Topic: Multiple Weapons in HARP - oh my!

[Augury]

Two of my three players want to be able to start developing the ability to use multiple weapons in HARP combat.  I thought I understood the rules but given the tricky conversation Ive just had with a player I want to check my understanding of the pre-requisites.  My two scenarios are this:

Character 1
Wants to use 2 x Sai as weapons.  These are both parrying weapons and small weapons, so she really is going to have to get used to doing little damage but still.....the challenge comes in what needs developing.  I said she needs to:
Develop each Sai as a separate weapon with separate skill ranks and separate DP cost.
Develop the Two Weapon Combo skill from HARP.  Both her Sai's must have more skill ranks in them than the TWC skill.

Her argument is that the wording of TWC states "This style allows a character to use two different weapons for melee" and her point is that these arent two different weapons, so why does she need to develop a Sai melee skill for each weapon in the combo?  Lets pretend for the sake of this discussion that we dont have ML and TWC is the only multiple weapon skill available as per HARP core rules.

Character 2:
Wants to be a defensive type player who keeps himself and others alive though being defensive for them if they are reckless.  As such he wants to develop either Shielding Weapon or Weapon & Shield.  However when we sat and thought about Weapon & Shield it seems a little useless.  the best attack he can ever make with the shield is limited to the trained shield skill - circa 25-40 ish.  This seems a bit poor and limiting when compared to either HARP TWC where two full attacks could be chosen with say a parry of around 15-20 to simulate the untrained shield DB you get from Weapon and Shield.  Infact - you would be mad to choose this style unless ive just plain misunderstood it. 

My advice to him is currently either use TWC or Shielding Weapon.

Can anyone wade in with some answers please?  I would really appreciate the clarifications - particularly on whether a separate skill for each weapon must be developed on top of the CS&M (even if those weapons are identical?)

EDIT:  Also, given that the two Sai's are parrying weapons if she parries full with 'them' then does she get both Sai's additional parrying DB applied to the parry? 

Thanks
Augury

[Thom @ ICE]

Character 1
Using the same weapon in both hands is not covered by two-weapon combo.  That requires 2 separate weapons.  You should use Paired Weapons instead (found in Martial Law).

Requirements - Ranks in Weapon = 1.5x ranks in Paired Weapons.
Resolve using the lesser skill bonus between the weapon skill and paired weapons. Paired Weapons attack is resolved using a single roll.

Without using ML, the answer is that they would need to learn it as 2 separate weapons and the 2-weapon combo separately as a 3rd skill.  Best off just using ML's Paired Weapons.

Character 2
For Weapon & Shield style, keep in mind that effectively the character gets a bonus.  Yes, the OB attack is limited to the Trained Bonus (assuming a normal shield = 25 bonus) but they also get the untrained bonus for DB (so a free +10 to DB). 

If he wishes to do it as a 2-weapon combo it would require them to have ranks in shield as if it were a weapon, beyond simply having shield training talent, and any use of the weapon in that mode automatically eliminates any DB bonus from the shield for that round. 


As for the Sai's being used for parry, yes, I would allow her to use 1 for parry only (+15) and the other as a single weapon attack (no special combat skill required).

[Ecthelion]

Character 2
For Weapon & Shield style, keep in mind that effectively the character gets a bonus.  Yes, the OB attack is limited to the Trained Bonus (assuming a normal shield = 25 bonus) but they also get the untrained bonus for DB (so a free +10 to DB). 

Yes, he gets the untrained bonus for DB even when using the shield for an attack. But in almost all cases - unless e.g. the opponent has nearly no DB - it is more useful to attack without the Weapon & Shield style, using the normal weapon OB and getting the trained bonus for DB, which is +25 instead of +10, and forfeit the pretty useless attack with the shield. That saves a lot of DPs that can be put into other skills. I had hoped that this useless style gets fixed with the new edition of ML, but unfortunately it remained unchanged  .

