Okay, you have a huge edge that costs a whole lot points at the start and even more after you make your character. You get it for about 6-8 character points when making your character and about 60-80 afterwards.
But,why do they need to make two weapon fighting such a big deal? As far as I can tell from the rules you either are not as good someone with one weapon or are totally roxor.What I am trying to get at, is that there doesn't seem to be middle ground.
Full Version: Why two weapons fighting is the way it is?
Sure there is. Someone with a low off-hand weapon skill will be more or less equal to someone who spent the same amount of time training on a single weapon.
~J
~J
Yes, but the problem is that aide form the huge edge it is rather easy for the two weapon master to out streach the one wiht only one weapon.
I mean, I do not wish to make two weapon fight worse than one weapon fighting, but I do think that styles should not have game mechanical advantages.
I mean, I do not wish to make two weapon fight worse than one weapon fighting, but I do think that styles should not have game mechanical advantages.
Two weapon fighting is the way it is because the advanced melee/martial arts rules in SR are painful and make me want to die.
fighting with two weapons seems okay to me. you pay lots of extra karma, and get a decent bonus.
It's so tacky, though, so D&D.
OMG I AM LEVEL 22 PALADIN W. DUAL WIELDED HOLY AVENGER AND WAKIZUSHI I GET 30 ATTACKS PER ROUND AND DOUBLE DAMAGE HAR HAR HUR HUR LOL OMG WTF CHECK OUT MY STACKING FEATS FOR +10 TO HIT HUR HUR HUR.
That's really what I think every time I read the dual wielding rules.
OMG I AM LEVEL 22 PALADIN W. DUAL WIELDED HOLY AVENGER AND WAKIZUSHI I GET 30 ATTACKS PER ROUND AND DOUBLE DAMAGE HAR HAR HUR HUR LOL OMG WTF CHECK OUT MY STACKING FEATS FOR +10 TO HIT HUR HUR HUR.
That's really what I think every time I read the dual wielding rules.
Except it isn't. Remotely. It offers a fairly small advantage compared to cost in the hands of anyone but Adepts, and even then only if the GM allows the Improved Ability dice to be part of the half main skill added for Ambidex. Hell, it even makes a certain amount of sense that having a parrying weapon would offer you greater opportunity to hit and less to be hit if you're properly trained. The only part I could see being argued as silly is the Ambidex edge.
~J
~J
Honestly, I'd find it a lot more reasonable if the price were halved for mundanes, or, at the very least, cut back by 2 with a note for GMs to cut it back further at their discretion in the event of a mundane not focusing on melee. As it is now, it is unreasonably expensive for everyone but those adepts.
As for its rule functionality, I don't like it at all, but I don't find it entirely unreasonable within the abstracted structure of SR's melee rules. Really, if anything, I find that the melee rules just underline the inherent problems in SR's approach to melee.
As for its rule functionality, I don't like it at all, but I don't find it entirely unreasonable within the abstracted structure of SR's melee rules. Really, if anything, I find that the melee rules just underline the inherent problems in SR's approach to melee.
If you remove the Ambidexterity edge, fighting with two weapons will (realistically?) offer no real edge over fighting with one weapon. The Karma cost progression for skills combined with the fact that most one-hand weapons have at most Reach 1 while 2-hand weapons often have Reach 2 makes for a nice balance, where fighting with 2 weapons has a slight edge in some circumstances while a single weapon may have a slight edge in others.
i'm not sure i understand why it should be more expensive for adepts (or mages, for that matter).
and the only way a paladin could get 30 attacks per round is if he multi-classed as a dervish. so there !!
and the only way a paladin could get 30 attacks per round is if he multi-classed as a dervish. so there !!
That's odd, because Shadowrun's handling of two-weapon combat is absolutely nothing at all like D&D in any way. It doesn't allow second attacks; it just adds a few dice to the melee test.
And nowhere near enough dice, IMAO. All else being equal, the guy with two swords should eat the guy with one sword for lunch, even without special training in using a second sword or any particular degree of abnormal ambidexterity. Simply having a blocking implement in your off hand, even if you can't attack competently with it, is a huge advantage.
