Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: SR4 Rules Question
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:01:18 -0500
Ok, I've gotten the PDF and have looked it over, the biggest question that
I've come into is this, I can't find any rules at all dealing with someone
wielding two melee weapons. The group I'm running has a pair of samurai
types and they want to have an actual duel in which they just battle it out
but one insists on using dual bladed style. How would you have this
resolved for parrying and such? Main weapon rolls at full strength and
secondary rolls at half pool perhaps?

Derek
Message no. 2
From: swiftone@********.org (Brett Sanger)
Subject: SR4 Rules Question
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:17:50 -0400
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 07:01:18PM -0500, Derek Hyde wrote:
> but one insists on using dual bladed style. How would you have this
> resolved for parrying and such? Main weapon rolls at full strength and
> secondary rolls at half pool perhaps?

Me, I'd juat have them roll the normal skill rolls. Using two weapons
is a style thing, and the distraction of having to wield two balances
out the bonuses.

The characters can argue that one way is better, but that doesn't make
it true mechanically.

In Shadowrun, Fords and Chevys have the same stats.

--
SwiftOne / Brett Sanger
swiftone@********.org
Message no. 3
From: derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: SR4 Rules Question
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:19:04 -0500
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 07:01:18PM -0500, Derek Hyde wrote:
>> but one insists on using dual bladed style. How would you have this
>> resolved for parrying and such? Main weapon rolls at full strength and
>> secondary rolls at half pool perhaps?
>
> Me, I'd juat have them roll the normal skill rolls. Using two weapons
> is a style thing, and the distraction of having to wield two balances
> out the bonuses.
>
> The characters can argue that one way is better, but that doesn't make
> it true mechanically.
>
> In Shadowrun, Fords and Chevys have the same stats.

That may be but there's a very distinct difference between swordfighting one
handed and two as far as blocking and parrying goes....
Message no. 4
From: The_Sarge@***.de (MatthÀus_Cebulla)
Subject: SR4 Rules Question
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 02:30:20 +0200
> That may be but there's a very distinct difference between swordfighting
> one handed and two as far as blocking and parrying goes....

Would it be possible to adapt the firearm rules? Like...
If he isn't ambidexterous, he gets the fitting penalty for wielding a
weapon with his off-hand. Otherwise, he gets to split the pool.

Going full defense with two melee weapons should give him a slight advantage
though, if the weapons in question are fit to be parry-weapons (e.g. Sai or
Heavy Daggers). Not so, if he wields two longswords or Katanas. (Which could
make parrying a fast foe quite difficult.)

. . .

Damn. That's no real answer. :-/
I think I'll look into it tomorrow, as I'm 30mins short of the end of the
day now. *grins*

Matthäus
Message no. 5
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: SR4 Rules Question
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:29:58 -0300
On 9/16/05, Derek Hyde <derek@***************.com> wrote:
> >
>
> That may be but there's a very distinct difference between swordfighting one
> handed and two as far as blocking and parrying goes....

Can't you just split the dice pool, like it's done with ranged combat?
Each attack gets the reach and damage of the weapon in that hand, the
off-hand gets a penalty, and the target has to defend twice.



--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 6
From: derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: SR4 Rules Question
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:32:54 -0500
> Would it be possible to adapt the firearm rules? Like...
> If he isn't ambidexterous, he gets the fitting penalty for wielding a
> weapon with his off-hand. Otherwise, he gets to split the pool.

Yeah, which isn't much different than just rolling with one weapon...

>
> Going full defense with two melee weapons should give him a slight advantage
> though, if the weapons in question are fit to be parry-weapons (e.g. Sai or
> Heavy Daggers). Not so, if he wields two longswords or Katanas. (Which could
> make parrying a fast foe quite difficult.)

Katana and Wakizashi.....yes, you can move faster than one katana ;)
Message no. 7
From: derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: SR4 Rules Question
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:33:35 -0500
> Can't you just split the dice pool, like it's done with ranged combat?
> Each attack gets the reach and damage of the weapon in that hand, the
> off-hand gets a penalty, and the target has to defend twice.

Sure, except I'm talking about DEFENDING with two weapons, not attacking
Message no. 8
From: The_Sarge@***.de (MatthÀus_Cebulla)
Subject: SR4 Rules Question
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 02:43:20 +0200
> Yeah, which isn't much different than just rolling with one weapon...

