Having posted a few weeks back asking if my knights were just too tough, I can now categorically state that they are not, as last weekend I suffered my first TPK*. In fact a TPK including two NPKs as well.

My knights had set off in search of the final ingredient of a healing brew, created by a strange hermit to cure the Countess Ellen, who had fallen ill after a failed childbirth conceived through a pact with pagan warlock (a narrative structured over the last 5 years of game time). The ingredient was a drop of morning due from a faerie mound. As I'm in AD490, the entrances to faerie are hidden deep within the forests and only two are currently known. One which Merlin opened to retrieve Excalibur in 486 (I played that this event took place in faerie) and the other at Bulbarrow Tower, an ancient tower deep in Dorset, haunted by a Redcap, surrounded by Modren Forest; a place infested with evil Sidhe due to his overly evil presence.

To cut to the chase, my knights made it to the tower and descended through it into the Faerie realm. There at its base was the Redcap. To spice things, I gave him a magic mirror ability. As he appeared from behind one of the pillars at the tower base, another then appeared from behind, then another to both the left and right. Only one Redcap was actually real, the others no more than illusion, but it scared the PKs and gave the Redcap an initial advantage. Each round I determined which Redcap was the real one, the others only fighting to defend, being unable to actually inflict any damage. The moment an illusion was struck it disappeared. The PKs quickly cottoned on to what was going on an within a few rounds only the real Redcap remained... although "only" is doing it a disservice. I had 5 PK knights in the mix plus 2 fully equal NPKs as backup.

Due to the incessant use of All Out Attack by my group when we first started (see the thread "Issues with Berserk" for that), I housed the rule about three sessions back to include a +10 mod to the attacker facing the attack, thus making it all but suicide unless you had no chance of being hit (eg in a surprise situation). Still, over the coming rounds, 4 of my PKs chose it, claiming there was "no other way" (not true) to deal with the Redcap. With its two claw attacks, any of the 3 knights that could fight it at once had what a 60% chance of being targeted that round. Still, my PKs called All Out Attacks. In one round I attacked two of them at +10 and critted both times for 14d6, leaving two mincemeat PKs. Then, with 5 of them remaining, the others still called for All Outs and I promptly dispatched them too (not crits but enough to put them down). Finally, with only 2 Pks left they changed tactic and went for "only" normal attacks but by then the momentum was with the Redcap. I focused attacks on 1 PK at a time, making it really hard for them to fend off both claws at 20, relying on the Redcaps 20 armour to soak the unopposed attack.

As the last NPK fell, it was game over and there was shock all round. It was bad timing, what with the raw emotion in the room, but I suggested that the PKs tactics were all wrong and that the over reliance on All Out had cost them. I tried to point out that a combo of Defend, Defend, Attack could well have seen them through but they were in no mood to listen.

The moral of this tale is threefold
- My attempt to rein in the overuse of All Out (Berserk) Attack has failed spectacularly.
- Belligerent PKs will continue to pursue lost causes almost daring to the GM to do his or her worst.
- My PKs are definitely not too tough and Redcaps are not to be messed with.

*Total Party Kill

I hope you let at least one squire get away to tell the tale at court. That way the relatives of the PCs can get Hate (Redcaps) and go back and try again....inspired and using all-out-attack....of course if you're hit for 14d6 before you swing...that inspiration isn't much use...

The squires held the horses outside the tower. They will soon leave once the fate of their masters is known. Of course whether they make it back alive is another story. Even if they don't the earl and some of the court advisers know where the PKs were headed.



That way the relatives of the PCs can get Hate (Redcaps) and go back and try again....inspired and using all-out-attack....of course if you're hit for 14d6 before you swing...that inspiration isn't much use...


Inspired AND attack maneuvers... oh no that's a can of worm I'm not opening.. potential +30 skill anyone?

The Hate is an interesting topic. I've only given out the option of one Hate passion so far, to a PK that had faced two giants and been killed by one of them (tuned out to be an illusory death as Merlin was involved but that's another story). I gave him the choice to accept it but said it could be a Hate or Fear with 50% chance of either. He went for it and got the Fear.

Inspired AND attack maneuvers... oh no that's a can of worm I'm not opening.. potential +30 skill anyone?


Oh come now, it could be fun. The PCs go in inspired and all-out-attacking...very excited and proud of their +30 skill...(oh I'm gonna crush him, I've got Sword 45)...and then the RedCap attacks first....nails them first and they die....again...sounds like too much fun to miss...

