List of Combat Modifiers & Multiple Opponents skill splitting

[Luca Cherstich]

Yesterday I just realized that unencumbered knights without leather/metal armors have +5 on combat skill (KAP 5.2. p.119)...which I’ve never used. So I guess that a knight with just a gambeson/subarmalis/underjerkin (= padded armor) will get it!

By the way, this is another of those many Combat Bonuses which give me problems understanding when facing multiple opponents. The 5.2 Core Rules are definitively almost never clear to explain when theses modifiers must be added (except for Mounted vs unmounted, as explained on KAP 5.2 p.143).

Adding these modifiers before or after splitting the Combat Skill is, off course, a HUGE difference!

I’ve checked these forums and those in the archives, and I got some ideas and seen various opinions on the matter.

And I also understood that there’s a difference between “Situation” modifiers (to be applied AFTER) and “Tactic” modifiers (to be applied BEFORE).

And, regarding Passions, I have always played applying them before.

 

Given these premises, can you please comment if the following is right or not?

 

Passions: Critically Inspired/Inspired/Disheartened: +10/+20/-5 (all to be applied BEFORE)

 

“Tactic Modifiers” as per KAP 5.2, p.144-145 (all to be applied BEFORE)

-          Uncontrolled Attack +10

-          Defense +10

 

“Situation Modifiers” as per KAP 5.2, p.140-141 (all to be applied AFTER)

-          Unencumbered, no leather/metal armor, +5;

-          Height bonus or mounted vs unmounted +5/-5;

-          Cover modifier -5 to attacker’s roll;

-          Fatigue modifier -5;

-          Fatigue modifier -10/+10;

-          Surprise modifier +5 to attacker and unopposed;

-          Visibility -10 or -5.

 

MY DOUBTS (and questions!):

-          Combined Actions +5/-5 (KAP 5.2, p.140)? I suspect it is AFTER

-          Charging Lance bonus vs non-lance/non-great spear wielders +5 (KAP 5.2, p.145), I suspect it is AFTER, although I guess this is PONTLESS (how can you lance-charge 2 opponents? Impaling two people in a row???)

-          Evasion tactic (KAP 5.2 p.144) should be a combined action (+5/-5) but since it includes Dodging (KAP 5.2 p.141) the DEX stats is not divided among multiple opponents, what about Horsemanship? Furthermore, I noticed that there is a contradiction between Evasion on p. 145 (saying that this cannot be done vs multiple opponents or at least one should divide the value) and p.141 (Dodging, where it can be applied to multiple opponents without dividing Dex).

-          Regarding the Unencumbered +5 modifier: it applies to Padded Armour, right? But not to leather I guess.

 

MY DOUBTS on possible consequences for Book of Battle:

Book of Battle 2nd edition  p.39: Charge modifiers. I know these bonuses are are bit odd in non-battle contexts …

- What about Lance charge? I guess in Battle you can apply to more than one opponent, so I guess it's AFTER, right?

- what about the Infantry vs Infantry +5/-5 Charge? Shall I say AFTER? (I guess this does not apply to normal combat, since it should be a combined action -5/+5 with Opposite modifiers!).

 

[Morien]

26 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

Yesterday I just realized that unencumbered knights without leather/metal armors have +5 on combat skill (KAP 5.2. p.119)...which I’ve never used. So I guess that a knight with just a gambeson/subarmalis/underjerkin (= padded armor) will get it!

I am 100% sure that this is an editing mistake and should not exist in KAP 5.x. I would need to go and check Greg's comments and errata, but I am absolutely sure that he stated it numerous times that it should no longer be a thing, since it encouraged knights to strip out of their armor, which is stupid given the source material.

As for the other modifiers, here is a simple rule:

Does it modify your skill, regardless who or how many you are fighting with? In that case, apply it BEFORE splitting. Passion & Magic Weapon bonuses would go here. Fatigue should go here, if it is a simple -5 to your skill: you are fatigued, no matter who you are attacking.

