Mounted lance charge

[nsruf]

Two more things that are somewhat related:

a) The knight is rather incompetent in combat (Lance proficiency 3). I think that he would have missed without SA dice - and even so, the footman had  a good chance to block the attack. Now that would have pissed bensei off;)

b) How do you handle maneuvering in mounted combat? I was very generous (IMO) and allowed the knight to charge every other melee round, but I suppose stopping and turning your horse, selecting a new target, and speeding up again would take longer than that. Any ideas?

[toli]

b) How do you handle maneuvering in mounted combat? I was very generous (IMO) and allowed the knight to charge every other melee round, but I suppose stopping and turning your horse, selecting a new target, and speeding up again would take longer than that. Any ideas?

My guess is that it would probably take longer than that to turn and charge again...more like 1 every 4 or something...but just a guess...NT

[Turin]

b) How do you handle maneuvering in mounted combat? I was very generous (IMO) and allowed the knight to charge every other melee round, but I suppose stopping and turning your horse, selecting a new target, and speeding up again would take longer than that. Any ideas?

Well, to do a charge you have to develop some momentum, probably to at least a trot.  I would think to strike, recover, turn or stop, then if stopping build up momentum, the pick your target out and charge would take at least 10-15 seconds, longer if the initial charge was at a gallop.  Of course riding skill could modify this.

Now a slower ride by attack with a swung hand weapon would be less time consuming to strike/recover IMO.  You could also very well attack other targets of opportunity along the way.

[Prince of Thieves]

First off nsruf, I do the Sim. Block-Strike the same way. Its the only way that allows to combatant to use his whole dice pool and with red-red stuff it boils down to one exchange, so we want to spend the whole pool.

Second, I think it was perhaps unfair to allow the footman to maintain stance bonus when he should of been surprised by the horseman suddenly changing tactics and running him down. (Remember combat rounds are only 2 second, 1 sec/exchange) If it takes longer for the horseman to arrive, fine, make the duelist dance around for a bit waiting for the knight to gallop in to even the odds. But if the horseman was close enough to present a threat and the footman instead went after the easier target, the duelist. Then surprise rolls, by the footman (Diff 5, thundering hoffs give away the intent, just trying to avoid brain-lock)  should of be called for IMO and succss at surprise roll, which is likely, would of forced the footman to defend or buy init. All this adds up giving the advantage to the mounted knight, which it sounds like he should of had.

Hope the input helps and sorry if I sound overly critical.

[nsruf]

Second, I think it was perhaps unfair to allow the footman to maintain stance bonus when he should of been surprised by the horseman suddenly changing tactics and running him down.

Maybe this wasn't quite clear: the horseman didn't suddenly change tactics. Since the combat involved many characters, I had them declare their general intentions in reverse Reflex order and used that as a gauge to assign individual melees. The footmen had a lower Reflex than the knight and declared a charge on the duellist. The knight decided to help the duellist out. Then all of them, (knight, duellist, 2 footmen)  spent the first combat turn closing and started melee on the second. There was no surprise involved as they all saw each other coming - the knight didn't even come from behind or anything.

[bensei]

Thanks for the replies.
As nsruf pointed out, the combat rules want to be realistic on the one hand, but the weapon reach rules and reflex rules are rather abstract. I think this was one of my problems.

The footman being agressive because of being involved in combat before makes sense by the rules, however I must second Prince of Thieves that it seems a bit odd that this is then treated in the same way as if it was a 1 on 1 fight with the footman being able to prepare himself.

What is disturbing me is that the reflex contest won by the footman is interpreted as ducking under the lance, which actually is a combat maneuver. I think it is not good if reflex checks are the same as real combat maneuvers. (But I accept that the system is abstact here).

Apart from the explanation of being an abstract system I was surpized that the real fight is actually the reflex check, and this was about 50-50. (Actually worse, since it goes on the weapon's ATN. Also thanks for the comment on the thrusting modifier). The footman winning the reflex contest resulted in the loss of quite an amount of dice from the knight's pool. And SAs do not influence the most important roll in this kind of combat...

Regarding reach modifiers to the reflex rolls: This rule sounds reasonable to me, but I agree with nsruf that playing by the book is better for the start (this was the first time, a mounted combat appeared in our games). Also, in this rule the footman must actually declare in advance whether he wants to attack the horse or the knight, because this defines the reach.

