So I'm reading this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angon

And thinking about this:

Angon

This Anglo-Saxon spear ranges in length from about five to nine feet and is characterized by a barbed head at the end of an extended iron shank. The barb is designed to lodge in an opponent's shield (rendering it useles) or body (making it very difficult to remove without causing extreme pain and additional damage). In any case the extended iron shank prevents the head from being cut from the shaft. Angons are designed to disable enemy shields, thus leaving combatants vulnerable, and disrupt enemy formations, especially the shield wall. An angon’s maximum range is thirty yards.

The Angon deals 1d6 less damage than the user’s normal Damage statistic, to a minimum of 1d6 damage. Thus, a character who normally does 4d6 points of damage on a hit deals only 3d6 with an Angon. Defenders may attempt an opposed roll with their Primary Weapon skill to block an incoming Angon with their shield. Success means the Angon is deflected harmlessly. A partial success means the Angon is caught by the shield, which is immediately rendered useless and must be discarded. On a failure, the Angon strikes for full damage. On a fumble, the shield is rendered uselss and the Angon delivers full damage.

If suffering a Major Wound from an Angon, the barbed head becomes lodged in the body and requires Chirurgery. The person so wounded is subject to immediate Aggravation damage until the weapon is removed. On a failed Chirurgery roll, the victim takes another 1d6 damage. On a fumble, the victim takes the usual 1d3 plus another 2d6 damage (although First Aid can help the exacerbation of this wound).

The Angon is not as common as spears or javelins, but rather seems to be used by the warrior elite, who might approach the enemy holding three of the weapons, in addition to their primary weapon (carried in belt or scabbard and drawn before closing with the enemy).

Comments are welcome.



T.

A couple of comments:

1) Why not use the normal rules for missile weapons and shields (-6 to skill) rather than the opposed skill rolls (not used with any other missile weapon)?
Here is a simple rule for Shield neutralization: If the attack roll fails by that -6, the shield is being used, and angon might get caught: on a odd attack roll the angon glances off, on an even roll it gets embedded in the shield, rendering it useless.
Example: Angon 12. Roll 1 - 5 = success, hit. 6 = critical success. 7, 9, 11 = angon glances off the shield. 8, 10, 12 = angon gets embedded in the shield.

2) I find javelins to be a bit underpowered in general, so I would be tempted to make all javelins (angon included) -1d6 rather than -2d6. After all, daggers are -1d6, and it feels a bit wrong that 4d6 guy does 3d6 with a bow but only 2d6 with a javelin.

A couple of comments:

1) Why not use the normal rules for missile weapons and shields (-6 to skill) rather than the opposed skill rolls (not used with any other missile weapon)?

Except in the Book of Battle where all missile attacks are resolved with an opposed roll (IIRC) :P

Really, I wish there was just a Fighting skill with specilalizations for weapons you focus on and penalties for weapons you've never used before (or seldom use). Then you could use the Fighting skill opposed for things like deflecting missles and use the same system in melee as in Battle. I really hate individual weapon skills — it's just not the way fighting works and it betrays the game's "old school" roots. Every time I see a fighter with Sword 18 and Dagger 1 (I'm looking at you "warrior-king" Cerdic) I just cringe. I hope this gets addressed in KAP 6. But I digress...

Sure, I'm open to it!


Here is a simple rule for Shield neutralization: If the attack roll fails by that -6, the shield is being used, and angon might get caught: on a odd attack roll the angon glances off, on an even roll it gets embedded in the shield, rendering it useless.
Example: Angon 12. Roll 1 - 5 = success, hit. 6 = critical success. 7, 9, 11 = angon glances off the shield. 8, 10, 12 = angon gets embedded in the shield.

That works too.


2) I find javelins to be a bit underpowered in general, so I would be tempted to make all javelins (angon included) -1d6 rather than -2d6.

Yeah, I was kinda thinking the same thing. Thanks for mentioning it.


Best,


M.

Except in the Book of Battle where all missile attacks are resolved with an opposed roll (IIRC) :P

That is the mass combat system, not melee, Taliesin. :) You are abstracting not only the one javelin but the whole battle round, including when you finally get to those pesky missile troops and slaughter them with your sword! :P



Really, I wish there was just a Fighting skill with specilalizations for weapons you focus on and penalties for weapons you've never used before (or seldom use). Then you could use the Fighting skill opposed for things like deflecting missles and use the same system in melee as in Battle. I really hate individual weapon skills — it's just not the way fighting works and it betrays the game's "old school" roots. Every time I see a fighter with Sword 18 and Dagger 1 (I'm looking at you "warrior-king" Cerdic) I just cringe. I hope this gets addressed in KAP 6. But I digress...


