The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Two-weapon Fighting
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> Two-weapon Fighting Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2431

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
cheshire wrote:
Suppose you are using the weapon defensively. I.E., melee parry. Is the +5 difficulty applied as a bonus to the opponent's attack? I.E., if the attack roll is a 15, the defender has to roll a 20 to avoid being hit?
Would that be consistent with your experience? Or does having a second weapon actually make it easier on the defense?


I think that a "real world" interpretation would be like an apples to oranges comparison. "Parrying" with a weapon is a very movie-kind-of-thing. As I understand sword fighting (and I'm less than a novice, mind you), the parry is appropriate with weapons that are very flexible and very light (that is, they lack momentum), hence, they are common in fencing. But I believe that parrying with a sword (which, to my mind, would include vibro blades and the like) carries a generally unacceptable degree of risk that the sword will be damaged beyond a reasonable level of usefulness (better than bare hands, but nowhere near as effective as a sword in fighting condition).

I rather interpret the rules to reflect the danger of attacking via flesh someone with a weapon that can't be "wounded" like flesh can, so the attack must be made more carefully. A failed attack roll simply indicates that the additional caution prevented the attack from connecting (I also see possibility that the attacker could not find an opening and so was unable to strike at all... much like the idea of a failed blaster shot possibly representing a lack of confidence in taking that particular shot). Otherwise, the attacker should suffer damage on a failed attack (which the rules do not dictate).

WotC addresses this with the "attack of opportunity" so that attacking someone with a weapon (who will have greater reach, as well as a non-pain-feeling object between him and his attacker) carries the risk of being damaged during such an attempt.

My opinion is that in addition to the bonus/penalty, the unarmed character should suffer damage if the attack roll fails by a margin greater than the modifier (that is, if the modifier is +5, then an attack roll that misses by 5 or less does not result in damage, but by 6 or more, does result in damage).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4414

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
cheshire wrote:
Suppose you are using the weapon defensively. I.E., melee parry. Is the +5 difficulty applied as a bonus to the opponent's attack? I.E., if the attack roll is a 15, the defender has to roll a 20 to avoid being hit?
Would that be consistent with your experience? Or does having a second weapon actually make it easier on the defense?


As a novice, it's a handicap. You're brain is trying to map two objects at once, using them in conjunction in ways you're not used to. When experienced, you have the opportunity to have better defenses. And the crazy thing is, if you don't use it, you lose it. It's not like riding a bicycle, and it comes back to you.

Training for two rapiers, and then setting the second down for a couple of years (due to a shoulder injury), but sticking with rapier and dagger changed my muscle memory. When I tried to retrain with two rapiers again, I wound up using the second rapier like a really long dagger. Which is a lot less effective than you'd think.


Naaman wrote:


I think that a "real world" interpretation would be like an apples to oranges comparison. "Parrying" with a weapon is a very movie-kind-of-thing. As I understand sword fighting (and I'm less than a novice, mind you), the parry is appropriate with weapons that are very flexible and very light (that is, they lack momentum), hence, they are common in fencing. But I believe that parrying with a sword (which, to my mind, would include vibro blades and the like) carries a generally unacceptable degree of risk that the sword will be damaged beyond a reasonable level of usefulness (better than bare hands, but nowhere near as effective as a sword in fighting condition).


Now way!?! What weapon(s) do you study?

Though in terms of parrying, yes the preference would be not to wack your steel against someone else's steel, ESPECIALLY edge on edge. Do that with a katana and you're going to wind up with something chipped, cracked, bent, broken, and very very sad. Though going back even to the 1480's we find Phillipio Vadi discussing meeting the opponents at the half-sword. Most interpreters read that as doing a parry of some sort, though whether with the flat or with the edge is still a matter of debate.

But you're completely right that once it comes to the rapier, the parry is a vital part of the exchange, (unless you're reading Agrippa), especially since past like 1610, the Spanish and Italian styles get exported throughout Europe, and the majority of attacks are thrusts. Intercepting those with the edge of your blade unlikely to cause much harm. And even if you are intercepting a cut, you're doing so with the part of the edge, closest to your hand, and that isn't as particularly useful for cutting.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11947
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cheshire wrote:
As a novice, it's a handicap. You're brain is trying to map two objects at once, using them in conjunction in ways you're not used to. When experienced, you have the opportunity to have better defenses. And the crazy thing is, if you don't use it, you lose it. It's not like riding a bicycle, and it comes back to you.

