Hello,

Since it came up in my campaign yesterday and I could not find a RAW ruling for this:

How would you rule the Accurate Quality on Dual wielded Weapons? (Example being a Gunslinger dual wielding 2 Blaster Pistols, while both Blaster Pistols have Accurate 1).

Thanks for your Insights,

Cheers 😃

Referring to the RAW, you use the stats for the primary weapon to hit. Only one boost die in the roll, and the two advantage to hit with the second weapon. The second accurate doesn't really come into play as it already accounted for in terms to make it easier to hit.

Thanks for the quick clarification 😃

Does this also mean that Setbacks from the Secondary Weapon don't apply?

I always presumed that you kept all the effects (Boost/Setback) from the Primary Weapon, but you still got the negatives (Setback) from the Secondary Weapon. I just reread the section and it said:

Quote

He then compares the difficulty of the two combat checks he would make with each of his two weapons to hit his target, and selects the check with the higher basic difficulty (more [P] ).

Previously, I'd mentally dropped the "basic difficulty" part and just stuck with the "higher" part.

Sounds like it isn't RAW, so then the question is is it a reasonable house-rule? It seems to make sense, plus if you have a ridiculously Inaccurate secondary weapon, I feel like you shouldn't be able to ignore that and instead have a ridiculously accurate primary weapon.

For example, you've got two blaster pistols: a Nova Viper (Accurate 2) with a modded SoroSuub True-Site System (pushing it up to Accurate 3), and a SoroSuub Renegade Heavy Blaster Pistol (Inaccurate 1) with a Blaster Acutating Module and a Galven Pattern Resequencing attachment (pushing it up to Inaccurate 1, 1 Setback, 2 Threat). If you dual-wield the primary weapon, you get 3 Boost instead of 2 Setback and 2 Threat. My house rule (if it is such) would mean you get all of the above.

As another example, if you have two of the aforementioned Renegades, I think that the effects don't stack, you just pick the worst.

Now, if I were to phrase it as a rule, here's how I would do so:

Quote

He then compares the difficulty of the two combat checks he would make with each of his two weapons to hit his target, and selects the check with the higher basic difficulty (more [P] ). He then compares the number of Setback each check would have, and adds the Setback from the check that would have the greatest number of Setback. He then compares the number of automatic Threat each check would have, and adds the automatic Threat from the check that would have the greatest number of automatic Threat.

In an example of a pistol with a GPR and a BAM (1S 2T) and a Renegade with a BAM (2S), you'd have 2 automatic Threat and 2 Setback. In an example with a Renegade with a GPR (1S 2T) and a pistol with a BAM and a GPR (1S 2T), you'd be rolling against 1 Setback and 2 automatic Threat.

That also sounds really reasonable, since RAW would as you stated make it very viable to just dump Boosts on your Primary and Upgrades that have drawbacks onto your Secondary weapon.

I actually might just steal this P-47

Hey

It appears to have been a while since this was originally created, but should you handle Superior in the same way? Since it adds and advantage to checks with the gun, if both had superior, would you add 2 advantage? Would this fall under the triggered effect of Dual Wielding that states if you hit with the second weapon you can apply traits?

1 hour ago, BroodyGambit said:

Hey

It appears to have been a while since this was originally created, but should you handle Superior in the same way? Since it adds and advantage to checks with the gun, if both had superior, would you add 2 advantage? Would this fall under the triggered effect of Dual Wielding that states if you hit with the second weapon you can apply traits?

No, because it's like Accurate. However, the +1 Damage from Superior would apply on a hit.

When it talks about "applying traits" it's referring to triggering weapon qualities. The passives that affect a hit still count, because that's when they "trigger."

2 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

No, because it's like Accurate. However, the +1 Damage from Superior would apply on a hit.

When it talks about "applying traits" it's referring to triggering weapon qualities. The passives that affect a hit still count, because that's when they "trigger."

Lets say I dual wield blaster pistols that both have a Bantha Eye (+1 Advantage). I agree that only the advantage from the main gun would apply to the combat roll, but I would play it that if I used two advantages to hit with the second gun that I would then get the second +1 advantage that I could then use for other advantage needing items. For example (and to ask how you look at it) lets say that the second weapon has Disorient as a quality, and the initial check was 3 advantages, I would support using 2 to trigger the second weapon, which would then grant another +1 advantage and let me trigger Disorient. Thoughts?

Just now, RickInVA said:

Lets say I dual wield blaster pistols that both have a Bantha Eye (+1 Advantage). I agree that only the advantage from the main gun would apply to the combat roll, but I would play it that if I used two advantages to hit with the second gun that I would then get the second +1 advantage that I could then use for other advantage needing items. For example (and to ask how you look at it) lets say that the second weapon has Disorient as a quality, and the initial check was 3 advantages, I would support using 2 to trigger the second weapon, which would then grant another +1 advantage and let me trigger Disorient. Thoughts?

