I'm trying to find a bit more granular way to determine jousts and lance breakage. I feel nearly all versions out there are far too random. I want skill and actual damage given to have more of an impact on both who wins a joust, and why and when a jousting lance (or spear) breaks.
It would also be more in line with the skilled Lancers doing much better in the Tourney jousts.

I feel I might be onto something that gives much better probabilities and shouldn't be much slower than the regular system(s). I was thinking along some of these lines:

1. Roll Lance vs Lance (daring Horsemanship may be attempted for extra damage, see other house rule). If the difference between the (modified) rolls is 10 or less, both Lances hit. If difference is 1-5 loser gets -1d6 damage, difference is 5-10 he gets -2d6 damage. If the difference is 11 or more, only the better lance hit.

2. Check if unhorsed: If damage is > SIZ but less than or equal to SIZx2, roll Horsemanship to stay in saddle. Modify Horsemanship negatively with the number of 4's, 5's & 6's rolled for damage. I.e more damage = harder to stay in saddle.

3. Check for Lance Breakage: Calculate damage and separate out all damage dice that shows 4's, 5's & 6's. The winner of the opposing roll needs 3 dice of 4-6's to break a jousting lance (optional, increase to 4 dice if opponent is unhorsed), while a loser that still hit his opponent need 4 dice of 4-6's. On a critical Lance attack, a player not wishing to break his Lance may elect to double the number that is necessary to break the Lance (which actually results in a slightly lower chance than for a non-critical).

Note: Regular war lances (spears) might be slightly tougher, they need 4 respectively 5 dice to show 4-6's before they break. Tourney lances are designed to break to "show a hit".

I'm also toying with the idea of using Lance skill instead of SIZ, or some kind of modification or choice of the better option to calculate knockdown from horseback. Perhaps in tourneys with breaking lances, the skill is more important since its not actual full damage (so use the better value of skill and SIZ), but in war with solid lances, it could still be SIZ only?

For reference, I have calculated and included the actual dice probabilities of Lance breakage. As you can see. Using a Charger with a tourney lance, breakage will be at 65%, (or possibly 77%, with that extra d6 from daring horsemanship) chance of breakage, which I feel is what you at least should have for winning the opposed roll.
An opposing knight on a charger who just barely lost the opposing roll would still have 19% (or 34%) chance to break the lance (important in tourneys).
If it had been a charge at the battlefield, the probability is that only 34% (or 50%) would have been a breakage.

On a critical, a player could either make more sure of a breakage, or have a slightly higher chance of not breaking it. But the more damage the attack did, the more probable it is that it broke. A really bad damage roll on a good hit would probably not break your lance.


Damage Amount of 4-6's needed for Breakage
3 4 5 6
4d6 31,25% 6,25% - -
5d6 50,00% 18,75% 3,12% -
6d6 65,63% 34,38% 10,94% 1,56%
7d6 77,34% 50,00% 22,66% 6,25%
8d6 85,55% 63,67% 36,33% 14,45%

For the common Criticals:

3/6 4/8 5/10
12d6 98,07%/61,28% 92,70%/19,38% 80,62%/1,93%
14d6 99,35%/78,80% 97,13%/39,53% 91,02%/8,98%
16d6 99,79%/89,49% 98,94%/59,82% 96,16%/22,72%

For Jousting lances, the actual damage should be half of course.

A lance that breaks should have a lesser chance to unhorse the opponent, 1/2 (or 3/4?) damage to calculate that. However, using the jousting only rule of using lance instead of SIZ to calculate knockdown check or not this might not be necessary (part of the game so to speak).

When destriers become common, they might also be inclined to make sturdier lances that require one more 4-6 to break.

I always have the contestants roll Horsemanship with a crit giving +5 to the lance attack, success giving +0, failure -5 and I have a Failure Table for a fumble. Then I have them roll opposed lance attacks. Lances break on an odd result. Damage is then calculated for purposes of knockdown only. If the knight is dismounted, then fall damage is taken. On a crit roll on the lance attack 1/2 damage is applied to the losing knight.

