Long Claws

Parzivel

Parzivel

Artisan
Being a part of a temporary "alternate campaign" team, I am learning all sorts of new things about the backside of this game (yes... that part) that I didn't know before. One that came up recently was that it is apparently totally outside the boundaries to create a monster with two long claws. I.e. Two 48" reds, one in each hand.

I found myself fascinated. Why is this so crazy? What about that combination is a problem? Is that just in some Chapters, or is this really a game-wide taboo? What do you think about it?

I'm have no need to overturn the idea, I was just surprised and wanted to know more about the tradition and culture that lead to it.
 
I think it has to do with the Two Weapon/Florentine rules where you cannot wield two long weapons. Sure, monsters have an exception to claws that they could have a claw phys rep for any weapon where-as players are limited, but I don't think an exception exists for styles.
 
I have to agree with Seth. I believe it comes from the character side of the Two weapon/Florentine rules. It would create a bit of an advantage for wielding two long swords, they can't be shattered and disarmed adding using both long sword length might be give it too much.
 
I don't think there's anything particularly prohibitive from a Monster Card having "May use a Long Weapon in each hand," from an ARB standpoint.

For monster cards, this is my thought process for whether Dual Longs should be legal or not:

1) Are monsters able to have things PCs cannot? Yes. Usually do.

2) Do Dual Longs have safety issues? There's no particular evidence that you would be reasonably less safe against an opponent using Dual Longs than an opponent using Long/Short. I suppose the argument could be made that they'd have a bit less control of their off-hand with greater weight, but with the prevalence of ultralights, I don't think this is really an argument anymore. Maybe in the PVC era.

3) Does "Not being in the ARB" mean "Can't be on the card?" Absolutely not. Allowing a monster the ability to use Dual Longs would be no less an LCO allowable than, say, giving a monster a unique LCO ability, such as extra limbs, unique verbals, etc.

4) Weapon lengths -are- in the ARB. So the ARB dictates that a weapon of X length requires two hands to use (a Claw Polearm, as an example), because its length -automatically classifies it- as a two handed weapon.

5) The ARB dictates what a One Handed Weapon is. It dictates that a One Handed Weapon only requires one hand for use. It dictates that a character must have Florentine/Two Weapons to use a One Handed Weapon and a Short Weapon at the same time. It does not state that Monsters are only limited to these options.

So, there's no Standard ARB Rule that you can put on the Monster Card (Style Master, etc) to allow for Dual Longs, sure. But if you're running Plot and you want your Monsters to have it for some reason...I don't see why it would be Nationally prohibited. I would state you can't put "May use a Polearm in each hand" on the card, however, since that would -explicitly- go against Weapon Lengths in the ARB.

TL;DR: I think the prohibitions are cultural in nature, and not actually based on Rules Text.
 
Draven said:
2) Do Dual Longs have safety issues? There's no particular evidence that you would be reasonably less safe against an opponent using Dual Longs than an opponent using Long/Short. I suppose the argument could be made that they'd have a bit less control of their off-hand with greater weight, but with the prevalence of ultralights, I don't think this is really an argument anymore. Maybe in the PVC era.
Click to expand...

From my perspective as Seattle Head of Rules, this is something that I have asked the Plot team not to do in the past (I have also veto'd Plot trying to put out monsters using two two-handers at once, for reference!). From my perspective, the Alliance rules do not allow two long one-handed weapons for safety purposes, end of discussion.

If folks wanted to bring that up for change as a proposal for discussion via their owners, I would be all for it. I don't personally think it's particularly unsafe, having seen it in other LARPs, but I do feel that the Alliance system has set down a bright line of "two long one handers = not safe" with the current rules as written.

This is not an ARC opinion (and I don't think ARC is the right place to take this), but my view as Seattle's Head of Rules.

-Bryan Gregory
Seattle Head of Rules
 
Polare said:
From my perspective as Seattle Head of Rules, this is something that I have asked the Plot team not to do in the past (I have also veto'd Plot trying to put out monsters using two two-handers at once, for reference!). From my perspective, the Alliance rules do not allow two long one-handed weapons for safety purposes, end of discussion.

If folks wanted to bring that up for change as a proposal for discussion via their owners, I would be all for it. I don't personally think it's particularly unsafe, having seen it in other LARPs, but I do feel that the Alliance system has set down a bright line of "two long one handers = not safe" with the current rules as written.

This is not an ARC opinion (and I don't think ARC is the right place to take this), but my view as Seattle's Head of Rules.

-Bryan Gregory
Seattle Head of Rules
Click to expand...

Just in case it wasn't clear, the POV I presented was not "Do I think Dual Longs are okay or not," but, "Is there anything prohibitive in the RAW regarding this subject?"

I, for one, have only played in two chapters over my five years with Alliance, neither of which give me significant diversity in terms of rules perceptions. As such, I'd like to point out that your perception of "bright line" may have more to do with your considerably greater breadth of experience with the game on a National level than the average player (heck, probably the average Marshal), and not with any particular RAW. Not meaning to be critical, so I hope my words don't imply that tone.
 
Nope, I totally understand where you're coming from. It's all good :) I think I interpret the "here's what we allow PCs to wield" as being in place for safety purposes (legacy ones, to be clear, since much of this still stems from heavy PVC weapons which were wildly different to control in combat than modern latex or ultralights), while I think you interpret it as "it's just a limit to PCs for balance purposes". Either interpretation is understandable.

Based on the way that I see it, like I said, I don't think this is an Alliance-wide question for ARC, but I *do* think it's entirely reasonable for a player to bring up a change to it (or an explicit "this is OK to players to use, even though PC characters might not have a way to do it") via a proposal through their Chapter Owners.

-Bryan
 
Polare said:
Based on the way that I see it, like I said, I don't think this is an Alliance-wide question for ARC, but I *do* think it's entirely reasonable for a player to bring up a change to it (or an explicit "this is OK to players to use, even though PC characters might not have a way to do it") via a proposal through their Chapter Owners.

-Bryan
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree with that.
 
Now that we've discussed this globally, I'd like to join the original poster from Denver in acting locally -- do you suggest that is a decision to be made at the individual chapter level, and we just petition our awesome game owner? Or, like something that an owner brings up for group agreement by the Seekrit Owners' Cabal over brandies and sideroom deals? ;)

Thanks,
Trace Moriarty
 
Because the current moratorium on dual long weapons stems from safety concerns, I would strongly encourage that a formal petition to investigate the matter be submitted to Ownership. It's not really a secret that we're in the midst of playtesting, so this is a perfect time for that (and other underpining game assumptions) to get looked at in an official capacity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top