Topic: Bastard sword parrying against 1H weapons while being handled 2Handed

[Puin]

Hello everybody,

I know what game mechanics and metagaming are but I was just asking myself about this question, if sometimes logic should go above rules. I know sometimes balance should rule and so rules are as they are and “logically” changing them may severely throw off the balance.

Anyway, I’ve just started with a 3lvl Barbarian and I decided to go for the Bastard 1Handed and 2Handed as well. Our group is not fond for this weapon as you have to develop two different skills and, at low to mid levels, you tend to use the best skill you are at and forget the other (where you have already invested some DPs).
But I love the idea, and the image, of changing my grip on the weapon and change the attack from 1H to 2H and vice versa, at my will!!!!
Just when I was checking that the Broadsword is, generally, better than the Bastard 1H and that the 2H Sword is way better than the Bastard 2H I had a logical though that may boost the Bastard.

It all goes about parrying.
We all know that 1H weapons can trade 100% of the OB to DB while 2H weapons vs 1H can trade up to 50% of the OB to DB (I’m not discussing how to do so in this post), we logically presume that 2H are longer and heavier and slower than the 1H and so they get this penalty.

But what about the Bastard? It can be handled 1H against other 1H and all of his OB can be traded to DB without penalty.
But what when it’s handled 2H? Why can’t we still trade all the 2H OB to DB against 1H weapons? I know it’s the rule but as the Bastard 2H has some penalties (-10 OB against none, soft and hard armors and -5 OB against chain and plate) and always capped at a maximum 140 attack result we can presume it is not as large and heavy as the standard 2H weapons and so, logically means it’s faster and lighter than them.

My proposal is that the Bastard 2H can trade OB to DB against 1H weapons without penalty, as it can be when it’s handled 1H.
That way the Bastard will be a more rounded weapon.

As always, I’m waiting for your opinions and experience.

Best regards,

[Cory Magel]

I think this will be a GM call really.  To keep it simple I'd probably say when you're wielding it one handed you use the one handed rules and when you're wielding it two handed you use the two handed ones. From there I'd you can only alter your grip when your initiative comes up.

[Hurin]

We had an interesting discussion of this recently, and some posters were saying that in reality, it is easier to parry with larger weapons, because they are longer, heavier, and, well, larger.

You can try this at home too. Pick up a kitchen knife a d try to block a blow with a big stick from it. Now pick up a broom and try to do the same. It will be easier with the broom. RM2 kind of got this wrong. It shouldnt be harder to parry with larger weapons.

[B Hanson]

Hurin, I'm back so it's time to re-engage our debates!!!  We've had lots of discussions about this too. However, I would suggest that you might be conflating "parrying" with "combat sphere". While it seems that it would be easier to defend against a knife with a two handed sword, it's not that the sword is effectively "parrying", it's that the sword allows a large controlled area around the wielder that is difficult for the knife wielder to enter and close for an attack. Wouldn't the slower movement and momentum of a large weapon make it harder to respond directly to a smaller weapon's faster more agile attack?

OTOH, if Rolemaster's baked in a number of defensive attributes to a weapon, it makes sense that larger weapons should have a BONUS to parrying. Imagine someone with a nunchaku or flail that focuses on spinning their weapon in a protective arc to prohibit an opponent from closing.

We went a different direction. We use the initiative roll to establish which combatant has "control" (or optimal spacing). From there weapon size determines a penalty to OB, not DB. So, for instance, a dagger wielder wins initiative against a halberd wielder, it means they have closed to that opponent. They attack normally, while the halberd wielder is at a penalty due to the difficulties of a larger weapon striking a target close by. Our way is more complicated, but adds context rather than just hand waving it into the abstract concept of DB. I wrote about it a few years ago here: https://www.rolemasterblog.com/initiative-third-leg-rm-combat-stool/

[Hurin]

Hurin, I'm back so it's time to re-engage our debates!!! 

So glad to hear you are back! We have missed you, both here and on the Blog.