A couple of other games used aiming points. Lance breakage and unhorsing being partly based on that.

Also, knight could score points for unhelmeting an opponent.

A couple of other games used aiming points. Lance breakage and unhorsing being partly based on that.

Also, knight could score points for unhelmeting an opponent.


Unhelmeting!!!! Jesus preserve me!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That sounds very very painful!!! I hope its just a steel cap!!!! Taking off a pig-faced bascinet might be pretty tricky without also bringing the head with it! :D

Apparently, in order to avoid being unhorsed, some knights deliberately put their helmets on loosely enough that if their opponent got in a solid headshot, they'd just lose the helmet instead of being knocked down. There was a lot of debate over whether or not this tactic was smart or sneaky; awarding points for knocking off the helmet sounds like a rule someone used to discourage that sort of thing.

Apparently, in order to avoid being unhorsed, some knights deliberately put their helmets on loosely enough that if their opponent got in a solid headshot, they'd just lose the helmet instead of being knocked down. There was a lot of debate over whether or not this tactic was smart or sneaky; awarding points for knocking off the helmet sounds like a rule someone used to discourage that sort of thing.


Im not entirely sure if it was smart OR sneaky!!!!! Silly? Hmmmm...... J/K ::)

It was neither smart not sneaky. It was part of the way Josuts were "scored". Much like pulling off a flag in lag football.

According to John Tiptoft (the Earl of Worcester), the helm was a valid target and a lance that broke against the help was worth 1 point.

An unlaced help is less likely to break, and probably safer for the knight (who would probably loose his helm rather than getting injured or unhorsed). On the down side, it seems that being unhelmeted also worked against the knight when it came time to decide a winner-sort of like a tiebreaker.

A copy of Tiptoft's joust rules, and scoring came be seen at: http://www.thehojos.com/~stmikes/tiptoft.htm

A GM could use something like this for Pendragon, but if so, they would want to make lance breakage more skill based than luck based. Either with a damage limit, something like what Achamian is using, or maybe just by switching break results to even rolls, rather than odd, so knights who critical will score points for breaking a lance, or with a difficulty that must be beaten. Like maybe only rolls over 10 will break a lance, so someone who gets a 8 vs. a 2 hits, but fails to break his lance (a glancing blow).

Years ago I had a copy of the original Chainmail rules by Gygax. It featured a table for aiming points in jousting and a matrix to resolve jousts. I used it in my early days of running 1st edition Pendragon, but haven't had a copy in years. I remember it working well, however. Anyone else familiar with it?

I'm not, but Chivalry & Sorcery 2nd edition (and probably 1st edition) had a matrix that sounds similar. You chose a target point, and also a defensive stance, and that altered both your chance of hitting and being hit.

I hadn't thought about using such a complex system for Pendragon - in a tournament, when you as the GM may be running 20 jousts or more between the players, it gets tedious picking all those options for every single pass. Plus, it brings in an element of player skill whereas I prefer it to be resolved by character skill (and randomness). Players who understand the probabilities in such a system will always do better than players who can't grasp them, and the standard pendragon system equalises such player elements.

I'm familiar with the table from Chainmail. And yes C&S did have a somewhat similar (but more detailed) table. There are why I mentioned aiming points earlier, and where I got the rules about helmeting.

As for the added detail and options being tedious, well the same could be said for any of the more complex rules such as those presented in the Book of Battle, Boo of Manors, or even just in the latter editions of the Pendragon rules. It's all a question of what tradeoffs the group is willing to make and if the rewards justify doing so. That's something that each group decides.

Yes, those who grasp a system will do better at it that those who do not. That is true with anything. Those players who don't grasp the battle rules and decide to go through a battle "alone" suffer for it as well. That's life.