And nowhere near enough dice, IMAO. All else being equal, the guy with two swords should eat the guy with one sword for lunch, even without special training in using a second sword or any particular degree of abnormal ambidexterity. Simply having a blocking implement in your off hand, even if you can't attack competently with it, is a huge advantage.
Except it also negates the speed and versaility of using a single weapon as it was intended, which is a huge disadvantage, and is one of the many complex dynamics of melee combat SR is wholly incapable of modeling.
Shadowrun melee combat is an opposed dice contest. How can anyone think that increasing your base number of dice by 50% is underpowered? 6 Edge points is not that much to spend, to increase your skill of 6 to, essentially, a skill of 9 (the only difference being that you can still only add 6 Combat Pool dice, not 9). The benefit is even more extreme for adepts or mages with weapon foci... or, worst (or best 
) of all, adepts of the magical way with both.
) of all, adepts of the magical way with both.
Well, under SR rules, two-sword totally owns single-sword. But it should.
It's fairly evenly matched against greatsword, because the greatsword will typically have a 1-point Reach advantage, and TN modifiers trump additional dice. 9 dice against TN 5 vs. 6 dice at TN 4 puts them in a dead heat for average successes, and the greatsword will be doing more damage when it lands. Figure in Combat Pool, and the greatsword has the advantage in average successes, too. This is actually somewhat contrary to my real-world experience, which tells me that the greatsword will get maybe two free blows before the two-sword closes range, and if he doesn't land them - and, unless he has a large skill advantage, he usually won't - he's toast.
My real complaint is that getting those extra dice requires either dumping a fuckload of Karma into a second skill at 6, or taking the 6-point Ambidexterity Edge, when my real-world experience, again, tells me that a competent swordsman can get a real advantage simply by picking up the second weapon. It doesn't require any unusual degree of ambidexterity, and, while training certainly helps, getting competent with the second weapon isn't anywhere near twice as difficult as getting competent with the first, and there's a real advantage even without any special training.
Under SR rules, if you don't have either Ambidexterity or a special Off-Hand skill, you're far better off sticking to one sword. Getting half your Quickness in extra dice very seldom comes anywhere near making up for the +4 TN modifier and losing access to your Combat Pool. (I'm tempted to say "never", but I haven't made the effort to prove that it holds even for pathological builds.) Again, that's directly contrary to my real-world experience, which tells me that if you've got a hand free, carrying a second weapon in it can only help.
This is all, of course, leaving aside the fact that, under SR rules, it's impossible to fight with two swords, ever.
It's fairly evenly matched against greatsword, because the greatsword will typically have a 1-point Reach advantage, and TN modifiers trump additional dice. 9 dice against TN 5 vs. 6 dice at TN 4 puts them in a dead heat for average successes, and the greatsword will be doing more damage when it lands. Figure in Combat Pool, and the greatsword has the advantage in average successes, too. This is actually somewhat contrary to my real-world experience, which tells me that the greatsword will get maybe two free blows before the two-sword closes range, and if he doesn't land them - and, unless he has a large skill advantage, he usually won't - he's toast.
My real complaint is that getting those extra dice requires either dumping a fuckload of Karma into a second skill at 6, or taking the 6-point Ambidexterity Edge, when my real-world experience, again, tells me that a competent swordsman can get a real advantage simply by picking up the second weapon. It doesn't require any unusual degree of ambidexterity, and, while training certainly helps, getting competent with the second weapon isn't anywhere near twice as difficult as getting competent with the first, and there's a real advantage even without any special training.
Under SR rules, if you don't have either Ambidexterity or a special Off-Hand skill, you're far better off sticking to one sword. Getting half your Quickness in extra dice very seldom comes anywhere near making up for the +4 TN modifier and losing access to your Combat Pool. (I'm tempted to say "never", but I haven't made the effort to prove that it holds even for pathological builds.) Again, that's directly contrary to my real-world experience, which tells me that if you've got a hand free, carrying a second weapon in it can only help.
This is all, of course, leaving aside the fact that, under SR rules, it's impossible to fight with two swords, ever.
Well, what I mostly meant is that I don't like having a separate set of dual wielding rules because it's *tacky*, not that it is similar rules wise.
