Initially, I thought that the Knockdown maneuver was pretty weak, since all you had to do was get back up on your turn, and it’s not like you were going anywhere anyway.
Then I made the connection between “getting up” and “moving”, specifically, that you can’t get up if you can’t move, and you can’t move if you’re engaged, so you can’t get up if you’re engaged.
Am I understanding that correctly? Do you have to Overrun to get up while engaged? What about readying a shield or picking up an item from the ground or any of the other things listed under “Other Movement” (p 101)?
I interpret “You can’t move when engaged” as “you can’t move a distance, i.e. away from an opponent (without reatreating or withdrawing’).”
I have had some difficulty, too when the rules say movement - sometimes it means “moving a distance” and sometimes it means all movement (incuding speaking, i.e. moving your jaws, making hand gestures, standing up, mounting a horse, etc.).
But, the rules for Knock Down on page 109 state, “A prone combatant may get up on his round instead of moving, or crawl at a speed of 5’ per round.” I think I’d interpret the specificity of this rule as superseding the more general defensive movement rule.
After all, when is one going to be knocked down and not be engaged? Wouldn’t it typically be a maneuver that’s used while one is within melee range of their target? I suppose you could make the argument for certain ranged spells or pole-arms with reach being capable of delivering a knock down. But, I do not imagine that’s supposed to be representative of the common use case of the special maneuver.
Welcome to old-school rules. That’s why I had to ask
I don’t think these rules are specific, they’re just localized. “How fast can a PC crawl?” applies everywhere, it just happens to be listed here. “What kind of action does it take to stand up in combat?” is the same.
The combat chart in the back of the book supports this as well when you see that several of the things that you can do instead of Move or Attack are duplicated, but “stand up from being knocked down” is only in the Move section.
Regardless, though, I’m pretty sure Alex would be one of the few authorities on intent.
The rules are not exceptionally well-written in this case, and I apologize for the confusion.
Being knocked down in a melee should be one of the worst things that can happen to a combatant. Historically, it was a death sentence, or close to it. Achieving a knockdown in ACKS is quite hard to do: You have to hit the target at -4. Then the target gets to make a saving throw.
On the alternative interpretation of the rules, all a knockdown achieves is that attackers lucky enough to strike the knocked-down target between the time when he is knocked down and the time when he stands up receive a bonus to hit. True, the character cannot move the next round, but since he was engaged he couldn’t have moved anyway, unless he was running away.
The rule states that “a prone combatant may get up on his round instead of moving, or crawl at a speed of 5’ per round. If he attacks while prone, he suffers a -4 penalty on his attack throw.” These should be understood as presenting three alternatives: stand up; crawl; or attack while prone.
The more generous interpretation (that a character can get up and then attack) would make the ability to attack while prone at -4 completely irrelevant: Why would you ever do it, when you can stand up immediately and still attack?
How would it work with the fighting withdrawal or retreat declarations? I suppose that you cannot crawl as fast as you walk, but could it be possible to crawl enough to disengage from combat, and pray for high initiative in the next turn to stand up?
I had thought before on a character dual wielding a whip in the off hand, to make the knock down maneuver at -1. Is this math correct? (-4 for knockdown, +2 for whip, +1 for using two weapons?)
OMG! Whip-cheese! Actually, if you have the Two-Weapon proficiency, that eliminates the penalty entirely. (+2 for whip, +1 for two weapons, and +1 for proficiency) Awesome!
That said, if I was the DM, I think I’d insist that they use the whip as the primary to get the +2. (Just because.)
Don’t forget Combat Trickery (Knock Down), to bring it to a net positive of +2 But yeah, this is a great improvement to tripping. Has some interesting implications for thief strategy in the sort of phalanx fighting we see a lot at low levels, since you can backstab prone opponents. Whip-fighter in front, spear-thieves in the second rank who can backstab with reach.
[quote="Alex"]
These should be understood as presenting three alternatives: stand up; crawl; or attack while prone.
