Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Fighting With Two Weapons
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
IAmUnaware
A quick scan of my core book yielded nothing, and a scan of this forum did the same, so here's my question:

One of my players is very anxious to look cool and wield dual swords in melee combat. Theoretically, it is difficult to fight effectively (untrained, at least) with two weapons, and several other systems simulate this in some way with various penalties. Does SR4 have any published modifiers or rules for such a thing? If not, does anybody have any effective houserules?
ShadowDragon
It's in there. Check page 141, 142 and 77. It's geared toward guns, but the same rules should apply to melee.

Basically without the ambidextrous quality, your offhand takes a -2 penalty. With or without it, you split your dice pool.

I houserule that smart links work with one gun instead of no gun while two gun shooting.
cyberdozer
QUOTE

I houserule that smart links work with one gun instead of no gun while two gun shooting.


I don't have a book at hand to reference, but wouldn't the +2 dice bonus for smartguns also get split normally, provided they are both smartlinked?
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (ShadowDragon)
It's in there. Check page 141, 142 and 77. It's geared toward guns, but the same rules should apply to melee.

No. It's a ranged combat modifier, and the very mechanic is completly different.
Splitting dicepool in melee occurs when attacking multiple targets.

QUOTE (IAmUnaware)
Does SR4 have any published modifiers or rules for such a thing? If not, does anybody have any effective houserules?

Right now, it hasn't.
The easiest way is to give Bonus dice, like back in CC:

+(Weapon Skill (-2 if not Ambidexterous))/2
cybertrucker
We have been using the split the dice pool for mellee combat.. that rule seems to apply to all combo actions.. even when trying to cast 2 spells at once you split your dice between the spells. With Mellee you would give your -2d penalty to your off hand.

Our group also uses a house rule that if you have a smart gun you can only use it on one of your guns not both. So if you used it in your off hand weapon you could effectively cancel out the minus 2d penalty with your smart gun.

We have found that using 2 weapons at once is good against your common thugs but against skilled opponents it is not as effective. Here is a modifier you can also use though. The first strike your opponent gets his normal defense against. However the 2nd weapon you hit with he gets a minus 1d to his defense as he is being overwhelmed. Just like if he was fighting mulitple opponents.
lorechaser
Cyber: That's not even a houserule (the defense penalties).

Your defense is reduced by one for each attack you've defended against. So if I'm splitting my pool to make two attacks, you're getting a -1 on the 2nd....
GrinderTheTroll
This is about the 4th (at least) thread asking the same question about "What to do about using 2 melee weapons?" which means there are at least 400 different opinions about it.
SR4 didn't quite complete the loop on this so it's house rules for dual-melee weapons for now.
Shrike30
SR4 says absolutely nothing about using two melee weapons at once. We might see rules for it in Arsenal, but for now I'd stick with "pick the weapon you want to use, make the strike with it."

If you absolutely must have an advantage from your offhand weapon, consider adding it's reach, or adding the +1 "teamwork" bonus.
IAmUnaware
I was sort of hoping for a mechanic that allows a two-weapon attack against a single opponent to be resolved as a single attack test. I suppose splitting the pool and resolving each arm as a seperate attack will work well enough, though, and it is consistent with the rest of the rules. Thanks for the help, everyone.

EDIT:
QUOTE
If you absolutely must have an advantage from your offhand weapon, consider adding it's reach, or adding the +1 "teamwork" bonus.


I wasn't so much worried about an advantage as a balanced mechanic that makes it better than one-weapon fighting in some situations and worse in others. The last thing I need is for all my players to go Drizzt Do'Urden on me, so I was hoping to not make two-weapon fighting always more powerful than normal melee. It sounds like splitting the dice pool will give me what I was looking for.
Cabral
QUOTE (cybertrucker)
Our group also uses a house rule that if you have a smart gun you can only use it on one of your guns not both. So if you used it in your off hand weapon you could effectively cancel out the minus 2d penalty with your smart gun.

That's a step up from the standard rule.

The standard rule is if you're two-pistol fighting with 2 smartlink guns, you don't get smartlink bonus dice and split the remaining dice pool.
Gort
Two-weapon fighting already DOES have an advantage - if you are good enough to drop one of your foes with only half of your dice pool, you can take people out twice as fast.

