I wrote a thread about it, and someone even answered to it...but it disappeared!
If I've broken any forum rule, let me know and I'll not do it anymore.

My basic question was about how to start a non-lance fight.
Most combats should not start with opponents at 1 yd one from the other.
And the problem is not "using or not using grid/minis (as most d20 does)", the problem is that I feel it to be irrational that two unmounted knights start threatening one another....and then patiently walking and waiting until they are 1yd one for the other.

I feel at least one of the two should rush and charge the opponent, or maybe both should charge...
...but this means a combined action (half movement and suffering -5/+5).

So smart players (espcially those who declare their actions later) will only wait until the other one has spent a combined action, with all its penalties (-5/+5).

Do we really do not have a non-mounted non-lance version of charge?
I say so since BoB 2nd ed. p. 22 seems to suggest a +5 bonus to non lance charges....
I know that book is about mass combat, but since mass combat benefit from normal +5 Lance charge bonus I guess why not giving a non-lance a similar +5 charge bonus.

In a few words, do all your non-lance, non-mounted combats start with opponents 1yd one from the other?
Or do you let someone suffer a combined action? (and his opponent waiting)?
Or do you allow a non-lance charge?

I assume that both characters approach each other with caution. Rushing up to someone can sometimes be an advantages, but usually leaves you open.

Aside from the reality part this system is actually rather easy. Since all rolls are opposed you do not need to bother with movement that much. So unles a character wants to do something special, like rushing in, a bonus or penalty may be given. In all other cases just have them roll normally.

I answered this question in that vanished thread.

I agree with Cornelius. It is a non-issue in our games, as we don't use grid combat.

Seriously, ditch the grid combat. It is an artefact of the wargame origins of the roleplaying games, is generally immersion-breaking and leads to rules-lawyering and square-counting. "Well lets see, if I step to this square, I am safe from all of my enemies... of course, I have time to think this through and I have the eye of god vision of the whole battlefield..."

Much easier to just narrate the whole thing.

OK, but even not thinking about grids, the "combined action" rule remains.

I challenge you.
You answer me.
We want to clash in a fight.

In movies usually the two opponents are running one against the other, and so it is either a charge (good bonus) or a combined action (bad penalty).

I suspect that everybody here does as he likes.
And maybe ignoring the space thing could be a solution...even if I do not like it.
Even without a grid.

Realistically what would happen is that I walk calmly towards you until I am about five meters or so away. Then I approach very carefully to about 3 meters (body to body distance). Now I am in combat, as I am about a lunge away from you. Now we start rolling dice as normal.

In a real (one on one) fight, charging someone at a run is an incredibly risky maneuver. It is very easy to trip. You can't easily stop or change direction. In short, your options for defending are severely curtailed, and you are pretty much asking to be impaled. In such a situation, I can see using the combined action rule, although to be honest, I'd probably use the Rule of Cool instead. Does it look cool that the knight plunges into his enemies and starts laying about him? Why yes, yes it does. No penalty for that guy!

And of course, if both warriors are running at one another, the combined action rule means they both get a 0/0 modifier. That works for me, too. And if one of them stops, then the other would likely do the same, and look at my first paragraph.

The point is that Charging is cool!!!!!
And I really like the scene of charging knights one against the other, even when they are unmounted.
And typical charging footmen could be Saxon axemen or Pictish skirmishers.
Making this move a bad choice (combined action), is a bit deluding for me.

I was only trying to avoid the possibility that one was charging (getting -5/+5) and the the other (smarter, trickier, maybe later-decalring) was just waiting for the other to come and exploit the free bonus that he is receiving....

I guess I would really like something like an homebrew house rule of +5/+5 modification for non-lance chargers.
It makes charging more effective (+5) but also more dangerous (+5 to opponent).
And if two are charging one against the other we have +10/+10...
Maybe we can allow spears to negate the opponent's charging bonus

So we can have:
Lance Charge bonus +5/0
Non-Lance Change bonus +5/+5
Why this difference?
Because charging wielding swords is more dangeours than charging wielding lances....

...I'm very tempted of using something like this bonus.
However I suspect it all make messy with other kinds of bonuses, like mounted etc..

It's maybe simple to make the non-lance charge bonus a simple +5....or to completely ignore the problem, as you suggest.
Do not know what I'll do, need time to think about it.

The guy charging being at -5 compared to the guy sitting behind his shield waiting for the charge sounds about right to me. If they both charge each other, they are impacted equally. I'm no expert on medieval combat, but it sure seems like if only one guy charges, the guy charging would certainly be at a disadvantage in "real life."

