Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: Marc R on January 09, 2011, 01:57:51 AM
-
The posting over here:
http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=10620.msg134593#msg134593
Got me thinking on this.
Assuming you have +50 in both weapons and TWC, but a magical Broadsword +20 and a magical dagger +10. . .
It's easy if you still attack. . .like you OB/DB for 20/30:
+30 DB, not doubled, counted once for both weapons.
20 (skill) + 20 (magic) = 40 OB Broadsword.
20 (skill) + 10 (magic) - 20 (off hand) = 10 OB dagger.
But, two oddities pop up
First, if you go full parry, and get the "Shield Bonus" for the weapons, does the -20 off hand penalty from the dagger preclude you from going more than 30 DB for "full parry"?
Second, if you go full parry for the shield bonus. . .do you get +5 for the sword, and +5 for the dagger for +10, or is the +5 added to both weapons giving you +55 and +35, before the "not doubled, counted once for both weapons" is applied, giving you just the +55?
-
IMHO the +5 goes into the total before you split it off. So full parry 50 in TWC, 50 in both weapons no ambidexterity. No natural DB of any kind.
Note: More ranks in off hand weapon to bring up its skill score to 50. The -20 off hand mod is applied to the skill so you do not have to remember it when in the middle of the game.
1) OB to work with is 50
2) Decide to go full DB now OB/DB is 0/55
3) Attack with weapon in primary hand is 0 attack with the weapon in the secondary hand is 0.
In the above example you are using the swords magic as offense only. I thought it was ruled that the material mods, magic mods and quality mods could be used as OB or DB?
If so then sword OB is 50+20= 70, dagger is 50+10=60
Q1) The TWC skill is IMHO where the problem is, is does it get a bonus from the weapons material or magical mods.
Proposed Answer: IMHO the TWC skill would get the lower of the two if at all. In my game in the past I have not provided any bonus to the TWC skill for material, magical or quality bonus's. So I guess my answer is 50 for TWC skill +10 as the lowest of the two bonus's for 60 OB for both weapons.
One point that was brought up in the past was that TWC should change as per the rules in the CC. IMHO this is a good decision to make, and deciding on if TWC allows an attack to be more damaging or two actual attacks at a penalty. Helps a lot in trying to solve the problem you are talking about.
MDC
-
Checking the description of TWC on p. 162 of RMSR, I am of the opinion that the -20 does not apply, since the skill already assumes the existence of a style where one weapon is used "normally" in the off-hand. You get the off-hand penalty if you switch the hands you use the weapons in... rapier/short sword versus short sword/rapier. The penalty for off-hand use appear on p. 96 under "One-Handed Weapons" where it talks about use of a single weapon, but does not appear on the same page under "Two One-handed Weapons". The specific rule on p.162 is that "The OB for each weapon attack is equal to the skill bonus for the Two Weapon Fighting skill for the combination of those two weapons." (emphasis added)
-
Note that TWC is capped by skill ranks in the weapons, not skill bonus as some posts have seemed to imply. Also, it uses different stats than weapon skills, so it is possible someone could have a better OB with TWC than with either weapon alone. (I do not think this is unrealistic.) This is really the only case where full parry TWC represents an advantage. Otherwise, one would full parry with the higher single-weapon OB and use the second weapon as a "shield".
This is for RMSS. The situation with RM2 was not so clear when it came to two-weapon fighting.
-
I just stated that by some happenstance all applicable skills were equal to avoid that entering the equation.
I think the off hand penalty still does apply to the off hand in TWC RMC, but I'll need to check the RMSS references. You are indeed correct, if the dagger is trained in the off hand in RMSS it gets no penalty, unless used in the primary hand, it specifically says so on p162.
Good catch on the magical bonuses MarkC, yes, that was off in the 2nd example, so it should be:
First, if you go full parry, and get the "Shield Bonus" for the weapons, does the -20 off hand penalty from the dagger preclude you from going more than 40 DB for "full parry"?
