Does anyone know if the damage code for spurs is per hand or for both of them. I seem to remember in SR3 that if you had a spur on each hand you add half damage to your attack for using 2 spurs. I don't see that anywhere in SR4. So would a damage attack be just the damage code or damage code plus half.
Trevor
Full Version: Spurs
The difference is moot under these rules. Whether you have spurs on one hand or both, it is assumed that when you attack with them, you are attacking primarily with the spurs you have, so you use the damage listed for the spurs regardless.
(Str/2 + 3)P pg 337
When using two weapons:
pg 140
Use of a second set of spurs splits your combat dice between each spur but you do damage for each spur. So possible:
(Str+6)P damage on one turn.
Remember though you get -2dice for using a weapon in your off hand unless you are Ambedextirous.
When using two weapons:
pg 140
Use of a second set of spurs splits your combat dice between each spur but you do damage for each spur. So possible:
(Str+6)P damage on one turn.
Remember though you get -2dice for using a weapon in your off hand unless you are Ambedextirous.
| QUOTE (TBRMInsanity) |
| (Str/2 + 3)P pg 337 When using two weapons: pg 140 Use of a second set of spurs splits your combat dice between each spur but you do damage for each spur. So possible: (Str+6)P damage on one turn. Remember though you get -2dice for using a weapon in your off hand unless you are Ambedextirous. |
My understanding is he wouldn't do Str+6 damage, he would do Str/2+3 damage twice. Little difference there, as having two spurs should let you penetrate armor more than one. It gives a second attack that must be rolled on and all that separately.
thing is that the two weapon combat rules are only for ranged combat.
and in a way that makes sense, as close combat isnt a single swing or blow, its a series of moves and countermoves...
and in a way that makes sense, as close combat isnt a single swing or blow, its a series of moves and countermoves...
You could always give a two-spur sammie the +1 teamwork bonus 
| QUOTE (Shrike30) |
| You could always give a two-spur sammie the +1 teamwork bonus |
That's actually not a bad idea. It grants a bonus but isn't incredibly powerful like some other systems. +2 might be better, it would bring it in line with the most common ranged weapon enhancer (the smartgun). I'd definitely require some sort of edge or skill (perhaps a specialization) so as to avoid giving free dice to anyone that can buy a knife for their offhand.
Averaging the damage values would also be something to consider, for when someone wants to use a katana and wakizashi combo.
IIRC SR3's dual-weapon in melee rules were horrendous.
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| thing is that the two weapon combat rules are only for ranged combat. and in a way that makes sense, as close combat isnt a single swing or blow, its a series of moves and countermoves... |
Agreed. But there are rules for splitting your melee attack between multiple foes, so it's pretty close. Although I do think that is intended for multiple opponents, I don't see why it couldn't apply to one.
Off the top of my head:
How about, for an off hand weapon, you have to have an off hand weapon skill. If using both weapons, you can only use as many dice as you have in the off hand weapon, but if you hit you can boost the main weapon by 1/2 the damage of the off weapon. There should probably be some limits, like the off hand can't be larger than the main, but GM's can rule on that.
That way, to be fully capable, your skill in the off hand weapon needs to match your main weapon. Honestly, I think that without skill, having a weapon in your off hand is mroe of a distraction, which is why I'm considering this route.
How about, for an off hand weapon, you have to have an off hand weapon skill. If using both weapons, you can only use as many dice as you have in the off hand weapon, but if you hit you can boost the main weapon by 1/2 the damage of the off weapon. There should probably be some limits, like the off hand can't be larger than the main, but GM's can rule on that.
That way, to be fully capable, your skill in the off hand weapon needs to match your main weapon. Honestly, I think that without skill, having a weapon in your off hand is mroe of a distraction, which is why I'm considering this route.
Sounds a bit too much like the old, bad rules.
The old bad rules let you combine the dice though, rather than limiting the dice. I don't know if that's the best possible option, but it's better than a return to SR3's version IMO.
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| The old bad rules let you combine the dice though, rather than limiting the dice. I don't know if that's the best possible option, but it's better than a return to SR3's version IMO. |
I, personally, am down for limiting dice.
I still don't know. Melee damage is a much more precious commodity in this edition than it was in previous ones.
Besides, the real benefit to using two weapons at once generally isn't that you can inflict more damage (attack with both,) it's that you can parry with one and simultaneously attack with the other.
(Combat Sense-like benifit?)
Besides, the real benefit to using two weapons at once generally isn't that you can inflict more damage (attack with both,) it's that you can parry with one and simultaneously attack with the other.