Just don't give them any NPC knights to help...

The Hate is an interesting topic. I've only given out the option of one Hate passion so far, to a PK that had faced two giants and been killed by one of them (tuned out to be an illusory death as Merlin was involved but that's another story). I gave him the choice to accept it but said it could be a Hate or Fear with 50% chance of either. He went for it and got the Fear.


Yes, I like that.
I am looking at ways to bring that about, and a 50/50 looks like the way to go, so far.
I am trying to classify the actions that might provoke this:

losing against a foe, sure, but how badly does one have to be?
and so on
-g

Yes, I like that.
I am looking at ways to bring that about, and a 50/50 looks like the way to go, so far.
I am trying to classify the actions that might provoke this:

losing against a foe, sure, but how badly does one have to be?
and so on
-g


Good point, Greg.

I don't think merely losing to a foe should trigger a Hate passion. I think it ought to be something quite potent. Recently I had PK lose his sister to bandits as part of the year end rolls. I toyed with the idea of giving him a Hate (Bandit) passion but thought it too much, and then decided that it could be covered by the Love (Family) passion anyway.

My players are always looking for Passions to invoke to give them the edge. If I start giving out too many Hate passions they will soon go looking for those too. Making the chance that a Hate can be Fear is one way to balance things, even though it doesn't actually stop my players taking the chance.

losing against a foe, sure, but how badly does one have to be?
and so on



I think Hate would come about from things like (1) being embarrased in some way. For example being beaten badly at Court and then taunted. (2) Having a family member killed. It could be covered by love family, but hate would also be good. I think the idea of revenge is better encompassed by Hate.

Fear I think would come about from some one actively trying to kill you, and you having difficulty surviving. For example you might Hate a rival for beating you in a joust in front of your lady and the court (maybe) but you wouldn't fear him. I think fear would require some level of helplessness.

NT

The moral of this tale is threefold
- My attempt to rein in the overuse of All Out (Berserk) Attack has failed spectacularly.
- Belligerent PKs will continue to pursue lost causes almost daring to the GM to do his or her worst.
- My PKs are definitely not too tough and Redcaps are not to be messed with.

*Total Party Kill


The first two points above are why I advised against the house rule (even though I've used), and instead made transparent, clear rules on when it can and cannot be used. I didn't do this to limit pc power (partly that), but also to preserve player characters lives: as you saw, they'll take risks, without realising the consequences, and then get upset when their characters die and often blame the system.

PS: If the redcap was using it's claws, the pcs got off easy - its glaive might have killed them even quicker! :)

The redcap's one of my favourite monsters, and also caused on of my first TPK's (all but one of the player knights killed), so memorable still over 20 years later.

losing against a foe, sure, but how badly does one have to be?
and so on



I think Hate would come about from things like (1) being embarrased in some way. For example being beaten badly at Court and then taunted. (2) Having a family member killed. It could be covered by love family, but hate would also be good. I think the idea of revenge is better encompassed by Hate.

Fear I think would come about from some one actively trying to kill you, and you having difficulty surviving. For example you might Hate a rival for beating you in a joust in front of your lady and the court (maybe) but you wouldn't fear him. I think fear would require some level of helplessness.

NT


I think two ways a hate can be created.
The first is if something causes harm/loss of honor to something you have a notable passion for. You must first succeed at the passion, and if successful, you can create a hate. The number of dice is up to the gm, but something along 1 die for every 4 points you make it by.

Second would be is you personally lose honor publicly. Being shamed in front of the court seems to be a wonderful way to create a hate.

Bob

The first is if something causes harm/loss of honor to something you have a notable passion for. You must first succeed at the passion, and if successful, you can create a hate. The number of dice is up to the gm, but something along 1 die for every 4 points you make it by.


I think this makes a lot of sense. If some one kills your brother, roll Love(Family). Success= 2d6, Critical=4d6...or something like that. Essentially you can't hate some one for doing something you don't really care about.




Second would be is you personally lose honor publicly. Being shamed in front of the court seems to be a wonderful way to create a hate.



And the mechanic could transfer easily. Roll Honour...success...etc

The moral of this tale is threefold
- My attempt to rein in the overuse of All Out (Berserk) Attack has failed spectacularly.
- Belligerent PKs will continue to pursue lost causes almost daring to the GM to do his or her worst.
- My PKs are definitely not too tough and Redcaps are not to be messed with.