[/quote]
Just so I understand here, "Crawl" here is an action distinct from "Move?"
If so, an engaged knocked-down character could crawl 5' away, perhaps towards the rear of a front line, allowing a space for another character to move in/step up on their initiative into engagement with the monster that knocked-down the first character therefore placing themselves between the monster and the prone/crawling ally?
That being the case, it seems to me that Combat Trickery (Knockdown) should find its way onto the Thief's Class Proficiency list. It's a far more effective choice than Combat Trickery (Disarm) under those circumstances.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Disarm seems like a poor choice for a thief anyway. Knocking an opponent's weapon away seems a perfectly swashbuckler-y, Errol Flynn thing to do, but that's not the feel of the B/X Thief, who doesn't have the hit points to stand toe-to-toe and trade quips about who's left-handed.
But taking a knight's legs out from under him so your mates can gather 'round and stab him to death? That sounds like just the approach for a pack of thieves in the old-school tradition.
That's very persuasive. I did have the Erol Flynn notion in mind when I gave thieves Combat Trickery (disarm) but your argument above makes good sense....
Is it? To me, the real use of Knockdown for a Thief is opening up an opportunity to Backstab. However, outside of an occasion where the Thief could already Backstab, the chances of a Thief succeeding at a Knockdown are not very good (yes, they would be a bit better with Combat Trickery: Knockdown). Plus, if it's the Thief that performed the Knockdown, the target only has to stand up before the Thief can attack again to avoid a Backstab. From what I've seen in play, far more useful has been someone else performing a Knockdown (or Force Back, or Wrestling), and the Thief holding his Initiative until that occurs, at which point they can Backstab.
Most of the good takedowns I know about revolve around leverage and misdirection, two things at which thieves could conceivably excel. One of the simplest of all takedowns involves one party crouching unseen behind the victim, while a partner shoves him backwards.
I agree with you about the need for more than one attacker in order to make use of the trick, but thieves already can be presumed to run in packs, especially at lower levels.
The way I see it, a single thief vs. a fighter of equal level should be in for a tough time, unless his level is high enough for him to reliably go into Predator-mode. Otherwise, thieves excel when they can alter the terms of the fight in their favor. Takedown synergizes with that strategy better than disarm, so long as you've got a buddy or four waiting in the wings.
Hm. So, more than one attacker holding initiative to make a coordinated maneuver on a single opponent, say, disarm, force back, knockdown, wrestling...?
A penalty to the resultant saving throw for each attacker making their attack throw to contribute? Each successful attacker increases the 'virtual size' of the instigator vs. the opponent so as to follow the size/shape recommendations on pg 10?
-2 per instigator would match up -> 2 men would produce a -4, thus emulating a Large creature as per D@W sizing.
I'm not sure about the initiation of the maneuver - the percentage chance of success (even at a -4) with up to perhaps 6 thieves on one target should go up for middling ACs quite a bit, not at a place where I can calculate it right now.
These should be understood as presenting three alternatives: stand up; crawl; or attack while prone.
-Alex
Just so I understand here, "Crawl" here is an action distinct from "Move?"
If so, an engaged knocked-down character could crawl 5' away, perhaps towards the rear of a front line, allowing a space for another character to move in/step up on their initiative into engagement with the monster that knocked-down the first character therefore placing themselves between the monster and the prone/crawling ally?
[/quote]
I just read throught the Conditions document & remembered I never got a response to this query.
And I can be a bit dense, but the Conditions document as it stands doesn't provide me with any illumination.
I actually had meant to find this thread too after skimming the Conditions document, since the description of Engaged contradicts the description here and I wanted to ask if that was an intentional change.
But yeah, this is a great improvement to tripping. Has some interesting implications for thief strategy in the sort of phalanx fighting we see a lot at low levels, since you can backstab prone opponents. Whip-fighter in front, spear-thieves in the second rank who can backstab with reach.