In other words, going and setting up a special set of rules so that someone can use two melee weapons instead of one is basically adding something to the game that dosen't need to be there and which is popular only because RPG players have been doing absurd dual wielding in D&D for years now.
It's like this one time that I was hanging out on the official Knights of the Old Republic Forum and some guy dropped in making a thread with bad spelling and grammar where he basically said that he wanted "more" from the lightsabers, namely lightscythes. And that was painfully stupid because it was *tacky*. The idea of a lightscythe has nothing to do with Star Wars and would only be considered by someone who wanted to run around being a D&D character, in effect.
The dual wield rules are the same way. The only reason that you'd even want a rule for that is if you wanted to imitate some crazy super aggrandized D&D character. If you just wanted to use two melee weapons (like, fencing sword and dagger) in-character you wouldn't *need* a rule for that. It could just be flavor text. But to sit down and make a pointless rule just so that you can do the same stuff that the D&D guys do...I think it's silly.
Okay, one last attempt by me to make clear what I am getting at. Imagine that you're playing Shadowrun, and you have a character with a sword who can do melee really well. I dunno, let's say you're a physad with 12 dice. So, over the course of the adventure you end up in close combat but thanks to that +1 reach you chop here and parry there and snicker snack you slice up all these security guards. So, then the GM unveils this NPC who also likes swords, and you decide to engage this NPC with your physad in suitably dramatic fashion. But, oho, what's this? The GM decided to make the NPC a SUPER DUAL WIELD CHARACTER, who swings a sword in one hand and a pair of nunchuks in the other. All of a sudden you find yourself getting beaten down unambiguously by a NPC who is statistically similar to you but who wins because like some whacked out D&D character he's swinging two weapons. And, like, if it never would have occured to you to take dual wielding at chargen, and if you think that the concept of swinging two weapons and having it be treated as a big big advantage in terms of game mechanics is weird and so just didn't bother with that rule, you'll probably feel annoyed. You'll think, "My god, that NPC is *tacky*."
Like, it's not really easy to justify in real-world terms why a guy who is using a single sword should be at a disadvantage against some guy swinging around a similar sword one-handed while he twirls nunchuaku in his other hand. Instead, it sounds like something from a martial arts anime, where some guy runs around with a bizarre weapon combat method and has some convoluted bullshit excuse as to why it's better. And yet the big advantage is there for the taking for whomever realizes first that going down that path brings statistical power.
(for my objection from a technical standpoint, please see the post below)
In other words, going and setting up a special set of rules so that someone can use two melee weapons instead of one is basically adding something to the game that dosen't need to be there and which is popular only because RPG players have been doing absurd dual wielding in D&D for years now.
It's like this one time that I was hanging out on the official Knights of the Old Republic Forum and some guy dropped in making a thread with bad spelling and grammar where he basically said that he wanted "more" from the lightsabers, namely lightscythes. And that was painfully stupid because it was *tacky*. The idea of a lightscythe has nothing to do with Star Wars and would only be considered by someone who wanted to run around being a D&D character, in effect.
The dual wield rules are the same way. The only reason that you'd even want a rule for that is if you wanted to imitate some crazy super aggrandized D&D character. If you just wanted to use two melee weapons (like, fencing sword and dagger) in-character you wouldn't *need* a rule for that. It could just be flavor text. But to sit down and make a pointless rule just so that you can do the same stuff that the D&D guys do...I think it's silly.
Okay, one last attempt by me to make clear what I am getting at. Imagine that you're playing Shadowrun, and you have a character with a sword who can do melee really well. I dunno, let's say you're a physad with 12 dice. So, over the course of the adventure you end up in close combat but thanks to that +1 reach you chop here and parry there and snicker snack you slice up all these security guards. So, then the GM unveils this NPC who also likes swords, and you decide to engage this NPC with your physad in suitably dramatic fashion. But, oho, what's this? The GM decided to make the NPC a SUPER DUAL WIELD CHARACTER, who swings a sword in one hand and a pair of nunchuks in the other. All of a sudden you find yourself getting beaten down unambiguously by a NPC who is statistically similar to you but who wins because like some whacked out D&D character he's swinging two weapons. And, like, if it never would have occured to you to take dual wielding at chargen, and if you think that the concept of swinging two weapons and having it be treated as a big big advantage in terms of game mechanics is weird and so just didn't bother with that rule, you'll probably feel annoyed. You'll think, "My god, that NPC is *tacky*."