(Combat Sense-like benifit?)
That really depends on the situation. If your opponent doesn't know what he's doing, or does but isn't near your skill level, parrying is less important. If you're armed with two swords and your opponent has bare knuckles, parrying is less important.
Alright, thing for two weapons in melee combat is.. with the correct training and combination of weapons... they own most people. I know, since I've fought with them, albeit with SCA rattan.
Close behind is the shield... but wrap around shots take care of that quickly if they try to keep their shield on you.
But anyway, most of the time offhand weapons are used to defend and block while your main weapon gets them when their attacks blocked by your offhand leave them open. Or the other way around.
For example; our trainer loves to use a saber in his main hand and a long handled axe (with alternative piercing end on the bottom, like the SR4 axe). The axe he uses to block, but also to thrust with the piercing end to keep opponets at a distance (and maybe impale them if they're sloppy) or hack them in the face or chest with the axehead if they get real close. And the main handweapon plays a rather standard role of wacking those open spots, wrap around shots, and general mayhem. It gets rather scary.
I, on the other hand, use a dual saber method, with my offhand weilding the saber reversed. The offhand uses pretty much the same method as the axe without the axe head, but with a very quick underhanded slash(nice for gutting or hamstringing them). And the main hand plays the same role as the trainers main hand.
Rarely are both weapons used for an all out offensive, but instead is useful for defend and counter tactics. On the other hand, it allows you to take advantage of more openings as well.
I'm not entirely sure how this could apply to the rules.... perhaps give the option of either an extra attack or a bonus to defense of some kind...or even the option of counterattacks...
Not sure, what say you?
Close behind is the shield... but wrap around shots take care of that quickly if they try to keep their shield on you.
But anyway, most of the time offhand weapons are used to defend and block while your main weapon gets them when their attacks blocked by your offhand leave them open. Or the other way around.
For example; our trainer loves to use a saber in his main hand and a long handled axe (with alternative piercing end on the bottom, like the SR4 axe). The axe he uses to block, but also to thrust with the piercing end to keep opponets at a distance (and maybe impale them if they're sloppy) or hack them in the face or chest with the axehead if they get real close. And the main handweapon plays a rather standard role of wacking those open spots, wrap around shots, and general mayhem. It gets rather scary.
I, on the other hand, use a dual saber method, with my offhand weilding the saber reversed. The offhand uses pretty much the same method as the axe without the axe head, but with a very quick underhanded slash(nice for gutting or hamstringing them). And the main hand plays the same role as the trainers main hand.
Rarely are both weapons used for an all out offensive, but instead is useful for defend and counter tactics. On the other hand, it allows you to take advantage of more openings as well.
I'm not entirely sure how this could apply to the rules.... perhaps give the option of either an extra attack or a bonus to defense of some kind...or even the option of counterattacks...
Not sure, what say you?
You could just increase the reach by 1 for having an off hand weapon, simple yet effective. That raises the chace for you to beat the reach of your opponent and get the benefits there of, and requires no extra skills or rolling. But it would have to be limted by logic, as in not with a monowhip or a two handed weapon etc. I think I might do this, the only time it would really be effective would be for someone tooled up for close combat with ambidexterity, that seems like enough limit to me, your adept and sam would be doing this mabye, but the rest wouldnt bother, so it wont be like D&D where there its hard to reason that every tom dick and barthog doenst have a knife in thier off hand. If you wanted to attack with both, then split your pool, but this lets you get a small edge being more defensive, or pressing the attack more.
That sounds reasonable actually. Not going to give an uber bonus, but still gives you a tiny edge over the single weapons. Perhaps a certain level of training might be required, nothing over the top, just some training in it during downtime and maybe even a little Karma. Much like a manuever ala Martial Arts styles... but with a bit less uberness...
And I'd say it gives +1 reach, no matter the size of the weapon.
Nice idea Bryce. XD
And I'd say it gives +1 reach, no matter the size of the weapon.
Nice idea Bryce. XD
That's a simple, easy way of doing it. I like it.
You don't need to add an artificial reach die for having a second weapon. You just have to remember to apply the -1 die to the target's defense for defending against additional attacks since his last action. It's already in the rules.
In Dual wielding, the off hand is often used more often in a defensive manner than offensive for those that know what they are doing. Rarely do you do the whole two weapon flurry common to movies and/or DnD. In essence, the offhand weapon is more like a shield, and just as useful (shields are great for pinning down peoples weapons and whapping them upside the head with a good wrap around shot...XD), as it tends to keep others at a distance with the threat of the offhand weapon rather than the use. It also gives you more options for counter attacks and just plain more dexterity than a normal shield would (not to mention lighter...).
