Four KAP sessions in and I'm having issues with the Berserk (AKA Crazy, All Out Attack) attack. My PC knights now use this as the default attack every single time, and while that sits quite legally within the rules it just doesn't feel right to me. Last session I ran a tournament, with 6 PC knights and 10 NPCs in a knockout style contest. I predetermined the attacks of the NPCs in advance (Attack, Defend, Dodge etc) based on their personalities which made for a good mix of fighting styles. Come actual play, every one of them lost to a PC knight using exclusively Berserk attacks. The contest was to first knockdown and my players were quite happy to suffer the first blow in the almost surefire knowledge that they would send their opponent flying soon afterward, and the results backed up their thinking.

Moving on with the adventure, after the tournament they faced a beast of quite some power (something akin to a large crocodile, very tough hide and a 7d6 bite). They were also squeezed into a natural cave tunnel meaning only the front 2 of them could engage. Both front knights went for Berserk attacks on the creature, even when I told them that they would have no defence, checked their Reckless traits (which were already checked long ago) and no shield vs the incoming bite they still committed to the Berserk. Sure enough, I hit first with a resulting 22 damage, which was taken fairly easily before they replied with a 42 and 39 point attack of their own. Needless to say, the creature didn't last beyond the first round. Again this is all correct within the rules but it feels unbalanced. The *normal* attack is hardly used at all in my group. Yes they will face stiffer opponents, and yes one of them will no doubt die but I can't see that changing their approach.

This evening, at our usual pub meet, one of the guys told me that before I arrived they had been discussing how the Berserk is the magic bullet approach to all combats, asking me my thoughts on the subject. I tried to promote a more balanced approach saying that Dodge, Defend and Normal attacks were all just as potent in certain circumstances but I could tell they didn't buy it.

I don't want to outlaw the tactic, because I hate being arbitrary.

Is this just unique to my bunch of players or do others play it the same?

Personally, I have no problems outlawing the tactic.

Read the section at the start of the special tactics, that says the GM can allow or disallow the tactics as they see fit.
I think the game worked quite well before Defend and Berserk were introduced in 3rd edition, and I prefer to keep them for limited situations.

I don't allow berserk in tournament/for love/fights to knockdown.
I have a house rule that when anyone declares berserk, their intent is obvious so the opponent can change their tactic. (Often to go berserk as well.)

I am reluctant to allow berserk in fights v beasts. Sometimes I disallow it, sometimes I allow it and have the beast go berserk too. Beasts can be a lot more savage than humans, after all. Since many beasts have two attacks, and their move rate his higher than humans, this can be quite nasty.

I frown on the use of Defend too. A knight can use Defend in two circumstances:
* If disarmed, knocked down or whatever, he can use defend for the round when recovering.
* Otherwise, when using defend, he has given up momentum over the conflict and must continue defending, until he gets a critical (no damage) or is left alone for a round. (In effect this means if you defend, your opponent may then safely ignore you the following round - which gives him the opportunity to seek another target, and you the opportunity to run away if he does that.)

Also, you had knights choosing the dodge manoeuvre? You are aware that dodge suffers a penalty of -10 when wearing metal armour, and a fail means the dodger falls over? This manoeuvre is meant for peasants and really desperate situations.

If you do want to allow the players to keep using the berserk tactic freely, include a sprinkling of knights who do 6 or 7d6 damage, or put them up against faerie knights and fiends. They'll soon discover a downside.

Also, rereading your post, I notice that one of the players brought their concern to you. It seems like they recognise the way it's being used is overpowering, so they probably won't mind toning it down or removing it.

In my games the PKs have generally only used "Defend" when outnumbered by dishonourable inferior foes between whom they needed to split their skill.

Beserk has only been rarely used, but possibly only because my players didn't see the same advantage in it that your players do. A major theme of combat in Pendragon should be how dangerous and likely fatal it is. A player knight taking any sort of significant wound, like the 22 damage you mention, even with armour, is dangerous. Too many wounds like that will render a knight unable to adventure pretty quickly.

Maybe something short of an outright ban would be to require a check (not a roll) against reckless EVERY time they use the berserk option. After all if their recklessness gets up high enough they'll soon learn it pays to be prudent. You might also start requiring a roll to prudent, which they will likely fail, every time they have to show some discretion, such as dealing with a hated enemy, or with their lover's other paramours. After all, if they want to play reckless characters they should realize that recklessness has implications beyond just combat.

Thus far I have never had a problem with this, but then again my players have never used it as a default attack.

Two things one they have used it only in 1 on 1 or 2 v 1 situations.

1. Give them 2 or 3 Saxons to fend off all of whom will get an unopposed attack before they even get a look in.
2. Get the monster to split it's attacks
3. I could be wrong but I believe you can't use it from horseback and certainly not with a lance.
4. Losing 6 points of armour is a big thing in this game, over a long combat e.g more than a couple of rounds their hp's will soon get chipped away. Run a battle with them and see how well they fair.

Cheers,

BigSteveUK

It would seem I've just been somewhat unlucky then, as, to be honest, when I first explained the rules to them, I never thought they'd use it much at all. I can't remember the moment they latched onto it so wholeheartedly, but latched onto it they now have.

Hi Darren - Yes I am aware of the DEX penalty to Dodge, I didn't make it clear in my original post but in the tournament only one NPC knight used it and he was wearing only leather armour. I allowed the same knight to use the Double Feint tactic - something my PC knights did not know about - as a surprise which worked quite well. As the knight was from Silchester (who all my PCs hissed at) I wanted to give him a slightly more deceitful fighting style.

You're right about my players having an issue with Berserk. But they don't feel bad about it, it's almost a challenge from them to me. They think they have "beaten" the system, ie found an exploit which works consistently in their favour and no doubt feel quite clever about it. If I just say "ok you can't do that now" I feel a bit too much like a parent taking away an annoying toy from a child. I'd like to think of a more subtle way of re-balancing the situation before outlawing it altogether.

It's interesting to know that Berserk/Defend only came in at 3rd Edition. I got into KAP at 4th Ed and have only actually played it from 5th so I didn't know about that.

>>I don't allow berserk in tournament/for love/fights to knockdown.
>>I have a house rule that when anyone declares berserk, their intent is obvious so the opponent can change their tactic. (Often to go berserk >>as well.)

I might try that and see if it makes them think a bit more.

I've not had any problems with Defend. It has been used by several of my knights but only when their hps were low, they were outnumbered and they knew they were staring death in the face. This to me is how the unusual maneuvers should be used, as a tactical option worth gambling on in extremes. Defend has no real downside in terms of balance. All it does is keep you going longer in the hope that someone else will turn up to help out. In my aforementioned tournament one of the PCs, who faced an NPC using Berserk exclusively, switched to defend continuously in the hope he could tire his opponent out. He would have succeeded but for the power of Berserk and the law of averages which meant he soon faced a critical attack which he failed to critical defend.. and he went flying. On occasion he would critical defend a non critical attack but of course that gained him nothing because, as the rules stand, it makes no difference.

Hi Mazza - My PCs do the same with Defend. They only use in it in extremes and I'm fine with that. They all realise how dangerous combat in KAP is but in a strange way that is why they rely on Berserk so much, and as time goes by I'm beginning to see the logic in their thinking. For example, in the fight with the beast, one of the knights happily took a 22 bite attack (ok not happily, let's say begrudgingly) because with 11 point chain, 3 point armour of Honour, and full hps, an 8 point wound is fairly inconsequential. In return he knew he would most probably pulverise the thing - which he duly did. Now, had they fought using only normal attacks, they would inflict on average about 20hps damage themselves and, versus an armour of 15 and 50 hps, the beast would survive approx 4-5 to rounds during which time it would be attacking them as before. ie 5 rounds of facing a 7d6 bite instead of 1 plus the increased chance of taking a critical in that time (a crunching 14d6). Furthermore, and in my mind the real killer, on a normal attack the knights would have to beat the creature in an opposed roll to inflict any damage at all, meaning it would probably last even longer. In a Berserk you don't do that. Regardless of how skillful your opponent is all you have to do is succeed in an UNopposed roll to land damage. Not only are you virtually guaranteed to do so you also have a high chance of doubling your damage AND you strip your opponent of their skill.

Someone on the forum created a Pendragon combat simulator for his PC. I would be very interested to see the results of a combat run a 1000 times between two knights using normal attacks, and then the same with one of them only using Berserk. I'm pretty certain the Berserker, despite always going "second", would win most of the time, and suffer less in the long run.

Hi Rob - I do check Reckless on any PCs that use the Berserk attack (ie I have them tick the check box, not have them roll the Reckless Trait). If I had a knight with high Prudent then I would require a roll against it to use Berserk at all, but none of my PCs are that Prudent. I'm hoping they may in time realise, as their Reckless traits climb higher, that it might be time to rein things in but that's a distant concern for them at present.

Hello Steve - They've not faced multiple opponents since becoming "Berserk" obsessed but I'm sure when they do, the Berserk attack won't be used for the very reasons you describe. My monsters do split attacks, but - and I know Greg has changed this rule - I still play that only ONE attack can damage regardless of a split; all others merely block incoming attacks.

I must admit this is probably one of the things that I enjoy about RPGing; no matter how many times you read a rule and think it's watertight, once it's out there it's amazing how players often throw up something which makes you re-evaluate your thinking.

As I've been writing this I've mulled over several ideas to re-balance things short of an outright ban.
1) Have the Berserk attack be opposed not unopposed. The Berserker still gets a+10 to hit but at least the Defender still retains the benefit of his own skill and may deflect it (unlikely to make much difference though once the +10 is factored in).
2) Because the Berserk attack takes longer to land, the Defender gets his unopposed attack first and STILL gets a normal opposed attack. Thus they could potentially land two damage dealing blows. hmm still not much chance of the second attack succeeding so that's not really much better...
3) Take away the +10 to hit, make the roll opposed and the Berserker still goes 2nd. The upside? If you win the opposed resolution you ALWAYS inflict double damage.

Regards
Andy

One counter-move to Berserk was Richard the Lionhearted's favorite weapons form. Have some Prudent or older fighter use it against them in the next tourney.

In Pendragon terms, it's boar-spear plus favorite hand weapon. The NPC's first strike with it does some moderate damage but holds the Reckless fool at a distance. To close the PC has to first use his Berserk attack to break the spear, whereupon the NPC has a clear shot at the PC with his other weapon -- give a + to the attack against an immobile, distracted target.