You have to be VERY good to benefit from this advantage, but it is present. However, as in reality, most of the time it is far more efficient to use one weapon in both hands.
cybertrucker
QUOTE (Gort)
Two-weapon fighting already DOES have an advantage - if you are good enough to drop one of your foes with only half of your dice pool, you can take people out twice as fast.

You have to be VERY good to benefit from this advantage, but it is present. However, as in reality, most of the time it is far more efficient to use one weapon in both hands.

That is correct. If you are very skilled it will help you drop semi skilled opponents very quickly. However facing off against someone with good skill and a high reaction you will find out very quickly its probably best to use one weapon...

With the rules the way they are for multi weapon fighting. It keeps it balanced that way you dont have people going Duel wielding for every type of encounter.

Heres one thing I want to know. ?hat is the advantage of having a pair of cyberclaws?... absolutely nothing. In 3rd edition if you used a pair of them you got a damage boost... Wonder why they didnt do the same thing in 4th edition?
Gort
QUOTE (cybertrucker)
Heres one thing I want to know. ?hat is the advantage of having a pair of cyberclaws?... absolutely nothing.

Didn't we just cover this? The advantage of having a pair of cyberclaws is that you have the potential to defeat two opponents in a round rather than one. You have to be very good for this to work, though.
The Jopp
QUOTE (Gort)
QUOTE (cybertrucker @ Aug 30 2006, 10:41 PM)
Heres one thing I want to know. ?hat is the advantage of having a pair of cyberclaws?... absolutely nothing.

Well, if you are good enough with a split pool you get two attacks instead of one in close combat, that's bonus enought.
Metasigil
Just a note: You do not need two weapons to be able to split you dice pool to attack multiple opponents, it's a standard mechanic of melee combat.

So RAW, there is zero advantage to fighting with two identical weapons in melee, dice wise. The die based advantages I've found so far are: you can switch up attacks between say a mono sword and a stun baton without needing to sheath and then draw a new weapon; you still have a weapon if you get one shot/ knocked out of your hand; and you can have a melee weapon in one hand and a ranged weapon in the other for greater versatility.

But it would be nice if there were some die based advantage to fighting with two weapons in melee. I'd personally make it a +1-3 die bonus to parry checks, probably 2 + Reach, if wielding two melee weapons.

Just wanted to get in my two cents.
GrinderTheTroll
QUOTE (Metasigil)
Just a note: You do not need two weapons to be able to split you dice pool to attack multiple opponents, it's a standard mechanic of melee combat.

So RAW, there is zero advantage to fighting with two identical weapons in melee, dice wise. The die based advantages I've found so far are: you can switch up attacks between say a mono sword and a stun baton without needing to sheath and then draw a new weapon; you still have a weapon if you get one shot/ knocked out of your hand; and you can have a melee weapon in one hand and a ranged weapon in the other for greater versatility.

Exactly the case.

My arguement has been, it's easier to hurt someone when swinging around 2 sharp things instead of 1 sharp thing.
Charon
If a PC wanted to wield two melee weapon, I'd just tell him to take it as a a specialization in Blade (Two weapon).

So he gets +2 dice when wielding two weapons. Damage are based on the largest weapon. Otherwise it's just as if he was using a single weapon and basically he's fighting with two weapons for flavor.

No need for the ambidexterity quality except for situation when the PC has to fight using only his off-hand for some reason (In which case he'd lose the +2 and suffer -2 if he doesn't ambidexterity). Learning to fight with a main gauche in your off-hand and a rapier in the right hand doesn't make you ambidextrous. It's just as mundane an achievement as learning to catch a ball in your left hand and throw it with your right hand. Or throwing a left hook when you are a right handed boxer.

Of course, a PC who takes a specialization in a single weapon has the same +2. And that specific weapon would be twinked out. But if you have (Two Weapon) as a specialization you can wield any two blode and still get your bonus so it evens out in the long run.

Beside, fighting with two weapons isn't clearly superior two wielding one so it shouldn't become too enticing an option beyond the wow factor.
lorechaser
QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll)
Exactly the case.

My arguement has been, it's easier to hurt someone when swinging around 2 sharp things instead of 1 sharp thing.

You'd think. But it's really not the case in practice.

Unless you're really good at it, the second weapon either sits there forgotten, or the person tries to use both, and ends up doing two attacks badly, rather than one good.