*Total Party Kill


The first two points above are why I advised against the house rule (even though I've used), and instead made transparent, clear rules on when it can and cannot be used. I didn't do this to limit pc power (partly that), but also to preserve player characters lives: as you saw, they'll take risks, without realising the consequences, and then get upset when their characters die and often blame the system.

PS: If the redcap was using it's claws, the pcs got off easy - its glaive might have killed them even quicker! :)

The redcap's one of my favourite monsters, and also caused on of my first TPK's (all but one of the player knights killed), so memorable still over 20 years later.


I know you're not gloating Darren, you were right. I can only hold my hands up and say I tried something with the best intentions, but it failed to deliver the result I was looking for. If you don't mind I'll PM you for your ruling on this again and try that. I have been toying with saying the attack can only be used in surprise situations, effectively using it to replace the +5 (I think it's +5) mod you currently get. If I was starting Pendragon today, I would not even mention it to my players and they would be none the wiser. Now that they are so used to the knife edge 1 or 2 round combats it tends to generate it may not be so easy. Power intoxication has quite a lure.

Your analysis was spot on about the response too. They were indeed blaming the system. As I say passions were high, and my suggestion that they were wrong in their tactics will probably only goad them to try and prove me wrong! Still, it might make them more reluctant to press the nuke button in future.

The Redcap stated off with his glaive by the way, but had it broken in a tie with a PK. I then switched to claws and the player who broke it said he thought that was worse. I did see his point. When you have to split attack you're really up against it, and hardly ever get your shield in the way of both attacks. None of my PKs managed to fend of both claws in a round. Also, they didn't realise its skill was 28 with the glaive!

In 10 years (485-495) All out attack has only used by one of my players once. This was against a Saxon Berserker during a skirmish. My Pk was 1 or 2 hit points short of being made toast. That is he just managed to kill the the Berserker in one crit rolling 45 or 46 with 10D6.

Just to illustrate my point I rolled what would have been the Berserkers 14D6 damage to see how much damage he would have taken.

Its fair to say he would have been toast.

My player was happy to take the risk as Earl Robert had been unhorsed and was been attacked by the berserker. It was tense but the gamble paid off.

Everyone enjoyed the moment.

Earl -

My lot are the exact opposite. All Out is the defacto attack stance for them. OK, perhaps I should say it's the defacto attack stance when attacking a creature, especially one that is powerful but can be surrounded, eg giants, goblins, lions, manticores, and redcaps etc. Once engaged they all switch to All Out, thinking that the creature will get to have a bash at one of them first (assuming it has just the one attack but their theory holds even if it has two), but once done they then wade in with vastly improved chances of criticals and the creature, regardless of whether it has high skill or notl can do nothing. Just about every single monster they have faced so far has succumbed in less than 2 rounds to this tactic. Yes they've not faced dragons and the like but that's missing the point.

In light of this, thinking that it was not how the game was designed, I housed the rule. I said anyone calling an All Out would telegraph their intention to the target and drop their guard so completely that not only would the target go first they would also get +10 to *their* attack. In a one vs one fight this makes it almost a non choice. The odds are so stacked against you that the pay off is not worth it. And this worked... for a while.

Cue my Redcap, and a few other creatures inbetween. I soon realised that whenever there was a chance they *might* not get targeted, they switched to All Out. With my +10 the Redcap was pulverizing them; outright kill on two knights in one round, but their logic was it was worth it (ultimately it wasn't because they all died but the argument was it was so close it could have gone either way). Although they didn't know it had armour 20, they did realise it was soaking a lot of damage before actually suffering. Their argument was that at minimal chance of damaging the thing attacking normally, or only being able to do a small amount each round, the eventual outcome would have been the same, just taking longer to arrive.

I posted about this a lot previously on the forum. TBH I wish I'd never told them of the tactic because for me, it totally detracts from the drama of combat, and circumvents the skill vs skill opposed mechanic. My combats are almost always over in 1 round as not much can survive a decent crit, and invariably one of my PKs lands one and sometimes two of them do.

I thought making the penalty worse would disuade them, hence the +10. Now I'm of the belief that even if I said "you die if the crit does not happen" they would still do it because hey if it lands they win and all ride off into the sunset victorious.

