Topic: Best Way of Handling Two Weapon Fighting

[Tywyll]

I know Two Weapon Fighting has had a plethora of rules versions over time.

What are the best/easiest to use?

I'm not really interested in the 'develop a skill for each combo'.

[Majyk]

Understanding your disdain for 'skill for each combo' so the best rule I allowed for it in our campaigns was the Highest Weapon Skill Cost rule to cost the TWC skill out in the first place followed by the Add the Weapon Fumble Ranges Together (for LH+RH) and this was however many ranks expressed as a percentage of the OB one could use for this TW Combo.

I liked it because at lower levels, it made sure most effective combos would tend to be with "lighter" weapons with smaller fumble ranges.
 If not, TWC would show its reduced OBs when not using 1H weapons singley.

~~PC wants to learn Right Hand(RH)-SS/Left Hand(LH)-SS.~~
+40ShortSword(SS) fumbles from 1-2. SO TWC needs 4 total ranks to be able to use 100% of OB.
Since highest weapon skill cost is a single digit for every class, it will take 4 levels before full OB use is obtained - until then, every rank gained in TWC allows for 1/4=25% of the SS Combo being learned.
If no further actual weapon development in ShortSword is done, every TWC rank developed allows +10 more OB to be used in both attacks/swings.

If you don't want to restrict this, you could say any combo of weapon fumble ranges up to 4 could be used, so BroadSword Fumbles on 1-3/Dagger 1-1, Mace 1-2/Mace 1-2, etc.
Of course, the restriction is how well developed all other weapons comboed up are.

To further modify this, unless (N)PC is Ambidextrous, LH OB gets modified by whatever you deem, usually -20+, so above SS example would elicit full TWC rank OB of +40RH-SS/+20LH-SS.

No charts to look up skill costs - besides character sheet itself - and nothing besides calculating less than full TWC rank OB%s if total Fumble ranges are greater than TWC ranks to offset them.

[Tywyll]

Is there really any reason you can't just use it as -20 with one hand and -40 with the other (unless ambidextrous)?

Seems quick and easy.

Also, the main use of a second weapon in real life is as a parrying device, not as a means of gaining multiple attacks (blocking and/or feinting). However, in RM, using a second weapon as a parrying device is actually a terrible idea. I was thinking of allowing weapons used purely defensively in the off hand to grant a +10 or +15 DB.

Thoughts?

[jdale]

Also, the main use of a second weapon in real life is as a parrying device, not as a means of gaining multiple attacks (blocking and/or feinting). However, in RM, using a second weapon as a parrying device is actually a terrible idea. I was thinking of allowing weapons used purely defensively in the off hand to grant a +10 or +15 DB.

RMSS/RMFRP gives +5 DB if you have a weapon in your off-hand and are not making an attack with it. The bonus increases to +15 DB for a main gauche, since it is designed for this type of use.

[Tywyll]

Cool. What about my idea for two attacks?

Sent from my E6533 using Tapatalk

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Also, the main use of a second weapon in real life is as a parrying device, not as a means of gaining multiple attacks (blocking and/or feinting).

Or not. A lot (and I mean, a lot) of weapons are used in pair in asian fighting styles ("martial arts") and the second weapon isn't "merely" a parrying device to the main weapon.

[jdale]

Is there really any reason you can't just use it as -20 with one hand and -40 with the other (unless ambidextrous)?

This seems too advantageous for 0 DP. It is too much better than shields and two-handed weapons.

I am partial to RMU's solution, which is a base penalty of -75 to each attack (-95 for attacking two foes), which can be bought off as a skill (with no stat bonus). E.g. once you have a bonus of +50 in the skill, each attack is only penalized -25 (-45 for different foes). It has the advantage over RMSS's two-weapon fighting skill that, once you have a high enough bonus, you don't have to continue buying it forever, which gives higher level fighters the option to learn new tricks later on.

[vector]

RMSS/RMFRP gives +5 DB if you have a weapon in your off-hand and are not making an attack with it. The bonus increases to +15 DB for a main gauche, since it is designed for this type of use.

Like Tywyll said, a terrible idea. LOL

[vector]

I am partial to RMU's solution, which is a base penalty of -75 to each attack (-95 for attacking two foes), which can be bought off as a skill (with no stat bonus). E.g. once you have a bonus of +50 in the skill, each attack is only penalized -25 (-45 for different foes). It has the advantage over RMSS's two-weapon fighting skill that, once you have a high enough bonus, you don't have to continue buying it forever, which gives higher level fighters the option to learn new tricks later on.