We went a different direction. We use the initiative roll to establish which combatant has "control" (or optimal spacing). From there weapon size determines a penalty to OB, not DB. So, for instance, a dagger wielder wins initiative against a halberd wielder, it means they have closed to that opponent. They attack normally, while the halberd wielder is at a penalty due to the difficulties of a larger weapon striking a target close by. Our way is more complicated, but adds context rather than just hand waving it into the abstract concept of DB. I wrote about it a few years ago here: https://www.rolemasterblog.com/initiative-third-leg-rm-combat-stool/

That is certainly one way of doing it, and it makes sense.

We have a simpler way of doing it, using a hex grid and the concepts of reach, zones of control, and opportunity attacks. We are of course using the DnD system as the basis. In order to land an attack, the dagger-wielder will actually have to close the two-hex gap and move adjacent to the Halberd wielder (i.e. spending ap to move into his zone of control), which means the Halberd wielder will get to attack first (so long as he wins initiative or the dagger wielder is so reckless in closing that he provokes an opportunity attack). After the dagger wielder has closed, though, he can attack as normal.

We did contemplate some sort of attack penalty (which of course is in a way also a parry penalty) for reach weapons when they are attacking an adjacent square, but in the end it seemed a bit punitive.

I still did like the idea of making two-handed weapons harder to parry (due to their added length and weight), but in the end too, it proved probably a little too complicated.

[Spectre771]

Option :  Use the Estock!!   Arms Companion.  It is now my favorite weapon and it does Puncture Crits!   Who doesn't love a good puncture crit?

As for the Parrying and the OB, it comes down to what is left over when you make your attack.  You still get to make an attack at +0 OB if you go full parry and which attack table you are going to resolve the attack on.

A)  If you want to go full parry with 100% OB, that implies you've used the sword as a 1H weapon and therefore resolve on the 1H attack table with +0 OB

B)  If you want to attack on the 2H attack table, then you can only parry at 50% and therefore have +50% OB to your attack.  You don't get to have your cake and eat it too; full 100% DB but resolve damage on 2H table.



It's not so much a discussion of DB and parrying skills and sphere influence, etc.  It's what the intent is.  Even if you are using a 2H sword and you want the 100% parry bonus to DB, then whatever is leftover is going to be pathetically weak as the 2H is by the very nature, heavier and longer, whatever.  If you've committed yourself to a full out defense with this weapon then want to pull off an attack as well, even if you hit, it's won't be as effective and would probably do considerably less damage if you connected. 

(i.e.: It would probably hit with effectiveness of a 1H sword with a +0 OB rather than a 2H weapon.  At the very least, same penalties of wielding a 2H weapon 1H, I would assume since you are trying to parry with it as if it were a 1H weapon.)

Long 2H weapon vs. Shorter 1H weapon:  This is directed more at the sphere of influence.  It would appear that a longer weapon is better at parrying, but as BHanson stated, it's not so much parrying as it is controlling a sphere of influence.  The 1H (or even paired weapons) are lighter and quicker allowing the wielder to maneuver quicker.  Once the 1H opponent is within the effective range of the 2H weapon (probably from a successful parry of his own), parrying is extremely difficult.  The 2H cannot move as quickly to counter the attacks.  The wielder can't use 1 hand to fend off or redirect an attack as that requires letting go of the 2H weapon and trying to wield it one-handed. 

Look at a battle between a 2H sword and a 1H and shield.  Heck, watch The Holy Grail.  2H weapons are heavier, easier to see the attack coming, harder to make a follow up attack, and once the opponent is inside the attack range, very difficult to use for offense or defense.



==========

This is just a side note and I don't think this is a house rule, but weapons that are able to be wielded 1H or 2H did not require spending double the points or to be treated as a second skill.  The weapon was designed with that intent in mind.  It has a longer handle, it has lighter material, the blade is thinner, there is a dulled section on the blade meant to be used a an extra hand-hold.  a la Conan's hand and a half sword.  We viewed the ability to switch at will as parrying ability, an extra OB *if* used as a 2H weapon, ability to use a shield but resolve attacks on the Broadsword table, etc. 

Look at Hurn's sig.

'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

That doesn't mean that Hurin developed a second skill with Axe - 2H.  It means that he had an extra bit of grip so he could swing harder, do more damage, at the expense of DB and loss of the shield.

[Spectre771]

Sorry for the extra post.  It was too late to modify the above post.