Regarding incompetence of the knight: I was surpized that with a proficiency of just 3 the knight gets 10 dice in his combat pool against ground targets, 12 when attacking. Of course the character knows how to fight, especially how to fight considering his comparably low weapon skill. He is heir to the throne, so he should fight without taking too many risks. (He has his soldiers to fight for him, but of course a knight cannot stand back from combat!) The problem is that the character should know, but I as a player do not have experience. Especially regarding the question: Is it risky to put all CP dice into the charging attack (Assumed the riding roll guaranteed just one exchange)? Would a block and strike be of any use? (Apparantly not, since it does not help the horse)
And of course, even without SA, the footman will have a hard time to really block the charge, given the incompetent knight wins the reflex contest ;)

[nsruf]

The footman being agressive because of being involved in combat before makes sense by the rules, however I must second Prince of Thieves that it seems a bit odd that this is then treated in the same way as if it was a 1 on 1 fight with the footman being able to prepare himself.

This is a timing problem: one of you has to declare first. This is a big enough disadvantage as is. Penalizing him even further by saying he isn't prepared because he had to declare actions without knowing what you do seems excessive. I want to reserve surprise for situations where a combatant really isn't aware of his opponent - not merely half a second late in realizing what he intends to do.

[toli]

Especially regarding the question: Is it risky to put all CP dice into the charging attack (Assumed the riding roll guaranteed just one exchange)?

To me this particular question depends on how much armor you are wearing.  If the knight is in full plate vs a swordsman...I would put everything into an attack.  The swordsman will have a hard time getting through all that plate...

[Prince of Thieves]

Surprise in Riddle of Steel isn't always really being "surprised" it's just as often a test to see if a combatant can adapt himself to the changes of the battle field on a seconds notice. Like rushing one target but then being charged by another. It seems to me even if we forego the surprise roll, the footman's aggressive stance should collaspe as he is forced to suddenly turn and engage the horseman, after all he was chosing to be aggressive and charge the duelist. It sounds like both footman where either foolish to forget about the horseman or hated the duelist enough to take that chance to kill him. Anyway this is how I would of ran the encounter but I'm very intrested to hear how other people would apply the aggressive stance in this instant. Any ideas?

Another thing if I may nsruf, after rereading the account of the battle I think one terrian roll, by the Duelist, would of been enough. After the duelist avoids one of the footman, he is sort of in the open for the knight to lance him. Take a peek at the "Help a wargammer" post, which is still pretty close to the top, James Buchanan wrote a neat post about using a cinamatic approach to RoS, which not only makes for a more memorable game it might help streamline these more hectic fights.

The 2 villianess footman charge the Duelist weapons ready. In the distance the Knight wheels his mount toward the fight.
Duelist (makes terrian roll) dashes to his left around the rightmost footman to engage him alone, they clash. (Settle the round, both exchanges now)
Meanwhile, the leftmost footman still in prusuit of the duelist, tries to run a semi-circle about his companion but is set upon by the Knight he spins about quickly, forced to meet the attack.

[Starshadow]

The footmen had a lower Reflex than the knight

I did not penalize the Reflex check for weapon reach, so the footman won and struck first

I'm confused. Why was there a reflex check? The knight had a higher reflex, so he would have attacked first.
Highest reflex attacks first by default; you do a reflex check only when reflex of both (or all) contestants are equal.

[nsruf]

I'm confused. Why was there a reflex check? The knight had a higher reflex, so he would have attacked first.
Highest reflex attacks first by default; you do a reflex check only when reflex of both (or all) contestants are equal.

That's how it is handled in the QS rules for the sake of simplicity. The full rules always call for a check of Reflex/ATN to see who strikes first (p. 74, right column, third paragraph). Otherwise, a high Reflex would be a tad too good, IMO*. The fighter with the lower Reflex is already penalized by having to declare first.

* Red/red wouldn't be very dangerous to a guy with Reflex 6 or 7 anymore.

[Starshadow]

Damn...

I stand corrected.

I always thought the reflex check was used only when both contestants had equal reflex, but this puts fighting in a new light.

Not good for my high reflex char though...
;)

[nsruf]

Surprise in Riddle of Steel isn't always really being "surprised" it's just as often a test to see if a combatant can adapt himself to the changes of the battle field on a seconds notice.

The footmen could see the knight coming for a full round. So they weren't surprised.

Like rushing one target but then being charged by another. It seems to me even if we forego the surprise roll, the footman's aggressive stance should collaspe as he is forced to suddenly turn and engage the horseman, after all he was chosing to be aggressive and charge the duelist. It sounds like both footman where either foolish to forget about the horseman

There were 5 footmen and 3 archers facing off 3 PCs and 2 NPC soldiers in their pay. Another PC was hiding in some bushes to shoot at the archers with a crossbow, and the last PC kept out of the battle.

So I had to impose some order of declaring actions to even decide who got to engage whom in melee. I choose ascending order of Reflex. Since the footmen and archers had Reflex 4 - less than any of the combatant PCs - they could in no way react to the knight's action. That is a BIG disadvantage already. Penalizing them further seems out of line to me.