Get too crazy with the whole dual weapon attacks and you die because you left yourself open, plain and simple. Dual weapons are useful to deflect, control, and trap a spear, thus eleminating the entire threat of a spear... unless they decide to trip you with the shaft... that sucks. You can do things with dual weapons that you can't with one weapon near as well... like deflecting heavier weapons (never parry a glaive or a great sword, deflect it if possible.)
Saying, "it doesn't need it" is your opinion. But I don't share it as I have seen and used weapons in a such a manner.
Get too crazy with the whole dual weapon attacks and you die because you left yourself open, plain and simple. Dual weapons are useful to deflect, control, and trap a spear, thus eleminating the entire threat of a spear... unless they decide to trip you with the shaft... that sucks. You can do things with dual weapons that you can't with one weapon near as well... like deflecting heavier weapons (never parry a glaive or a great sword, deflect it if possible.)
Saying, "it doesn't need it" is your opinion. But I don't share it as I have seen and used weapons in a such a manner.
| QUOTE (Xenith) |
| In Dual wielding, the off hand is often used more often in a defensive manner than offensive for those that know what they are doing. |
I fight with two weapons for fun, against other people who have done this sort of thing for decades. I'm still relatively new at it, but the biggest critique that the experts have of my style is that I'm using my off-hand weapon more often in a defensive manner than offensive. This is from folks who know what they're doing.
When using two melee weapons, one is supposed to be fluid, using both weapons equally for attack and defense. Try telling a boxer that his or her off-hand should be used primarily for defense.
>>>EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, my mentor mostly says I am supposed to use my feet for defense (moving, not kicking), but in practical terms, I still need to use both swords for both attacking and defending.
| QUOTE |
| Rarely do you do the whole two weapon flurry common to movies and/or DnD. |
This, at least, is true. Usually your opponent gets taken out by the second or third hit in your combo.
| QUOTE |
| In essence, the offhand weapon is more like a shield, and just as useful (shields are great for pinning down peoples weapons and whapping them upside the head with a good wrap around shot...XD), as it tends to keep others at a distance with the threat of the offhand weapon rather than the use. It also gives you more options for counter attacks and just plain more dexterity than a normal shield would (not to mention lighter...). |
You seem to either be speaking from experience or trying convey that appearance. Where are you coming from with this?
| QUOTE |
| Dual weapons are useful to deflect, control, and trap a spear, thus eleminating the entire threat of a spear... unless they decide to trip you with the shaft... that sucks. |
In practice, the spear has a very nice advantage over two weapons. If you can deflect the spear and keep it controlled long enough for you to get close enough to your target to hit him, then great. But usually that target is backing up, disengaging, and choking up to impale you on the tip as you run forward. I'd rather have the shield against the spear, or even a long stick, really.
| QUOTE |
| You can do things with dual weapons that you can't with one weapon near as well... like deflecting heavier weapons (never parry a glaive or a great sword, deflect it if possible.) |
Actually, I've parried a glaive with a rapier. The trick is to catch their foible (the end part of their weapon) on your forte (the part closest to your hand).
| QUOTE |
| But I don't share it as I have seen and used weapons in a such a manner. |
Please, share. What have you used, and under what circumstances? I think a comparison of our experiences would add to the discussion.
| QUOTE (Aaron @ Jun 26 2006, 03:30 PM) | ||
This, at least, is true. Usually your opponent gets taken out by the second or third hit in your combo. |
I'd make an exception there for knives, at least. There are some two-knife styles that emphasize large numbers of rapid (perhaps minor) cuts, rather than going for the throat. With weapons any longer than that, perhaps not so much.
In what knife training I've had, I've had teachers of both opinions - some were of the 'cut every open target and degrade the opponent's ability' mindset, while others (including the master) were more inclined to strike only at hands (as a distraction) and kill-points.
Watch someone trained in Escrima sometime when he's using a pair of weapons. They're being used quite interchangeably on attack and defense.
I think +1 reach is an awesome compromize for using two weapons. It adds to attack or defense depending on how it's used.
As for real life, I have no experience in two weapons fighting, I saw some one with a dagger and rapier though it was scary.
