now, i know that you can go full defense with 1 weapon and still attack with the other. And this is for melee, i understand that. What i'm wondering is if i say i'm going on full defense with weapon in hand, will i get full defense if the attacker i run into is range? Now i'm not saying i'm using the weapon as full defense, just full defense in general so no matter what i run into i start out in full defense, close the distance and still get to attack without leaving full defense since i'm dual welding with the 2 weapon style maneuver....

Did that make sense?

I would say no as its says you can apply fulldefense using one weapon, which makes it a full-parry and thats trictly a melee think.

Since the text only mentions a Full Defense, but it mentions using it with the selected melee weapon, that implies that you need to use a Full Parry. Now, you can make a RAW argument that you can Full Dodge, but there's very little RAW that would support that - you'd need a very liberal GM.

Speaking of Two-Weapon Style....

What is the dumpshock communities take on using it with Unarmed Combat?

I would say that since you cannot take the Off-Hand Training maneuver for unarmed combat, you shouldn't be able to use it with Two-Weapon Style, either. Normal unarmed combat makes extensive use of both arms (and sometimes the legs).

However, the Off-Hand Training maneuver specifically calls out Unarmed Combat because it is still considered 'melee'. The Two-Weapon Style makes no such distinction, even though it could.

Also, what about melee weapons that use the Unarmed Combat skill? Like shock gloves or hardliner gloves? You could make the argument that you could use one in each hand, therefore benefiting from Two-Weapon Style.
Of course off-hand penalties would still apply as normal, and since you can't take Off-Hand Training, then the Ambidexterity quality would be needed to off-set the penalty.

Using the two-weapon rules with a pair of shock gloves was shot down in the latest SR3 FAQ, but it has not been addressed by the SR4 FAQ. In the absence of explicit wording regarding unarmed combat and two-weapon style, it all boils down to a GM call. I wouldn't allow it, but other GMs might.

True, and you make valid points Glyph. Just wanted to get a feel for everyone's view on it, as it can be a bit of a grey area.

I'd say no to any Two-Weapon unarmed/gloved stuff.

As would I...

Keep the Faith

Why?

What makes it unbalanced (or even unreasonable conceptually) compared to using Blades or Clubs? Seems a ludicrous idea to me.

My gm allows for spurs to be considered unarmed combat skill use but also use the 2 weapon style maneuver. However, i can not use elemental strike, killing hands with spurs so i didn't use em in the build. What's +3p when you can have Sound damage hits?

For me, personally, it has less to do with game balance, and more with my notions that standard unarmed combat already uses all of your limbs, and that someone using a weapon should have an advantage over someone fighting barehanded. And I say this even though martial arts adepts are a personal favorite of mine to play.

What about someone who wields a weapon in their offhand, and attacks with unarmed with their primary hand. If the weapon is not used for attack it is saved for defense.

What if the character is using a shield in his offhand, with 'Exotic Melee (Shield)' skill w/ offhand and two weapon maneuvers. He could punch with his right hand, then block with the shield for extra dice.

If you would allow it for a shield, what about allowing it for a sword in the offhand?

If you would allow it for a sword, what about allowing it for a knife?

If you would allow it for a knife, would you allow it for a pistol (Clubs offhand) in the offhand?

If you are going to allow it for a pistol, why not his fist?

Can you take a Parry Action with a shield? It seems like double-dipping on its defensive bonus.

Why not? It's considered a weapon. It's doesn't give you any extra ability to avoid damage, just soak it. It doesn't even count as cover, even though that is the whole purpose of a Ballistic shield IRL (Mobile Cover).

If a player wants to spend a buttload of BP/Karma on a relatively useless Exotic Melee (Shield), especially if they already have a jacked Unarmed skill.... what's the big deal?
It's not double dipping, because they are just getting some extra parry dice... not anymore Armor. Plus it's only usable in Melee, not vs. ranged combat (even though it probably should, as again that's the whole idea of a ballistic shield).

A shield is going to provide better coverage than a blade but does less damage.

So you are not really double dipping.


Also are you talking a full parry?

Also, I forgot to mention that Shields impose an automatic -1 on any physical tests (including attacks).

Bah! Holes in arguements.

Then why is there a kick attack?
What about someone with a one-handed weapon and unarmed?
So what you're saying is, since an unarmed combatant is already using all their limbs, they should be able to claim the 'defender gets minus -1 for being attacked by more than one weapon' bonus(arsenal 163), because, well, a foot and a fist is more than one.
Bone lacing and cybershock hands are listed on the Melee weapons table, with a reach of 0 (anniversary158). So are unarmed, so are shock gloves. There's even beating people with someone else(metahuman body). The requirmements to Two Weapon

Frankly, its stupid that you can dual wield someone elses arms, but for some reason people in this tread seem to think you can't do it with your own. Unarmed combat gets the same options as anyone else - at the same penalties.

And yeah, melee weapons DO have an advantage over unarmed. Reach. Unarmed vs armed is always going to have a one dice or more shift due to reach, before trolls get involved. They also tend to have an AP modifier. Unarmed usually doesn't. Sure, unarmed adepts usually do - because of the magic system, not any inherent problems with the combat system.