Darren said the Double Feint was removed from the game for similar reasons. On paper it looks perfectly reasonable, but in practice, players were lured so much by the chance of ignoring armour that they constantly rolled vs their DEX, and for the most part failed, leading to a keystone cops style engagement.

Just a few comments
Despite the problem, it sounds like a great game.



My lot are the exact opposite. All Out is the defacto attack stance for them. OK, perhaps I should say it's the defacto attack stance when attacking a creature, especially one that is powerful but can be surrounded, eg giants, goblins, lions, manticores, and redcaps etc. Once engaged they all switch to All Out, thinking that the creature will get to have a bash at one of them first (assuming it has just the one attack but their theory holds even if it has two), but once done they then wade in with vastly improved chances of criticals and the creature, regardless of whether it has high skill or notl can do nothing. Just about every single monster they have faced so far has succumbed in less than 2 rounds to this tactic. Yes they've not faced dragons and the like but that's missing the point.


Do you require them to make a Statement of Intent first, before you reveal what the creature might do?
I think this would stop some of this.



I posted about this a lot previously on the forum and I wish I'd never told them of the tactic


You told them!?
I have a policy of not telling my players much. They have to read the book, and teach each other.



because for me, it totally detracts from the drama...


That is all the reason ever needed to drop the rule from your game.



Darren said the Double Feint was removed from the game for similar reasons. On paper it looks perfectly reasonable, but in practice, players were lured so much by the chance of ignoring armour that they constantly rolled vs their DEX, and for the most part failed, leading to a keystone cops style engagement.


It was abused regularly in my campaign, and my first-hand experience was all I needed.
I've not experienced this particular problem.
But then, my players are not such clones as yours seem to be. :-)

-Greg

Its definately a player thing then.

Do your guys declare first and are they happy in being attacked without a defense?

I don't know what to suggest as they have taken a very risky approach and forced you to increase the risk. Do they not consider the shield valuable in absorbing damage? Do they disregard the shield and choose Great Axes as their main weapon? £

Honestly. I feel for you. I hope your players don't take the TPK to heart and carry one with the spare characters. I hope that they will learn about self preservation and get their 'gets Shield' from now on.

Doesn't fighting defensively just turn things back to a normal combat.....

Just a few comments
Despite the problem, it sounds like a great game.


Thanks. I love running it and we have certainly had some memorable moments.


Do you require them to make a Statement of Intent first, before you reveal what the creature might do?
I think this would stop some of this.

Yes. I run combat as stated in the book. I write down what the enemy will do and then they declare their actions. In the case of the Redcap I was actually a little lenient in that I randomly rolled the target of its attacks. This meant that a PK could end up with two claw attacks, 1 claw attack or none. No one knew the outcome until I'd rolled the dice. They chose all out even with that probability in mind. In fact, it was the small chance that they would not be attacked at all which prompted them to try it. In hindsight - and I had stated this before - it should have targeted any PK attempting an All Out (as it would see it coming and react accordingly). That would seem an easy fix which you might think would solve the issue but I could see what that would lead to; all three attackers would call All Out, knowing that I only have two attacks and would have to determine randomly again.



I have a policy of not telling my players much. They have to read the book, and teach each other.


None of my players have the book. That's the way I like it. I produced a Player's Handbook that tells them all they need to know but keeps the game stuff hidden.

Its definately a player thing then.

Do your guys declare first and are they happy in being attacked without a defense?

I don't know what to suggest as they have taken a very risky approach and forced you to increase the risk. Do they not consider the shield valuable in absorbing damage? Do they disregard the shield and choose Great Axes as their main weapon? £

Honestly. I feel for you. I hope your players don't take the TPK to heart and carry one with the spare characters. I hope that they will learn about self preservation and get their 'gets Shield' from now on.


They declare first yep. I only react to calls of All Out - ie a creature intelligence will target those first. My PKs are not *happy* that they have to take a potentially life ending hit, no. But they have weighed the odds and think its the best choice. If you have three knights using this tactic, each round one of them (or more depending on the number of attacks a creature has) is likely to get pulverised, however it is NOT a certainty. Even with my +10 mod the attacker may only do a normal hit and that can quite easily be absorbed (or rather can usually be absorbed without it resulting in death) then, well "it's clobbering time". Not much can withstand 3 knights piling in with +10. And the All Out means the roll is unopposed. The target could have a skill of 200 and it wouldn't make a jot of difference. That is bypassed.