As much as I hate to say it, I have experience with this. I've done some research on it (I'm a twf (two weapon fighting) wonk from my DnD days). Typically, even the best fencers only used the second weapon as a parrying weapon. That's why the rapier/main-gauche combination came about. The main-gauche was rarely used to stab, mostly to catch a weapon, and possibly break it. If anything, it might be used for a hilt strike, which you could also do with your fist.

I've also spent time in "padded stick" world. Wherein I would pad sticks, and try to beat up other people with padded sticks. Kinda like SCA, but without the cool value. In those cases, there was one dude that could really use two weapons effectively. And he very much could. Everyone else tried, but ended up just slowing themselves down, and going back to one big weapon, or a shield.

Here's an analogy. You need to write your name on two pieces of paper. Are you better off writing it twice with your right hand, or at the same time, one with each hand?
GrinderTheTroll
QUOTE (lorechaser)
QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll @ Aug 31 2006, 12:23 PM)
Exactly the case.

My arguement has been, it's easier to hurt someone when swinging around 2 sharp things instead of 1 sharp thing.

You'd think. But it's really not the case in practice.

Unless you're really good at it, the second weapon either sits there forgotten, or the person tries to use both, and ends up doing two attacks badly, rather than one good.

As much as I hate to say it, I have experience with this. I've done some research on it (I'm a twf (two weapon fighting) wonk from my DnD days). Typically, even the best fencers only used the second weapon as a parrying weapon. That's why the rapier/main-gauche combination came about. The main-gauche was rarely used to stab, mostly to catch a weapon, and possibly break it. If anything, it might be used for a hilt strike, which you could also do with your fist.

I've also spent time in "padded stick" world. Wherein I would pad sticks, and try to beat up other people with padded sticks. Kinda like SCA, but without the cool value. In those cases, there was one dude that could really use two weapons effectively. And he very much could. Everyone else tried, but ended up just slowing themselves down, and going back to one big weapon, or a shield.

Here's an analogy. You need to write your name on two pieces of paper. Are you better off writing it twice with your right hand, or at the same time, one with each hand?

If you are well trained, you are can be proficient with both hands equally. A well trained martial artist would have no problem using 2 melee weapons at once wether it be 2 fists, 2 legs or some combination of all and other parts.
lorechaser
Agreed.

However, the rules don't really include any provisions for that beyond the Ambidexterity quality.

I think the idea of allowing a spec in "Two weapons" is really the best solution. It allows you to pick between a combat axe, or two Katanas.

I'd even be willing to allow the teamwork rule in that case, so that you can use a combat axe in 2 hands for more damage, or two katanas for a +1 to hit, but lower damage.
Charon
QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll @ Aug 31 2006, 02:33 PM)
QUOTE (lorechaser @ Aug 31 2006, 12:15 PM)
QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll @ Aug 31 2006, 12:23 PM)
Exactly the case.

My arguement has been, it's easier to hurt someone when swinging around 2 sharp things instead of 1 sharp thing.

You'd think. But it's really not the case in practice.

Unless you're really good at it, the second weapon either sits there forgotten, or the person tries to use both, and ends up doing two attacks badly, rather than one good.

As much as I hate to say it, I have experience with this. I've done some research on it (I'm a twf (two weapon fighting) wonk from my DnD days). Typically, even the best fencers only used the second weapon as a parrying weapon. That's why the rapier/main-gauche combination came about. The main-gauche was rarely used to stab, mostly to catch a weapon, and possibly break it. If anything, it might be used for a hilt strike, which you could also do with your fist.

I've also spent time in "padded stick" world. Wherein I would pad sticks, and try to beat up other people with padded sticks. Kinda like SCA, but without the cool value. In those cases, there was one dude that could really use two weapons effectively. And he very much could. Everyone else tried, but ended up just slowing themselves down, and going back to one big weapon, or a shield.

Here's an analogy. You need to write your name on two pieces of paper. Are you better off writing it twice with your right hand, or at the same time, one with each hand?

If you are well trained, you are can be proficient with both hands equally. A well trained martial artist would have no problem using 2 melee weapons at once wether it be 2 fists, 2 legs or some combination of all and other parts.

Using two fist is a poor analogy to using two weapons.

Historically, two weapon fighting have been very rare. It's something you mostly see at martial arts demonstration and in cool movies.

