Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Dual Melee Weapons
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
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
QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll @ Mar 8 2006, 05:24 PM)
For ranged combat you split your Skill pool, so you'd use Agility+(Skill/2)+(penalties) Dice Pool for each weapon test.

Whoa, back up. One of us is confused. Is it me?
I thought the entire pool was split, then penalties/bonuses added seperately:
(Agility+Skill)/2+(penalties)
I'm checking for a book reference...
edit: Found it.
QUOTE (SR4 pg 141-142)

Attacking with a second Firearm:
Characters can use two pistol- or SMG-class weapons, one in each hand, firing both with a single Simple Action. Doing so, however, requires that the character split his dice pool between the attacks. If two separate skills are being used (Pistols and Automatics), use the smallest dice pool. Split the pool before applying modifiers. Two-gun attacks also negate any dice pool bonuses from smartlinks or laser sights. Additionally, any uncompensated recoil modifiers applicable to one weapon also apply to the other weapon.

I interpret that as splitting the entire pool, attribute+skill, not just splitting the skill.

edit:@Shrike The Strx1.5 rule was for a character that had two cyber implant weapons. The off-hand skill/ambidexterity/add half dice craziness was for two weapon fighting. Different rules, and in fact there was nothing that ever said a character with ambidexterity and two cyber implant weapons couldn't benefit from BOTH rules at the same time. yikes.
GrinderTheTroll
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)
QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll @ Mar 8 2006, 05:24 PM)
For ranged combat you split your Skill pool, so you'd use Agility+(Skill/2)+(penalties) Dice Pool for each weapon test.

Whoa, back up. One of us is confused. Is it me?
I thought the entire pool was splite, then penalties/bonuses added seperately:
(Agility+Skill)/2+(penalties)
I'm checking for a book reference...

Yeah sorry this might be wrong, I'm at work and only recently finished reading SR4. Sorry in advance is my recall was bad.

I thought about the SR3 solution for dual-melee (STRx1.5) for SR4 but am hoping it is just an oversight on my part or up-and-coming errata (bleh).
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
QUOTE (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.

I was just suprised as well as they covered "the basics" (4 versions later) that this was left out.
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
QUOTE (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.

I just dont see it any less probably than someone wanting to use 2 pistols, SMGs, etc. vs. Dual cyberweapons, swords, knives, etc.

Needless to say, some attention to this would be welcome.
Rotbart van Dainig
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 Dainig
QUOTE (Eryk the Red)
I think split dice pools is a pretty reasonable option, personally, if only because it's often not a good idea.

The point is that it already is an option in melee.
It is useless right now, just adding more rules that keep it useless seems absurd if one does want to incorporate it. smile.gif

QUOTE (Eryk the Red)
You should not benefit much if at all from fighting with two weapons if you're not very good at it.

With that house rule, you only benefit if you rank 4+ if not ambidextrous. wink.gif

QUOTE (Eryk the Red)
Rather like duel-wielding is only actually worth it if you're already a good shot.

Problem is, duel-wielding melee weapons is a completly different approach than duel-wielding ranged weapons: supporting the primary weapon instead of trying to hit with both.
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
QUOTE (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

This would sort of make using (2) 1-handed weapons like using (1) 2-handed weapon which works for me.

I'd consider adding the reaches together if they are the same, or use the larger of the two. Maybe add +50% DV from the weaker of the two or just add both DV's together.

Good solid idea, thanks.
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
QUOTE (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?

From my experience, not being able to block againt either weapon without getting slashed is not the same as having the option to block a fist or elbow instead of that 2nd sharp thing.

Regardless of the number of attacks, swips, stabs, whatever, one sword is scary, two swords is scarier.
tisoz
Wouldn't it be (Attribute + Skill +/- Modifiers) / 2?
Thyme Lost
QUOTE (tisoz @ Mar 9 2006, 08:35 PM)
Wouldn't it be (Attribute + Skill +/- Modifiers) / 2?

No it would be...

(Attribute + Skill)/2 +/- Modifiers

You spilt before the midifiers...

Thyme...
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 smile.gif. A simplified ruleset would be to only allow 'Balanced strike' as the default combat action.
Kyoto Kid
QUOTE (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.

That sounds fair to me.

KK 4.1 with the Ambidexterity quality is set up for two weapon fighting & has both a pair of survival knives and Wakasashi as well as the traditional Daisho. What she really would like is a pair of War Fans, but alas these may not show up (if at all) until the SR4 version of CC comes out.
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.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012