Richard's actual weapons were winged-spear and axe. He often immobilized the target by impaling through the foot into the ground.

To reflect the fact that someone fighting normally would use his shield to swat the spear out of the way to avoid getting caught, I use the house rule that hard defenses (shield, plate) subtract from the boar-spear damage when checking if the target is held at a distance but flexible defenses (mail) do not.

Going Berserk doesn't sound very knightly to me. If you did it a lot I would expect your reputation to drop quite drastically. If you did it in a tournament I'd expect you to be refused entry to future tournaments once word got round - not only are you behaving in an uncivilised manner, but it's dangerous - suppose you killed someone due to your out of control behaviour?. Surely berserking, foaming at the mouth, raging and biting your shield are signs of a beastly nature and more like the behaviour expected from Saxons and other foreigners, not that of a knight?

Also, what lord would choose someone for important or honourable missions when he couldn't trust them?

Mark

Going Berserk doesn't sound very knightly to me. If you did it a lot I would expect your reputation to drop quite drastically. If you did it in a tournament I'd expect you to be refused entry to future tournaments once word got round - not only are you behaving in an uncivilised manner, but it's dangerous - suppose you killed someone due to your out of control behaviour?. Surely berserking, foaming at the mouth, raging and biting your shield are signs of a beastly nature and more like the behaviour expected from Saxons and other foreigners, not that of a knight?

Also, what lord would choose someone for important or honourable missions when he couldn't trust them?

Mark



In my campaign I don't actually refer to the attack as Berserk, it's known as an All Out Attack. Also, I don't see it as shield biting, foaming at the mouth etc, - which is a hangover from its former description of berserk attack, something Greg has changed - just a hard assault that sacrifices safety, akin to a powerful overhead swing or a roundhouse style blow. In my tournament, the knights were using rebated weapons so no one died, but they still dealt powerful blows which sent opponents flying.

Are you applying knockdowns? The guy who took the hit from the dread crocodile should have been making a DEX roll to stay on his feet and losing his attack if he fails the roll, which alters his risk calculus somewhat.


Also, see Greg's 'houserule' about applying damage against *all* opponents when you split your attack rolls -that crocodile could plausibly have got two attacks vs the beserkers, dumped both onto their arses, aborted their attacks and put them into a world of hurt.

Regards
Luke

Have you considered having the opponents use the Defend tactic? It seems to me to be the perfect counter to Beserk, and a perfectly reasonable response from a knight confronted with a beserker enemy frothing at the mouth and swinging pointy objects about with reckless abandon.

If this was happening in my campaign, my preference would be for fixing it by changing my approach to how NPCs fight back, rather than changing the rules.

Moderator edit (Darren Hill): My apologies to Pramalot. I accidentally erased his post when I thought I was quoting it. Crap! Sorry.

I think any attempt to fix this in-game, without changing the rules, and/or without making a GM ruling to say that berserk is not appropriate except when you feel it is, is doomed to failure.

The simple fact is, Pramalot's players are right. Berserk IS a super-effective - if sometimes risky - manoeuvre, against which the only adequate defence is an arms race. Putting harder and stronger and tougher opponents up against the players. But this puts players and GM up against each other, and can cause bad feeling, so it's not a route I would really encourage, and doesn't solve the problem - since players will play the numbers, find situations where it's still effective to use it. Sometimes they'll misjudge, and you'll end up killing a knight just because they are up against a tougher opponent, and thought they could get away with it - a death caused specifically because of this issue. That will leave a bad taste.

As GM, it's your responsibility to declare when this ability can and can't be used. If, like me, you don't like using that responsibility, create house rules to limit when it can be used. Otherwise, get used to them using it. I know if I was a player in a pendragon game, and a GM didn't do either of those things, I'd be using it a lot too.

Also, see Greg's 'houserule' about applying damage against *all* opponents when you split your attack rolls -that crocodile could plausibly have got two attacks vs the beserkers, dumped both onto their arses, aborted their attacks and put them into a world of hurt.


I also know about this. However, for my campaign I have chosen to stick with the old rule of applying damage to only ONE opponent when splitting attacks. Other successes merely parry. I do this because I prefer a low level gritty feel over the more heroic. This is one area where I am considering changing that rule though.[/quote]

Quick note: the damaging one opponent when splitting attacks was only for human fighters.
Animals and beasts listed with two attacks, are not splitting their attacks - they always do damage with each attack that hits.

I think any attempt to fix this in-game, without changing the rules, and/or without making a GM ruling to say that berserk is not appropriate except when you feel it is, is doomed to failure.

The simple fact is, Pramalot's players are right. Berserk IS a super-effective - if sometimes risky - manoeuvre, against which the only adequate defence is an arms race. Putting harder and stronger and tougher opponents up against the players. But this puts players and GM up against each other, and can cause bad feeling, so it's not a route I would really encourage, and doesn't solve the problem - since players will play the numbers, find situations where it's still effective to use it. Sometimes they'll misjudge, and you'll end up killing a knight just because they are up against a tougher opponent, and thought they could get away with it - a death caused specifically because of this issue. That will leave a bad taste.

As GM, it's your responsibility to declare when this ability can and can't be used. If, like me, you don't like using that responsibility, create house rules to limit when it can be used. Otherwise, get used to them using it. I know if I was a player in a pendragon game, and a GM didn't do either of those things, I'd be using it a lot too.


That really does sum up my thoughts exactly. I've been thinking this over all day; how can I manipulate the rule so that it is no longer the power house it is without removing it completely. I've yet to come up with anything that really feels right to me and I began to think along the same lines that Darren has outlined. The more I make the move riskier or less appealing the more likely my knights are to misjudge and die. The appeal of the Berserk is SO strong (as all outlined above) it really is a hard one to dissuade people from using.

Are you applying knockdowns? The guy who took the hit from the dread crocodile should have been making a DEX roll to stay on his feet and losing his attack if he fails the roll, which alters his risk calculus somewhat.


Yes I did. The knight in question rolled against knockdown and succeeded. I realise that had he not done so it would have ruined his attack, however there was still the second knight. The knights DEX was not that high (14) but it's still enough to tilt the odds in his favour and enough to convince him it's worth the risk. I'm fairly certain they'd still go for it even with a DEX of 3.




Also, see Greg's 'houserule' about applying damage against *all* opponents when you split your attack rolls -that crocodile could plausibly have got two attacks vs the beserkers, dumped both onto their arses, aborted their attacks and put them into a world of hurt.


I also know about this. However, for my campaign I have chosen to stick with the old rule of applying damage to only ONE opponent when splitting attacks. Other successes merely parry. I do this because I prefer a low level gritty feel over the more heroic. This is one area where I am considering changing that rule though. Note: Creatures with multiple attacks still have those. I'm talking only about splitting single attacks.



Have you considered having the opponents use the Defend tactic? It seems to me to be the perfect counter to Beserk, and a perfectly reasonable response from a knight confronted with a beserker enemy frothing at the mouth and swinging pointy objects about with reckless abandon.
.

Yes I have but this does not solve the issue. A Defend vs a Berserk attack is only of any use if, during the time it buys you, something else occurs to tip the odds in your favour, eg in this case, another crocodile turns up. Otherwise you're just locked in stalemate, Berserk vs Defend, Berserk vs Defend until the Defender eventually fails to stop the blow. The Berserker will just keep on hitting as he's never going to take any damage, and sooner or later his attack will be successful.

I should add that my players are not munchkin rules lawyer types. They simply use this tactic, as, having explained the rules to them, they see it as the most effective approach.

I think any attempt to fix this in-game, without changing the rules, and/or without making a GM ruling to say that berserk is not appropriate except when you feel it is, is doomed to failure.

The simple fact is, Pramalot's players are right. Berserk IS a super-effective - if sometimes risky - manoeuvre, against which the only adequate defence is an arms race. Putting harder and stronger and tougher opponents up against the players. But this puts players and GM up against each other, and can cause bad feeling, so it's not a route I would really encourage, and doesn't solve the problem - since players will play the numbers, find situations where it's still effective to use it. Sometimes they'll misjudge, and you'll end up killing a knight just because they are up against a tougher opponent, and thought they could get away with it - a death caused specifically because of this issue. That will leave a bad taste.

As GM, it's your responsibility to declare when this ability can and can't be used. If, like me, you don't like using that responsibility, create house rules to limit when it can be used. Otherwise, get used to them using it. I know if I was a player in a pendragon game, and a GM didn't do either of those things, I'd be using it a lot too.


I should clarify, an "arms race" wasn't what I was advocating - I was suggesting changing the tactics of opponents, not their strength. Apologies if that wasn't what you read into my post at all - I just thought I should clarify.

As Pramalot finds Defend vs Attack ineffective... back the drawing board... let me think of something... :-\

I should clarify, an "arms race" wasn't what I was advocating - I was suggesting changing the tactics of opponents, not their strength. Apologies if that wasn't what you read into my post at all - I just thought I should clarify.


That's reasonable. I personally wouldn't go that route, though. I have done in that past, and it's draining. You are still spending time in every encounter thinking about ways to handle one disruptive ability (or spell, or magic weapon, or whatever - it varies with the game), so it does, in a sense, become a war or battle of wits between you and your players. That's energy that could be better spent on just making the game fun, if you didn't have to think about it at all.

It's just... and I mean no disrespect to Sir Pramalot because it could just be that none of my groups have ever really thought about Beserk that much... I don't have my copy of 3rd edition to hand, but 4th edition if I recall came out in 1992? This rule has been around for more than 17 years, and given how well-balanced the rest of this game is, I struggle to believe that it could be this badly broken. I know that isn't a very scientific basis for reasoning, but it just seems to me like this is a problem I should've experienced in one of my games before in all this time.

I have to admit, I keep on hoping to see Greg Stafford post to this thread and point out something that is going on wrong or a perfect in-rules counter to Beserk which balances everything... ;D

But it clearly is an issue in Sir Pramalot's game, and if Defend doesn't work versus Berserk... I just don't really know what to do, since I completely agree that just upping the strength of the opponents is the wrong response.

Out of interest, I can only see this tactic working on foot - is that consistent with your experience, Sir Pramalot?

Have you thought of fatigue. Berserk attacks should be more tiring than regular attacks. The opponent using defend would be counting on the attacker to tire himself out and allow the defender to change to the attack.

The rules (KAP5, page 117) say that if you fight a number of rounds greater than your CON, fatigue should set in. A -5 modifier. You could decide that berserk attack is highly fatiguing and each round counts as two rounds of "normal" combat.

At least that's what I would do.