Hmm... Yeah, that's the problem with this. The only advantage is, that it
would drain more Edge of the opponent, as these are two rolls...

I really have to think that one through.

> Katana and Wakizashi.....yes, you can move faster than one katana ;)

Right! That would be one of those combos.
Or epee (spelling?) and a parry-dagger.

Hmm... Perhaps a +2 circumstance bonus JUST for defense if using such a
combination? Not much, but a slight edge. And if used with a split pool,
would give you a virtual +2 bonus for the offense, too. (As in: You can
set the offense two dice higher than the defense and still get an
'unmodified' defense...?) ... Does this make any sort of sense?

Matthäus
Message no. 9
From: swiftone@********.org (Brett Sanger)
Subject: SR4 Rules Question
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:55:56 -0400
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 07:19:04PM -0500, Derek Hyde wrote:
> > In Shadowrun, Fords and Chevys have the same stats.
>
> That may be but there's a very distinct difference between swordfighting one
> handed and two as far as blocking and parrying goes....

That's my point.

THere might be a major difference in reality. There might be a major
difference in stylistic description. Does it really make a real
difference if you modify the stats?

If you insist, give a -2 skill to attack rolls and a +2 skill to
defensive ones.

But by and large, if the difference doesn't really matter, why
complicate the system needlessly?

--
SwiftOne / Brett Sanger
US2003011110
swiftone@********.org
Message no. 10
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: SR4 Rules Question
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:33:31 -0300
On 9/16/05, Derek Hyde <derek@***************.com> wrote:
>
> > Can't you just split the dice pool, like it's done with ranged combat?
> > Each attack gets the reach and damage of the weapon in that hand, the
> > off-hand gets a penalty, and the target has to defend twice.
>
> Sure, except I'm talking about DEFENDING with two weapons, not attacking

I can think of two options, then:

1) Treat it as using only one weapon, except that any specialy
involving two-weapon fighting gives a bonus to it.

2) Allow the character to add his weapon skill instead of Dodge to his
defense roll when using full defense ( so it becomes Reaction + Weapon
+ Weapon, instead of Reaction + Weapon + Dodge ).



--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 11
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: SR4 Rules Question
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:18:32 +0200
On 17 Sep 2005, at 02:01, Derek Hyde wrote:

> Ok, I've gotten the PDF and have looked it over, the biggest
> question that
> I've come into is this, I can't find any rules at all dealing with
> someone
> wielding two melee weapons. The group I'm running has a pair of
> samurai
> types and they want to have an actual duel in which they just
> battle it out
> but one insists on using dual bladed style. How would you have this
> resolved for parrying and such? Main weapon rolls at full strength and
> secondary rolls at half pool perhaps?
>
> Derek
>
>


During playtest, I and my group came up with the following
(house) rule: using two weapons in melee combat provides the
character with an extra point of Reach. The skill to roll, DV, damage
type and reach are those of the character's main weapon (that is, the
one in her dominant hand -- ambidextrous character declare their main
weapon before rolling).
We liked it and found it quite balanced (apparently, we were the
only ones, as it didn't find its way into the book :p ), so until
there's an official ruling (my guess is there'll be one in Arsenal)
that's what we'll be using.

-- Wild_Cat





___________________________________________________________________________
Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger
Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
Message no. 12
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: SR4 Rules Question
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:55:15 +0200
According to Derek Hyde, on 17-9-05 02:01 the word on the street was...

> How would you have this
> resolved for parrying and such? Main weapon rolls at full strength and
> secondary rolls at half pool perhaps?

I think I'd do it like casting multiple spells at the same time: split
your skill dice any way you like between the two, but have both weapons
do full damage if they hit.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
de limme
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 13
From: rencheple@*******.net (Tim Martin)
Subject: SR4 Rules Question
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:15:49 -0400
---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment
Brett Sanger wrote:

>On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 07:01:18PM -0500, Derek Hyde wrote:
>
>
>>but one insists on using dual bladed style. How would you have this
>>resolved for parrying and such? Main weapon rolls at full strength and
>>secondary rolls at half pool perhaps?
>>
>>
>
>Me, I'd juat have them roll the normal skill rolls. Using two weapons
>is a style thing, and the distraction of having to wield two balances
>out the bonuses.
>
>The characters can argue that one way is better, but that doesn't make
>it true mechanically.
>
>In Shadowrun, Fords and Chevys have the same stats.
>
>
>
I agree with Brett. I don't seem to have the preceding elements of this
question, but having reviewed the rules on full defense, I'd have to say
that a second melee weapon (such as the katana and wakizashi
combination) simply adds flavor to the story that the GMs and players
are telling. Beyond that, the combination would make excellent fodder
for glitches, both normal and critical. In short, they would roll
Reaction+(melee skill * 2).