Second, if you go full parry for the shield bonus. . .do you get +5 for the sword, and +5 for the dagger for +10, or is the +5 added to both weapons giving you +75 and +45, before the "not doubled, counted once for both weapons" is applied, giving you just the +75?
I'm a little iffy on your answer Markc, if only because if there were two attackers, and you designated one weapon to parry each of them, you would be:
RMC +75 (sword) vs one, and +45 (dagger) vs the other at full parry, so even if the TWC "parry overlap on one foe" applied, it'd still be at least the +75 for the sword.
in RMSS it would be +55 (sword) and +45 (dagger) for engaging two foes.
The reason I ask about it perhaps being +80, is that if the person above were to go full parry with just the sword, they would get the shield bonus of the object in their off hand anyway. . .which would give +50 (sword skill) + 20 (magic) +5 (sword shield bonus) +5 (Dagger Shield bonus). . .which makes it strange that it would be worse in TWC than if using the sword solo with the dagger just offering the "passive off hand" shield bonus of +5. Per the note about passive shield bonus from the off hand, +80 is indeed what you'd get from the RMSS version vs one attacker, since the dagger bonus is lower, or you could choose to get +75 in exchange for rolling two +0 attacks.
Although, it might not actually work that way. . .since you're not allowed to devote negative OB to an attack in split, in RMSS TWC vs one attacker trying for full defense with the above numbers, you might get stuck with:
70 (total bonus) Sword 10/60 split, not full parry, no shield bonus +10 OB attack.
60 (total bonus) dagger 10/60 split, full parry +5 shield bonus +0 OB attack.
65 DB from the higher dagger value.
-
First, if you go full parry, and get the "Shield Bonus" for the weapons, does the -20 off hand penalty from the dagger preclude you from going more than 30 DB for "full parry"?
Yes, it does. If you still want the option of making two attack while parrying as much as possible with that option, then you are restricted by the lower of the two OBs. So in most cases it is the better choice to use only the OB of the primary weapon for parrying and forfeit the second attack (which most likely be of no use anyways with +0 OB).
Second, if you go full parry for the shield bonus. . .do you get +5 for the sword, and +5 for the dagger for +10, or is the +5 added to both weapons giving you +55 and +35, before the "not doubled, counted once for both weapons" is applied, giving you just the +55?
I think the +5 to DB should only be granted for weapons that attack with +0 OB (not counting material bonus) in the round. So only the dagger in this example.
-
Note that TWC is capped by skill ranks in the weapons, not skill bonus as some posts have seemed to imply.
Not that it matters much for this discussion, but the MAC defines this differently and uses a cap on the skill bonus. IMHO this (later) ruling is the better choice.
-
Checking the description of TWC on p. 162 of RMSR, I am of the opinion that the -20 does not apply, since the skill already assumes the existence of a style where one weapon is used "normally" in the off-hand.
We handled it this way for quite a long time since RoCo2 has IIRC a similar description. Only later, I think here in the forums, I heard that the -20 do apply. But I must admit that I can't find a reference now.
-
When you get into actions where there is a skill limitation, like TWC or Mounted Combat: I then take your skill only, cap that where the rule indicates (the lowest of the various required skills) and add any spell, item or other non-skill bonuses on top of that.
It would truly suck if you spent half your characters life looking for a powerful magic item (lets say a saddle) that, once found, would not give you any benefit due to combined skill caps.
-
(Hence the reason I made all the bonuses equal up front, as it adds complexity to what was already a complex mess.)
-
IIRC (I will get to my books after football today) in RMSS you have the following skill offhand weapon, skill primary hand weapon and TWC weapon primary, weapon secondary. You add the -20 into your off hand weapon skill, if this skill is less than your other skills you use that for 2WC IIRC again.
MDC
-
I could be mistaken, but I believe if you have a weapon skill for each hand individually and the TWC skill you don't take the -20 penalty. (Or maybe I'm just thinking that is due to taking ambidexterity?).