Chip

This rule has been around for more than 17 years, and given how well-balanced the rest of this game is, I struggle to believe that it could be this badly broken. I know that isn't a very scientific basis for reasoning, but it just seems to me like this is a problem I should've experienced in one of my games before in all this time.

You should visit the KAP mailing list some time, and see the many discussions about critical hits, and skills above 20, then :)

That said, I am sorry if I gave the impression the rule is broken. I don't believe that. But it is, I believe, meant for limited use. In a lot of groups, players will overestimate how dangerous the manoeuvre is to use, or they will correctly perceive that it's not meant to be used all the time and police themselves.
Once you get players who are good at running the numbers, and approach the game in such a way that this is a valid way to play (and I see this as a perfectly valid way to play too), it will get used a lot.
A lot of the time, it won't be a problem, because GM's won't mind it being used, and of course, every now and then, players will fail that DEX roll, or the knight they are facing rolls a critical, so it often tends to balance out.

Every now and then you'll have players who know how to build characters to ability the trait and use it very effectively (decent SIZ and DEX, and/or 20 horsemanship, well above 15 combat skill), and then it can be a problem. But even then, that character's death is only one critical hit away.

So, my objection to it being used all the time is not a game balance one, it's an aesthetic one. I don't like the way Berserk bypasses the skill v skill roll, and so it makes the game more about player skill (judging those moments when it's worthwhile to use the ability) v. character skill (opposed skill rolls). Some people will like it for the very reason I don't. So, I prefer to strictly delineate the situations where it's appropriate to use it, and then I can safely forget about it, knowing that when the players do use it, it also happens to be at times that match my sense of when it's right for it to be used.



Out of interest, I can only see this tactic working on foot - is that consistent with your experience, Sir Pramalot?


I don't see why that would be. In fact, it's even more effective on horseback, because characters can more easily improve the roll they need to avoid knockdown - the main danger from using berserk.

There's a certain irony to this because back in March of this year, in response to a question about Berserk from another forum member I wrote this.



Thankfully, my players are complete greens with regard to Pendragon so even though they know what a Berserk attack is I think it'll be a few sessions or so before the penny drops and they seize on this tactic themselves.


At the time reading the rule and taking it at face value I saw no problem with it. It reads fine, it makes sense, and the penalty sounds harsh enough to dissuade its use in all but the most desperate of situations. The problem has arisen through the realisation that the benefit far outweighs the penalty. Or rather, regardless of the penalty, the risk/reward is almost always worth taking.

In another thread, amongst other things I asked for clarification regarding the use of Berserk/Defend from horseback. Greg replied (my questions are the boxed ones, with Greg's replies immediately following).







Berserk and Defend
Can these be used on horseback? Immediately I thought yes why not, especially when attacking foot troops but it gets more complex the more I think it through. eg, can a knight use berserk (or defend for that matter) when lance charging?


Remember that "berserk" is not the Norse berserker, but a "crazy mad attack," careless and reckless and determined (but, normally, rather foolish).
I would allow berserk, and then (since the opponent knows what is happening) have him kill the knight's horse and thereby thwart the attack (the opponent hopes).
I always allows the Defend maneuver to be used on horseback.



Berserk and Defend pt2
Can a foot soldier or knight use these tactics against a mounted foe? Again, I thought yes, but what about vs an oncoming lance charge? I'd probably rule yes however this makes the Defend option (IMHO) the de facto stance to take against lance charges. Sure you won't do any damage but it dramatically improves your chance of success (the +10 mirroring the bonus given to the charging knight) which in turn robs the charger of the mega damage bonus they gain from their horse. Now, ok, the attacker could carry on, turn round and charge back, but in my sessions it's very rare for such things to continue ad naseum, the horse will tire, the situation may change etc etc


Yep, Defend against a Charge. Very sensible.
Yep, berserk against a charge, sure.


Mazza - At present I only have the problem on foot, but that is purely through circumstance, as my knights have yet to engage foes from horseback. I expect them to use it in the same way when presented with the opportunity.



Have you thought of fatigue. Berserk attacks should be more tiring than regular attacks. The opponent using defend would be counting on the attacker to tire himself out and allow the defender to change to the attack.

The rules (KAP5, page 117) say that if you fight a number of rounds greater than your CON, fatigue should set in. A -5 modifier. You could decide that berserk attack is highly fatiguing and each round counts as two rounds of "normal" combat.



Hello Chip - An excellent suggestion and one that I have in place exactly as you have written it :D It makes virtually no difference though :-\ In my earlier tournament one of my PC knights did this against a Berserking opponent. That opponent had a CON of 12 so he could Berserk for 6 rounds before tiring. My PC knight hunkered down and went into full defence against him trying to tire him out. He lasted 4 rounds before failing to match the Berserkers' attack and was sent flying. He was the only player to complain saying "what's the point of tactics, when the All Out Attack (Berserk), trumps everything and wins every time". He grumbled a little more after the death of the crocodile at the hands of two more Berserks saying it proved his point.

Of course, in another combat the defender might endure long enough for the fatigue to kick in, but the odds are so heavily weighed against him that it's a mug's game to really try. The Defend has to match the Berserk every round or he's out, or worse, dead, whereas nothing happens to the Berserk if he fails vs the Defend. He just tries again next round.

Furthermore, my experience with KAP is that it's not a dungeon crawl style game, (I'm glad about that btw) instead events are far more spread out. I would imagine for 95% of the time, combats rarely happen bang bang bang one after another and so fatigue really only plays a part in very extended duels. The lethality of the combat system ensures that most engagements are over fairly quickly when the odds are not very evenly matched.

I don't want to sound precious about my players (god damn it, flay them all alive ;)) but I will say again they are not rules lawyers, and certainly did not build their characters to exploit the system in any way - I know you're not suggesting they did, Darren, I just want to make it clear. In fact, they are new to Pendragon, and were wholly unfamiliar with the system at the time of character generation. Thus the have a fairly random spread of Stats, Skills and Traits.

I'm really on the verge of outlawing the tactic for my campaign as Darren first suggested. My only concern is this; If Berserk was not present in the 1st edition of the game, was it included in a later edition because playtesting and feedback prompted the need for such a mechanism to overcome something we're overlooking?

Would it help, if the total defense option did knockback? I'm thinking pushing back with a shield. No actual damage, but an opportunity to unbalance your opponent.

You may need to roll damage dice to see if they suffer knockback.

I've pondered this question myself as a GM.
.
An answer I've come up with, that makes the game more challenging for me, has more to do with how you run combat scenarios, then the mechanics of Berserk.
.
In my game we set up the scenario, with so-many enemy knights confronting the players. Then the GM asks each player what they're going to do for that combat round, in order of highest Glory to lowest. The GM doesn't indicate what the enemy's going to do beforehand (determines it with a die roll!), so the player has to think strategically: "Ow, I'm really hurt and don't want to risk it, so I'll fight Defensively", or "Wow, it's unlikely that I'll be attacked, and that Sir Dufus will be instead of me. What a great opportunity go Berserk!"
.
Berserk seems optimal if noone's attacking you. If someone is, you'd better hope they're not too strong (or lucky) if you Berserk.
.
Humbly, and perhaps naively submitted,

D

Rather than outlawing this tactic I have arrived at a House Rule that I hope will work for my campaign. I've tried to think it through from all angles so that I don't just create another mole to whack, but any and all feedback is welcome. I do understand that plenty of people have no issue with Berserk and like it the way it is. That's great, I wish I was in your group :) This is to redress the balance with mine.

Crazy (Berserk) Attack
Requirement: Direct this against a single target, who is named at Declaration of Intent.
Bonus: +10 to weapon, unopposed.
Consequence: The target strikes first with a +10 to his attack, unopposed. If the crazy attacker is not knocked down, knocked unconscious, killed, etc. then he can finish his attack, as described in "bonus" above. He also gets a check to Reckless.

The effect of this: Lower your guard completely to deliver an obvious attack against a prepared foe and he has a high chance of killing or incapacitating you.

Crazy Attack vs Crazy Attack
Both are resolved with +10 to attack in an opposed resolution.

Having the roll opposed prevents high DEX characters from lording it over low DEX ones and exploiting the move. Of course, ruling it like this means that a normal attack is better than a Berserk vs another Berserk attack. This is exactly what I'm trying to get back to. Only two insane, possessed, or otherwise mentally compromised characters would choose to go Berserk against each other. Anyone else would know that a standard attack stance gives them the edge.

Crazy Attack vs. Defend
The Defend and Berserk +10 bonus cancel each other out and the attack proceeds as a normal opposed roll. If the defender wins he deals damage for a shield attack.

This still gives the Berserker the edge, as he has lowered the Defenders chance of critically defending back to normal. For the Defender his defensive stance now lowers the Berserkers' chance of a Critical back to normal, and if he does fail he's probably not going to suffer the double dice pulveriser that was likely before. Partial successes still count, just like in normal combat. Giving the Defender the chance to inflict some damage also gives the Berserker something to think about; should he Berserk or Attack normally? That will depend on the urgency of his current situation.

Multiple Berserks vs a Single Opponent.
The defender can split attacks and add the +10 as above. Obviously his chance of success is lower than if he were facing a single Berserk, but he's still in a position good enough to make his attackers think seriously before employing such a tactic.

The result of all this is to dissuade the use of the Berserk attack. I've not outlawed it but I've made it riskier. If I re-ran my crocodile scenario with these rules, my attacking knight would now be faced with a decision which I think even he would consider too risky; attack Berserk and give the beast the chance to hit him first - guaranteed - with a 40% chance of that hit being 14d6 (it had a 17 attack).

Now that doesn't mean the Berserk attack is consigned to the dustbin. In unopposed situations, where an enemy is unaware or otherwise distracted, you can put everything into the blow and hack him down with no fear for your own safety. Or, as a last ditch effort to survive against the odds. If you're battling away on your last few hps and death is imminent, take the +10 against you, hope the dice fall kindly and then land your own blow. Terribly drastic yes, but a small chance that might just turn the battle in your favour.

What I believe this does is make the Normal attack the stance of choice (as it should be IMHO) with Defend and Berserk as considered tactical options.

I like those rules - my mechanics-savvy players haven't entirely cottoned onto beserking yet, but I'm sure they will and it's nice to have a way to rein that in (while not removing the option of beserk vs normal vs defend entirely).

Crazy Attack vs Crazy Attack
Both are resolved with +10 to attack in an opposed resolution.

