Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Two-Weapon Melee Combat / Martial Arts
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Triggerz
It seems the BBB only has rules for two-weapons ranged combat and doesn't say anything about using two weapons in melee. How do you think it should be handled?

Martial Arts aren't covered either, except in the sense that you can specialized in a MA, a mechanic they got rid of in SR3 when the Cannon Companion came out. I don't see any major problem converting them: TN modifiers can be converted to dice modifiers fairly easily, I think, and there might be some more tweaking involved, but I'll probably continue to use them in my group. Any thoughts on martial arts in SR4?
Rotbart van Dainig
The problem with the MA-rules of CC was the complete lack of synergies, and the strange way armed combat was supported.
Given the skillgroup setup of SR4, I would stick with unarmed combat, specialization to one option and eventually maneuvers bought like 'spells'.

As for two-weapon melee rules, the idea of Skill/2 as bonus dice sounds a bit harsh for people not ambidextrous... reducing the penalty in this case to -1 would solve this.
Triggerz
By "lack of synergies", you mean that if I have Kung Fu 7, I should be able to add an aikido technique to the mix without having to invest 60 karma points in the skill for that single technique?

I like the "maneuvers as spells" idea, and I don't see why specializing in a specific maneuver wouldn't be allowed.
Clyde
I'd say just copy the two weapon rules for ranged combat. It sounds like its harder to hit, but you do more damage which seems fair.
Triggerz
If you can hit. In SR3, it didn't raise your damage directly, but it could increase your chances of hitting, if you knew how to use two weapons at the same time. I'd like to have a mechanic that represents the fact that, if you can coordinate your two weapons well enough, then it can give you an advantage as you get your opponent's weapon out of the way with one of yours while you strike him with the other. I haven't yet found the perfect way to do that though.
hahnsoo
How about simply making it so that if you have two melee weapons, you can Full Parry and still use a Complex Action on your initiative to attack? No bonus dice (which always seemed unfair to me) or penalties, you simply get to do a Full Parry (against Melee attacks) and Attack at the same time. Under default rules, if you do a Full Parry, it prevents you from attacking at all.
FrostyNSO
There can certainly be advantages to using two melee weapons, and I think just using the straight up rules for double ranged weapons is pretty harsh.

But two ranged weapons...eh. I'm glad they made it hard to hit. I don't know anybody who can shoot two pistols at one time accurately from more than 7 yards or so.
Triggerz
Hahnsoo, what are the rules for a full parry? i definitely like your idea, but I'm a little fuzzy on the details.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Triggerz)
By "lack of synergies", you mean that if I have Kung Fu 7, I should be able to add an aikido technique to the mix without having to invest 60 karma points in the skill for that single technique?

Yes and no - personally, the idea of having multiple, different skills for the same subject, unarmed combat, was a bit odd.

The point is, one does learn what works best for oneself, which includes mixing elements of different 'styles' too, resulting in a new, personal 'style' - not separated states of mind.

This is quite well reflected by unarmed combat, maneuvers still simply express special points of interest.

QUOTE ("hahnsoo")
No bonus dice (which always seemed unfair to me) or penalties, you simply get to do a Full Parry (against Melee attacks) and Attack at the same time.

Well, lets just say it is indeed a bit unfair to use two weapons if you know what you are doing and your enemy has only one. wink.gif

The idea of defense sounds great for shields... (how) are those ruled in SR4?
hahnsoo
QUOTE (Triggerz)
Hahnsoo, what are the rules for a full parry? i definitely like your idea, but I'm a little fuzzy on the details.

Full Parry is simply a variation on Full Defense. While regular Full Defense is either Reaction + Dodge (ranged attacks) or Reaction + Dodge x 2 (melee attacks), if you have a sufficiently high Melee skill you can go for a Full Parry instead, which is Reaction + Melee Combat Skill x 2. You can also split the difference and go Reaction + Melee Combat Skill + Dodge for Full Defense, if you'd like. There's a lot of ways you can choose to go with Full Defense in SR4.