I think an "advanced jousting" system wouldn't be a bad thing. I also think that it could be simplified a bit from the C&S or chainmail versions, too. One thing I'd consider would be introducing "tactics cards". Hand out a set to each jouster so they can play them face down, and that would speed up the process. Cross reference the two strategies to get skill modifiers.

It seems possible and practical. The only bug is that not to many of us know enough about jousting to really know what appropriate modifiers would be for various tactics. We know "lower shield" vs. "Aim: Helm" is a bad situation, but not all the fine details.

As for the added detail and options being tedious, well the same could be said for any of the more complex rules such as those presented in the Book of Battle, Boo of Manors, or even just in the latter editions of the Pendragon rules. It's all a question of what tradeoffs the group is willing to make and if the rewards justify doing so. That's something that each group decides.

Very true. I didn't mean to sound dismissive of adding detail for jousting. I do like the cards idea - I've experimented with using cards before, myself, for handling complex things quickly and easily. It can work well.

Years ago I had a copy of the original Chainmail rules by Gygax. It featured a table for aiming points in jousting and a matrix to resolve jousts. I used it in my early days of running 1st edition Pendragon, but haven't had a copy in years. I remember it working well, however. Anyone else familiar with it?


I think I have that still somewhere. I know I have the original three D&D books that came in a little white box somewhere or another. I bought them new as a teenager. And now you all have a very good idea how old I am.

I'm familiar with the table from Chainmail. And yes C&S did have a somewhat similar (but more detailed) table. There are why I mentioned aiming points earlier, and where I got the rules about helmeting.

As for the added detail and options being tedious, well the same could be said for any of the more complex rules such as those presented in the Book of Battle, Boo of Manors, or even just in the latter editions of the Pendragon rules. It's all a question of what tradeoffs the group is willing to make and if the rewards justify doing so. That's something that each group decides.

Yes, those who grasp a system will do better at it that those who do not. That is true with anything. Those players who don't grasp the battle rules and decide to go through a battle "alone" suffer for it as well. That's life.

I think an "advanced jousting" system wouldn't be a bad thing. I also think that it could be simplified a bit from the C&S or chainmail versions, too. One thing I'd consider would be introducing "tactics cards". Hand out a set to each jouster so they can play them face down, and that would speed up the process. Cross reference the two strategies to get skill modifiers.

It seems possible and practical. The only bug is that not to many of us know enough about jousting to really know what appropriate modifiers would be for various tactics. We know "lower shield" vs. "Aim: Helm" is a bad situation, but not all the fine details.






Im going to still throw in a vote for tedious here. It is not at all like the book of the manor or book of battle. Those are not, in fact , tedious in any way. They are actually bordering on necessary. As a designer im sure u have to prioritize things and advanced jousting rules seem like a low priority and should probably just stay a house rules thing. Im not sure how much Your SKILL at jousting could really stop your jousting lances from breaking. They were made to break. That was there thing. I think a 50% chance could be modified to suit your campaign, but all the extra rules arent necessary. THATS what the JOUST score is for..right? to represent your overall SKILL at jousting. But like anything i would avoid fast hard rules here , because im sure everybody likes to have there own take on the rules. Interpretation is the beauty of rpg games after all.

I'll replay since I got quoted.


Im going to still throw in a vote for tedious here. It is not at all like the book of the manor or book of battle. Those are not, in fact , tedious in any way. They are actually bordering on necessary.

Considering that we went though 4 previous editions (okay, 3 since KAP 2 was mostly a edit of KAP) without a Book of the Manor or Book of Battle (or Book of Armies for that matter), I wouldn't say there were necessities. And, as KAP 5 is playable without them, I wouldn't say the bordered on being necessities.

They are useful tool that can add new depth, options, and flavor to a KAP campaign, but they are entirely supplemental, replacing and enhancing existing game mechanics. In each case the supplment adds more complexity and information to track, to reap the benefits. Ultimately, each group of gamers ends up deciding if the rewards are worth the added complexities.