It's not very practical in real life and death fight.

Rapier / Main gauche combos in Renaissance Europe are probably the most widespread incidence of TWF observed in history and the Main Gauche was used more like a buckler than like a weapon so in truth it wasn't very much like the TWF most people imagine.

Against an armored opponent, using two swords instead one sword with both hand would usually result with you being unable to penetrate the armor with either swords, a highly undesirable turn of event.

It can be argued though that SR's ultra sharp and light sword, the scarcity of hard armor and the existence of strenght augmentation would lead to TWF being more practical.

In that sense, I ain't against TWF in SR. But in RL and even more so in the historical periods where sword were used, TWF was very rare.
GrinderTheTroll
QUOTE (Charon)
Using two fist is a poor analogy to using two weapons.

I disagree. Fists are weapons just of the blunt variety. If you learn how to use them, they are very effective.

QUOTE
Historically, two weapon fighting have been very rare.  It's something you mostly see at martial arts demonstration and in cool movies. 

It's not very practical in real life and death fight.

This might be true but it makes for good RPG action!
lorechaser
Hmmm.

You do make a good point about the monofilament sword, etc.

Really, fighting with two monofilament swords (since they don't, iirc, really have a specific cutting edge) would be more akin to something like Escrima fighting (two stick fighting).

I think if you're going to give TWF a real benefit, you should follow the DnD example, and make it a quality, or even a skill on it's own, under combat.
Charon
QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll @ Aug 31 2006, 03:42 PM)
QUOTE (Charon)
Using two fist is a poor analogy to using two weapons.

I disagree. Fists are weapons just of the blunt variety. If you learn how to use them, they are very effective.


Unless you are comparing that to fighting with two knife, it is very different.

There ain't much in common between fistfighting and, say, using effectively a Daisho.

And yes, it's fun for RPG. It shouldn't be penalized to match historic use but then again shouldn't be made into the supreme fighting style.

That's why I just suggest making a specialization. If you are going to pay BP for a quality it could mean an extra dice for melee for 5 BP quality if wielding two weapon. But no more than that.
Butterblume
Give me an historic quarterstaff against most two weapon fighters all the time nyahnyah.gif.

I probably will use Charon's idea until two weapons rules are published.
Firewall
I would not call myself a martial artist but I trained with a variety of weapons, including two rapiers, rapier / main-gauche and two knives.

A good (truly) ambidextrous fighter can use two matched swords and swap from attack to defense with each one but you always end up with one defense and one attack. Two knives, you do tend to use both at once. Despite William Gibson's assertion, you don't fence with knives. You defend or attack with both at once.

Even if you are attacking with one weapon and defending with the other, you still have twice the number of attacks because you can parry without breaking off the attack.

It is also worth nothing that while rapiers are better with a dagger than case, a longsword is best used with a matched blade than a dagger in my opinion. They are slower weapons and the style is very different.
Charon
QUOTE (Firewall @ Aug 31 2006, 04:24 PM)
It is also worth nothing that while rapiers are better with a dagger than case, a longsword is best used with a matched blade than a dagger in my opinion.  They are slower weapons and the style is very different.

Longsword are used two-handed, not two at the same time!

Typically you'd use it mostly two-handed and occasionnaly disengage one hand for grappling.

But two at the same time? You must be confusing longswords with another type of smaller sword.

Incidently, D&D muddled the issue by erroneously calling longsword any generic one handed sword like the arming sword.

Longsword are the swords used on the battlefield of Europe from 1350 to 1500, when Knights got rid of their shields in favor of heavier two handed weapons to deal with advances in armor.

Fighting with two of those at the same time is technically possible but is downright moronic. You'll never get enough leverage to make your blow count and will tire very fast. And since these were battle sword used against armored opponents, that makes TWF with them a silly idea.

Finally, a typical way to finish off your opponent was to hammer them with the sword (you were unlikely to punch through the armor but it would still stun) and then grab the sword toward the middle and use it like a spear to either pierce the armor or slip it through the joint. A technique Called "Half-swording" and requiring two hands. This was so crucial to winning the fight against an armored opponent that this precluded the use of a second weapon in your off-hand.
GrinderTheTroll
QUOTE (Butterblume)
Give me an historic quarterstaff against most two weapon fighters all the time nyahnyah.gif.