To take it a step further, I would pose this question. If you have two
identical characters - both with skill level 6 in bladed weapons , one
using a katana and one using a katana and wakizashi combination - and
they fought, would one have a tactical advantage over the other? I would
say no. They are stylistic choices by the characters (and players, of
course).

My 2¢

Tim

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.1/104 - Release Date: 9/16/2005

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment--
Message no. 14
From: tevel@******.com (Tevel Drinkwater)
Subject: SR4 Rules Question
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:03:48 -0700
Tim Martin <rencheple@*******.net> wrote:

> Brett Sanger wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 07:01:18PM -0500, Derek Hyde wrote:
>>
>>
>>> but one insists on using dual bladed style. How would you have this
>>> resolved for parrying and such? Main weapon rolls at full strength and
>>> secondary rolls at half pool perhaps?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Me, I'd juat have them roll the normal skill rolls. Using two weapons
>> is a style thing, and the distraction of having to wield two balances
>> out the bonuses.
>>
>> The characters can argue that one way is better, but that doesn't make
>> it true mechanically.
>>
>> In Shadowrun, Fords and Chevys have the same stats.
>>
>>
>>
> I agree with Brett. I don't seem to have the preceding elements of
> this question, but having reviewed the rules on full defense, I'd have
> to say that a second melee weapon (such as the katana and wakizashi
> combination) simply adds flavor to the story that the GMs and players
> are telling. Beyond that, the combination would make excellent fodder
> for glitches, both normal and critical. In short, they would roll
> Reaction+(melee skill * 2).
>
> To take it a step further, I would pose this question. If you have
> two identical characters - both with skill level 6 in bladed weapons ,
> one using a katana and one using a katana and wakizashi combination -
> and they fought, would one have a tactical advantage over the other? I
> would say no. They are stylistic choices by the characters (and
> players, of course).
>
> My 2¢
>
I actually had some real world experience with this. I used to fence in
University. A while ago I tried rapier fencing with some friends who
are in the SCA. For awhile at the start I definately focused on using
the one weapon as in modern fencing, and although I'm not half bad (if I
say so myself), and the formal knowledge of modern "fencing theory" I
suppose you could say certainly made me almost instantly one of the more
formidable opponents in the club, however once I learned to use an
offhand weapon, it only ever helped. It was an extra option. There was
definately a training issue though. I was doing fine without it though.

Thus, in RL, if I was cloned by a mad scientist and was forced to fight
my evil twin in arena style combat I would try for two weapons now also,
as I expect it would give me a *slight* edge, but is it significant to
model in the rules? Realistically I would leave them for the advanced
supplements, but there is a coolness factor that many melee oriented
adepts will want. Of course I suppose that's the same thing as the
martial arts rules. "Generic" unarmed combat just isn't as cool. In
the interim, I think I'll keep Wild Cat's house rule from the play test
in mind if any of my players decide they want a second weapon, although
ultimately I think I would like to include an extra skill/quality to
make full use of two-weapons, as I would say there is extra training on
top of mastering your main weapon.

-Tev
Message no. 15
From: snimmo@*****.com (Scott Nimmo)
Subject: SR4 Rules Question
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:39:25 +1000
Any two weapon style has one issue,
if you cannot know how to fight with two weapons you are better with just
one.

With proper training, using two weapons can be a nice advantage.
Sword and Buckler as displayed in the manuscript I.33 is very effective.
Rapier should be handled with a shorter companion weapon (like a dagger) to
prevent it's major flaw (when your opponent is too close as to render your
point useless (George Silver's Paradoxes of Defence, 1599 so see the rant
:-P ). There should be a penalty, to fighting equal to the reach on any
attacks with the weapon if the opponent gets close enough for unarmed
combat.

