Two-Weapon Melee Combat / Martial Arts, Not covered in BBB-What do you propose? Options

[Triggerz]

It seems the BBB only has rules for two-weapons ranged combat and doesn't say anything about using two weapons in melee. How do you think it should be handled?

Martial Arts aren't covered either, except in the sense that you can specialized in a MA, a mechanic they got rid of in SR3 when the Cannon Companion came out. I don't see any major problem converting them: TN modifiers can be converted to dice modifiers fairly easily, I think, and there might be some more tweaking involved, but I'll probably continue to use them in my group. Any thoughts on martial arts in SR4?

[Rotbart van Dain...]

The problem with the MA-rules of CC was the complete lack of synergies, and the strange way armed combat was supported.
Given the skillgroup setup of SR4, I would stick with unarmed combat, specialization to one option and eventually maneuvers bought like 'spells'.

As for two-weapon melee rules, the idea of Skill/2 as bonus dice sounds a bit harsh for people not ambidextrous... reducing the penalty in this case to -1 would solve this.

[Triggerz]

By "lack of synergies", you mean that if I have Kung Fu 7, I should be able to add an aikido technique to the mix without having to invest 60 karma points in the skill for that single technique?

I like the "maneuvers as spells" idea, and I don't see why specializing in a specific maneuver wouldn't be allowed.

[Clyde]

I'd say just copy the two weapon rules for ranged combat. It sounds like its harder to hit, but you do more damage which seems fair.

[Triggerz]

If you can hit. In SR3, it didn't raise your damage directly, but it could increase your chances of hitting, if you knew how to use two weapons at the same time. I'd like to have a mechanic that represents the fact that, if you can coordinate your two weapons well enough, then it can give you an advantage as you get your opponent's weapon out of the way with one of yours while you strike him with the other. I haven't yet found the perfect way to do that though.

[hahnsoo]

How about simply making it so that if you have two melee weapons, you can Full Parry and still use a Complex Action on your initiative to attack? No bonus dice (which always seemed unfair to me) or penalties, you simply get to do a Full Parry (against Melee attacks) and Attack at the same time. Under default rules, if you do a Full Parry, it prevents you from attacking at all.

[FrostyNSO]

There can certainly be advantages to using two melee weapons, and I think just using the straight up rules for double ranged weapons is pretty harsh.

But two ranged weapons...eh. I'm glad they made it hard to hit. I don't know anybody who can shoot two pistols at one time accurately from more than 7 yards or so.

[Triggerz]

Hahnsoo, what are the rules for a full parry? i definitely like your idea, but I'm a little fuzzy on the details.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

[hahnsoo]

[Triggerz]

[Rotbart van Dain...]

That would be the point of a specialization, wouldn't it?

Well, penalties... I don't know, but somehow that part looked quite... forced.

[Triggerz]

[hahnsoo]

Erm. I think you added some things to my quoted text there, bub. :)

[Triggerz]

Oups! Yeah, sorry. I hadn't noticed. On my computer, the quote button always adds the "(quote)" at the end of the text rather than where the cursor is. :S

[EDIT: It's nice to see that some people can be civil about that kind of stuff. ;-)]

[hahnsoo]

Just to refine this House Rule a bit, a person with two weapons can choose to full parry with one hand and on his next Complex Action attack (the ONLY Complex Action he can choose to do) with the other hand. Whichever weapon is the off-hand takes a -2 dice penalty on the chosen action unless you are Ambidextrous. You use the skill of the appropriate weapon in each hand to determine what skill roll you use for both the Full Parry and the attack. Thus, say you have a Clubs of 4 and a Blades of 3, and you are a non-ambidextrous character wielding a club in the off-hand and a katana in the main hand. You choose to parry with the club in your off-hand and do a Full Parry, which means you roll Reaction + Clubs x 2 ( or 8 ), and then -2 dice for using your off-hand, ending up with a Reaction + 6. When you attack (your next Complex Action), you roll your Agility + Blades (or 3 ) to attack with your Katana. Had the situation been reversed, and you decide to parry with the Katana while attacking with the Club, you would roll Reaction + Blades x 2 ( or 6 ) and Agility + Clubs (4) - 2 for using your off-hand.

[Triggerz]

[hahnsoo]

Full Parry affects all incoming melee attacks. The important distinction, though, is that in SR4, every subsequent attack after the first subtracts 1 die from your defense (not to mention in that case, the opponent is getting friends in melee on TOP of all that). Perhaps you can also allow a person who is on Full Defense/Parry with two weapons to negate one Friend in Melee and the -1 die penalty to defense for a second incoming attack, in lieu of using the Complex Action to attack. Then it gets a bit complicated, of course, but then again, if you are looking for combat resolution rules on fighting with two weapons, it's going to get complicated anyway.

EDIT: Incoming MELEE attacks. An important distinction to make. :)

[Triggerz]

I think that would make a lot of sense. I mean: If you are surrounded and have friends on their way to help you, you'll probably try just not to get killed in the meantime and probably won't attack until they get there and your chances get better.

Simple is good, but yeah, with two weapons, if we want realistic mechanics, it's bound to add some complexity.