I kinda like that idea. Is that a single skill bought for each two weapon combo?

[jdale]

It's purchased once and applies to any combination of weapons (or even to a weapon plus an unarmed strike).

I can also imagine giving a bonus to the skill for some light weapons. E.g. a main gauche might grant +10 on your multiple attacks skill (offsetting the penalty, not giving an OB bonus). It's not in the RMU core but eventually there will probably be more combat options, details about weapons, weapon styles, etc in a companion.

[Tywyll]

Also, the main use of a second weapon in real life is as a parrying device, not as a means of gaining multiple attacks (blocking and/or feinting).

Or not. A lot (and I mean, a lot) of weapons are used in pair in asian fighting styles ("martial arts") and the second weapon isn't "merely" a parrying device to the main weapon.

I said main use, not only use.



Sent from my E6533 using Tapatalk

[Tywyll]

Is there really any reason you can't just use it as -20 with one hand and -40 with the other (unless ambidextrous)?

This seems too advantageous for 0 DP. It is too much better than shields and two-handed weapons.

I am partial to RMU's solution, which is a base penalty of -75 to each attack (-95 for attacking two foes), which can be bought off as a skill (with no stat bonus). E.g. once you have a bonus of +50 in the skill, each attack is only penalized -25 (-45 for different foes). It has the advantage over RMSS's two-weapon fighting skill that, once you have a high enough bonus, you don't have to continue buying it forever, which gives higher level fighters the option to learn new tricks later on.

See, here is my problem with just about every RM interpretation of twf (and Maneuver in Armor for that matter). It's clear to me that the writers have little to no experience with these things in real life and wrote the rules primarily from a gaming pov.

An untrained person (which is most people in the real world) is more dangerous with two weapons, not less. Someone who knows what they are doing shouldn't become an idiot by picking up an offhand weapon.

Martial artists get a second attack at -30 and that's okay. Why would the -20/-40 be so off base?

Sent from my E6533 using Tapatalk

[vector]

Is there really any reason you can't just use it as -20 with one hand and -40 with the other (unless ambidextrous)?

This seems too advantageous for 0 DP. It is too much better than shields and two-handed weapons.

I am partial to RMU's solution, which is a base penalty of -75 to each attack (-95 for attacking two foes), which can be bought off as a skill (with no stat bonus). E.g. once you have a bonus of +50 in the skill, each attack is only penalized -25 (-45 for different foes). It has the advantage over RMSS's two-weapon fighting skill that, once you have a high enough bonus, you don't have to continue buying it forever, which gives higher level fighters the option to learn new tricks later on.

See, here is my problem with just about every RM interpretation of twf (and Maneuver in Armor for that matter). It's clear to me that the writers have little to no experience with these things in real life and wrote the rules primarily from a gaming pov.

An untrained person (which is most people in the real world) is more dangerous with two weapons, not less. Someone who knows what they are doing shouldn't become an idiot by picking up an offhand weapon.

Martial artists get a second attack at -30 and that's okay. Why would the -20/-40 be so off base?

Sent from my E6533 using Tapatalk

I say if you want to apply the -20/-40 rule consistently across your campaign, go for it.

As long as everyone, PCs and NPCs, have access to it, then I don't think things will be unbalanced among humanoid characters.

On the other hand, the creatures in Creatures & Monsters likely assume a certain power curve for PCs. So you might have to adjust things there to keep your players properly challenged.

When it comes to Rolemaster and Development Points, some GMs remind me of H. L. Mencken's definition of Puritanism: "Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

Some Rolemaster GMs have the haunting fear that some character, somewhere, isn't having their DPs nickeled and dimed out of them.

[jdale]

An untrained person (which is most people in the real world) is more dangerous with two weapons, not less. Someone who knows what they are doing shouldn't become an idiot by picking up an offhand weapon.

In my experience with LARP weapons (which are generally lighter than the real thing and don't need to hit as hard), people just starting with two weapons tend to fall into very predictable alternating patterns or don't make effective use of the second weapon. They are getting little or no benefit. Meanwhile, they tend to square their posture which opens up more of their body and reduce their reach compared to someone with a single weapon who can turn to present that side of the body to the foe.

