your horse.
Will someone point out where that is please?

http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=440.msg3407#msg3407 contains the horse too small rule:


Horse too small?
If a knight’s damage bonus is equal to or greater than the damage bonus of his horse, the rider is “too big” for the horse. Each 1d6 damage that is greater than the horse adds another -6 to his Combat Skills.

Can't remember where I saw this in the rule book or in the book of battle but there was a rule which allowed an extra D6 damage I'd charging with a sword.

I've change that again so that only lance gets the bonus

I'd also cap that to the highest of the riders or horses damage in case the riders damage bonus is bigger than the horse.

Don't forget the rule for being too large for your horse.
Will someone point out where that is please?


Greg. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm going to find the errata document and familiarise myself with it.

How often is the PDF updated with the newest errata? It seems that this change and especially the switch to 96 glory for Chivalric Knights have been known for a while. I do not want to put pressure on Greg and the Nocturnal staff but maybe this is something that a volunteer could help with.


I think Nocturnal and Greg are still mulling the idea of a KAP 6th Edition and that no errata are likely to be issued to the 5.1 PDF until a decision has been made.


Best,


T.


I understand but some of those things are really core to the game. Like Chivalric Knight at 96+, DEX instead of Horsemanship for knock back.

Don't forget the rule for being too large for your horse.


Is there any place where all those rule changes are collated?
Or does one have to pour over the forum to find them?

Don't forget the rule for being too large for your horse.


Is there any place where all those rule changes are collated?
Or does one have to pour over the forum to find them?

A lot of it is at: http://gspendragon.com/totalerrata.html
But check the errata threads below too