The other thing that I just thought of is the ability to Counter-Attack (which is what SR4 removed), but at a penalty.
Triggerz
QUOTE
Yes and no - personally, the idea of having multiple, different skills for the same subject, unarmed combat, was a bit odd.

The point is, one does learn what works best for oneself, which includes mixing elements of different 'styles' too, resulting in a new, personal 'style' - not separated states of mind.

This is quite well reflected by unarmed combat, maneuvers still simply express special points of interest.


I see your point. Sticking to unarmed combat instead of separate martial arts would make blending styles much easier. I'm not sure how to deal with MA-specific bonuses and penalties though.
Rotbart van Dainig
That would be the point of a specialization, wouldn't it?

Well, penalties... I don't know, but somehow that part looked quite... forced.
Triggerz
QUOTE (hahnsoo @ Aug 27 2005, 05:52 PM)
The other thing that I just thought of is the ability to Counter-Attack (which is what SR4 removed), but at a penalty.


That might give slow swordsmen too big a bonus when fighting speed machines with three times the initiative passes.

Being able to do a full parry and still attack on your own initiative pass is already pretty good. It might be enough to keep a slightly more skilled opponent (who only has one weapon though) on his toes. You'd be more likely to counter-attack even when you're on the defensive. Interesting...

[EDIT: Fixed the quote.]
hahnsoo
Erm. I think you added some things to my quoted text there, bub. smile.gif
Triggerz
Oups! Yeah, sorry. I hadn't noticed. On my computer, the quote button always adds the "(quote)" at the end of the text rather than where the cursor is. sarcastic.gif

[EDIT: It's nice to see that some people can be civil about that kind of stuff. wink.gif]
hahnsoo
Just to refine this House Rule a bit, a person with two weapons can choose to full parry with one hand and on his next Complex Action attack (the ONLY Complex Action he can choose to do) with the other hand. Whichever weapon is the off-hand takes a -2 dice penalty on the chosen action unless you are Ambidextrous. You use the skill of the appropriate weapon in each hand to determine what skill roll you use for both the Full Parry and the attack. Thus, say you have a Clubs of 4 and a Blades of 3, and you are a non-ambidextrous character wielding a club in the off-hand and a katana in the main hand. You choose to parry with the club in your off-hand and do a Full Parry, which means you roll Reaction + Clubs x 2 ( or 8 ), and then -2 dice for using your off-hand, ending up with a Reaction + 6. When you attack (your next Complex Action), you roll your Agility + Blades (or 3 ) to attack with your Katana. Had the situation been reversed, and you decide to parry with the Katana while attacking with the Club, you would roll Reaction + Blades x 2 ( or 6 ) and Agility + Clubs (4) - 2 for using your off-hand.
Triggerz
QUOTE (hahnsoo)
Just to refine this House Rule a bit, a person with two weapons can choose to full parry with one hand and on his next Complex Action attack (the ONLY Complex Action he can choose to do) with the other hand.

Suppose the person is attacked by two opponents at the same time, would it be reasonable to allow a second full parry (with relevant the skill and modifiers)? The person would then lose the ability to attack on his next action.
hahnsoo
Full Parry affects all incoming melee attacks. The important distinction, though, is that in SR4, every subsequent attack after the first subtracts 1 die from your defense (not to mention in that case, the opponent is getting friends in melee on TOP of all that). Perhaps you can also allow a person who is on Full Defense/Parry with two weapons to negate one Friend in Melee and the -1 die penalty to defense for a second incoming attack, in lieu of using the Complex Action to attack. Then it gets a bit complicated, of course, but then again, if you are looking for combat resolution rules on fighting with two weapons, it's going to get complicated anyway.

EDIT: Incoming MELEE attacks. An important distinction to make. smile.gif
Triggerz
I think that would make a lot of sense. I mean: If you are surrounded and have friends on their way to help you, you'll probably try just not to get killed in the meantime and probably won't attack until they get there and your chances get better.