Does it depend on who you are attacking, their weapon or position or actions? If so, apply it AFTER splitting. Lance vs. Non-lance, Mounted vs. unmounted, etc, would go here. Most reflexive modifiers should go here. Cover goes here, since the attacker's skill is not reduced if they are not attacking someone who is in cover. Yes, this does mean that it is a stupid idea to split your skill to attack two people in cover.

The only outlier in my mind is the Tactics, since I have been applying them prior to splitting, but they get a bit strange if the opponents are choosing cancelling tactics as well. By the above outline, they should be applied after splitting, depending what the individual opponents do. That way, they would be consistent: You choose Defensive and then split the skill, getting +10 vs. each opponent. If one of the opponents chooses Uncontrolled Attack, it cancels the Defensive bonus against him and only him. So vs. the other opponent, you get the +10 still. I think I might shift to applying them after, since it makes much more sense.

[Morien]

6 minutes ago, Morien said:

I am 100% sure that this is an editing mistake and should not exist in KAP 5.x. I would need to go and check Greg's comments and errata, but I am absolutely sure that he stated it numerous times that it should no longer be a thing, since it encouraged knights to strip out of their armor, which is stupid given the source material.

Found it in Greg's website under "Errata for King Arthur Pendragon, 5th ed.":

"Page 117, Unburdened
I’ve been asked about this so many times, wherein players attempt to exploit it beyond its intention, that I suggest just eliminating the entire 2-paragraph section. There is no bonus for going without armor. If the GM must do something, then give a penalty to wear armor if not trained for it."

[Morien]

18 minutes ago, Morien said:

If one of the opponents chooses Uncontrolled Attack, it cancels the Defensive bonus against him and only him.

Actually, rereading the description, I realize that the above is another one of our houserules that we have been using like forever. RAW, both get +10 to skill and then resolve the combat normally. So there would be wiggle room to say that you choose the tactic first and then split your skill.

Indeed, rereading the combat section makes it clear that Uncontrolled Attack MUST be directed at a single opponent, and the Defensive modifies the Combat skill of the defender. So I guess that the Tactic should indeed come first before splitting, as Luca suggested and how we have been playing it until now. There is no issue if facing multiple opponents and doing Defensive: you get your skill bonus and then split your skill, and the Uncontrolled Attack is resolved normally with +10 to that attacker's skill. I could see an argument from the reading of the UA that the defender knows that an UA is coming and can decide their actions afterwards. We have not done that in our game: you won't know the tactic your enemy is using until it is time to roll the dice, but neither does your enemy know yours. We also lowered the bonus to +5 to discourage the use of UA, but giving the knowledge to the defender and the option to do an attack before the UA might be strong enough to ensure that UA is not that overpowered.

Edited March 31, 2020 by Morien

[Luca Cherstich]

1 hour ago, Morien said:

Does it modify your skill, regardless who or how many you are fighting with? In that case, apply it BEFORE splitting. Passion & Magic Weapon bonuses would go here. Fatigue should go here, if it is a simple -5 to your skill: you are fatigued, no matter who you are attacking.

Does it depend on who you are attacking, their weapon or position or actions? If so, apply it AFTER splitting. Lance vs. Non-lance, Mounted vs. unmounted, etc, would go here. Most reflexive modifiers should go here. Cover goes here, since the attacker's skill is not reduced if they are not attacking someone who is in cover. Yes, this does mean that it is a stupid idea to split your skill to attack two people in cover.

OK. seems somehow clear, although still dependant on a GM's ad-hoc choice ... but I guess we still need a list or table with ALL the modifiers (as I did in Post no.1 but with correct values).

Core Rules are a mess in this case!

[Morien]

36 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

OK. seems somehow clear, although still dependant on a GM's ad-hoc choice ...

Not really. It is a simple question, does this modify your skill because it affects your skill, or is it a circumstantial, situational bonus due to the enemy doing something or being positioned some way?

So if you get impassioned, that is clearly affecting your own skill. Modify it before dividing. Mounted vs. unmounted clearly depends on the enemy, too. Modifier applies after dividing.

