Topic: About 2-handed parry

[Vorng79]

Hi all

I have a question related to 2-handed weapon. In The RMSS table T-3.6 you can’t parry over 50% versus 1-handed weapon if you are using 2-handed.  Similar limitation (probably worse) exist also for pole arms. I want to know the reason behind it.
I think this is  unhistorical and I don’t use it in my sessions. If you look to fencing manual of 1400-1500, (Talhoffer, Fiore de liberi, Filippo Vadi and various germans fetchtbuch) 2-handed were weapon well suited for offense and defense and far form clumsy and heavy.
To elaborate better and express in terms of numbers and rules, I think that the combination of 1-handed weapon+ shield can have an advantage in terms of defense versus 2-handed, but this advantage is taken into account by the DB of the shield (20 25 or 30 depending on the shield)
If you look at the situation 1- handed weapon (without shield) vs 2-handed weapon, from table T-3.6 I can’t parry with more than 50% with a 2-handed. So the 1-handed have and advantage on this. In terms of simulating reality with the rules it seems that 1-H are more suited to defense than 2-H.
I think this is an heritage of old vision about medieval fight that figure 2 brute and unskilled man covered in metal  that bash each other with rough piece of metal. Reality is quite different and the skill of medieval combat was extremely refined and sophisticated.

Also i think with this rules 2-handed are discouraged, the advantage to have a +on DB due to the shield and parry up to 100% is far better than the increase in damage output (and you have also at least 2 1-weapon, broadsword and falchion, that have a too high damage output vs plate)

  sorry for my english

[Majyk]

Your English is perfect, man!

2H is outrageous for initial damage and critical thresholds for the heavier crits.

That was the balancing factor.
I’m not a fan because it really nerfs traditional magic users with their favourite staves being able to Parry most times!
(Archmages/Druids have whole lists that pin one to using 2H = Quarterstaff).

I love me Dex(Quickness) Monkey builds so any PC I play tends to go first in a round, most times.
This is where I can decide to go Full OB/Spell use, or just get the hell away from an attacker whether disengaging or Leaving(spell).

[Hurin]

I agree that limiting 2-handed parry is unhistorical and inaccurate. I think perhaps the people who created the rule were trying to simulate what happens when someone with shorter weapon gets in very close range to someone with a longer one, thus putting the longer weapon wielder at a disadvantage. But several posters and reenactors on the boards noted that the added weight and length of 2-handed weapons are actually advantages to parrying.

Happily, RMU does not have any limits on 2-handed parrying, if I remember correctly, so the issue has been resolved in RMU.

[Ecthelion]

I don't have that much knowledge in how realistic it is that two-handed weapons are more difficult to parry with than one-handed weapons. But what we saw in our group is that this rule discouraged players from choosing two-handed weapons for their characters. So we created a house rule that you could parry with 100% if using a (magical) shield together with a pole arm or 2-handed weapon. So meanwhile two-handed weapons get used more often in our group. For us this is enough. But you probably won't break the game if you always allow pole arms or 2-handed weapons to parry 100%.

Just my 2 cents

[markc]

1) Are you reading the info right? The rule stats that it takes 2 points of OB to get 1 point of DB with two handed weapons.
Note see 2) below.
a) There is a reason for this from RM2 and it is still valid in RMSS and combat systems based on RM.
b) You should do some testing with your change are various levels and make sure any rule change does not unbalance the game. In the past I have seen rules presented that people have said there were no issues with but after asking some questions they only did some testing at levels 5-9 and quickly fell apart after someone looked at what happens at higher levels.


2) This topic has been brought up many times in the past often with pages of posts talking about it, I would do a search and read the comments there is lots of good info IIRC.


MDC

[markc]

Forgot to mention:
In the past there have been people who have removed the restriction on 2H wep and then added other rule(s) to bring the 2h wep back into line with 1h wep and 1h wep+ shield.


