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.
Full Version: Ambidexterity & 2 Weapons vs. 1 Weapon
| QUOTE (Reijin) |
| 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. |
Makes sense to me.
I participate in medieval combat as a hobby (SCA hit-'em-hard style, not a boffer LARP), and I've been using two swords fairly exclusively lately. I believe it. I find it a lot easier to sit in range of my opponent and defend myself, whereas an attack takes more effort.
Boring discussion of the theory of defence hidden in the spoiler to protect the disinterested.
[ Spoiler ]
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.
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.
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)
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!
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.
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.
| QUOTE (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) |
A Bokkun (that wooden training sword) is quite thick and will still hurt like hell. Different fighting style too, but the point remains the same. You can focus better with one weapon than two.
| QUOTE (X-Kalibur) | ||
A Bokkun (that wooden training sword) is quite thick and will still hurt like hell. Different fighting style too, but the point remains the same. You can focus better with one weapon than two. |
Unlike SR3, i never implied wooden weapons aren't deadly. Look at medieval quarterstaffs
Without rules for using a weapon twohanded, Shrike of course is right: hold two weapons, attack with one, when necessary.
| QUOTE (Teulisch) |
two-weapon combat has a specific use. with swords, this use is cutting through mooks who dont have a lot skill. |
Actually, you don't need two weapons to do this since you can split your dice pool and attack multiple targets with just one weapon
| QUOTE |
| SR4, p 148: Characters may attack more than one opponent in melee with the same Complex Action, as long as those opponents are within one meter of each other. The attacker’s dice pool is split between each attack, and each attack is handled separately. |
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.
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.
| QUOTE (Squinky @ May 31 2006, 04:12 PM) |
| 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. |
There is no mention of using 2 melee weapons anyplace in SR4 or splitting dice to do so, it's been derived from Ranged as you mentioned.
Melee already provides for attacking multiple opponents using full-dice poll + penalties so there is no splitting of dice even when attacking 4 opponents although the penalties make that pool smaller.
My argument is using Weapon + Hand = Regular Melee attack so replacing the Hand with another weapon would perhaps add the difference between the Hand DV and the Weapon DV?
My assertion:
If you Melee with a Sword (Sword + Hand) for 6DV, then replacing the Hand with another Sword (4DV Hand - 6DV Sword) would add the +2DV to your Melee attack making it 8DV (with 2 Swords) instead of 6DV (with one).
Given the rules for dice and melee, I dont' see how you could do more than adjust the DV of your melee attack with (2) weapons.
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
| QUOTE (Tarantula) |
| I don't see why having a second sword would make connecting with one or the other any more damaging. |
Swinging around 2 sharp things vs. 1 sharp thing makes there more of a chance to inflict some extra damage.
I just don't see there being no advantage to using 2 vs. 1.
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.
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.
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.
Glyph, please tell me the page where it says you can split the dice against a single opponent with melee combat.
| QUOTE |
| SR4, p. 77 Ambidextrous Cost: 5 BP The character can use and handle objects equally well with both hands. The character does not suffer any modifiers for using an off -hand weapon (see p. 142). When using two weapons at once, however, the character must still split his dice pool. |
Not sure if that is what you were looking for, but that is what the quality states.
| QUOTE (Tarantula) |
| Glyph, please tell me the page where it says you can split the dice against a single opponent with melee combat. |
Why shouldn't you?
It makes sence to me that you should be able to.
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
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
| QUOTE (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. |
So if I get Dual Spurs and Cyberweapons, I've violated RAW? I don't recall ever reading you can't use 2 melee weapons, it's just not stated you can or can't.
Higher degree of skill = larger dice pool, so you can acrue more penalties (or attack more opponets) than a less skilled opponent.
