The content of Arms Law/Claw Law can be conceptually broken up into the tactical sequence, attack and defense capabilities, combat resolution ("hits and crits"), and supplementary material. Conflict occurs in ten-second rounds, with phases for spells, missiles, movement and maneuvers, melee, various orientation rolls if required and combined actions (e.g., spell-casting and movement). Most of the time spells and some missile attacks are presumed to take multiple rounds (usually two or three) to carry out. Opportunity actions may also be declared. In the melee phase a range of modifiers effect initiative. which includes sensible suggestions and, rather poorly, the d100 stat for Quickness. In RM stats are supposed to represent the relative ability within a racial group, whilst the stat bonus should be the real comparative measure. Further, using the raw stat radically reduces the effectiveness of surprise situations. In many years of playtesting, I have always found it preferable to use the stat bonus rather than the stat.

Attack capabilities assume characteristic and experience bonuses with weapons and various circumstance modifiers. A percentage of an attack bonus (e.g., half) should be put into defense as a parry mechanic; if a character does not have a weapon handy they may use their martial arts ability to "parry" (i.e., dodge) blows in their direction, or even terrain features, (an issue clarified in the 1989 printing), or they can use the specialist martial artist ability of Adrenal Defense. In addition a character's Quickness bonues is added, which compares rather poorly in comparison to the skill bonuses that can be achieved. Further, shields are treated realistically with significant defensive bonuses (+20 for a normal shield). Armour comes in one of twenty flavours ("Armor Type") which is broken up into five groups; cloth-skin, soft-leather, rigid leather, chain mail and plate. Each of these groups has four sub-types reflecting in part their total coverage and in part their thickness. A metal breastplate is therefore AT17, whereas fullplate is AT20. Different ATs have different maneuver, missile and quickness penalties.

The basic resolution mechanic is a d100 roll, open-ended (i.e., if the result is 96+ roll again and add), plus offensive bonuses, minus defensive bonus and cross-reference the result to the AT on the appropriate chart. Excluding the variable fumble range, this is give either a result of '0' (a miss), a number of hits of damage, or a number of hits and a critical value and type (e.g., 13DP is 13 hits and a 'D' type puncture). If a critical is scored another rolls is conducted on the appropriate critical table and the results applied. These results, depending on the critical, indicate the location of the blow and can include being stunned, stunned without parry, extra hits, bleeding, negatives to action, bleeding, severed limbs, broken bones, destroyed organs and instant death. The criticals are often described in a manner that takes delight in the glorious delight in the gore. Different critical tables are also provided, for scaling effects, for large and superlarge creatures.

The result charts embody several simulationist concepts which are very important to understand. Firstly, the system gets away from a typical problem where a "hit roll" succeeds by a large (non-critical) amount, but the damage is minimal. Secondly, the idea that different weapons have different types of effectiveness. The natural weapons of animals, the teeth and claws, are absolutely devastating against lightly armoured opponents but have limited penetrative power. Thirdly, likewise armour protects in different ways; a person in full plate is a lot easier to hit, but harder to do effective damage against. Whilst low-level hits are probable, achieving a critical is difficult and when it is achieved it is often of the type ill-suited to the weapon (e.g., crush criticals from a sword). Fourthly, the critical system suggests that whilst one can be battered and bruised and even knocked unconscious by "hits" ultimately it is various criticals that are a serious threat to the life of a character.

In Arms Law each weapon is provided its own chart and with individual percentage being one of the chief contributions to the pejorative title "Chartmaster", whereas in Claw Law they are grouped into similar attacks (e.g.., Beak/Pincer, Bite, Claw/Talon) and with results limited to the size of the attack and with graduated results every 3%. To say the least, the Claw Law method is a lot easier in actual play. Over the various editions efforts were made in table organisation, highlighting and type to make the Arms Law tables more readable.

The supplementary material in Arms Law/Claw Law varied somewhat in each printing of the edition. The animal and monster combat charts were of course a handy feature, and there are good notes on the behaviour of wild animals. The martial arts styles table is helpful. The conversion notes from AD&D provide are handy. In the 1989 printings the encumbrance and maneuver charts were also added. The rules on the effectiveness of pole arms in massed formation, and the capacity to engage in mounted combat are sensible and usable.

However, the system does not always as work as it should. Despite protestation which do ICE little credit (in the 1989 printing), it is statistically and visually obvious that the ATs 1-4 are totally out of frequency with the rest of the armour types throughout Arms Law, and the difference between AT 1 and 2 is quite notable. By way of simple example in a three way conflict between characters with broadswords and wearing either robes, no armour or a leather jerkin, the character with *no armour* is at the greatest advantage. In terms of parrying, the limitation of two-handed weapons to 50% of OB only makes marginal sense at best, especially when the famous parrying ability of quarterstaffs is taken into considered. Parrying also causes the rise of a quizzical eyebrow with the suggestion that parrying with a dagger can be as effective as parrying with a sword. Sometimes the internal assumption of the criticals run into problems as well; as not all fantasy opponents have internal organs, bloodflow, or for that matter are bipedal. On-the-fly interpretation is not always obvious let alone consistent.

Whilst Arms Law/Claw Law was a very solid attempt at a simulationist agenda in the early 1980s the stylistic standards were never good and certainly haven't improved with age. An act of great simplicity would be to put groups of weapons into the same table and assign maximum thresholds according to size (like Claw Law). The resolution method is good, but the first-range ATs are simply broken beyond repair and could do with a complete rewrite to bring them into harmony with the rest of the system. The critical system provides some solid detail, makes a good attempt at scaling, but could do with some significant clarifications and elaborations. Further, the parrying/dodge and OB/DB allocation system was never really resolved in a satisfactory manner. Despite these substantial criticisms, which certainly put the product below average by today's standards, it still has some game; the tie between resolution success and damage, the distinction between concussion hits and criticals, and the detail of critical damage. The rating therefore comes with a caveat; below average as a whole, but with some unsurpassed core concepts.

Please help support RPGnet by purchasing the following (probably) related items through DriveThruRPG.