One thing that I don't like is that the defender doesn't get anything for a critical while fighting defensively. I understand why the "does normal damage" rule was removed (player knights would fight defensively all the time), but with the current version, going on the defensive just delays the inevitable.

If the opponent is doing the "Berserk Attack" option, there is no reason for him to stop, since the defensive character can never harm him.

My idea would be to give the defending character a skill bonus (+5/-5 reflexive) versus the foe he is defending against. This would represent exploiting an opening, knocking the foe's weapon out of line, and so forth.

Since the bonus is reflexive, it would even have some effect on the "berserk" attack.

With a reflexive +5/-5 the defender could switch tactics, and stand a good chance of withstanding the the berserker, or even "counter berserk" with an edge, forcing the "bersker" to back off.

A house rule I use: If you critical when fighting defensively, you can choose to (a) lock weapons with your opponent, so neither of you get to do anything that turn (except talk - take the opportunity for trash talk!), or (b) disengage in the following round - if you do, you also knock your opponent off balance and cannot move or attack anyone (unless someone attacks him), or finally, (c) take the +5/-5 bonus you suggest.

My reasoning: often when you go defensive, you are either (a) trying to hold on till friends come to save you or (b) want to escape, but worry that if you just run the opponent you flee will just attack one of your friends.

I always allowed the pk to disengage as per the old Gangbuster's rules on a fighting defensively crit, if the player so desired. i.e., he could place his pk two yards from his beginning position. The foes could follow and press, but it allowed a bit of a head start and a chance to break out of a press.

What about a offensive vs. a defensive stance?

Offensive Stance: +1d6 damage if you win, but -1d6 armour if you lose.
Defensive Stance: -1d6 damage if you win, but +1d6 armour if you lose.

Neither stance gives any bonus/penalty to attack rolls.

As DarrenHill said, you usually fight defensively when you face a superior opponent(s) and want to hold-on (until help arrives, end of battle, escape, etc).
Likewise, the berserk tactic is usually done when you face an inferior opponent.
These stances could replace, or be in addition to those two tactics.

I don't know if a +1D6 shift would mean that much though. One of the reasons for fighting defensively is because the other guy or creature can inflict significantly more damage.

Also, it tends to make 2H weapons "better" at defense, since they have an extra damage die to "play" with. A guy with a greatsword could adopt a defensive stance most of the time for a net reduction of 1D off his foe's damage.

How about doubling/eliminating the shield bonus?
Characters without a shield could get some "weapon" AP by fighting defensively. Say 1 point per damage die?

If the opponent is doing the "Berserk Attack" option, there is no reason for him to stop, since the defensive character can never harm him.



In 4th edition the Berserk tactic and Defense tactic canceled each other out, resulting in a standard opposed resolution. Has this changed in 5th edition?

Appologies if my reply is out of touch with the latest version as I've been away from Pendragon since the 4th edition.

If the opponent is doing the "Berserk Attack" option, there is no reason for him to stop, since the defensive character can never harm him.



In 4th edition the Berserk tactic and Defense tactic canceled each other out, resulting in a standard opposed resolution. Has this changed in 5th edition?

Yeah, it has. in KAP5 what happens is that both get to roll with the +10 bonus, and the defensive character cannot inflict damage even if he wins. So basically it turns it into "punching bag" time. The beserker gets a greatly improved chance to hit/critical, and doesn't have to worry about getting hit in return.



Appologies if my reply is out of touch with the latest version as I've been away from Pendragon since the 4th edition.


No apologies necessarily. There no crime in not being up to date with the latest rules.There have been 5 different versions, each with slightly different rules, and there are some errors in 5th edition, too. And that's not counting the things that got changed in the 5th edition supplements. And KAP5 is currently out of print. So no need to apologize.

You could always use an older version of the Defense rule if preferred I guess.




Characters without a shield could get some "weapon" AP by fighting defensively. Say 1 point per damage die?



Hope this is not straying too far from the Defense rule topic...

How about something like this:

Parry Option

This combat option gives a bit of xtra defense to characters fighting with light or no armor. Useful for those times when knights are caught without armour, and for Picts.