MDC

[jdale]

I agree that limiting 2-handed parry is unhistorical and inaccurate. I think perhaps the people who created the rule were trying to simulate what happens when someone with shorter weapon gets in very close range to someone with a longer one, thus putting the longer weapon wielder at a disadvantage. But several posters and reenactors on the boards noted that the added weight and length of 2-handed weapons are actually advantages to parrying.

Agreed on all that. I think there are better ways to simulate the wielder of a short weapon getting inside the reach of a long weapon (which can be pretty devastating).

In RMSS specifically, I'm also not convinced that the restriction on 2H parry is needed as a balancing factor.

[Vorng79]

1) Are you reading the info right? The rule stats that it takes 2 points of OB to get 1 point of DB with two handed weapons.
MDC

sorry i don't understand. I am interpreting the rules in a wrong way? or are you refering to the RMU system?
OK i will check for similar threads. i have tried but probably miss something.

Concerning  test we play extensively and we don't have any problems with balance to allow 2-handed 100% parry. In the past we run a campaign for ten years playing 4 hours/week. We have reached  25 lvl.
Now we are running a campaign with 21lvl pg ( starting form 20lvl), playing  up to 3 time week online (because of  COVID restrictions).

I think what wich  can unbalance the game is strongly related to the style of gameplay. In my experience high magical BD can destroy balance in fighting. Also a not correct emphasis on the different aspects of the weapon can simplify and reduce depht of gameplay.
My party know well the importace to develop a dagger fighting as well as primary weapon. Because i will stress the disadvantage of fighting in restricting place with big weapons or strongly penalize mingling maneuver if they walk in Bozisha carrying a 2 h sword. Same from armour.

Is satisfactory when you still can put in trouble 2 21 lvl semi with 6 rioters of 4 lvl armed with cudgel (they can't use spell to do not attract attention)

[Hurin]

1) Are you reading the info right? The rule stats that it takes 2 points of OB to get 1 point of DB with two handed weapons.
MDC

sorry i don't understand. I am interpreting the rules in a wrong way? or are you refering to the RMU system?

I think he is saying that the rule is that any % of OB you devote to parrying is reduced by half. Later in your first post you said that you can't devote more than 50% to parry, which would mean something a little different. But I think there is just a misunderstanding here due to the way you phrased that sentence.

[jdale]

In RMU, there is a "restricted parrying" situation which represents cases where parrying is exceptionally difficult. E.g. unarmed parry vs a weapon, a halfling with a dagger vs a dragon. In those cases, only half of your parry OB becomes DB. But parrying with a two-handed weapon is not such a case, you would get your full parry amount with no limitation.

In RM2* and RMSS, the amount you reduce your OB translates directly to DB. It's never halved. There is a limitation that two-handed weapons can only parry with up to 50% of your OB vs one-handed weapons, but you still get the full value of that parry amount.

* there's probably an optional rule somewhere that changes this. I only checked Arms Law.

[Hurin]

In RM2* and RMSS, the amount you reduce your OB translates directly to DB. It's never halved. There is a limitation that two-handed weapons can only parry with up to 50% of your OB vs one-handed weapons, but you still get the full value of that parry amount.

I stand corrected; JDale is right. The original rule in Arms Law is that you can only spend up to 50% of your OB on parrying if you are using a two-handed weapon to parry a one-handed weapon.

[markc]

The intent of the rule is this (it has often been discussed on the forums since I started back in the late 90s), the intent was 2H weapons are generally unwieldy vs 1H weapons thus harder to use for intercepting (parrying) faster attacks, thus the intent was you only get 50% of the OB you put into DB to parry.
Sorry have to go will be back.
MDC

[markc]

Sorry metaphorical fires out at least for now.


IIRC, Talking to Rasyer (ICE Mod and had been around the company since early 90's IIRC)  back in the late 90's and early 2000s.