I understand the argument, but no. The question that follows from that is: "if you spend 2 Advantage to hit with the second weapon, do you then roll the Boost from Accurate?"

You are making the attack with the primary weapon, and so only its bonuses and maluses* apply.

I would consider houseruling that you can use the secondary weapon's automatic Advantage to trigger its weapon qualities, but even then I don't think so (see line 1).

*As a houserule (it's what I use) I'd suggest picking whichever adds more Setback or automatic Threat and applying those maluses to the roll. See earlier comments in this thread.

2 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I understand the argument, but no. The question that follows from that is: "if you spend 2 Advantage to hit with the second weapon, do you then roll the Boost from Accurate?"

You are making the attack with the primary weapon, and so only its bonuses and maluses* apply.

I would consider houseruling that you can use the secondary weapon's automatic Advantage to trigger its weapon qualities, but even then I don't think so (see line 1).

*As a houserule (it's what I use) I'd suggest picking whichever adds more Setback or automatic Threat and applying those maluses to the roll. See earlier comments in this thread.

Sure, understand the view. Not disagreeing. It does, IMHO, clearly make certain attachments unneeded (or really useless like the Bantha Eye) in the secondary weapon. I don't like how that lends itself to min-maxing. Sure, that is player based, but the rules can push players in that direction. I do allow what I described because I like the decision making it has the player make. Personal preference.

Related to Line 1, no I wouldn't, because the combat roll already took place, but other effects are still in play, and while, yes, the +1 Advantage is added to the combat roll, it isn't from dice.

Also what would you do if the secondary weapon has Pierce, but the primary does not (assuming second weapon hits)? Or if both have it? Same with Vicious?

As always, just a friendly chat!

1 minute ago, RickInVA said:

Also what would you do if the secondary weapon has Pierce, but the primary does not (assuming second weapon hits)? Or if both have it? Same with Vicious?

As always, just a friendly chat!

As I stated in my initial post today, the passives that affect the hit are "triggered" by the hit, whereas you could say that the passives that add Advantage or Boost to the roll are "triggered" by the roll, and are precluded from being triggered because of the rules regarding which bonuses count.

2 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

Sure, understand the view. Not disagreeing. It does, IMHO, clearly make certain attachments unneeded (or really useless like the Bantha Eye) in the secondary weapon. I don't like how that lends itself to min-maxing. Sure, that is player based, but the rules can push players in that direction. I do allow what I described because I like the decision making it has the player make. Personal preference.

Related to Line 1, no I wouldn't, because the combat roll already took place, but other effects are still in play, and while, yes, the +1 Advantage is added to the combat roll, it isn't from dice.

But you're still modifying the roll. If you have 1 automatic Advantage, you're pinning it to an Advantage from the roll in order to trigger a weapon quality.
As for unneeded/useless, it'll be pretty useful when their primary runs out of ammo or is otherwise unavailable. The Sunder quality, for example. But if you're concerned about min-maxing, isn't allowing them to stack bonuses like that also min-maxing? I think it's easier to argue that making more things useful lends itself to min-maxing more than restricting usefulness. If the player is prone to min-maxing, they are going to do that regardless. If having a Laser Sight is less useful than a different attachment (regardless of houserules) they aren't going to pick it up. If it is more useful, then they will unless they can't.

You could stipulate that the weapons must have identical attachments and be identical models in order to use the Paired Weapons attachment. It's certainly something I would consider.

The closest comparison to what you're describing would be the First Among Brothers talent which allows the character to add Advantage equal to ranks to the check if it generates no uncancelled Threat, with the caveat that it must be spent to benefit clones. However, that is triggered by the results of the check itself, not by spending Advantage to add Advantage.

You are clearly right from a RAW perspective, and I am not trying to change your mind. So no need to convince me you are correct, per RAW.

I'm just discussing how I see it from the nature of a narrative game, and that I feel there is something to be said for allowing a bit more flexibility. Or to put it another way, I think it is neat, fun, and cool to have hitting with the second weapon provide the additional Advantage. I feel that thematically it is very Star Wars, as the protagonists are always doing something "extra". And I don't think it is unbalanced at all.

It just so happens that in the game I currently am a player my Smuggler does dual wield, with Paired weapons, and they are identical. Which I did because that is what I feel the character would do.

-------------------

Separately, having done some research, I'm not sure I agree with you on the Bantha Eye. The text is: "Gain automatic Advantage on successful combat check with this weapon.". I am using both weapons, and per the text I am making a "combined check". I think it is clear that I am using the second weapon in the combat check, the question is if I get to generate damage from it. Since I am using it, and the text specifically says I am making a combined check with both weapons, and I make a "successful check", then I don't see why I wouldn't add the +1 Advantage from the off hand weapon.

