Hi all,

I was thinking about how damage and armor interact in Pendragon, and I got to thinking about possible house rules which might speed up combat, too. I have a vague feeling that I have encountered the idea of armor reducing damage dice rather than a flat amount of damage before, but unfortunately I can't recall who and when.

So in principle, this would be just rescaling the armor a bit:
Gambeson: -1d6 (average 3.5, was 4)
Chain mail tunic: -2d6 (average 7, was 8)
Norman Chain: -3d6 (average 10.5, was 10)
Partial Plate: -4d6 (average 14, was 14)
Gothic Plate: -5d6 (average 17.5, was 18)
Knightly shield: -2d6 (average 7, was 6)
Small shield (targe, buckler): -1d6 (average 3.5)

Axe, hammer and mace would counteract one -1d6 reduction from the appropriate armor type.

So for instance, 5d6 knight hitting Partial Plate with a hammer (reduction -3d6 because of the hammer) would roll 2d6 for damage, which is quicker and easier than 5d6-(14-1d6).

The downsides of this system are obvious, though:

1) Since less dice are rolled, it averages the result more. Taking the above example, the knight could have, in principle, hit 30 damage (5 times 6) against 8 (14-6) armor for 22 points of damage. Now, the maximum he'd hit is 12. Granted, he benefits from the minimum damage being 2, rather than just 'ping' from the armor. This is actually not that huge an effect, though, since in the above example, 80% of the hits would be in the 2-12 damage range. So you could say that it cuts down on the 'useless' rolling, although one downside is that a knight with a chainmail and a shield is invulnerable vs. 4d6 spearmen. This was almost the case even before, where the knight had just about 25% chance of taking a minor scratch on a hit. However, since the knight is unlikely to get his shield against multiple spearmen, they would still remain a threat until Partial Plate, which might also be when the footmen start using something bigger than just a spear, too, like a halberd/bill, and shields start becoming rarer amongst the knights.

2) You'd need a new way to calculate Knockdown. However, since Knockdown is already one of the reasons why SIZ rules supreme amongst the stats, redefining Knockdown and putting more emphasis on DEX might be a good thing. For example, 4d6 has about 1-in-6 chance of triggering a knockdown roll for a SIZ 18 guy, whereas 5d6 has a 50% chance and 6d6 has 80% chance.
a) This is about equivalent to rolling 1d6+(3*damage dice) to trigger a knockdown. Or in other words:
4d6: 12+1d6 (or the first damage die)
5d6: 15+1d6 (or the first damage die)
6d6: 18+1d6 (or the first damage die)
That is, if you wanted to keep it about the same as it was.
b) If you don't mind altering it a bit more, you could simply take the average of the damage die and say that the knockdown is triggered if the SIZ is same or less than:
4d6: 14
5d6: 18
6d6: 21
Downside of this is that a SIZ 15 knight can pretty much just laugh at the spearmen trying to poke him, although some of them would get past his shield.
c) Or, an even simpler way, a knockdown is triggered on any hit, but you roll vs. (DEX + SIZ)/2. This gives those SIZ 18 monsters a bonus for being big and bulky, but if they are not nimble on their feet, they can fall, too. Downside of this is that it adds a second roll each time you are hit rather than just some of the time, but it is a quick roll, since it is always the same, and you can roll it while the GM is rolling damage or vice versa. I think this would be my preference, to keep those 4d6 spearmen able to trip the knight if they manage to swarm him and poke him while he is down.


Anyway, I don't personally feel any need to shift to the above system from basic Pendragon, but I was interested more in this as an intellectual exercise, out of curiosity how it would work out. Also, it might have its uses in a convention type game, where you want things to move quickly and not spend too much time rolling a handful of d6's for damage. :) If anyone has tried something like the above system, I would be very interested in hearing how it worked out!

A few thoughts:

1) Have it so that hits with 0 or negative modified damage dice do 1d6-3 damage or something to that effect. That way there is always the potential for a scratch through the elbow-slit or a nicking of the thumb on normal hits from a low damage opponent.

2) Determine knockdown from the attack roll. If the hit + unmodified damage dice is greater than the opponent's size, a knockdown is rolled for. Use the margin as a negative dex modifier, instead of having auto-knockdowns.