I probably will use Charon's idea until two weapons rules are published.

Ya! Reach > all.
Adarael
This reminds me of a thread I was reading yesterday on "Incorrect Ideas Gamers Have About The World," wherein one guy was CONVINCED his player was incorrect about the ability to use a halfsword (specifically a german zweihander, with a ricasso for better grip when halfswording) to fight guys on the other side of the doorway. This genius was just SO set that you couldn't possibly kill a guy with a thrust from a zweihander, and that in order to use the weapon you had to make full-extension swings either overhead or at an overhead-side angle.

I just shook my head and sighed.
Metasigil
That's someone who's never played 7th Sea. If nothing else, that game taught me the many nifty options you have when killing people with a Zweihander. Eisen Forever!!! biggrin.gif
Adarael
Drexel for the win!

My friend Lance, who's been doing Zweihander in the SCA for many, many years, naturally played a Drexel swordsman. Apparently most of the Drexel manouvers and stances are quite accurate.
Charon
Zweihander are used almost like a spear in one-one situation.

Has to be, the damn thing is 6 feet tall and if you swing it with both hands on the pommel, you hit with great strenght but will be very slow to recuperate from the blow, even though the sword is surprisingly light (5 to 6 pound if it's was forged for battle instead of ceremony ). Good old momentum, Newtonian physics and all that. Halfswording allow you to recuperate from being blocked / parried , dodged far more swiftly and may allow you to either press the attack or else to be ready for the counter.

I read huge sweep of the blade were typically used for breaking spear walls or unhorsing knights, not in Conan like fashion against a single opponent.

Incidently, A zweihander would have been a pretty good weapon to use to fight accross a doorway. You stab anyone who tries to come through and if someone duck and weaves around your blade to move inside your guard, you can slash downward and to the side with enough force to stop your opponent cold, especially if you deliberately lead any dodge attempt to your right (if right handed) by keeping your body closer to the left of the doorway.

And 7th Sea rule rule!
Firewall
QUOTE (Charon)
Longsword are used two-handed, not two at the same time!

No, that would be a bastard (hand-and-a-half) sword. What most people think of as a longsword (except D&D players, who have their own problems) is in fact the bastard sword, which is designed to be use one handed with a sheild or in two. The zwei-hander is a greatsword.

I admit that my terminology is from the reign of Queen Elizabeth I but we are still talking about Tudor arms. Your arming sword is a back-up weapon to many. And you didn't fight knights in plate with a sword, you used a hammer or morning-star. A good hammer could crush a helm and the skull inside. There were swords designed for plate, which were a triangular shape and would penetrate at the joints or could be driven through a breastplate.

Of course, the word is irrelevant but I just find it amusing that you correct me with modern fallacy. I suppose the next thing you will tell me is that a longsword weighed more than 4lb or that field-plate restricted movement. (Many longswords were 3lb or less and a well-fitted suit of plate can be worn while performing cart-wheels or skipping (jumping rope) without much hinderance beyond the weight)

A 3lb sword, with the point of balance half-way to the tip (unlike a rapier, which has a point of balance nearly at the quillons) can easily be used one handed and maintain enough force to cut into or through bone.
Charon
QUOTE (Firewall @ Sep 1 2006, 09:19 AM)
QUOTE (Charon @ Aug 31 2006, 10:21 PM)
Longsword are used two-handed, not two at the same time!

No, that would be a bastard (hand-and-a-half) sword.
QUOTE (Wikipedia)
The late medieval longsword, also colloquially referred to as bastard-sword or hand-and-a-half sword, is a type of straight-bladed European sword. Contemporary terms included Langschwert ("long sword") in German, spadone ("large sword") in Italian and montante in Portuguese.

...

In modern use, the term "bastard-sword" refers to a specific sort of longsword, most commonly a compromise between the smaller one-handed arming sword and larger two-handed sword that was primarily used in "cut and thrust" type of sword play


These swords were surprisingly light, often just 3 pound as you said.

But their lenght meant they carried a lot of energy and made it hard to control them efficiently with just one hand. And without the leverage of both hand, the blow wouldn't be very hard.

Even the lighter and shorter Katana is designed to be most efficiently used with both hands, barring some of the fancier maneuvers.