Gameplay wise, the "charger" can always try and use a passion to try and increase his odds, he could try and use an uncontrolled attack, or perhaps he just is generally more skilled and the -5 is worth the risk? Honestly based on what you are describing the "uncontrolled attack" seems to match up pretty well.

You as the GM also have the option to decide if any of the combat modifiers in table 6-2 (KAP 5.1, page 117) are applicable. Perhaps the charge takes the opponent by surprise and warrants an unopposed attack at +5 (which cancels out the penalty for moving and attacking)? Maybe you feel like the unopposed attack isn't appropriate, but the guy "receiving" the charge would be off balance so the "charger" gets a +5 in that scenario? Your Pendragon May Vary. Find something that makes you and your play group happy and whatever you decide, just apply it consistently. I treat combat pretty fluidly, try to apply modifiers the "feel" appropriate, and haven't really run into scenarios where my players have been upset. Personally, I have no issue with the non-horseback charge being a "combined move" and having a -5 modifier, but ultimately you just need to find what will allow you and your group to have the most fun! ;D

I guess non-lance footed charge is tricky, dangerous...but it somewhat gives you some momentum in hitting hard.

So I can maybe use one of the following alternatives:

1) Ignore the problem, as you suggest.

2) create a non-impact "Charge" maneuver which avoids combined actions: you move up your maximum movement to reach your opponent, you attack with no bonus or penalty.
Which is another version of "non considering this problem" and maybe makes my life easy.

3) create a non-lance Charge Maneuver which gives a +5/+5 ro be nullified by spears....but I fear messing with too many modifiers.

4) create a non-lance Charge Maneuver which gives a +5 to be nullified by spears

5) leave things as they are, with non-lance charging as a combined action -5/+5: very dangerous....but maybe I can give a small bonus of +1 pts of damage, to consider the momentum of damage /+1d6 sounds too much)

I just fear too much the alternative "I wait until the dude charges me with a combined action and awards me a free bonus!"

I guess non-lance footed charge is tricky, dangerous...but it somewhat gives you some momentum in hitting hard.


Not really in real life... Your aim is all sorts of messed up, nor is your arm moving particularly faster than if you were standing still. If you are trying to collide with the enemy with a shield slam, then yes, having the momentum will help. But for a sword swing? Nope.



1) Ignore the problem, as you suggest.


This. So very much this. Trust me, the fewer modifiers you need to consider and apply, the better the combat will flow and the less jarring is it for the storytelling. I am all for making up houserules for all sorts of things, but this is one can of worms I would stay the heck away from. :)

If you like the visuals it evokes, then just add it into the narrative: "The Saxons are foaming in the mouth and charging at you on foot. You brace for impact. With a thunderous crash, they collide against your shields and the battle is on! Roll the dice!"

From my days in Ghent SCA charging on foot was more effective in a Mel Gibson fantasy. Even shield bashes didn't work with a charge unless the other guy didn't know what he was doing.

Does it look cool? Everyone has a different cool quotient. I would rather watch an Errol Flynn / Basil Rathbone Dooley than the wire work pseudo eastern fighting you see more and more.

So in this scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VH0mx40qW4) both sides are doing Combined Actions and suffering -5/+5 (which by the way nullify one another?).
Looking at that video you can notice that someone is exploiting the momentum, while others are simply suffering the hit, respecting the explanation "charge makes more damage, but you are more exposed).

Why one of the two did not simply wait and take the charge, exploiting the -5/+5?
According to Pendragon rules....only the dumb ones charge on foot! (doing Pendragon Combined Actions).

I know that an answer could be "Vikings are dumb, Arthurian Knights are smart" ... but there should be some limited advantage in charging.
I know that this video is just a modern recreation....but it's definitively cool.
And I play rpg to have fun!

And regarding modern re-enactors of ancient/medieval warfare: I believe what you say....but none of you is a professional medieval warrior who lives by the sword and risk his life on medieval battlefield everyday, serving a lord spilling blood and guts.
Most of you have normal lifes, going to office, taking shower at home, etc......so at the end of the day, you are not professional medieval fighters.
I respect your views, but I have some doubts.

However, maybe you are right about non-lance, non-mounted charge being useless and only dangerous...but for my vision of medieval fight (which is not the truth...just my tastes), making all charges useless stupidities is a pity...and not heroic at all (and here we are looking for Glory!).

