Topic: TWC and Martial Arts

[Marc R]

When learning TWC you are assumed to be learning two weapons, one for each hand.

When you learn martial arts you use both hands, both elbows, both knees, both feet, sometimes your head as weapons. . .

That's a lot of weapons all at once. . .would you allow martial arts TWC with just the one Martial Arts: Striking skill, or would you require left and right hand skills? What about feet?

[yammahoper]

If a player wishes his PC to fight short sword/short sword, do you make him train short sword for each hand?

If no, then one MA skill will do, unless the TWC is a stike and sweep, or strike/lock, etc.  Then both skills are needed.

[rdanhenry]

There's a reason people prefer weapons; they take a lot less training to be effectively deadly with than the human body. However, when it comes to coordination, the human body has a rather large advantage in that the human brain is evolved to control it. Added bits of wood and metal add on considerations for which the human brain is not structured. It requires adaptation to a different balance, the need to maintain a controlling (but not excessive) grip, the fact that you now have "appendages" with no neural feedback to either kinesthetic awareness or the sense of touch, and probably other factors I am not thinking of. I don't think there is a clear and definite real-world answer to your question, because you've got this issues that can allow arguing either way. So you need to think about game balance only, then slap on a rationalization if you need one.

Note that regular martial arts attack in Rolemaster do one attack roll in spite of using the entire body. It does not have the same advantage in game terms as TWC. Be wary of giving away too much. Maybe let an NPC have that advantage and if it seems overly tough when fighting the PCs, you'll know to disallow easy Martial Arts TWC in the future. OTOH, if someone wants to use two-handed stick-fighting and accepts treating it the same as any club, why not? Maybe even say it is equivalent to a staff if you are generous, but not a double attack roll.

[Ecthelion]

IMO unarmed combat in RM (and probably in many other RPGs) is hopelessly overpowered. Therefore I would never allow an additional attack, similar to TWC, for unarmed combat without another skill, e.g. a special Martial Arts Style, being learned.

Just my 2 cents

[markc]

 (Assuming RMSS MAC Rules or there about)
  IMHO you learn to use each weapon (ie one in each hand) then you learn to combine attacks. blocks etc (2 weapon combat). So it is a combo of both skills that make it effective or not in some cases.
 
 First the Martial Arts power issue: Yes it is over powered in most games so what I have done is when a person with martial arts does not have a hand to hand weapon vs a person with a hand to hand  weapon their DB is 1/2ed, but I would really like to make it 1/4 ed. There are exceptions to the rule above but that is mostly the case.
 Using the above rule I could go either way. 1 if I did allow a martial artist to use a duel weapon without the skills then I would give other MA's full DB vs it. For non MA opponents maybe I would 1/2 their OB or even 1/2 their rolled attack. If they simply used the paired weapon combo to increase their crit IMHO that is fine. But 2 attacks without some balance of additional skills IMHO is out the door and unbalanced.


 But I also like the option from the CC that you can have weapons simply increase the damage you do on a MA attack. So I might allow all options or work that option into the MAC Hand to Hand combat styles.
MDC


Yes it is tough and deadly to attack a person with a weapon who knows how to use it with out one.

[yammahoper]

1st Edition RM did not allow the unarmed to parry the armed.  I still use that rule.

A martial artist can use a weapon to parry with, but katas suffer a -20 OB penalty of course.

1/2ing a DB seems unfair.   

The hits for stikes are much to high.

Again in 1st edition RM, a martial artist, afetr his OB reaced a certain point, could automatically make extra attacks.  Each attack suffered a cumalative -20.

Of course twc suffers a -20 for off hand, and an additional -20 if two foes are attacked, so the innate penalty is higher than the original even if allowed with twc.

[providence13]

Weapon Length could have a role.
Maybe 1/2 Martial Arts OB (before the split) unless inside/outside the weapon length of the opponent. This would be hard to do with a 6-10 sec round. People move around all the time..

If you get in closer than the weapon is designed to attack, you might have an advantage.

[smug]

If a player wishes his PC to fight short sword/short sword, do you make him train short sword for each hand?

That was the default for two-weapon use in RM2/C, can't remember off-hand what happened with two-weapon combo skill rules, though.