As for real life, I have no experience in two weapons fighting, I saw some one with a dagger and rapier though it was scary.
| QUOTE (Shrike30) |
| Watch someone trained in Escrima sometime when he's using a pair of weapons. They're being used quite interchangeably on attack and defense. |
Gaaah, Escrima is scary. From what I have seen of it, the attacker basically first carves up an opponent's arms so they can't hold a weapon, then flows up the arms for some head and chest shot finishing moves.
Not that it makes much difference but in LARP (foam sword) fighting, in very general terms on even skill levels
2 weapons vs polearm, if the polearm guy has room to back up, he wins, if not he gets one hit in, then is pated.
2 weapons vs 1 weapon. 2 weapons wins by using one weapon to lock down the opponent, then attacking when the opportunity arises with the other.
2 Weapons vs weapon and shield, The shield if used carefully it can keep both weapons at bay long enough for long enough for the shield fighter to get some good attacks in.
Genrally speaking most LARPers will, at low power, use 2 weapons as parry sticks to keep big scary monsters at bay, and, at high power, use 2 weapons to deal as much damage as possible while ignoring blows to the self.
2 Daggers is a different matter, though, as short weapons they are almost exclusively used for shiving people in the back, and diving face first into a fight hoping to smoosh a vital location while trading off hits to the limbs.
SCA fighting is more realistic, though. Do you do the "light" "hit" "heavy" (can't remember the exact phrases) method, Xenith? If so the low and high power comparisons are essentially the same as fighting in normal SCA class armor, vs fighitng in true Full Plate mail, fitted to you, and made of tungsten titanium alloy. (Naah, didn't feel that at all, sorry mate, light
). Not that SCA types would actually do that, but if for some insane reason a fight got serious your tactics do change if you know the other guy can't hurt you...To be honest, using a second weapon for extra reach is a good idea, it is a mechanic in place already, and reflects the simultaneously offensive/defensive nature of the second weapon. Boy I took a long time to say just that.
| QUOTE (Ankle Biter) |
| SCA fighting is more realistic, though. Do you do the "light" "hit" "heavy" (can't remember the exact phrases) method, Xenith? If so the low and high power comparisons are essentially the same as fighting in normal SCA class armor, vs fighitng in true Full Plate mail, fitted to you, and made of tungsten titanium alloy. (Naah, didn't feel that at all, sorry mate, light ). Not that SCA types would actually do that, but if for some insane reason a fight got serious your tactics do change if you know the other guy can't hurt you... |
In the SCA, you need to hit your opponent hard enough so that had you been swinging a real sword, and your opponent was wearing a chain hauberk and an open-faced helmet (regardless of what you're actually wearing; my armor's leather), you would have injured or killed him. This is hard enough to bruise an unarmored body with a stick of rattan, and possibly break a bone if you hit an arm just right (I've seen it happen twice, and I've been fighting for about fourteen years). Usually, folks take it relatively easy on one another, delivering and accepting blows that are of a slightly more gentle calibration, except in important tournaments.
This is a lot different from your average LARP, where you only need a touch to deliver a blow. I've found that a good solid foundation in SCA combat makes you better than most LARP fighters (if you can remember not to aim for the head when you have a boffer in your hand!). The fundamental difference, though, is that most LARPs have a combat system in addition to the physical combat, and so most foes require multiple hits before they are defeated; in the SCA, one good blow is enough. That difference comes in here:
| QUOTE |
| Not that it makes much difference but in LARP (foam sword) fighting, in very general terms on even skill levels 2 weapons vs polearm, if the polearm guy has room to back up, he wins, if not he gets one hit in, then is pated. 2 weapons vs 1 weapon. 2 weapons wins by using one weapon to lock down the opponent, then attacking when the opportunity arises with the other. 2 Weapons vs weapon and shield, The shield if used carefully it can keep both weapons at bay long enough for long enough for the shield fighter to get some good attacks in. |
I have found this to be true in the various LARP systems I've played, too. In the SCA (and one-shot combat LARP systems), generally it goes something like this:
- Two swords beats sword and shield.
- A long weapon (pole arm or spear, or long sword (bastard sword) if the wielder is good) beats two swords.
- A sword and shield beats a long weapon.
