So, I just GMed the first two years of the GPC a few minutes ago. One knight was killed by a Saxon berserker at Mearcred Creek (those buggers with 35 Great Weapon skill are nasty), which was fine because the player was the only one who had a backup character, and he actually liked the backup (an older brother who disappeared a few years ago) more than the main one.

On the next year, the knights had the Adventure of the Sword Lake. On the fight against the three-eyed giant, I declared who the giant was actually attacking (because frankly, those 9d6 damage are quite deadly, and I wanted to give the attacked knight the chance to fight defensively). Instead of doing normal attacks, the other characters declared berserker attacks, which threw me off because, if the giant is supposed to attack only once per round, those berserker attacks ended up being risk free (and also ensured that the giant didn't leave to fight a second round). My question is: can you make your unopposed attack against a berserking character even if you have already attacked this round?

Eduardo Penna

Hi,

As far as I am aware no, but bare in mind he will get a unopposed attack on the knight, so one of you players is volunteering to be hit for 9d6, with just his chain to absorb it. This in turn will probably knock him on his butt, so no attack for him.

So yes they will hack it to bits, but one of them is going to be a sacraficial lamb.

Also don't declare anything till the knights decide there actions, in theory the knight you identifed as the victim could go on defensive and his friends can then safely go beserk.


Cheers,

BighSteveUK

Note that the rules state that the GM is free to disallow Combat Tactics (Defend and Berserk) whenever he or she chooses.
As a matter of routine, I allow them in fights between humans, and disallow them in fights with monsters, unless special circumstances allow them.

This is important, because many monsters have lower skills than human knights, because their other ratings (damage armour and hit points) are high - and allowing combat tactics shifts the odds too much in the favour of the knights in my opinion.

Also, as a house rule, I declare: whenever anyone declares they are going berserk, everyone gets an opportunity to change their actions and targets. Its *obvious* when someone is working themselves up into a frenzy. This means that going berserk is very dangerous if you are outnumbered - "everyone - get him!"

Having said that, if Berserk was allowed in this case, the tactics are declared at the start of the round, and are committed. So you would have been in your rights to say they can't go berserk, unless they do so before opponents are declared.

hi

try this: use DEX as a sort of initiative stat (making DEX more worth raising, I'd say). the one with the lowest DEX declares his/her actions first (who he/she attacks and with what tactic), the one with the next lowest goes after, and so on. this goes for the opponents as well. this way whe fastest character gets to "understand what's going on" and then decide. the others, well, they'll just have to swing and hope. in our group the players are seated around the table so that the one with the lowest DEX sits to the left of me and then in DEX order. this all makes for a fast and easy resolution to the who-goes-first-and-what-tactic-can-be-used-problem. my english sucks, so I hope I'm clear enough.

// m

I'll steal that sitting in order of DEX approach, for games with initiative orders.

(If they have tied initiative, I'll make them sit in each other's lap, mwuhahaha! Okay, maybe not.)

Hi Eduardo

To me, this is a rules exploit. 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.

Either just have the knights declare actions, lock them, and then have the giant decide who he's going to bash this round or have the giant split his attack but do not tell the players who is receiving the damage dealing hit. No one will know for certain who the giant will attack to damage or "attack" to fend off, making them hesitant to declare a berserk attack and open up to a potential, unopposed 9d6 damage roll. Actually, both options produce the same effect: uncertainty amongst the players, which removes the risk free problem.

On the subject of Berserk I have another question though. KAP 5 p.120 states "In a fight between two characters using the berserk option, the character with the highest Movement Rate attacks second. If their Movement Rates are the same, then the one with the highest DEX goes second." Now is this a misprint or am I just being dense here(not for the first time)? Why does the *faster* character suffer vs. the slower one? Surely it should be the other way around. As written the rule means the faster guy stands there waiting for the slower guy to hit him, and then takes his turn. That makes sense when a berserk attacks a non berserk, but this is berserk vs berserk.

Andy

Greg has clarified over on the KAP mailing list that this is a misprint: the higher DEX goes first.

On the next year, the knights had the Adventure of the Sword Lake. On the fight against the three-eyed giant, I declared who the giant was actually attacking (because frankly, those 9d6 damage are quite deadly, and I wanted to give the attacked knight the chance to fight defensively). Instead of doing normal attacks, the other characters declared berserker attacks, which threw me off because, if the giant is supposed to attack only once per round, those berserker attacks ended up being risk free (and also ensured that the giant didn't leave to fight a second round). My question is: can you make your unopposed attack against a berserking character even if you have already attacked this round?

Eduardo Penna


Many good responses here!

