I ran my first KAP session yesterday (the intro scenario from the book) and I wanted to make sure I ran combat correctly.

When charging a dismounted foe who is not wielding a spear, are there two +5/-5 modifiers in play? One for an elevated position, and the other for the lance charge? So the PK with 15 lance skill bs the bandit with 8 dagger skill is basically an auto hit?

Also, where does a knight end up after charging? Is he considered adjacent to the target he just attacked, or does he continue past and end up some distance away?

I believe there's one +5/-5 mod, and one non-reflexive +5 mod, for a total +10/-5.
So your example is 25 v 3 - an autohit unless the footman criticals, since a roll of 1 becomes a 6.

Note that it has to be a greatspear, not just a spear, to cancel the +5/-5.

If it's a lance charge, the knight should be some distance beyond, and may need to spend a turn or two to turn around and start back.
I ask players to make a Horsemanship roll to stop adjacent if they want to, and if i decide the terrain or massed groups of men may be obstacles, I ask for horsemanship roll to keep going instead.

Darren,
I believe a greatspear only cancels the -5 for the footman, not the +5 for the mounted warrior. So a knight vs. a pikeman would be +5/+0.

Otherwise, I think your explanation was correct.

There are two modifiers where the lance is concerned.

You get a +5/-5 for being mounted. This is negated when the target uses a greatspear. Both the +5 and -5 are cancelled.

You also get a +5 when charging with a lance, against all non-lances. This is not cancelled by the greatspear. I think this is not a reflexive modifier: that is, it's +5 to lance wielder, no modifier to defender. It's the only example of such a modifier I can remember from the rules!

So, my previous post is I think correct.

Edit: in my next post I see what you mean about that modifier.

I went back and reread the combat chapter; I think you have that backward.

Higher ground (KAP5 pg 117) grants a +5/-5 reflexive modifier in favor of the character with the height advantage.

A lance charge (KAP5 pg 122) "made against anything other than a character wielding a great spear or another character making a lance charge, the charging knight gets a +5 modifier to his lance skill."

So I think a knight vs a pikeman would be at +5/-5. A knight charging any other footman would be at +10/-5.

However, in KAP4 there was a section in the combat chapter describing each weapon, which included this entry for great spear: "It gains a +5 modifier for footsoldiers against horsemen, negating the footmen's normal disadvantage. The great spear is long enough that it also negates the +5 lance modifier versus non-lance weapons."

So it seems there may have been a slight change between editions.

I also recall reading somewhere about using spears to hold an opponent with a shorter weapon beyond the reach of their weapons, but I can't find that anywhere now. Maybe I imagined it.

I went back and reread the combat chapter; I think you have that backward.

Higher ground (KAP5 pg 117) grants a +5/-5 reflexive modifier in favor of the character with the height advantage.

This is correct. The bonus for being mounted v foot is a specific case of the Higher Ground modifier. Check out the great spear skill description. That weapon and the halberd negate higher ground modifiers. Although, see below.



A lance charge (KAP5 pg 122) "made against anything other than a character wielding a great spear or another character making a lance charge, the charging knight gets a +5 modifier to his lance skill."


Note that the errata on greg's website strike out the section in bold above.



So I think a knight vs a pikeman would be at +5/-5. A knight charging any other footman would be at +10/-5.

However, in KAP4 there was a section in the combat chapter describing each weapon, which included this entry for great spear: "It gains a +5 modifier for footsoldiers against horsemen, negating the footmen's normal disadvantage. The great spear is long enough that it also negates the +5 lance modifier versus non-lance weapons."

That section is still in KAP5 - it's in the greatspear weapon description.



So it seems there may have been a slight change between editions.

I also recall reading somewhere about using spears to hold an opponent with a shorter weapon beyond the reach of their weapons, but I can't find that anywhere now. Maybe I imagined it.


Are you thinking of the old boar spear rule which allowed a character armed with one to hold a boar or other animal off during the round it dies? There's no other rule like that I can think of. Other games have used such reach rules, Pendragon never has.

So, getting back to the original post, the situation is this:

Someone making a lance charge gets a +5 bonus against anyone not also lance charging.

A mounted character gets a height bonus, of +5/-5.

