I'm thinking too much like Dynasty Warriors whilst your thinking the battle of Hastings. I had always imagined the damage from a Lightsaber came from the plasma blade not the effort put in by the combatant to hit hard with it. But I do take your point, if you're not able to apply enough force (not The Force) to your attack swing then your not going to do as much damage.

It's not really even about how much force you put behind it, but whether or not you can do more than just graze them with your spinning weapons. Rolling to hit is an oversimplification of what it takes to hit and do damage to a person with a weapon. After all missing with the roll doesn't mean you failed to hit. You can interpret a miss as a glancing blow, sliding off the characters armor and what not. A successful hit means you not only applied enough force to the hit to do damage but that you also struck them in a vital spot that does real harm to the body.

My argument is less about the source of the damage and more about the technique and whether you can land a solid enough blow to do any harm to a person. After all both The Clone Wars and Rebels feature lightsabre battles where the characters are hit with a glancing blow from the lightsabre or it slides off their armor or etc etc .....

Blasters only go 130 mph. so parrying blasters not so hard. a non force sensitive did it twice at 40 feet

I'm thinking too much like Dynasty Warriors whilst your thinking the battle of Hastings. I had always imagined the damage from a Lightsaber came from the plasma blade not the effort put in by the combatant to hit hard with it. But I do take your point, if you're not able to apply enough force (not The Force) to your attack swing then your not going to do as much damage.

Keep in mind it does take effort to push the lightsaber through things. some things take more effort then others.

I'm thinking too much like Dynasty Warriors whilst your thinking the battle of Hastings. I had always imagined the damage from a Lightsaber came from the plasma blade not the effort put in by the combatant to hit hard with it. But I do take your point, if you're not able to apply enough force (not The Force) to your attack swing then your not going to do as much damage.

Keep in mind it does take effort to push the lightsaber through things. some things take more effort then others.

I haven't seen a lot of CW so I didn't realise Lightsabers could glance off regular armour, so thanks for pointing it out Kael.

My impression had always been a hot knife through butter, but now I get the impression that's not quite right. Thanks.

They cut very well. But hit something like armor at the wrong angle and you bounce.

Rather like real swords. Your angle hitting is really important. Strength with a lightsaber is less important. But I think you still need to follow through with your blows and hit at an angle that digs in and does not bounce.

I'm thinking too much like Dynasty Warriors whilst your thinking the battle of Hastings. I had always imagined the damage from a Lightsaber came from the plasma blade not the effort put in by the combatant to hit hard with it. But I do take your point, if you're not able to apply enough force (not The Force) to your attack swing then your not going to do as much damage.

Keep in mind it does take effort to push the lightsaber through things. some things take more effort then others.

Very true, but is there a big difference between a wrist and a blast door?

I haven't seen a lot of CW so I didn't realise Lightsabers could glance off regular armour, so thanks for pointing it out Kael.

My impression had always been a hot knife through butter, but now I get the impression that's not quite right. Thanks.

Direct hits tend to still kill but there have been plenty of depictions of the blade not killing if it's not a square on direct hit. Take the SWTOR video, the Sith Lord takes a lightsabre to the face with his mask being knocked off and a deep red scare forming. If lightsabre's killed with the slightest of touches that Sith Lord would be dead from the glancing blow. Obi Wan takes a hit in Ep II from Dooku's sabre. He wasn't instantly killed. Examples exist.

They may cut through objects like a hot knife through butter but you have to land a solid blow for that to happen. The combat mechanic is made to represent anything from a glancing hit to a solid square blow. If the lightsabre didn't kill a NPC/PC in one shot (which can happen) then it's assumed that the hit wasn't exactly a solid and square hit.

I'm thinking too much like Dynasty Warriors whilst your thinking the battle of Hastings. I had always imagined the damage from a Lightsaber came from the plasma blade not the effort put in by the combatant to hit hard with it. But I do take your point, if you're not able to apply enough force (not The Force) to your attack swing then your not going to do as much damage.

Keep in mind it does take effort to push the lightsaber through things. some things take more effort then others.

Very true, but is there a big difference between a wrist and a blast door?

I haven't seen a lot of CW so I didn't realise Lightsabers could glance off regular armour, so thanks for pointing it out Kael.

My impression had always been a hot knife through butter, but now I get the impression that's not quite right. Thanks.