I just want to share a GM hint:
One of your most important tools is in the Statement of Intent.

If you want to make it tougher on the players--and this is the normal method in my games--the players give their statement of intent first.
When you want to give the players an edge, you first state the intent of the defenders.

In the above case, my normal circumstances is for the players to give their statement, then I would say, he fights one guy depending on this die roll." I might allow that character to fight Defensively.

--Greg

Whenever I'm running a fight that isn't one-on-one (usually a PC vs footsoldiers/saxons). I have all the engaged combatants declare how they are splitting their weapon skill and then make all the rolls at once. Then the PCs and NPCs can see who they succeed against and who they'll damage.

In the case of the giant I would decide how he was splitting his skill and make his rolls against the knights. Simultaneously with the one defending and before the berserkers.

Honestly, in that case I'd probably have the giant ignore the defender and put all of his skill towards one or more of the beserkers as they would appear much more threatening. Consider the stances that a defending knight and a beserking knight would be in and think which one looks like more of an immediate threat.

Now something I might allow is for the defending knight to draw the fire of the giant by taunting it, banging on his shield, and so on. (Depends on how intelligent I decide the giant is.) Thusly allowing the other player knights to (somewhat dishonorably) make unopposed attack rolls. Perhaps even at +5 to their skill if the situation seemed to warrant it. (And perhaps -1 Honor.) However, if any of the knights tried to berserk, it would draw the giant's attention away from the taunting defender.

Now something I might allow is for the defending knight to draw the fire of the giant by taunting it, banging on his shield, and so on. (Depends on how intelligent I decide the giant is.) Thusly allowing the other player knights to (somewhat dishonorably) make unopposed attack rolls.



I want to interject a note that I would not consider this dishonorable. A giant is not an honorable creature, and thus deserves no honorable treatment itself. Unless, of course, it was a knighted giant.
If this requires discussion, please start another thread.

--Greg

I want to interject a note that I would not consider this dishonorable. A giant is not an honorable creature, and thus deserves no honorable treatment itself. Unless, of course, it was a knighted giant.
If this requires discussion, please start another thread.

--Greg



I generally agree with you and didn't mean to imply that knights should get penalized for not challenging giants and monsters to one-on-one combat.

In the future if you use the advice that Greg gave about making the players state their intentions first it will be better for sure! ;D Players will always find a way to thwart your best laid plans. You could have declared that when the Giant saw the players becoming enraged he changed his tactics and split his attacks. Even though he has a low chance to hit, it might scare the players to know that he goes first and has a 5in20 chance to immediately end their life! :o OR how about this for a show stopper..... The giant is more intelligent than they thought and HE FIGHTS DEFENSIVELY when they go berserk that round! HAHA! :o

When I GM I basically never allow knights to go berserk. IT is un-knightly, period. When a knight is in the throes of PASSION that is kind of his BERSERK. Most knights pride themselves on their disciplined fighting style. If they abuse the Berserk move too often you might penalize them with an honor loss, or other knights of the realm might get a hatred passion for the knight because of his uncivil ways or maybe just shun him. Maybe something of the sort. If it was an absolutely critical situation where the knight was on his last leg and thought he was actually going to die or some other very appropriate dramatic reason i might overlook an ocasional berserk attempt, but it is not to be used casually or as afirst option.

An all-out attack is NOT a true ?berserker?s? attack, as Greg on his website points out. It is a perfectly valid tactical option, especially in multi-person-against-one-big-foe combats such as the knights-vs-giant example. Heck, even wolves know it ? when a wolfpack attacks a stag, one will noisily grab the stag?s attention but fight defensively while another wolf gets in a safe +10 all-out attack from behind. Then the stag turns to face the second wolf, who then goes defensive and the first wolf gets in his attack. Repeat until the target is out of hit points. Very deadly indeed ? which is the whole point of tactics. The lord who knighted your PCs should berate them for their stupidity if they *don't* fight that way against a giant.

I use the NPC?s Battle skill to determine whether he knows or figures out the counter-move: exactly what SirDynadan says above. If you?re an intelligent giant, or a knight facing a bunch of knight-hating brigands, you know that the guy taunting you is a decoy as soon as he makes noise from a defensive stance. So you can safely turn your back on the guy in front of you, take a step sideways to move out of range of one attacker, and nail the other one.

So I encourage the use of tactics ? as well as the use of intelligence (in both senses of the word) to figure out how wise the foe is before the blows begin. But then I come from the ?Your head is your most important weapon, not just a target? school of swordsmanship.