When talking about this issue he said it was probably a better interpretation of the rule than was stated in the book, that is 2h weapons are unwieldy and thus it is harder to defend with them thus, 2 OB into defense nets you 1 DB.


Notes on charts and tables:
Again discussion from the past when asking why tables/charts did not have more info and often you had to read quite a bit of text to find the answer, ICE had an issue with people Xeroxing pages and it was thought that putting most but not all info in different places would prevent people from just copying the charts to play the game.


MDC 

[jdale]

When talking about this issue he said it was probably a better interpretation of the rule than was stated in the book, that is 2h weapons are unwieldy and thus it is harder to defend with them thus, 2 OB into defense nets you 1 DB.

There's that optional rule. It probably is a better representation of the idea that the weapon is hard to parry with. But, it is not the rule as written.

[markc]

The discussion I had with the ICE Mod at the time was a follows:
1) There has been a lot of discussion about the 2H weapons and 50% parry rule
2) It seems to me that they were trying to say 2 OB put into defense gives you 1 DB, can you ask someone who was around at ICE during the early days of RM if that is what they were trying to say.
His answer, yes that is what they were trying to say.
I do not know who he asked.


There are lots of places in the rules where it is unclear or there are errors or the author copies stuff from RM2 that needs to be cleared up...but did not happen or the author thought was clear in the text but when reading others had a lot of trouble.


I know we have had this discussion at least twice before, if you do not want to believe my discussion with the ICE employee back in the late 90's or early 2000's, I cannot help that.


MDC

[jdale]

It's not a question of belief. Rasyr might certainly have said that. But it doesn't change the plain wording of the book which is "All points of OB so switched are converted to enhance DB" and "only up to 50% of OB [from 2-handed weapons] can be used against 1-Handed weapons."

It also doesn't mean that's a bad rule as reinterpreted. I mean, we adopted it in RMU as the rule for restricted parrying. I just think it's good to separate what is the rule as written from alternative interpretations or optional rules or house rules. Then you can decide for yourself which one is most suited for your game. And while there are some rules that are ambiguous as written (e.g. missile parry is a bit of a mess), I don't think this is one of them.

That will apply for RMU when it's printed too. I might clarify what we meant if something is unclear (hopefully that's rare!). But if I say "you should use this rule rather than what's in the book," that's just my personal advice and won't change what's in the book.

[markc]

In the past we have continued this conversation this way.
1) RAW vs RAI
2) Authors placing text and then coming back to them later if they have time to fix them or describe them in a better way.
3) Author thinks they have explained a rule clearly but people still have trouble.
4) Errata gathering and what happens/happened next at ICE.


Also at various times the follow info has been posted by me.
In the late 90's early 2000's I was talking to some authors who had said they thought they submitted material to companies (not ICE IIRC) and since the product did not make it to final production they did not get paid fully. But later some of their material was used in other products, thus they thought it was stealing or not being payed for their work fully. So some of them decided to include things that they would only fix during the final stage of a project to make sure they were getting all of their compensation.
These were people I rarely talked to over email but friended at a gaming con or game stores during the time frame above.


If you are looking for a good example of this, I think the Treas of ME in the ring section is great for seeing place holders. In the book there are a few rings that in the powers section have for the rings powers +XY to DB and no other notes besides the Tolkien book or MERP product quote above it.


MDC

[Fenrhyl Wulfson]

Practicing longsword fencing, I learned that not only a 2-hander can very well parry a 1-hander, but it can also easily deliver a blow while doing so. Somebody wielding a 1-hander alone against a 2-hander IS at a disadvantage, and a deadly one at that. However, when in close quarters, 1-hander allow much more nimble movements and can feint, bind and lock much more rapidily (and deliver blows from unexpected angles).
The disadvantage at long (out of reach for a 1-handed weapon, in reach of a 2-h) distance can be counterbalanced by the use of a shield (even a small one), a long dagger (or a blade-catcher) or another longer weapon in the left hand. Or, if you feel very lucky, you can try to catch your foe's blade with your bare left hand. The Musée des arts médiévaux de Cluny, in Paris, showed during several years a glove that was mailed on the palm and the inner face of the fingers, just for that. It was dedicated to duels.