Like, it's not really easy to justify in real-world terms why a guy who is using a single sword should be at a disadvantage against some guy swinging around a similar sword one-handed while he twirls nunchuaku in his other hand. Instead, it sounds like something from a martial arts anime, where some guy runs around with a bizarre weapon combat method and has some convoluted bullshit excuse as to why it's better. And yet the big advantage is there for the taking for whomever realizes first that going down that path brings statistical power.
(for my objection from a technical standpoint, please see the post below)
| QUOTE (John Campbell) |
| My real complaint is that getting those extra dice requires either dumping a fuckload of Karma into a second skill at 6, or taking the 6-point Ambidexterity Edge, when my real-world experience, again, tells me that a competent swordsman can get a real advantage simply by picking up the second weapon. It doesn't require any unusual degree of ambidexterity, and, while training certainly helps, getting competent with the second weapon isn't anywhere near twice as difficult as getting competent with the first, and there's a real advantage even without any special training. |
I don't have any experience sparring with long blades, so I can't say anything from personal experience, but I do have one question I would pose.
If using 2 blades instead of 1 is unambigously better *and* easy to do, then how come everyone dosen't always use two blades? For example, pocket sized knives are easy to carry. Why does a lot of arnis then deal with using one blade, and not with using two blades? Why are there schools of fencing where one-sword type fencing is emphasized...why dosen't everyone do two blade fencing?
What I would say from personal background is that it's fallacious if we're talking about, say, a short stick to treat one short stick as only one weapon, and two short sticks as two weapons. If you only have one short stick, you also have one empty hand. The empty hand can play a direct defensive or offensive role if you're trying to beat someone down. The empty hand can punch, it can grab someone's arm, and it can be used in tandem with your one stick to execute a stick-based joint lock or choke.
But fundamentally the SR two weapon system dosen't recognize that sort of thing. If it did, having a free hand should logically give you +50% based on your unarmed combat skill.
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| If using 2 blades instead of 1 is unambigously better *and* easy to do, then how come everyone dosen't always use two blades? For example, pocket sized knives are easy to carry. Why does a lot of arnis then deal with using one blade, and not with using two blades? Why are there schools of fencing where one-sword type fencing is emphasized...why dosen't everyone do two blade fencing? What I would say from personal background is that it's fallacious if we're talking about, say, a short stick to treat one short stick as only one weapon, and two short sticks as two weapons. If you only have one short stick, you also have one empty hand. The empty hand can play a direct defensive or offensive role if you're trying to beat someone down. The empty hand can punch, it can grab someone's arm, and it can be used in tandem with your one stick to execute a stick-based joint lock or choke. But fundamentally the SR two weapon system dosen't recognize that sort of thing. If it did, having a free hand should logically give you +50% based on your unarmed combat skill. |
As a rather practiced duel wielder (rapiers, rapier and dagger, double morning star, double whip, double broad sword), I'd say two weapons is definitely better than one with only a minor amount of training... a few hours at most.
With only minor trading, the offhand provides mostly a defensive bonus, allowing easy parrying and the blocking of one avenue of attack. Every once in a while, it allows an attack of opportunity... these won't be capitalized upon often by a novice, but they do come up. In this case, a pocket knife in the offhand really won't do much, as it can't block a darn thing.
Once you get better, you start becoming more fluid with your attacks. You can connect your mainhand actions to your offhand... double parries, double attacks, feignts with one hand leading to attacks with the other, etc. Not super effective, but it'll throw the enemy offgaurd. This is with a week or so of training.
After a month in, you start to look very proficient. Now, I can't speak for the ambidexterous, but for me, I still have problems thinking of my left hand as an independent hand. Instead, it's all connected to my right, so instead of thinking "left hand parry, right hand attack" I have a few combined moves, such as a left hand high parry with a right hand low stab, and it always feels like my right hand is leading, even if it goes second. At this point, though, the second weapon is quite powerful, since any time the opponent tries to stop an offhand attack, they leave themselves open for the mainhand.
