Log in

View Full Version : Knockdown and getting up



krijger
12-24-2009, 11:44 AM
Hi all,
because I grew up with 4th and now use 5th, I sometimes get things mixed in my head. And since there are so many good ideas here, I thought I ask.

Ok, knight PC gets knocked down in combat.
Next round as his action he can:

*A) He can only get up, opponent get free attack at +5
*B) He can get up and attack, opponent get +5, he at -5
*C) He can get up and attack, opponent gets +5, he attacks at -10 (-5 from down and -5 for double action)
*D) He can get up and attack, opponent gets +10 (+5 from up +5 from double action), he attacks at -10 (-5 from down and -5 for double action)
*E) He can get up and fight defensively, opponent gets +5, he 'defends' at 0 (-5 from down and -5 for double action, +10 defensive)
*F) He can get up and fight defensively, opponent gets +10 (+5 from up +5 from double action) , he 'defends' at 0 (-5 from down and -5 for double action, +10 defensive)
*G) He can get up and fight defensively, opponent gets +5, he 'defends' at +5 (-5 from down, +10 defensive)
*H) He can stay down and attack, opponent gets +5, he attacks at -5

Ofcourse after the resolution you have to check if there is another knockdown but if not, then knight is up..

Which are the correct ones?
If I interpret 5th, page 115/166 then option B, G, H are the legal options
However if I look at reference sheet combined actions then options A, D, F, H... [might this be an error?]

fg,
Thijs

DarrenHill
12-29-2009, 10:42 PM
By applying the rules exactly, it would seem you should apply the height penalty and the double action penalty when someone is downed. That would give these options.
*A) He can only get up, opponent attacks at +5; if opponent hits and does enough damage, down he goes again.
*B) He can get up and attack, opponent get +10, he at -10 (this is because of double action and being down)
*C) He can get up and fight defensively, opponent gets +10, he 'defends' at +10 (-5 for double action, -5 for being down, +10 defensive)

However, I assume that a person getting up is not prone, he is at least half up, and so the height difference is ignored. The double action penalty is enough.
So, I believe the correct list (though I may be carrying some assumptions from 1st edition here) is:
*A) He can only get up, opponent attacks at +0; if opponent hits and does enough damage, down he goes again.
*B) He can get up and attack, opponent get +5, he at -5 (this is because of double action)
*C) He can get up and fight defensively, opponent gets +5, he 'defends' at +5 (-5 for double action, +10 defensive)

This gives a significant choice. If you are facing someone who is, say, skill 18 or above, you know that if you attack him, you increase his chance of getting a critical hit (his skill goes above 20). So, you could decide to just let the blow land (option A), but that that might knock you down again.
Or you could fight defensively (option C), in the hope of rolling higher than your opponent thus avoiding a hit all together.
But if you are desperate (or confident!), you can attack (option B).

So, under this interpretation, the choices are all interesting and meaningul. Whereas under the first set listed above, the choices are all bad - being knocked over just once will frequently be a fight-ender. That's not interesting. So I prefer the second interpretation.

Theres an extra option in KAP5 that is often forgotten
*D) He can get up, and use shield defensively, opponent gets +5, he defends at STR+5 (STR for shield block, +10 for defence, -5 for double action)
I don't use this as it sits a bit uneasily in the selection above, especially since STR is rarely higher than weapon skill.

It might help to know how these rules developed.
In 1st edition, there was no defensive fighting. You had two options:
1) Stand up, do not attack. Your opponent attacks normally; you roll your skill and if succeed, you get your shield protection. You can't stop the blow landing.
2) Stand up and attack: You opponent attacks with no bonus, and you attack with half your skill. Best roll wins.

It's clear the "half your skill" penalty has been adjusted to a -5/+5 penalty. With that, and the fighting defensive rules, the change has become

Then Fighting defensively has been added, to give the 3 options I describe above.