I don't think the TPK itself was the big issue. It was always on the cards. As Darren said, my house rule made it more likely. It didn't stop my PKs from using their favoured tactic, it just made it more dangerous. My problem is that it could become all too common.



Doesn't fighting defensively just turn things back to a normal combat.....


As the rules stand, no. An all out defend will just give you a +10 to your skill which is then resolved in opposed resolution vs the All Out. It is not a worthwhile tactical choice because if the defender wins he deals no damage. The attackers can just try again next round. I've changed it back to what I believe the rule was prior to 4th edition; A Defend cancels the +10 of the All Out and the attacks take place as normal opposed rolls. I also add that If the Defender wins he shield bashes the attacker. TBH that still means the attacker has a much greater advantage. One of them (the attacker) will do a normal hit if he wins while the other (the defender) can only do a relatively puny shield bash.

Well, for better or worse, here are the rules in KAP5.1


Uncontrolled Attack
With this option a combatant makes an all-out, screaming, enraged, spitting in the wind crazy attack. Fierce Sir Turquine, enemy of King Arthur, was feared for his use of this unsophisticated technique. An Uncontrolled Attacker strikes a mad flurry of blows regardless of consequences, driving furiously in a careless rage. An Uncontrolled Attack gets a +10 to his normal weapon skill. An Uncontrolled Attack cannot be used with Lance, or against multiple targets. The attacker never gets shield protection.
The opponent against an Uncontrolled Attack may either:
• get a free attack, unopposed, and take a hit from the attacker with his +10 skill; the defender’s shield always counts in this if he has one; or
• Defend, skill versus skill, each with their +10 bonus. All combat in this case is calculated as if regular combat. (Remember, ties have no effect.)
In a fight where both use the Uncontrolled Attack, both strike with +10 simultaneously.

Well, for better or worse, here are the rules in KAP5.1


Uncontrolled Attack
With this option a combatant makes an all-out, screaming, enraged, spitting in the wind crazy attack. Fierce Sir Turquine, enemy of King Arthur, was feared for his use of this unsophisticated technique. An Uncontrolled Attacker strikes a mad flurry of blows regardless of consequences, driving furiously in a careless rage. An Uncontrolled Attack gets a +10 to his normal weapon skill. An Uncontrolled Attack cannot be used with Lance, or against multiple targets. The attacker never gets shield protection.
The opponent against an Uncontrolled Attack may either:
• get a free attack, unopposed, and take a hit from the attacker with his +10 skill; the defender’s shield always counts in this if he has one; or
• Defend, skill versus skill, each with their +10 bonus. All combat in this case is calculated as if regular combat. (Remember, ties have no effect.)
In a fight where both use the Uncontrolled Attack, both strike with +10 simultaneously.


That seems relatively unchanged.

I have two questions though. When you say the opponent gets a "free" attack does that mean in addition to those they would normally have? For example, my Redcap is fighting surrounded by three knights. He would normally get to attack twice once with each claw. Does my interpretation mean that if the attackers attack in this way he could exceed that, ie make a third attack? An attack of opportunity if you like?

With the defend when you say "All combat in this case is calculated as if regular combat." does that mean that both attacker and defender can do damage?

OK. I have a third question. Would KAP as whole suffer if I outlawed the Berserk Tactic? It seems that a lot of other player's hardly ever use it and have not encountered the problems I have. Is such a move likely to unveil another potential problem which I have yet to consider?

When you say the opponent gets a "free" attack does that mean in addition to those they would normally have?



I think it just means unopposed. So your redcap would attack twice (because he normally gets to attacks) unopposed. If the knights are still standing they get a +10 to their unopposed attack.

That seems relatively unchanged.

I have two questions though. When you say the opponent gets a "free" attack does that mean in addition to those they would normally have? For example, my Redcap is fighting surrounded by three knights. He would normally get to attack twice once with each claw. Does my interpretation mean that if the attackers attack in this way he could exceed that, ie make a third attack? An attack of opportunity if you like?


I should have said Unopposed, not free.
I would call what yo are asking "an additional attack"



With the defend when you say "All combat in this case is calculated as if regular combat." does that mean that both attacker and defender can do damage?


Yes.



OK. I have a third question. Would KAP as whole suffer if I outlawed the Berserk Tactic? It seems that a lot of other player's hardly ever use it and have not encountered the problems I have.