Simple is good, but yeah, with two weapons, if we want realistic mechanics, it's bound to add some complexity.
TheNarrator
So if you dual-wield, you block one attack with each hand at no penalty, then one attack with each hand at a -1, then one attack with each hand at a -2, and so on? Sounds reasonable to me. And fits, visually, with what a person with two weapons might do while being attacked from all sides.

So I guess the next question is, should they also have the option to attack with both weapons? I mean, I'd imagine that a guy with two knives and the proper training could stab somebody twice as much, or stab two people at once (with the appropriate penalty for changing targets, assuming SR4 still has such a thing). Do you think that's reasonable, or does it upset the game balance?
Knarfy
Heres a thought, how about when dual-wielding in melee, you have the option (whether attacking or defending) of taking a penalty to your own pool, in order to force your opponent to take the same penalty to their pool. (and if your not ambidextrous then you take a -2 penalty as well)

It would be pretty easy to use, and would actually model using two weapons pretty well I think, as most two weapon fighting styles seem to focus on using one weapon to parry, or create an opening, while the other is used to attack. It might be reasonable to limit this penalty by your skill level or something, too keep it from getting too out of hand. It would also represent that dual-wielding isn't really a good plan if you aren't very skilled.

Of course, it has the down side that against a similarly skilled opponent, its not that much of an advantage (oh nos, now were both rolling 3 dice instead of 12, whatever shall I do? nyahnyah.gif ) Unless of course you spend a point of edge for that perfect killer strike smile.gif (no, your rolling 3 dice, Im rolling 8 dice that explode cool.gif ) Forcing your opponent to either spend edge or go on a full defense to compensate.

Then of course you have to consider if it would be overpowering against those of lower skill level... But then you would PwN them anyway nyahnyah.gif But, assuming that your skill levels are similar, you could theoretically take them down to 0 dice, and still have a few dice yourself. Of course, even though they aren't rolling anything, you still have to get at least one hit, and even if you do, your damage wont be all that hot, cause your only gonna get a few.

Against an opponent of greater skill, its pretty useless, but then, thats not really a big deal, since he would probly whup you anyway. Of course, considering how many dice one can get from going on full defense, you may be able to take even a superior opponent down to 0 dice when your defending. (at which point they would just burn some edge and cut off your head wink.gif

I guess a point to clarify, I don't think that the "penalty" should actually count as a penalty TM, as in, if that particular modifier reduces your pool to 0, you can spend a point of edge and add the dice normally, and they explode like normal, aka, its not a longshot test.

Or something like that nyahnyah.gif

O well, its just an alternative Idea to add to the mix.
Hell Hound
If I understand the SR4 rules properly (don't yet own the book) in combat you can;
  • Use your action to make attacks and then use your reaction to dodge incoming melee attacks in between.
  • Go full defense and add either double your dodge skill or double your melee skill or one of each to your reaction but can make no attacks.
In the, admittedly limited, experience I have had with dual weapon training in martial arts you either attack with both weapons, block with both weapons or use one to deflect an attack or defense and the other to strike at the openning. Thus as an idea for a houserule that does not change things too much or overcomplicate combat;

Dual Weapon fighting provides you with a bonus number of dice equal to, say, half your skill rating rounded up (slightly reduced for those that are not ambidextrous). This dual weapon bonus can be used in one of three ways each round;
  • Add it to your attack dice pool so it becomes attribute+melee skill+dual weapon bonus and you defend/dodge normally.
  • Add it to your normal defensive pool so that it becomes reaction+dual weapon bonus without sacrificing the ability to attack
  • Add it to your full defense/parry so it becomes attribute+dodge/melee+melee/dodge+dual weapon bonus and you make no attack
The rules for full defense or anything else in combat do not change you just end up with more dice to throw around and the number of dice, and thus the benefit, is dependant upon your skill level.
Cynic project
Why does Duel weilding need it's own rules in melee? Why can't it be just a style thing? Weailding two knives doesn't make you better in combat in some ways it makes you worse. Now if youa re skilled in it it doesn't make your worse. I just think that dueling weilding makes teh L33TN3ZZ is best left for bad stories and action movies.
Rotbart van Dainig
Well... those techniques were developed in a time, when the were used in actual combat - considering the natural selection it should be somewhat an advantage. wink.gif

Knife-fighting is an exception though, indeed - a free hand for grappling is a bonus, too... which isn't reflected by the rules, sadly.