Direct hits tend to still kill but there have been plenty of depictions of the blade not killing if it's not a square on direct hit. Take the SWTOR video, the Sith Lord takes a lightsabre to the face with his mask being knocked off and a deep red scare forming. If lightsabre's killed with the slightest of touches that Sith Lord would be dead from the glancing blow. Obi Wan takes a hit in Ep II from Dooku's sabre. He wasn't instantly killed. Examples exist.

They may cut through objects like a hot knife through butter but you have to land a solid blow for that to happen. The combat mechanic is made to represent anything from a glancing hit to a solid square blow. If the lightsabre didn't kill a NPC/PC in one shot (which can happen) then it's assumed that the hit wasn't exactly a solid and square hit.

Sort of, it's the crits that kill. Exceeding WT represents a combatant no longer participating, either unconscious or unwilling or so focused on self preservation that they can no longer act. Critical hits are the representation of significant injuries, hence the vicious quality. But you're point still stands that the system is built around narrative damage.

My assumption is that the lack of specification that those are two-handed weapons are merely an oversight; I would for sure run them as requiring two hands to use in my campaign. Now, if someone temporarily needed to wield either type with one hand I'd let them, at the cost of a few setback dice or maybe a difficulty upgrade, depending on the situation.

If someone wanted to dual-wield a pair of double-bladed lightsabers I'd tell them no, as soon as I was done laughing.

This pretty perfectly sums up my opinion on the matter perfectly. These weapons are routinely described as two-handers in practically every piece of media ever see, the fighting-styles in which we see them used are basically always two-handed, etc., etc. IMO it's pretty obvious that the omission the lines that qualify these weapons as requiring two-hands to use effectively is an oversight.

Yes we Kao Cen Darach use a two-bladed 'saber in one hand, but there's no evidence that he was gaining any mechanical benefit from it, and I still little issue in allowing a double 'saber to be used as a single saber without the linked quality.

Additionally, there may be times when a 'saber pike may need to be used one-handed (e.g. holding on to a moving vehicle with one hand, stabbing at something with the pike in the other). In such a case, I'd probably say the weapon is *more* cumbersome, which (unless I'm mistaken) should add a setback die to the roll unless the character has a large brawn score, in which case I think no penalty may be justified.

However, both those cases are exceptional and specific, and hence not nearly enough evidence to justify any claim that these weapons are intended to be one-handers.

Do whatever you want at your table, but I think these cases are pretty obvious.

I imagine that wielding a double saber in that manner might allow for a defensive quality of some description; not something that applies all the time, but in a well condictioned lightsaber (e.g. an acutal brawn score) I imagine a master would be able to repel attacks by his super strong wrists. Other then 4 armed species, never really seen it used as a one handed weapon; the inquistor used it quite effortlessly one handed, but he only ever used the one which meant he had to commit a sangificant amount of focus to wielding it. Considering he is compareable to a knight level character, I would probably say it's possible, but extremely dangerous to wield a a pair of double lightsabers. The Dispairs would include auto critting yourself, which wouldn't be fun.

I would also argue double sabers are not a very Jedi thing and are quite distinctive, even from a lightsabers standards. Getting one of these things is going to be hard, keeping hold of one? Likely just as hard.

As for Saber pikes? They are a terrible weapon compared to a standard lightsaber anyway, more intended for NPC's (e.g. Royal Guard alikes) anyways, in picking one up people are using a highly visible, hard to conceal item that somehow has less room for evolution then a standard lightsaber in exchange for one crummy defence dice in melee combat? I mean don't get me wrong, defence dice is good in certain builds where the character intends to stock up on his defence anyway, but it's just much more efficient to pick up a standard lightsaber, have a vibroblade and you have the same effect without ever needing to actually swing it. If duel wielding these things would make them feel a bit better about their choice or using them one handed? Why not. That person is already taking a sangifcant hit in taking one.

As for Saber pikes? They are a terrible weapon compared to a standard lightsaber anyway, more intended for NPC's (e.g. Royal Guard alikes) anyways, in picking one up people are using a highly visible, hard to conceal item that somehow has less room for evolution then a standard lightsaber in exchange for one crummy defence dice in melee combat? I mean don't get me wrong, defence dice is good in certain builds where the character intends to stock up on his defence anyway, but it's just much more efficient to pick up a standard lightsaber, have a vibroblade and you have the same effect without ever needing to actually swing it. If duel wielding these things would make them feel a bit better about their choice or using them one handed? Why not. That person is already taking a sangifcant hit in taking one.