On the other hand I do not want to add too many modifiers...
I think that my solution will be very simple, somewhat similar to your "ignoring the problem " suggestion.

I'll make "Charge" a new maneuver which let you move up to you maximum movement and attack at the end, without combined action, with no bonus and no penalty.
I'll leave combined actions for other things (e.g. drawing swords and moving, taking an object and moving, etc...).

Why one of the two did not simply wait and take the charge, exploiting the -5/+5?


Because Hollywood. (And partly because human psychology, I admit.)

Seriously, the sides seemed to be in nice shieldwall-ish formations. Then they both break formation in other to run at each other. Had one side stayed in formation, they would have been spearing those quickest and possibly bravest on the other side like at 2:1 or better odds. Quick stab from the side since you are not facing an enemy of your own, and a good fraction of the enemy shieldwall is wounded or dead before the rest of them make contact. At the very least, the runners will be a bit out of breath on arrival.

However, it might not be all that easy to stay waiting in formation when the other guys are making all that noise. Poor discipline, getting a bit too worked up, one guy starts running and then the rest don't want to be thought as cowards... So yes, I can see why 'machismo' might, in some instances, overrule what would be smart.

I guess non-lance footed charge is tricky, dangerous...but it somewhat gives you some momentum in hitting hard.


Not really in real life... Your aim is all sorts of messed up, nor is your arm moving particularly faster than if you were standing still. If you are trying to collide with the enemy with a shield slam, then yes, having the momentum will help. But for a sword swing? Nope.

Remember that the danger of the sword is not its impact, but the cutting edge. Momentum is not really the thing you need.
But as Morien says even with a hammer or mace the fact that you ran several yards does not add to the momentum of the swing.

IMHO The fact that the lance charge gets a modifier is also questionable. A good charge still needs good timing. It is in the final stretch that you lower your lance.



1) Ignore the problem, as you suggest.


This. So very much this. Trust me, the fewer modifiers you need to consider and apply, the better the combat will flow and the less jarring is it for the storytelling. I am all for making up houserules for all sorts of things, but this is one can of worms I would stay the heck away from. :)

If you like the visuals it evokes, then just add it into the narrative: "The Saxons are foaming in the mouth and charging at you on foot. You brace for impact. With a thunderous crash, they collide against your shields and the battle is on! Roll the dice!"
[/quote]
The game is riddled with modifiers and they have a tendency to outshine the skill of character. So most of the time I ignore all kinds of modifiers. It means that having a high score in a skill has a meaning and makes you wish you had. I do not want my players looking for modifiers to increase their skill. I want them to focus on the encounter itself.

On the other hand if you want to make things lively there is always the narrative:
GM: "The Saxon climb onto the balustrade looking for victims"
Player: I rush towards him and slam him with my shield.
GM: You smash into the Saxon and he tumbles back out of the window onto the spears of his friends below.
This sequence is as compelling with modifiers as it is without.

Why one of the two did not simply wait and take the charge, exploiting the -5/+5?
According to Pendragon rules....only the dumb ones charge on foot! (doing Pendragon Combined Actions).

It's a different scale entirely, but consider the Battle of Hastings. While the Anglo-Saxon sheildwall held, the Norman attack was ineffective. It was not until the wall broke that the Norman cavalry was able to charge in for the win.

I am no medieval expert by any means, but in almost everything I have read, the defender behind the shield almost always had an advantage (both in one-on-one battles and when behind the sheildwall). Later on tactics changed as heavy cavalry, longbowmen, and pikes were introduced, but certainly in the early game phases of the GPC, the defender behind the shield appeared to have the advantage.

And as much as I enjoy the "Vikings" TV show, I definitely think they go for drama over real life. I think the History channel did a pretty decent job with it, but I wouldn't really use it as a historical reference point. At least the Vikings don't wear horns on their helmets (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTwq1_9VH68) and charge at each other Braveheart style all the time. :o

I think that in Pendragon, charge concept is only for Horses.
The bonus of such a tactic is for the benefit of speed & strength (cinétic energy).
Such a bonus is irrelevant for foot fights : not enough weight, not enough speed.

So foot fighters running or not is modelized the same way with standard combat rules.

So in this scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VH0mx40qW4) both sides are doing Combined Actions and suffering -5/+5 (which by the way nullify one another?).
Looking at that video you can notice that someone is exploiting the momentum, while others are simply suffering the hit, respecting the explanation "charge makes more damage, but you are more exposed).