So say Sam the Spearman and Natey the Knight are going at it. Natey strikes true. He has 15 sword skill and 5d6 damage, reduced to 3d6 on account of Sam's Gambeson and shield. His skill roll is 10, plus his 5 normal damage dice he exceeds Sam's average size of 12 by 3, so Sam has to roll his dexterity at a -3, assuming human average dex of 12, Sam has a 55% likelihood of being knocked down.

Thanks for the ideas, Mr. 47. :)

Adding a 1d6-3 damage on a 0d6 would work well in modeling two 5d6 knights with chain and shield going against one another, or an archer shooting at Norman Chain. So I think that is a very good idea. Whether to allow this on all hits, regardless of magnitude... I guess one could say that if the damage dice are at least half of the reduction dice, then 1d6-3 happens. This would give a bit of immunity against really minor threats, whilst in regular combat, you don't have to worry about it since you are unlikely to have 2d6 damage opponents around anyway.

EDIT: Thinking about the above a bit more, I think I would just limit it to 0d6 = 1d6-3, all the other damage just bounces off. Yes, this does mean that the knight with a shield is immune vs. the 4d6 spearman as long as he gets the shield in between. This is pretty much already the case currently. Whether or not the spearman manages to give the knight a couple of points of damage before he dies is pretty much immaterial. It is when the knight trips or is ganged up against by two or three spearmen that the fight becomes more equal and interesting. 4d6 spearman gets to poke 1d6 through armor, and this starts to accumulate pretty rapidly if you are splitting your skills and taking a couple of hits each round past the shield.

As for the knockdown, while what you suggest could work, it does mean that someone with a low skill would only cause a knockdown on a critical hit, pretty much regardless of their damage dice. Also, it is one additional calculation and comparison that needs to be done. I think I would prefer to just use (SIZ+DEX)/2 and roll at every hit. Sure, that might fail the reality test of a child pushing an adult, but you could easily add another cut off here, like SIZ 10+ is immune to everyone with damage dice of 2d6 or less. Again, like above, the situation would almost never come up in actual gameplay.

A few thoughts:

1) Have it so that hits with 0 or negative modified damage dice do 1d6-3 damage or something to that effect. That way there is always the potential for a scratch through the elbow-slit or a nicking of the thumb on normal hits from a low damage opponent.

2) Determine knockdown from the attack roll. If the hit + unmodified damage dice is greater than the opponent's size, a knockdown is rolled for. Use the margin as a negative dex modifier, instead of having auto-knockdowns.

So say Sam the Spearman and Natey the Knight are going at it. Natey strikes true. He has 15 sword skill and 5d6 damage, reduced to 3d6 on account of Sam's Gambeson and shield. His skill roll is 10, plus his 5 normal damage dice he exceeds Sam's average size of 12 by 3, so Sam has to roll his dexterity at a -3, assuming human average dex of 12, Sam has a 55% likelihood of being knocked down.

I really like this and will shamelessly steal it. However, one problem. One of the main appeals for the lighter armors are that the heavier armors have DEX penalties. With this system, there would be no point in ever using a lighter armor for a knight. Granted knights probably would be wearing as heavy armor as they could, but to keep choices mechanically interesting, I am hesitant to implement this as is. Maybe reduce the DEX modifiers in the book by 5 but use them otherwise as are and then implement the margin as a DEX modifier?

I really like this and will shamelessly steal it. However, one problem. One of the main appeals for the lighter armors are that the heavier armors have DEX penalties. With this system, there would be no point in ever using a lighter armor for a knight. Granted knights probably would be wearing as heavy armor as they could, but to keep choices mechanically interesting, I am hesitant to implement this as is. Maybe reduce the DEX modifiers in the book by 5 but use them otherwise as are and then implement the margin as a DEX modifier?

There is absolutely no reason for a knight to wear lighter armor even under the current, vanilla KAP system (which is historical in most cases, as long as we neglect tournament armor). Heavier armor doesn't penalize balance rolls, which are what the knight is likely rolling against most of the time. Also, heavier armor still penalizes movement and sneaking around, which would be the same still, too. The only difference with these houserule alterations and vanilla KAP is how the damage is calculated, and due to changing the damage rolling, also how knockdown is determined.

Heavier armor doesn't penalize balance rolls, which are what the knight is likely rolling against most of the time.
I must have misunderstood the rules then, are you saying that if a hit causes Knockdown, the armor class does not affect the DEX roll? If so, could you tell me where this is stated? I'm not saying you are wrong at all, just that I would like to be able to tell my players.