I think Greg mentioned in one old weapon skill thread that one reason for individual weapon skills is that you get more differentiation between the knights. Something that wouldn't happen if you have just one Fighting skill. And there is an argument that can be made that while the basics are the same, the techniques you'd use with a spear are totally different from the attacks you do with a warhammer. Shield use is probably similar, though.

The "Sword 18, Dagger 1" syndrome annoys me too. In our campaign, we shifted to "All weapon skills (for knights) default to 10." house rule. That has worked beautifully so far. It is dead easy to implement, gives the knights a usable skill in all weapons, and lowers the investment for new weapons. Rather than spending 3 yearly trainings to get another weapon up to 15 (the primary weapon skill of a starting knight, usually), it only takes a year, and gives the knights more options in battle. I have talked about it more here:
http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?1300-Weapon-Groups-and-Defaults&p=19243&viewfull=1#post19243
and here why I prefer a 'flat' default rather than basing it off from the highest weapon skill:
http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?1300-Weapon-Groups-and-Defaults&p=19255&viewfull=1#post19255

I also dislike the sword 18, dagger 1 syndrome. I understand the point of differentiating among weapons, but I think that can still be done by using a flat default from your highest weapon skill. I usually use -5 from best skill with the max default at 15. So if you're sword 20 you'd default to mace 15. Makes it much more likely that players will use more than one weapon type.

1) Why not use the normal rules for missile weapons and shields (-6 to skill) rather than the opposed skill rolls (not used with any other missile weapon)?
Here is a simple rule for Shield neutralization: If the attack roll fails by that -6, the shield is being used, and angon might get caught: on a odd attack roll the angon glances off, on an even roll it gets embedded in the shield, rendering it useless.
Example: Angon 12. Roll 1 - 5 = success, hit. 6 = critical success. 7, 9, 11 = angon glances off the shield. 8, 10, 12 = angon gets embedded in the shield.


Could the same thing work for axes and shields, but on 8,10,12 the axe renders the shiled useless?


T.

Axes are not missile weapons and thus should follow the normal rules of melee. There is no need, IMHO, to come up with new, convoluted rules for Axes. If you want the Axe to have a chance of breaking the shield, how about ruling that on a roll of 1 for the shield protection (1d6 protection vs. Axes rather than full 6 points), the shield is destroyed?

(We use the +1d6 to damage vs. shields from 4th Ed rather than shields protect at 1d6 from 5th Ed, since it is easier and more consistent with other +1d6 vs. type weapons like maces. In which case you could use a roll of 6 destroying a shield. I don't think such a rule is necessary, Axes are plenty good already, but if that floats your longship...)

We use the +1d6 to damage vs. shields from 4th Ed rather than shields protect at 1d6 from 5th Ed, since it is easier and more consistent with other +1d6 vs. type weapons like maces. In which case you could use a roll of 6 destroying a shield. I don't think such a rule is necessary, Axes are plenty good already, but if that floats your longship...

Well, the 5.1 rulebook says, "A battle axe easily shatters or splits open shields," but provides no rules for delivering on this promise. I was just looking for an easy way to address that oversight. Yours works, although a 1 in 6 chance doesn't sound like "easily." Having no practical experience with axes and shields and just going by the text, I wonder if it shouldn't be 2 in 6? Or maybe 1 in 6 for axe, 2 in 6 for great axe...


T.

A couple of comments:

1) Why not use the normal rules for missile weapons and shields (-6 to skill) rather than the opposed skill rolls (not used with any other missile weapon)?
Example: Angon 12. Roll 1 - 5 = success, hit. 6 = critical success. 7, 9, 11 = angon glances off the shield. 8, 10, 12 = angon gets embedded in the shield.

2) I find javelins to be a bit underpowered in general, so I would be tempted to make all javelins (angon included) -1d6 rather than -2d6. After all, daggers are -1d6, and it feels a bit wrong that 4d6 guy does 3d6 with a bow but only 2d6 with a javelin.

[/quote]
I currently rule that missiles can be used as per Book of Battle, with parry and all.
Also, If currently find javelins to do normal damage.

That is a pretty cool weapon.
It works essentially like a Roman pila
I am going to see if I can use it...

It works essentially like a Roman pila


That's pretty much angon's ancestry, a derivation of a Roman pilum (singular :P, pila is plural).

Well, the 5.1 rulebook says, "A battle axe easily shatters or splits open shields," but provides no rules for delivering on this promise. I was just looking for an easy way to address that oversight. Yours works, although a 1 in 6 chance doesn't sound like "easily." Having no practical experience with axes and shields and just going by the text, I wonder if it shouldn't be 2 in 6? Or maybe 1 in 6 for axe, 2 in 6 for great axe...


That is fluff text to explain why the axes are more efficient vs. shields. A small breakage chance (1 on an extra die, including the two-handed bonus for Battle Axe) would work without making Axes way too good.

