I am new to TROS and would like to hear some experience and hints on the following setup:

Setup: A mounted (destrier) full plate knight with a lance wants to attack a footman with a sword. The footman has a slightly larger combat pool, thus with the bonuses from mounted combat both fighters have about the same number of dice.

1. Should the knight win combat by lengths?
2. What can the knight do in order to win quite safely (not risky)?
3. When comparing charge and non-charge, up to our session yesterday, I thought that charging is quite safe (riding skill on 3), since the footman is dead before he can do anything. However, the footman was agressive, too, won the reflex contest, and hit the horse's legs. Then the lance hit him, and the footman was dead. Fine so far, but the horse had a level 3 wound, a bit more damage, and the knight would probably be dead.
4. When the knight charges, what is the best for the footman to do? (One extreme: Full evade, other extreme: red die, hope to win reflex test can hit before the lance hits (is this correct?).
5. When charging, can a knight do anything in order to protect his horse? (sim. block and strike only works vs. attacks against himself, doesn't it?)
6. Is not charging safer then (even with a lance), since combat dice can be saved for the horse to avoid blows?

What is your experience with mounted knight vs. footman?

Get of Beasts and Men. It has some mounted combat rules that might answer your questions I probably shouldn't put up on here. Though under the jousting rules it's extremely easy to be unhorsed, which seems to have been a rare occurence historically. (I say proper military saddles give +4 dice to the staying mounted roll).

First, I'd agree about the military saddles.

To the original question, don't forget the CP penalty or dice penalty in general for reach differences between the weapons. The foot man will have a big CP penalty because of the range difference between a sword and lance. I think in previous discussions, the general consensus is that this CP penalty should affect buying initiative or a reflex contest. Thus the knight has a large advantage in reach and it is unlikely that the footman could get an initiative advantage on the knight. Best strategy for the footman is to parry or counter the lance thrust, then attack...or just full evade...

If the footman does manage to get inside the knights lance, then the footman would have the advantage in reach and the knight would have the CP penalty to hit the footman. In fact, if the foot man did manage to chop at the horse's legs, the knight would probably only be able to use the but of his lance to bash the footman on the head (the CP penalty...). Best strategy for the knight would probably be to ride away and come back for another go...if possible, or drop the lance and use a hand weapon.

I don't think the knight could really do much to defend his horse, besides making a terrain role or ride roll to maintain his distance and prevent the footman from ever getting in range for an attack..NT

Get of Beasts and Men. It has some mounted combat rules that might answer your questions I probably shouldn't put up on here.

To the original question, don't forget the CP penalty or dice penalty in general for reach differences between the weapons. The foot man will have a big CP penalty because of the range difference between a sword and lance.

I would apply the range penalty to the reflex check. The footman has a lot of ground to cover. I think this has come up before in some discussions on initiative.

NT

I agree that the reach penalty of lance vs. sword should be accounted for in the reflex check.

I think perhaps, the reach of the Lance should be reduced by 1 (or 2) if the footman is attacking the horse. After all the horse's body is not nearly as far away from the head of the lance as the knights is.

Valamir wrote:
I think perhaps, the reach of the Lance should be reduced by 1 (or 2) if the footman is attacking the horse. After all the horse's body is not nearly as far away from the head of the lance as the knights is.

A bit off subject but...

Caz wrote: Though under the jousting rules it's extremely easy to be unhorsed, which seems to have been a rare occurence historically. (I say proper military saddles give +4 dice to the staying mounted roll).

Just read em really, good to hear

I was the GM in the above situation. Maybe a full description of the situation is helpful:

***

The melee involved 2 PCs and 2 NPC footmen. The footmen were charging PC #1, a competent duellist, who chose a defensive stance. The knight (bensei's character) had ridden away from the battle, waiting for an opportunity to charge. He decided to help out the other PC, and all 4 combatants met simulatenously. Thus, stance was in effect for all - just in case anybody wonders why the footman went offensive on a charging knight.

Both the duellist and the knight made their terrain rolls to face only a single opponent. Since I let the other side decide how to split in such a case, one footman took on the knight and the other the duellist. The knight also made a second terrain roll to limit the bout to a single exchange (using the rules from OBAM).

Since the footman was in offensive stance, he decided for the riskier maneuver and did a simultaneous block/strike with 7 dice for defense and 3 for attack (CP 10, 8 in armor, 10 again for attacking from offensive stance). The knight simply attacked with everything. I did not penalize the Reflex check for weapon reach, so the footman won and struck first. Because of reach, he had 1 die to swing at the horse's legs, which succeeded and caused a level 3 wound to the thigh.

The horse kept its footing easily and the knight hit with his lance despite the 2 dice reach disadvantage and shock penalty. That was the end of the footman...

***

In retrospect, applying the reach penalty to the Reflex check seems like a good idea. But the situation was somewhat extreme anyway, as the footman was on the offensive - something he wouldn't have done had he known that the knight would single him out.

BTW, I think we forgot the +1 bonus to Reflex the knight should have gotten for a thrusting attack.

Nitpicking:

If I remember correctly, you can only have twice as many dice on attack as you have on defence when sim. strike/blocking. Thus, 7 def/3 att is not allowed.


On another note, you say you have OBAM. Do you use the ride-by maneuver? In that case, the knight would have the initiative without any reflex roll.

Two things.

First, I think as noted before, the reflex check should have been penalized.

Second, I don't know of any rule for this, but I think the knight IRL would probably lose any charging advantage if he actually did lose the reflex check. Maybe he wouldn't lose the advantage of momentum but once the footman was inside the range of the lance, I think it would be next to impossible to both attack with the head of the lance and get an advantage from the horse's movement. You could visualize it as the knight either 1) rushed past and bonks the footman on the head with the lance shaft or 2) actually stops and turns and repositions and stabs with the head of the lance.

Does that make sense...?

Mokkurkalfe wrote: If I remember correctly, you can only have twice as many dice on attack as you have on defence when sim. strike/blocking. Thus, 7 def/3 att is not allowed.

On another note, you say you have OBAM. Do you use the ride-by maneuver? In that case, the knight would have the initiative without any reflex roll.

toli wrote: First, I think as noted before, the reflex check should have been penalized.

Second, I don't know of any rule for this, but I think the knight IRL would probably lose any charging advantage if he actually did lose the reflex check. Maybe he wouldn't lose the advantage of momentum but once the footman was inside the range of the lance, I think it would be next to impossible to both attack with the head of the lance and get an advantage from the horse's movement. You could visualize it as the knight either 1) rushed past and bonks the footman on the head with the lance shaft or 2) actually stops and turns and repositions and stabs with the head of the lance.

Does that make sense...?

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?

nsruf wrote:
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?

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?

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.

Prince of Thieves wrote: 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.

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 ;)

bensei wrote: 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.

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

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.

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

Starshadow wrote: 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.

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...
;)

Prince of Thieves wrote: 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.

nsruf wrote:

Prince of Thieves wrote: 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.

nsrfu wrote:
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.

Prince of Thieves wrote: ...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.

Alright, I think we may finally have a mental picture about this scene that is almost the same. Now past some of the earlier confusion.

You said earlier

nsruf wrote: ...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.

toli wrote:

bensei wrote: 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 wrote: Also as the 1-on-1 fights begin you THEN have people toss (red/white I mean), in doing so the footman isn't locked into a red toss (attack). And then declare actions as approiate.

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

So there is simply no use in saving dice, even if the knight is naked, is it?

I allow buing init from the unused pool only, as an added penalty for overextending. Unfortunately, that doesn't make it a very viable option for the incompetent knight;)

Turin wrote: 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.

Ever ridden a horse?