I still think a DV adjustment is the only soliution since dice-pool adjustments already exist for engaging multiple opponents in melee combat with only 1 melee weapon.
| QUOTE (Reijin) |
| Not sure if that is what you were looking for, but that is what the quality states. |
Nope, al that does is say that if you're right-handed, and hold a sword in your left hand, you won't take the -2 die penalty anymore.
| QUOTE (NightHaunter) |
| Why shouldn't you? It makes sence to me that you should be able to. |
Because, the point of having him look for it, is because it doesn't exist. Under the ranged combat modifiers table, there is a modifier called "Attacker using a second fiream" with penalty of "splits dice pool". Theres also a description of how you use 2 guns at once in the explanation of that penatly.
On the melee combat table, the only modifier having anything to do with your hands is "Character using off-hand weapon" with a modifier of "-2". This as I said, means you're right handed, and holding your sword with your left hand. The Ambidexterous quality removes that penalty.
The most similar penalty to it on the melee modifier table is the "Character attacking multiple targets" with the penalty of "splits dice pool". So, while you can attack as many people as you want in one complex action by splitting your pool with your one sword the other is merely ornamental. There isn't a way to make an attack with two weapons in melee by the RAW.
| QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll) |
| So if I get Dual Spurs and Cyberweapons, I've violated RAW? I don't recall ever reading you can't use 2 melee weapons, it's just not stated you can or can't. |
No, you haven't, you just can't attack with more than one per complex action. So while both hands are equipped with spurs, you can only attack with one or the other per complex action. Attacking each mook once per claw, and splitting your pool to attack multiple mooks in range.
I think that you might as well have each individual weapon do its stated damage, as that makes the most sense, but since you're already house-ruling that you can attack with 2 weapons at once, feel free to house-rule it however you feel like.
| QUOTE (Tarantula) | ||
No, you haven't, you just can't attack with more than one per complex action. So while both hands are equipped with spurs, you can only attack with one or the other per complex action. Attacking each mook once per claw, and splitting your pool to attack multiple mooks in range. I think that you might as well have each individual weapon do its stated damage, as that makes the most sense, but since you're already house-ruling that you can attack with 2 weapons at once, feel free to house-rule it however you feel like. |
Problem is per SR4, you can accomplish the same actions with 1 weapon. Per SR4 there is no need or reason to ever wield 2 weapons at once.
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.
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.
| QUOTE (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. |
Well there are reasons to have 2 melee weapons (same of different), but there are no rules for it in SR4, or if so I can't seem to find them.
You could ask, "Why can't you also attack with your off-hand? It's a weapon too!?"
I'd be inclined to agree too since fighting involves more than "just what's in your 1 hand", well a good fighter anyways.
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.
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.
| QUOTE (Tarantula) |
| Just to clarify what you said... Per SR4 there is no need or reason to ever wield 2 melee weapons at once. [...] Per SR4 there is no need or reason to ever wield 2 of the same melee weapons at once. |
I can think of two reasons:
-Style.
-take a close look at the disarming rule
.| QUOTE (Tarantula) | ||||
Nope, al that does is say that if you're right-handed, and hold a sword in your left hand, you won't take the -2 die penalty anymore.
Because, the point of having him look for it, is because it doesn't exist. Under the ranged combat modifiers table, there is a modifier called "Attacker using a second fiream" with penalty of "splits dice pool". Theres also a description of how you use 2 guns at once in the explanation of that penatly. On the melee combat table, the only modifier having anything to do with your hands is "Character using off-hand weapon" with a modifier of "-2". This as I said, means you're right handed, and holding your sword with your left hand. The Ambidexterous quality removes that penalty. The most similar penalty to it on the melee modifier table is the "Character attacking multiple targets" with the penalty of "splits dice pool". So, while you can attack as many people as you want in one complex action by splitting your pool with your one sword the other is merely ornamental. There isn't a way to make an attack with two weapons in melee by the RAW. |
Isn't that covered in the statement:
| QUOTE |
| When using two weapons at once, however, the character must still split his dice pool. |
Or am I mistaken? Is that just covering ranged weapons, and what would be the rules if I were to attack with a melee weapon and a range weapon in one pass, would I split the total of the lowest dice pool? Or would they be evaluated seperately while splitting agility?
| QUOTE (Butterblume) | ||
I can think of two reasons: -Style. -take a close look at the disarming rule . |
Refine it to say theres no mechanical advantage (one given by the rules) to wield two of the same weapon at once in sr4.