-
I could be mistaken, but I believe if you have a weapon skill for each hand individually and the TWC skill you don't take the -20 penalty. (Or maybe I'm just thinking that is due to taking ambidexterity?).
That's what I recall for TWC in 2nd Ed (which basically is 2 weapon skills added - not a third skill like in RMSS). You don't get the -20. You get a -25 though if you drop one of the two weapons in the combo ...
Regarding an earlier comment, if you limit a player to one "shield" bonus (the largest), I can see allowing odd combos like shield/shield, shield/sai, etc. Trade offensive for better defense.
-
I think vs one target you get the largest parry DB (they should be the same, but in some odd situations they won't be). . .but that the "Shield bonuses" stack.
Vs two foes, they apply in full to each foe, respectively. All Weapon A bonuses vs foe A, and All Weapon B bonuses vs foe B.
-
I think vs one target you get the largest parry DB (they should be the same, but in some odd situations they won't be). . .but that the "Shield bonuses" stack.
Vs two foes, they apply in full to each foe, respectively. All Weapon A bonuses vs foe A, and All Weapon B bonuses vs foe B.
I had thought RM was trying to avoid making weapon-specific type assignments (the round being a series of blows), so that the parry may be divided between two foes but not necessarily come from a specific weapon ...
-
If using broadsword/dagger in TWC, you get to roll one attack on the Broadsword table, and one on the Dagger table. .
If you chose to fight two people in one round, you roll the Main Gauche on one, and the Broadsword on the other. . ..you can't apply half the Broadsword result to each, and half the Main Gauche to each.
This is because attacks, and parry are declared on one opponent. . .so when you start the round you state "My character Jimmy-Two-hands is going to go 40 DB parry with TWC Broadsword/Main Gauche and he's going to attack Billy-Three-Fingers with his broadsword, and Able-The-Hammer with his Main Gauche."
In both versions the rule is "You must reduce both attacks equally the same parry DB"
In RoCo2 it states you can only get the parry of 1 weapon on one target, but on two each opponant can be parried against equally.
In RMSS is says you can indeed put the DB split as you see fit. . .
The complication would really only arise if you went full parry with two weapons of differing shield value. . .like if you had TWC Broadsword and Main Gauche and went full parry. . .I would think that in that instance, the shield bonus of +5 for the sword would apply to the sword attack target, and the shield bonus of +15 for the Main Gauche would apply to the MG target, rather than getting a +20 to DB vs both attackers for that shield value. I see it making sense to get the stacked shield value if TWC vs one target.
That based on the logic that you need to assign shield value to an attacker, so it's not regular parry DB in the same sense. . .I guess the RMSS text might mean that you can just toss the shield value into the DB pool and divy it up as you chose. . .I guess the RoCo2 text could be read to say you should add it up and split it, applying 10 DB of shield value to each foe. . .but both seem kinda weird to me.
But how often would that come up? (I can't recall it ever coming up).
On the attack side, if the Broadsword is +20 Quality, the MG is normal, if you make a 25/25 attack on two separate foes. . .I always thought it worked as:
Broadsword +25+20=45 OB attack
MG +25=+25 OB attack
Not that you'd make a +35 OB attack with each.
i.e. the non skill characteristics of the two weapons stick with the respective weapon and apply to the target selected for that weapon.
I could be mistaken, but that seems to make sense.
-
I think Etchelion, provided the same info above but here it is from the MAC page 27,
1) TWC must be developed for each 2 weapon combo (eg ss/ha rapier/dagger etc). The OB for each weapon attack is equal to the skill bonus for the TWC fighting skill combo of those two weapons or the individual weapon OB's, which ever is the lesser bonus.
Against 1 Opponent: There is no negative attack mod.
Against 2 Opponents: There is a -20 to each attack. Foes cannot have any positional bonus on attacker.