I really would like your opinion on nuclearwookiee's Simultaneous Action Penalty concept, and how it applies. I posted a link earlier, but in summary, a character who acts multiple times in a round incurs MAPs like normal, but also incurs SAPs whenever they wish to act multiple times during their turn.

So, for instance, a dual-wielding Jedi gets a -1D MAP for making two saber attacks during a round, but because he's also wielding them at the same time during his turn, he gets an additional -1D SAP. So an untrained swordsman trying to dual-wield gets a -2D penalty: -1D of MAP plus -1D of SAP.

What I'm considering is a rule like the graduated system I posted on the previous page, but with each succeeding level able to ignore more and more SAP, with any unused dice applying as a bonus to Lightsaber. For example, a Jar'Kai Master would be able to ignore 2D of SAP, but if he were in a Dueling Blades-type contest, he would only incur a -1D SAP (only rolling Lightsaber once per round). As such, he can apply the remaining 1D as a bonus to Lightsaber.




Quote:
Naaman wrote:
But I believe that parrying with a sword (which, to my mind, would include vibro blades and the like) carries a generally unacceptable degree of risk that the sword will be damaged beyond a reasonable level of usefulness (better than bare hands, but nowhere near as effective as a sword in fighting condition).


in terms of parrying, yes the preference would be not to wack your steel against someone else's steel, ESPECIALLY edge on edge.

I submit that advanced technology, materials and manufacturing underpin much of what we would call unrealistic weapon durability, so I'm not going to concern myself overmuch with potential weapon damage. At most, I'd save it for a Critical Failure.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2431

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cheshire wrote:


Now way!?! What weapon(s) do you study?



None, which is why I disclaimed my less-than-novice expertise. It's just what I've heard/seen with respect to movie sword fighting being far, far from a realistic portrayal, and ESPECIALLY with regard to sword fighters critiquing Star Wars and lightsaber combat. If I'm not mistaken, some of what my memory is referencing was posted by you, in particular.

I have heard of "half-swording" before, but without the context of your reference, I don't know if it could be a reference to parrying/blocking or the other concept that I have heard of, which is to grip the sword along the blade in order to make it a more viable close quarters weapon (and foiling an opponent's attack by maneuvering inside of his reach and striking with a "half-sword" thrust or some such).

CRMcNeill wrote:

I submit that advanced technology, materials and manufacturing underpin much of what we would call unrealistic weapon durability, so I'm not going to concern myself overmuch with potential weapon damage. At most, I'd save it for a Critical Failure.


I considered this, and resolved that the same technology would cancel out any enhanced durability, since the point of advanced weaponry is to overcome advanced materials that render older weapons obsolete (it's fundamental to the escalation of warfare in human history).

However, my point was not to suggest that weapon damage should be a factor in the rules, but rather that the "parry" is a rather rigid way to interpret what such skills are meant to represent. In other words, against an unarmed attacker, why not just parry every time? You'd defeat your opponent without ever having to make an "attack" (hence, the bonus granted to an armed defender). Whereas an armed attacker presents the same level of danger to his opponent, which limits how close either fighter can get before risking being hurt. Each fighter is essentially limited to the space just outside of his opponent's reach in order to avoid being hurt. But an unarmed attacker has no way to force an armed defender into "retreat" because the attacker's very weapons (hands and feet) make him susceptible to debilitating injury as soon as he tries to use them. Whereas a defensive skill certainly represents various forms of avoiding being struck, such as slips, ducks, blocks, parries, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4414

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
cheshire wrote:


Now way!?! What weapon(s) do you study?



None, which is why I disclaimed my less-than-novice expertise. It's just what I've heard/seen with respect to movie sword fighting being far, far from a realistic portrayal, and ESPECIALLY with regard to sword fighters critiquing Star Wars and lightsaber combat. If I'm not mistaken, some of what my memory is referencing was posted by you, in particular.


Sorry, I've been overtired today. I somehow misread it as "more than novice." As in, a step beyond novice.

Quote:

I have heard of "half-swording" before, but without the context of your reference, I don't know if it could be a reference to parrying/blocking or the other concept that I have heard of, which is to grip the sword along the blade in order to make it a more viable close quarters weapon (and foiling an opponent's attack by maneuvering inside of his reach and striking with a "half-sword" thrust or some such).