Why one of the two did not simply wait and take the charge, exploiting the -5/+5?
According to Pendragon rules....only the dumb ones charge on foot! (doing Pendragon Combined Actions).

I know that an answer could be "Vikings are dumb, Arthurian Knights are smart" ... but there should be some limited advantage in charging.
I know that this video is just a modern recreation.


I finally watched this video clip. All I can say is modern films seem to become more silly an time goes on. Seriously, forming a shieldwall and then screwing it up in that charge? Damn, no wonder the Norsemen were not feared when they went Viking.

Having just found this topic, I can't help siding with Luca against the grumbling chorus. Charging on foot ought to have an effect, and it shouldn't be entirely negative.

All of the arguments about arm-swing-momentum and so forth might be appropriate for a historical simulationist RPG -maybe (I'm still not entirely sold), but this is not that RPG. This is an RPG of legendary drama. We aren't supposed to consider the events as impartial scientists with lab coats; we are supposed to consider it from within the culture that believes the myths. If the power of charging into melee is a myth, it is no more mythological than magic spells or faeries or unicorns, all of which this game has.

But setting aside that objection, even from a realistic perspective, it seems to me that charging must have some benefit, or warriors wouldn't keep doing it through history. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuZ1TPc3Dfs. I've never heard of a battle from the Napoleonic wars or the American civil war where the infantry attacked with bayonets without charging.

Perhaps one reason why simulators don't see the advantage of charging is psychological. Combat is very different when it is life or death. The charge demonstrates eagerness, and so may overawe the opponent. Maybe a charge could provoke an opposed valorous test. If both sides succeed or fail then the charger suffers the usual combined action penalty. If the charger fails, he loses his nerve and must wait another round to approach with caution. If the target fails, he suffers a net penalty due to hesitation, flinching, etc.

Also, I wonder if modern simulations of medieval combat may minimize the effect of a charge due to an unwillingness to maim each other during play. All martial arts involve some degree of restraint during competition and practice, whereas a charge is all about lack of restraint. On a simulated battlefield, the charger may not use full momentum. After the weapons clash, the bodies clash. "I am charging to the top of this hill, and anything in my way will get trampled."

In the Runequest 6 RPG, a charger gets a damage bonus. Maybe that is a simple way to give it a purpose. You suffer the combined action penalty, but get a +1d6 damage bonus (or something).

AB+, I agree with you at 100%!!!
I never really completely believed modern simulationists...they do not risk their lifes and they are not used to death & gore as medieval warriors were!
And furthermore we are here for fun, not for historicity (and by the way....King Arthur is not that historical and realistic...)



But setting aside that objection, even from a realistic perspective, it seems to me that charging must have some benefit, or warriors wouldn't keep doing it through history. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuZ1TPc3Dfs. I've never heard of a battle from the Napoleonic wars or the American civil war where the infantry attacked with bayonets without charging.

And the bayonette argument is perfect!
I guess charging with piercing weapons (bayonettes, spears, lances, etc.) is more effective...but there should be some bonus even for bashing, slashing and chopping weapons.



Perhaps one reason why simulators don't see the advantage of charging is psychological. Combat is very different when it is life or death. The charge demonstrates eagerness, and so may overawe the opponent. Maybe a charge could provoke an opposed valorous test. If both sides succeed or fail then the charger suffers the usual combined action penalty. If the charger fails, he loses his nerve and must wait another round to approach with caution. If the target fails, he suffers a net penalty due to hesitation, flinching, etc.


This is great and very tempting for me! But I'll not use it since I fear to make thing even more complicated for mounted charges (a mounted charging knight is terrifying!).



In the Runequest 6 RPG, a charger gets a damage bonus. Maybe that is a simple way to give it a purpose. You suffer the combined action penalty, but get a +1d6 damage bonus (or something).

I though about it and considered that +1d6.
However I feel that in a few cases (characters with High dmg rate) it will make too much damaging footed charges if compared to mounted charges.

Maybe we can say :"attack penalties but +2 damage".

Or, even simpler, allow footed charge: move up to maximum movement (unlike combined actions), no attack bonus and no attack penalty, no damage bonus.
It's not a combined action: it is a maneuver like mounted charge!

When I fight in Society for Creative Anachronism combat, while I indeed do not risk death, mistakes do lead to painful full-force hits by unpadded wooden weapons. So in my roughly 15 years of sport combat I have learned some painful lessons about the effectiveness of charges afoot.