Final comment.
You can't really stay on the ground and prone- that's not a realistic option - except maybe if you try to grapple. But even then you have to scrabble round to get a decent position, and that's part of what spending the round defensive or getting up represents. Plus once a player has learned he can attack from prone, SIZ and DEX become a lot less important.
If someone were to insist, I'd apply the height penalty (-5/+5), after halving the skill of the prone fighter. It's hard to swing a weapon while prone!

Hope this helps!

krijger
01-03-2010, 12:34 AM
So, I believe the correct list (though I may be carrying some assumptions from 1st edition here) is:
*A) He can only get up, opponent attacks at +0; if opponent hits and does enough damage, down he goes again.
*B) He can get up and attack, opponent get +5, he at -5 (this is because of double action)
*C) He can get up and fight defensively, opponent gets +5, he 'defends' at +5 (-5 for double action, +10 defensive)
*D) He can get up, and use shield defensively, opponent gets +5, he defends at STR+5 (STR for shield block, +10 for defence, -5 for double action)

I'll just add
*E) He stays down and attack, opponent get +5, he at -5 (this is because of height difference)
Which noone will take except scenario-reasons as it's equivalent to B), but B) lets you get up..

One more question, what about replacing A) with:
He can only get up, opponent attacks unopposed ('a free hack')??

Now in the above the only fear for the opponent is an attack at -5... so why not make a crazy attack?
Which makes the table:
*A) He can only get up, opponent attacks at +10; if opponent hits and does enough damage, down he goes again.
*B) He can get up and attack at -5, then if missed/no knockdown: opponent get +15
*C) He can get up and fight defensively, opponent gets +5, he attacks at -5 (-5 for double action, +10 defensive cancels +10 crazy attack)
*D) He can get up, and use shield defensively, opponent gets +5, he attacks at STR-5 (STR for shield block, -5 for double action, +10 defensive cancels +10 crazy attack)
*E) (see B)

All of a sudden a lot of bonuses disappeared (as +5 defense only are replace with -5 attacks), so one should almost always go crazy at a downed opponent.
Or do I see something wrong?

fg,
Thijs

DarrenHill
01-03-2010, 12:48 AM
Now in the above the only fear for the opponent is an attack at -5... so why not make a crazy attack?


Because you need GM permission every time you use a combat tactic, and this is a situation that is inappropriate for it.
Note this text from KAP3-5: "These tactics are optional, not mandatory, and may be allowed or disallowed on a case-by-case basis: The Gamemaster is in charge of whether to allow special combat tactics in any specific situation."

Failing that, yes, you're right - there's no downside to using a crazy attack (assuming it's a one v one fight). That just points out that the rules aren't perfect, and require the GM to make case-by-case decisions regarding whether to implement a given rule.

That said, if you allow it, then the list of options becomes compressed to:
*A) He can get up and attack at -5, then if missed/no knockdown: opponent get +15
*B) He can get up and fight defensively, opponent gets +5, he attacks at -5 (-5 for double action, +10 defensive cancels +10 crazy attack)
No other option will be used, and B is a very weak option.

Your best bet is to take the -5, attack, and hope to knock the berserker down.
Personally, I just disallow crazy attack in most situations (as discussed in another thread), unless there is some risk to the person using it. It's not a crazy attack if it's easy :)

Atgxtg
01-14-2010, 08:04 AM
I don't think doing a "Crazy" attack on a downed foe is such a bad idea. It makes a lot of sense historically, along with the use weapon in two hands option. I typically see players do that when fighting nasty monsters when they manage to knock them down.

That is kind of the point behind tactics. Find a time and place where you can gain the benefits with limiting the drawback.


Plus most knights, even with a -5 stand a good chance of hitting and knocking down somebody with an unopposed attack. If the downed knight does 5d6 damage or greater, he is pretty much assures of at least forcing a DEX roll on a hit.