In German swordsmanship the term "half-sword" is used as a means of describing a combat action, gripping the sword half way up the blade and using it as leverage to work in close quarters.

In Italian longsword and Bologonese single-handed sword, it is used as a means of describing what happens when blades meet each other. They meet "at the cross" or "at the half-sword." They use the same terms to mean different things.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11947
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
I considered this, and resolved that the same technology would cancel out any enhanced durability, since the point of advanced weaponry is to overcome advanced materials that render older weapons obsolete (it's fundamental to the escalation of warfare in human history).

What doesn't improve is the strength of the human swinging it. A human can only put so much force into a swing, while material strength continues to ramp up, or be enhanced by energy fields or other tech. It will eventually reach a point where the ability of the weapon to absorb damage will exceed any force an unaugmented human can bring to bear on it.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2431

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cheshire wrote:
Naaman wrote:
cheshire wrote:


Now way!?! What weapon(s) do you study?



None, which is why I disclaimed my less-than-novice expertise. It's just what I've heard/seen with respect to movie sword fighting being far, far from a realistic portrayal, and ESPECIALLY with regard to sword fighters critiquing Star Wars and lightsaber combat. If I'm not mistaken, some of what my memory is referencing was posted by you, in particular.


Sorry, I've been overtired today. I somehow misread it as "more than novice." As in, a step beyond novice.

Quote:

I have heard of "half-swording" before, but without the context of your reference, I don't know if it could be a reference to parrying/blocking or the other concept that I have heard of, which is to grip the sword along the blade in order to make it a more viable close quarters weapon (and foiling an opponent's attack by maneuvering inside of his reach and striking with a "half-sword" thrust or some such).


In German swordsmanship the term "half-sword" is used as a means of describing a combat action, gripping the sword half way up the blade and using it as leverage to work in close quarters.

In Italian longsword and Bologonese single-handed sword, it is used as a means of describing what happens when blades meet each other. They meet "at the cross" or "at the half-sword." They use the same terms to mean different things.


Thanks for the details. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KageRyu
Line Captain
Line Captain


Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 995
Location: Ohio

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ashikaider wrote:
Would races possessing 4 or more arms and this skill have a MAP reduction?

So, my judgement on this, after reading over the Pho'Phinians, and a few other 4-armed races, as well as consulting certain D6 sources that allow adding extra limbs and such, is this would be on a case by case basis. Some races state they get to take 1 extra action then incur MAPs as normal, while a few places I saw it said as May act twice for each declared action (which can be very overpowering potentially).
In the end, I think it is something each GM would have to use best judgement for.

Note- In the case of certain D6 sources such as DC Universe, D6 Space, and D6 Powers, Extra limbs are purchased using Attribute dice when building a character/alien. None of these sources even agree... but 2 extra arms would knock 2D off available attributes - and in this case I could see justifying each declared action be with each set of arms. I would still urge caution with 4-arm quad wielding weapons and such a rule. I rather like the thought of Off-handed applying to all arms but 1.
_________________
"There's a set way to gain new Force Points and it represents a very nice system, where you're rewarded for heroism, not for being a poor conductor to electricity." ~Jachra
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11947
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Withe regard to species with extra arms and MAPs, I'd say the special ability as written is geared not just for the extra arms, but a natural mental ability to multi-task that is linked to having extra arms in the first place.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2431

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Was working on some rules for Jar-Kai and came up with something:

Suppose that two-weapon fighting was its own skill. You would need two skills: one for two-weapon fighting (melee) and one for two-weapon fighting (ranged).

The effect would be like this:

When making one attack, just use the normal rules. If you want to use the off-hand weapon in addition, then take the action you want to take (attack or parry), but roll the two-weapon fighting skill instead of the normal skill. The two-weapon fighting skill does not impose MAPs on other skills (or upon itself), but it is affected by MAPs generated by other skills (but not the original attack to which the "free" attack is linked... in other words you take MAPs for every pair of attacks, rather than for every individual attack).

Example:
Rebel trooper Joe has a vibro-blade in each hand. His melee combat skill is 7D and his two-weapon fighting skill is 5D+2. He can make one attack at 7D and a second attack for "free" at 5D+2.

If he wanted to make a total of three attacks, he could use his single vibro blade at 5D, or he could make two attacks with his primary vibro blade at 6D and one attack with his off-hand weapon at 4D+2 (of course, he could just take a fourth attack at 4D+2 in this case for no extra penalty).