I recommend you do that.
You have said it rather ruins the combat for you, and if the GM isn't happy, who is?



Is such a move likely to unveil another potential problem which I have yet to consider?


With what we have learned from your players, probably so!

As a GM, I love players who challenge me.
But not over one rule that thy can break.

TPK, eh?
Well, "The secret died with them."

Another option besides outlawing it is to use it against them. Prior to each melee round make every one choose a tactic in secret. Then when it's time to resolve that combat between Knight A and Knight B, reveal the choice. They might be a little less inclined to go all out all the time if their opponent does too because they're likely to take a critical too. They might start going in using Defense for the first round or so to feel out their opponent a bit.

Or just outlaw it.

NT

Another option besides outlawing it is to use it against them.


That just ups the casualties on both sides, though. It's good if both sides use it sparingly, but when Pramalot's players see it as such a regular tactic, they won't stop using it - in fact, if anything, it'll encourage them to use it even more, I think!

That just ups the casualties on both sides, though. It's good if both sides use it sparingly, but when Pramalot's players see it as such a regular tactic, they won't stop using it - in fact, if anything, it'll encourage them to use it even more, I think!


As if more casualties in the game are needed. We had our first use of All Out (Berserk) Attack in the game last night by a Frankish NPC against a Cymric NPK, with the PKs in the fray. The combat round prior we had one PK and one Frankish NPC drop. The combat round where All Out Attack was used we had the other Frankish NPC and Cymric NPK drop.

The rule as written worked well for this specific combat, though I could see it easily abused by murderous men dressed in heavy armor. The update provided by Greg earlier in this thread would reduce the likelihood of abuse in 1:1 combat. Another change I would consider is allowing the defender to react to the clearly telegraphed intent of the attacker rather then hold them strictly to their declared intent of the round.

Personally I still think it is overpowered. The use of Defend returning things to an opposed roll is different but you're still looking at a global +10 mod to everything. It's like combat on steroids.

I've never actually had a problem with it in 1v1 combats. I use the "telegraph" rule already, and work an additional +10 mod into that. Thus in 1v1 it's sheer stupidity to attempt. Even my PKs don't risk that unless there is some truly world changing reason for doing so. However, whenever there is even the slightest chance of not being hit (say in a 3v1 vs a creature with 2 claw attacks) they'll all go for it knowing one of them will be spared being hit.

Still, I've got 3 months before we play next to sort out, or ban.

Personally I still think it is overpowered. The use of Defend returning things to an opposed roll is different but you're still looking at a global +10 mod to everything. It's like combat on steroids.


That actually makes some sense. When I used to fight with "safe"weapons, most of the actual injuries we took were when somebody decided to abandon his defense and go on the offense. Either he would simply overwhelm the other guy, or he'd end up running into the other guy's weapon or otherwise making things much worse for himself. Once someone committed to an all out, somebody got hurt fairly quickly. And we were using bamboo swords that absorbed much of the impact.

Another change I would consider is allowing the defender to react to the clearly telegraphed intent of the attacker rather then hold them strictly to their declared intent of the round.


This isn't even a change in the rules.

One of the most subtle tools a GM has is to declare where they PCs or NPCs make a Statement of Intent first.
If the PCs are having too difficult time, I have the NPCs state first.
If the PCs are abusing a system like this, have them state first and allow the monster to react, insead of act first.

One more thing: it sounds as if the 3:1 battle was static. I often set up tactical obstacles--rocks to hide behind or stand atop, trees to climb; and also have the creature move around a lot, throw bodies at other players, and of course, kill horses.

Well, for better or worse, here are the rules in KAP5.1

Uncontrolled Attack
With this option a combatant makes an all-out, screaming, enraged, spitting in the wind crazy attack. Fierce Sir Turquine, enemy of King Arthur, was feared for his use of this unsophisticated technique. An Uncontrolled Attacker strikes a mad flurry of blows regardless of consequences, driving furiously in a careless rage. An Uncontrolled Attack gets a +10 to his normal weapon skill. An Uncontrolled Attack cannot be used with Lance, or against multiple targets. The attacker never gets shield protection.
The opponent against an Uncontrolled Attack may either:
• get a free attack, unopposed, and take a hit from the attacker with his +10 skill; the defender’s shield always counts in this if he has one; or
• Defend, skill versus skill, each with their +10 bonus. All combat in this case is calculated as if regular combat. (Remember, ties have no effect.)
In a fight where both use the Uncontrolled Attack, both strike with +10 simultaneously.