A greatspear-wielding individual gets a +5 bonus to negate the height advantage. This leads to an area of ambiguity, as Atgxtg points out: is this reflexive, so does the person on horseback keep his +5 bonus. My opinion has always been since 3rd edition that it IS reflexive: since it cancels out the height modifier, the knight loses his +5, and the footmen loses his -5. But reading the KAP5 wording again, it seems more likely Atxgstvgbhjwtrs is correct and the knight keeps his +5. The KAP3 wording is the same. I hope Greg chips in and clarifies this.

So, lance charge v footmen = +10/-5.
So, lance change v greatspear = +5/+0 using my interpretation, or +10/+0 using the Atvghgfdtytfa interpretation.

However, in KAP4 there was a section in the combat chapter describing each weapon, which included this entry for great spear: "It gains a +5 modifier for footsoldiers against horsemen, negating the footmen's normal disadvantage. The great spear is long enough that it also negates the +5 lance modifier versus non-lance weapons."

That section is still in KAP5 - it's in the greatspear weapon description.

Ah, so it is. I was looking in the combat chapter, but it moved to the skill chapter.



Are you thinking of the old boar spear rule which allowed a character armed with one to hold a boar or other animal off during the round it dies?


Yep - and it's right there in the great spear skill description as well on page 90. I had been thinking that it could be used against foes other than a boar. Probably from the Issues with Berserk thread (http://www.gspendragon.com/roundtable/index.php?topic=415.msg3153;topicseen#msg3153).




So, getting back to the original post, the situation is this:

Someone making a lance charge gets a +5 bonus against anyone not also lance charging.

A mounted character gets a height bonus, of +5/-5.

A greatspear-wielding individual gets a +5 bonus to negate the height advantage. This leads to an area of ambiguity, as Atgxtg points out: is this reflexive, so does the person on horseback keep his +5 bonus. My opinion has always been since 3rd edition that it IS reflexive: since it cancels out the height modifier, the knight loses his +5, and the footmen loses his -5. But reading the KAP5 wording again, it seems more likely Atxgstvgbhjwtrs is correct and the knight keeps his +5. The KAP3 wording is the same. I hope Greg chips in and clarifies this.

So, lance charge v footmen = +10/-5.
So, lance change v greatspear = +5/+0 using my interpretation, or +10/+0 using the Atvghgfdtytfa interpretation.


+5/+0 seems right to me. I see this as two separate modifiers. The first +5 cancels out the -5 for height disadvantage. The second modifier only comes into play on a charge.

So mounted vs. greatspear = +5/+0, and lance charge vs. greatspear also = +5/+0.

This also distinguishes the great spear from the halberd which receives a +5 modifier to negate the height advantage due to its length, but does not negate the charge bonus.

A mounted knight vs. a halberd then would be at +5/+0, or lance charge vs. halberd = +10/+0.

On the other hand, if the +5 for the length of the great spear and halberd is in fact reflexive, then the height advantage would be completely cancelled, and I think you'd end up with the following total modifiers:

Mounted vs. greatspear = +0/+0. Lance charge vs. greatspear = +0/+0.
Mounted vs. halberd = +0/+0. Lance charge vs. halberd = +5/+0.

+5/+0 seems right to me. I see this as two separate modifiers. The first +5 cancels out the -5 for height disadvantage. The second modifier only comes into play on a charge.

So mounted vs. greatspear = +5/+0, and lance charge vs. greatspear also = +5/+0.


You're missing the errata.
There are two separate modifiers:
+5/-5 for height, +5 for lance v non-lance.
The greatspear cancels the first, but not the second. (The rulebook says it cancels the 2nd, but as noted earlier, that's been errata'd.)
So, mounted vs. greatspear = +5/+0, and lance charge vs. greatspear = +10/+0.


This also distinguishes the great spear from the halberd which receives a +5 modifier to negate the height advantage due to its length, but does not negate the charge bonus.


I'm pretty sure the halberd gets the same bonus as the greatspear v lances.
The halberd already has a distinguishing feature: it gets +1d6. It's a late era weapon - in game terms, it's a greatspear, but better.



On the other hand, if the +5 for the length of the great spear and halberd is in fact reflexive, then the height advantage would be completely cancelled, and I think you'd end up with the following total modifiers:

Mounted vs. greatspear = +0/+0. Lance charge vs. greatspear = +0/+0.
Mounted vs. halberd = +0/+0. Lance charge vs. halberd = +5/+0.