Example:

I am on a horse and fighting against a knight and a footman. My skill is 20. If I were to apply the mounted vs. unmounted bonus before dividing, I could attack the opposing knight with skill 24 and have 1 against the footman. In which case, I have actually benefited from being attacked by the footman in comparison to the enemy knight! This makes no sense whatsoever. However, when the modifier is applied after, I can have 19 against the knight and 1+5 against the footman, so the footman is clearly hampering me in my fight against the knight if I pay him any attention, which is how it should be.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Luca Cherstich said:

OK. seems somehow clear, although still dependant on a GM's ad-hoc choice ... but I guess we still need a list or table with ALL the modifiers (as I did in Post no.1 but with correct values).

As Morien points out it comes down to if a modifier is something that is tied to what the character does, or due to situation.

Most modifiers (inspiration, combat tactics, rearming) are based solely on what one character is doing, add to the skill of the character and are thus a one time bonus.

Situational modifiers such as height, or weapon reach are things that factor in the opponent relative to the first character and thus would factor in whenever the situation applies, but might not apply against all opponents. The most common examples of this are the height modifier (AKA mounted vs. foot) and greatspear/halbard vs mounted (a subset of the height modifier). So over 99% of the time the only modifier you need to worry about applying after dividing will be some sort of height modifier. 

 

 

[Luca Cherstich]

OK, another related question, but I guess the answer is obvious ...

Lance-Charge vs two enemies.

Rules do not say explicilty but I forbid to split the skill with Lance Charge: you either charge one enemy or the other one (a "Skewer-like" lance impaling seems ridicolous...).

If it was not a Lance-Charge but just mounted Spear/Spear  Expertise vs 2 enemies I would allow skill-splitting.

Am I doing it wrong?

Edited April 2, 2020 by Luca Cherstich

[Tizun Thane]

27 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

Am I doing it wrong?

No. I am doing the same, for obvious reasons.

[Morien]

4 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

No. I am doing the same, for obvious reasons.

I allow splitting, but the secondary roll is purely for defensive purposes only. You may block one blow with your shield while skewering the other guy with your lance, but no skewering both of them on a charge.

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

OK, another related question, but I guess the answer is obvious ...

Lance-Charge vs two enemies.

Rules do not say explicilty but I forbid to split the skill with Lance Charge: you either charge one enemy or the other one (a "Skewer-like" lance impaling seems ridicolous...).

If it was not a Lance-Charge but just mounted Spear/Spear  Expertise vs 2 enemies I would allow skill-splitting.

Am I doing it wrong?

No. You're not doing it wrong. Common sense should always be considered when adjudicating game rules.

As for if you should allow splitting against two foes, I'd say it would depend on the situation. If the foes are spread out apart and the knight is riding past one and then the other, attacking both might make sense. If the foes are in a line, especially on opposite sides of the charging knight, I'd probably go with Morien's option.

[Luca Cherstich]

OK, from @Morien and @Atgxtg comments I got that there is a possibility of splitting lance without "skewering", maybe for defending, maybe because these enemies are spread all over the area.

However, if I allow this skill splitting, what about the +5 Lance Change modifier?

I feel that it should be added only to the first enemy that you charge, and not the second, but maybe this is just me. 

[Morien]

15 minutes ago, Luca Cherstich said:

I feel that it should be added only to the first enemy that you charge, and not the second, but maybe this is just me. 

Yes, that is fair, since you are not using the lance against the other opponent, only your shield. But I could see arguing it the other way, too, that the PK is still holding the lance and able to threaten both opponents until the last moment. But you can certainly go with your interpretation.

I don't allow 'line astern' charging in the same round, since I feel that this has a potential for abuse. After all, the most opponents you can normally have in a mounted-vs-mounted melee is 2, one on each side. If 'line astern' charging in the same round is possible, this might become 4 enemy lancers charging you, 2 on each side. So I don't allow it, and while it is possible for the PKs to queue up to charge, only 2 charges (one from each side) arrive during the same round. So the PK won't ever be faced with a situation where he needs to split his skill vs. 4 lance attacks. At the same time, the PKs can't swamp an NPC with more than 2 charges, either.