[Thom @ ICE]

How would you have fixed it?
The shield itself should not be able to attack better than a standard shield bash attack, and it should not be able to be better defensively than a trained use of the shield.

The only possible consideration that I can think of for a minor change would be to allow the shield to be used fully for offensive bonus (as shield bash) and defensive bonus (at trained level).

If you want to do a major change....
Make Shields trained skills similar to weapons.
Depending upon the shield type you add extra bonus to the defense and reduce the offense skill.
A Buckler would provide minimal defense (+15) but would operate offensively at -10.
A normal shield would be +/- 25
A wall shield would be +/- 40

Get rid of the need to Shield Training Talent.
Shield (and all one hand weapons) would be naturally trained for 1 hand or the other.
So if a character wished to train for long sword and dagger they could, but their dagger skills would be with their offhand.

In combat you choose an attack/parry value for each hand and every round you can get 2 attacks, but then they are both done at -20.   Use of either weapon entirely defensively (100% parry) would eliminate the -20.  Parries may be able to be split between foes (facing restrictions apply).

Would that be a better solution?  (Something I've been playing around with...) 

[GrumpyOldFart]

Make Shields trained skills similar to weapons.
Depending upon the shield type you add extra bonus to the defense and reduce the offense skill.
A Buckler would provide minimal defense (+15) but would operate offensively at -10.

...and an Attack Size of Small.

A normal shield would be +/- 25

...Attack Size of Medium.

A wall shield would be +/- 40

...Attack Size of Large.

That way yes, you can deal a fair amount of damage with the mass and inertia of that barn door shield.... if you can manage to overcome the clumsiness of it enough to manage to hit anything. The larger the shield, the more you need to be highly skilled, very lucky, or both.

[RandalThor]

I was under the impression that HARP was supposed to be less complicated/complex than RM.

All she wants to do is have 2 sai's, something that is very common in all sorts of martial-arts media, so I say, just let her develop the weapon skill and 2-weapon combat: sai's. Don't worry about it too much and just let them have fun with their character. That's my advice, anyway.

[Thom @ ICE]

In many ways HARP is less complicated, in others it is not.  Many people find Rolemaster to be very simple but the complexities come from all of the modifiers that can be applied.  HARP uses different methods to handle similar things (ex: Combat Styles vs Martial Arts Styles, Paired Weapons vs 2-Weapon Combo, Shield use vs Defensive Weapons, Resistances vs Opposed Skills, etc.)  but that doesn't make it more complex once you understand how each works.

For my own purposes I don't find paired weapons combat style to be complex at all.
Develop sai as a weapon.  If you go to 15 ranks in sai, you can raise paired weapons to 10 ranks.  When you attack with paired weapons combat style you get extra damage bonuses (see the Martial Law book for the specifics).  For using them defensively you get a +15 if they are used for 100% parry.

If you prefer to use two-weapon combo rather than paired weapons - go for it, but realize that you are throwing off the balance that comes with the way two-weapon combo is designed.  Normally it requires 3 separate skills each to be developed separately with the two-weapon combo skill being the skill used for the attack resolution, and it must be equal to or less than the other 2 skills.

Using it with one pair of the same weapons requires that weapon to be developed separately for each hand (to maintain balance with the different weapon version), otherwise they only have to develop 2 skills and can effectively achieve the same result for far fewer DP.

Paired Weapons allows it for 1.5x instead of 2x on the weapon skill so it is better cost wise, but the result is weakened due to only 1 resolution roll (even though it is amplified in damage).

[Thom @ ICE]

A wall shield would be +/- 40

...Attack Size of Large.

That way yes, you can deal a fair amount of damage with the mass and inertia of that barn door shield.... if you can manage to overcome the clumsiness of it enough to manage to hit anything. The larger the shield, the more you need to be highly skilled, very lucky, or both.