This would be true using the rules as written - but when you apply the errata, you get what I stated earlier:
Mounted vs. greatspear = +0/+0. Lance charge vs. greatspear = +5/+0.
And halberd being the same as a greatspear, but with +1d6 damage.

You're missing the errata.
There are two separate modifiers:
+5/-5 for height, +5 for lance v non-lance.
The greatspear cancels the first, but not the second. (The rulebook says it cancels the 2nd, but as noted earlier, that's been errata'd.)
So, mounted vs. greatspear = +5/+0, and lance charge vs. greatspear = +10/+0.


I'm not trying to be obtuse. I did miss the errata originally, and I agree that the errata modifies the description of the lance attack:


Page 122, Lance Attack
Strike the phrase “wielding a great spear or another character…” That is, a Lance charge does get the bonus against a Greatspear.

However, there is no errata modifying the skill descriptions:


GREAT SPEAR [KNIGHTLY]
This skill dictates a character’s use of the great spear (sometimes called a “pike”), a heavy two-handed spear used to strike and stab. A great spear grants a +5 modifier when used by foot soldiers against horsemen (thus negating the footmen’s normal disadvantage). The great spear is long enough that it also negates the +5 lance modifier versus non-lance weapons.

Maybe (probably) this is intended to be stricken as well, but the errata does not currently mention this, so it is a source of confusion.

Personally I think it makes more sense for the great spear to negate the charge bonus than it does to negate the height advantage. The long reach of the spear isn't that much of an advantage when you're stabbing up at the guy on a horse right next to you - in fact in some cases it could be an impediment. However, when you can reach out and impale a charging horse and rider before you are in range of his own lance - that's a big advantage.

As for whether the great spear's +5 modifier is reflexive or not, well, it seems to be unclear. Usually when a modifier is reflexive it says so. The great spear's description doesn't specify that it's reflexive, but the bit about negating the normal disadvantage certainly leaves it ambiguous. Ironically, this is exactly the parallel to the reason I started this thread in the first place - because it was unclear whether the lance charge bonus is reflexive.

I'm not trying to be obtuse. I did miss the errata originally, and I agree that the errata modifies the description of the lance attack:


Page 122, Lance Attack
Strike the phrase “wielding a great spear or another character…” That is, a Lance charge does get the bonus against a Greatspear.

However, there is no errata modifying the skill descriptions:


GREAT SPEAR [KNIGHTLY]
This skill dictates a character’s use of the great spear (sometimes called a “pike”), a heavy two-handed spear used to strike and stab. A great spear grants a +5 modifier when used by foot soldiers against horsemen (thus negating the footmen’s normal disadvantage). The great spear is long enough that it also negates the +5 lance modifier versus non-lance weapons.

Maybe (probably) this is intended to be stricken as well, but the errata does not currently mention this, so it is a source of confusion.

It has to be stricken, too. It's the same rule. The errata supersedes it.
In one place it says "a Lance charge does get the bonus against a Greatspear", and in the skill description it says, "it negates the lance bonus." Both can't be true. Since the errata is the most recent change, explkicity to ensure the lance keeps its bonus against greatspears, you have to strike that section from the great spear skill description too.


Personally I think it makes more sense for the great spear to negate the charge bonus than it does to negate the height advantage. The long reach of the spear isn't that much of an advantage when you're stabbing up at the guy on a horse right next to you - in fact in some cases it could be an impediment. However, when you can reach out and impale a charging horse and rider before you are in range of his own lance - that's a big advantage.

The weapon rules aren't meant to be 100% realistic. The game doesn't attempt to model every detail of a weapon. Each weapon is given a signature bonus to make it useful in certain circumstances. The great spear exists primarily to make bandits and footmen a little more of a challenge when they use them, so applying the modifier to the height advantage makes perfect sense (the lance charge would still be an advantage, but the height advantage applies more often).

Also, I'd say a long spear is a good weapon to have when facing mounted opponents - or when striking foes up on tables, or other height advantages. It's better than any other melee weapon available for that purpose, thus it gets the game benefit it has.