I love that first sentence!

Two questions:

1) Why disallow it against multiple foes? Against, say, large numbers of foes who do low damage but who are threatening to drag you down off your horse, splitting your attacks (and the +10) would seem to make sense.

2) Just to confirm -- if the defender's strike stops the attacker, the attacker still loses his attack, right?

Uncontrolled Attack
With this option a combatant makes an all-out, screaming, enraged, spitting in the wind crazy attack. Fierce Sir Turquine, enemy of King Arthur, was feared for his use of this unsophisticated technique. An Uncontrolled Attacker strikes a mad flurry of blows regardless of consequences, driving furiously in a careless rage. An Uncontrolled Attack gets a +10 to his normal weapon skill. An Uncontrolled Attack cannot be used with Lance, or against multiple targets. The attacker never gets shield protection.
The opponent against an Uncontrolled Attack may either:
• get a free attack, unopposed, and take a hit from the attacker with his +10 skill; the defender’s shield always counts in this if he has one; or
• Defend, skill versus skill, each with their +10 bonus. All combat in this case is calculated as if regular combat. (Remember, ties have no effect.)
In a fight where both use the Uncontrolled Attack, both strike with +10 simultaneously.


Actually, with along with Gideon's questions, I'm starting to wonder here. Nothing wrong with you description I should add, Greg, it's just open to various interpretations. So I'll state how I think you intend it to work and you can tell me if I've got it right or wrong;

Uncontrolled Attack - The defender may;
Attack the attacker, unopposed - The attack is considered their attack for the round. The attacker then attacks at +10 unopposed?
Defend - Both attacker and defender fight as normal (ie opposed roll) both with +10 to their skill. Whoever wins deals damage as normal?

With the defend option though, using my redcap scenario, the creature is surrounded so it's 3v1. If the Redcap called Defend, would he get +10 to both claw attacks (I'm assuming yes) but what happens to the 3rd knight. He has called All Out, but as the creature only has two attacks, does he then attack unopposed? Could he (Redcap) split one of his claw attacks to fend off that 3rd knight and if so would the split attack get +10 or would the +10 be added then split?

eg, 1 Redcap, 2 claws @20 chooses Defend and now has 2 claws@30 or a) 1 claw @30 and 2 claws @15(20+10=30 split) or b) 1 claw @30 and two claws @20 (20 split+10=20)?

Well, for better or worse, here are the rules in KAP5.1

Uncontrolled Attack
With this option a combatant makes an all-out, screaming, enraged, spitting in the wind crazy attack. Fierce Sir Turquine, enemy of King Arthur, was feared for his use of this unsophisticated technique. An Uncontrolled Attacker strikes a mad flurry of blows regardless of consequences, driving furiously in a careless rage. An Uncontrolled Attack gets a +10 to his normal weapon skill. An Uncontrolled Attack cannot be used with Lance, or against multiple targets. The attacker never gets shield protection.
The opponent against an Uncontrolled Attack may either:
• get a free attack, unopposed, and take a hit from the attacker with his +10 skill; the defender’s shield always counts in this if he has one; or
• Defend, skill versus skill, each with their +10 bonus. All combat in this case is calculated as if regular combat. (Remember, ties have no effect.)
In a fight where both use the Uncontrolled Attack, both strike with +10 simultaneously.


I love that first sentence!

Thank you. As my own editor, at least at this level of work, this gets through mre now than it has for the last 40 years.


Two questions:

1) Why disallow it against multiple foes? Against, say, large numbers of foes who do low damage but who are threatening to drag you down off your horse, splitting your attacks (and the +10) would seem to make sense.


Yes, go ahead and split your attack. But it won't include the "all out crazy" part if you are conscious enough to split an attack, especially if you are doing something as sophisticated (under the spittin' and growlin' conditions) as stricking both side's of your horse's neck!

I suppose we could make it so that the crazy dude has to roll 1d6 to see how many he strike each... Nah. Ugly.



