I know that this has been talking about quite frequently, but I've poured through the forum and cannot find resolution, thus the post here.

Is fighting from being knocked down reflexive modifier due to HEIGHT disadvantage OR multiple actions disadvantage (standing up?).

Example 1) PC knight on horseback with sword (10) facing NPC footman with axe (10). (non-charge, non-lance). Reflexive modifier for height due to horseback.
This should be 15 sword PC vs 5 axe NPC. Say the player hits and footman fails dex roll due to dmg = size. NPC now on his back.
Next round, PC wishes to push his advantage, is it:

a) PC sword 10 + 5 = 15 (height advantage horse, no height advantage for knockdown) vs NPC axe 10-5 = 5 or

b) PC sword 10 +5 height (horse) +5 (opponent multiple actions) = 20 vs NPC axe 10- 5 height - 5 multiple actions (standing while fighting) = 0 (in which case we hope our NPC has a shield so he can use defensive action fighting for +10, or dodge using dex - armor modifier)

Example 2) PC sword 10 skill vs NPC axe 10 skill, both on foot. PC hits and knockdown opponent, NPC fumbles breaking weapon in hand. Next round PC presses the attack (just a saxon churl). Is it:

a) PC 10 + 5 (height) + 5 (enemy mult actions)= 20 vs NPC 10-5-5 = 0. (what if PC is on a horse, additional height advantage?) or

b) PC 10 + 5 ( opponent multiple actions) = 15 vs NPC 10-5 = 5 (mult actions, re-arming while standing, if GM allows you to do both AND fight, might have to ignore opponent in order to do both, may call for +10/-10 reflexive modifier)

It's good to fight defensively if you need to draw a new weapon and are on the ground and facing someone on a horse. If you don't have a shield, you better dodge.

Now we can take range out of the equation by having the PC have a spear instead of sword if needs be.

Lastly a player asked about helping to defend one of his allies during combat. While I explained that most combat is 1:1 for honor, in case there is an NPC, i'd allow him to fight defensively and if successful give 3 points of his shield armor to his ally. (precedent in saxons, shield wall formation where you get additional armor by being so close to your fellows shields).

My two denarii:

1) Getting up is a multiple action. That being said, we usually rule that a horseman can't reach down with his sword, so the fighting resumes once the opponent is up (and hence suffers only from the height penalty). Just to encourage some spear use, too. So it would be 'no fight' with a sword, and +10/-10 with a spear (better take Defensive if you are the one on the ground!).

2) Getting up and rearming are TWO multiple actions, so yeah, we give +10/-10 if you are doing both at the same time. Again, best to take Defensive... Or even stay down and take rearm+Defensive, before getting up with Defensive.

3) Defending allies during combat: Often best defense is a good offense. If it is a battle instead of a duel, ganging up is allowed, even encouraged in Uther's time. We have had some cases of 'Mine, stay out of it!' to let allies know that they are not willing to share. Otherwise, the PKs often start helping out, forcing the enemy to split the skill or even choose Defensive.

As for your way of handling it, it should be OK. That being said, I think I would choose to do it like this: Fight Defensively and split the skill between your own defense and defending the ally. If your Success at defending an ally is better than the enemy's combat roll, you parry the blow directed at your ally without harm. The ally only hits if HIS roll is better than the enemy's. In any case, by defending your ally (unless it is from a third person), you are already interfering with the combat, and it is not any more honorable than hitting the enemy, too, IMHO.

Recently I had more of my players on horseback with swords knocking down and/or breaking (through NPC fumbles) their opponents weapons.
While I certainly enjoy my players doing well, a question regarding critical success and check marks. Do you allow your players to check a skill when they get a critical only on a natural die roll (5%) or do you include bonuses? For example my PC on horseback who knocked his opponent down last turn is now at a +10, assuming a sword skill of 15, he now has a 25% chance of critical hitting. Does this give him a check on his skill?

Also I've been trying to have the saxons fight defensively when standing up while fighting an opponent on horseback but the PC's are still smiting them right and left. I've been considering having them dodge out of the way of the combat while attempting to re-arm but their dex scores are terrible. Soon enough the saxons will learn to go after the horses I guess.

Further question, if a saxon wants to attack a players horse rather than a player in combat. Is it two unopposed rolls or is it the same combat resolution with the damage going to the horse instead of players character on an NPC success?

I let the players check a skill whenever they have used the skill successfully in real situation/combat. And often even if they have not landed a hit, but have rolled at least a partial success. I don't require critical rolls, but if I would, I would definitely count all the criticals. A critical is a critical.

Pendragon Combat has been designed so that the horseman has a big advantage over the footman. However, if you surround each knight with even two Saxons, the odds become much more even in a hurry. Three Saxons, if you are feeling evil. The PK will have to split his skill three ways, and the chances are that some of the Saxons land a hit eventually, and quite possibly past the shield, too.

We have used the latter rule: the horseman+horse is considered one target, and the footman can aim for the horse. However, this also allows the knight to use his own skill to defend the horse. I could see using the first rule, too, but I wouldn't make it necessarily unopposed. Instead, I would let the knight decide how much he wants to split his skill to defending his horse (or dodging with the horse) and how much to hit the Saxon with, while the Saxon gets to decide how much he wants to hit the horse and how much to defend against the knight.

I count all the criticals. It does not matter what the modifiers are. Remember that they can only get 1 check per year, so the second and futher criticals do not matter. As Morien said in a previous thread be generous in checks, when their skill hits 18 the increase drops to a crawl anyway.

