Instead of granting extra dice -- which is just too powerful in melee combat anyway -- I'd probably start by increasing the Reach of the off-hand weapon (and only the weapon; racial mods would not apply) and add +1 to it, then add that to the primary weapon to see how that worked out.

I'd probably also include a mechanic where you could add half of the off-hand weapon skill's Power either to the power of your primary weapon (much like the rules for spurs) or allow it to function like a shield that grants a bonus to Impact Armor equal to the Damage Level (L=1, M=2, S=3, D=4) but ignoring any augmentations to that such as by Dikote treatments. The use of the Damage Code like that is pure metagaming game balance, though, as I don't see how the Damage Level would really affect that... just wanted to work it in as an option somehow.

But that's probably where I'd start if I were really interested in changing it. I'd test it out a bit with various combos (both normal runner combos and munched out ones) to see how they faired against someone with twin spurs on full attack under the core rules, then against someone with a weapon and riot shield combo. If it was comparable, with maybe a slight advantage to the dual-weilder, I'd stick with it. If not, I'd go back to the drawing board.

Full Offence - you mean from the Cannon Companion? +1 damage level in return for -2 on their chance to hit you? Under standard rules that's a trade I'd never make against anyone apart from Joe Pedestrian, but that's probably just me. I can see where it would work better if the standard defensive action didn't inflict return damage though.

First: I like where Doc Funk is headed with looking at things. (as always)

DrJest:
You still end up at square one.
All you've done is take 3 left turns to get there.

No matter which weapon is used for the attack or if both of them are used, you still end up with one question to resolve; how do you factor two different reach modifers (or two different aiming modifier if talking firearms) into one dice roll.

If we are to say that you can have the option to attack or defend with both weapons in melee, then we are talking about two different reach modifiers.

If we are to stay consistent with the vague system in use, then we would take the average reach between the two weapons as our final reach for the weapons as an account of the overall effect for the entire exchange.

But as we all are stating...the vagueness of the system, at least in this area, is causing a breakdown in logic.

Yes, it makes sense for ease, but, to me, it screams of an "easy out" without anyone looking harder for a better idea.

I'm sure that if anyone wanted to, a better system, that's about as easy to use, could be designed and fitted into the system.

I'll take a look at it and see what I can figure out for starters.
I'll post my theories and findings here so the rest of the quasi-guru's can tear it open and mold it better.

For now, I'm going to approach it from where I see it broken.
Two weapons in combat.

Here's what I'll start with as working questions:
1) Could the vagueness of the system be the actual problem?
1.a) If so, is there a way to make it less vague without making the system too complex for simple use?

2) Is there anyway that two weapon's modifiers be accounted for in one roll logically?
2.a) If not, how can a system account for two weapon's modifiers in two rolls easily enough for players to not mind?

----
Secondary questions will be small others like; is there a better way to represent defensive and offensive movements in combat?
But I'm not really concerned with that kind of thing quite yet.

Like I said, I'll look at it and report back with what I find.

I think the canon ruling on 2 weapons used in melee can work rather well. Weapons used with 2 hands generally have a Reach of 2. Against a foe fighting with 2 weapons, the primary one being Reach 1, assuming that the skill levels are the same, the Reach advantage effectively negates the extra dice advantage of 2 weapons.

Yes, someone wielding a single, one-handed Reach 1 weapon is at a serious disadvantage against someone wielding 2 Reach 1 weapons, but I have no problem with that. It makes sense to me.

Looking at the numbers on a greater scale, and ignoring Ambidexterity for a moment (I've gotten rid of it in my Medieval Fantasy SR game), both the Single R2 Wielder and the Dual R1 Wielder have additional advantages over the other that pretty much negate each other. Dual R1 can use more Combat Pool dice, but Single R2 can get a higher skill with less karma. The linked Attribute often stops the SR2 from getting a much higher skill, but the better Damage Code of 2-hand weapons makes up for that.

Example:
Both combatants have QUI 6, STR 6, INT 4, WIL 4, CP 7, Init 5+1d6and 30 Karma to spend on Melee Combat skills. DR1 spends the Karma on Edged/Sword-3/6 and Offhand Edged/Dagger-3/6. SR2 spends the Karma on Pole Arms/Pole Arm-4/7 (and Intimidation-2).
Armed with a Sword (primary) and a Dagger, DR1 will be rolling 16 dice (6+3+7) against TN 4, averaging 8 successes, and does 8M on a hit.
Armed with a Pole Arm, SR2 will be rolling 14 dice (7 + 7) against TN 3 (using Net Reach to lower own TN), averaging 9.3 successes, and does 9S on a hit.

Playing around with the Attributes, Combat Pool and Karma available (as well as different types of weapons and armor) will give you varying results, but there's not a big advantage either way in most cases.

Where it really gets wonky is Ambidextrous Adepts with Improved Ability in a melee combat skill. They only pay for the skill once but get a straight +50% out of it, and the Improved Ability only makes it worse because its cost is not progressive and you get it 1½ times as well -- leading to the ubiquitous Dual Katana Melee Adept.

