Topic: TWC and full parry

[Marc R]

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.

[yammahoper]

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. 

[Marc R]

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?

[yammahoper]

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. 

[Marc R]

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.

[Ecthelion]

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.

[yammahoper]

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.

[Marc R]

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.

[markc]

But are not PC's special? Or at least different from the average Joe?


MDC

[rdanhenry]

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.

[Marc R]

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.

[pastaav]

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.

[markc]

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

[Marc R]

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.