I use the second. It is only one roll, where the knight defends his horse. All hits of the footman will be against the horse and he would not get a -5 penalty to hit.
Also as Morien said have multiple footman attack a horseman and they will suffer hits. In my game the Saxons frequently use Great spears in stead of axes when they know they will fight knights on horseback. This negates their penalty and with multiple opponents this has hit the PKs hard some times.

I use the second. It is only one roll, where the knight defends his horse. All hits of the footman will be against the horse and he would not get a -5 penalty to hit.

That is the actual rule in use in our campaign, too. It does mean that once you have a couple of Saxons hacking at the horse's legs, it goes down fast. 5d6 is an average of 17.5 points, and most chargers have an armor of 5 and CON 12... that is about 50/50 chance of a major wound, after which the horse is crippled. Assuming two Saxons with Axe 13, and a knight of Sword 15, this becomes 13/8+5 and 13/7+5 fight for the knight, and real tense.

Also, I don't allow swords and other normal melee weapons (save for spears and lances) to attack from horseback, when the opponent is down. So they don't get the higher ground + multiple action bonuses. On the other hand, it is pretty much trivial for the horseman to sidestep with the horse and avoid any flailing the footman might do, too, so he is not a threat, either, whilst he is getting up. Keeps it fair on both sides.

The other point is the criticals. If you have 3 Saxons attacking each of 3 knights, that is 9 opponent rolls. Even with the skill of 13-5=8, there is still 5% chance of a critical, which means that it is almost 50/50 chance that one of the Saxons rolls a critical and likely takes a knight out. Remember, the PKs only need to lose once to die, whereas there are always more NPCs. Hence, most of the fights to the death OUGHT to see the advantage on the PKs' side, or it will be a pretty short campaign (or the PKs will learn to avoid fighting, which is not good for a heroic Arthurian game, either... but if you are running a dark ages "stab them in the back if you can", then that would work, too).

Dice are fickle things:
in our campaign, one knight with a magic sword faced three scared peasants (one of whom was a burly blacksmith, admittedly), who objected him looting the village's church. End result, the knight bleeding with broken bones, while the peasants escape with the church's communion ware. Simply because he continued rolling exceedingly poorly while the peasants didn't.

I let the players check a skill whenever they have used the skill successfully in real situation/combat. And often even if they have not landed a hit, but have rolled at least a partial success. I don't require critical rolls, but if I would, I would definitely count all the criticals. A critical is a critical.

Pendragon Combat has been designed so that the horseman has a big advantage over the footman. However, if you surround each knight with even two Saxons, the odds become much more even in a hurry. Three Saxons, if you are feeling evil. The PK will have to split his skill three ways, and the chances are that some of the Saxons land a hit eventually, and quite possibly past the shield, too.

We have used the latter rule: the horseman+horse is considered one target, and the footman can aim for the horse. However, this also allows the knight to use his own skill to defend the horse. I could see using the first rule, too, but I wouldn't make it necessarily unopposed. Instead, I would let the knight decide how much he wants to split his skill to defending his horse (or dodging with the horse) and how much to hit the Saxon with, while the Saxon gets to decide how much he wants to hit the horse and how much to defend against the knight.

Interesting idea having the combat with the horse be a separate incident and the knight getting a "free" attack on the opponent who is attacking the horse. I was thinking of this and it feels like Horsemanship should come into play somewhere. There's precedence for the skill to be used (by the Huns) where horses are the targets, but in that case it's making the horse the target. I would think if someone was trying to attack your horse, you could use horsemanship to put yourself between you and the horse, basically deny that opportunity for attack. It would also make Horsemanship a somewhat more useful skill since right now it's important but very situational.

Interesting idea having the combat with the horse be a separate incident and the knight getting a "free" attack on the opponent who is attacking the horse. I was thinking of this and it feels like Horsemanship should come into play somewhere. There's precedence for the skill to be used (by the Huns) where horses are the targets, but in that case it's making the horse the target. I would think if someone was trying to attack your horse, you could use horsemanship to put yourself between you and the horse, basically deny that opportunity for attack. It would also make Horsemanship a somewhat more useful skill since right now it's important but very situational.

Easiest thing would be to cap the attack skill by the Weapon Skill and the horse dodge by the Horsemanship.

So if I have Weapon of 15 and Horsemanship of 12, I can take -12 to my Weapon Skill and attack with 3, while trying to dodge the hit on my horse with 12. You could even do it the other way around if Horsemanship is better than the Weapon Skill, like 18 instead of 12: I can take -15 to my Horsemanship and still have 3 left over, while attacking with my full skill of 15(+5 for being on horseback).

That being said, I like the rule we have been using so far (see previous posts in this thread), since it is quick and easy. Just one roll each, rather than doubling the number of rolls I and the players have to make.

Now to make Horsemanship really important, you could have a houserule that up to Horsemanship of 20, your actual attack skill is the average of your weapon skill and your horsemanship, if the former is higher than the latter (not the other way around: you are never better at swinging your sword than when you are on foot, absent modifiers). So in the first example above, Sword 15 and Horsemanship of 12, my Sword skill from horseback is actually 14 (13.5, rounds up), since I am having trouble controlling my horse as well as I'd like. It distracts from my sword play.

I generally don't let NPCs attack horses. Its not terribly Arthurian for one and it leads to players asking why their 1200lb warhorse doesn't get its own action if its a valid target. So only things that say they go for the horse (ie boars, arrows) do so and the player uses their skill and can apply their shield.

For checks whenever I say 'roll X' you get a check if you succeed. If you want to roll then it depends on how important it is.