But it would be interesting to know how melee combat is influenced by shields in SR4.
hahnsoo
Honestly, anything that adds bonus dice in a single span of a Complex Action is unbalancing, as shown by the previous dual-wield rules in SR3. This is why you split dice when using a pair of weapons in a single Simple Action (your skill and dice pool represents how many dice you can throw in a single action). I know there are a lot of knife-bunnies out there who want to max out their ability to do damage, but I think it is more fair to simply allow a counter attack on the next complex action or defend against two enemies at no penalty. As far as a doubled melee attack, you'd forgo your ability to go Full Defense and Counter Attack, or Full Defense without penalty against two opponents, but you'd be able to do two attacks, splitting your attack just like attacking two different opponents in a single action. Remember, while your net hits for each attack might be less, your net damage will probably be greater since each net hit only adds a box of damage, but each attack does a base damage that's much higher than a single box.

Shields give you a -1 die for any physical tests (including attacks, and I'm presuming dodge rolls, too). In exchange, they give an ungodly amount of armor bonus. I'm not sure if they apply an Agility/Reaction penalty for too much armor, but the text on p 149 implies that it does.
Rotbart van Dainig
Thx for the update on shields.

QUOTE (hahnsoo @ Aug 28 2005, 07:22 PM)
Honestly, anything that adds bonus dice in a single span of a Complex Action is unbalancing, as shown by the previous dual-wield rules in SR3.

Hm, 'anything' sounds a bit harsh... the rules in SR3 weren't as 'broken' as in SR2. wink.gif

With the suggestion of Skill/2 (-1 if not ambidextrous), the bonus you get (-1 to 3 dice) is about the same of a smartlink (+2 dice), adepts with improved ability get even bigger boni.

On the other hand, an extra action is really evil.
Triggerz
QUOTE (Cynic project)
Why does Duel weilding need it's own rules in melee? Why can't it be just a style thing? Weailding two knives doesn't make you better in combat in some ways it makes you worse. Now if youa re skilled in it it doesn't make your worse. I just think that dueling weilding makes teh L33TN3ZZ is best left for bad stories and action movies.

Well, it's not like I'll be forcing anyone to make dual-wielding more than a style thing if they don't want to slow down the game with more complex mechanics, but more complex mechanics might allow those of us who'd like more realistic melee combat to get it.

Triggerz
QUOTE (hahnsoo)
Honestly, anything that adds bonus dice in a single span of a Complex Action is unbalancing, as shown by the previous dual-wield rules in SR3. [...] I think it is more fair to simply allow a counter attack on the next complex action or defend against two enemies at no penalty. As far as a doubled melee attack, you'd forgo your ability to go Full Defense and Counter Attack, or Full Defense without penalty against two opponents, but you'd be able to do two attacks, splitting your attack just like attacking two different opponents in a single action. Remember, while your net hits for each attack might be less, your net damage will probably be greater since each net hit only adds a box of damage, but each attack does a base damage that's much higher than a single box.

I think we're getting pretty close to the sweet spot.

(Agility+Skill+Modifiers)/2 vs Reaction should yield a few net hits every now and then, so it's not like splitting the pool would make it entirely impossible for a dual-wielder to hit his opponent.