As a designer im sure u have to prioritize things and advanced jousting rules seem like a low priority and should probably just stay a house rules thing.

Nothing to worry about there. While I have done some design work (virtually none of it professionally), I'm not the one designing this game. Greg is. Anything other than a house rule would have to come through him or through the new publishers. So anything I or Achamian or anyone else does would stay a house rule.

Now if I were to come up with something that Greg likes and want's to incorporate, that would be quite a honor for me, but I'm not counting on it.



Im not sure how much Your SKILL at jousting could really stop your jousting lances from breaking. They were made to break. That was there thing. I think a 50% chance could be modified to suit your campaign, but all the extra rules arent necessary. THATS what the JOUST score is for..right? to represent your overall SKILL at jousting.

I agree with you. I think keeping it simple is best. Either the "odd breaks' rule or even a "anything of X damage breaks" rule. I said something could be done, I didn't say I was planning on doing it.



But like anything i would avoid fast hard rules here , because im sure everybody likes to have there own take on the rules. Interpretation is the beauty of rpg games after all.

I, for one, wouldn't mind a little jousting matrix where combatants pick aiming points and defenses. As a optional supplement. Provided that is remained simply, easy to use, and didn't bog the game down. And there were some nice game benefits. It really is no different that picking combat maneuvers instead of just rolling for a foe for the battle turn.

That is the thing with any supplement. It adds more to the game. It may not be something that is worth the work, or would apply to every session (or every campaign) but they all provide some new wrickle to the game as the cost of added complexity.

I almost never use the stuff from the Nobles Book or Lordly Domains. Having had all of one PC noble over the years, most of the stuff in those books never came up, or it wasn't worth the additional complexity of using (i.e. doing up a knight's fief in Lordly Domains). I'm still very glad that such books existed though, for what they taught me about the setting. I think a supplement that expanded on tournaments and jousting could prove equally enlightening as possibly be a valuable as the Book of Manor or the Book of Battle. I'd hate to see the idea nixed before it ever had a chance to develop into something.

May or may not be relevant, but I have a rule that lances don't break when they roll a crit. The wielder has demonstrated exceptional skill to impale an enemy and not shatter his lance.

Othewrwise, reach for the spare!

May or may not be relevant, but I have a rule that lances don't break when they roll a crit. The wielder has demonstrated exceptional skill to impale an enemy and not shatter his lance.


I tend to rule that most lances have inflicted a major wound, have impaled and are usually lost. Considering the damage that critical hits can do, I usually rule that the lance is still stuck in the body.

It's not like you can carry some guy around on the shaft like a kebab.

Coming to this a bit late...

Harn has a Jousting matrix of 4 different types of "attack" - I'm doing this from memory as I don't have the book in front of me at the moment - which give different pluses or minuses. For eg Strike Hard by leaning forward in the saddle gives a plus to attack (Lance skill in KAP) but a minus to staying horsed (so a minus to Horsemanship in KAP). Also different attacks interact with each other to give either a further advantage or disadvantage. I've not actually run a combat with it - purely because I've yet to run a joust - but I'm considering using it when I do.

You can actually use the defensive,normal, all-out attack options for during Joust.
Normal = 'Aim for shield'
All-out attack as 'Swipe', gain +10 (more likely to crit, do more damage and unhorse opponent) but if your opponent goes for your shield he gets a unopposed attack first, no chance of lance breakage.
Defensive ='Duck', gain +10 opposed, but cant damage/unhorse opponent, however still chance of lance-breakage [so perhaps you get lucky and still win the joust]
You can add "Aim for Head", opponent attacks first unopposed (if aiming for shield, not swipe), you get -5 to hit but if hit opponent gets -10 to horsemanship

fg,
Thijs

To expand on my previous post.

I have narrated lance criticals as follows.

The lance rather than delivering a blow that could shatter it, slips through a weakness in the armour. Maille links are split, or goes through an armpit / neck / groin joint.