Parry or Special Attack: You must reduce the OB of each attack by the same amount. Against 1 opp the user increases his parry by the amount, against 2 opponents his parry must be split between the two opponents. Note (I underlined text)
Using Off Hand: The TWC is developed for specific hands and if used if the oposite hands the user receives a -20 off hand penalty.
Note: Some para-phrasing above.
Note 2: Some Combat Arts special abilities change the above IIRC such as the ability that lets you attack foes farther apart.
Thoughts:
1) I thought in terms of ease of use that it was ruled somewhere that you applied your full OB to each opponent and did not split it. But I am wrong according to the underlined portion above.
2) Note you only get to parry two foes IF you have TWC as per page 92 RMSS you can only parry the foe you attack.
3) I could see a special rule that said you could parry a foe with the shield bonus only and split your OB for your weapon against the foe you attack but IMHO this would be just a TWC weapon/shield. Which is very different than just using a shield passively. It also IMHO is the difference between a trained weapon/shield user vs a self trained shield user.
Lord Miller:
On your OB calculations most people add it all up on there sheets and use the total amount as their OB to split. I asked the same question and it was proposed for simplicity sake and a reason that it is not done the way you proposed above. ie the material, magical or quality bonus can be used for either offence or defense not just offence.
On special parry rules: IMHO you have to decide if the extra DB gain from using the weapon as a shield is a modifier to attack such as a positional modifier or does it modify the person OB for that weapon before you compair it to the other two skills, ie the other weapon and TWC.
If it is a positional mod then it is applied to that foe only and if it is a weapon mod then it is looked at with the other two weapon skills before you split your OB.
IMHO a free set of combat style rules that would replace the combat skills in the books, would clear up most of the problems above. But the main problem is trying to get one that will fit both RMC and RMSS.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any other Q's about the above.
MDC
-
It occurs to me that it might be best to average the OB bonuses of the weapons used in TWC. After all, while I must assign a given weapon to each roll as the one that gets in an actually effective blow, I'll have been using both throughout the exchange and even with two foes making some strikes/parries that cross my body. Obviously effects like extra crits need to be kept with the correct weapon, but it might be simpler and just as reasonable an abstraction from the complexities of actual combat to average OB to keep OB the same for each weapon and avoid things like not being able to full parry because my weapon bonuses don't match.
-
I concur it's strange.
It likely would be best to allow "full parry" to just assume both weapons are reduced 100%. . .it's not actually that exceptional. . .considering that if you go full attack with a +10 dagger and a +20 broadsword, it's not like the logic forces them into a parity where the broadsword must be reduced by 10. . .just because the rule says "reduce by the same amount of parry" it creates that odd part, but it seems contrary to the intention.
-
Yes I think there are a number of problem areas when you get down and look closely. The system was designed for simplicity but then things get added that cause problems with the original system. IE 1 weapon combat is simple, TWC causes some problems, Material's and other bonuses cause problems if you do not add it directly to the skill, parry bonus cause problems with TWC skill if different and magic weapon abilities cause some problems in TWC full parry mode.
MDC
-
System gets a little rocky when you use multiple attacks in any form. . .like a monster making an Large Grapple attack then ">" Large Bite. . .where ">" = and then another attack immediately, treated like it's the same percentage of activity. . .
So if the big scary makes a 100% attack, it effectively gets two 100% attacks for 100% rather than 200%. . .much like TWC essentially allows for.
If the monster has a 100LGr>80LBi . . .if it goes full parry, likely as GM I'd follow the same logic as rdan lays out above. . .a 0OB LGR, which if it succeeds, results in a 0OB Lbi. . .and grants 100 DB. . .not some wacky limit where the monster must assign at least 20/80 OB/DB to it's grapple in order to leave enough OB available in the equation in order to make the triggered bite attack possible since it's only 80 OB, and 100Db would make it a -20 OB attack if you were being a stickler for the rules. . .
It violates the letter of the RAW, but it makes more sense.