Having the roll opposed prevents high DEX characters from lording it over low DEX ones and exploiting the move. Of course, ruling it like this means that a normal attack is better than a Berserk vs another Berserk attack. This is exactly what I'm trying to get back to. Only two insane, possessed, or otherwise mentally compromised characters would choose to go Berserk against each other. Anyone else would know that a standard attack stance gives them the edge.


Sir Pramalot, I like your ideas but would like to suggest one change: When both are doing all-out attacks, make it two unopposed attacks that hit simultaneously (neither side is defending, after all), making the most likely outcome a double-kill. Double-kills were fairly common -- which is why right-of-way rules exist in modern fencing.

Before I launch into anything else, keep talking.
But on this



In my game we set up the scenario, with so-many enemy knights confronting the players. Then the GM asks each player what they're going to do for that combat round, in order of highest Glory to lowest. The GM doesn't indicate what the enemy's going to do beforehand (determines it with a die roll!), so the player has to think strategically: "Ow, I'm really hurt and don't want to risk it, so I'll fight Defensively", or "Wow, it's unlikely that I'll be attacked, and that Sir Dufus will be instead of me. What a great opportunity go Berserk!"


I do agree.

One of the most subtle tools a GM always has is to get declaration of intent from the PCs first, or second.
If you want to go easier, declare wht the NPCs are doing first.

Here is another solution. You can hit them with a "real berserker" as per Book of Armies

True Berserkers
“Berserker” as used in the core KAP5 rules is an unfortunate misnomer, and I wish it was called “all-out crazy attack” instead. Nonetheless, the term berserker in this book means just what it says in KAP5.
However, true berserkers are possible, and are confined to these northern regions where the custom originates. The true berserker state is a madness, a frenzy perhaps brought on by a rite that dedicates oneself entirely to “the Frenzied One.” Its effects are terrifying:
• True berserkers are invulnerable to edged and pointed weapons (spear, sword, axe, similar), hence the Armor of ∞ (infinity). Against other weapons, it is just 10 points;
• In a melee (Extended Rounds) they bypass anyone struck down, and
• They fight their own countrymen and each other if no foes are in sight.

This rule has been around for more than 17 years, and given how well-balanced the rest of this game is, I struggle to believe that it could be this badly broken. I know that isn't a very scientific basis for reasoning, but it just seems to me like this is a problem I should've experienced in one of my games before in all this time.

You should visit the KAP mailing list some time, and see the many discussions about critical hits, and skills above 20, then :)

I used to be a regular many moons ago, before 5th edition came out in fact. I like the list but I prefer forums (reasons for and against have recently been discussed on the mailing list I know).


That said, I am sorry if I gave the impression the rule is broken. I don't believe that. But it is, I believe, meant for limited use. In a lot of groups, players will overestimate how dangerous the manoeuvre is to use, or they will correctly perceive that it's not meant to be used all the time and police themselves.
Once you get players who are good at running the numbers, and approach the game in such a way that this is a valid way to play (and I see this as a perfectly valid way to play too), it will get used a lot.
A lot of the time, it won't be a problem, because GM's won't mind it being used, and of course, every now and then, players will fail that DEX roll, or the knight they are facing rolls a critical, so it often tends to balance out.

Every now and then you'll have players who know how to build characters to ability the trait and use it very effectively (decent SIZ and DEX, and/or 20 horsemanship, well above 15 combat skill), and then it can be a problem. But even then, that character's death is only one critical hit away.

So, my objection to it being used all the time is not a game balance one, it's an aesthetic one. I don't like the way Berserk bypasses the skill v skill roll, and so it makes the game more about player skill (judging those moments when it's worthwhile to use the ability) v. character skill (opposed skill rolls). Some people will like it for the very reason I don't. So, I prefer to strictly delineate the situations where it's appropriate to use it, and then I can safely forget about it, knowing that when the players do use it, it also happens to be at times that match my sense of when it's right for it to be used.



Out of interest, I can only see this tactic working on foot - is that consistent with your experience, Sir Pramalot?


I don't see why that would be. In fact, it's even more effective on horseback, because characters can more easily improve the roll they need to avoid knockdown - the main danger from using berserk.


Because if they're fighting from horseback, then a viable anti-beserk tactic would be kill the horse. It is a bit churlish for a knight to kill another knight's horse deliberately, but then, it's a bit churlish to fling oneself at a knight like a mad, frothing at the mouth Saxon. ;D





Crazy Attack vs Crazy Attack
Both are resolved with +10 to attack in an opposed resolution.

Having the roll opposed prevents high DEX characters from lording it over low DEX ones and exploiting the move. Of course, ruling it like this means that a normal attack is better than a Berserk vs another Berserk attack. This is exactly what I'm trying to get back to. Only two insane, possessed, or otherwise mentally compromised characters would choose to go Berserk against each other. Anyone else would know that a standard attack stance gives them the edge.


Sir Pramalot, I like your ideas but would like to suggest one change: When both are doing all-out attacks, make it two unopposed attacks that hit simultaneously (neither side is defending, after all), making the most likely outcome a double-kill. Double-kills were fairly common -- which is why right-of-way rules exist in modern fencing.


I definitely think, if you're going to house rule the situation, you should heed Gideon13's advice here, Sir Pramalot. I think this is an excellent amendment which would achieve the same outcome you're aiming for.

Sir Pramalot, I like your ideas but would like to suggest one change: When both are doing all-out attacks, make it two unopposed attacks that hit simultaneously (neither side is defending, after all), making the most likely outcome a double-kill. Double-kills were fairly common -- which is why right-of-way rules exist in modern fencing.


Good idea, which retains the blood and thunder style of the attack.



I've pondered this question myself as a GM.
.
An answer I've come up with, that makes the game more challenging for me, has more to do with how you run combat scenarios, then the mechanics of Berserk.
.
In my game we set up the scenario, with so-many enemy knights confronting the players. Then the GM asks each player what they're going to do for that combat round, in order of highest Glory to lowest. The GM doesn't indicate what the enemy's going to do beforehand (determines it with a die roll!), so the player has to think strategically: "Ow, I'm really hurt and don't want to risk it, so I'll fight Defensively", or "Wow, it's unlikely that I'll be attacked, and that Sir Dufus will be instead of me. What a great opportunity go Berserk!"
.
Berserk seems optimal if noone's attacking you. If someone is, you'd better hope they're not too strong (or lucky) if you Berserk.
.
Humbly, and perhaps naively submitted,

D


Hello Doon - Your solution is perfect for engagements where uncertainty can play a part but I'm having issues with the Berserk when it doesn't. In my tournament (1v1 fights) and crocodile encounter (2 knights vs beast) my knights did declare their actions first - totally unaware of what the enemy was going to do - and they always declared Berserk. The thinking behind this was that they had chosen the best option with the greatest chance of success and the enemy could either match them or choose a less effective option. Actually in the 1v1 fights, one of my knights - with fairly high DEX (17) - did so knowing it was unlikely he could even be matched. And in both scenarios they knew they were only up against 1 opponent, either enemy knight or angry crocodile.

With the crocodile, I really built it up the tension beforehand. They had entered a cave system and knew something big was there and they were very cautious. I had the thing spook them out a little before it finally emerged into the torchlight as they were strung out along a narrow tunnel. There were expecting an epic fight (and TBH so was I because I knew its stats and was fairly certain it was going to be the death of at least one of them if the dice were just a little in my favour), so you can imagine the all round surprise when 1 round later, it was stone cold dead with 1 knight only 8hps down.

Hello Greg - I'd like to try and avoid introducing tougher and tougher opponents purely to trump Berserk because I will end up with a very small margin of error between a balanced fight and a Total Party Kill. Tough opponents are great and I'm looking forward to my group facing them, but in a balanced fight, where the enemy might kill some of them or they might kill him/her/it. Not six knights flying in with constant Berserks pummeling everything to mincemeat until the dice finally fail them and it's TPK. :-\

With Gideon's refinement I hope my House Rule will make such an outcome less likely, and return combat to the style in which I think it was intended to be resolved.

Furthermore, my experience with KAP is that it's not a dungeon crawl style game, (I'm glad about that btw) instead events are far more spread out. I would imagine for 95% of the time, combats rarely happen bang bang bang one after another and so fatigue really only plays a part in very extended duels. The lethality of the combat system ensures that most engagements are over fairly quickly when the odds are not very evenly matched.

That's a good point. One thing that is useful to do when building scenarios, is to create multiple combat challenges - even if they are weeks apart. Then, players who take lots of little wounds (like the sort you take when you have shields) get a much bigger benefit from first aid - I've seen knights drop nearly to unconscious and then a week later, after first aid and a little natural healing, they are fully healed. Someone who berserks is guaranteed to have at least one injury (and that +10 skill doesn't guarantee they'll score a crit, and a crit doesn't always take a foe down, so they might have several), and probably a bigger one that first aid doesn't help with.


I'm really on the verge of outlawing the tactic for my campaign as Darren first suggested. My only concern is this; If Berserk was not present in the 1st edition of the game, was it included in a later edition because playtesting and feedback prompted the need for such a mechanism to overcome something we're overlooking?


My guess is, it wasn't added because of some failing of the rules. I think it was added just because Greg or whoever added a house rule at some point, and realised it was worth adding to the core rules. Just natural evolution. The bonus granted was probably influenced by the Inspiration benefit - maybe Defend and/or Berserk were developed as a reaction to Inspiration. Only Greg knows for sure though :)

Out of interest, I can only see this tactic working on foot - is that consistent with your experience, Sir Pramalot?


I don't see why that would be. In fact, it's even more effective on horseback, because characters can more easily improve the roll they need to avoid knockdown - the main danger from using berserk.


Because if they're fighting from horseback, then a viable anti-beserk tactic would be kill the horse. It is a bit churlish for a knight to kill another knight's horse deliberately, but then, it's a bit churlish to fling oneself at a knight like a mad, frothing at the mouth Saxon. ;D


Ah, haha, good point. I was thinking of the manoeuvre being used in knight v knight contests, where both are mounted.

Here is another solution. You can hit them with a "real berserker" as per Book of Armies

True Berserkers
“Berserker” as used in the core KAP5 rules is an unfortunate misnomer, and I wish it was called “all-out crazy attack” instead. Nonetheless, the term berserker in this book means just what it says in KAP5.
However, true berserkers are possible, and are confined to these northern regions where the custom originates. The true berserker state is a madness, a frenzy perhaps brought on by a rite that dedicates oneself entirely to “the Frenzied One.” Its effects are terrifying:
• True berserkers are invulnerable to edged and pointed weapons (spear, sword, axe, similar), hence the Armor of ∞ (infinity). Against other weapons, it is just 10 points;
• In a melee (Extended Rounds) they bypass anyone struck down, and
• They fight their own countrymen and each other if no foes are in sight.