It has everything to do with the intent of the weapon.   A halberd was not indented to be used 1H.   A Claymore was not intended to be used as 1H weapon.  A dagger was not meant to be used as a 2H weapon, etc.  That's why there are no bonuses, penalties, or "if-then" notations to resolve on different attack table.

The Estock was intended to be used 1H or 2H or mounted lance.  There are +/- to OB, hence, no need to develop separate skills for 1H, 2H, Mounted.

The 1.5H sword was meant to be used 1H or 2H.  Ex.  If used 1H resolve on the BS table.  If used 2H resolve on the 2H sword table or whatever the +/- results are.

[Hurin]

@Brian and Spectre: Your comments have given me a couple of ideas for houserules in RMu here:

--Perhaps one could allow characters to choose to specialize in a particular weapon (provided that weapon has multiple ways of being used) rather than in a category. So for example, one might specialize not in Blades (1H) or in Greater Blades (2H), but instead in Bastard Swords. This would give the ability to wield the weapon one or two-handed, but cut down on proficiency with other weapons (like Scimitar).

--How best should we represent the way that the halberd-wielder is at a disadvantage to parry when the dagger-wielder has closed the gap? I still like using zones of control and specific positioning on a hex-map. But I'm wondering now if the halberd-wielder should now get a penalty once the gap has been closed. Perhaps a -10 penalty to parrying vs. adjacent opponents? Or maybe just a -10 OB penalty?
     Note too that RMu has a skill called 'Close Quarters' that might be useful here too.

[Spectre771]

--How best should we represent the way that the halberd-wielder is at a disadvantage to parry when the dagger-wielder has closed the gap? I still like using zones of control and specific positioning on a hex-map. But I'm wondering now if the halberd-wielder should now get a penalty once the gap has been closed. Perhaps a -10 penalty to parrying vs. adjacent opponents? Or maybe just a -10 OB penalty?
     Note too that RMu has a skill called 'Close Quarters' that might be useful here too.

The Halberdier is at a penalty for parry with a max 50% but maybe use initiative penalties?  Maybe a penalty to initiative as it's more difficult for the halberdier to react with such a heavy weapon vs. much lighter weapons?  Close Quarters or RM2's Restricted Area Combat?  An opposed roll between PC's for Close Quarters with the winner getting a bonus that round?

[Cory Magel]

We had an interesting discussion of this recently, and some posters were saying that in reality, it is easier to parry with larger weapons, because they are longer, heavier, and, well, larger.

You can try this at home too. Pick up a kitchen knife a d try to block a blow with a big stick from it. Now pick up a broom and try to do the same. It will be easier with the broom. RM2 kind of got this wrong. It shouldnt be harder to parry with larger weapons.

I suspect this is a matter of balance rather than realism.

[Hurin]

The Halberdier is at a penalty for parry with a max 50% but maybe use initiative penalties?  Maybe a penalty to initiative as it's more difficult for the halberdier to react with such a heavy weapon vs. much lighter weapons?  Close Quarters or RM2's Restricted Area Combat?  An opposed roll between PC's for Close Quarters with the winner getting a bonus that round?

I don't think RMu continued RM2's penalties for parrying with two handed weapons vs. 1-handed weapons, so there is no penalty yet that I know of. I'm not sure I would want that parrying limit (50%), as it seems a little odd that you can still attack at full with no penalty if you don't want to parry. I kind of prefer a modest attack penalty (say -10) because that applies to OB, which is used for both attack and parry. It seems to me that a halberdier who is trying to fight someone who has closed the gap with him and is in close with a shorter weapon should be penalized equally for attacking and/or parrying. A penalty that applies to OB seems to me to model that better.

[Spectre771]

This is just my experience as a Martial Artist, but the most effective weapon I've seen used, have used, have trained with is the 6' staff (Japanese style).  Incredibly fast in the hands of a skilled person, can make four strikes at a target in a single, basic, move.  It's lightweight, very strong, very painful.  Any person well-trained with their weapon of choice is going to be very good with it knowing its strengths and weaknesses, attacks and defenses, how to take advantage of the benefits and how to compensate for the shortcomings.  I know we have some fencing practitioners in this group.  I'm sure they could speak of the strengths and weaknesses of the Epee, Foil, and Sabre and even offer educated opinions based on fencing experience if they were to face a hypothetical foe wielding a Scottish Claymore.