The speed, friction and increasing diameter of the lance, together with the increase in height as it gets closer to the rider means that the puncture wound is torn apart allowing the lance to free itself. The poor hapless victim suffers double damage as a result of the tear sustained.

I am not sure how 'historical' this is, but I can picture as plausible. YPMV

I am not sure how 'historical' this is, but I can picture as plausible. YPMV


Uh. Not very plausible.

For one thing, wood isn't as flexible as fresh and bone. That is why martial artist can break boards (and bricks) without breaking their arms.

Also, the amount of force applied to the lance on a solid hit, especially since the lance must be angled, pretty much ensures than after a serious hit an lance wouldn't be usable even if it were intact. It would be be much too likely to shatter.

Wooden arrows have much the same problem. The arrow warps when fired from the bow, and this weakens the wood. So you don't want to reuse them after shooting them from a powerful bow.


But, it sounds nice, and since the people with enough knowledge of physics and statics to know better were few and far between during the Middle Ages, go for it.

Lol. I don't know much about jousting, but I do know that some woods are better than others. Longbow?

I have a nice white oak bokken for sparring. It cost about three times what a standard bokken costs. However, it soaks up vibrations better, and doesn't shatter or splinter like the cheap ones.

I'm pretty certain that if you made a lance with white oak, it would be pretty durable.

Anyway, I was just rationalising why I don't break lances on criticals.

Like I said, YPMV

Check out the Song of Roland, written in the 12th century. It describes, in gory detail, how people are impaled by lances and thrown a dozen feet away from their horse, yet knights do not necessarily lose their lances from impaling their enemy. Other readers with stronger stomachs can come up with their own explanations for why this is so, but it looks to me like they did not "carry some guy around on the shaft like a kebab."

Lol. I don't know much about jousting, but I do know that some woods are better than others. Longbow?

I have a nice white oak bokken for sparring. It cost about three times what a standard bokken costs. However, it soaks up vibrations better, and doesn't shatter or splinter like the cheap ones.

I'm pretty certain that if you made a lance with white oak, it would be pretty durable.

Bokkens don't go through anywhere near the same amount of stress.

A rider on horseback probably weights over a quarter ton, and is moving at, say 8 meters/second (29kph). That works out to about 16000 Joules of energy, roughly equivalent to a round from a Browning .50 caliber machine gun. Get to the heavier horses, and a full gallop and it can get much greater. It is very easy to see why knights dominated the battlefield.



Anyway, I was just rationalising why I don't break lances on criticals.

Like I said, YPMV

Sure, and as I said, this is heroic fiction, go with it.

I just don't agree that it is probable. It certainly wouldn't be desirable. If the lance held, then all the force would be soaked up by the rider holding the lance. That's why the called it "tilting". They would angle the lance to avoid taking the full impact and tearing themselves out of the saddle.



Check out the Song of Roland, written in the 12th century. It describes, in gory detail, how people are impaled by lances and thrown a dozen feet away from their horse, yet knights do not necessarily lose their lances from impaling their enemy. Other readers with stronger stomachs can come up with their own explanations for why this is so, but it looks to me like they did not "carry some guy around on the shaft like a kebab."

Not exactly a very reliable source. If we believed what was written we'd thing that only knights were on the battlefield, and that very sword was able to cut someone from shoulder to stomach.

Throwing someone a dozen feet from their horse is about as possible as a shotgun blast knocking someone through a window. In other words, it's not possible.


But again, this is Pendragon, and the only one who knows about Newton's third law of motion is Merlin, and then only if the GM is going with T.H. White's interpretation.


Personally, I think the normal 50-50 chance is quite generous enough. It really was a single use weapon.

Nevertheless, it was written by people who knew more about knightly combat than we do, for an audience who knew more about knightly combat than we do. Yes, it may have been super-realistic, but it was idealized warfare as they knew it--it's less than the difference between the Matrix and modern combat, and more the difference between Saving Private Ryan and modern combat. By which I mean you couldn't use it to make a recreation of contemporary practices, but you could use it to make a recreation of contemporary "holy-crap-that-was-cool."