Anyway, in my experience with two-weapon fighting, I can't get behind adding reach for a second weapon. You don't really get a reach advantage at all, and, if you accept my break-down of the combat above, you can see that reach has the advantage on two-weapons. However, it is harder to defend against a combo attack, where you are actually using both weapons in your attack, and for that, there are already rules. Sure, you could argue that the use of one weapon to neutralize an opponent's weapon offers an advantage, but then your weapon isn't available for defense. You're using it offensively, not as reach but as an attack, which brings us right back to what I'm saying.
| QUOTE |
You seem to either be speaking from experience or trying convey that appearance. Where are you coming from with this? |
I do the Ratten SCA fighting, our group uses Roman Segmenta with padding (ie blue foam XD), good steel helmets, and various other padding. Ours is, in general, a heavy hitting style. Hit light or just skim it off the side and it doesn't count. We tend to get real close unless its polearms. And fights with shields eventually become a shoving match, jostling for position and opening. Wrap around shots, btw, are generally for said shield matches... you fling your weapon around to hit them around on the back of the head. Our trainer tells us that a good wrap around shot will hit YOU in the face if the opponent ducks. These are only really possible with double bladed swords and sabers.
| QUOTE |
| When using two melee weapons, one is supposed to be fluid, using both weapons equally for attack and defense. Try telling a boxer that his or her off-hand should be used primarily for defense. |
Yes, you do use the attack and defense interchangably, but feinting with either weapon and following through with the other is useful for both offense and defense. This more a preferance for me, I supose, to defend with the offhand... jab a bit with it as threat or when they don't expect it to sink it through their defenses.
| QUOTE |
Actually, I've parried a glaive with a rapier. The trick is to catch their foible (the end part of their weapon) on your forte (the part closest to your hand). |
Heh. Thats funny. Know what I'd do at that point? Yoink, trip, impale.
| QUOTE |
In practice, the spear has a very nice advantage over two weapons. If you can deflect the spear and keep it controlled long enough for you to get close enough to your target to hit him, then great. But usually that target is backing up, disengaging, and choking up to impale you on the tip as you run forward. I'd rather have the shield against the spear, or even a long stick, really. |
This is true. Its hard to fight a spear, but when you are running out of options, a last ditch effort is better than none. Shields are, by far, more useful against polearms then dual weapons. Which is why I'm trying to learn shield better.
| QUOTE |
Please, share. What have you used, and under what circumstances? I think a comparison of our experiences would add to the discussion. |
Honestly, I'm a novice that catches on quickly from watching and experience. My prefered method of fighting is dual basket hilt sabers, with the offhand reversed for a good quick piercing attack. Probably not quite effective as the saber and axe combo (the offhand grip on the axe is shifted close to the blade to allow for a quick punch/chop and the peircing point on the bottom to give a quick jab at a distance) prefered by our trainer.
| QUOTE |
Gaaah, Escrima is scary. |
Agreed. I hope to either learn the style... or never ever fight someone who has...
Aaron - Two weapons do have an advantage, about as much as having a shield, simply in a more spread out way rather than specialized. Again, you have your view and I have mine. Different experiences and fighting styles perhaps.
Shrike30, Lagomorph, Ankle Biter- Speaking of which, should the reach bonus for offense replace the -1 to defense for an additional attack?
| QUOTE (Xenith) |
| We tend to get real close unless its polearms. And fights with shields eventually become a shoving match, jostling for position and opening. Wrap around shots, btw, are generally for said shield matches... you fling your weapon around to hit them around on the back of the head. Our trainer tells us that a good wrap around shot will hit YOU in the face if the opponent ducks. These are only really possible with double bladed swords and sabers. |
Where are you, roughly? That sort of fighting seems like a lot more shoving and a lot less finesse than around here (I'm close to the Northshield/Calontir/Midrealm border). I've seen a wrap shot that was ducked and hit the thrower in the face, but that was in like the early 80's. That type of wrap is called a "thumb-leader," because you lead the shot with your thumb. If your thumb and forefinger are wrapped around your hilt and your blade is aligned with the fleshy part of your hand between your thumb and forefinger (your first dorsal interosseous, if you want to be specific), you won't hit yourself.
| QUOTE (Xenith) |
| Yes, you do use the attack and defense interchangably, but feinting with either weapon and following through with the other is useful for both offense and defense. This more a preferance for me, I supose, to defend with the offhand... jab a bit with it as threat or when they don't expect it to sink it through their defenses. |
Really? I want to fight you sometime.