As far as the disarming rule? Point it out to me? A search through the PDF for disarm came up with disarming the distance safety on launched grenades, and disarming data bombs, but nothing about a disarming rule for melee combat.
| QUOTE (Reijin) | ||
Isn't that covered in the statement:
Or am I mistaken? Is that just covering ranged weapons, and what would be the rules if I were to attack with a melee weapon and a range weapon in one pass, would I split the total of the lowest dice pool? Or would they be evaluated seperately while splitting agility? |
No, because that is listed under the ranged combat penalties. Obviously, ranged combat penalties don't apply to melee combat, and melee combat penalties don't apply to ranged combat.
You can't make a ranged & melee attack in one pass because a melee attack is a complex action. A ranged attack is a simple action, or possibly a complex if its a burst. Either way, since you can only take a complex OR 2 simple actions in a pass, you can't make it happen.
There are really no rules for two weapons in melee (yet, but there will be) .
I think Reijins approach to be the sensible one.
After all, it's like the ranged combat one, he didn't ask for more damage or dice.
I think Reijins approach to be the sensible one.
After all, it's like the ranged combat one, he didn't ask for more damage or dice.
| QUOTE (tarantula) |
| As far as the disarming rule? Point it out to me? |
Page 150, one of the options under called shot: 'Knock something out of the target’s grasp'. This is one of the really weird rules in SR4
.Hm, after rereading the rules, i think RAW states, you can only call shots for ranged weapons, throwing weapons and unarmed melee attacks.
I don't think that makes sense.
No, you can Butter... Pg 147, "Characters using melee weapons may call shots; see the Called Shots, p. 149."
So you can only call shots with ranged weapons, or with armed melee attacks. Since throwing weapons aren't single-shot, semi-auto, or burst, which is what the called shot descriptor has. Nor are they a melee weapon.
As far as the disarm rules, ok, so having 2 weapons of the same and ambidexterous will allow you to virtually ignore getting disarmed once, since you can then just continue attacking with the other weapon.
So you can only call shots with ranged weapons, or with armed melee attacks. Since throwing weapons aren't single-shot, semi-auto, or burst, which is what the called shot descriptor has. Nor are they a melee weapon.
As far as the disarm rules, ok, so having 2 weapons of the same and ambidexterous will allow you to virtually ignore getting disarmed once, since you can then just continue attacking with the other weapon.
I really wondered about that one.
Let me quote:
Let me quote:
| QUOTE (p. 135) |
| Call a Shot A character may “call a shot” (aim for a vulnerable portion of a target) with this Free Action. See Called Shots, p. 149. This action must be immediately followed by a Take Aim, Fire Weapon, Throw Weapon, or Melee Unarmed Attack. |
I suppose that passage then allows unarmed melee attacks and thrown weapons to be used with a called shot as well then.
I would suspect it's either a fluke in typing or a misquote.
Honestly, how can you not make a called shot with any of the types of attacks?
pistol: aim for the head
fist: aim for the head(or rather, the nose)
sword: lunge at the head, chop that hand off skewer the chum (ouch)
axe: lob his bloody head off!
machine gun: sure, 20 bullets in the body hurt a lot, but I'll take 10 for the head when one pops it off too.
stun baton: crotch shot, baby.
two knives: One on each side of the neck, then throw them over your head with some jujitsu or whatever. Tenchu rip off right there.
SR is more about the sensibility than the rules (this isn't DnD, honestly). There's a reason they encourage you being creative. THey also mention that the roles aren't all defining - if a character does something well, you are perfectly entitled to say 'hell, that works for me!'