The parry option can be used by single weapon users and great weapon users, and does not apply to shield users, who are already considered to always get the shield defense to armour on a partial success.

A partial success allows a parry if the loser’s roll is also under Dex (minus armor encumbrance penalties)
Armour penalties are subtracted from the Dex value because parrying requires fast reflexive body movement.

A successful parry deflects as much damage as the users damage dice statistic, as adjusted by weapon type (ie 5 for a character with 5d6 damage).

Critical dex doubles the parry value?

A 4d6 knight parrying with a sword parries 4 dmg
A 6d6 dmg warrior parrying with a dagger parries 5 dmg
A 4d6 damage Pict with a greataxe would thus parry 5 dmg

Exception: Flails cannot be used to parry as they are too unwieldy, but they cannot be parried either.

Example 1: a young knight with 15 sword and 11 Dex, wearing no armour, will parry if he rolls 11 or less on a partial success.

Example 2: A Cymric warrior with 13 Dex and 12 Dagger, wearing 4pt leather armour (Dex penalty –5), will parry if he rolls 8 or less on a partial success.

Example 3: A Pict warior wearing no armour, with 15 Dex and Great Axe @17, will almost always get the parry bonus if he rolls a partial success.

Regardless of Dex value, a fighter who fails his weapon roll gets no parry benefit.

Weapon parries cannot be used against missile attacks.

This option is quite simple and easily applied in practice, just need to bear in mind that the combat roll is now checked against effective dex as well as weapon skill for those PKs/npcs that want to parry.

I like the idea of giving those lightly armoured Cymric Warrior types and the poor Cruithni something to give them more survivability in combat without overbalancing things, though I'm not sure to what degree stuff like this starts getting too "number crunchy" with the combat in Pendragon and becomes counter to the spirit of the game.

The basic opposed resolution mechanic covers quite a lot already as it's assumed several blows and parries are struck during the round and it's the winner of the resolution who has maneuvered better, parried completely, struck and or riposted better and gets the opportunity for the telling blow.

You could always use an older version of the Defense rule if preferred I guess.


I could, and eventually I might just do that. There are a few things in KAP5 that have me looking back at earlier editions. Most of things that I didn't like have turned out to have been due to the edting and/or editorial changes. But I'll probably port over a couple of older rules here and there.





Hope this is not straying too far from the Defense rule topic...

How about something like this:

Parry Option


Seems interesting. I don't think the ENC penalty should apply to DEX though. The penalties are so high that it essentially prevents most knights from being able to use it. Perhaps a bonus to lightly armored foes might be better. After all, knights can and do use as much swordplay as anyone else in the Middle Ages.

One sticking point might be that characters will sometimes do worse by rolling higher.

Maybe halving the AP's but eliminating the DEX roll. So those lightly armored guys could get 2-3 AP on a partial success. Not as good as a shield but 2-3 points per hit is something.

I think you're right Atgxtg. Maybe the whole idea of factoring in Dex is too complicated.

How about this?

Parry Option

The parry option can be used by single weapon users and great weapon users, and does not apply to shield users, who are already considered to always get the shield defense to armour on a partial success.

A partial success allows a parry if the loser’s roll is also over half weapon skill (rounding up fractions of .5 as usual).

A successful parry deflects as much damage as the users damage dice statistic, as adjusted by weapon type (ie 5 for a character with 5d6 damage).

A 4d6 knight parrying with a sword parries 4 dmg
A 6d6 dmg warrior parrying with a dagger parries 5 dmg
A 4d6 damage Pict with a greataxe would thus parry 5 dmg

Exception: Flails cannot be used to parry as they are too unwieldy, but they cannot be parried either.

Weapon parries cannot be used against missile attacks.

***************

That's far simpler, and allows the parry benefit to come from the higher roll, rather than the lower, as you suggested. It allows armored knights to use it just as much as less armored warriors, as you observed.

And it still accounts for the fact that getting defense value from a weapon parry is half as reliable as the chance of getting a shield defense on the partial success. Thus hopefully the game role of the shield as the pre-eminent defensive tool is not too compromised. The shield will in most cases on average still parry more damage as well.