By making it a separate skill, it has the effect of cutting into the character's CP bank, thus reducing his rate of advancement toward mastery of "regular" melee combat (reducing the maximum potential of any individual roll), with the trade-off being the ability to make additional attacks for no cost. Note that when making an odd number of attacks, you should always require the normal skill to be rolled for the "last" attack (thus incurring the appropriate MAPs).

I also recommend requiring the character to roll the lower of melee combat or two-weapon fighting when making his off-hand attacks (being "better" at fighting with two-weapons won't make you better at using the weapon to begin with).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KageRyu
Line Captain
Line Captain


Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 995
Location: Ohio

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
Withe regard to species with extra arms and MAPs, I'd say the special ability as written is geared not just for the extra arms, but a natural mental ability to multi-task that is linked to having extra arms in the first place.

This was why I said I felt it should be handled on a case by case basis as different species describe the effect on MAPs differently. I take this to reflect more than just the physical presence of extra appendages, but the nervous system and brain body coordination.
_________________
"There's a set way to gain new Force Points and it represents a very nice system, where you're rewarded for heroism, not for being a poor conductor to electricity." ~Jachra
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11947
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
Suppose that two-weapon fighting was its own skill. You would need two skills: one for two-weapon fighting (melee) and one for two-weapon fighting (ranged).

I think you need a more compelling reason for why two-weapon fighting should be separate from the general Melee Combat skill when so many things are not. I've pretty much decided on folding both Lightsaber and Melee Parry into the Melee Combat skill (IMO, neither is sufficiently distinct to justify a completely separate skill), and Paired Weapons is even less deserving; you're still using the same weapons, just in a more difficult manner.

Now, if you were to break Melee Combat itself down into broad categories, I'd be more inclined to agree. Just as an example, using my Melee Range optional rule, breaking Melee Combat up into:
    Brawling Weapons (knives, daggers and assorted close combat weapons)
    Melee Weapons (swords, maces, lightsabers, etc)
    Reach Weapons (spears, lances, force pikes, etc)
    Exotic Weapons (a catch-all for things like whips that don't fit cleanly into the other categories)
Even then, paired weapons would cover at least two of those categories, especially when you start mixing and matching (a Melee Weapon in one hand with a Brawling Weapon in the other, or a Melee Weapon paired with an exotic weapon, like a Zorro-esque character with a rapier and a whip).

But again, this is more of an add-on to Melee Combat than a separate skill. As such, IMO, it needs to be either an Advanced skill or a learned ability, as cheshire described.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2431

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
Naaman wrote:
Suppose that two-weapon fighting was its own skill. You would need two skills: one for two-weapon fighting (melee) and one for two-weapon fighting (ranged).

I think you need a more compelling reason for why two-weapon fighting should be separate from the general Melee Combat skill when so many things are not. I've pretty much decided on folding both Lightsaber and Melee Parry into the Melee Combat skill (IMO, neither is sufficiently distinct to justify a completely separate skill), and Paired Weapons is even less deserving; you're still using the same weapons, just in a more difficult manner.

Now, if you were to break Melee Combat itself down into broad categories, I'd be more inclined to agree. Just as an example, using my Melee Range optional rule, breaking Melee Combat up into:
    Brawling Weapons (knives, daggers and assorted close combat weapons)
    Melee Weapons (swords, maces, lightsabers, etc)
    Reach Weapons (spears, lances, force pikes, etc)
    Exotic Weapons (a catch-all for things like whips that don't fit cleanly into the other categories)
Even then, paired weapons would cover at least two of those categories, especially when you start mixing and matching (a Melee Weapon in one hand with a Brawling Weapon in the other, or a Melee Weapon paired with an exotic weapon, like a Zorro-esque character with a rapier and a whip).

But again, this is more of an add-on to Melee Combat than a separate skill. As such, IMO, it needs to be either an Advanced skill or a learned ability, as cheshire described.


Whatever works for ya. Since this game only has one "mechanic" (that is, skills), and according to Cheshire, two-weapon fighting must be learned "from scratch" even if you already know how to fight with a given weapon, it seems to make sense to me.

Incidentally, you touched on something else I'm working on, which is a tactical combat melee edition (where melee weapons are broken into three different ranges) and each weapon type has bonuses and penalties at various ranges. But that is a topic for another thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Page 7 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0