I let the players state their intention then roll randomly to see who he attacks. As far as most of my monsters are concerned they are all obnoxious, the one shouting and screaming at it's face is just slightly more annoying. ;D

Also there is that little bit of competition as to who lands the killing blow, all these tactics are great but who killed the beast, there is no second place, there is only 1 Sir Blake Dragon Slayer, Sir Camden Giant Killer. Remeber it's all about reputation and glory, most knights don't want to stand in someone elses shadow.

Finally I use Greg?s rule as the person who lands the killing blow splits that glory which is always amusing!!!

Finally I use Greg?s rule as the person who lands the killing blow splits that glory which is always amusing!!!


I'd missed that one. Definately one to adopt. That would have saved many an argument in our group...
...there again it might provoke a good few more! ;D

I must have missed Greg's statement regarding this, but I think I will try it. However, the arguments might be more ;)

It was in a discussion I had with him on the yahoo group and it was one of his house rules.

It works brilliantly, it certainly brings out the diplomat, power gamer etc in people and brings in a little bit of conflict.

Also it makes people eager to get the killing blowing, so it motivates people to action.

"So let me get this right, you want me to lure it out and run away, so you can then attack it from the rear and get all the glory....kiss my lance..."

To me knights are about action, not long winded cunning schemes, well except for maybe Sir Blackadder who is obviously as cunning as a fox!!! ;D

What about the following problem with Berserk attack:

The greatest knight in the land can be clobbered by three opponents. If they all go beserk then they are likely to land two good blows in the first round, three if the knight does not take out the third opponent in one shot. It seems this attack option allows very experienced and powerful kinghts to be easily taken out by common troops.

If you're going to win 70 vs. 60,010 matches, you'd better be really good. (A concession to reality? In my Arthuriana!?)

Take into account the fact that you'd have to be a very special kind of common troop to go all-out and hope that one of the other two guys gets attacked by one of the greatest knight in the land. Unless there's a reason the troops would be unusually willing to sacrifice themselves, having the enemy use that tactic seems like GM spite.

Depend who the opponents are e.g. 3 thieves, well I am fairly confident that my chain and shield will hold them for a turn or 2 and their leather will make them easy pickings, also if I am the greatest knight I will probably split my attack (say a skill of 23, unopposed attack of 15 and 8) thereby killing or injuring 1/2.

If 3 knights attack you it's going to be a hard fight whoever you are, but again you can get in 1 or 2 unopposed attacks.

Also the only NPC's who usually use berserk in my games are the Saxons berserkers, you got to be pretty desperate or mad to charge a fully armed knight with no intention of defence.

Remember how many NPC's are seriously going to go "Right lets all run at him with no intention at defence, so we got more chance killing him, one or 2 of use will die, but we should get him the end, ok?"..."I don't really want to die". They don?t see it as a plus 10 to attack!!!

Even the lowliest bandit has an agenda and values his life.

may I suggest my DEX-initiative-thingie (as described above in this thread)? first of all it deals with the quite arbitrary players-say-first-GM-decides-last solution. KAP does not have an initiative-based combat system, in the usual sense, BUT I think that you have to use some kind of system (other than the GMs whim) for who-decides-first-based-on-this-or-that-knowledge. complete this with the opportunity of splitting your attack between many opponents and the option of using different tactics vs different foes (in our group only Berserk-Normal or Defensive-Normal may be combined, though, not Berserk-Defensive).

so, if your DEX is somewhat higher than than the average knights is (and it should be if you are "the greatest knight in the land"), you can see what the three knaves attacking you are doing, and then oppose them accordingly. say all are nutcases and go "all in" (so to speak) with berserker attacks, then you do too, vs all three of them. whack-whack-whack (since you go first)! or you use whatever tactic you feel appropriate. if your DEX is low, then you're bound to be swinging and hoping in all you fights. and why not? DEX should be used for more than climbing and keeping footage. (and, btw, as I said earlier, this solves the fighting-the-giant-problem mentioned arlier in this thread.)

// m

I'm not so sure that does solve the Giant scenario, although I can see your reasons for using the DEX based initiative system.

Personally, after years and years of D&D I find the no initiative of Pendragon refreshing. Also I don't allow multiple attacks via split skill (only defends) purely because I prefer the low grit reality style setting as opposed to the more mighty (again though that's purely a personal thing).

Going back to the Giant and DEX, if the Giant had a DEX lower than all the knights then the problem still exists, the non attacked knights can all wade in with berserks without any fear of a reprisal, and to me that's too black and white. Combat is a fluid thing, fraught with uncertainty and chance, so regardless of DEX I don't think anyone should be able to say, with absolute clarity "right, I KNOW he's gonna do this, so I'm free to do whatever".