Nevertheless, it was written by people who knew more about knightly combat than we do, for an audience who knew more about knightly combat than we do. Yes, it may have been super-realistic, but it was idealized warfare as they knew it--it's less than the difference between the Matrix and modern combat, and more the difference between Saving Private Ryan and modern combat. By which I mean you couldn't use it to make a recreation of contemporary practices, but you could use it to make a recreation of contemporary "holy-crap-that-was-cool."


Not really. The literature is full of stuff that people of the day knew to be impossible. That was part of what made the heroes in those stories so "cool". Those superhuman feats were viewed as hyperbole then. So the tales were closer to Matrix, or Superman. The whole point was that such heroes were above and beyond normal men. There is even a list of heroes and their powers in the Mabinogion that looks like the role call for the Legion of Super Heroes.

I wouldn't be too surprised is there was a Arthurian Tale where Lancelot makes a bank shot.

If you go by the literature, you'd think every other swing with a sword or axe would take off an arm or a head, It's almost impossible to pull that off in real life. Not unless you pin the guy down on a chopping block, and take off the armor. THe people who made up those tales, as well as those who listened to them knew that, too.



But, again. This is Pendragon, and we a trying to emulate the stories, not reality. So if something appropriate says so, go with it. That's why we play these games, right?

A piece on the Lance from Wilipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jousting

"Lance
In modern times, jousting is often done for show or demonstration purposes, and the lances used are usually made of light wood and prepared so that they break easily. Lances are often decorated with stripes or the colors of a knight's coat of arms. In a real joust, the lances were of solid oak and a significant strike was needed to shatter them. However, the (blunt) lances would not usually penetrate the steel. The harnesses worn by the knights were lined on the inside with plenty of cloth to soften the blow from the lance."

Although it talks about jousting with blunt lances, it does state that the real ones would be made of "solid Oak".

Oak, smoak. The article on jousting notes that these are blunt lances, and that they didn't (usually) penetrate the armor. And jousts were rarely done at top speed.

A real lance would have a pointed tip and would penetrate armor and the man underneath. It is far more likely that a lancer is going to have the weapon torn out of his hands, than it would rip though the foe and tear itself free and intact.

And even if a lancer did manage to hold onto the weapon, and it did tear free, and that it didn't break, it would probably still be useless. Each time you subject the wood to stress, especially stress perpendicular (from the side), you weaken it. So if it doesn't shatter, it probably would if the lancer tried to use it again.

That is what I meant about arrows, earlier. Because the arrow is forces to curve arrow the bowstaff, it weakens and reusing one is ill advised, as it will be far more likely to shatter when the archer releases it from the bow.

Again, I just pointing out reality and physics here. Since Pendragon is a game of heroic knights, we should probably follow the literature over reality.

I think you're overestimating the penetration here. Even if you reject the Song of Roland as being too fantastical (which I still disagree with), there are other chronicle sources like Usamah ibn Munqidh's memoirs of life on the frontier between crusaders and Muslims in the 12th century, Joinville's account of the crusade of St. Louis in the 13th, Froissart in the 14th, and others. These chronicles and others go into a certain amount of detail regarding the details of combat, and in none of them is it common for lances to pierce enemies "like a kebab." This means either

Whatever model of literature they were following did not allow for this sort of detail (unlikely, as they included plenty of other gory details regarding wounds and death
Sticking a lance so far in a guy is stuck in him was so common as to not merit comment (again unlikely, considering how often simply getting knocked off a horse was mentioned, or being stabbed but not fully impaled), or
It just didn't happen often at all.

I believe in the third option. Even before the advent of plate, armor was strong stuff. Some people claim that maille was worthless against piercing weapons like arrows or lances, but that's patently false; both the maille itself and the heavy padding underneath could have been enough to reduce the penetration of a couched lance, though even an inch or two of lance could be fatal.