Slamming, Pouncing, and Shields

[LazarusDarkeyes]

This mechanic is giving our group some ridiculous results so I want to make sure we are playing a few things correctly as well as some questions that arose:


1) When a mount slams/pounces someone, while weight carried should probably slow the mount down due to encumbrance, should it get bonus ST/HP for purposes of resolving slam damage?
2) Do you get the shield DB to inflict crushign slam damage when you are the **target** of a slam/flying tackle/pounce/shield rush? Or do you only get the bonus when you are the attacker in a Shield Rush?
3) Do you ONLY get to take slam damage on your shield when you attack with a Shield Rush? So being the target of a shield rush doesn't let you take the damage on the shield?
4) Pouncing does some damage and may knockback. How do you pounce someone so that the end result is that you are on top of them (effectively have them pinned or can trample them).
5) Quote from the rules:
"If your damage roll equals or exceeds that of your foe, he must make a DX roll or fall down. You knock him down automatically if you roll twice his damage or more. If he rolls twice your damage or more, though, you fall down instead!"

zero x 2 = zero...

I COULD read this that is we slam/flying tackle/pounce/shield rush, and if both attacker and defender do zero damage, they both automatically fall as they both did 2x the damage the other did. Is this correct?


There will be follow-up questions, but their setup depends on the answers to these.

Thank you for any/all answers/clarifications.

[Diomedes]

Originally Posted by LazarusDarkeyes

1) When a mount slams/pounces someone, while weight carried should probably slow the mount down due to encumbrance, should it get bonus ST/HP for purposes of resolving slam damage?

That might be a good house rule, but it isn't RAW.

2) Do you get the shield DB to inflict crushign slam damage when you are the **target** of a slam/flying tackle/pounce/shield rush? Or do you only get the bonus when you are the attacker in a Shield Rush?
3) Do you ONLY get to take slam damage on your shield when you attack with a Shield Rush? So being the target of a shield rush doesn't let you take the damage on the shield?

There's a discussion of that buried in this thread, around page 4; the consensus seems to be that you only get to add your DB if it makes the difference between success and failure to defend. In that case it's the shield that takes damage, too, as in page B484.

4) Pouncing does some damage and may knockback. How do you pounce someone so that the end result is that you are on top of them (effectively have them pinned or can trample them).

I'd do an All-Out Attack (Slam and Grapple).

5) Quote from the rules:
"If your damage roll equals or exceeds that of your foe, he must make a DX roll or fall down. You knock him down automatically if you roll twice his damage or more. If he rolls twice your damage or more, though, you fall down instead!"

zero x 2 = zero...

I COULD read this that is we slam/flying tackle/pounce/shield rush, and if both attacker and defender do zero damage, they both automatically fall as they both did 2x the damage the other did. Is this correct?

No, that's equal damage, only the defender rolls.

There will be follow-up questions, but their setup depends on the answers to these.

Thank you for any/all answers/clarifications.

Hope I could help.

[LazarusDarkeyes]

Originally Posted by Diomedes

No, that's equal damage, only the defender rolls.

So is this first part correct...

Attacker HP x relative velocity ==> use Slam formula to determine crushing damage applied to defender
-Add +2 if was All-Out-Attack (Strong)
-Add +DB of shield if it was a Shield Slam
REMINDER: crushing damage can be reduced to 0 if there are negative modifiers (ex - 1d-3)


Defender HP x relative velocity ==> use Slam formula to determine crushing damage applied to attacker
-By strictest RAW, shield doesn't matter
REMINDER: crushing damage can be reduced to 0 if there are negative modifiers (ex - 1d-3)


And which of the following is correct... (or neither?)



Approach 1 (There is one set of conditions to check to see who falls):

IF (Attacker Damage >= Defender Damagex2)
Defender falls
ELSE IF (Attacker Damage >= Defender Damage AND Attacker Damage < Defender Damagex2)
Defender rolls DX or falls
ELSE IF (Attacker Damage x2 <= Defender Damage)
Attacker falls


Approach 2 (There are two sets of conditions to see who falls):

IF (Attacker Damage >= Defender Damagex2)
Defender falls
ELSE IF (Attacker Damage >= Defender Damage AND Attacker Damage < Defender Damagex2)
Defender rolls DX or falls

AND

IF Defender Damage >= Attacker Damagex2)
Attacker falls
ELSE IF (Defender Damage >= Attacker Damage AND Defender Damage < Attacker Damagex2)
Attacker rolls DX or falls


If the first approach is correct, that would explain why we are having odd results.

If the second approach is correct, then if they both roll zero damage, then they both fulfill their first IF clause so they would both fall down automatically.




Thanks!

[Diomedes]

Originally Posted by LazarusDarkeyes

So is this first part correct...

Attacker HP x relative velocity ==> use Slam formula to determine crushing damage applied to defender
-Add +2 if was All-Out-Attack (Strong)
-Add +DB of shield if it was a Shield Slam
REMINDER: crushing damage can be reduced to 0 if there are negative modifiers (ex - 1d-3)

Defender HP x relative velocity ==> use Slam formula to determine crushing damage applied to attacker
-By strictest RAW, shield doesn't matter
REMINDER: crushing damage can be reduced to 0 if there are negative modifiers (ex - 1d-3)

That looks right. The attacker can also get the skill bonus from Weapon Master (+1 or +2 to damage) and +1 for shield spikes.

Originally Posted by LazarusDarkeyes

And which of the following is correct... (or neither?)

...

If the first approach is correct, that would explain why we are having odd results.

If the second approach is correct, then if they both roll zero damage, then they both fulfill their first IF clause so they would both fall down automatically.

It's the first one.

[LazarusDarkeyes]

One Final Request for Clarification:

"Approach 1 (There is one set of conditions to check to see who falls):

IF (Attacker Damage >= Defender Damagex2)
Defender falls
ELSE IF (Attacker Damage >= Defender Damage AND Attacker Damage < Defender Damagex2)
Defender rolls DX or falls
ELSE IF (Attacker Damage x2 <= Defender Damage)
Attacker falls"

So, the attacker does not risk having to roll DX or fall if

defender's damage > the attacker's damage
AND
defender's damage < attacker's damagex2


?

[Diomedes]

Originally Posted by LazarusDarkeyes

So, the attacker does not risk having to roll DX or fall if

defender's damage > the attacker's damage
AND
defender's damage < attacker's damagex2


?

The attacker never rolls DX. If he only does half as much damage as his opponent, he falls down automatically, but otherwise, he's free and clear.