Yes, correct. I didn't mention weapon size but that would still apply as per normal rules.
I did just recheck my notes and found that the -20 should always apply if 2 weapons (or weapon/shield) are being used.  If you did not use a weapon, but only held the shield it would be at full bonus with no penalty.  Similarly if you only held the sword it would be at full bonus. 
If you hold both but don't actively use the shield, you still get the shield defense bonus, but that's just because of the random cover it grants.
If you hold both but don't actively use the sword, you get the full shield defense, but no attack or parry benefits from the sword.

[RandalThor]

In many ways HARP is less complicated, in others it is not.  Many people find Rolemaster to be very simple but the complexities come from all of the modifiers that can be applied.

Let me quote the advertisement on DrivethruRPG.com (Emphasis mine.):

HARP Fantasy brings you all the flexibility, simplicity, and drama you crave.

Sounds to me like the game is trying to be less complicated on purpose. Now, if you want it more complicated that's fine, each to their own (that would be where the "flexible" comes in). But let me ask you this: If you want more complicated, then why no just go with RM?

Yes, once someone understands something it tends to be easy, at least, easier. But the "simplicity" part seems to say, that this understanding should be simple and therefore quick, so you can have the "fast" part of game-play that HARP is said to have. (Also part of the description on DrivethruRPG, btw.) I like to tell people that they can get the book, check it out for a couple of hours, make a character in less than an hour and be playing immediately afterwards. They seem to like that.

So, I stand by my earlier statement: don't worry about it too much, keep skill bloat at bay, don't have all manner of this skill is needed at X for that skill to be anything, etc... Keep is simple, and it will be fast, the more of these "little" rules you throw in there and the more complicated, and slower, the game will be.

The only way I was able to get the group I am running now to play HARP was to sell the simplicity, although they believe it is still a bit more complicated than D&D - but I think that has to mainly be because of character gen and advancement where you have more choices to deal with, cause rules-wise HARP is much easier.

[Ecthelion]

How would you have fixed it?
...
The only possible consideration that I can think of for a minor change would be to allow the shield to be used fully for offensive bonus (as shield bash) and defensive bonus (at trained level).

I had thought about something along those lines, no major change.

[Augury]

Guys thanks for the responses.

I would like to initially keep to the rules - because I don't feel I can effectively House Rule a system until I understand its weaknesses.

So therefore Thom - I have three points of clarification for Paired Weapons if you would be so kind:

1) What attack skill is used for the Paired Weapon Attack?  You said earlier that you should use the lesser skill bonus of the two between the weapon skill and the paired weapon skill.  Exactly what do you mean by the 'skill bonus'?  I ask becasue the weapon skill, having to have 1.5 x the ranks of Paired Weapon Skill will always have the higher skill bonus wont it?  Please can you define the 'skill bonus' for determining this?
 
2) If they have a magical +5 Sai....I get that the Sai skill will be 5 higher than normal.  If they have 2 x +5 Sai's how does this work?  Do they get +10 to the Sai skill as they are only developing one skill as per the rules?  Does the Paired Weapon Skill also get modified by the magical blade or blades?

3) If the character hasnt taken the talent of ambidexterity then how is the -20 for the off hand factored in when you only develop one weapon skill with 1.5 the ranks of the paired weapon skill?  I really dont get this bit.

Sorry to ask so many questions but I am finding the multiple weapon stuff slightly confusing.  The TWC rules seem simpler than paired weapon skill and I know for certain that my player is going to seriously bemoan the fact that the Paired Weapon Skill only delivers one critical (due to only one attack) even though its a little amplified.

Whilst I wait for your responses I am seriously considering the following:
If TWC is considered too expensive for the fact that people are using 2 identical weapons then why not just apply the TWC skill rules to identical weapons but say that:
Only one of the weapons in the identical pair has to have the same number of skill ranks as the TWC skill and the second weapon in the pair must have half or more as many ranks as the TWC skill.