In our campaign, the usual situation for such a conveyor belt charging in our campaign is a giant in the open. Swords tend to bounce off the giant's skin, so a stout lance is needed, and by doing the charge in pairs, the PKs spread out the risk and Glory.

Edited April 4, 2020 by Morien

[Atgxtg]

6 hours ago, Luca Cherstich said:

OK, from @Morien and @Atgxtg comments I got that there is a possibility of splitting lance without "skewering", maybe for defending, maybe because these enemies are spread all over the area.

However, if I allow this skill splitting, what about the +5 Lance Change modifier?

I feel that it should be added only to the first enemy that you charge, and not the second, but maybe this is just me. 

For the most part I agree with that interpretation. While, as Morien points out "the PK is still holding the lance and able to threaten both opponents until the last moment", I'll count that with the fact that generally most of the "oomph" (a highly technical term) of a lance charge comes from the momentum built up by the charging horse, most of which would probably be expended upon striking the first opponent. But...I could see something like a  glancing blow not using up much of the momentum or a mount building up more speed if the opponents were spread apart. 

Still, for the most part I'd probably just give the charge bonus against the first opponent, and treat the second strike as a normal spear attack. Although...if the opponent were another knight counter charging then he'd have momentum too and...

I'd just have crossbowmen pop up and shoot all the horses and make everyone fight on foot. Problem solved. 

[Morien]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Problem solved. 

Ended rightly, as they say.

[Atgxtg]

23 hours ago, Morien said:

Ended rightly, as they say.

LOL! Well, I wouldn't really wipe out the player characters with a ambush from a bunch of crossbowmen, William Goldman beat me to it with the Princess Bride, but I'd probably tease my players with it for deliberately over complicating things.

 

 

To be more honest about it, I'd probably tell the player in question that he either gets the bonus against one opponent, or both, or maybe needs to make a horsemanship roll to get it for the second one or some such, on the fly, and see how it goes. It would depnd a lot of the realtive postinging, and if we were using minis or not. Maybe a player raises up some factor I didn't consider, or maybe it doesn't play out as well as I thought it would, or whatever. 

Sometimes a GM just has to make a spot decsion and go for it. That said, most of us try to prep beforehand to avoid having to decide on the spot.

 

[The Wanderer]

Wondering... do you have any house rule for the saxons or any other enemy to attack the horses instead of the knights? I mean in normal combat (not battles).

Or could they just attack (against the knight skill) and if they hit, just damage the horse instead of the knight if they want to?

[Morien]

6 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Or could they just attack (against the knight skill) and if they hit, just damage the horse instead of the knight if they want to?

IIRC, that is the way it works by RAW.

In our game, we use a house rule that if you are attacking the horse instead of the rider, you do not suffer the -5 penalty if you are on foot. The horseman still gets the +5 to attack you.

[The Wanderer]

4 hours ago, Morien said:

IIRC, that is the way it works by RAW.

Is that said anywhere in the rules? Or just admitted?

 

4 hours ago, Morien said:

In our game, we use a house rule that if you are attacking the horse instead of the rider, you do not suffer the -5 penalty if you are on foot. The horseman still gets the +5 to attack you.

I like it!

[Morien]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

Is that said anywhere in the rules? Or just admitted?

I couldn't find it in the book, so I went looking the old Nocturnal Forums...

Greg said the following in a thread where hitting a horse was being discussed:

"Just remember that even if he strikes the knight's horse, the knight's combat win would protect the horse. He does not have to specify he is protecting his horse."

If the defending knight doesn't have to split his skill, then it makes no sense that the attacker would have to, either.