First, let me say that I would determine the giant's target in secret (before the PCs declare) or randomly (after they declare); that way, I'm not biased by their actions and the PCs don't know where the primary attack is going until after they declare.

Now, I would say that the PCs could find out which way the giant is going by making a Battle Roll, either unopposed (this is what I'd recommend) or vs. the giant's Avoidance. A success would mean they would know which direction the giant is attacking (based on the giant's "facing," i.e., to the right, to the left, ahead, or behind). A critical success would mean the character knows exactly whom the giant is attacking. A fumble, on the other hand, would impose a -5 penalty to all PCs' attacks due to a "wrong guess."

It seems this attack option allows very experienced and powerful kinghts to be easily taken out by common troops.


Common troops should not be using the berserk tactic.

And if a knight is fighting three saxon berserkers at once than his life *should* be in grave danger. Although being mounted and well armored might be enough to see him through.

Personally, after years and years of D&D I find the no initiative of Pendragon refreshing. I think (and to be claer: I'm not trying to convince anyone here - just present how I'm thinking) that we still need some kind of who-goes-first. first of all, to solve the problem (as I see it) with the GMs whim determining the outcome (instead of a system that everyone can depend on as being both impartial and ruthless). secondly, we need it to decide what-happens-first in a combat round. we know that everything does not happen simultaneously: if I fight two opponents and botch when I hack at my first foe, my axe is broken when I get down to the next guy. why? because one thing happens before the other. same goes for me tryng to help a friend in need: the villain is about to stab my helpless friend, so I throw myself at him - do I get there in time?


Also I don't allow multiple attacks via split skill (only defends) purely because I prefer the low grit reality style setting as opposed to the more mighty (again though that's purely a personal thing). Going back to the Giant and DEX, if the Giant had a DEX lower than all the knights then the problem still exists, the non attacked knights can all wade in with berserks without any fear of a reprisal, and to me that's too black and white.I can see, though, that if you do not allow multiple attacks with split skill, this (my) rule isn't as rewarding, and doesn't solve the giant-problem. if you DO allow them, though, it does. if the giant is a fast one, the knights won't go all in, hoping to get him, because, then he will too, destroying them before they get a chance to attack. if the giant is a slow one, it will of course defend against two and strike at the third (or something), giving the faster players something to think about bewfore they act. he will, naturally, NOT attack them all with berserker attacks, because he KNOWS it's stupid. (and to be clear: no discussion about what to do is allowed between the PCs (or players) when the combat is started. THAT much I won't give them.)


Combat is a fluid thing, fraught with uncertainty and chance, so regardless of DEX I don't think anyone should be able to say, with absolute clarity "right, I KNOW he's gonna do this, so I'm free to do whatever".I agree with this (combat as fluid and uncertain), and thinks my rule fits in to this kind of reasoning. the dice holds enough uncertainty to keep my players on the edge of their seats, at the same time as the "initiative-and-split-skill-rule" of mine gives them (i) a meaningful freedom to act/choose in combat and (ii) an incentive to raise more stats than STR and CON.

// m (who also likes the Battle roll-rule mentioned in an earlier post, although it seems a bit slow)

// m (who also likes the Battle roll-rule mentioned in an earlier post, although it seems a bit slow)

Yeah, I dislike adding die rolls to the combat unless absolutely necessary. I probably wouldn't use it unless a player specifically says he's trying to out-think the giant and figure out where the attack is going.

Heck... let them goe berserk. The giant can take a round of smacks, and he goes first. as I said, even 3 low attacks (5-8)skill would be enough to not attack berserk for me. The giant does 9d6 and I have 10 point armor( no shield cause I bereserked ) and what 32 hit points. So the giant will avg about 27 pts of damage or something ( if he doesnt get lucky and crit , killing u outright ), which will put me unconscious and I will take 10 weeks to heal or something. Not worth it. Also The giant could role an average of 41/2-5 on the dice ( its happebned before in my games with 9 dice or less), This will take the player under 0 hit points with only ONE wound. Hope you have a good First aid man! You have one channce to get to 1h.p. or die. SO...... I am sure that a 5-8 chance in 20 should be sufficient to not want to berserk. But tose players really are taking a chance. Especially if its a realitively young knight. If you are in your 1st -5th year og knighthood you will have maybe 15-20 skill in your normal weapon. That gives you , say, a 30 skill when berserking? You still have to roll above a 10 to critical, after the Giant goes first, and probably hits at least one of you. Berserk or not...... It doesnt give u much of an advantage. fighting that Giant is still very dangerous. :)

Also if it's the giant from the start of the GPC, he's just a little test.

Christ if he takes out your party then, it would put an end to the rest of the adventure.