Wow. I know my players are going to be meeting one of those...

Sir Pramalot, I like your rules, especially with Gideon's tweak. I think it will work well, except for exactly one situation: the interaction with the inspiration rules.
One of the reasons people switch to Berserk or Defend, is when they are facing someone Inspired. Under this rule, the Inspired knight would end up with +20 to his skill...

Personally, I think I would use your +10 modifier when facing savage or bestial opponents like monsters (forcing players to come up with plans or traps to allow them to find a way of berserking without getting killed), but for human opponents, I am happy not using it (though if not for the inspiration situation, I'd be tempted!).

If knights berserk against bandits, then those 4d6 damage rolls add up, and even most big knights can face a knockdown roll on a slightly above average roll. If they berserk against saxons, they may kill one saxon each round, but they'll get knocked down sooner or later.
If they berserk against knights - well, knights often have skills of 21-23 (and higher if you design your own npc knights as nemeses for the pcs, or maybe they put their glory in strength and size, and have 6-7D6 damage - and use a 2h mace!). Every now and then, one of them will critical against the players on that first blow, and when the players see this happen just *once*, it will make them think harder about whether to use Berserk in the future.

By the way: Berserk v Defend - in 3rd edition, these two moves completely cancelled each other out. If one defended, and another went berserk, it was *exactly* as if neither tactic was being used. Food for thought maybe.

I agree completely that when Berserk, you shouldn't be able to split skill - it has to be a single target.

Sir Pramalot, I like your rules, especially with Gideon's tweak. I think it will work well, except for exactly one situation: the interaction with the inspiration rules.
One of the reasons people switch to Berserk or Defend, is when they are facing someone Inspired. Under this rule, the Inspired knight would end up with +20 to his skill...


Personally, I'm not too bothered about that. If a knight goes up against someone whose skill is nigh on perfect through inspiration and then decides to drop his guard and open himself up completely in an attempt to land a haymaker, then frankly he deserves the worst. As you know Darren, in my campaign I'm trying to get back to the rare usage of Berserk, not maintain the ubiquitous.

I think I should point out here that I love Pendragon - I spend way too much of my life working on it :D - it's only this issue which is causing me problems.

Here is another solution. You can hit them with a "real berserker" as per Book of Armies

True Berserkers



Wow. I know my players are going to be meeting one of those...


Note please that they are only found among the Danes. Officially. :)

I don't really recommend replacing the All Out Crazy Attack with this, nor replace Saxon berserkers with this!!

Yes, do recommend that players SEE this guy in action before they make a move. Also, how to survive:

• In a melee (Extended Rounds) they bypass anyone struck down, and
• They fight their own countrymen and each other if no foes are in sight.

So, just lie down, suck up that Cowardly check, and fake it. :D

--Greg

Sir Pramalot, I like your rules, especially with Gideon's tweak. I think it will work well, except for exactly one situation: the interaction with the inspiration rules.
One of the reasons people switch to Berserk or Defend, is when they are facing someone Inspired. Under this rule, the Inspired knight would end up with +20 to his skill...


Personally, I'm not too bothered about that. If a knight goes up against someone whose skill is nigh on perfect through inspiration and then decides to drop his guard and open himself up completely in an attempt to land a haymaker, then frankly he deserves the worst. As you know Darren, in my campaign I'm trying to get back to the rare usage of Berserk, not maintain the ubiquitous.

I think I should point out here that I love Pendragon - I spend way too much of my life working on it :D - it's only this issue which is causing me problems.


*nods* We only go to this much trouble to hack a game if it'[s one we love :)

Another complication for your house rule: it pretty much stops you, the GM, for introducing NPC knights or opponents who berserk. When the players encounter that Saxon berserker, they'll be demanding their +10 skill and the benefit of striking first.

(Actually, going back to an earlier point: I wonder if the reason the berserk rule was introduced was because a special rule was needed for saxon berserkers. And it then became more general.)

Here is another solution. You can hit them with a "real berserker" as per Book of Armies

True Berserkers



Wow. I know my players are going to be meeting one of those...


Note please that they are only found among the Danes. Officially. :)

I don't really recommend replacing the All Out Crazy Attack with this, nor replace Saxon berserkers with this!!

Yes, do recommend that players SEE this guy in action before they make a move. Also, how to survive:

• In a melee (Extended Rounds) they bypass anyone struck down, and
• They fight their own countrymen and each other if no foes are in sight.

So, just lie down, suck up that Cowardly check, and fake it. :D

--Greg



There is another way to beat true Berserkers: In the Sagas, once the battle is over the Berserks are consistently described as "weak as kittens" and spend a long time resting if they took hits. See, Berserker flesh isn't magically immune to swords and lances, they just can't feel the wounds until they come off their high. So the best way to beat Berserkers is to wait until they are done raging and then attack -- at *best* they will be normal fighters. Of course, somebody has to trigger their rage and keep them busy before you can do that ....

perhaps we are all missing something that seems obvious to me. If u are attacking berserk then u ARE unleashing your passsion, no matter if u call it ALL-out-attack or whatever. Berserk is NOT knightly. A knight with pride will fight with SKILL, not as a barbarian. This being said there is one more downside that I ad to berserk in my games. If u ckoose to fight berserk, fine, but you are berserk..... you sre berserk... period. After you destroy all enemies you cant always just turn it off can you. I make them make prudent checks or they turn on their friends until they do. If you are Too rerckless( meaning that you have used the tactic too much) then it only gets harder to SHUT OFF and u put ur friends in constant danger. I dont know, but thats how i do it :D

One reason Greg has from time to time clarified that Berserk should have been called something like All-out attack, is to avoid the issue you raise. The tactic doesn't necessarily mean you are 'berserk', infused with passion, reckless, etc. It can mean you are fighting with skill.

Also, tales of knights are all about passion, and fighting like a maniac is perfectly in keeping - it's not dishonourable (so long as you don't kill people's horses or squires, or whatever). There's nothing in the berserk mtactic that requires you to act in an out-of-control fashion. The berserk tactic, and norse/celtic berserkers are two completely separate things.

That said, before my current house rule, I have rules that it does take time to switch in and out of the tactic, by this house rule: "If you go berserk (or start defending), you must keep using the same tactic for 3 rounds." It worked quite well in stopping highly opportunistic use of berserk, when people knew that if they didn't critical this round, they'd be open to another attack next round. But it always felt too arbitrary, and besides, by the argument above, such opportunistic uses of berserk are sometimes reasonable.

I have it the same. My players only know this attack as "All Out Attack", the Berserk tag is never used in my game, and never has been. They see it purely as a combat option, one that sacrifices all defence in favour of a more powerful blow, but not one that is unknightly in any way.

I have house ruled the tactic as discussed above though because I felt it was being over-used.

call it what we want, but the bottom line is its too powerful. A +10 hit bonus gives a huge chance to crit in most cases and at the VERY least insures that the berserker will hit. So the only bonus the non-berserker gets? Attacking first! so what. avg knight does 5d6 dmg( like 15 pts or so) and the avg knight has 10-12 armor. So u are only scratching the guy IF u hit, which u might not because u get NO bonus for some reason even though the berserker ISNT defending himself. Hmmmm... seems silly. Why wouldnt everyone always berserk? Virtually guaranteed hit with a likely crit in return for a modest scratch?! Nice trade off. If u use berserk then u should really give NO bonus to hit for the berserker( it shouldnt make him more accurate) he should get a 2d6 dmg bonus perhaps? Maybe more or less? The amount is debateable. But the person getting a HIT bonus should be the one NOT berserking. After all he is hitting someone that is NOT defending themselves. Thats the way I see it.and unless it changes then there will always be problems with berserk attacks. The other thing that a gm in my campaign did was that he allowed u a HATE: BERSERKERS passion, but that might be left to interpretation if u are " All-out-attacking". So i dont know. Those r just my thoughts. Thats why i just ignore ALL the combat options if im able to. ;) less complicated

I dont have any issues with the berserk attack even if it is powerful in some instances, as a roleplaying game is a continuing adaption between players and GM. If the players play tough and succed a lot they get lots of Glory and are therefore famous and therefore asked to do harder challenges. If that is what the players and GM like.

By limiting the rules you are denying the players the opportunity to do big mistakes and learn. If you want to avoid killing PCs, Pendragon is not your game. Every round there is a critchance and crits kills.

That was my view. I am perfectly happy that you adapt your campaign to what you like to play. <- Important!!

Now the Top List of when it is bad to be a reckless (all out crazy) berserker:

13.) In an 8 round battle.
12.) When you fight to first blood, in front of an unknow lovely lady.
11.) When it is muddy or sleazy or otherwise hard to move. Luckily you got your horse...
10.) ... when you fight against a 6d6 tribal warrior on your way to the battle... (a third of the time you take a mw)
9.) ... who the first round disables your horse under you. (12 con, 5 armor, 20 librum bye bye)
8.) You fight another of your lords vassals over a minor dispute. (He said something about riding rouncys to battle.)
7.) When you kill someone in a small tournament to first blood, a few days before the battle, who has a vengeful brother...
6.) ... that you have to sit next to in the hall later that night...
5.) ... when you are trying to inspire loyalty in the new knights in your unit before the upcoming battle...
4.) ... while you try to ignore the taunts from the brother. The brother now hates you and he looks passionate...
3.) ... and he is a 7d6 warrior...
2.) ... and you find out that his father is your battalion commander, who ask you to outflank the opponents in the 8 round battle... "just a few times"...
1.) ... and the commander just happens to be the father of the unknown woman you now love. Good Luck! ;)

Bonus round. The woman ask that you bring her a 'lovely' white shield that hangs in a monastery nearby.

(Spoiler alert. I don't really know how what it is with that shield, but I hope you don't succeed in your trusting roll.)

well saiid :)

A lot of water has run under this bridge now. It has been enertaining and enlightening, but in the end to me, as a game designer, unsatisfying. Some discussion suffers from “add a rule-itis” instead of analyzing the basic issue. I find making a list of conditions to use a simple maneuver inelegant at best, sometimes even odious. I'll eliminate the maneuver before someone has to check the book to see the conditions of use or the results over and over. KISS

I want to start afresh and look anew. I am not saying I am right, but no one has looked at some things so far.