However I find my students take a while to move from set plays of sword and
buckler to bouting. They spend too much time thinking, and when they don't
think, within the preprogrammed movements they clash.
Maybe the penalty should be a high chance of glitching...

I think Reach mechanic was always been a good idea in the game, and using it
to explain the bonuses of two weapon combat it is simple way to explain it..

Personally though I think that a rapier or two handed sword should be at +2
reach, short polearm/quarterstaff at +3, and a pike,etc at +4.

BTW: Can someone please explain to me why katanas are treated as something
special?
They are no more superior then a "western" sword (though they are a little
shorter, but no sharper then some western swords).

Where would they fit in though.
Comabt Axe stats seem right for a great sword, it is a little less in power
but descripions of damage of the lochaber axe and the scottish greatsword
were similar.
A rapier or smallsword would have to less damage
Rapier, Reach 1, (STR/2 + 2)P -1AP 4R 450¥
Longsword, Reach 1, (STR/2 + 3)P -1AP 6R 450¥

and the Katana has to lose that -1AP.

BTW: I have a bias on this subject. I am an instructor on Western European
Martial Arts where I teach a large number of systems but typically more
around the 17th/18th Cent. Periods.
Apart from having students who practiced fencing and kendo for many years
(some over 20 years) I have also seen the reaction of shinkendo pracitioners
when they have seen a western sword perform just as well in cutting tests as
their japanese swords.
There is no "superior" sword, only superior technique.

--
regards,
Scott Nimmo
Melbourne Swordplay Guild Australian Swordplay Forums
http://www.swordplay.org.au http://forums.swordplay.org.au
Message no. 16
From: Char_Aznable@***.net (Dustin Keckta)
Subject: SR4 Rules Question
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:12:49 -0700
It's a nod to a classic Cyberpunk trope, where Katanas were superior
swords, because Japanese corporations were superior corps.

(it IS just a sword)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Nimmo" <snimmo@*****.com>
To: "Shadowrun Discussion" <shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: SR4 Rules Question


Any two weapon style has one issue,
if you cannot know how to fight with two weapons you are better with just
one.

With proper training, using two weapons can be a nice advantage.
Sword and Buckler as displayed in the manuscript I.33 is very effective.
Rapier should be handled with a shorter companion weapon (like a dagger) to
prevent it's major flaw (when your opponent is too close as to render your
point useless (George Silver's Paradoxes of Defence, 1599 so see the rant
:-P ). There should be a penalty, to fighting equal to the reach on any
attacks with the weapon if the opponent gets close enough for unarmed
combat.

However I find my students take a while to move from set plays of sword and
buckler to bouting. They spend too much time thinking, and when they don't
think, within the preprogrammed movements they clash.
Maybe the penalty should be a high chance of glitching...

I think Reach mechanic was always been a good idea in the game, and using it
to explain the bonuses of two weapon combat it is simple way to explain it..

Personally though I think that a rapier or two handed sword should be at +2
reach, short polearm/quarterstaff at +3, and a pike,etc at +4.

BTW: Can someone please explain to me why katanas are treated as something
special?
They are no more superior then a "western" sword (though they are a little
shorter, but no sharper then some western swords).

Where would they fit in though.
Comabt Axe stats seem right for a great sword, it is a little less in power
but descripions of damage of the lochaber axe and the scottish greatsword
were similar.
A rapier or smallsword would have to less damage
Rapier, Reach 1, (STR/2 + 2)P -1AP 4R 450¥
Longsword, Reach 1, (STR/2 + 3)P -1AP 6R 450¥

and the Katana has to lose that -1AP.

BTW: I have a bias on this subject. I am an instructor on Western European
Martial Arts where I teach a large number of systems but typically more
around the 17th/18th Cent. Periods.
Apart from having students who practiced fencing and kendo for many years
(some over 20 years) I have also seen the reaction of shinkendo pracitioners
when they have seen a western sword perform just as well in cutting tests as
their japanese swords.
There is no "superior" sword, only superior technique.

--
regards,
Scott Nimmo
Melbourne Swordplay Guild Australian Swordplay Forums
http://www.swordplay.org.au http://forums.swordplay.org.au

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about SR4 Rules Question, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!