Earlier in the same thread Darren Hill stated: "In normal melee, the attacker just says whether he wants to hit the rider or the horse. The rider rolls his attack normally, and if the attacker wins, he hits the one he chose as target." Greg did not comment on that, so given his actually answer supporting this same method, I think it is in a reasonably good footing. Most importantly, it works in game.

In another thread, a Boar is attacking the horse of a horseman, who in turn is attacking the boar, and the question was if this is a single opposed roll or two unopposed rolls, as neither the knight nor the boar is actually defending against the other. Greg's answer was: "I would just make this an opposed roll of the knight with his weapon versus the boar where a win by the boar = he disembowels the horse". I think that is the definitive answer. If it works for a boar, it ought to work for a man attacking the horse rather than the rider, too.

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Is that said anywhere in the rules? Or just admitted?

I beleive it was mentioned in some of the early (KAP1 or KAP3) books and just acknowledged as fact ever since.

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I like it!

I'm pretty such that is mentioned in some edition of the hunting rules somewhere. Probably also in an earlier edtion, as hunting used to be far more dangerous than it is now.

[The Wanderer]

2 hours ago, Morien said:

In another thread, a Boar is attacking the horse of a horseman, who in turn is attacking the boar, and the question was if this is a single opposed roll or two unopposed rolls, as neither the knight nor the boar is actually defending against the other. Greg's answer was: "I would just make this an opposed roll of the knight with his weapon versus the boar where a win by the boar = he disembowels the horse". I think that is the definitive answer. If it works for a boar, it ought to work for a man attacking the horse rather than the rider, too.

It makes sense! I think all the saxons MUST attack the horses... 😈

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

It makes sense! I think all the saxons MUST attack the horses... 😈

Why I get your logic there are some factors at play that should be considered before going after the horses.

Horses, especially warhorses are very valuable possessions, and capturing one would be like a modern person getting ownership of a super car. It can literally set the man up for life. 

Attacking horses also tends to reduce the chances of survival if the Saxon looses. Knights tend to be less merciful to someone who just maimed their favorite warhorse. Plus it's hard to focus on the horse when the rider is trying to lop your head off. 

[Morien]

40 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Horses, especially warhorses are very valuable possessions, and capturing one would be like a modern person getting ownership of a super car. It can literally set the man up for life. 

Assuming you CAN capture it and sell it for at least a fraction of its value. If you are a bandit, there is no way that you will get anything even close to its true value. Most likely, even trying will earn you a noose as a horse thief and a murdered. Assuming that you can even manage the ill-tempered brute and avoid pursuit, too. Horsemanship not being one of your main skills...

Similarly, if you are a Saxon, there might not be a good horsemarket for chargers. Sure, the big bosses might like one, but if your choices are between dying (since you are overmatched by the knight on horseback) or possibly surviving and looting a dead knight's armor and not getting his horse since you killed it first, it is a rather easy choice.

43 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Attacking horses also tends to reduce the chances of survival if the Saxon looses. Knights tend to be less merciful to someone who just maimed their favorite warhorse.

Given that many Cymri have high Hate Saxons anyway, survival is at best an iffy proposition. Better to win the fight.

43 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Plus it's hard to focus on the horse when the rider is trying to lop your head off. 

Actually it's going to be super-easy, barely an inconvenience. (Sorry, just had to use that catch-phrase. ) The horseman is limited in the angles he can attack from, so just have your shield up, bend your knees, and lop the legs off the horse (assuming that the horse has stopped in the melee). Of course, this is easier in theory than practice, but a very good reason why the cavalry HATED getting immobilized amidst infantry and tried to avoid that like plague.

Now, in actual Pendragon, it depends if you are giving the -5 penalty if the Saxon is attacking the same-level horse or not. By RAW, I think -5 applies, so then it doesn't matter skillwise which one you attack first. Then it becomes an issue of damage, assuming that you do land a hit. You need to hit the horse with something like 17 points + the knight's shield if he manages to interpose it (but you might get the axe bonus vs. shield, in which case about 20 points does it). Those are not great odds, admittedly, but still about 30% (assuming 20-pt threshold). And if you manage to do it, it is the knight down for sure. If you hit the knight, he won't get badly hurt on any reasonable roll, but usually anything past 16 or so will trigger a knockdown roll. Alas, by RAW, the solution for that knockdown roll is a Horsemanship roll, which most knights will have around 15. So that is 25% chance of failing knockdown, and maybe 70% for the original damage roll being 16+, giving a total chance of about 17.5%, or roughly half the chance that it is to cripple the horse.

