Repelling charges

[Glorelendil]

We're also going to need to add Jousting to tournaments, clearly.

That's just 1-on-1 charges until someone falls off.

Uh, yeah. But there aren't any rules for charge vs. charge. At least, not any that result in unhorsing each other. I have some thoughts on this but have to put a toddler to bed. More later.

EDIT: Ok, I'm back.

For Tournament jousting we'd need something to force a Riding check upon being hit, instead of only when the rider in unconscious or takes a knockback, and somehow the TN should scale with the skill of the attacker. AND it needs to be usable in real, not just tournament situations.

So something like, "A rider charging another rider may attempt to Unseat his opponent. Attacks are resolved normally, except that a successful hit forces the other rider to make a Riding check. Additional successes increase the TN of the check by 2 instead of causing additional damage. In a Tournament situation, Pierces are ignored.*"

*And to preempt dissertations on the dangers of historical jousting: this is a game, not history.

[Rich H]

I think this is a really good point and why house rule additions should be approached with caution as you could create something that later impacts on a rule of even a race/role ability further down the line.

Yes. But I don't think that should stop Loremasters from making spot rulings... if there's a bunch of heroes/NPCs and everyone's got a Great Spear and they're all huddled in a group, then maybe everyone gets to make a TN 14 Weapon test and if everyone succeeds then the charge is broken up and regular hand-to-hand occurs.

But the players need to know that was a spot ruling to cover a one-time situation, and that things might change in the future.

I agree, but a one-off and one-time ruling wasn't the subject of the OP so what you've suggested above is something different to what was initially being discussed which expressed curiosity at what could be some missing rules. I mean, you yourself posted how such rules could appear later.

You could even use Valour to resist an oncoming charge; which I'd much prefer to a straight weaponskill test.

[zedturtle]

I agree, but a one-off and one-time ruling wasn't the subject of the OP so what you've suggested above is something different to what was initially being discussed which expressed curiosity at what could be some missing rules. I mean, you yourself posted how such rules could appear later.

Yeah, I was just having a bit of fun exploring the spectrum.

You could even use Valour to resist an oncoming charge; which I'd much prefer to a straight weaponskill test.

Interesting. Quite interesting, actually, since Valour (and Wisdom) is about as close to 'level' as we get in TOR. I like that idea.

[Robin Smallburrow]

Definitely agree that to repel a charge requires a Valour test first - Valour is one of the most under-utilised stats in the game IMHO - recall how many of the uruks fled from the charge of the Rohirrim at the Pelennor! It's a brave thing to do, facing down a charging horse....

Which brings me to a question, what about adversaries (such as Uruks) that don't have Valour??
Robin S.

[Falenthal]

Definitely agree that to repel a charge requires a Valour test first - Valour is one of the most under-utilised stats in the game IMHO - recall how many of the uruks fled from the charge of the Rohirrim at the Pelennor! It's a brave thing to do, facing down a charging horse....

Which brings me to a question, what about adversaries (such as Uruks) that don't have Valour??
Robin S.

Adversaries use their Attribute level instead, as far as I understand.

[Rich H]

I agree, but a one-off and one-time ruling wasn't the subject of the OP so what you've suggested above is something different to what was initially being discussed which expressed curiosity at what could be some missing rules. I mean, you yourself posted how such rules could appear later.

Yeah, I was just having a bit of fun exploring the spectrum.

Apologies, I didn't realise.

You could even use Valour to resist an oncoming charge; which I'd much prefer to a straight weaponskill test.

Interesting. Quite interesting, actually, since Valour (and Wisdom) is about as close to 'level' as we get in TOR. I like that idea.

Cool; I do like to use Valour for these kind of things as well as Widom (and Vigour in my houseruled-to-buggery campaign) as they seem to cover situations that skills don't feel they should. Also, in this case, using Valour wouldn't rely on everyone having a Spear weaponskill which I don't think should be needed for standing as a group and resisting a charge; I want that to be more about courage in such circumstances.

[aramis]

We're also going to need to add Jousting to tournaments, clearly.

That's just 1-on-1 charges until someone falls off.

Uh, yeah. But there aren't any rules for charge vs. charge. At least, not any that result in unhorsing each other. I have some thoughts on this but have to put a toddler to bed. More later.

Better reread Horse Lords, Rich. Bottom of 136 to top of 137 - charging - there is notation that they go in initiative order.

So two joust... initiative is determined normally, one will try, then the other.
If hit, it's probably just endurance loss... but a lot of it.