QUOTE
3lb sword, with the point of balance half-way to the tip (unlike a rapier, which has a point of balance nearly at the quillons) can easily be used one handed and maintain enough force to cut into or through bone.


Of course youc an cut to the bone with one hand. But these swords were used in war. Against an unarmored opponent, I'll take a rapier, thank you very much.

Plus, you need to be able to hit harder than just cutting to the bone when using a slashing attack with these. If you are blocked but hit hard enough, you'll be able to maintain the offensive, especially if you recover nearly instantly from your own attack (which is easier to do with both hand on the sword). If the blow is too light, your opponent won't have to yield any ground and will counter attack easily.
Moon-Hawk
So then surely you clicked on the "See long-sword for other uses of the term" link and saw that, depending on who you ask, the term "long-sword" can also refer to a long-bladed sword used in one hand. The main article that you linked to further defines a bastard sword as a specific type of longsword.
Figure out what kind of sword you're talking about and stop arguing over what name should be retroactively applied to it by historians. You can call it 'Susan' if it makes you happy.
Charon
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk @ Sep 1 2006, 10:39 AM)
So then surely you clicked on the "See long-sword for other uses of the term" link and saw that, depending on who you ask, the term "long-sword" can also refer to a long-bladed sword used in one hand.  The main article that you linked to further defines a bastard sword as a specific type of longsword.
Figure out what kind of sword you're talking about and stop arguing over what name should be retroactively applied to it by historians.  You can call it 'Susan' if it makes you happy.

Most of the other uses of longsword are vague and D&Desque. All these other weapons have usually a specific name.

As a specific name for a weapon, longsword refers to the type of sword I linked.

The others are, well, swords that are long, basically.
Firewall
QUOTE (Charon)
Even the lighter and shorter Katana is designed to be most efficiently used with both hands, barring some of the fancier maneuvers.

Ignoring naming arguments, I have seen the use of two 36" blades effectivelty. There are two ways to bring down your foe; one big blow or many lesser blows. Two swords hitting you makes it harder to defend. Even experienced swordsmen tend to have trouble with left-handed attackers and the ability to switch from left to right dominance really makes a difference in a fight. You sacrifice power and control for flexibility.

As for rapier or longsword... Rapier for one on one but longsword for free for all melee. I trained with rapier first but a slower sword, especially a bastard, can really help when you need to push one opponent back to counter a second.
Charon
QUOTE (Firewall @ Sep 1 2006, 10:52 AM)
As for rapier or longsword...  Rapier for one on one but longsword for free for all melee.  I trained with rapier first but a slower sword, especially a bastard, can really help when you need to push one opponent back to counter a second.

In a war, definetely. Against armored opponent, a longsword is far more useful than any other sword developped (Zweihander are a bit of a speciality item, longsword are more useful overall).

In a melee against unarmored or lightly armored opponents I'd prefer a a side sword (Known as Cut & Thrust but is a modern term).

It is basically a thicker/shorter rapier that can be used for quick thrust like a rapier but can be used effectively for slashing attack. Its thrust can punch through most light armopr. Popular on early renaissance battle field. Let you use a buckler or another weapon without problem.
G.NOME
Has anyone here read Musashi?
Vaevictis
QUOTE (G.NOME)
Has anyone here read Musashi?

Yeah, you always cut your opponent wink.gif
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)
So then surely you clicked on the "See long-sword for other uses of the term" link and saw that, depending on who you ask, the term "long-sword" can also refer to a long-bladed sword used in one hand.

Similarly, depending on who you ask, an M249 can be called an "assault rifle" and an MP5 can be called a "machine gun". This would be just as wrong as calling dedicated one-handed swords (in the medieval period at least) "long swords". Keeping the terminology straight is important for a reasonable discussion on the matter, unless one wants to go as far as using Oakeshott typology for everything.
Stephen_E
Re: Fistfighting. Even skilled boxers usually still have a dominant hand.

Basically humans tend to have a dominant "hand" varying degrees (it goes way beyond the hand. IIRC there are about 45 "standard" tests to determine domiance, and many of them don't involve hands). Lefthanders tend to be less dominant. The less dominant your handiness is the more it can be managed by training, but I very much doubt you can flat out train anyone into ambidexterity.