Alternatively, you could flip it around and say that the Axes do not extra damage vs. shields, but have a reasonable chance of breaking them, like: all even damage rolls of 20 or better. This would lead to following chances:
4d6: 5.4% (about 1 in 20)
5d6: 30.5% (about 2 in 6)
6d6: 63.7% (about 4 in 6)
7d6: 86.3% (about 5 in 6)
8d6: 96.1% (about 19 in 20)

The puny 4d6 Cymric foot soldier doesn't benefit all that much from an axe, so might as well train them with cheaper spears (which are much better for formation fighting, too), while 5d6 Saxons start benefiting from Axes, and 8d6 berserkers with Great Axes will make shields explode on the first hit. 5d6 Saxon with a Great Axe would have a 4 in 6 chance of busting a knight's shield per hit in the shield (but the shield would still protect at full value against that destroying hit). This would still be in rough balance with the official rule, in which shields protect essentially at half value but do not get destroyed against Axes. The berserkers would benefit more from this rule, while 4d6 people are the great losers.

I currently rule that missiles can be used as per Book of Battle, with parry and all.
Also, If currently find javelins to do normal damage.

Yeah, I dimly remember this coming up before, and someone expressed a desire to have one way of resolving missle combat for both melee and battle systems. So this was in the back of my head when I went that way, fer sure. Then Morien had to pee on my parade. :)

The puny 4d6 Cymric foot soldier doesn't benefit all that much from an axe, so might as well train them with cheaper spears (which are much better for formation fighting, too), while 5d6 Saxons start benefiting from Axes, and 8d6 berserkers with Great Axes will make shields explode on the first hit. 5d6 Saxon with a Great Axe would have a 4 in 6 chance of busting a knight's shield per hit in the shield (but the shield would still protect at full value against that destroying hit). This would still be in rough balance with the official rule, in which shields protect essentially at half value but do not get destroyed against Axes. The berserkers would benefit more from this rule, while 4d6 people are the great losers.

I like it!


T.

Then Morien had to pee on my parade. :)

Tinkle, tinkle, little star... :P

I am not convinced that changing the missile combat resolution is a good idea. While uniform mechanics are nice, in this particular case, you'd end up pretty much totally nerfing the missile weapons, which are not that great to begin with in Pendragon. The reason for this is not (only) the opposed resolution (which is probably going to be more or less OK with the removal of the -6 to missile weapon skill from the shield), but the partial success still giving the shield armor bonus.

Opposed resolution:
Sword 15 vs. Bow 15. There is a 6.25% chance both will miss, but lets ignore that and simplify it to 50/50 chance of each of them winning the resolution. Now, 75% of the Bowman's victories, the Swordman gets a partial success, and if he is a knight wearing chainmail, that is 16 points of armor with the shield. 3d6 bow has almost no chance of getting through it. In other words, only 1 in 8 arrows will actually have a chance of causing a wound, and if we take the armor into account, it becomes 1 in 16 (50% of 3d6 are 10 or below). 16 arrows is a lot to give the Swordman a scratch. Not incapacitate him, but to scratch him: the damage is likely (2 in 3) to be 1-3 hit points past the armor. Which means that it would take around 120 arrows to bring one knight down (assuming an average of 3 points per hit past the armor and 21 damage needed). Who is not wearing anything more than a chainmail and a shield. Reinforced chainmail makes things even worse for the archers, who might just as well give up now, since they are not going accomplish anything.

Old resolution (unopposed roll, shield gives -6):
Bowman 15 -> 9. This is 45% hit rate, PAST the shield. So he is wounding the Swordman approximately 25% (1 in 4) of the time, or four times as often than he would under the opposed resolution system. Also, this is just one easy roll rather than two rolls and comparisons, which is something that I like as a GM, when unleashing an arrow storm on my players' knights when they try to assault a castle. It still takes a goodly amount of arrows to whittle a knight down, but it is around 30 rather than 120. If I see a knight riding around with 30 arrows in him, I would call him a pincushion. 120 arrows I am having difficulties to even visualize.

You'd have to take the shield away from the partial success to keep things the same as before, but then you are no longer having a unified resolution mechanic, and you still have a problem with the tactics. Things are even worse if the Swordman can use Defensive, although you can get around that by allowing the Bowman make 'Berserk' attacks with a bow. However, the latter would allow everyone to be a crack shot with an unmoving target, so it might be easier to disallow those tactics fully, which would be another change from the melee combat.

In short, I don't see any reason to say that the 30min - 1h abstracted battle round resolution needs to be the same as the single shot from a bow in melee resolution. As I said earlier, during the battle round there is also fighting with the sword, while in the melee resolution, the sword swinging comes later.