Ambidexterity & 2 Weapons vs. 1 Weapon Options

[Reijin]

Sorry if this has been brought up already, I did a quick search, but didn't come up with anything.

Through char gen, I took ambidexterity to use while weilding two swords in mind. I figured that yes, if I hit I would most likely do less damage, but I would have a higher chance to hit with two completely different sets of rolls, even though my dice pool is split.

All in all, I roll 8 dice on each swing (without any negative modifiers mind you). The first two missions I was doing fine, tearing apart any lackey that I could get in melee range with. This last mission has me doubting the general effectiveness of my character build.

Early on in the session I got myself into a one on one fight with a character equal to mine (maybe even more, he drugged up before we fought). I wa using my two swords, he was using one. The battle quickly got into a stale mate, with the both of us simply parrying each other's attacks. It wasn't until I gave up attacking twice in a turn and just used one sword I was finally able to break one of the more boring fights I've dealt with.

Now, ambidexterity allows you to use one weapon in each hand without suffering a -2 penalty, but you still have to split your dice pool to use both weapons in a turn. However, to parry/block/dodge two attacks in a turn, you don't split your dice pool and only take a cumulative -1 penalty for every attack after the first. This to me seems to make defense extremely powerful, but I'm a little hesitant to bring it up because it might just seem like I'm trying to make my character more powerful than he should be.

I could have sworn in third edition you had to split your dice pool for evading attacks, it's been such a long time and my memory was never good. every time I try to bring it up, the GM and some of the other players tell me that it's unreasonable to split your dice pool for defense because you don't know how many attacks you'll have on you. But I thought that was the point, you could take the risk of spending a lot (or all) of your dice on the first attack, or you could play it a little safer and put some more aside.

Are my doubts completely unwarranted? I'm beginning to feel like buying point in ambidexterity is kind of a waste, if it's only good for clearing out mooks. I nearly built my whole character around melee with two weapons, though I suppose it wouldn't be a big change to drop one of them.

That kind of ran a bit too long. -_-; If anyone could provide some input, I would appreciate it greatly. I'm kinda at a crossroads but not sure which path to take. Either way, thanks for reading the long-winded rant.

[Aaron]

[Teulisch]

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=13194
for the current ambidex debate.

two-weapon combat has a lot of problems. mostly that ANY penalty is going to be applied twice. ambidex removes a penalty for the offhand, which is usefull at times.

dont complain about dodging. you get advantage of it as well. its usualy not that good in the first place! the average person has reaction 3, which mean that attack number 5 they get no roll against. if your target has any dodge, unarmed, or other close combat skill, then hes probably got quite a few more dice than that. considering how dice roll, its likely that your target gets one hit on his defense against guns, and 2 against melee if hes got an apropriate skill. so you need to score 3 hits on average to do damage.

two-weapon combat has a specific use. with swords, this use is cutting through mooks who dont have a lot skill. with guns, its for shooting a lot of bullets into a bunch of mooks. it gets a lot of damage to multiple targets in a situation where you cant miss.

if you actualy fight someone with real skill, two-weapon will get you killed very fast. Consider a sword adept, with 20 dice in swords. plus a few other tricks, and a high reaction. he will dodge anything you do with a split pool, then kill you very swiftly.

[Butterblume]

Legend tells that Miyamoto Musashi (famous early 17th Century Samurai, who is renowned for developing the two sword fighting style, among other things) defeated his reputedly most skilled adversary, Sasaki Kojiro, using a wooden training sword. (A as in one weapon)

[Reijin]

Hmmm... I see your points. Thanks for the insightful posts into the topic. I guess I've been weaned off too many other table top RPGs that let you get away with crap like that. I hope I didn't come off as too snotty or anything, I was just genuinely curious to see whether I had been doing the right thing or not. Thank you!

[Shrike30]

Not at all.

Teulisch nailed it on the head: when you want your character to carve through hordes of unskilled opponents, those two swords of yours are going to shine. Against someone with some skills, though, you're going to want to focus on one weapon.