Back to SR.
Two Gun fighting takes the Ag and skill dice, splits them, and then adds/subtracts modifiers from each seperate pool (with the exception of Smartlinks and Laser sights which are specifically nullified when useing two guns similtaneously)

I see no reason not to treat using 2 Melee weapons simultaneously the same. Take your Ag and Skill, split the pool and add/subtract midifiers.

As a rule SR4 doesn't favour Two Weapon fighting. You can do it, but you ussually won't gain much, if any, advantage out of it. If you want to make 2 melee weapon stronger I'd suggest you simply create positive modifiers. For game balance make the players earn the modifiers. Possibly a specific "two weapon fighting" skill. I'd suggest this be an exotic skill that must be taken for a specific two weapons. For every 2 levels of the skill you get a +1 mod when using those two weapons. Since this would be a modifier it gets added to each weapon after the pool is split.

This might seem small bickies, but if you go any further you'll rapidly reach the point where EVERY melee fighter uses two weapons if possible because they will be so much better than one.

Stephen
Garrowolf
I actually got rid of the splitting dice pool mechanic. I thought it sucked.
What I did was I allowed you to fire at the same target with two guns as a burst even with pistols. If you don't have a smart link then it is always a wide burst. If you have smart links then it is a narrow burst. If you are firing two pistols then it acts like a short burst (+1 dam narrow or +1 to hit wide). If you are firing two smgs then just add the bursts together for either kind. If you are spraying an area with two smgs then treat it as one long burst instead. The whole point is that if you are going for one target then you get one roll.
If you are trying for two targets then you must spend a simple action on each gun as normal. Firing two guns is stylistic - not mechanical. You still have to think about each target seperately for a second to even aim the guns. The fact that you have fired them at the same time should have no actual effect. Now you can alternate guns just as a point of style which will also work the same way. Still give them the penalty for second target but each roll gets the smart link bonus.
Firing at two different targets at the same time with burst fire should always require the wide burst because you aren't aiming as much.
It looks cool shouldn't be a code for let's break the game!
lorechaser
See, splitting your dice pool is far and away from breaking the game. It's often a suboptimal choice.

Now, being able to do a double wide long burst (that's what, +18 dv?) simply by picking up two guns? That's breaking the game, imho.
Stephen_E
QUOTE (Garrowolf)
Firing two guns is stylistic - not mechanical. You still have to think about each target seperately for a second to even aim the guns. The fact that you have fired them at the same time should have no actual effect.
<snipped>
It looks cool shouldn't be a code for let's break the game!

TTBOMK speed shooting isn't about thinking about your target, it's about point/fire.
If you can point at two different targets at once you can fire at two targets at once. Splitting the dice pool represents this quite well in SR4 terms as you can't fully focus on both targets (and you will often be using peripheral vision for one or both targets). Anyone who's done any analysis of the effects of dice splitting in SR$ will tell you that it isn't a power combo. With all modifiers been added after dice splitting it would be s decent strategy, if they didn't specifically eliminate the Smartlinks and Laser sight modifiers. As it is, it's at best a marginal strategy in the bulk of situations you're likely to come across (historically, accurate two gun gunfighting was a rare thing).

It's all very well to blithely say "you can train out hand/side preference" but the evidence through the ages is that this is bullshit. Yes, you can sometimes train the ability to use two weapons, for most intents and purposes, simultaneously, but this has always been uncommon at best, if not downright rare, and there is no evidence I'm aware of that this involved people who had a strong handiness preference.

Most people like to play their characters as "elite" so one can argue that such a thing should be easier for PC's (which I won't argue against particully) but even so I'd suggest the best way to make two weapon fighting an advantage for both Melee and ranged combat is add a skill for doing so, which can only be brought if you have the ambidextrous quality. Half your skill, round down (max = base weapon skill), is applied as a modifier (so applied after the dice pool is split) when useing two weapons simultaneously.

Bingo, you gain extra dice from two weapon fighting, so you are better off. On the otherhand it's costing you BPs/Karma to do so, and the advantage isn't so great that you'll automatically do it.

Stephen
Garrowolf
I agree with you and I see your point. The problem is that not everyone using two weapons is trained to do so. The two weapon shooting by splitting the dice pool should be a different ability, maybe a quality.
I firmly believe that there is some amazing things that people can do and learn to do but if you make the exception the rule then it skews the game.
I'm not saying that everyone should adopt this. It's just a house rule that my group likes.
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