Combat question - multiple attackers

[BioKeith]

I have some things that confuse me about combat - specifically around multiple attackers vs a single target.

A few instances (actually - it seems to have turned in to a plethora of situations):

1. A Lance charge - 5 mounted PC knights charging a single knight
2. A Lance charge - 5 mounted PC knights charging a single large target (i.e The 3 eyed Giant from year 486 of the GPC)
3. A Lance charge - 5 mounted PC knights charging 5 mounted knights
   • Can 2 (or more) PC knights combine to attack a single target?
4. Melee combat - 5 mounted PC knights fighting a single mounted knight
   • So just going toe-to-toe in melee, not a charge
5. Melee combat - 5 mounted PC knights fighting a single unmounted knight
6. Melee combat - 5 unmounted PC knights fighting a single mounted knight
7. Melee combat 5 unmounted PC knights fighting a single large target (i.e. the same 3 eyed Giant)

Thanks in advance for the help...

 

[Username]

First, if I remember correctly, there's a maximum of two people on horseback versus a single target and three on foot against a single target. This applies to all below.

1. The single mounted combatant can split attacks against opponents. Split attacks divide the skill rank. Modifiers are added after the split. No modifiers except charging.

2. Same as above. A mounted combatant counts as a large opponent in relation to number of opponents. If incredibly large, then I would give the single large opponent a bonus from the height advantage. I would also allow more opponents to attack the giant if it was incredibly large.

3. This is a regular attack no modifiers except charge. The knights could focus on one, but that would allow the unengaged opponents to get an unopposed attack on their target.

4. No modifiers. One knight vs. Many. The one knight is doomed unless their Lancelot and impassioned.

5. All mounted knights get the height advantage modifier. The unmounted knight will presumably get the height advantage penalty. Lancelot would be in trouble here unless he criticals his passion.

6. Unmounted knights suffer height penalty. Mounted knight gets height bonus to all attacks added after splitting attacks.

7. Same as above.

[Cornelius]

Page 119 of the rulebook explains the multiple opponent rules. It says: Up to three enemies may attack a single character on foot; only two may attack a single foe if all are mounted.

I read also that you can do only one opponent damage. So even if you win both only one opponent gets the damage. (I never knew that. So it is good to reread the books sometimes.  )

[Username]

29 minutes ago, Cornelius said:

I read also that you can do only one opponent damage. So even if you win both only one opponent gets the damage. (I never knew that. So it is good to reread the books sometimes.  )

Huh, so you can at most only take damage from one person a round? I didn't know that either.

[Morien]

31 minutes ago, Cornelius said:

I read also that you can do only one opponent damage.

Not true in 5.2 (nor 5.1, although it might have been true in 5.0), bolded for emphasis: "The player decides how many points to allocate to each foe. Each Skill attempt is rolled separately, and each attack is treated separately, and each loss for the player-knight means the foe hits him for full damage. Likewise, a player-knight who strikes multiple targets does full damage to each of them."

2 minutes ago, Username said:

Huh, so you can at most only take damage from one person a round? I didn't know that either.

You read Cornelius' comment wrong, but no matter. See above, in cursive for emphasis.

[Username]

Ah, I understand now. Thanks. That would also explain why I didn't know of that rule. My KAP experience started with 5.1

[Atgxtg]

On 8/9/2019 at 9:06 AM, Cornelius said:

 

 So it is good to reread the books sometimes.  )

And bad to read the book at other times, especially if said book is King Arthur Pendragon 5th edition. KAP5 5.0 was improperly edited/proofread by someone who didn't really understand the game system and who "corrected" a lot of things in a way that would appear to make sense to a typical gamer, but not in the way the rules were intended to work. 

The "only damages one opponent rule" was one such example.Another example is that KAP5 states that you cannot raise STR, SIZ, etc. above maximum with glory, when in fact you can.

 

Both of these things (plus a host of others) were officially corrected later, when bunches of Pendragon players asked Greg about them (and why the rules were different from previous edtions). In almost every such case KAP5 was in error.

[Atgxtg]

On 8/9/2019 at 10:47 AM, Username said:

Ah, I understand now. Thanks. That would also explain why I didn't know of that rule. My KAP experience started with 5.1

There was an errata file for KAP5 on Greg's site, but basically if you have 5.1 or 5.2 you don't need to worry about it. 

[Cornelius]

On 8/9/2019 at 3:40 PM, Morien said:

Not true in 5.2 (nor 5.1, although it might have been true in 5.0), bolded for emphasis: "The player decides how many points to allocate to each foe. Each Skill attempt is rolled separately, and each attack is treated separately, and each loss for the player-knight means the foe hits him for full damage. Likewise, a player-knight who strikes multiple targets does full damage to each of them."