[TheNarrator]

So if you dual-wield, you block one attack with each hand at no penalty, then one attack with each hand at a -1, then one attack with each hand at a -2, and so on? Sounds reasonable to me. And fits, visually, with what a person with two weapons might do while being attacked from all sides.

So I guess the next question is, should they also have the option to attack with both weapons? I mean, I'd imagine that a guy with two knives and the proper training could stab somebody twice as much, or stab two people at once (with the appropriate penalty for changing targets, assuming SR4 still has such a thing). Do you think that's reasonable, or does it upset the game balance?

[Knarfy]

Heres a thought, how about when dual-wielding in melee, you have the option (whether attacking or defending) of taking a penalty to your own pool, in order to force your opponent to take the same penalty to their pool. (and if your not ambidextrous then you take a -2 penalty as well)

It would be pretty easy to use, and would actually model using two weapons pretty well I think, as most two weapon fighting styles seem to focus on using one weapon to parry, or create an opening, while the other is used to attack. It might be reasonable to limit this penalty by your skill level or something, too keep it from getting too out of hand. It would also represent that dual-wielding isn't really a good plan if you aren't very skilled.

Of course, it has the down side that against a similarly skilled opponent, its not that much of an advantage (oh nos, now were both rolling 3 dice instead of 12, whatever shall I do? :P ) Unless of course you spend a point of edge for that perfect killer strike :) (no, your rolling 3 dice, Im rolling 8 dice that explode 8) ) Forcing your opponent to either spend edge or go on a full defense to compensate.

Then of course you have to consider if it would be overpowering against those of lower skill level... But then you would PwN them anyway :P But, assuming that your skill levels are similar, you could theoretically take them down to 0 dice, and still have a few dice yourself. Of course, even though they aren't rolling anything, you still have to get at least one hit, and even if you do, your damage wont be all that hot, cause your only gonna get a few.

Against an opponent of greater skill, its pretty useless, but then, thats not really a big deal, since he would probly whup you anyway. Of course, considering how many dice one can get from going on full defense, you may be able to take even a superior opponent down to 0 dice when your defending. (at which point they would just burn some edge and cut off your head ;)

I guess a point to clarify, I don't think that the "penalty" should actually count as a penalty TM, as in, if that particular modifier reduces your pool to 0, you can spend a point of edge and add the dice normally, and they explode like normal, aka, its not a longshot test.

Or something like that :P

O well, its just an alternative Idea to add to the mix.

[Hell Hound]

If I understand the SR4 rules properly (don't yet own the book) in combat you can;

• Use your action to make attacks and then use your reaction to dodge incoming melee attacks in between.
• Go full defense and add either double your dodge skill or double your melee skill or one of each to your reaction but can make no attacks.

In the, admittedly limited, experience I have had with dual weapon training in martial arts you either attack with both weapons, block with both weapons or use one to deflect an attack or defense and the other to strike at the openning. Thus as an idea for a houserule that does not change things too much or overcomplicate combat;

Dual Weapon fighting provides you with a bonus number of dice equal to, say, half your skill rating rounded up (slightly reduced for those that are not ambidextrous). This dual weapon bonus can be used in one of three ways each round;

• Add it to your attack dice pool so it becomes attribute+melee skill+dual weapon bonus and you defend/dodge normally.
• Add it to your normal defensive pool so that it becomes reaction+dual weapon bonus without sacrificing the ability to attack
• Add it to your full defense/parry so it becomes attribute+dodge/melee+melee/dodge+dual weapon bonus and you make no attack

The rules for full defense or anything else in combat do not change you just end up with more dice to throw around and the number of dice, and thus the benefit, is dependant upon your skill level.

[Cynic project]

Why does Duel weilding need it's own rules in melee? Why can't it be just a style thing? Weailding two knives doesn't make you better in combat in some ways it makes you worse. Now if youa re skilled in it it doesn't make your worse. I just think that dueling weilding makes teh L33TN3ZZ is best left for bad stories and action movies.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Well... those techniques were developed in a time, when the were used in actual combat - considering the natural selection it should be somewhat an advantage. ;)

Knife-fighting is an exception though, indeed - a free hand for grappling is a bonus, too... which isn't reflected by the rules, sadly.

But it would be interesting to know how melee combat is influenced by shields in SR4.

[hahnsoo]

Honestly, anything that adds bonus dice in a single span of a Complex Action is unbalancing, as shown by the previous dual-wield rules in SR3. This is why you split dice when using a pair of weapons in a single Simple Action (your skill and dice pool represents how many dice you can throw in a single action). I know there are a lot of knife-bunnies out there who want to max out their ability to do damage, but I think it is more fair to simply allow a counter attack on the next complex action or defend against two enemies at no penalty. As far as a doubled melee attack, you'd forgo your ability to go Full Defense and Counter Attack, or Full Defense without penalty against two opponents, but you'd be able to do two attacks, splitting your attack just like attacking two different opponents in a single action. Remember, while your net hits for each attack might be less, your net damage will probably be greater since each net hit only adds a box of damage, but each attack does a base damage that's much higher than a single box.

Shields give you a -1 die for any physical tests (including attacks, and I'm presuming dodge rolls, too). In exchange, they give an ungodly amount of armor bonus. I'm not sure if they apply an Agility/Reaction penalty for too much armor, but the text on p 149 implies that it does.