That system relies on rolling high to get your parry, and most high rolls tend to be blows that hit - so parry won't come into play that often. I did a quick check of the probabilities, assuming 2 characters with 20 skill attacking each other: in this case, when they get hit, they don't get the parry bonus around 3/4 of the time. Is that enough to make it worthwhile adding an extra thinmg to check each round of combat?

I'm also skeptical of tying the bonus gained to Damage Stat. In a long campaign you eventually see characters with 7d6 or maybe even 8d6 damage stats - these people parry more than they would get from a shield. That doesn't make sense.

If I was to do it, I'd use a simple d6 roll , with a 6 requiring a DEX roll to avoid being disarmed.

OR, give a fixed parry bonus, equal to Skill/10, rounded up.

However, to be honest, there are two reasons I wouldn't use either method.

As I see it, each roll of the dice represents much more than a single swing. When players and their opponents make their combat skill rolls, each roll represents a series of attacks, parries, counterblows, feints, and so on. The ability of a sword to parry is already included in the basic combat system - you just have to describe it happening. Shields get a bigger bonus than weapons alone because of their exceptional defensive ability. Giving lone weapon users a shield-like ability diminishes their value.

Secondly, from what I've read of medieval fighting styles, it's not like the movies. Swords weren't used to parry the way they are in later fencing styles. They relied much more on:
* voiding blows through dodging
* deflecting blows by hitting them (knocking the incoming weapon away)
* stepping in to stifle them, or by receiving them on the flat
That kind of interplay is easily represented by the opposed skill roll.

A couple of useful links:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/edgemyth.htm
http://www.thortrains.com/getright/Medieval%20Combat.htm

But of course YPMV (Your Pendragon May Vary) :)

In 4th edition the Berserk tactic and Defense tactic canceled each other out, resulting in a standard opposed resolution. Has this changed in 5th edition?


I've reverted back to that, with a success on the part of the defender allowing a shield bash (as per standard shield attack rules). It still gives the berserker the upper hand and the defender some hope.

I wonder why it was changed? Perhaps it proved flawed during play or Greg just wanted to keep the streamlined appeal of a +10 mod throughout all of the combat moves (+10 Berserk, +10 Defend), something I must confess to being a fan of.

Thanks for the observations and links Darren. There's a wealth of information to mull over there. As you say, the basic opposed resolution system seems to summarize most of the niceties quite well already.

Sir P, I can't remember if in 3rd edition the defense tactic conferred 1/2 damage to all attacks. It could be that with 1/2 damage it was too easy for players to use defense all the time and sit back waiting for the crits to whittle their opponents down – perhaps taking up too much real time in combats as well.

It did however seem like a good rule to simulate those long fights in Morte d'Arthur where two knights like Lancelot and Tristram would spend a good few hours hewing chunks off each others shields and armor.

Sir P, I can't remember if in 3rd edition the defense tactic conferred 1/2 damage to all attacks. It could be that with 1/2 damage it was too easy for players to use defense all the time and sit back waiting for the crits to whittle their opponents down – perhaps taking up too much real time in combats as well.


Exactly correct.

Thanks for the feedback Greg. I wish I had retained my 3rd edition rulebooks for reference. I let them go when 4th came out.

Thanks for the feedback Greg. I wish I had retained my 3rd edition rulebooks for reference. I let them go when 4th came out.


I still have my KAP3 book (well, technically it's my friend's KAP3 book-he has my KAP3 book). If there is anything you want from it, let me know.

Over the years various little bits got added and removed or changed. For instance, feasts used to be done in greater detail. My players used to "ooh" and "ahh" when some rare delicacy, like roasted unicorn was served up. Hopefully, one day, we'll see new and expanded feasts written up in a supplement (Perhaps there will be a Book of the Tourney?). In the meantime, I'm glad I got the old
rulebooks for reference.

Thanks for the offer Atgxtg. Seem to recall the full feast Camelot style was quite something. Those 14 course meals were a long way from eating trail rations in the blood, dirt and grime at Badon.