Remove Ambidexterity, though, perhaps play around a bit with some rulings (I think I might have, I just can't remember exactly what right now) and stick to reasonable weapons and combinations, and it works out fine. If someone actually makes an übertroll which dual-wields a Pole Arm and Brass Knuckles, just tell the player to go fuck himself -- or, if you want actual results, ask him kindly to reconsider his/her choice of weapons, either to go with just the Pole Arm or couple it with one-hand sword or something else. Just rule he won't get the +50% dice bonus from a weapon combination as stupid and worthless as that if you wish.

1) I was assuming that the single 2-hand weapon has a Reach of 2. This because using a single 2-hand weapon that does not have a significant reach advantage over swords and clubs is, generally speaking, a very bad idea, both in SR and IRL. It might work out in some special cases, e.g. a 2-hand warhammer to get through a full suit of plate armor -- but, for weapons like 2-hand swords, 2-hand axes, pole arms, staffs, and spears, not to mention most of the sillier weapons like whips, this works out fine.

2) I was assuming that the primary weapon of the one with 2 weapons has a Reach of 1. 1-hand clubs & maces, axes, swords, all are Reach 1 weapons. I have no problems with someone going against a pole arm or a claymore with 2 knives getting his ass handed to him. The one and only 1-handed weapon in SR3 or CC which has a Reach of 2 is the Morning Star -- which you can handily tune back down to Reach 1, if it's a problem.

3) I was assuming that the skill levels are the same. This, or some very similar assumption (such as the Same Amount Of Karma Spent On Melee Skills in the later example), must be true for any meaningful comparison take place. For example, comparing the Dual Katana Adept with his Edged/Katana-5/7, IA:Edged-5, ReflexRec and Enhanced Artwink, to an average spearman with Pole Arms/Spear-2/4 is just ridiculous.

Interestingly enough, the Dual Katan Melee Adept is not allowed in canon. I had a look at the weapon table in the Cannon Companion (p. 96), and the katana is not on the list of allowed secondary weapons. The nunchaku and whip are, though (so Indiana Jones is fine). Go figure. Somebody'd better tell the lass I used to study silat with that what she's doing here isn't possible...

We already had one flamewar over that.

Austere: not quite true on needing reach advantage. A katana has no reach advantage, but you gain additional speed, manouverability, and power from the second hand.

~J

On one hand it'd probably be better if they renamed Reach to something more generic, then used it to reflect not only reach, but speed, maneuverability, and all that other malarky. On the other hand it would probably make most weapons look pretty generic compared to one another.

That's true.

~J

Due to having misunderstood the Melee rules during my last readup i came up with another idea.

Separate actions for each hand:
Main Weapon: use full skill dice for attack / defense

Secondary Weapon: use half skill dice for attack / defense

You can either attack with both weapons, attack with main weapon and defend with secondary weapon or defend with both weapons.

For attack roll the appropriate skill dice and apply the ranged combat mali for non-ambidexterity-8 chars.
For defense do the same as attack, but use the dice for dodging an enemy attack.
In case of full defense you get two attempts to dodge attacks.

Combat Pool can be used on any of the actions.

I didn't have a closer look at the numbers involved yet, but so far I like the ideas.
What do you think??

I wonder why people persist in refering to "off-hand" for those PCs that have ambi-6 or 8, they don't have an off-hand, there're both on-hand. FMPE dual wieldings best advantage is the ability to change between left-handed and right-handed at random intevals in the middle of the fight. This hasn't been addressed yet.

Because "off-hand" is being used as a game term to help keep track of things. "Off-hand" refers to the hand that gives you the biggest penalty; in melee combat, you get the full skill of your "primary" weapon and half skill from the "secondary" one in your "off-hand."

Oh, no, I assumed she was much taller than that. If she's actually that short, then those are definitely too short to be katana.

You might refer to that way, but many others don't appear to be thinking in that way.

Full-on ambi's don't suffer a "big penalty to their off-hand". There is no primary/secondary split to, I dare to say it, OUR fighting styles. You either have a long-range/short-range combo or use matched weapons and have an attack/defense split dependant on your opponents moves. When I was fencing (yes, I know, not a 2w style) at a national level the best way to defeat a lefty is to be a lefty yourself. I always hoped by opponent was left-handed as I would choose a lefty style, without any improvement to my skill I could fight right out of my league. It is the ability to function as right or left handed against your oppponent that is one of the biggest benefits from ambi and 2 weapons, not some half-cocked idea that you can learn the skill in half the time. There should be some reflection of this in TN penalties to the 1w opponent unless they have a) have manover aganist 2w opponents or b) are really really good. The TN penalty would also more accurately reflect the advantage of 2 weapons in regards attack/defence capibilities and handedness than saying the off-hand hits half as often and does half as much damage because its your off-hand.

The rules as they stand only reflect left/right handed people using 2 weapons without having practised a fighting style that centres around 2 weapons.