34 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

It just so happens that in the game I currently am a player my Smuggler does dual wield, with Paired weapons, and they are identical. Which I did because that is what I feel the character would do.

Good for you. That is the protocol I follow with my (multiple) dual-wielding characters, though I haven't actually bothered with Paired Weapons as I've always wanted the HP for something else (and it's only worth 1 Advantage anyway).

35 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

Separately, having done some research, I'm not sure I agree with you on the Bantha Eye. The text is: "Gain automatic Advantage on successful combat check with this weapon.". I am using both weapons, and per the text I am making a "combined check". I think it is clear that I am using the second weapon in the combat check, the question is if I get to generate damage from it. Since I am using it, and the text specifically says I am making a combined check with both weapons, and I make a "successful check", then I don't see why I wouldn't add the +1 Advantage from the off hand weapon.

It's more complicated than that. Per the book, referring to primary weapons, it says "When making the combined check, he will be attacking with this weapon." I'd say that means it isn't a "successful combat check with this weapon: as pertains to the secondary weapon as the combat check isn't "with" the primary weapon.

It's complicated and could be read either way, thought the above it how I'd rule it. It's another difficult edge case.

Even if you can finagle the RAW, I'm pretty sure the RAI would exclude the Advantage from a Bantha Eye on the secondary weapon. Especially because if you have it on both, now you are adding 2 Advantage.

The simplest and, I believe, RAW method is that no Boost or auto-Advantage from the secondary weapon apply to the check.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

It's more complicated than that. Per the book, referring to primary weapons, it says "When making the combined check, he will be attacking with this weapon." I'd say that means it isn't a "successful combat check with this weapon: as pertains to the secondary weapon as the combat check isn't "with" the primary weapon.

It's complicated and could be read either way, thought the above it how I'd rule it. It's another difficult edge case.

Even if you can finagle the RAW, I'm pretty sure the RAI would exclude the Advantage from a Bantha Eye on the secondary weapon. Especially because if you have it on both, now you are adding 2 Advantage.

The simplest and, I believe, RAW method is that no Boost or auto-Advantage from the secondary weapon apply to the check.

Respectfully I don't agree. The weapon is clearly being used, it's use provides benefits, you get the benefits. The part you quote about "attacking with this weapon" is necessary to define the dice pool. So even if you want to make a case that a dice pool changing benefit, like having an Integrated Illuminator on the Secondary Weapon, is not allowed (although I think I would allow it as it makes perfect sense to me to do so), something that only provides the benefit on a Successful Check is clearly included. If a character has armor with an enhancing benefit do you disallow that because they are not attacking with their armor? No, the armor is something that is being used by virtue of being worn. The second weapon is being used by virtue of being wielded. Additionally there would be no need to use this specifically bolded phrase, combined check if that was not the intent. They could have more easily added a line in the last paragraph to say something like "...to hit with his secondary weapon as well. No additional skill check is needed or allowed for the secondary weapon."

Your interpretation may be the simplest, but simplest isn't a marker of accuracy for me. But I have no desire to try and convince you. I will play the way I interpret the rule (it is plain as day to me) and you can do likewise.

I have long since just solved this issue by talking with the player.
We both found that the benefits should only apply once the second weapon hits.
So for his example: he attacks with both blasters, got 1 Boost and 1 auto-advantage from his primary Blaster; if he manages to get 1 advantage (weapons are paired) he hits with the secondary Blaster and gets another Boost and 1 Advantage.
Yeah I think the RAW is not for rolling dice after interpreting the result, but this works great and is simple.

Bumping since I had essentially the same question come up last week.
Commentary: It would seem odd to me that certain bonus effects on the "secondary" weapon simply get dropped. In my mind, if you're taking the penalties for actually fighting with the weapon (increasing the difficulty) you should get the bonus, to my reading of the rules, increasing the difficulty reads as including the secondary weapon in the check, whereas say, simply holding it in your hand while you shoot with the primary blaster is not including it in the check.

Conclusion: Ultimately based on the comments here, the lack of any official clarity, I'll opt for "If you've paid the price then you're good to go." The character shelled out the money, the player increased the difficulty of the check, in my mind, the second weapon is now "included" in the check and therefore all it's benefits and drawbacks apply. Otherwise you're losing parts of the bonus effects, you're rolling dice after-the-fact, you're adding threats/advantages/etc... to a seeming "second" weapon combat check that doesn't really exist.

Speculation: Certainly players could get up to some shenanigans this way, but players will almost always try for shenanigans, and a GM should be clear that a simpler, more player-beneficial ruling could be rescinded in favor of a more complex, less favorable ruling should the players take things too far.