To answer your question directly... pocket knives can't parry, and in many cases a fist is more flexible anyway, so duel wielding them isn't so great. With swords though... they're expensive. One is plenty. And nobody really wants to carry around two. Yes, duel wielding would be more powerful, but in dueling, that would be cheating, and in war, you do get tired more quickly with two weapons, so it's not a good idea there (besides, in midevil times, people were cheap, weapons were expensive... a single duel wielding soldier cost nearly as much as two soldiers with one sword). Also, for an untrained solder, duel wielding is primarily defensive, and a shield does that better.
JaronK
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| But fundamentally the SR two weapon system dosen't recognize that sort of thing. If it did, having a free hand should logically give you +50% based on your unarmed combat skill. |
... but it doesn't. If you are using two shock gloves though, then you do get the bonuses of ambidexterity. SR rules tend to make your head hurt if you think about them too long.
Why should the cost be reduced for mandarins it has exactly the same effect for a mundane or a magical (adepts get a very slight advantage). It is useful to somebody that makes use of it. And anybody that wont be making use of it should not be taking it.
Things like sensitive system and blind have differing values because magicians would not have taken much cyber ware anyway (in theory) and can use astral perception to see.
You could reduce the cost for somebody that doesn’t carry 2 weapons but that would be like reducing the cost of the cracker edge for non deckers.
I would point out to john camble that all swords (and some long knives included in “sword” in SR3 have reach one.
Arguably a great sword would have reach 2 (making his assessment correct) but stats for the great sword have never been included in the books.
The reason you have to pay for the skill or a 6 point edge to do this is game balance, plain and simple.i can not coment on what the real case is
I agree with the absurdity of no wielding 2 swords (katana, & wakasashi, long sword and short sword, of even Florentine style 2 long swords). These are traditional styles and I can see no mechanics advantage to them if they where simply allowed
Also consider the stun baton, essentially a club with electrical contacts, you can have 2 clubs or stun baton and club but 2 stun batons would be to heavy.
Edward
Things like sensitive system and blind have differing values because magicians would not have taken much cyber ware anyway (in theory) and can use astral perception to see.
You could reduce the cost for somebody that doesn’t carry 2 weapons but that would be like reducing the cost of the cracker edge for non deckers.
I would point out to john camble that all swords (and some long knives included in “sword” in SR3 have reach one.
Arguably a great sword would have reach 2 (making his assessment correct) but stats for the great sword have never been included in the books.
The reason you have to pay for the skill or a 6 point edge to do this is game balance, plain and simple.i can not coment on what the real case is
I agree with the absurdity of no wielding 2 swords (katana, & wakasashi, long sword and short sword, of even Florentine style 2 long swords). These are traditional styles and I can see no mechanics advantage to them if they where simply allowed
Also consider the stun baton, essentially a club with electrical contacts, you can have 2 clubs or stun baton and club but 2 stun batons would be to heavy.
Edward
| QUOTE (Edward) |
| Arguably a great sword would have reach 2 (making his assessment correct) but stats for the great sword have never been included in the books. |
Well, arguably the Claymore listed in CC is considered a Great Sword, even though it is categorized in Shadowrun canon as a polearm.
I see, it is indeed listed as a pole arm and dose have a reach of 2 as I thought it should.
I just didn’t think to look for the fraging big swords under pole arms. Any idea why they are there.
Edward
I just didn’t think to look for the fraging big swords under pole arms. Any idea why they are there.
Edward
Another thought.
Can and should a troll be able to wield a greater range of weapons as primary or secondary melee weapons.
Eg claymore and long sword (katana stats)
Edward
Can and should a troll be able to wield a greater range of weapons as primary or secondary melee weapons.
Eg claymore and long sword (katana stats)
Edward
| QUOTE (Edward) |
| I just didn’t think to look for the fraging big swords under pole arms. Any idea why they are there. |
Probably because the powers-that-be figured that the methods used to weild it are closer to how polearms are employed than how other edged weapons are used.