[smug]

Looked up two-weapon combo as per RoCoCII, and in that you sum the development costs so it's the same cost as having to learn it for each hand (the benefit is that you don't pay the -20 cost, the downside is that you take a -25 if you only use one of the weapons).

Also, when looking through RoCoCIV, I misread the "Arcist" class as a "Racist" class, which seemed too much detail even for Rolemaster.

[Cory Magel]

If a player wishes his PC to fight short sword/short sword, do you make him train short sword for each hand?

In RMSS the answer to that question is YES if I am not mistaken.  To overcome that you can be ambidextrous however (background option, talent, whatever).

[smug]

If a player wishes his PC to fight short sword/short sword, do you make him train short sword for each hand?

In RMSS the answer to that question is YES if I am not mistaken.  To overcome that you can be ambidextrous however (background option, talent, whatever).

Doesn't ambidexterity just remove the -20 penalty? I have RMSS, but it's upstairs and I have a crawling baby to deal with down here; I think that in RM2/C, ambidexterity just means no penalty for off-hand use.

[markc]

 IIRC the rule is the Ambidexterity removes the -20 but as a House Rule I also let it remove the fact that if you use two weapons that are the same you only have to learn one skill. But again that is a house rule.
MDC

[rdanhenry]

I use two degrees of Ambidexterity, with the lesser version eliminating the -20 off-hand penalty and the greater version also providing training in either hand for the cost of the usual training in one hand.

[Old Man]

IIRC the rule is the Ambidexterity removes the -20 but as a House Rule I also let it remove the fact that if you use two weapons that are the same you only have to learn one skill. But again that is a house rule.
MDC

I considered the same house rule but instead, I have been moving toward a MERP-style weapon-category skills (1 HC, 1 HS, 2 H) rather than individual skills (Broadsword, Shortsword) so the DP spent for right and left isn't so bad. (Am considering rolling all Martial Arts into one skill as well, given I have few martial artists in game.)

Ciao,
Old Man

[smug]

It seems to me that ambidexterity is both too good (in game terms) if you allow it to remove the different-hand development requirement but also not very realistic. My father is ambidextrous and he had to practice bowling and batting (in cricket) left and right-handed to be good enough and obviously didn't, in practice, split his effort that way (there would be a bigger advantage in tennis, I guess, but there's only finite practice time in the day anyhow).

[Kristen Mork]

We've always house-ruled that switching a weapon to the off hand incurs a -20 penalty (i.e., you aren't reduced to 0 ranks unless you bothered to spend extra DP to learn off-hand use).  Obviously, not realistic, but a happy compromise.  The odds of needing to switch hands are pretty low, so the extra DP cost isn't worth it.  Until you suffer the wrong crit, in which case the RAW means you gambled and lost---now you're useless.  Nobody likes to play a useless character.

(You can argue that the player should have thought of that possibility.  But, he's expending a good chunk of DP into something that rarely happens, making him less useful than the next player willing to take the risk.)

In any event, ambidexterity (in our game) eliminates the -20 penalty.

[Cory Magel]

If a player wishes his PC to fight short sword/short sword, do you make him train short sword for each hand?

In RMSS the answer to that question is YES if I am not mistaken.  To overcome that you can be ambidextrous however (background option, talent, whatever).

Doesn't ambidexterity just remove the -20 penalty? I have RMSS, but it's upstairs and I have a crawling baby to deal with down here; I think that in RM2/C, ambidexterity just means no penalty for off-hand use.

Ambidexterity means you can use either hand just as well.  This means that if you are using two short swords you only need to develop one short sword skill.  You do, however, still need to learn the TWC skill.  You're just negating the 'off-hand' (-20) penalty and not having to develop the skill twice.

[Ecthelion]

Cory, is this true for RMSS/RMFRP too, that ambidextrity means that the off-hand does not have to be developed separately? I don't remember to have this seen in the RMSS rules, but I do remember the general rule that the off-hand needs to be developed separately.

[Kristen Mork]

In RMSS, the talent ambidextrous says nothing about not needing to develop each hand separately.  The RAW read: "You suffer no penalty when using your 'off' hand."  I read that to mean, no -20 penalty.  But, you still need to develop skill separately.

[Cory Magel]

Let me just ask a question.  What good does ambidexterity do if it does not allow you to do something in one hand just as well as the other?