I must have misunderstood the rules then, are you saying that if a hit causes Knockdown, the armor class does not affect the DEX roll? If so, could you tell me where this is stated? I'm not saying you are wrong at all, just that I would like to be able to tell my players.

That is exactly what I am saying. :)

KAP 5.1, p. 79, under Balance:
Encumbrance is not used to modify a DEX roll for bal-
ance unless the Gamemaster decides that it should, based
on the circumstances.

Wearing armor is referred to as being encumbered in Climb: "Encumbered characters (such as those wearing armor) while climbing also suffer the usual modifiers to DEX."

p. 115:
DEX Modifiers: As explained under “The Dexterity
Roll” (Chapter 4), armor imposes a negative modifier to
DEX rolls in many situations, such as climbing or jumping.

Since Balance rolls have previously stated to be encumbrance-free, unlike climbing and jumping, there is nothing here to indicate that balance rolls would be penalized by armor. If anything, it should be much easier to stay to your feet while wearing armor, than when you are carrying it in your backpack, because of where the center of mass would be.

Since Balance rolls have previously stated to be encumbrance-free, unlike climbing and jumping, there is nothing here to indicate that balance rolls would be penalized by armor. If anything, it should be much easier to stay to your feet while wearing armor, than when you are carrying it in your backpack, because of where the center of mass would be.
Agreed, however if you are wearing a lot of heavy metal on you and you lose your balance, you will struggle to keep your footing much more than you would if you were wearing slacks, for example. But fair enough, you pointed out where the rules are, and that's much appreciated. You made my players plenty happy :P

Agreed, however if you are wearing a lot of heavy metal on you and you lose your balance, you will struggle to keep your footing much more than you would if you were wearing slacks, for example. But fair enough, you pointed out where the rules are, and that's much appreciated. You made my players plenty happy :P

Well, you are already imposing a 'lost your balance' -clause in there. :P That same mass also resist an attempt to unbalance you, after all, and KAP ignores that (your Knockdown stat doesn't change). So I am fully prepared to accept that there is some handwaving involved here for simplicity and it all cancels out. For instance, I carry quite a lot of excess fat around my midsection, and while I definitely can see a big difference in running and jumping compared to my slimmer youth, balance-wise I am pretty much where I was. I am used to it, and since the weight is distributed evenly (like an armor would be, although I accept that mine is even more, shall we say, centrally located), it cancels out. Put a 100 lbs backpack on me and give it a tug backwards, and I'd have a lot more difficulties. :)

There is also a gamist argument: if you impose -10 to DEX for wearing the usual armor, you will make DEX even less useful than it is now. Even with DEX 20 you'd fall every second hit, and anything less than 15 would be almost as if you had DEX of 5, i.e., next to useless. Whereas if you don't have the minus, that +5 to DEX (from 10 to 15) halves the falls already (1 fall per 4 Knockdown hits). DEX is already the redheaded stepchild (along with APP) of the KAP system, it doesn't need any more penalties!

(Not to mention that the game is about knights, not the Rangers of Ithilien... :P )

Well, you are already imposing a 'lost your balance' -clause in there. :P That same mass also resist an attempt to unbalance you, after all, and KAP ignores that (your Knockdown stat doesn't change). So I am fully prepared to accept that there is some handwaving involved here for simplicity and it all cancels out. For instance, I carry quite a lot of excess fat around my midsection, and while I definitely can see a big difference in running and jumping compared to my slimmer youth, balance-wise I am pretty much where I was. I am used to it, and since the weight is distributed evenly (like an armor would be, although I accept that mine is even more, shall we say, centrally located), it cancels out. Put a 100 lbs backpack on me and give it a tug backwards, and I'd have a lot more difficulties. :)

There is also a gamist argument: if you impose -10 to DEX for wearing the usual armor, you will make DEX even less useful than it is now. Even with DEX 20 you'd fall every second hit, and anything less than 15 would be almost as if you had DEX of 5, i.e., next to useless. Whereas if you don't have the minus, that +5 to DEX (from 10 to 15) halves the falls already (1 fall per 4 Knockdown hits). DEX is already the redheaded stepchild (along with APP) of the KAP system, it doesn't need any more penalties!

(Not to mention that the game is about knights, not the Rangers of Ithilien... :P )

Fair enough, and you are on point about the DEX usefulnes reduction there as well. I'm happy to have misunderstood the rules and to take corrective action :)