Furthermore, the rules say nothing about stance working only vs. a particular opponent. Changing rules on the fly during combat is arbitrary and bad GMing style, IMO. The fact that it would have been to the benefit of the players doesn't change that.

or hated the duelist enough to take that chance to kill him. Anyway this is how I would of ran the encounter but I'm very intrested to hear how other people would apply the aggressive stance in this instant. Any ideas?

Another thing if I may nsruf, after rereading the account of the battle I think one terrian roll, by the Duelist, would of been enough.

The more I think about it, I should have gone with NO terrain roll. The declaration of the charge(s) was made prior to combat, to see who got to engage whom. For the 2 footmen, the duellist, and the knight, it resulted in a 2 vs. 2 melee. Which is not really supported by the rules: I should have broken it into two 1 vs. 1 without terrain rolls.

After the duelist avoids one of the footman, he is sort of in the open for the knight to lance him. Take a peek at the "Help a wargammer" post, which is still pretty close to the top, James Buchanan wrote a neat post about using a cinamatic approach to RoS, which not only makes for a more memorable game it might help streamline these more hectic fights.

I have problems with the cinematic approach. If I - as Seneschal - decide critical timing issues completely arbitrarily, I am basically dictating the outcome of the combat. I could as well just declare who lives and who dies.

I realize that I look at TROS combat very much as a gamist exercise. The melee rules lend itself to that POV extremely well, IMO, as - precluding SAs - success depends on player skill/mastery of the rules. Furthermore, I enjoy this kind of play (as do my players, I believe). But the fact that the TROS rules do not really support combat between multiple opponents on both sides* makes life difficult for me...

Or in other words, the system is apparently not intended to be used in a gamist manner. Now what do I do?

* The best you can do is 1 vs. many in melee. Beyond that, there are no rules for resolving timing and declaration issues.

[Prince of Thieves]

Surprise in Riddle of Steel isn't always really being "surprised" it's just as often a test to see if a combatant can adapt himself to the changes of the battle field on a seconds notice.

The footmen could see the knight coming for a full round. So they weren't surprised.

From the book pg. 75
Surprise is a common event-even when one is aware of an enemy.

Seeing the knight doesn't mean that he is aware of the knight on a second by second basis, the footman's attention was on the duelist.

Furthermore, the rules say nothing about stance working only vs. a particular opponent. Changing rules on the fly during combat is arbitrary and bad GMing style, IMO. The fact that it would have been to the benefit of the players doesn't change that.

While the rules don't say anything about stance applying vs only one opponent it does say "Stances only last until the first blow or movement-if the character's weapon moves the stance is broken" later it does soften a bit to describe a charge as giving the same bonuses as an agressive stance. But either way one of the footmen had to turn (or interupt their charge, whatever) to face the knight and when he started his charge the footmen didn't know whom he was going to end up lancing. Even a 1-on-1 fight is confusing IRL(and my experience don't include weapons and alot of bleeding). Imagine how crazy it would be 5-on-8! Add in the archers and horses and whoa what is happening?
Who is talking about the benefit to the PCs, I think the Knight was simply in the stronger position during this instance, that he is a PC doesn't really influence it much. I'd make my players bleed if they ignored (read all choose to charge the Duelist) the galloping Knight.

Anyhow have fun sorry if I got your goat.

[nsruf]

...and when he started his charge the footmen didn't know whom he was going to end up lancing.

Ok, but neither did the knight. We used terrain rolls for the knight and the duellist to see who they would end up fighting. And the footmen, being on the "receiving end" of the terrain rolls, got to decide whom they faced. It didn't really matter because they had identical stat blocks, but still: the knight was as unsure about his target as the footmen.

Even a 1-on-1 fight is confusing IRL(and my experience don't include weapons and alot of bleeding). Imagine how crazy it would be 5-on-8! Add in the archers and horses and whoa what is happening?

I hear this a lot on these boards, but never any actual advice on how to handle this rules-wise. Just assigning arbitrary penalties to some combatants and not to others is not my style.

Who is talking about the benefit to the PCs, I think the Knight was simply in the stronger position during this instance, that he is a PC doesn't really influence it much. I'd make my players bleed if they ignored (read all choose to charge the Duelist) the galloping Knight.

The knight wasn't galloping when the footmen declared their action. He was right behind the other PC and two NPC soldiers, who protected him from the other three footmen. This gave the knight one turn to ride away, turn, and charge. Since I allow declaration of intent only every three rounds (bascially I use a 6 second meta-combat round framework), there was no way the footmen could have reacted. All because of their lower initiative.

Anyhow have fun sorry if I got your goat.

Sorry if I came over as angry. I just wanted to give you my reasoning.

Using your proposal, combatants with low Reflex would never get a benefit from stance, because their opponents can always conveniently switch targets and claim "they didn't look out for ME". An altrenative solution would be to use stance only in situations involving a single melee.