That's one of my favorite things about Shadowrun: you aren't ruled by the book. You can negotiate with it.
As per a reason to use two weapons over one with fighting someone skilled, the best theory I can figure is you're playing on the odds that they'll roll bad at a critical moment you roll well. Admittedly, that doesn't seem as effective as just one handing them and trying to beat the dice that way (but it is definitely useful for trying for some sort of one(two) hit kills when being sneaky).
(reason for edit: forgot my head).
Honestly, how can you not make a called shot with any of the types of attacks?
pistol: aim for the head
fist: aim for the head(or rather, the nose)
sword: lunge at the head, chop that hand off skewer the chum (ouch)
axe: lob his bloody head off!
machine gun: sure, 20 bullets in the body hurt a lot, but I'll take 10 for the head when one pops it off too.
stun baton: crotch shot, baby.
two knives: One on each side of the neck, then throw them over your head with some jujitsu or whatever. Tenchu rip off right there.
SR is more about the sensibility than the rules (this isn't DnD, honestly). There's a reason they encourage you being creative. THey also mention that the roles aren't all defining - if a character does something well, you are perfectly entitled to say 'hell, that works for me!'
That's one of my favorite things about Shadowrun: you aren't ruled by the book. You can negotiate with it.
As per a reason to use two weapons over one with fighting someone skilled, the best theory I can figure is you're playing on the odds that they'll roll bad at a critical moment you roll well. Admittedly, that doesn't seem as effective as just one handing them and trying to beat the dice that way (but it is definitely useful for trying for some sort of one(two) hit kills when being sneaky).
(reason for edit: forgot my head).
| QUOTE (Cold-Dragon) |
| pistol: aim for the head fist: aim for the head(or rather, the nose) sword: lunge at the head, chop that hand off skewer the chum (ouch) axe: lob his bloody head off! machine gun: sure, 20 bullets in the body hurt a lot, but I'll take 10 for the head when one pops it off too. stun baton: crotch shot, baby. two knives: One on each side of the neck, then throw them over your head with some jujitsu or whatever. Tenchu rip off right there. |
Just me being facetious
Fist a better target would be the throat, or the temple.
sword, might as well aim for stabbing the heart, more likely to hit that by going between a rib than going through their skull
axe: sure, if you're strong enough, or just get the arteries in the neck.
stun baton: somewhere along the spine would work better
Besides the obvious choice of locations to hit with weapons ( 
lol ) It goes to show called shots work quite well and definitely make sense in just about all those situations. I could see telling someone they can't call a shot if vulnerabilities are protected in some fashion (or else it just negates some or all the benefits).
lol ) It goes to show called shots work quite well and definitely make sense in just about all those situations. I could see telling someone they can't call a shot if vulnerabilities are protected in some fashion (or else it just negates some or all the benefits).
Having broken my hand punching someone in the temple, I can speak for a number of ways in which that is *not* the best target for a fist. A slight twist of the head, and you know what's in front of your hand instead of the temple? That big solid bony front of their skull.
| QUOTE (Shrike30) |
| Having broken my hand punching someone in the temple, I can speak for a number of ways in which that is *not* the best target for a fist. A slight twist of the head, and you know what's in front of your hand instead of the temple? That big solid bony front of their skull. |
Yeah, despite what they do in movies, punching someone in the mouth or skull is not a good idea, hehe.
| QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll) |
| Yeah, despite what they do in movies, punching someone in the mouth or skull is not a good idea, hehe. |
I was amused when my doc informed me I had what was called a "boxer's fracture." Apparently, little-finger-side metacarpal breaks are pretty common.
Yet another reason to get cyber hands man.
| QUOTE (Shrike30) | ||
I was amused when my doc informed me I had what was called a "boxer's fracture." Apparently, little-finger-side metacarpal breaks are pretty common. |
Well no one has claimed boxers are smart...
Next time, shoot for the collar bone, it breaks much easier and ends the fight quicker.