Other than that, your guess is as good as mine.
| QUOTE (Glyph) | ||
... but it doesn't. If you are using two shock gloves though, then you do get the bonuses of ambidexterity. SR rules tend to make your head hurt if you think about them too long. |
but you do gain a power bonus if you have spurs in both hands. If you can hit with both hands and get a bonus for the second, why not for two knives?
| QUOTE (Edward) |
| Why should the cost be reduced for mandarins |
Because of their political connections within the Chinese imperial government system. They get everything at a reduced rate.
It is historically true that some people used dager,bucklers and small items like those in their off hands when fighting. It is not historically true that this caused them to win vast magorities of the the fights they were in.
But let's be honest here. We are talking about a game, that has guns that not the same, and yet they basically use the same rules. They may cost a little more, or a little less, but in the end that could be chocked up as brand name. We are playing a game, and not going out into the real world.
JK, would you like shadowrun if for 2 points you could get an edge. Uberhuman. Uberhuman gives a human plus one to Str,bod,Qui, and Essence? On the downside uberhumans are all german,blond hair and have blue eyes?
So, my point is not if two weapon fighting better in the real world. It is should it be better in a game that is at least on some level about being fair?
But let's be honest here. We are talking about a game, that has guns that not the same, and yet they basically use the same rules. They may cost a little more, or a little less, but in the end that could be chocked up as brand name. We are playing a game, and not going out into the real world.
JK, would you like shadowrun if for 2 points you could get an edge. Uberhuman. Uberhuman gives a human plus one to Str,bod,Qui, and Essence? On the downside uberhumans are all german,blond hair and have blue eyes?
So, my point is not if two weapon fighting better in the real world. It is should it be better in a game that is at least on some level about being fair?
| QUOTE (Cynic project) |
| JK, would you like shadowrun if for 2 points you could get an edge. Uberhuman. Uberhuman gives a human plus one to Str,bod,Qui, and Essence? On the downside uberhumans are all german,blond hair and have blue eyes? So, my point is not if two weapon fighting better in the real world. It is should it be better in a game that is at least on some level about being fair? |
WTF, mate?
My point is this, German blond hair,and blue eyes is a style. It is something you as player say,I want my character to look cool. I think that German are coool. I think Blond hair and Blue eyes are coool. Seeing as I see these as being cool,they should give me a game mechanical bonus.
If that metaphor were a person, his bones would snap in a light breeze.
| QUOTE |
| As a rather practiced duel wielder (rapiers, rapier and dagger, double morning star, double whip, double broad sword), I'd say two weapons is definitely better than one with only a minor amount of training... a few hours at most. |
lol
thanks for the laugh
| QUOTE (Cynic project) |
| My point is this, German blond hair,and blue eyes is a style. It is something you as player say,I want my character to look cool. I think that German are coool. I think Blond hair and Blue eyes are coool. Seeing as I see these as being cool,they should give me a game mechanical bonus. |
yes, because in real life, the only possible reason for someone to try fighting with two weapons is because it looks cool. not because they see any advantage in being able to stab with both hands.
from my large experience in martial arts and tai-chi sword fighting it doesnt really matter who has how many weapons ,it matters who trained harder and wants to win more.but in a fictional game they had to come up with something to represent 2 handed fighting and they did but before someone decided to come up with ambidexterity edge to represent the inhernent complexities of fighting with two swords .if it doesnt work in your gane fix it with a table rule.
| QUOTE (mfb) | ||
yes, because in real life, the only possible reason for someone to try fighting with two weapons is because it looks cool. not because they see any advantage in being able to stab with both hands. |
That is pretty much the entire advantage over a weapon used in two hands or a weapon and shield. Wasn't it just a few months ago that Rory Blackhand and I had a giant flamewar over this?
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| That is pretty much the entire advantage over a weapon used in two hands or a weapon and shield. Wasn't it just a few months ago that Rory Blackhand and I had a giant flamewar over this? ~J |
You mean the "The SCA creates the toughest goddamn warriors in history!" arguement? 'Cuz that one was a damn good time.
I was more focusing on the two-weapons-is-better-than-one issue. Ironically enough, it turned out to just be different ideas of what the one weapon would be like. I'm used to using a katana, so if my other hand were empty it would naturally be on the katana itself. Someone who left that hand unused would have a lot more trouble against a two-weapon opponent with brief familiarity.