This doesn't mean the other weapon has to be *away*... just that you can't be making a bizarro-cool flip-out flurry-of-blades attack against someone who knows what he's doing. Melee combat is abstracted down to each roll really being a "combination of strikes, parries and whatever," so the use of "one" weapon (regardless of whether or not you're holding two weapons) really just means that, between your left and right hand, in a single pass, you get one good shot in, instead of the two that you can get fighting people who don't know what they're doing.

In other words, you can fight really cool guys with two weapons, you just have to be careful about it. Ruleswise, you're making a one-weapon attack... in game you're dancing back and forth a bit, blocking a few strikes with each of your weapons, and then taking a stab at that momentarily exposed bit of flesh with whichever weapon has the opportunity.

[X-Kalibur]

[Butterblume]

[jklst14]

[Squinky]

You've got a good point there, from a rules point of view, there is no reason be an ambidextrous melee fighter.

Come to think of it, is there even any place where it gives rules for splitting dice with melee weapons? I thought that was only mentioned for ranged weapons.

[GrinderTheTroll]

[Tarantula]

I don't see why having a second sword would make connecting with one or the other any more damaging. Also, the hand would be doing stun, so would that make the average of 4stun (hand) and 6p(sword) 5stun and 5 p? (4S+6P)/2 = 5SP

[GrinderTheTroll]

[Tarantula]

Well, by the RAW, you can't use 2 with melee.

Personally, using 2 requires a higher degree of skill as well as the fact that you're still only striking with one sword. You could allow them to split pool, and make 2 melee attacks against one target with 2 swords, which makes much more sense than arbitrarily raising the damage of one sword because you have one in your other hand as well.

[Glyph]

You can split dice to attack multiple foes with only one weapon. Ambidexterity, however, lets you split those dice against a single opponent. Also, just as with guns, you can have a different type of weapon in each hand - say, a pistol for longer ranges and a knife for up close, or a stun baton and a sword to inflict either physical or stun damage. Plus, being able to use your off hand with no penalties can be an advantage as well. All in all, it's not a bad deal for 5 build points.

[Tarantula]

Glyph, please tell me the page where it says you can split the dice against a single opponent with melee combat.

[Reijin]

[NightHaunter]

[Edward]

In ST3 the only dodge was combat pool, so you had to split it not only between defenses abut also improving your offence and soak.

In SR4 you get your full parry when using 2 weapons (I would say if you’re using 2 weapon foci you don’t get both bonuses)

In SR4 2 weapon fighting is for killing mooks, you will ever have the dice to hit a competent opponent while swinging 2 weapons.

Leave your character as it is just when you hit a competent enemy only make one attack at a time.

Teulisch that thread discusses ambidexterity with regard to using firearms. It is almost completely unrelated to this topic

[GrinderTheTroll]

[Tarantula]

[GrinderTheTroll]

[Tarantula]

Just to clarify what you said...
Per SR4 there is no need or reason to ever wield 2 melee weapons at once.

Oh, unless you want a sword and a stunbaton, or a bat and a chain. Or want to be able to change how much damage you'll be doing in one swing (by say, using a knife instead of the sword). Oh, or having one do S and the other do P. So, lets refine it one more time...

Per SR4 there is no need or reason to ever wield 2 of the same melee weapons at once.

[GrinderTheTroll]

[Tarantula]

No, there aren't rules for attacking with 2 melee weapons in SR4. But having a stunbaton in your left hand and a sword in your right lets you choose to attack with the stunbaton when you don't want to kill the person, and your sword when you do. Whys this good? Because sheathing your sword, then getting the stun baton would take 2 simple actions (one each) and then you wouldn't be able to attack until your next IP. With them both out from the get go, you can alternate between them with a small (-2) or no (with ambidextrous) penalty.

As far as fighting with more than whats in your hand, yeah, thats why the melee combat is considered to be "abstract" and more than just one punch or swing or kick. Theoretically, maybe they punched at you, you blocked with your free hand, grabbed their clothing to prevent them from moving their arm, and made a cut up into their armpit before they tore their arm free from pain. In the case of two weapons, maybe they swung their bat at you, you ducked, they swung backhandedly, you blocked with your primary weapon, swung with your left, which they blocked with their knife, and then you stabbed with your primary weapon and caught them in the neck.

Making logical arguements off the basis that a melee attack is one swing isn't going to help.