I think a problem is discerned where there is none.


Four KAP sessions in and I'm having issues with the Berserk (AKA Crazy, All Out Attack) attack. My PC knights now use this as the default attack every single time, and while that sits quite legally within the rules it just doesn't feel right to me. Last session I ran a tournament, with 6 PC knights and 10 NPCs in a knockout style contest.

I presume a fight to Knockdown, you mean.


I predetermined the attacks of the NPCs in advance (Attack, Defend, Dodge etc) based on their personalities which made for a good mix of fighting styles.

That is quite neat, a very nice GM touch. Did it work—was it fun--before everyone became one-attack charlies?


Come actual play, every one of them lost to a PC knight using exclusively Berserk attacks. The contest was to first knockdown and my players were quite happy to suffer the first blow in the almost surefire knowledge that they would send their opponent flying soon afterward, and the results backed up their thinking.

Of course. The assurance being, I presume, from the +10, to obtain a Critical Hit.
They are playing to their strength, which is SIZ (and HP). A standing fight to knockdown is not much more than two blokes alternating taking swings at each other. The bigger guy usually wins. Of course.
I suggest in such that the opponents do the same tactic, hoping to hit hard (crit); or do some fancy footwork and make that big strong guy make a DEX roll and hit him when he falls down. Then laugh.
Were you using rebated weapons here? A 4d6 guy doing average damage will inflict 3 points of real damage. Get three of those, then go adventuring—OK with me.


Moving on with the adventure, after the tournament they faced a beast of quite some power (something akin to a large crocodile, very tough hide and a 7d6 bite). They were also squeezed into a natural cave tunnel meaning only the front 2 of them could engage. Both front knights went for Berserk attacks on the creature, even when I told them that they would have no defence, checked their Reckless traits (which were already checked long ago) and no shield vs the incoming bite they still committed to the Berserk. Sure enough, I hit first with a resulting 22 damage,

Presuming that is average damage, it’s a pretty punk monster to face two opponents of equal value. It’s no bigger than them, with 2:1 odds. Next time put two of them against the one berserk guy and see what happens—it’s only fair! :D


which was taken fairly easily before they replied with a 42 and 39 point attack of their own. Needless to say, the creature didn't last beyond the first round.

So, an average of 40 on the critical hit, or about 20 on a normal hit, so your guys are 6d6 damage or so, right? And of course, their size is about 18 or so too. The average knight is about 4d6 (KAP, page 28), with about 14-15 in STR and SIZ.
Your guys are huge!! Each of them is 25% bigger than the rest of the knights in the world. Are they Saxons? They are as strong as my Governator when he was fit! (Think first Conan movie) The upper range of normal human size!


Again this is all correct within the rules but it feels unbalanced. The *normal* attack is hardly used at all in my group. Yes they will face stiffer opponents, and yes one of them will no doubt die but I can't see that changing their approach.

You mentioned there were other games were they did only this. Were they always fighting one on one?
Use the “Too big for horse” rule, which IS canon as far as I am concerned. I ought to add it to the KAP errata.
Partial fix:: crazy attack from horseback grants a penalty to the rider of -10.
Synopsis: this is a perfectly acceptable method of fighting, and is especially useful for huge characters. If all the knights in your game are this size, the apparent problem is from skewed data.
Or am I off here?

btw, Gwefrwafr's list is wonderful.

Hello Greg.

I've decided to house this rule purely to limit it's effectiveness in my campaign rather than go the whole hog now and outlaw it completely. I kindof want the normal attack to be de facto with All Out and Defend the exceptions to the norm. I haven't played since I started this post so the effect of such a change is not yet known but my next playing day is fast approaching. Of course, I'll happily answer your questions.





Four KAP sessions in and I'm having issues with the Berserk (AKA Crazy, All Out Attack) attack. My PC knights now use this as the default attack every single time, and while that sits quite legally within the rules it just doesn't feel right to me. Last session I ran a tournament, with 6 PC knights and 10 NPCs in a knockout style contest.

I presume a fight to Knockdown, you mean.

Yes. The tournament was to first knockdown.



I predetermined the attacks of the NPCs in advance (Attack, Defend, Dodge etc) based on their personalities which made for a good mix of fighting styles.



That is quite neat, a very nice GM touch. Did it work—was it fun--before everyone became one-attack charlies?

It worked fairly well yes, but was somewhat redundant in the face of the All Out Attack onslaught. However, I think it still worked in spirit. One of my NPC knights is half saxon/half Cymric who has sworn fealty to Roderick. He is a brute of a knight, and when he took to the field all my players knew what was coming, he went All Out Attack every round. Likewise when a lightly armed Silchester knight came on they were all suspicious as to what he was going to try, so yes the personality/attack type worked to drive home the differences between combatants, and made for a colourful contest.

I used a simple dice system to declare intent simultaneously each round. I secretly placed a die in my hand (Red for All Out, Green for normal, Blue for Defend, White for Dodge etc) asked the player to state his intent, then revealed my attack. Now the PC could change his intent, but to do so would cost him -5 skill. Before each PC faced a knight I gave him a little pre-prepared bit of paper with what he knew about the knight and his temperament on it. From that they could make an informed guess as to the style they would be facing. I then let them roll Intrigue. On a success they could force me to reveal my dice before they declared intent ONCE. If they criticaled, they could do it every round. This gave my PCs a slight edge as I did not do the same to them.

Now this could have been done the normal way with Movement Rate but I wanted something a bit more tactical, to get them thinking more. I wouldn't do this for every combat! This worked great when the aforementioned Silchester knight produced a purple die for his Double Feint (a colour I had not previously described), my players were all "huh what's this he's trying to pull?"



Come actual play, every one of them lost to a PC knight using exclusively Berserk attacks. The contest was to first knockdown and my players were quite happy to suffer the first blow in the almost surefire knowledge that they would send their opponent flying soon afterward, and the results backed up their thinking.



Of course. The assurance being, I presume, from the +10, to obtain a Critical Hit.
They are playing to their strength, which is SIZ (and HP). A standing fight to knockdown is not much more than two blokes alternating taking swings at each other. The bigger guy usually wins. Of course.
I suggest in such that the opponents do the same tactic, hoping to hit hard (crit); or do some fancy footwork and make that big strong guy make a DEX roll and hit him when he falls down. Then laugh.
Were you using rebated weapons here? A 4d6 guy doing average damage will inflict 3 points of real damage. Get three of those, then go adventuring—OK with me.

Exactly, yes. And by and large it always worked. OK not every All Out ended in a critical but everyone was using it hoping it would. I used a variant of rebated weapons which I called dulled weapons. They did full normal damage on a hit but on a crit did only +1d6 more rather than double. A little contrived I know but my campaign is in it's infancy and I didn't want a field full of dead knights, especially when I knew the Saxon halfbreed would be All Out Attacking every round with a 6d6 damage modifier.


Moving on with the adventure, after the tournament they faced a beast of quite some power (something akin to a large crocodile, very tough hide and a 7d6 bite). They were also squeezed into a natural cave tunnel meaning only the front 2 of them could engage. Both front knights went for Berserk attacks on the creature, even when I told them that they would have no defence, checked their Reckless traits (which were already checked long ago) and no shield vs the incoming bite they still committed to the Berserk. Sure enough, I hit first with a resulting 22 damage,



Presuming that is average damage, it’s a pretty punk monster to face two opponents of equal value. It’s no bigger than them, with 2:1 odds. Next time put two of them against the one berserk guy and see what happens—it’s only fair! :D

For 7D6 damage that's slightly less than average. My inexperience with Pendragon GMing certainly came in to play a bit here because on paper the thing looked quite tough. Had they fought it normally it would have been a much closer fight. However, they didn't, but despite that, I'm very wary of upping monster toughness just to deal with the All Out Attack. I don't really want to have combat akin to a nuclear war, ie whoever hits first lays waste to the opponent in one round. Later down the line, in certain circumstances I don't mind but not every combat and certainly not as an antidote to a single special attack maneuver.


which was taken fairly easily before they replied with a 42 and 39 point attack of their own. Needless to say, the creature didn't last beyond the first round.



So, an average of 40 on the critical hit, or about 20 on a normal hit, so your guys are 6d6 damage or so, right? And of course, their size is about 18 or so too. The average knight is about 4d6 (KAP, page 28), with about 14-15 in STR and SIZ.
Your guys are huge!! Each of them is 25% bigger than the rest of the knights in the world. Are they Saxons? They are as strong as my Governator when he was fit! (Think first Conan movie) The upper range of normal human size!

haha they're not quite the Governator. By and large my guys have very average stats. The two guys in the front row were my two toughest PC knights. Both have 5d6. One of the 5d6 guys is big. He has a very high CON (22) through a high initial score and a bonus glory point and has trained up his STR or SIZ the last 3 winters. His HPs are 39. But he stands out a mile, the others have HP ranges from his down to 24 and all have a 4d6 attack. On a 10d6 crit they would average 35 hps damage so here yes they did slightly more.


Again this is all correct within the rules but it feels unbalanced. The *normal* attack is hardly used at all in my group. Yes they will face stiffer opponents, and yes one of them will no doubt die but I can't see that changing their approach.



You mentioned there were other games were they did only this. Were they always fighting one on one?
Use the “Too big for horse” rule, which IS canon as far as I am concerned. I ought to add it to the KAP errata.
Partial fix:: crazy attack from horseback grants a penalty to the rider of -10.
Synopsis: this is a perfectly acceptable method of fighting, and is especially useful for huge characters. If all the knights in your game are this size, the apparent problem is from skewed data.
Or am I off here?

btw, Gwefrwafr's list is wonderful.


No not all my knights are this size. 5d6 is not that hard to achieve, but at present only 2 of my knights have it. The problem started to arise the session before last when one or two of them started using All Out a bit more than usual, then, after the tournament fight, they switched to using it all the time. Yes it is in one vs one, or one vs one creature. In a large combat other factors would come into play and they would probably rethink but that doesn't solve the issues I was having.

btw.. apologies for the odd quoting. Quoting within quotes seems to have got the better of me.

Honestly for the most part my group never uses ANY of the combat manuevers except fight defensively on occasion, and the game is really good. Berserk attack is generally used only by our enemies, and thats fine, because we just go defensive. No one has ever used double feint, and we dont have any disagreements. WE used to use the manuevers more and it got us all bogged down. now play is easier and faster and the game really has not suffered at all. I know everyone is different, but 4 us throwing the manuevers out was a good choice.