But yeah, it was that same flamewar.
~J
But yeah, it was that same flamewar.
~J
i'm not sure what you're saying, kage. i, myself, was being sarcastic, and saying the opposite of what i actually meant--people actually would see an advantage in using two weapons. are you saying they wouldn't, or that they would?
::Edited:: nevermind
I'm saying that unless your opponent is not actually doing anything with his or her off-hand, the only real benefit to using two weapons (assuming equal skill) is pretty much looking cool.
~J
~J
| QUOTE (U_Fester) | ||||
but you do gain a power bonus if you have spurs in both hands. If you can hit with both hands and get a bonus for the second, why not for two knives? |
Moreover, why do you get the bonus for spurs but not snapblades which are classified as edged weapons?
Its just how the game is. Most GM's will (or should) bend on snapblades.
Two knives/swords/combos thereof? I think there should be a seperate skill. I don't see the big deal.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| I'm saying that unless your opponent is not actually doing anything with his or her off-hand, the only real benefit to using two weapons (assuming equal skill) is pretty much looking cool. |
i honestly can't see how that could possibly be true. why can't i use one of my weapons to engage yours, and then stab you with the other? blocking a blade with your bare hand doesn't seem like a bright idea.
Having just spent 3 days with padded plumbing in my hands, aginst someone with 1 weapon, someone with 2 weapons, in MOST (not all, most) cases will have a distinct advantage. As Kage had allready said. Even aginst someone with superior reach, its an advantage, just less of one.
Do you often attack with both at the same time? Not usually, and while Im no expert (hells, Im just past novice really) blocking with a weapon in my left hand and attacking with one in my right is pretty easy. It open avenues. Its most certinly MORE then just looking cool.
Do you often attack with both at the same time? Not usually, and while Im no expert (hells, Im just past novice really) blocking with a weapon in my left hand and attacking with one in my right is pretty easy. It open avenues. Its most certinly MORE then just looking cool.
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
Probably because the powers-that-be figured that the methods used to weild it are closer to how polearms are employed than how other edged weapons are used. Other than that, your guess is as good as mine. |
I suspected that possibility but discounted it because swords are griped with 2 hands close together at one end (excluding half sword style) and pole arms are griped with 2 hands further apart along a haft that is most of the length of the weapon. The combat axe would possibly belong in pole arms but not the claymore.
As to wether 2 weapons is an advantage I have found it to be so. I have no formal training in any form of combat but have spent significant time sparing with short staves (~3/4 my hight). I found a second weapon to be invaluable in this style of combat even if the second weapon was too small to effectively block it can be used to exploit openings created by the larger weapon.
Edward
| QUOTE (Edward @ Feb 14 2005, 08:13 PM) |
| I suspected that possibility but discounted it because swords are griped with 2 hands close together at one end (excluding half sword style) |
Wrong. Grip any two-hander both ways, and tell me which works better.
On many two-handers, you may end up finding yourself gripping as high as to be grasping the blade as well as the grip.
As to the two-swords, it's great and does give you quite an advantage over an oponent with one. However, if your opponent happens to have a shield, things just got a lot more complicated.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| i honestly can't see how that could possibly be true. why can't i use one of my weapons to engage yours, and then stab you with the other? blocking a blade with your bare hand doesn't seem like a bright idea. |
Because my bare hand will be on my sword, and the strength and speed you can bring to bear with both hands on the weapon will allow someone of equal skill and strength to easily engage both strikes.
Lindt: padded weapons are heavily weighted towards dual-weapon combat, due to their vastly lower inertia. Doubly so if you cap the force of your blows.