-
Throw out the TWC skill and make a rule for an off hand weapon instead. Something like:
Use of an off hand weapon allows an extra attack using the off hand weapons attack chart with a -20 OB. Any parry used by the main weapon to increase DB is also subtracted from the off hand weapon in addition to the -20. All penalties to activity that affect OB also are applied to the off hand weapons attack roll.
There ya have the basics. More can be added, such as Off Hand Weapon Attacks max at 120 on their attack tables. This represents the inability to strike as hard with the off hand as the dominant hand.
Whatever. Throw out the skill codify it in the rules.
-
the problem lies that how do you meter that into the activity. . .are you making two 50% attacks, one 100% attack with a "free" attack?
-
the problem lies that how do you meter that into the activity. . .are you making two 50% attacks, one 100% attack with a "free" attack?
Yep, a free attack.
Haste can become "one free action costing no activity."
If simplicity is the goal (as stated in another thread), then there is no need to remain married to adding complexity with extra activity and all that baggage.
A note: using an off hand weapon attack could require 100% activity, so your making two attacks that require 100% activity.
Personally, I would change the rules to something like this: an off hand attack has an innate -100 OB mod and maxes at 120 on the attack tables. TWC skill is applied to offset the -100 penalty and can never raise it above +0. All off hand weapon attacks have 3x normal fumble ranges, UM. All attacks using an off hand weapon require 100% activity. If two different weapons are used, the lower OB skill is used to calculate BOTH attacks. Any parry is subtracted from both attacks.
-
One of the reasons the rules get so irksome, is an effort to avoid questions like "Same OB even if the dagger is normal and the sword is +10?"
Simple is good, as long as it's not so simple it fills one hole and opens another.
-
Personally, I would change the rules to something like this: an off hand attack has an innate -100 OB mod and maxes at 120 on the attack tables. TWC skill is applied to offset the -100 penalty and can never raise it above +0.
That might be an option. OTOH it would change the cost structure for TWC and similar combat styles. With such rules character could use TWC only at later levels when they can have the ranks to finally bring the skill to 100, but then they are done and need no longer spend any DPs for improving the skill. With the current rules TWC can be used from the beginning, even with a perhaps low OB. But it has to be developed alongside the weapons to use, because otherwise the TWC OB would fall too far behind the weapon OBs and would never be used. So you're never done with the skill as long as you develop the weapon OBs.
All in all I think the current rules are the better choice. But - as we can see in this discussion - some clarifications in the rules are needed.
All off hand weapon attacks have 3x normal fumble ranges, UM.
I don't see the advantage of such a ruling. The off-hand weapon has a fumble range, and there is IMO no need to add a formula (however simple it may be) for fumble ranges for off-hand weapons.
-
Weapon OB continues to go up by training the weapon being used. There is no fall off.
Yes, once the skill is at 100, it doesnt need to be trained anymore. But tell me, how long does it take for a warrior to learn to fight with his left hand as good as his right? Additionally, is there a reason a warrior should gain some advantage to using his off hand over his dominant?
Many skills reach a point were further training is moot/impossible.
I'm just playing devils advocate.
-
Nobody's pulled out the tar and feathers, yet. . .no harm had in poking it, I'm a big lover of the devil's advocacy myself. . .it's just complicated, so odds are an elegant answer won't pop up off anyone's cuff. . .unless you have a eureka moment. . .short of one of those rare moments of pure genius, it'll come out of playing with the parts and looking at it from a lot of angles.
Back on the topic at hand. . .
Many people never get as good with the off hand as the primary, if it was casually possible to do so, then every player in baseball would be a switch hitter. . . heck, if it was even HARD to train up to equal or near equal ability there would be loads of switch hitters. The real world evidence would seem to indicate that it just may not be possible for most people to ever overcome their primary side bias completely.
-
But are not PC's special? Or at least different from the average Joe?
MDC
-
There's also a difference between using a weapon in your off hand and using a pair of weapons. Enough so that I'm not sure that the comparison is even useful.