Concerning bonus dice, I think the mechanics Hahnsoo suggested for Full Parry would be more than enough as an attack bonus. Since you could use a full parry and still attack on your next action, you'd be much less likely to get stuck into a defensive stance - and that makes a huge difference. With only one weapon, if facing a more skilled opponent, you might have to resort to full defense repeatedly to avoid having your head chopped off, but as long as you do, you are not attacking. The ability to do a Full Parry and then attack on your next action would provide you with many more attack tests than if you were not dual-wielding, so bonus dice on top of that would probably seriously unbalance the game.

As I already said, I think we're getting pretty close to the sweet spot. I can't wait to playtest it! biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif
Cynic project
QUOTE (Triggerz)

Well, it's not like I'll be forcing anyone to make dual-wielding more than a style thing if they don't want to slow down the game with more complex mechanics, but more complex mechanics might allow those of us who'd like more realistic melee combat to get it.

Ha. you have been watching too many movies my firend. Swinging a sword,kife or club the rigth way takes your whole body, just like a kick or a punch. Further more Shaowrun combat is a complex system that boils down to this, a hit in hand to hand is not just one punch. A hit n hand to hand could be a few quick jabs, a hail mary, or a lot of shit based on what you want to do in game.A round of hand to hand is many things, sometime even with "attacks" it is just people looking for openings, but that is left tot he players and the game paster to say.

You are playing in a abstracted world, where there are guns. So if you want to make rules to make duel weilding of sword more realistic make sure to remeber to change the rules so that if the man with a gun is ready for the sword guy, the sword guy dies.
Triggerz
QUOTE (Cynic project)
Ha. you have been watching too many movies my firend. Swinging a sword,kife or club the rigth way takes your whole body, just like a kick or a punch. Further more Shaowrun combat is a complex system that boils down to this, a hit in hand to hand is not just one punch. A hit n hand to hand could be a few quick jabs, a hail mary, or a lot of shit based on what you want to do in game.A round of hand to hand is many things, sometime even with "attacks" it is just people looking for openings, but that is left tot he players and the game paster to say.

You are playing in a abstracted world, where there are guns. So if you want to make rules to make duel weilding of sword more realistic make sure to remeber to change the rules so that if the man with a gun is ready for the sword guy, the sword guy dies.

I am aware that an attack is not one swing of a weapon. And I think SR has plenty of rules that allow a man with a gun ready to shoot a guy with a sword before he gets too close. I still think that even with abstract combats, there can be special rules that reflect the difference between wielding one weapon or two. You may disagree. We don't need to use the same melee combat rules. Personally, I like more detailed combat rules with a range of options that actually have an impact in game terms. I like SR3 martial arts and maneuvers. They're not perfect mechanics, but they add flavour to the fights. I'm not saying the rules we proposed here are perfect - they might require some tweaking -, but I think we're getting closer to have mechanics that work rather well. As I said, it's not like I'll force you to use them. If you think the whole idea is stupid, well, what can I say? Just don't use them. Just don't waste your time and mine posting in this thread. If you have constructive comments to make on the issue, they'll be more than welcome. Know that you're unlikely to change my preference for more detailed melee combat rules though.

To further clarify what I wrote above on dice bonuses for two weapons. Since your one-weapon-wielding opponent cannot stick to a purely defensive stance if he wants to get rid of you, then he'll have to forego the defensive bonuses that a Full Parry/Full Defense gives while you will still benefit from those. And that, in my opinion, is a big enough bonus by itself, so I don't think there is any need to add attack bonuses on top of that for using two weapons.
Triggerz
QUOTE (hahnsoo @ Aug 27 2005, 07:29 PM)
Full Parry affects all incoming melee attacks.  The important distinction, though, is that in SR4, every subsequent attack after the first subtracts 1 die from your defense (not to mention in that case, the opponent is getting friends in melee on TOP of all that).  Perhaps you can also allow a person who is on Full Defense/Parry with two weapons to negate one Friend in Melee and the -1 die penalty to defense for a second incoming attack, in lieu of using the Complex Action to attack.  Then it gets a bit complicated, of course, but then again, if you are looking for combat resolution rules on fighting with two weapons, it's going to get complicated anyway.