Seriously, though, the combo shot is, I think, what the RAW is talking about when you split your attacks and your opponent loses a die to defend. I got a knight (who was using a shield) once when I threw a drop shot with my right sword and followed it immediately with a left thrust to the face. The first attack was well-defended against (off his shield, maybe like 1 Stun or something), but the face thrust landed too fast for him to defend against. I didn't get a reach bonus; I was within his range the whole time.
| QUOTE (Xenith) |
| Heh. Thats funny. Know what I'd do at that point? Yoink, trip, impale. |
The problem with conversations about "what I'd do if" is that they're pretty useless. There's always a counter. In the case of the parried pole-arm, you've lost what the fencers call "right of way," the initiative if you will, because you've attacked and need to recover from that. It's true that you have the option of trying to knock me off balance, but I have the options of stabbing you in the arm or hand (possibly a foot), grabbing your haft and wrenching your pole out of the way, or stepping inside the reach of the weapon (in the case where it actually happened, I just lunged in and got him just under the eye).
| QUOTE (Xenith) |
| This is true. Its hard to fight a spear, but when you are running out of options, a last ditch effort is better than none. Shields are, by far, more useful against polearms then dual weapons. Which is why I'm trying to learn shield better. |
A shield is like a tiny god against pole weapons. I'm surprised that you're just learning shield; most fighters start with sword & board and then expand to other authorizations. Since you've started with two-weapon, I suggest that you get a center-grip style shield to work with. This has the added advantage of being intrinsically ambidextrous, so you can put it in your on-hand and practice making attacks with your off-hand to also improve your two-weapon game.
| QUOTE (Xenith) | ||
Agreed. I hope to either learn the style... or never ever fight someone who has... |
I've also studied Kendo. I mention this because a friend of mine and I pulled out some boffers, two escrima-knife-sized ones and one shinai-sized one. We decided to see which would win: escrima or kendo. We used a one-shot rule set much like SCA, kendo, and escrima use. After about an hour of fighting, we decided that the kendo fighter gets one shot, and then the escrima fighter hits him four or five times. This, I think, illustrates nicely the difference between a reach advantage (the shinai) and a defense disadvantage (me trying desperately to block the scary foam death multiple times in rapid succession).
| QUOTE (Xenith) |
| Aaron - Then what about the defensive qualities of the two weapon fighting? I can understand disallowing the reach for offense (filled by the additional defense in a round rule), but the reach for defense (or just a die bonus to defense in melee) should be included. Shields give bonuses in SR by bonus armor.. so what about offhand weapons? The additional possible attack is interesting, but doesn't quite fit the full function. |
There is no real defensive advantage to having two swords, or two spurs for that matter. I mean, there is in boffer or SCA combat, where you're not allowed to contact your opponent or his weapons with your body, but in a real fight, you have lots more options, including grabbing or blocking an attacker's forearms, kicking to make distance rather than to do any real damage, etc. If you're swinging a katana or a pole axe or something that can keep the target at bay, that's defensive use, but a regular one-handed sword or spurs, not so much. It's not that you have more options with the weapons, it's that you have different ones.
The shield, on the other hand, isn't really defense so much as putting something solid between you and your opponent's attack. In LARPs and the SCA, a shield negates an attack completely, but that's just not the way it works in Real Life. Weapons like the mace and the flail were created because they could shatter a person's arm, even through a shield. I was actually quite happy with the rules for shields in the BBB when I first read them.
I still like the idea of transferring the Ranged Weapon rules over to melee weapons. That way it is easy to figure out (unlike the SR3 dual melee rules).
Splitting the pool? That's what I suggested earlier as well, if you wanted to get an extra attack. Or did you mean some other part of the ranged combat rules?
The reason I don't like that is the fact that ranged combat is quite nicely measured out into a "per shot" unit, whereas melee combat is a quick flurry of actions, rather than a single stab or punch. The +1 reach bonus for having a second weapon would be the ONLY modifier I'd be using for two-weapon melee combat... it lets the wielder choose how to influence the dice (much as a person with two weapons can choose to use them more aggressively or more defensively) and fits very neatly within the existing mechanic. Essentially, you make a single attack with whichever of the two weapons you're carrying that you prefer, and get a +1 reach bonus.
I realize this gets a little odd (what if I'm using a stun baton and a chainsaw?), but it basically comes down to "which weapon did you want to hit them with more?" The fact that I've got a chainsaw whirring away in my other hand may have just made the guy back off a bit more, giving me more of an opening for the stun baton. If you don't overanalyze it, this works. If you do overanalyze it, you're probably going to want to do a lot more to the existing melee system than finding a clean, simple tweak to benefit two-weapon users.
The "fighting with two guns" rules are NOT written to work in melee combat.
I realize this gets a little odd (what if I'm using a stun baton and a chainsaw?), but it basically comes down to "which weapon did you want to hit them with more?" The fact that I've got a chainsaw whirring away in my other hand may have just made the guy back off a bit more, giving me more of an opening for the stun baton. If you don't overanalyze it, this works. If you do overanalyze it, you're probably going to want to do a lot more to the existing melee system than finding a clean, simple tweak to benefit two-weapon users.