And as for falling... Sidebar, 138. Any of the following force a riding test or fall.
the horse being injured, Knockback (halving the End Loss), or Passing Out from Endurance Loss.

A typical blunted lance joust would be probably a spear with pierce reduced to <G> and a called shot of forced knockback;

[Glorelendil]

Better reread Horse Lords, Rich. Bottom of 136 to top of 137 - charging - there is notation that they go in initiative order.

So two joust... initiative is determined normally, one will try, then the other.
If hit, it's probably just endurance loss... but a lot of it.

And as for falling... Sidebar, 138. Any of the following force a riding test or fall.
the horse being injured, Knockback (halving the End Loss), or Passing Out from Endurance Loss.

A typical blunted lance joust would be probably a spear with pierce reduced to <G> and a called shot of forced knockback;

Ok, but you just created a rule for tournament jousting. And you still need rules for determining initiative order for a joust. (Unless you want to let them sneak up on each other, I guess...)

I'm not saying there aren't a bunch of elements that COULD be used for tournament jousting already in the rules, just that it's not quite all the way there.

EDIT: And, as has been discussed in another thread, you can't give a weapon a Called Shot of a forced Knockback because it makes it far to easy to lock down a powerful adversary, preventing it from ever attacking. Game breaking mechanic. So I guess you could say "When this weapon is used in a charge it has a new, unique Called Shot..." but that feels too contrived/fiddly for TOR.

[aramis]

Better reread Horse Lords, Rich. Bottom of 136 to top of 137 - charging - there is notation that they go in initiative order.

So two joust... initiative is determined normally, one will try, then the other.
If hit, it's probably just endurance loss... but a lot of it.

And as for falling... Sidebar, 138. Any of the following force a riding test or fall.
the horse being injured, Knockback (halving the End Loss), or Passing Out from Endurance Loss.

A typical blunted lance joust would be probably a spear with pierce reduced to <G> and a called shot of forced knockback;

Ok, but you just created a rule for tournament jousting. And you still need rules for determining initiative order for a joust. (Unless you want to let them sneak up on each other, I guess...)

I'm not saying there aren't a bunch of elements that COULD be used for tournament jousting already in the rules, just that it's not quite all the way there.

EDIT: And, as has been discussed in another thread, you can't give a weapon a Called Shot of a forced Knockback because it makes it far to easy to lock down a powerful adversary, preventing it from ever attacking. Game breaking mechanic. So I guess you could say "When this weapon is used in a charge it has a new, unique Called Shot..." but that feels too contrived/fiddly for TOR.

The only "rule" created would be for the lance. All the rest is simply applying extant rules.

As for who has the initiative, TOR 2E, page 170, bottom of LC to top of RC. Specifies opposed battle rolls.

Keep in mind - lots of jousts were not lance charges... Many weren't even mounted. (Jousting has become nearly synonymous with lance tournaments, but it really shouldn't have.)

So, using JUST rules as written...
It's a 1-on-1 battle, with unclear initiative... so, applying the RAW, battle rolls. Winner gets initiative.
Preparatory dice.
First Charge - Initiative holder ride test; on success, attack test. If no wound nor KO, other rider makes ride test and on success attack test.
Wheel and turn: as per rules, this doesn't happen.
Go to close quarters... or willingly disengage. (Which, in a friendly joust, everyone would have agreed to the terms prior.)

The only actual rule needed to make it feel right would be to allow mounted vs mounted to willingly allow a wheel and turn for a new pass. Sooner or later, one or the other will be KO'd or fall off. Actually, if all the

Being knocked back is, RAW, always the target's choice... but when mounted, it's a risk of falling.

On thinking about it, I can see a called shot knockback as being too potent for a weapon. It is, however, exactly what a non-fragile tournament lance is for. In the context of a mounted charge, forcing them to make a ride test but take half damage? Perfectly mimics the punch...

[Glorelendil]

Somehow I knew this would devolve into the black pit of historical accuracy.

Anyway, yes: the missing "rule", whether it appears in the called shot of a new weapon or elsewhere, is something that forces a Riding test. I would argue it should be usable in or out of tournament, with any weapon. Something where you trade damage/Wounds for a chance to unseat.

EDIT: Oh, and yes simply rolling Combat would work well enough. I was envisioning something where it's possible, but not inevitable, for the attacks to be simultaneous. Somehow have resolution work where both, either, or neither getting unhorsed are all possible outcomes. And aesthetically I'd rather not have it simply be "keep hitting each other until somebody goes unconscious", although certainly the Weary condition makes it more fun.