Dual Melee Weapons, Rules? Options

[GrinderTheTroll]

Hi all,

I don't recall seeing any mention of using 2 melee weapons in melee combat. For ranged combat you split your Skill pool, so you'd use Agility+(Skill/2)+(penalties) Dice Pool for each weapon test.

Did I miss something or are 2 melee weapons similar?

As always, page numbers help greatly.

Thanks,

GTT

PS - I tried seaching the forums, but didn't see any topic that addressed this.

[Waltermandias]

That's an interesting question. You can already split your dice pool in melee combat to attack multiple targets (according to P. 148), but there doesn't seem to be any way to attack the same target multiple times, like you can with two guns. However, you don't suffer a -2 on top of splitting your dice pool, so maybe it is intended. So with dual guns you can hit the same guy a bunch by splitting your pool, but you suffer a -2 for every guy you try to hit after the first. In melee you can hit multiple people just by splitting your pool, with no -2.

I would do it like this:

Fighting With Two Weapons
A character wielding dual may split their dice pool to strike the same target twice with one complex action. They cannot also attack multiple targets with the same action (allowing them to strike, for instance, two enemies twice each.)

I was thinking about giving a penalty to base damage to keep it in balance with how dual firing firearms works, but that might be needlessly complicated for very little gain. I dunno yet. Any suggestions anyone?

[Shrike30]

The simple rules from SR3 for dual wielding was that you used Str x 1.5, instead of Str, for figuring damage codes. The complex ones were, uh, complex. They got pretty out there.

[Moon-Hawk]

[GrinderTheTroll]

[Shrike30]

I'd say it's more likely going to be something in Arsenal. There are huge chunks of the BBB we'd like them to errata away (EX-EX ammunition, anybody?), but it gets to a point where, if it can't be handled with a wording change or a clarification, it's probably easier to put it in another book. Or do the D&D 3.5 thing, and immediately split your player base into those who are willing to cough up a hundred bucks two years after they bought the first 3 core books to (essentially) buy them again, and those who are not.

[GrinderTheTroll]

[Eryk the Red]

I don't really consider fighting with two melee weapons to be part of the "basics". It's really a stylistic oddity. A handful of characters might fight that way. I also don't see the need to do anything crazy or complex with it. I figure you allow the character to split his die pool between the two weapons, and allow him to attack the same character twice in one action with two separate weapons/limbs. I don't see this, however, being something that'll come up all that often, except for the odd character who's an armed combat specialist.

[GrinderTheTroll]

[Rotbart van Dain...]

True. Problem is, there is no easy way in SR4 to integrate two handed melee combat.

Splitting Dice Pool for more attacks is already there, even though against multiple opponents, and usually, given the melee rules, isn't something you want to consider.

A House Rule that may work would be to give bonus dice:

Necessary Skill for that Weapon -2 dice if not Ambidextrous, halved and rounded down.

[Eryk the Red]

I think split dice pools is a pretty reasonable option, personally, if only because it's often not a good idea. You should not benefit much if at all from fighting with two weapons if you're not very good at it. Rather like duel-wielding is only actually worth it if you're already a good shot. If, however, you are the blindingly fast blademaster adept or strong and quick pit fighter, then splitting your pool might seem more practical. Not always. But sometimes. And I like that. An unskilled (or low-skilled) fighter is probably best off just using one weapon, and focusing his attention on that. That makes sense to me. And it leaves the skilled fighter with another viable option (even if it's not the best thing to do in all situations).

[Rotbart van Dain...]

[FrankTrollman]

My personal solution:

You get +1 reach, plus the reach of the weapon in your off hand. You do damage based on the larger damage code. If you are not ambidextrous, you suffer a -2 dicepool penalty.

And of course you can't have something useful like a grapple gun or the secret formula or a doorknob in either hand. That seems pretty balanced.

-Frank

[GrinderTheTroll]

[Drace]

I don't have my copy of sr4 with me, but under the combat chapter of the book under the Hand to Hand combat section describe a turn attacking not as an attack but as a bunch of swipes,kicks, stabs, punchs etc, so wouldn't two weapons be a mute point if this is the case?

[GrinderTheTroll]

[tisoz]

Wouldn't it be (Attribute + Skill +/- Modifiers) / 2?

[Thyme Lost]

[Sparq]

Because one of my players really wants to play a dual-wielder, I am planning to use the following home-made house rules to implement dual-wield, which are partially based on the Florentine Technique.

Which weapons are allowed when dual-wielding:

• Weapons with reach 2 or higher are considered not usable for dual-wield actions (no combat axes, staffs). One could also be more realistic and not allow reach 1 weapons aswell.
• Weapons that do not use Strength in their DV are considered not usable for dual-wield actions (no shock batons).

These rules apply while dual-wielding:

• When dual-wielding, add a -1 'unbalanced' melee modifier to any melee attack.
• A specialization called 'Dual-wield' is available for all melee weapons skills, which adds +2 to any Dual-wield combat action dice pool.
• When using full parry or normal parry the character can choose which melee weapon (and thus melee skill) to use to parry.

These actions are available only when dual-wielding:

• Simultanious strike: A character uses both his melee weapons to attack simulatiously from two angles.
  Roll for each melee weapon separately, but use half strength (rounded up) when calculating DV.
  
• Rapid Succession strike: A character uses both his melee weapons to attack in a quick succession of strikes.
  Use the smallest (attribute + melee combat skill) dice pool and divide these among the two weapons. Then roll for each melee weapon separately, adding modifiers (similar to attacking multiple targets).
  
• Balanced strike: A character uses both two similar melee weapons in one orchestrated attack against one target.
  Only usable when both weapons use the same melee combat skill and produce the same type of damage. This attack is handled as a single attack, but the character can add up the damage of both weapons, counting Strength/2 only once. Reach becomes the largest reach + 1.
  
• Partial parry: A character uses one of his melee weapons to defend incoming strikes, while attacking with the other.
  Can be invoked as an Interrupt action. A character designates one melee weapons as his parry weapon. Characters who go on partial parry roll their Reaction + (melee combat skill x 1.5) rounded up against any and all melee attacks made against them.
  The other weapon can still be used to attack in the characters next available action.

I have not extensively tested the rules in a real game yet though, so I might end up not liking them at all :). A simplified ruleset would be to only allow 'Balanced strike' as the default combat action.

[Kyoto Kid]

[Aaron]

I can't speak to the rules, but I regularly use two melee weapons as a hobby, and I rarely strike with more than one at a time. I occasionally feint with one. I sometimes strike with one and then the other, but not so quickly that it could be considered the same action (time, for you martial artists). True, you could strike with both at the same time or in rapid succession, but in practice one of those shots is usually a feint that isn't intended to hit anyway.

I think what I'm trying to say is that the advantage of having a weapon in each hand isn't the extra damage you could do, but the fact that it gives you more offensive options. I suppose you could count the extra weapon as a "friend in the melee" (+1), or a "superior position" (+2), but of course you'd take the -2 for the weapon in the off-hand. And, of course, only count the Reach of one of the weapons, and not add them together (duh).

Just my 2¥.