The "fighting with two guns" rules are NOT written to work in melee combat.
Agreed. Personally, I'll be using both set ups for now. They have the option of multiple attacks with the weapon, or getting a defensive/offensive bonus.
Sadly, though I like polearms as much as dual weilding weapons... I find that in SR a polearm is next to useless for a runner since it is not concealable...I've always wondered if a spring loaded or hydrolic telescoping polearm or bo would be feasible... as this would make polearms a bit more concealable and readily accessible...
I can dream can't I?
Sadly, though I like polearms as much as dual weilding weapons... I find that in SR a polearm is next to useless for a runner since it is not concealable...I've always wondered if a spring loaded or hydrolic telescoping polearm or bo would be feasible... as this would make polearms a bit more concealable and readily accessible...
I can dream can't I?
| QUOTE (Xenith) |
| Agreed. Personally, I'll be using both set ups for now. They have the option of multiple attacks with the weapon, or getting a defensive/offensive bonus. Sadly, though I like polearms as much as dual weilding weapons... I find that in SR a polearm is next to useless for a runner since it is not concealable...I've always wondered if a spring loaded or hydrolic telescoping polearm or bo would be feasible... as this would make polearms a bit more concealable and readily accessible... I can dream can't I? |
Hmmm.
Well, let's see. How about a memory-metal or memory-polymer shaft? With the power on, it's a hollow, rigid tube, about an inch and a half in diameter and as long as you like. With the power off, the 'tube' flattens, then rolls up into a coil. All you have to do then is figure out something to do with the business end of the thing.
You could also do much the same with a 'rope' that was braided with whatever synthetic (and reactive) fiber they use for muscles in cyberlimbs. Off, it's a rope. On, it snaps out into a stiff pole.
There was a telescoping staff in 3rd edition.
Telescoping is TOTALLY 20th century. We should be able to do better than that
| QUOTE |
| This, I think, illustrates nicely the difference between a reach advantage (the shinai) and a defense disadvantage (me trying desperately to block the scary foam death multiple times in rapid succession). |
That depends entirely upon how good the long-blade user is at close-in work and how well the short-blade user (yes, ideally escrima/pikiti uses blades, not sticks) can fight in longar mode. Each weapon can be used in the opposite manner from which it is typically envisioned, and a long blade weilded with two hands can be downright ferocious in close-in fighting due to the leverage and increased grappling (yes, with the blade) opportunities that arise from having both hands on the same piece.
Telescoping staff? Was that in Cannon Companion?
Telescoping is nice, true, but I would want something with some spring to it. A powered, hydrolic extending polearm is far more scary... esp if you use that powered punch to open an attack in addition to the thrust from you.
On the other hand... a simple telescoping weapon never runs out of power...
On an further strang note... I wonder if a telescoping sword is possible, so as not to leave those blade freaks out. (A telescoping Axe might be more feasible though.) How about stealth matierials also? (stuff that doesn't show up on weapon scanners)
Anyway.. I digress... XD
Telescoping is nice, true, but I would want something with some spring to it. A powered, hydrolic extending polearm is far more scary... esp if you use that powered punch to open an attack in addition to the thrust from you.
On the other hand... a simple telescoping weapon never runs out of power...
On an further strang note... I wonder if a telescoping sword is possible, so as not to leave those blade freaks out. (A telescoping Axe might be more feasible though.) How about stealth matierials also? (stuff that doesn't show up on weapon scanners)
Anyway.. I digress... XD
If you really want a powered-opening telescoping weapon, the best mechanism would probably be compressed gas. Just add a new CO2 cartridge every couple of uses. It's purely mechanical, so it's less detectible, and it'll be pretty darn fast.
But would it compact just as quickly? XD
AS quickly, probably not. You could get it to collapse at the touch of a release, though. A crude example...imagine a telescoping rod where there's a length of bungie inside, attached to both ends. There's also a CO2 cartridge. One button releases a charge of the compressed gas and blows the rod out to full extension, where it locks into place. In the process of doing this, the bungie is stretched. To collapse it, hit the other button, releasing the catches that are holding it open. The bungie pulls it back to its collapsed state.
My ASP telescoping baton works on pure inertia... hard flick of the arm, and it's locked open hard enough that you've got to slam it into something hard, tip-on, to get it to collapse. It's essentially 3 tubes stacked inside of each other, with the "base" of each tube slightly wider than the "tip" of the tube it's inside, meaning that when you flick it open, they bind on each other.