EDIT: Incoming MELEE attacks. An important distinction to make. smile.gif

Some further tweaking...

I think the Full Defense/Parry rule for multiple opponent is good - as it actually reflects the advantage of having two weapons to block when you're attacked by more than one simultaneously -, but it might be overpowered when you're fighting against a single opponent as it would automatically give you a full parry and an attack on your next action.

To allow a one-weapon opponent to put you in a purely defensive stance even though you're wielding two weapons - which I think should happen when you're facing a truly superior opponent -, maybe you could have the option of either foregoing your attack on your next action and get the full Full Parry bonus, or keeping your next attack but getting a limited Full Parry. I suggest Reaction+Melee Skill+Modifiers for the second option instead of Reaction+2x(Melee Skill)+Modifiers.

EDIT: Further tweaking... If you use the partial full parry (second option), then maybe you should only get half of your pool on your next attack. You'd still have a chance to hit, but your chances wouldn't be as high as good as if you had decided to go full offense (and not use any Full Parry bonuses). Just an idea. It will have to be playtested, I guess, but it might help keep the defenses of two-weapon wielders more balanced.
Cynic project
And you think that you can block my two handed sword with your off hand?Or hell you primary weapon? Your body can only put so much effort into anything. Having two swords may make you swing faster, but the swings are going to be weaker, both in the offensive and defensive means. If I have one sword I may take longer to strick, but my srike will have more impact because I can put my all into it. If I did that when duel welding, I would basically make the second weapon mute.

So if you want to make duel weilding diffrent then all make sure they have pentlies cause if duel weilding was good you would have seen more of it.
hahnsoo
As much as I like to see threads devolve into arguments between two or three posters, let's keep the focus on developing feasible and fair rules for two weapon combat, eh? For every example of combat you can reference that only uses a single weapon, you can find another example of fighting styles that utilize a pair of weapons in concert, throughout all of written history, and unless you can put these disparate examples together in an ultimate Fighting grudge match of doom ™, there's really no way you can justify how effective they would have been against each other.

The focus here is developing two-weapon rules for SR4's completely abstract combat system that do not give a combatant such a huge advantage that no one would ever wield a single weapon, yet are different enough that a person can choose to do this as a character/player decision. Again, trying to hit a "sweet spot" here.
Triggerz
QUOTE (Cynic project)
And you think that you can block my two handed sword with your off hand?Or hell you primary weapon? Your body can only put so much effort into anything. Having two swords may make you swing faster, but the swings are going to be weaker, both in the offensive and defensive means. If I have one sword I may take longer to strick, but my srike will have more impact because I can put my all into it. If I did that when duel welding, I would basically make the second weapon mute.

So if you want to make duel weilding diffrent then all make sure they have pentlies cause if duel weilding was good you would have seen more of it.

I agree with you that the defensive bonuses of a second weapon have to be kept reasonable. I have further amended my proposition in the above post so that, basically, it would be more in line with what youj ust mentioned. If you want the whole Full Parry bonus, then you'd basically have to concentrate fully on defense - and give up on your ability to strike back. I don't know if that makes it more reasonable/realistic. Let me know if you think it's still not right. As I said, I'm still playing with different ideas. Once I have the book, it will be easier to playtest those and see what works and what doesn't.

As for seeing more dual-weilding, well, not everyone is ambidextrous, and not everyone has the skill to use two weapons efficiently. I'm fairly confident that we can find mechanics that don't make everyone dual-wielders.
Triggerz
QUOTE (hahnsoo)
The focus here is developing two-weapon rules for SR4's completely abstract combat system that do not give a combatant such a huge advantage that no one would ever wield a single weapon, yet are different enough that a person can choose to do this as a character/player decision. Again, trying to hit a "sweet spot" here.

Amen.
snowRaven
Alright - breathing life into this thread again...

Personally, I think the extra full parry is a bit too powerful.