As for whether the great spear's +5 modifier is reflexive or not, well, it seems to be unclear. Usually when a modifier is reflexive it says so. The great spear's description doesn't specify that it's reflexive, but the bit about negating the normal disadvantage certainly leaves it ambiguous. Ironically, this is exactly the parallel to the reason I started this thread in the first place - because it was unclear whether the lance charge bonus is reflexive.


yes, pretty funny :)

Until we hear from the great god Stafford, just use whichever seems most appropriate for your campaign:
a) a reflexive modifier makes some bandits and footmen more dangerous, so do that if you want a gritty, dangerous game.
b) a non-reflexive modifier makes those bandits and footmen considerably weaker (since the +5 skill knights get will often push them above skill 20), so use that if you want to ensure bandits and footmen are always weak. (It's pendragon, so being outnumbered is always going to be risky, but this does make it a bit easier.)

Until we hear from the great god Stafford, just use whichever seems most appropriate for your campaign:


I like to restrain myself from these discussions because they are extremely educational for me.
I get to see where the rules are unclear, not clear enough or just dead wrong, erroneous.

Before I answer this, I must demand a check to see what KAP5.1 says, please.
Anyone?

Until we hear from the great god Stafford, just use whichever seems most appropriate for your campaign:


I like to restrain myself from these discussions because they are extremely educational for me.
I get to see where the rules are unclear, not clear enough or just dead wrong, erroneous.

Before I answer this, I must demand a check to see what KAP5.1 says, please.
Anyone?



The rules as written;

KAP 5.1 Page 120
"If a Lance Charge is made against any opponent other than another charging lancer, the lancer gets a +5 modifier to his Lance Skill."

KAP 5.1 Page 121
"HEIGHT ADVANTAGE
As noted in “Combat Modifiers,” a mounted character fighting an enemy who is afoot gains a +5 modifier to his weapon skill unless the footman is armed with a great spear or halberd. This modifier stacks with that gained from a lance charge (for a total of +10), if applicable."

Page 186 Giants
"Reach: All giants may ignore the usual +5/–5 reflexive penalties for fighting against a knight making a lance charge, due to their great reach."

P208 Battle Rules
"Use the standard Lance combat rules. If the charge is against enemy knights, they go lance against lance. If against footmen, the usual +5/–5 reflexive bonus applies unless the foot troops have footmen with great spears in the front ranks, therefore negating the mounted advantage of the knights."

Page 90 Great Spear
"GREAT SPEAR
This skill dictates a character’s use of the great spear (sometimes called a “pike”), a heavy two-handed spear used to strike and stab. A great spear grants a +5 modifier when used by foot soldiers against horsemen (thus negating the footmen’s normal disadvantage). The great spear is long enough that it also negates the +5 lance modifier versus non-lance weapons."

The rules excerpted by Earl De La Warr seem somewhat self contradictory; but, I'd interpret them as:

Lance charging knight
vs. normal footman: +10/-5
vs. footman with great spear: +0/-0
vs. footman with halberd: no specific halberd rules provided; but, I'd say +0/-0
vs. non-lance charging knight: +5/-0

Mounted knight (not charging)
vs. normal footman: +5/-0
vs. footman with great spear: +0/-0
vs. footman with halberd: no specific halberd rules provided; but, I'd say +0/-0
vs. non-lance charging knight: +0/-0

The rules excerpted by Earl De La Warr seem somewhat self contradictory; but, I'd interpret them as:

Mounted knight (not charging)
vs. normal footman: +5/-5
vs. footman with great spear: +0/-0
vs. footman with halberd: no specific halberd rules provided; but, I'd say +0/-0
vs. non-lance charging knight: +0/-0


Just adjusted something.
I agree on everything else.

Page 186 Giants
"Reach: All giants may ignore the usual +5/–5 reflexive penalties for fighting against a knight making a lance charge, due to their great reach."


This is the part that jumps out at me. I hadn't read the Appendix 2 very closely yet, but the wording is the same in KAP5.

This is, as far as I know, the only place where the lance charge bonus is identified as reflexive.

The rules excerpted by Earl De La Warr seem somewhat self contradictory; but, I'd interpret them as:

Mounted knight (not charging)
vs. normal footman: +5/-5
vs. footman with great spear: +0/-0
vs. footman with halberd: no specific halberd rules provided; but, I'd say +0/-0
vs. non-lance charging knight: +0/-0


Just adjusted something.
I agree on everything else.