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Lindt: padded weapons are heavily weighted towards dual-weapon combat, due to their vastly lower inertia. Doubly so if you cap the force of your blows. |
Meh, not everyone can have biceps like The Rock ya know. My point was so much that its getting something in the way.
okay. but you have to define "equal skill". if Joe A and Joe B both spend equal amounts of karma on their swordsmanship, but Joe B splits his between Edged Weapons and Off-hand Edged Weapons, they'll end up about equal in terms of dice; Joe B will actually end up rolling fewer dice. from what you're saying, that's about right. for Joe B to be as good with his on-hand as he is with his offhand, he has to either double his karma investment--in which case, he ought to be better--or he has to be an exceptional individual. to me, that sounds realistic and fair.
| QUOTE (FrostyNSO @ Feb 14 2005, 08:19 PM) |
| As to the two-swords, it's great and does give you quite an advantage over an oponent with one. However, if your opponent happens to have a shield, things just got a lot more complicated. |
Aha, there's a good point. Why dosen't a player get a special bonus for having a shield on one arm (like the ballistic shield from SR3, for example) in melee so long as we're throwing out these melee bonuses? Presumably they should, since fighting with a shield is a pretty well established art.
In any case, from my perspective, the perspective of someone without experience in using long blades, it seems like there is disagreement about whether 1 or 2 blades is better, but that either way the SR melee system would represent 2 weapon fighting weirdly. Therefore, my decision is that it sucks and when I GM there will be no statistically different 2 weapon fighting.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| okay. but you have to define "equal skill". if Joe A and Joe B both spend equal amounts of karma on their swordsmanship, but Joe B splits his between Edged Weapons and Off-hand Edged Weapons, they'll end up about equal in terms of dice; Joe B will actually end up rolling fewer dice. from what you're saying, that's about right. for Joe B to be as good with his on-hand as he is with his offhand, he has to either double his karma investment--in which case, he ought to be better--or he has to be an exceptional individual. to me, that sounds realistic and fair. |
I'd agree. I think the system overrates the cost/benefit of low-level off-hand weapons (skill 1 and 2), but that one extra die is hardly worth making a fuss about. After that, it seems fair.
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Because my bare hand will be on my sword, and the strength and speed you can bring to bear with both hands on the weapon will allow someone of equal skill and strength to easily engage both strikes. Lindt: padded weapons are heavily weighted towards dual-weapon combat, due to their vastly lower inertia. Doubly so if you cap the force of your blows. |
In the SCA, we use rattan weapons, with weight and balance ranging from "in the same ballpark" to quite close to steel. I put quite a lot of work into giving my rattan broadsword the same length, weight, and balance point as my steel one. Blow force is.... well, there's a cap there somewhere, and if you violate it too often people will start looking askance at you, but... we use real armor, and we use it for a reason. My helm, 16ga steel, has a row of deep dents across the crown, that come from me getting whacked in the head. There are a lot more dents there than I've taken blows that I considered to be excessively hard, so our cap is somewhere above what it takes to crease dished 16 ga steel.
And while you're correct that boffer weapons don't handle like the real thing in a lot of ways, and limiting blow force and target areas and allowing touch-kill attacks further reduce realism, Lindt is entirely correct in this particular case. Two-weapon provides advantages that are much more than just "looking cool".
Each of weapon and shield, greatweapon, and two-weapon has real advantages over the other styles, and countervailing disadvantages.
Weapon and shield provides the best defense, and allows a fair amount of flexibility, but the range is limited and the shield can close off attack options, and, while the shield can be used offensively to degrees that we don't allow in the SCA, it still makes for a fairly awkward weapon (not that I've, uh, ever actually used it that way... -whistles innocently-).
Greatweapons provide extreme reach and power that allows them to produce attacks that are fast and difficult to stop and can be thrown with impunity from beyond their opponent's range, but they're rather awkward in close, weak in defense, and are limited in that you can attack or defend with them, but not both at once (not easily, anyway).
Two-weapon provides defense weaker than sword-and-shield's, but better than greatweapon, and is the most flexible of all, providing all the defensive options of sword-and-shield, plus extra offensive options. But, like sword and shield, the range is limited, and it takes some practice to use the second weapon to its full potential (though simply using it as a blocking implement is almost instinctive).
Single-sword has no advantages, and combines the limited range and power of sword-and-shield or two-weapon with the limited options of a greatweapon, and an even weaker defense.
There are reasons to use weapon-and-shield, greatweapon, or two-weapon. Which is best depends largely on circumstances, and when mixing and matching styles in combat, influencing circumstances to benefit your style at the expense of your opponent's is a large part of the strategy.
But the only reason ever to use single-sword is that you don't have anything to use in the other hand.
I do. The same sword.
~J
~J
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.