I'm kinda leaning towards the following:

Using two weapons, you add half of the off-hand weapon skill (modify for off-hand first, then half, if you get into negative, you loose dice) - BUT you may not count a weapon specilization for either hand.

Thereby, the single weapon user can specialize and improve his chances, while the two-weapon fighter has the potential for more dice, and his bonus dice apply both when attacking and defending, while the single weapon user has to choose if he wants attack or parry as his bonus.

Example:
Skill 4/single weapon: 4 dice
Skill 4/single weapon w/specialization: 6 dice
Skill 4/two weapons: 5 dice
Skill 4/two weapons/ambidexterity: 6 dice

This will give the two weapon fighter a few slight edges: better attack AND parry, possible choice of what damage to inflict (depending on weapons), and she can loose a weapon and still be effective. But she won't totally dominate a skilled fighter.

(An alternative to using half of the off-hand weapon: Use a separate skill: Exotic Melee Weapon: Two weapon fighting, and either apply half of that skill, or use that skill as primary and apply half the off-hand weapon to it.)

Opinions?
Gothic Rose
QUOTE (snowRaven)

Using two weapons, you add half of the off-hand weapon skill (modify for off-hand first, then half, if you get into negative, you loose dice) - BUT you may not count a weapon specilization for either hand.

What about a specialization in two weapon fighting? Also known as "Ranger-Fu."
Veggiesama
Ideas that'd fit with the current rules system:

1) Treat it as a "burst fire" for melee weapons. Wide (-2 defender dice) for duel-style combat that maximizes finesse over power (think fencing), or Narrow (+2 DV) for offensive attacks designed to stick them where it really hurts. Still get a -2 penalty to your dice if you aren't Ambidextrous.
As in d20, you might want to add a rule that you take -1 dice pool penalty if you have one "non-light" weapon in your offhand. That means if you specialize in katanas and use two, you take a -1 dice pool penalty. But if you specialize in knives and use two, you don't take penalty (with a penalty to reach/damage instead).
EDIT: Scrapped any modifiers to Full Defense Parry. Hell, how about just add an entry to the table on p151 and give you a bonus on all dodge/parry/gymnastics defense tests:
Defender wielding two weapons against a melee attack +1

2) Treat it with bonus reach. Maybe you gain +1 or +2 reach for the second weapon (same if it's a knife, sword, club, or whatever), to be used defensively or offensively as you wish. If you don't have Ambidexterity, you don't get this bonus.

3) Divide the dice and have both attacks made seperately, remembering the second one has a -1 dice penalty on the enemy's Dodge (according to table). Second attack has -2 dice penalty unless you have Ambidexterity.

For all of these except #3, you'd roll your normal attack with damage equal to your mainhand weapon. AFAIK, most two-weapon fighting is done with one large weapon and one smaller weapon (or just two swaller weapons) to assist parrying and riding up on your enemy and denying him/her the chance to strike back.
Personally, I like #1 the best, as long as we get somebody to crunch some numbers and see how it compares to a characters using one one-handed or a two-handed weapons.
Fortune
As I said in the other thread, I think it should be quick and simple. +2 Dice Pool when using a second weapon, but still retain the -2 if not Ambidexterous. I think that if you want to gain from using two weapons, the Quality is cheap enough to buy, both at chargen and in-game.
snowRaven
I still think someone who isn't ambidextrous should benefit from using two weapons in melee combat - if nothing else because it's easier to keep your enemy at bay and protect yourself.

The 'reach' option above could work, but it either makes two weapons useless for anyone without ambidexterity, or it makes ambidexterity useless (if you always give the bonus, regardless).

And Gothic Rose, sure a specialization in 2 weapons could be valid, but it makes the trained two-weapon fighter far superior, if combined with any other rule for two weapons. And if that's the sole rule, then you might as well specialize in one weapon.


No, I think two weapon combat needs to be a valid choice, made for a reason. And someone with ambidexterity should be slightly more dangerous than someone without it, but neither should have a huge advantage over the single-weapon wielder.
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