In individual combat, Morien is correct – charging is very risky, especially when fast movement makes your path predictable. If you charge me I can sidestep and hit you as you fly by off-balance, or I can thrust and watch you impale yourself on my point. The Pendragon combined-action penalty captures this quite well.

In group combat, other dynamics are added – which is why unit charges make sense when properly done (think Battle skill here). The mass of the charging unit can disrupt or break a formation – and a smart commander will arrange qualitative or quantitative superiority at point of impact to ensure it is the foe who breaks. This can be done by shifting right (or left) before impact so you have numerical superiority on the flank, or you can have a deep column of people hit a weak point in their line and break through into the enemy backfield.

Head-on blind charges as in the video clip – no tactics against an equal foe – result in mutual slaughter, a battle of attrition. The Vikings in the clip form a shieldwall – which gets disrupted as soon as they get moving. Imagine one of those sides charging a group that holds their ground and braces for impact. The first few chargers reaching the disciplined line will be ahead of their buds since humans run at different rates – so at least two defenders will be able to swing/thrust at each attacker the first round. That’s assuming those attackers reach the disciplined line alive, since the breaks in the shieldwall will make wonderful undefended firepaths for archers.

Even worse, after things get messed up into a confused fur-ball (in the aerial combat sense of the word), nobody is re-forming. In actual melee combat, the side that re-forms first – especially if they can re-form on the move -- usually wins. That white-beard getting killed from behind around 3:20? Should never have happened.

Finally, as to the question why one side did not stand and get the +5/-5, it’s not an issue of knowledge or intelligence – plenty of SCAdians who are wargamers and history buffs charge Recklessly. It’s an issue of training and wordfame. It takes time and regular practice for a unit to act together in the stress of combat, extra time separate from and in addition to weapons training. And charging alone ahead of the pack makes you very Gloriously visible.

As a result, in fights I pay close attention to the Battle skill and Prudent/Reckless rating of each side and throw in Disordered and combined-action penalties as appropriate. But then I'm very into tactics. YPMV.

I heartily agree with Gideon. While SCA combat doesn't lead to death or dismemberment, you can get hurt. Yes, this will lead to a more cautious fighting style than what the modern movie goer would use. In a life or death fight, you are going to fight cautiously, unless you are an insane berserker type. Talk to anyone in the military today about that.

Disciplined, well led historic armies have held off and destroyed the vainglorious charging rabble since the rise of Rome. Most casualties occur when discipline fails and formations fall apart and flanks or rears are exposed.

Yes we are here for fun. But this thread was created to ask why foot charge doesn't gain a bonus in game play. Reason were suggested. Now if in your game you choose to give a +5 bonus for running naked across the field swinging a 20 lb carp - then that is your house rule and you should go with that and have fun.

And just because it's been bothering me, here is a link to a (somewhat) better example from the Vikings TV show of one side holding the shieldwall vs a side that does not. I wouldn't use this to teach history (my understanding is that the Anglo-Saxons are all wrong and the Vikings too low tech), but IMHO it's a much better comparison than the previously linked video.

The relevant section starts at 1:00 minute in.

http://youtu.be/TTYz439cA5w

Another important difference is that this ends very quickly. From my (very limited!) understanding of how this stuff would work, two shieldwall formations could potentially get stuck fighting each other for several hours until one side exhausted or broke.

The unfortunate reality is that we don't know exactly how all of this worked. If you do some searching on YouTube or even your local library you can find some educated speculation that makes a lot of sense to me. I think these guys who re-create the combat really can help us understand things so long as we use the records we *do* have from history as a guide to make sure they aren't completely going off the deep end of speculation. ;D

Here are a couple of interesting Wikipedia articles to get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svinfylking

OK, OK, I've chosen the wrong Viking scene...but only because it was cool!

And I know also that the general answer here is: "Do as you like it"
No problem and do not want to declare than I'm the bearer of truth.

We play for fun, not for anything else!

It's just that I like to argue a bit more.



The unfortunate reality is that we don't know exactly how all of this worked. If you do some searching on YouTube or even your local library you can find some educated speculation that makes a lot of sense to me. I think these guys who re-create the combat really can help us understand things so long as we use the records we *do* have from history as a guide to make sure they aren't completely going off the deep end of speculation. ;D

Here are a couple of interesting Wikipedia articles to get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svinfylking


"we don't know exactly how all of this worked" is the best part of this quote.
You all are maybe more expert than me in medieval warfare, but I'm part of a Late Roman reconstruction group and, due to my real life job, I've read so much on Greek, Roman and Pre-Roman Italian warfare...and the problem is always the same.
Check for example how Hanson books on the experiences of single hoplites in a Classical battle changed our view of hoplitism a few years ago.
There are so many examples of charging footmen in classical history, long before stirrups changed the role of cavalry.