Palomydes - That was probably a good move and I'm on the verge of doing it myself.

I do quite like Defend, for one it causes me no headaches as a GM, and two it can be a life saver when all you care about is protecting yourself if you're really are up against it. The Defend option almost certainly saved the life of one of my PCs a few sessions back.

Palomydes - That was probably a good move and I'm on the verge of doing it myself.

I do quite like Defend, for one it causes me no headaches as a GM, and two it can be a life saver when all you care about is protecting yourself if you're really are up against it. The Defend option almost certainly saved the life of one of my PCs a few sessions back.


Anything that preserves PCs is good. :)

--Greg

This is how I solved the berserk issues in my game (darn it, more house rules!):

Basically I have 3 combat options for more brutal attacks:

* Fierce Attack: Sacrifice Accuracy (and safety) for Damage. -5 skill, +1d6 damage

* Sacrificing Attack: Take Hit, but roll opposed where a win determines if shield protects, will still take damage. If still standing, use the roll as attack unopposed +5 skill.

* Berserk: Un-knightly attack (thus unavailable for players, its for the Saxon beasts!). Take unopposed hit, no shield. If still standing, attack unopposed with +10.

In the case of two berserk/sacrificing attacks against each other, both attacks are unnopposed and simultaneous.

I have found that bringing in the fierce and sacrificing attacks balance it out better and the player knights don't overuse them. Yes, you don't get the massive +10 bonus, but the possible shield protection makes up for it. And the real "berserk" is still there for the Saxons. However, I may occasionally let a mad or impassioned knight go berserk when it suits the story.

I also have new and changed options for most combat options which i feel balance the game out better. Such as for multiple opponents, double feint, disarm, attacking the shield, disengage, grapple etc. I'll post them in a separate thread soon.

I also have new and changed options for most combat options which i feel balance the game out better. Such as for multiple opponents, double feint, disarm, attacking the shield, disengage, grapple etc. I'll post them in a separate thread soon.


As an inveterate tinkerer, I can't wait to see them!

I also have new and changed options for most combat options which i feel balance the game out better. Such as for multiple opponents, double feint, disarm, attacking the shield, disengage, grapple etc. I'll post them in a separate thread soon.


As an inveterate tinkerer, I can't wait to see them!


Yes indeed! And now they are posted... Please do help with suggestions, improvements and flamewars (just kidding)!

Another thought on Berserk

Summary of previous observations:
Berserk Pros: the +10 bonus will generally result in a critical hit
Berserk Cons: the unopposed first attack will generally hit, causing a knockdown roll (but generally little damage against an armoured knight).

So, high SIZ/DEX (or horsemanship) fighters have little to fear when using Berserk, because they don't get knocked down often.

Possible fix:
Use the armour penalty (pg. 79) to your DEX/horsemanship roll for avoiding knockdown.

Some possible solutions to beserker tactics:

1) Reinstate the 2-handed weapon attack rule. Note that since the "Berserk" attack gives the defender and unopposed attack, the defender could take the extra d6 damage, greatly improving his chance of inflicting a knockdown or major wound.

2) Counter-berker. If a character has a higher MOVE they will get to act first. Note that this would make a bunch of lightly armored bandits murder.

3) Reinstate the old rule that characters who are fighting defensively do normal damage on a critcal, but only against characters who are doing a beserk attack.

4) Change Berserker tactics from getting a bonus to hit, to a bonus to damage (say +50% or +2d6 or +3d6). That way it would still be a effective tactic without being an autohit.

The Special Combat Tactics are in the second edition, page 89 has Defend abd all-out no defense attack. Significant section, first paragraph second column " If a character using hte Defend tactic is attacked by a character using the Berserker tactic (see below) the two tactics CANCEL (my note) each other out. A normal opposed resolution without modifiers due to tactics takes place,"

So just have your opponents Defend.

Though Fifth give the modifiers, and prevents the defending doing damage. I am sticking with the earlier rules on this one.

Adding: Tactics were not in the first edition, the above paragraph is in the fourth edition as well.

Another thought on Berserk

Summary of previous observations:
Berserk Pros: the +10 bonus will generally result in a critical hit
Berserk Cons: the unopposed first attack will generally hit, causing a knockdown roll (but generally little damage against an armoured knight).

So, high SIZ/DEX (or horsemanship) fighters have little to fear when using Berserk, because they don't get knocked down often.

Possible fix:
Use the armour penalty (pg. 79) to your DEX/horsemanship roll for avoiding knockdown.


this is an interesting idea. i like it and it preserves berserk for npcs without players abusing it. might use it.

I know not whether this helps but it may;

I swiped this idea from a set of rules on the net (maybe PenDragonPass?)

Any character may attempt a STUNT
The player (or GM) must narrate just what crazy idea they have
Roll against half of the Weapon skill (or Characteristic or possibly skill as appropriate)
A Success is bumped up to a Critical
A Failure is bumped down to a Fumble and the character is automatically prone

I have found that this simple, broad rule adequately covers Berserk/all out attacks, aiming for eyeslits, shield leaping (not all of my penDragon games take place in Arthur's realm) and so on.

When you halve skill, is it then an opposed roll?

;D oops could have been clearer.

Yes if the roll is normally opposed then its opposed if attempting a stunt as well

Come actual play, every one of them lost to a PC knight using exclusively Berserk attacks.


Then your knights have not faced opponents who are skilled & passionate.
If one of your knights have just used the berserk attack tactic against one opponent. Then the next opponent could very well view this as a dishonerable thing to do and roll for his honor passion. This will increase the crit statistics significantly. Say a skill 15 would get crits on 15+. Any such crit kill will soon teach your players the folly of their statistics game. This since it only works against low-skill opponents.

Also, you should put them in adventures where they have several fights after one another. Then soon the attrition will keep them in place.

That sounds questionable to me. What grounds would those knights have for using Honour?
Berserk definitely isn't dishonourable, but even if it was, seeing someone else act in a way you regard as unethical shouldn't be enough reason to roll honour: if you yourself were accused of acting dishonourably, it's a different matter. Accusing the knight of that could lead to you facing a knight who likes to use berserk, and now has reason to roll Honour too. (He may use both together, or just rely on honour if you are inspired too.)

Besides, I think having NPCs use such tenuous and questionable grounds for calling inspiration sets a bad precedent.

That sounds questionable to me. What grounds would those knights have for using Honour?
Berserk definitely isn't dishonourable, but even if it was, seeing someone else act in a way you regard as unethical shouldn't be enough reason to roll honour: if you yourself were accused of acting dishonourably, it's a different matter. Accusing the knight of that could lead to you facing a knight who likes to use berserk, and now has reason to roll Honour too. (He may use both together, or just rely on honour if you are inspired too.)

Besides, I think having NPCs use such tenuous and questionable grounds for calling inspiration sets a bad precedent.

Agreed. I concede the honor thing, in game I would motivate it better. But the point still stands. The remedy of too much berserking is crits.

I agree with that - it seems inevitable that if people rely on berserk a lot, sooner or later things will go badly. As GM, you just need to patiently wait.

All things considered I decided to house the tactic slightly - as mentioned earlier in the thread - rather than outlaw it. Since that time my players have not touched it - although I think the reason for that may be more psychological than rule related - and this was what I wanted to get back to; vanilla combat with the odd exception, rather than the other way around.

I agree with that - it seems inevitable that if people rely on berserk a lot, sooner or later things will go badly. As GM, you just need to patiently wait.


Not really. The best use of the beserk tactics when someone gets double or triple teamed. One guy fights normal or defensively, while the rest defend. Try it with the next group of bandits the group runs across and watch the carnage.

And if you really want to slaughter a group of knights, let the beasts and monsters use it. A berserk small giant is probably going to kill a knight a round.

Or a lion with 7d6 dmg and 2 attacks at 21!

I wonder how much of a beasts natural ferocity can be considered already built into it's basic stats?

The humble Boar, for instance, seems to me already quite a ferocious opponent at 6d6 damage and a tusk gore skill of 18 (4th edition stats). From what I can remember plenty of otherwise quite formidable player knights seemed willing to deliberately flunk their hunting rolls rather than have to face down a cornered boar whilst wearing hunting leathers. Pictish knights have a great advantage here in having Great Spear as cultural weapon.

Probably all of it. Animals are nasty.

It's is something of a running gag with my group that over the course of several campaigns and years, more characters have died hunting than by any other means. One character took Hate (hunting) in the past when the entire group, other than him, were killed off during a couple of hunts. Red Deer are not too far behind Red Caps on the PC apprehension meter. Even my current campaign got off to a rocky start with the "Bear of Imber" managing to nearly kill a couple of PCs and taking a full week to hunt down. Of course, ten PC fumbles are bound to have an impact.

One thing about KAP5, at least once the Book of Knights & Ladies is included, is that Cmyric males now get Spear Expertise skill. It is a cultural specialty skill that can be used in place of lance, spear and greatspear. Not that it makes that big a difference during a hunt. Most knights are better with Lance than with spear, and the first charge is usually with a lance. Still, when a PC knight ends up using a boarspear, Spear Expertise is quire nice. One of my PCs has started favoring spear, since if he misses his lance charge, or doesn't have enough speed for a charge, he can use the spear at the same skill. That means he can use spear instead of switching to sword, and often catching a foe rearming.

Ten fumbles. Ouch! :D

We had several major woundings while boar hunting, but no actual deaths I believe. In retrospect I think we all overlooked the value of putting points into spear and greatspear. Except the doughty Pictish knight, for whom greatspear was primary weapon, and who excelled at hunting.

Would Lancelot's battle rages be considered a use of the berserker tactic or an example of invoking a passion? If it's the berserker tactic he could be a useful frame of reference from the source literature for supporting some of the social implications of using it against one's fellow knights that have been brought up in this thread. Was he fighting with berserk rage when he killed Sir Gareth? Such unintentional killings, or otherwise unnecessary major woundings, could well be one of the downsides of using the berserker tactic in such circumstances.

Balin le Savage might be another example of a knight likely to have used the berserker tactic.

Perhaps if the berserker tactic is used during a tournament melee, at very least, you could say that the knight in question is so clouded by rage that he finds it difficult to distinguish friend from foe (perhaps -10 to Heraldry and Recognize for the duration of the rage?)

I think Lancelot's... exuberance is an example of Inspiration. I think it's that kind of activity that served as inspiration for the, um, Inspiration rules.

Aye, certainly at many tournaments and during the rescue of Guinever he would no doubt be invoking amour/love.