While I agree with you on the less room for evolution in the form of how few hard points the saberpike has, I disagree with the assertion it's an NPC weapon and hard to conceal, but my definition of a weapon for NPCs and only NPCs is any weapon that could feasibly have it's base damage listed as "enough." How much damage does the Death Star superlaser do? Enough. It does enough damage.

As for concealing a saber pike, true, you can't tuck it under a jacket or stuff it down your pants like it's a couple of thermal detonators (and yes, I have actually had a player hide thermal detonators that way, it was also the only time I made someone roll to walk from point A to point B at a leisurely pace.), but a little out of the box thinking goes a pretty long way. To my knowledge there exists at least one EU/legends lightsaber with a wooden casing, and there was that one that the Wookie youngling built in the Clone Wars cartoon for new cannon precedence. You take a Jedi from a predominantly primitive culture, or adopt their dress and mannerism (make Imperial prejudice work FOR you), hollow out an appropriately long and straight branch of whatever that tree was that had that super dense wood, stuff the lightsaber gubbins on the inside, and disguise the activation stud as some bit of ornamentation. Then you apply more bits of shiny rock, leather strands, and maybe a few feathers, and as long as you keep the emitter below eye level or fitted with some kind of cheap plug that you don't mind destroying every time you snaphiss, it's just a walking stick. Now this may not let you carry it in to some places that have a serious "no weapons policy" because the difference between "walking stick" and "whuppin' stick" is the same as the difference between a "carpenter's hammer" and "rat killin' hammer" and a scanner may detect a diatium power source and a kyber crystal, but to casual to moderate levels of scrutiny, it's just a stick... until you press that button.

As for the value of defensive... well, rather than looking at it as one defense die, I prefer to think of it as melee cover that moves with you. No maneuver needed. This is beneficial to offensive saber specs like Ataru which suffer from a lack of "don't kill me" that isn't in the form of Parry/Reflect or Toughend to fill in the gap, as it were, or in the hands of someone using Soresu or Shien, it certainly helps get you in the neighborhood of being able to use Counterstrike or Improved Parry. Stack that with a Lorrdian gem, and let the good times roll.

For what it's worth, the two-weapon combat rules explicitly say the GM has final say in what can be reasonably wielded effectively in one hand:

"If it's unclear whether or not a weapon can be wielded one-handed, the GM makes the final determination." (F&D core, p 217)

This may or may not be relevant to the OP; There doesn't appear to be any context about how the weapons were being used when the question came up. However, if you're not trying to dual-wield, the concern about a weapon being usable with a single hand is a lot less worrisome.

Also allowing one PC to get off 4 hits changes the balance of combat a bit. Most things aren't going to withstand 4 hits very well. This can end combat well before the scene becomes epic and cinematic. Then bad guys either need to be buffed up, thus making them a bit harder for anyone not wielding an auto-fire weapon, or there is less for other characters to do so combat pretty much becomes dominated by the guy with an auto-fire weapon.

I want the guy using an auto-fire weapon two handed to be just as effective as the guy who decides to use a blaster pistol. I don't want the rest of the PC's to feel that in order to compete they all need to start using an auto-fire weapon. I see no reason why someone who is using an auto-fire weapon to be bad ass needs to be more mechanically effective then the person who decides not to.

FTFY.

Some weapons and/or weapon combinations may be objectively better in combat than others. Typically those weapons and/or combinations of weapons will require more XP focused on their use to actually be as consistently good as the other options. Two-weapon fighting is *intrinsically* harder than one-weapon fighting according to the rules system. The character who focuses on using a single weapon will be more consistently capable. The one who focuses on two-weapon fighting will have higher damage spikes, but their typical hit will do less damage, and they will hit less often.

A dual-double-bladed lightsaber wielder has an incredible *potential* to do massive damage in combat. However, they're at a marked *disadvantage* when it comes to actually hitting to do *any* damage in the first place. And, to reach their potential, they have to hit *despite* that disadvantage, *and* roll 4 stray Advantage.

In our game last night, we had 2+ advantage happen exactly *once* with a PC working in his area of focus. (The party has accumulated ~50XP each at this point.)