So I remember seeing something like this around as a proposed houserule for improving the utility of Dexterity in combat, but I can't find it so I wanted to pitch this based on what I remember. I already account for Dexterity more when calculating knockdown value (Size+Dex/2) but I thought this might be an interesting way for a very dexterous knight to have an interesting edge in some combat situations where a bigger higher damage knight might have difficulties.

Maneuvering:
After the Resolution phase, when all targets have been chosen, a character who is currently out-numbered may attempt to make an opposed dexterity test against one of their foes. (Do not apply Armor penalties.) If successful, the character has managed to maneuver themselves where not all of their opponents are capable of engaging them on that round. (perhaps they have managed to position it so that they are getting in one another's way, or they have secured a terrain advantage.) whatever the case. The foe is unable to attack the character this round, but also is unable to be attacked. Resolve the combat round as if the foe is not present. If the character critically succeeds on their Dexterity test, they are particularly effective at maneuvering to their foe's disadvantage, and in addition to the targeted foe, one of the remaining foes (lowest Dexterity decides, maneuver-er chooses on ties.) is also unable to engage or be engaged by the character this round. (A minimum of one foe may always engage the character regardless of the results.)

If the character fumbles the Dexterity roll, they trip themselves up, or if they are mounted their horse throws them and they are knocked down. (applying 1d6 damage if they fall from their horse.)

What do you think? It definitely seems like it would make a dexterous fighter much more defensive and able to hold his own against a larger horde of warriors, but in a one-on-one duel those tricks aren't going to even the odds against a stronger (and larger) fighter. The Fumble result means that it can be dangerous to rely on too much. (Unless they really put their points into Dexterity, but in that case I think they deserve to be thrown a bone for sacrificing that much potential damage.)

I've used this version, which is very similar but more defensively-oriented.

Additional combat options:
Maneuver – Reduce skills by -5/-5 to reposition opponent or combat area, reducing the number of additional opponents who can attack this turn by 1 (effectively disengaging an opponent if 2+ were attacking) on an opposed DEX check (fumble = fall). This option represents the priority of a fighter in ensuring he is not flanked through the use of available terrain and other obstacles (horses, etc.); it is not as purely defensive as fighting defensively, but does prioritize positioning over aggression.

--

Note that you'll need to pick the opponent to subtract -5 from, and pick the opponent to maneuver away, then Dex check versus the one to be maneuvered away. It would be reasonable, on reflection, to provide a teamwork bonus to the opponent's Dex if they are accustomed to working together in formation (shield wall, for example). If you're engaging enemy knights they should not be ganging up on you, but decently waiting their turn to engage you in honorable combat. *cough*

--Khanwulf

I let players start with all weapon skills equal to half their DEX, and I remove the automatic knockdown rule and replace it with escalating penalties.: -5 for each half of your SIZ exceeded which gives -10 for rolls that would have been automatic.

For multiple opponents I just apply a +/-5 for each additional enemy. I did it mainly to avoid the splitting skill math but its been good in general. I can see your DEX idea working here to allow you to maneuver the enemy such that you can fight 1 fewer of them.

I've used this version, which is very similar but more defensively-oriented.

Additional combat options:
Maneuver – Reduce skills by -5/-5 to reposition opponent or combat area, reducing the number of additional opponents who can attack this turn by 1 (effectively disengaging an opponent if 2+ were attacking) on an opposed DEX check (fumble = fall). This option represents the priority of a fighter in ensuring he is not flanked through the use of available terrain and other obstacles (horses, etc.); it is not as purely defensive as fighting defensively, but does prioritize positioning over aggression.

--

Note that you'll need to pick the opponent to subtract -5 from, and pick the opponent to maneuver away, then Dex check versus the one to be maneuvered away. It would be reasonable, on reflection, to provide a teamwork bonus to the opponent's Dex if they are accustomed to working together in formation (shield wall, for example). If you're engaging enemy knights they should not be ganging up on you, but decently waiting their turn to engage you in honorable combat. *cough*

--Khanwulf

Aw yes, I'm fairly certain that's the original rule that I read that inspired my version.

On comparison I can definitely see that mine is more powerful. Aside from the skill reduction, your version seems to allow the disengaged enemy to still pick another more suitable target if it's available, if I understand the order of operations for the round anyway. I can certainly see that it would help prevent just leaving a bunch of enemies milling about on the margins ineffectively, since they could just go after someone less dexterous than the others.