Now the problem is always, what about a 1 vs 1 duel?
Why one should be so stupid to charge and leave all the advantage to the other?

I guess the answer is not in history...but in what it is fun!!
Western culture has always been fascinated by the concept of a charging warrior....long before the rise of knighthood...even a few millennia before!.
This game has been created on the basis of medieval epics...I would like to quote some older epic:

from Homer, Iliab, Book XXII:
...With this, he (Hector) drew the sharp blade at his side, a powerful long-sword, and gathering his limbs together swooped like a high-soaring eagle that falls to earth from the dark clouds to seize a sick lamb or a cowering hare. So Hector swooped, brandishing his keen blade. Achilles ran to meet him heart filled with savage power...

So the two earliest warrior heroes of European literary history...are two idiots according to Pendragon rules? (two footmen charging one vs the other...)

The point is, even considering the complicated and contradicting evolution of Homeric poems, and even if unmounted charging is useless or dangeous (and I'm not sure about it), the author (Homer? Whatever Homer means) and the audience whom the work was aimed to (firstly Noble warrior elites, then farming-citizen-hoplites) were more accustomed to ancient non-mounted battle than me and you...and even so the deliberately ignored the possible penalties for charging footmen.

For me this is the most famous duel in European literature....but I'm not aware of anyone who in the past 25 centuries (Pisitratus age final collection) ever said: "look how those two idiots are charging one another!"
And do you you know why?
I think the answer is that Homer made the two coolest warriors in the Iliad clash in the coolest possible way: charging one another.

Trasmigrating all this line of reasoning in the fantastic Arthurian medieval...I personally find that if two unmounted knights do not charge one vs another...is simply miserable and not heroic.
But that just me and my humble opinion.

Sorry for the long post.

An excellent example, Luca, and a question well asked.

Let us look at what led up to those lines. This is a single combat: the Trojan army has fled back inside the city walls, Hector (who is Famously Reckless) has stayed outside the walls, and Achilles has told the other Greeks to back off. Hector advanced on Achilles because he thought his brother was at his side and he figured the two of them might together take Achilles, but when the “brother” vanishes into thin air Hector realizes he’s been royally snookered by the gods and the only thing left is to die gaining as many Glory points as possible, so he charges.

Although Achilles had earlier been running after Hector, once they are close enough to talk and throw spears Achilles is consistently only described as attacking, not charging. He’s carefully covering his chest with his shield and analyzing Hector’s armor for weak points. He spots one small gap, and “as Hector charged, noble Achilles struck him there.” That sounds to me like Achilles, once he got close, was not charging/going for a combined action but was at most advancing to contact. Achilles fought smart, and Hector fought like someone who had already decided he was going to lose.

So yes, there is definitely running on the battlefield when the situation is fluid, you look over yonder, and see someone needing killing or rescuing. It’s just that the smart fighters afoot, on that last round in which they make contact, normally slow down enough to avoid the combined-action penalty. Normally.

Although Achilles had earlier been running after Hector, once they are close enough to talk and throw spears Achilles is consistently only described as attacking, not charging. He’s carefully covering his chest with his shield and analyzing Hector’s armor for weak points. He spots one small gap, and “as Hector charged, noble Achilles struck him there.” That sounds to me like Achilles, once he got close, was not charging/going for a combined action but was at most advancing to contact. Achilles fought smart, and Hector fought like someone who had already decided he was going to lose.


In my text there was a "...Achilles ran to meet him.." which you miss and suggest a CounterCharge vs Charge situation... but I have to check the original Greek text (I haven't it tonight) if that "ran" is there or not.

All good examples of great warriors clashing in the best visual way. It looks cool and sounds heroic. and I want my players describe their action in such ways.

But then we return to the original question: Does it grant a bonus or a penalty doing so.
As I have stated earlier. I would say no to both. No bonus, no penalty. In the end it should be their skills that determine the outcome of the fight.
But then again I am not someone who uses the combined rule anyway.

Charge

move up to your full movement and attack. 0/+5. Add d6 to knockdown if you have shield. Add one to damage from momentum, add two if wielding a dedicated two handed weapon.