If you DON'T give the -5 for hitting the horse, then the Saxon's chances of winning the original roll improve, as well as his chance of getting his own shield in the way. At that point, purely from survival perspective, hitting the horse becomes the Smart Thing To Do for the beleaguered footman. Heck, even the PKs have started chopping horses' legs when they have been knocked from the saddle by enemy knights in battle! Better to win and get SOME of the loot than to lose and be captured or killed, seems to be the intent.

[Atgxtg]

40 minutes ago, Morien said:

Assuming you CAN capture it and sell it for at least a fraction of its value. If you are a bandit, there is no way that you will get anything even close to its true value. Most likely, even trying will earn you a noose as a horse thief and a murdered. Assuming that you can even manage the ill-tempered brute and avoid pursuit, too. Horsemanship not being one of your main skills...

You don't have to get anywhere near it's true value to be profitable. Getting half or one quarter stilll puta a character on easy street. And there are always people who will buy it.

40 minutes ago, Morien said:

Similarly, if you are a Saxon, there might not be a good horsemarket for chargers. Sure, the big bosses might like one, but if your choices are between dying (since you are overmatched by the knight on horseback) or possibly surviving and looting a dead knight's armor and not getting his horse since you killed it first, it is a rather easy choice.

Yes, except killing the horse doesn't necessarily save your life. You still have to beat the knight, and that means that the blow that drops the horse might have dropped the knight. And once the knight is down he probably is still better skilled and better equipped. 

40 minutes ago, Morien said:

Given that many Cymri have high Hate Saxons anyway, survival is at best an iffy proposition. Better to win the fight.

Yes it is, but going after the horse doesn't help much, if at all. For instance, let's say you got a typical Saxon with Axe 14 and 6 point armor , going up against an Average Knight with Sword 19, ans 10 point armor. He's probably going to loose. If the knight has Hate (Saxons) then the Saxon's odds of winning are even worse.

 

, and Hate Saxons 

40 minutes ago, Morien said:

Actually it's going to be super-easy, barely an inconvenience. (Sorry, just had to use that catch-phrase. ) The horseman is limited in the angles he can attack from, so just have your shield up, bend your knees, and lop the legs off the horse (assuming that the horse has stopped in the melee). Of course, this is easier in theory than practice, but a very good reason why the cavalry HATED getting immobilized amidst infantry and tried to avoid that like plague.

Yes in practice leaning in to get the legs exposes your neck and back. Infantry are only a problem in numbers or if the have spears or other reach weapons. 

40 minutes ago, Morien said:

Now, in actual Pendragon, it depends if you are giving the -5 penalty if the Saxon is attacking the same-level horse or not.

TGHat plays a factor, but I don't think it nmakes that much of a difference, for reasons I'll get into below.

40 minutes ago, Morien said:

If you DON'T give the -5 for hitting the horse, then the Saxon's chances of winning the original roll improve, as well as his chance of getting his own shield in the way. At that point, purely from survival perspective, hitting the horse becomes the Smart Thing To Do for the beleaguered footman.

Not entirely, because the blow that drops the horse, doesn't end the battle and it also had a good chance of dropping the knight. So instead og just getting lucky with a 9 vs 24 (eek!) the Saxon has to win at a 14 vs 24 (still eek!) just to have a chance at 14 vs. 19 (yes, there is the possibly of turning the tables for a round at 19 vs 14 while the knight gets up). But overall I don't think the odds are sigfincatly differnt either way. If the Brit hates Saxons then it probably doesn't matter what tactic the Saxon tries.