To my simple mind this is a better way to deal with Paired Weapons as if simulates the fact that the total cost will sill be 2.5 x one weapon rather than 3 x one weapon in a full TWC with differing weapons, the off hand rules now still make sense, magical weapons still make sense, parrying now makes sense again and the player gets two separate attacks and crits which is what they effectively crave.

Anyone got any thoughts on my proposal?  Is it ill thought through? Obviously its a house rule after saying I wasnt going to house rule, but I feel that the Paired Weapon Skill is a really odd way to go about things and dosnt seem as rewarding for the player.

Augury

[Thom @ ICE]

1 - For Paired Weapons Lesser Bonus will almost always be the Paired Weapons skill bonus, however, if the character is a Fighter and has used multiple talents to focus on Paired Weapons Combat Style for additional bonus then there is a chance that the weapon skill (the Sai skill) may be less.  30 ranks vs 45 ranks = 80 vs 95, but allowing for a couple of +10 talents might make the 45 ranks lower total bonus.  With Paired Weapons it would almost never happen, but it might.

2 - With two +5 sai using paired weapons gives them a +10 to the single attack resolution regardless of whether the weapon skill or combat style is the lesser.

3 - For Paired Weapons ambidexterity does not have an impact.  There is no penalty for offhand, therefore no benefit for ambidexterity.

Your proposed house rule seems balanced enough from a quick review, and if it works better for you, go with it.

[Thom @ ICE]

Sounds to me like the game is trying to be less complicated on purpose. Now, if you want it more complicated that's fine, each to their own (that would be where the "flexible" comes in). But let me ask you this: If you want more complicated, then why no just go with RM?

The game is intended to be less complicated than RM. Mostly that comes in DP costs, single roll resolution for combat and some other aspects.  However, Simplicity (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder.  You may find it to be simpler, or more complicated based upon your understanding and comfort with the rules.  I have found that for the most part it is simple.  There are rules that I am not a big fan of but I work with them.  To ask Nicholas to change them all during the enhancement of HARP would have been creating a whole new version, and that was not needed at this time.  When the time comes for HARP to have a new revision released I'll see what can be done to simplify some of these issues.

[Augury]

Many thanks Thom for your answers re the Paired Weapons and for having a look over my alternative solution.

ill put the two options to the player and let them choose and then what ever they go with is the house rule or official rule.

My only surprise was that ambidexterity does not impact on paired weapons like it does with TWC.  This seems odd as a weak hand should still have an impact (in my own personal comfort area) no matter whether the weapons identical or dissimilar.

Anyhow - on the broader debate this thread sparked I personally feel that HARP is a lot simpler than RM.  It is the word simple here that is in itself misleading.

I feel that the rules for RM and the rules for HARP are equally reliant on the GM giving things though, pondering and weighing up.  This in itself is not a simple process and requires time and a mind that is analytical.  This is unique to ICE products it seems.  The products are not 'dumbed down' for the spoon feeding masses - but deliver flexibility and challenge thinking in equal amounts.

I prefer to consider that HARP is more efficient than RM.  Once the rules of both systems are well understood by the same individual most situations are resolved by HARP more briskly and with less fussing at the edges.  This gives the air of simplicity but to say the system is simple is a misrepresentation.   Its complex and flexible and requires some effort to make play look simple, but that same effort applied to RM still, in my opinion, yields a slower and more unwieldy outcome (but perhaps richer in detail if thats what you seek).

Im seeking a story me and my mates can exist in and we dont want the system and niggling about it to drag us out of the immersion.  HARP does this for us (at the moment) very well.

Augury

[Old Man]

Ah, to live once again in the days before TWC was introduced.
(Frankly, we were content with -20 to the off hand weapon and parry subtracts from both OBs, go from there... )

[Thom @ ICE]

House rules are always fine for your game.  If they fit your needs and allow you to use the game as a basis and you add/modify as you wish to, that's fine with us.  Enjoy and best of luck to you with it.   

I'm sharing the explanation of the rules as they are designed. Sorry to hear that they don't work for you, but I do understand that not everyone plays the game the same way.