It's a long time since I read Malory, but I seem to recall there were at least one or two occasions where even his own kinsmen like Ector and Bors were wary of fighting too close to him at times during certain tournaments because of his fighting as 'he were wroth', or something similar. Phyllis Ann Karr says of Lancelot in The King Arthur Companion that: 'Coupled with this strength, skill and prowess, was an unfortunate tendency to blood lust during battle.'

So I'm fairly sure there's some berserkering going on there with Lancelot amidst the inspiration.

Ten fumbles. Ouch! :D

It was going so bad that I ended up not using the bandit attack on the way back for fear of wiping out the group. Especially since they were hunting piecemeal.

What happened was that they split off for the hunt, and the guy with the best hunting, criticalled, and found the bear right away. He got a mediocre damage roll on the surprise change, and then proceeded to fumble his lance, and then his sword, twice. By that time he dropped with a major wound. The bear slapped him around a bit, then left him for dead.

The group realized something was wrong when he didn't make it back to Imber at nightfall, but his horse did.. They tried to look for him, but had not luck doing so by torchlight.

By the time the group found him, he had 2 HP left, and it was too late to use First Aid.

After that, the group decided it was better to stay together (Prudent). But the comedy of errors had just begun. Each time they managed to get close to the bear, whoever took the surprise charge would fumble and the bear would run off in the woods, leaving the group back at the begging on the hunt. It was so bad that one guy fumbled a first aid roll on a character who had fell off his horse, and a 1 point wound got infected. Then the Healer fumbled the Chirugery roll. The character ended up losing over half his hit points to that 1 point wound before he could make a Chirugery roll and stabilize.

It was getting to the point where I was going to have Sir Elad call the squires back to Sarum, and the Bear was going to get a reputation as a Faerie Creature. But, on the sixth day of hunting somebody actually managed to hold onto their lance and killed the thing.

It was a terrible start. They were goofing off a lot and some of their troubles were self inflicted, but when players roll that bad, nothing is going to go right for them. By the time they managed to kill the bear, all but two of them had been injured in some way. Some by bear, and some by falling off their horse.

I was just too disgusted to throw the bandits at them and kill them all off.

We concluded that these squires obviously were not ready for knighthood yet, and delayed their knighting until the next year, after they had improved their lance and horsemanship.





We had several major woundings while boar hunting, but no actual deaths I believe. In retrospect I think we all overlooked the value of putting points into spear and greatspear. Except the doughty Pictish knight, for whom greatspear was primary weapon, and who excelled at hunting.


My group has always had hunting difficulties. So much so that most would rather face a dozen Saxons than one boar. Now admittedly things were a big tougher in First edition, but a lot of it is bad luck. The animals would beat the PCs by 1 point, or a boar that has taken a major wound and is destined to be bacon by morning manages to critical on that last round it's up. Two knights came back from Badon only to die the next year on a hunt and so on. One knight killed a dragon in single combat only to be gored to within an inch of his life by a fallow deer. It got to the point that whenever a hunt was called for, the players felt like they were running the gauntlet.

If rabbits were on the hunting table, I image I'd someday see a recreation of the classic scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

The hard part is not laughing when a Knight of the Round Table, Dragonslayer, with 20,000 Glory, gets his butt handed to him by Bambi. It's so embarrassing.

Atgxtg what are you feeding those bears? Steroids!

My lot are currently riding border patrol around Salisbury, and the earl has asked them to deal with any ferocious beasts they come across as part of their duties. One of my PKs has a family trait plus to his Hunting so his score is an exact 20. So far they have encountered one bear and had it chopped and diced in one round flat. They were in their chainmail, so the paltry 3d6 bear lunge was not likely to affect them too much, and they charged the thing en masse, thereby minimising its chances even further, but reading your report I wonder if they are quite aware of just how fearsome that beast can be!

ahem, allow me, "There it is! Where, behind the rabbit?"

...Hate (Hunting)


I might suggest that these guys actually have a Fear Hunting 20 or so by now. Maybe more.



The hard part is not laughing when a Knight of the Round Table, Dragonslayer, with 20,000 Glory, gets his butt handed to him by Bambi. It's so embarrassing.


And you resisted laughing?
We were laughing out of control.

It sounds like some colourful adventures are being had. :D

When I ran the Imber scenario the bear hunt went fairly well, but the victorious squire who killed the bear was laid low by a critical during the bandit raid. His life was saved by the physician skills of the local priest, and he subsequently became known as The Knight of the Bear.

If it had been a rabbit hunt now, his nickname might not have been quite as impressive...

...Hate (Hunting)


I might suggest that these guys actually have a Fear Hunting 20 or so by now. Maybe more.
[/quote]

They players might. At least they can't fumble that roll. About the only thing that they are more afraid of are Redcaps.The characters don't. One bit of roleplaying that occurred during the first adventure was when the guys with past experience in Pendragon decided to split off and hunt by themselves. One guy in particular knew it was a bad idea, but it fit his character's personality traits.


The hard part is not laughing when a Knight of the Round Table, Dragonslayer, with 20,000 Glory, gets his butt handed to him by Bambi. It's so embarrassing.



And you resisted laughing?
We were laughing out of control.


Well, it gets kind of painful. Especially when it isn't the first time. And especially since I'm the only one who still can find the humor in it. By the third of forth time the bear got away because the lancer fumbled the charge it starts to take a surreal fatalistic tone.
Most players are willing to accept the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" knowing that you have to take the bad to enjoy the good, but when multiple players see their entire family wiped out during hunts it can get depressing. Too much of a bad thing is counterproductive to a campaign.

In my original Campaign, KAP1, only one player managed to get landed and establish some sort of family line. More characters died hunting than by all other activities combined. It makes it hard to appreciate the dynastic aspects of the game, and the whole timeline when you're rolling up new character all the time.

Not that this is a complaint against the system. In fact, hunts have gotten easier over the years. It's just unreal how things go for my players when a hunt begins. Last session they went after fox. A tiny helpless fox. An animal so small and weak that game stats aren't even included in the book. Even if it bites, it can't do damage to one of the PCs even if it rolls a critical. No way they can get killed by a fox, right?

Nope, one guy managed to fumble twice, fall off his horse and take max damage both times. They guy goes through the Three-Eyed Giant and the Nuckalevee without a scratch, buy one tiny red fox, and (yet) another fumbled first aid roll, and he's in mortal peril!

I can't wait to see them go hawking.

If it had been a rabbit hunt now, his nickname might not have been quite as impressive...

Don't underestimate the Rabbit of Caerbannog.
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/1477/vlcsnap2010021521h39m05.png

Ah now, if we're talking that rabbit...

Nibble skill of around 30 and full use of the berserk tactic...

1000 Glory at least to bag that particular beastie :D

Ah now, if we're talking that rabbit...

Nibble skill of around 30 and full use of the berserk tactic...

1000 Glory at least to bag that particular beastie :D


I watched that movie the other day. Considering that the rabbit is able to fight a half dozen of the best knights of the Round Table at once and that it manages to kill two knights in the fracas without taking so much as a scratch itself, 30 might be too conservative! No berserk either, or someone would have hit the ruddy thing. It probably should get the flying attack and multiple attacks like the Griffin. Like Arthur says, "That Rabbit is Dynamite".

I keep thinking of writing this up for an April Fool's Day joke, but every time I start I just end up giggling. Considering how much trouble my group has with normal animals like foxes, bears and deer, it's probably best if I don't complete the Adventure of the Cave of Caerbannog.

Hmm, and considering just when muskets get introduced the "Holy Hand Grenade" is not too far of a stretch. Probably about 8D6 in Pendragon...uh oh, here come the giggles.

I watched that movie the other day. Considering that the rabbit is able to fight a half dozen of the best knights of the Round Table at once and that it manages to kill two knights in the fracas without taking so much as a scratch itself, 30 might be too conservative! No berserk either, or someone would have hit the ruddy thing. It probably should get the flying attack and multiple attacks like the Griffin. Like Arthur says, "That Rabbit is Dynamite".

I keep thinking of writing this up for an April Fool's Day joke, but every time I start I just end up giggling. Considering how much trouble my group has with normal animals like foxes, bears and deer, it's probably best if I don't complete the Adventure of the Cave of Caerbannog.


Not to mention a -15 Valourous at least.

Wandering off topic a bit - perhaps there should be a permanent thread in Arthur: Legend, Literature and References called something like "That quest for the Holy Grail" for all things Python - but I'm surprised no one has put together a tongue in cheek Grail Quest adventure along the lines you mention. It reminds me of the old Paranoia module Orcbusters. Totally tongue in cheek, totally stupid, but as a one-off when my players fancied something different, totally enjoyable.

I wrote up the rabbit last night in a fit of perversity.

I took advantage of a few monster rules, and statted it out based on the idea that it could indeed take on the cream on the knights of the round table and kick butt. The key cheap shot was the "flying" attack that griffions, hippogriff and wyverns get.

I think I write this adventure up so I can leave it out on the table when I go answer the call of nature. I'll know if anybody was reading through my notes by the looks of thier faces when I get back.

A Monty Python themed Pendragon would work well as a convention game. Signature characters, one off and just for fun.

I think that the monty python stuff has been done before. Look for "the great book of pendragon treasures.pdf" on the internet. Its a collection of stuff written on typewriters before the advent of computers.

Just done a quick search and could only find it on torrent sites. I am not a member of any and never used one on principle. Does anyone have a copy to send out via email?

Just for clarification, it is fan made material isn't it?

Just done a quick search and could only find it on torrent sites. I am not a member of any and never used one on principle. Does anyone have a copy to send out via email?

Just for clarification, it is fan made material isn't it?

Yes it is fan made material. No copyright stuff.
I support the RPG industry by buying my stuff. In some cases I've bought supplements that I know I will not use, just to support the makers of the stuff. Like Greg Stafford, its not like he gets rich on the stuff.

Spoonist. I did not mean to insinuate anything, but just needed confirmation. I hope you didn't take offence.

Spoonist. I did not mean to insinuate anything, but just needed confirmation. I hope you didn't take offence.

None taken. It was just a clarifiication. If you felt that you had to ask then I was not clear enough. So then I'd better explain myself so that folks don't get the wrong impression.

I believe the file is stored in the files section of the yahoo KAP group which can be found here:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/King_Arthur_Pendragon/

Signed up and downloaded the file. There must be an error with it, as the most likely adventure 'And now for something completely different' is a repeat of the 'Hungry Tower' adventure. Shame.