For pairs of weapons - and most cases of two weapon use where the second weapon is use offensively and not for its "shield bonus" in game terms are a pair of the same weapon - simply doubling the number of hits delivered without any other change would be the simplest. So instead of a 7BS result, it would become 14BS. In this case, the advantage is relatively slight, such that forgoing the use of a shield is penalty enough. The real balance issue with TWC has always been that it allows two attack rolls, not fiddly OB issues. Maybe something similar could be done for mismatched pairs, like look up both results, do the hits from both and the better crit.
If you want a TWC that isn't a DP soak and somewhat complicated to ensure some level of balance, that's what I'd do with two weapon fighting.
-
A popular tactic with Sword-n-Dagger was to swap from parrying with the dagger and attacking with the sword, to parrying with the sword to attack with the dagger. . .which could easily be done with normal one hand combat rules to switch back and forth. . .but the feint benefit inherent in that swap-n-swap is absent in the rules. . .
Also, rather than dual attack, generally two weapon attacks vs one weapon one weapon was used primarily to parry, deflect and control the enemy weapon, while you stab or slash them with the other. . .which is exactly the full OB right hand/Full DB left hand scenario which the rules as is specifically are written to stop.
I think HARP actually distinguished the dual weapon attack method from the two weapon attack method.
-
I have spent pretty much time with two weapons in LARP combat, and the difficulty of TWC is very much that you can't have attention on more than one weapon at each moment. You can do practiced standard moves with your secondary weapon, but for the second weapon you must depend on lots of repetitive training for it to be of any use. The effectivity of TWC comes from that you can change what weapon that is the primary weapon and get a surprise attack. It is harder to use your off hand to parry with, but it is small thing compared to everything else that make combat hard to learn.
-
I have spent pretty much time with two weapons in LARP combat, and the difficulty of TWC is very much that you can't have attention on more than one weapon at each moment. You can do practiced standard moves with your secondary weapon, but for the second weapon you must depend on lots of repetitive training for it to be of any use. The effectivity of TWC comes from that you can change what weapon that is the primary weapon and get a surprise attack. It is harder to use your off hand to parry with, but it is small thing compared to everything else that make combat hard to learn.
I think this is an important historical observation in that you had to have time to train with TWC and maybe even a teacher to be good at it. It was far easier to train to use weapons 1H or a basic passive shield and weapon combo and most did so as they had other things they needed to learn.
I do not know but do the majority of TWC combat besides shield and 1H weapon, come when they had schools to train people or in the military where others had such training?
MDC
-
Split off the tangent on feint raised above:
http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=10633.0
Generally, it seems in the real world TWC was used either in the "Full DB left hand/full OB right hand" way, which the rules specifically stop, for good reason since it abuses the way RM combat works as a simulation. . .or it was used as a way to expand the potential for feinting, since the defender not only has to cover all possible motions of one weapon, but two possible vectors for attack. That said, in the end, only one opening comes up, and only one blow is struck with one weapon.
There are issues with getting too detailed in breaking out what you're doing during a melee attack, which makes me wonder if the idea of "TWC makes it harder for the defender to cover" isn't already in the system, essentially the parry rules for two handed weapons.
Say something like:
Both weapons use the TWC skill or the lower of the two skills (depending on which version of RM you're using).
VS Two foes
-20 to skill, TWC attacker must declare which weapon is directed to which foe, resolve as normal. Parry DB is gained in full vs both foes. (Or perhaps split, or raise the -20 penalty).
VS One attacker.
Declare the OB/DB split as normal from this skill, the TWC attacker only gets this parry DB once, not doubled
Any parry DB declared by a single target of TWC is halved to reflect the increased difficulty of covering two potential attacks.
If the two weapons differ in any way, when rolling the attack, an odd UM attack roll means the primary hand weapon is making the attack, an even UM attack roll means the secondary weapon is making the attack.
Reflects the fact TWC is harder to parry using a mechanism already in use for another context, and also the fact that the TWC attacker is using two weapons in order to increase their number of openings, but still only exploiting the best one that comes up, not making two attacks per declaration.