2) Just to confirm -- if the defender's strike stops the attacker, the attacker still loses his attack, right?


yes

Uncontrolled Attack
With this option a combatant makes an all-out, screaming, enraged, spitting in the wind crazy attack. Fierce Sir Turquine, enemy of King Arthur, was feared for his use of this unsophisticated technique. An Uncontrolled Attacker strikes a mad flurry of blows regardless of consequences, driving furiously in a careless rage. An Uncontrolled Attack gets a +10 to his normal weapon skill. An Uncontrolled Attack cannot be used with Lance, or against multiple targets. The attacker never gets shield protection.
The opponent against an Uncontrolled Attack may either:
• get a free attack, unopposed, and take a hit from the attacker with his +10 skill; the defender’s shield always counts in this if he has one; or
• Defend, skill versus skill, each with their +10 bonus. All combat in this case is calculated as if regular combat. (Remember, ties have no effect.)
In a fight where both use the Uncontrolled Attack, both strike with +10 simultaneously.


Actually, with along with Gideon's questions, I'm starting to wonder here. Nothing wrong with you description I should add, Greg, it's just open to various interpretations.

No hay peto.


So I'll state how I think you intend it to work and you can tell me if I've got it right or wrong;

Uncontrolled Attack - The defender may;
Attack


"engage in normal combat" really, since the other guys is formally the attacker




the attacker, unopposed - The attack is considered their attack for the round. The attacker then attacks at +10 unopposed?


No. Can you tell me where that is implied or interpretable?
This character always always gets his shield points.



Defend - Both attacker and defender fight as normal (ie opposed roll) both with +10 to their skill. Whoever wins deals damage as normal?


Yes.




With the defend option though, using my redcap scenario, the creature is surrounded so it's 3v1. If the Redcap called Defend,


This is where you have the PCs make statement first.



would he get +10 to both claw attacks (I'm assuming yes)


yes



but what happens to the 3rd knight. He has called All Out, but as the creature only has two attacks, does he then attack unopposed? Could he (Redcap) split one of his claw attacks to fend off that 3rd knight


Sure!



and if so would the split attack get +10 or would the +10 be added then split?


The bonus is added first, since it is to the weapon and not to the circumstances (as if he was mounted)



eg, 1 Redcap, 2 claws @20 chooses Defend and now has 2 claws@30 or a) 1 claw @30 and 2 claws @15(20+10=30 split)


those are legit

And after he crits with a claw describe how his claw comes out the other side and he whips it off and throws it at a knight next round...

[quote author=Greg Stafford link=topic=749.msg6384#msg6384 date=1274472329]

Yes, go ahead and split your attack. But it won't include the "all out crazy" part if you are conscious enough to split an attack, especially if you are doing something as sophisticated (under the spittin' and growlin' conditions) as stricking both side's of your horse's neck!

I suppose we could make it so that the crazy dude has to roll 1d6 to see how many he strike each... Nah. Ugly.

[quote]


How about a "Sweeping Attack"?
The "all out crazy" guy can split, but has to knock down one guy in order to get his attack roll on the second guy, and so on. As soon as one defender absorbs the hit and is still standing, the rest of the sweep is stopped.

How about a "Sweeping Attack"?
The "all out crazy" guy can split, but has to knock down one guy in order to get his attack roll on the second guy, and so on. As soon as one defender absorbs the hit and is still standing, the rest of the sweep is stopped.


I am currently satisfied with the maneuvers we have.
If anyone wishes to develop these, please do!

The "Sweeping Attack" sounds suspiciously like the D&D 3.x Cleave Feat.

I would rule that in those occasions were you critical and there are either tightly packed troops such as in a shield wall, or perhaps in the case of rider and horse, that where you have any excess damage from (especially from a crit) that these will pass on to anyone in close contact.

In the case of a shieldwall for example, the person on the left relies on the shield of the guy to his right. If he's just been split into two, you will not be able to actively defend against the attack that killed him.

The "Sweeping Attack" sounds suspiciously like the D&D 3.x Cleave Feat.

Ouch! I was trying for a guy swinging his weapon wildly.



I would rule that in those occasions were you critical and there are either tightly packed troops such as in a shield wall, or perhaps in the case of rider and horse, that where you have any excess damage from (especially from a crit) that these will pass on to anyone in close contact.

In the case of a shieldwall for example, the person on the left relies on the shield of the guy to his right. If he's just been split into two, you will not be able to actively defend against the attack that killed him.

Probably not, but you rarely see shield walls in Pendragon, at least outside of battles. I suppose that could be used for close order troops (2x in the BoB). Still, the body of the guy ahead of you on the arc would soak up some of the force of the swing.