[Tywyll]

An untrained person (which is most people in the real world) is more dangerous with two weapons, not less. Someone who knows what they are doing shouldn't become an idiot by picking up an offhand weapon.

In my experience with LARP weapons (which are generally lighter than the real thing and don't need to hit as hard), people just starting with two weapons tend to fall into very predictable alternating patterns or don't make effective use of the second weapon. They are getting little or no benefit. Meanwhile, they tend to square their posture which opens up more of their body and reduce their reach compared to someone with a single weapon who can turn to present that side of the body to the foe.

I've had similar experience (larping), and even when that is the case it doesn't take them long to adjust...certainly not the kind of length of time it takes to level in RM.

Sent from my E6533 using Tapatalk

[Tywyll]

Is there really any reason you can't just use it as -20 with one hand and -40 with the other (unless ambidextrous)?

This seems too advantageous for 0 DP. It is too much better than shields and two-handed weapons.

I am partial to RMU's solution, which is a base penalty of -75 to each attack (-95 for attacking two foes), which can be bought off as a skill (with no stat bonus). E.g. once you have a bonus of +50 in the skill, each attack is only penalized -25 (-45 for different foes). It has the advantage over RMSS's two-weapon fighting skill that, once you have a high enough bonus, you don't have to continue buying it forever, which gives higher level fighters the option to learn new tricks later on.

See, here is my problem with just about every RM interpretation of twf (and Maneuver in Armor for that matter). It's clear to me that the writers have little to no experience with these things in real life and wrote the rules primarily from a gaming pov.

An untrained person (which is most people in the real world) is more dangerous with two weapons, not less. Someone who knows what they are doing shouldn't become an idiot by picking up an offhand weapon.

Martial artists get a second attack at -30 and that's okay. Why would the -20/-40 be so off base?

Sent from my E6533 using Tapatalk

I say if you want to apply the -20/-40 rule consistently across your campaign, go for it.

As long as everyone, PCs and NPCs, have access to it, then I don't think things will be unbalanced among humanoid characters.

On the other hand, the creatures in Creatures & Monsters likely assume a certain power curve for PCs. So you might have to adjust things there to keep your players properly challenged.

When it comes to Rolemaster and Development Points, some GMs remind me of H. L. Mencken's definition of Puritanism: "Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

Some Rolemaster GMs have the haunting fear that some character, somewhere, isn't having their DPs nickeled and dimed out of them.

 

That's great. I think you are probably right!

For what its worth, we are using the MERP rules (with a few additional skills) for our game so I'm already chucking out 9/10ths of the skill bloat. That's partially why I didn't want to make a new combat skill. I've added two martial Arts skills to Combat (Basic and Advanced) and those still feel a bit clunky but they seem to work.

[vector]

For what its worth, we are using the MERP rules (with a few additional skills) for our game so I'm already chucking out 9/10ths of the skill bloat. That's partially why I didn't want to make a new combat skill. I've added two martial Arts skills to Combat (Basic and Advanced) and those still feel a bit clunky but they seem to work.

It should work out fine. I just advise you keep an eye on the creature and monster end of things. When I consolidated several skills and house ruled a few things there was a ripple effect, a slight power creep in the PCs. It meant at higher PC levels some of the monsters in the books were not behaving up to expectations.

It was easy to adjust for, just something to be aware of.

[Peter R]

An untrained person (which is most people in the real world) is more dangerous with two weapons, not less. Someone who knows what they are doing shouldn't become an idiot by picking up an offhand weapon.

In my experience with LARP weapons (which are generally lighter than the real thing and don't need to hit as hard), people just starting with two weapons tend to fall into very predictable alternating patterns or don't make effective use of the second weapon. They are getting little or no benefit. Meanwhile, they tend to square their posture which opens up more of their body and reduce their reach compared to someone with a single weapon who can turn to present that side of the body to the foe.

We have occasionally done two weapon fencing and exactly the same thing happens to most fencers.

[DeadBob]

I am a strong proponent of making characters learn the two-weapon skill. And enforcing the rule that limits two-weapon ranks to equal or less than the number of ranks in the least developed weapon of the combination. And I also enforce the -20 off-hand penalty unless the character has the ambidextrous talent.

Any time you make things easier or combine skills, you need to look not only at the effect on lower level characters, you need to project the change forward to higher levels and see how the change will alter the challenge of creatures and situations.