Thanks for catching that mistake. I would indeed play it the same way as you.

The rules as written;

Thank you


KAP 5.1 Page 120
"If a Lance Charge is made against any opponent other than another charging lancer, the lancer gets a +5 modifier to his Lance Skill."

The Lance Charge bonus is because the defender has about a thousand pounds of animal, rider and lance tip hurtling directly at him.
Design note: Logic says that this should have been a penalty to the target. However, very few such modifiers appear in the game. They are too easily forgotten, but no player forgets his +5 bonus for charging, once he learns of it.


KAP 5.1 Page 121
"HEIGHT ADVANTAGE
As noted in “Combat Modifiers,” a mounted character fighting an enemy who is afoot gains a +5 modifier to his weapon skill unless the footman is armed with a great spear or halberd. This modifier stacks with that gained from a lance charge (for a total of +10), if applicable."

The exception to the rule—unless armed with a great spear or halberd—indicates that the mounted combatant does NOT get the bonus when his foe is armed with a long weapon.


Page 186 Giants
"Reach: All giants may ignore the usual +5/–5 reflexive penalties for fighting against a knight making a lance charge, due to their great reach."

That is an artifact, and incorrect as written.
Reach: All giants ignore the usual +5/-5 reflexive penalty for height difference for being afoot, due to their height and great reach.


P208 Battle Rules
"Use the standard Lance combat rules. If the charge is against enemy knights, they go lance against lance. If against footmen, the usual +5/–5 reflexive bonus applies unless the foot troops have footmen with great spears in the front ranks, therefore negating the mounted advantage of the knights."

Another indicator that long weapons cancel out the height advantage of a mounted man


Page 90 Great Spear
"GREAT SPEAR
This skill dictates a character’s use of the great spear (sometimes called a “pike”), a heavy two-handed spear used to strike and stab. A great spear grants a +5 modifier when used by foot soldiers against horsemen (thus negating the footmen’s normal disadvantage). The great spear is long enough that it also negates the +5 lance modifier versus non-lance weapons."

correction:
GREAT SPEAR
This skill measures a character’s ability with the great spear, a heavy two-handed spear used to strike and stab. For foot soldiers against cavalry, a great spear’s length cancel’s the footmen’s normal height disadvantage; and, due once again to its length, also cancels the +5 that the mounted man has against foot men. It may be used on horse, and is the same weapon as a lance, but used quite differently. It grants no bonuses from horseback, nor for foot men fighting foot men.

Yes, this is a change from 5.0
Game Designer note: almost everything else in the game is reciprocal, and this will get rid of one tiny exception.
And it makes sense.

Now that is going to be a significant change for the player knigts to deal with!

Any chance of pikemen being able to ground the things to accept a chanrge and getting the +5 or using the mount's damage bonus?

On an even basis, I'd think the +5 lance advantage is cancelled by the pikes and vice versa.

However, a knight armed with a sword (or other short weapon) v pike? I'd give the pike the bonus.

I'd also go as far as allowing pike men a the first charge bonus in the battle if the knights lose their battle roll and they are charging pikemen.

With regard to setting the pikes against a charge, yeah. I'd allow horse damage if the knight lost the opposed roll.

Now that is going to be a significant change for the player knights to deal with!

Any chance of pikemen being able to ground the things to accept a charge and getting the +5 or using the mount's damage bonus?


Not until Twilight Period.
When they are also x2.

Yeah, I wouldn't give pikes any bonus at all (except very late, as Greg says) - most of the situations that players get into fights are individual combats, and I wonder how effective trying to set a pike really is off the battlefield, when you don't have a line of them, and the knight can change direction. But most importantly, this is supposed to be a game about knights and pikes don't really fit.

PS: x2? ouch! :)

PS: x2? ouch! :)


Yes, but note that this is for the battlefield, with troops in close formation.

If you wish. the troops at the end of BoARMIES can destroy your heavy cavalry as easily they did in history.
I do not wish that for my campaign, and so they are optional troops.
I only use them at Camlann, for the knights that cannot be killed by ordinary means.

Close order troops are nasty. Especially if they start using proper anti-calvary tactics to prevent or at least imeed lance charges.

My PCs are arleady annyoed by how missle troops are making things tough by shooting the knight7s horses out from under them, and we are only up to 510.