Mine's never seen any actual use beyond being opened and closed occasionally over the last... 6 years?... and I'm noticing that the wear on the binding parts is beginning to affect it's performance. In actual use, they have a tendancy to bend if you really start beating on things with them, making it so they can't collapse or, if they do, might jam partway open the next time you have to use it. The only advantage they have over anything actually built to the proper length is that they're easier to carry.
I'd be a little dubious about using a telescoping stabbing weapon like a polearm... my fear would be that it would collapse due to the abuse and take a couple of my fingers with it. Obviously, teh way of teh futar will be superior to the way of the present, but that's one of those things I'd feel real leery about planning to use.
Mine's never seen any actual use beyond being opened and closed occasionally over the last... 6 years?... and I'm noticing that the wear on the binding parts is beginning to affect it's performance. In actual use, they have a tendancy to bend if you really start beating on things with them, making it so they can't collapse or, if they do, might jam partway open the next time you have to use it. The only advantage they have over anything actually built to the proper length is that they're easier to carry.
I'd be a little dubious about using a telescoping stabbing weapon like a polearm... my fear would be that it would collapse due to the abuse and take a couple of my fingers with it. Obviously, teh way of teh futar will be superior to the way of the present, but that's one of those things I'd feel real leery about planning to use.
*nod* My wife carries a 26" ASP in her purse. It scored me more points than any other Christmas present I've ever given her.
...okay, yeah. She's a bit violent.
Anyway, I agree - there are some real weaknesses to a telescoping weapon. The thrusting problem you mentioned, for instance, and the problem of weakness in the joints, and the fact that if you want them small, you need lots of small segments...but if you want them strong, you want as few segments as possible. That's why I think an SR4 SOTA collapsible weapon would use some sort of variable-rigidity or shape-memory material. I don't know of any contemporary material that changes it's shape as QUICKLY as you'd need for that sort of a weapon, or with the same strength in final form, but those seem like details that advancing technology will probably address over 60 years.
...okay, yeah. She's a bit violent.
Anyway, I agree - there are some real weaknesses to a telescoping weapon. The thrusting problem you mentioned, for instance, and the problem of weakness in the joints, and the fact that if you want them small, you need lots of small segments...but if you want them strong, you want as few segments as possible. That's why I think an SR4 SOTA collapsible weapon would use some sort of variable-rigidity or shape-memory material. I don't know of any contemporary material that changes it's shape as QUICKLY as you'd need for that sort of a weapon, or with the same strength in final form, but those seem like details that advancing technology will probably address over 60 years.
| QUOTE (Xenith) |
| Sadly, though I like polearms as much as dual weilding weapons... |
The obvious solution: dual-wielded pole-arms!
Seriously, though, I've had some success in "concealing" a simple staff, cleverly concealed as a walking stick.
Hey, staves are great, right up until you decide to try and whallop someone wearing full body armor with one
| QUOTE (Shrike30 @ Jun 27 2006, 01:41 PM) |
| The reason I don't like that is the fact that ranged combat is quite nicely measured out into a "per shot" unit, whereas melee combat is a quick flurry of actions, rather than a single stab or punch. The +1 reach bonus for having a second weapon would be the ONLY modifier I'd be using for two-weapon melee combat... it lets the wielder choose how to influence the dice (much as a person with two weapons can choose to use them more aggressively or more defensively) and fits very neatly within the existing mechanic. Essentially, you make a single attack with whichever of the two weapons you're carrying that you prefer, and get a +1 reach bonus. I realize this gets a little odd (what if I'm using a stun baton and a chainsaw?), but it basically comes down to "which weapon did you want to hit them with more?" The fact that I've got a chainsaw whirring away in my other hand may have just made the guy back off a bit more, giving me more of an opening for the stun baton. If you don't overanalyze it, this works. If you do overanalyze it, you're probably going to want to do a lot more to the existing melee system than finding a clean, simple tweak to benefit two-weapon users. The "fighting with two guns" rules are NOT written to work in melee combat. |
The idea of splitting your pool for attacking with two weapons is that you are doing two different sets of manouvers with each weapon, requiring a finite set of concentration for each weapon (ie splitting the pool). Otherwise attacking with two weapons would do nothing but impose a -2 dice penalty for a weapon in your off hand.
As for dual weapons I think only one attack is needed as it is still just one weapon. The restriction would be you can only weild one dual weapon at a time.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.