Mazza
01-23-2010, 04:11 AM
It isn't a crazy attack though if you aren't risking anything. That would be a rational attack. :)

Atgxtg
01-23-2010, 04:32 AM
It isn't a crazy attack though if you aren't risking anything. That would be a rational attack. :)


Probably reckless attack would be more accurate.or maybe a wild attack or power swing. The concept being that the character pushed foward and winds up for a big swing.

The fact that the enemy can't take advantage of the vulnerability notwithstanding.

The same would hold true against a disarmed opponent. Just because they can't hit you doesn't mean you cannot do the "berserk" attack.


Realistically though, there is really no reason why a downed foe couldn't thrust or sweep the legs of such a foe, possibly catching them off-balance. Especially since the "beserker" is moving in/leaning over for the kill. Let the downed foe use the 2 handed attack option and the beserk tactic is quite risky.

DarrenHill
01-23-2010, 12:43 PM
My argument though is that the benefits of being above the target, and the defender's inability to defend well, are already accounted for in the +5/-5 modifier (which for might lead to critical hits occurring as much as 6x more often).
Allowing a berserk or crazy attack on top of those seems obscene, especially when the berserk attack mechanics are meant to represent taking a huge risk.

Mazza said it perfecty.

On way that would satisfy me:

A crazy attack is slower. So, when you do this, your target has had the opportunity to get back up - so you lose the reflexive +5/-5 modifier. Or I might say the target gets a DEX roll; if he succeeds, he's back up on his feet and able to attack with no penalty before th crazy attacker's blow lands; if the DEX roll fails, then the crazy attacker gets the +5 bonus and defender suffers the -5.

Atgxtg
01-23-2010, 08:41 PM
My argument though is that the benefits of being above the target, and the defender's inability to defend well, are already accounted for in the +5/-5 modifier (which for might lead to critical hits occurring as much as 6x more often).
Allowing a berserk or crazy attack on top of those seems obscene, especially when the berserk attack mechanics are meant to represent taking a huge risk.

Except it matches up fairly well with what happened historically. One guy drops and the other goes for a finishing blow.

Now one thing I would do is generally assume that the defender could get his shield AP automatically. If the attack is so slow as to go last, then the defender should have all the time he needs to interpose his shield for the extra 6 points.

Personally, I think fighting defensively is probably the best counter tactic. Escpially if going with pre KAP5 rules.



Also,I think it doesn't make sense to say that a knight can't do a "berserk" attack because the foe is unable to exploit it's weakness.


Mind you, I'm not fond of the "berserk" rule to begin with. I think the beserker getting an unopposed attack is a bad idea, as it takes the defender's ability to fight right out of the equation. Three or four bandits or saxon warriors could take down Lancelot that way.

IMO either +10 or unopposed would be better. Or, going back to KAP1. just allowing the 2H strike for an extra die damage.

DarrenHill
01-23-2010, 09:59 PM
Except it matches up fairly well with what happened historically. One guy drops and the other goes for a finishing blow.

Does it match up with what happened in Arthurian fiction, though?

doorknobdeity
01-23-2010, 11:42 PM
Yeah, at least in Mallory. One guy will fall, the other guy will unlace the other's helmet and decapitate him.

DarrenHill
01-24-2010, 12:05 AM
Yes, I'm familiar with those, but that's not a berserk attack - that's a grappling attack.

Although in my games I assume the "dropped and helpless enough to have helm removed" occurs at the unconscious level or below.

Atgxtg
01-24-2010, 06:39 AM
Yeah, at least in Mallory. One guy will fall, the other guy will unlace the other's helmet and decapitate him.


I actually had that save a PK. It was during Phase 4 (Tournament era) and he was riding with a blank shield and jousting people. He ran across another Knight with a blank shield (Morded),who unhorsed him and did real damage thanks to a critical. The PC was down and unconscious, and Morded removed his helm so that he could finish him off with a dagger.

Then Mordred made his Recognize roll (they were friends from way back, during Morded's "good knight" phase), sent his squire off to find a healer, and proceeded to curse the PK out for riding around with a blank shield.