You read Cornelius' comment wrong, but no matter. See above, in cursive for emphasis.

I stand corrected. I used the 5.0 book indeed. Sorry about the confusion

[Atgxtg]

9 hours ago, Cornelius said:

I stand corrected. I used the 5.0 book indeed. Sorry about the confusion

Not your fault. There were a few threads on this sort of stuff on the old forums back when KAP5 came out. Lots of experienced Pendragon GMs asked about the various changes and it came out that they were not from Greg but some sort of well intentioned "correction"

[Cornelius]

On 8/12/2019 at 8:37 PM, Atgxtg said:

Not your fault. There were a few threads on this sort of stuff on the old forums back when KAP5 came out. Lots of experienced Pendragon GMs asked about the various changes and it came out that they were not from Greg but some sort of well intentioned "correction"

I am just glad I did it the right way all this time.  

[stryker99]

How do you all handle the determination phase when there are uneven numbers of attackers/defenders? For instance 6 bandits against 5 knights: I had the bandits declare 2 one attacking each knight with Sir Herringdale (the pretty one with flowing hair, ie easy target) getting 2. Then Sir Grigor (the big Siz/Con guy) declared he was attacking one of the extra ones (let's call him Wulfgar) going after Herringdale. How do you sort this out?

Herringdale vs 2 Grigor vs 1 (bandits declared first, sorry) Herringdale declares how he is splitting weapon skill

Herringdale vs 1 Grigor vs 2 (knights declared second, sorry bandits) Grigor declares how he is splitting weapon skill

Herringdale vs 2, Grigor vs 2, Wulfgar vs 2 each deciding how to split weapon skill

I have also had cases where there were multiple on one knight, but other knights had no opponents (bad guys were focusing for a reason). The unengaged knights declared attacks against some of the ones ganging up. I just had the gang ups redirect their attention into one on one resolutions, lessening the gang up.

[Morien]

1 hour ago, stryker99 said:

Herringdale vs 1 Grigor vs 2 (knights declared second, sorry bandits) Grigor declares how he is splitting weapon skill

I generally split the attackers evenly and then allow any of the PKs to volunteer to take on two. If no one volunteers, I will either roll randomly or make a determination (usually, the most glorious/famous is the one the opponents try to gang up on).

The advantage of this is that I don't have to think about it, if a PK volunteers, and it gives more control to the Players, also a good thing in my book.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, stryker99 said:

How do you all handle the determination phase when there are uneven numbers of attackers/defenders? For instance 6 bandits against 5 knights: I had the bandits declare 2 one attacking each knight with Sir Herringdale (the pretty one with flowing hair, ie easy target) getting 2. Then Sir Grigor (the big Siz/Con guy) declared he was attacking one of the extra ones (let's call him Wulfgar) going after Herringdale. How do you sort this out?

First off it depends on which side has to declare first. Normally I have the NPCs declare first, but if the situation warrants it (such as am ambush) I might force the PKs to declare first. Sometimes there might be an advantage to declaring first, but not usually.

Then it depends on how close everybody is and who has the better movement. If one character can intercept another it might change things. For example, if Sir Girgor were mounted he could probably intercept the bandit before he could reach Sir Herringdale.

Generally it works out as declared, which would be your option #3, unless distance and movement would indicate that one of the characters could intercept another, or not be able to reach another character at all, then option 1 or 2 could come up. In a skirmish situation I usually let the side that wins the Battle roll decide.

But if you want to keep it simple just say the each have one bandit and either decide who get double teamed or let the PKs decide. Either way it works. As I mentioned above an opposed  battle roll to see who has the best tactical position works great here, especially if you don't use any sort of map or figures for positioning. 

 

[Cornelius]

19 hours ago, Morien said:

I generally split the attackers evenly and then allow any of the PKs to volunteer to take on two. If no one volunteers, I will either roll randomly or make a determination (usually, the most glorious/famous is the one the opponents try to gang up on).

The advantage of this is that I don't have to think about it, if a PK volunteers, and it gives more control to the Players, also a good thing in my book.

This usually alos the way I do it. But if the situation occurs, I would have them roll battle skill. If the bandits win they can decide how everyone is attacked. If the Pks wish they can both also roll then the highest can decide how the enemies are split between them.

Of course you could also split the different combats: 

So you would have Herringdale vs bandit, Herringdale vs Wulfgar, Grigor vs Wulfgar, and Grigor vs bandit. Herringdale, Grigor, and Wulfgar need to split their attacks. 

 

As for ganging up upon 1. If it happens and other PKs can assist then some of the gang will split off to keep them busy, while the main of the group keeps their attention to their main goal. But be aware that there are limits in the number of men that can attack. If they were aware the PK has friends they may split up beforehand and have some attack the friends.