I always thought the penalty for parrying with a 2H weapon was odd, but I figured it was done for gameplay balance so we accepted it and used it.  The Battle Axe is a really awesome weapon in RM2 and can easily throw off the power balance if players were allowed to parry at 100% with it.  No one would take single handed weapons, unless they wanted to parry vs. missile weapons.  Even with the penalty to parrying, very few of my players ever use 100% parry.  At most they put 30-50% into parrying anyway, 1H or 2H.

In terms of playing RM##, I'll work with whatever the penalty is (if there is one) and simply explain it to the players using whatever explanation seems rational.  In reality, and from real life experience, I don't feel there should be a penalty.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

--How best should we represent the way that the halberd-wielder is at a disadvantage to parry when the dagger-wielder has closed the gap?

I don't think it should as there's no RAW for being out-of-range. In other words, why would the halberd-wielder be given a disadvantage to anything when the dagger-wielder has closed the gap when he doesn't have an advantage nor the dagger-wielder is given a disadvantage when the latter is out of range (to hit with his dagger whilst at range of the halberd)?

[Hurin]

--How best should we represent the way that the halberd-wielder is at a disadvantage to parry when the dagger-wielder has closed the gap?

I don't think it should as there's no RAW for being out-of-range. In other words, why would the halberd-wielder be given a disadvantage to anything when the dagger-wielder has closed the gap when he doesn't have an advantage nor the dagger-wielder is given a disadvantage when the latter is out of range (to hit with his dagger whilst at range of the halberd)?

Good question, but in my own system, the Halberdier does have an advantage until the dagger-wielder closes the gap. The advantage is that in order to close the gap and get adjacent to the Halberdier, the dagger-wielder must spend his free move plus an action point to take careful movement (the equivalent of the DnD '5-foot move' or '5-foot step') through two hexes of controlled territory, because moving through an opponent's zone of control has to be done with slow/careful movement, or it provokes opportunity attacks. This means that the dagger wielder is usually at a -25 until that distance is closed. So the rules I use do provide the Halberdier an advantage at range, which means the dagger-wielder should probably have an advantage close-up.

The other wild card here is that RMU introduces the 'Restricted Quarters' skill, which is an expertise skill that reduces the penalties for fighting in confined conditions. The current RMU Penalties for fighting in Restricted Quarters are:
Close -25
Cramped -50
Tight -75
Confined -100

This raises the intriguing possibility of making a brawler fighter who closes the gap and uses multiple attacks to attack with a shortsword in one hand and grapples with his other. The grapple might grant 'close' or 'cramped' status. (Yes, I know, this wouldn't really be all that effective in reality, but it might be fun for a more fantasy-styled game).

So perhaps the penalty for fighting in restricted quarters might vary not just according to how close the situation is, but weapon type, thus:
--Light weapons (RMU defines this as -1 size chart): no penalty
--1-handed weapons: -10
--2-handed weapons: -25

If so, I would probably tone down the restricted quarters base penalties to something like:
Close -10
Cramped -25
Tight -50
Confined -75

[B Hanson]

I baked close quarter penalties into the weapon charts as well for 4 weapon categories and then for each individual weapon.

[Hurin]

I baked close quarter penalties into the weapon charts as well for 4 weapon categories and then for each individual weapon.

Ha! You're way ahead of me then. I like what you did, making the penalties for degree of restriction vary by weapon type. Nice!

[Puin]

Thanks everyone for all the insights.

But I can't propose my RPG group with any dramatic change in RMC rules. Just a small tweak for a particular weapon will be considered, hence my initial proposal.

So I must stick to the rules of 1H/2H/PoleArm melee weapon as they are.
So a Battle Axe will be always 2H and Dagger 1H. The fun of the Bastard is that can be used both ways so, if 1H can trade 100% OB to DB why it can't be done so while 2H as ruling says?
I propose so because this special condition of the Bastard.

So what do you think about this small tweak of the rules. Do you find it suitable or reasonable?

[Hurin]

Yes, sorry to sidetrack your thread Puin. If you are asking if your initial.proposal seems fair/balanced, i would say yes, it seems ok to me. But then again, i have long felt the RM2 rule that limits the ability of 2HD weapons to parry 1HD weapons is obsolete.

Have fun!