How you translate this in house rules for your game is, of course, another story. I did simply state that the parry rules for 2-handed weapons only applied when a foe with a 1-handed weapon managed to close the distance and come toe-to-toe. How to do that? Full parry while still devoting at least 25% of OB to attack, a successful feint or simply do not parry and go full OB while the 2-hander wielder does the same. Risky, difficult, but rewarding.

[Vorng79]

Practicing longsword fencing, I learned that not only a 2-hander can very well parry a 1-hander, but it can also easily deliver a blow while doing so. Somebody wielding a 1-hander alone against a 2-hander IS at a disadvantage, and a deadly one at that. However, when in close quarters, 1-hander allow much more nimble movements and can feint, bind and lock much more rapidily (and deliver blows from unexpected angles).
The disadvantage at long (out of reach for a 1-handed weapon, in reach of a 2-h) distance can be counterbalanced by the use of a shield (even a small one), a long dagger (or a blade-catcher) or another longer weapon in the left hand. Or, if you feel very lucky, you can try to catch your foe's blade with your bare left hand. The Musée des arts médiévaux de Cluny, in Paris, showed during several years a glove that was mailed on the palm and the inner face of the fingers, just for that. It was dedicated to duels.

How you translate this in house rules for your game is, of course, another story. I did simply state that the parry rules for 2-handed weapons only applied when a foe with a 1-handed weapon managed to close the distance and come toe-to-toe. How to do that? Full parry while still devoting at least 25% of OB to attack, a successful feint or simply do not parry and go full OB while the 2-hander wielder does the same. Risky, difficult, but rewarding.

Fully agree with you. To take into account half swording and unarmed techniques, quite common in historical sword fighting I use a modified version of Weapon style that include lock holds & closing skill (from RM2 companion). 2-handed weapon (or longer weapons in general) have big advantage to the initiative, but can suffer if you close the distance. In this case half swording can aid to reduce the disadvantage. (In my rules i simulate half swording using lock holds).

[Fenrhyl Wulfson]

Practicing longsword fencing, I learned that not only a 2-hander can very well parry a 1-hander, but it can also easily deliver a blow while doing so. Somebody wielding a 1-hander alone against a 2-hander IS at a disadvantage, and a deadly one at that. However, when in close quarters, 1-hander allow much more nimble movements and can feint, bind and lock much more rapidily (and deliver blows from unexpected angles).
The disadvantage at long (out of reach for a 1-handed weapon, in reach of a 2-h) distance can be counterbalanced by the use of a shield (even a small one), a long dagger (or a blade-catcher) or another longer weapon in the left hand. Or, if you feel very lucky, you can try to catch your foe's blade with your bare left hand. The Musée des arts médiévaux de Cluny, in Paris, showed during several years a glove that was mailed on the palm and the inner face of the fingers, just for that. It was dedicated to duels.

How you translate this in house rules for your game is, of course, another story. I did simply state that the parry rules for 2-handed weapons only applied when a foe with a 1-handed weapon managed to close the distance and come toe-to-toe. How to do that? Full parry while still devoting at least 25% of OB to attack, a successful feint or simply do not parry and go full OB while the 2-hander wielder does the same. Risky, difficult, but rewarding.

Fully agree with you. To take into account half swording and unarmed techniques, quite common in historical sword fighting I use a modified version of Weapon style that include lock holds & closing skill (from RM2 companion). 2-handed weapon (or longer weapons in general) have big advantage to the initiative, but can suffer if you close the distance. In this case half swording can aid to reduce the disadvantage. (In my rules i simulate half swording using lock holds).

I plan on doing the same, but first I must reacquaint myself with the basic system, before I dabble in weapon styles.