Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BioKeith

Combat question - multiple attackers

Recommended Posts

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...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...