I wasn't trying to cause permanent damage, I was trying to get the guy to back the fuck off and stop flailing at me. After my hand suddenly started hurting a lot, knocking him into a big solid object nearby worked about as well.
You guys are like ninjas.
*shrug* It was a dumb fight that got started because the guy didn't like something I was doing, and wasn't so hot with the impulse control. At that point, my hand hurt like hell, he was smacking at my head, and I was pissed off. Shouldering someone into a cabinet isn't graceful, but if it knocks the wind out of them long enough that you can leave before they get their shit back together, it's a good enough solution for me.
Spent 8 weeks with a wrist cast on. I was annoyed Stupid thing to get hurt doing.
Spent 8 weeks with a wrist cast on. I was annoyed
Stupid thing to get hurt doing.
| QUOTE (Butterblume @ May 31 2006, 10:25 AM) |
| 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) |
Its not a legend. He started using a Bamboo sword against all his opponents. He felt bad about killing so many men who would challenge him just to be the guy who defeated him. So he started taking challengers with a Bamboo training sword, also called a Daito. He defeated allot of men using that. And as far as I know he did use two swords, but it wasn't like he invented or even pioneered duel wielding. he was most famous for the Bamboo sword.
Small correction, he did defeat a master swordsman using a Bokken, a wooden oar that was carved to resemble a sword. His opponet used a No-dachi.
To be honest fighting with two swords is unwieldy and awkward. It takes a lot of training for someone to be on par with a single sword fighter. Like the man said, we only have one brain.
Tell you what though, firearm trumps sword everytime.
| QUOTE (Shrike30) |
| I wasn't trying to cause permanent damage, I was trying to get the guy to back the fuck off and stop flailing at me. After my hand suddenly started hurting a lot, knocking him into a big solid object nearby worked about as well. |
All the more reason to break something.
Personally, if it comes to blows, I like to win.
| QUOTE (Shadow) |
| Tell you what though, firearm trumps sword everytime. |
I have to disagree. I've run and played in a live-action game that used firearms and melee weapons, and I'd rather have a short sword than a gun in a pinch. It comes down to this: it takes two moments to shoot someone (aim-shoot), but only one to cut them (strike). Time and time again, I saw people "cut" down before they could finish aiming, all things being equal. Thrown weapons were also faster than guns.
Of course, if you've got a bunch of people that can cover multiple angles, then firearms become more useful, but one-on-one, unless the environment and situation is ideal for the gun-wielder, it's going to be the guy with the pig-sticker.
In Shadowrun, I'd say this would be bst represented by a melee fighter with multiple IPs, and plenty of dodge or gymnastics. Use the first IP getting close while performing full defense, and then cut them open in the second or third IP.
You can't really compare LARPing with real life though.....or can you?
I can tell you that I would prefer a gun over a sword or knife, especially a good old shotgun.
I can tell you that I would prefer a gun over a sword or knife, especially a good old shotgun.
True, a shotgun will pretty much 'solve' everything, but only if the barrel is pointing at it, you have ammo, and you get the shot off. Someone going melee on your butt just has to get past the barrell length to be safe from the blast, or push it aside to reach you. From there it's a matter of wrestling with the shotgun and them to get it back at face range, or else you got to 'run away' to set your sights again.
range trumps melee at ranged
melee trumps range at melee
shotgun trumps close up near melee if you get a good shot, otherwise it's a liability if you miss (now if you got the automatic shotgun, that may be a different story, but then I may as well throw spears at you).
range trumps melee at ranged
melee trumps range at melee
shotgun trumps close up near melee if you get a good shot, otherwise it's a liability if you miss (now if you got the automatic shotgun, that may be a different story, but then I may as well throw spears at you).
| QUOTE (Cold-Dragon) |
| range trumps melee at ranged melee trumps range at melee |
Yeah. The idea if you have to fight someone with a firearm, is to get close enough so if you get the chance you can disarm of take them out before they can shoot you. This applies to both SR and real-life.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.