snowRaven
Oct 10 2005, 12:33 AM
I've been looking through the rules, and I can't find anything on using two weapons in melee combat.
Am I missing something, or are those rules lacking? And if they are lacking, how would you handle it?
Jaid
Oct 10 2005, 12:49 AM
i would expect it to work pretty much the same as ranged two weapon combat; you must split your pool between the two weapons, take a penalty if you don't have ambidexterity, and obviously you can't do it with two handed weapons (unless you're ape... that would change things).
Rotbart van Dainig
Oct 10 2005, 07:41 AM
| QUOTE (snowRaven) |
| Am I missing something, or are those rules lacking? |
The latter.
| QUOTE (snowRaven) |
| And if they are lacking, how would you handle it? |
If? Very much like SR3 - add (Skill(-2 if no Ambidex))/2 as Modifier.
When doing multiple Attacks, split Spool as usual in Melee.
Of course, under that abstract system, one could just change nothing.
Space Ghost
Oct 10 2005, 07:46 AM
You can already split your pool to attack multiple targets, even with just one weapon. The advantage to 2-weapon fighting could be multiple attacks on the same target.
Oh course, you'd need to decide for yourself wether this is actually an advantage. Seems you'd need a very hefty DV for it to be worth the risk of splitting your dice pool.
Gothic Rose
Oct 10 2005, 08:43 AM
| QUOTE (Space Ghost) |
You can already split your pool to attack multiple targets, even with just one weapon. The advantage to 2-weapon fighting could be multiple attacks on the same target.
Oh course, you'd need to decide for yourself wether this is actually an advantage. Seems you'd need a very hefty DV for it to be worth the risk of splitting your dice pool. |
It could be useful if you're relatively assured that if you hit the person, they'll take a box or two of -any- type of damage - thus, you'd be dealing multiple hits (say 2) each doing 2 points of damage - but the second, the guy has been wounded, and so is at a dice pool penalty.
It'd be best just to try to ping your opponent.
Ophis
Oct 10 2005, 01:21 PM
I don't think dividing the pool actually represents the way fighting with two weapons works. Suddenly you get to hit twice but your easier to avoid. Not how it happens.
If be aggresive with two weapons you attack almost as one. It's much harder to avoid. I was planning on moding the burst rules some loose a few dice for extra damage or a penelty for the defenders dodge, the dice loss is because its harder for you to do(not sure if I like it). If we still had the counter attack stuff the dice penalty would be okay as it is easier to hit a two weapon nutter if he charges you, the trick is not getting hit.
If your being defensive its like having a shield, think parrying daggers in swashbuckling films. This is the bit I'm not sure on maybe just give a +3 bonus on your weaponskill for dodging (yes this will skill cap.)
I think you'd need to declare you "style" at the start of each round, maybe being allowed a standard action to switch it. Ha got it the dice penalty for offence is on you dodge maybe -4 or 5 reduced by ambidex.
Oh my experience is based on training drop bear ninjas in using paired weapons. That and larping lots, and stage fighting some.
Kremlin KOA
Oct 10 2005, 02:54 PM
My wxperience with paired melee weapons is that it is inherently more effective that a single weapon.. by about the same amount as a weapon with greater "reach" twin swords is about as effective as a spear
my experience cannot be mentioned on here for legal reasons (read it could incriminate me)
Azralon
Oct 10 2005, 04:29 PM
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) |
| QUOTE (snowRaven) | | Am I missing something, or are those rules lacking? |
The latter.
| QUOTE (snowRaven) | | And if they are lacking, how would you handle it? |
If? Very much like SR3 - add (Skill(-2 if no Ambidex))/2 as Modifier.
When doing multiple Attacks, split Spool as usual in Melee.
Of course, under that abstract system, one could just change nothing.
|
Yeah, if each melee attack is supposed to represent a series of close combat exchanges then who's to say that two-weapon fighting isn't already occurring?
To answer my own question: When you wield two different types of weapons or need to keep track of things like individual shock glove charges, then you need to define dual-weapon fighting.
In that case I like the "split-pool & take a penalty if you're not ambidex" idea to keep it consistent with dual firearms.
Fortune
Oct 10 2005, 05:01 PM
I am thinking about using a house rule whereby a person dual weilding in melee merely adds 2 dice to their Pool. Of course, if they are not ambidexterous, they would also subtract 2 dice, which is fine with me.
TheNarrator
Oct 10 2005, 06:03 PM
There's actually been a discussion on this topic.
Link
snowRaven
Oct 11 2005, 12:32 AM
| QUOTE (TheNarrator) |
There's actually been a discussion on this topic.
Link |
Thanks Narrator - for some reason, nothing showed up on my search.
That thread is quite helpful =)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.