I found it on p.136-137, and I appreciate that they made it simple, and not requiring 1-3 things to elevate it from arse to anything worth a toss, but I am wondering, is there anything in here to make it better ? If you are going to specialize as a dual pistol-wielding Gallandro-type, or want to emulate General Grievous, and some other characters who dual-wield lightsabers (when they become more mainstream, and don't cost a ship + crew to acquire each), is there anything one can pick up to improve their two-weapon combat? Is it just good enough, already? I gave my book a cursory glance, and saw no references to Talents hinged on two-weapon fighting; perhaps I should just be happy that, as said, this system makes it easy to do, if a little bit risky.

venkelos said:

There aren't any talents that currently specifically benefit two-weapon fighting, but it wouldn't be a bad idea to homebrew one IMO. An example could be a 3rd-tier or 4th-tier talent that automatically generates one Advantage on any combat check made with two weapons. Another is, create a ranked talent that gives you one boost die per iteration when making a two-weapon combat check. Finally, perhaps a 5th-tier talent tucked away behind Dedication could allow you reduce the difficulty of two-weapon fighting, essentially removing that extra Difficulty die imposed normally.

Those were my ideas, anyway. I was thinking of a talent tree that could be used for a "Melee Duelist" but it's very unfinished

Well, the main way to offset the penalty would be to simply keep raising the relevant combat skills. After all, if you're rolling 3 Proficiency dice and 2 Ability dice, assuming Dexterity 3 and 5 ranks in Ranged (Light), that one extra die of difficulty isn't going to be much of an obstacle.

Not sure there really needs to be a talent to make two-weapon fighting easier beyond what's currently available (raising combat skills).

I like the idea of a talent that automatically generates an advantage on the roll, making it easier to generate that additional hit (or even reducing the advantage cost to 1, which might be better).

….then you've basically back doored your way into an autofireish scenario, IMO… Even if you can only generate one extra hit.

I think the dual wielding is fine as-is, if not a little *too* easy/over-powered. I'd only advocate talents if it were more difficult than it already is…

Exalted5 said:

Yeah, oddly, it seems like this ability is tuned, exactly, to where autofire should be. It's just capped at one hit.

-WJL

Exalted5 said:

I disagree; autofire's unlimited hits is extremely powerful and the ability to only generate one extra hit with dual wielding is extremely limiting. The talents would also cost extra points to make you better at Dual-wielding and would take up other talents slots so their is a lot of opportunity cost for the talents approach.

Dual-wielding would be easier to accomplish than autofire but not as potentially devastating, and that's assuming that autofire gets toned down to costing 2 advantage.

3WhiteFox3 said:

Exactly. Autofire isn't overpowered because it can generate an additional hit. It's overpowered because it can generate multiple additional hits, all on the same target.

I don't think a talent which allowed you to activate the extra hit from dual wielding more reliably, especially if it was deep down the Marauder tree, would be overpowering at all compared to auofire in it's current version.

I don't actually see a need to increase the power of two-weapon fighting. It's very good as-is, very similar to the linked quality (after that got updated), and I think that's a fine level to keep it at. If we were to let two-weapon fighting gain more potential hits, we should make the removed weapon quality - snapshot or something - into a talent, to let those that don't want to use two weapons or auto-fire weapons gain the potential extra hit (with linked talents for extra hits, as you suggest for two-weapon fighting)… leveling the playing ground… and I guess this brings us towards an "arms-race" so to speak, and proliferation becomes the word of the day yet again.

I don't think this is the way to go, while star wars is about action, this is still a roleplaying game, which - the devs have decided - focus on narration, co-op between players and GM, and story - in addition to action and combat. I feel that having not so detailed and extravagant rules for how you/we fight, is liberating for the game and players to focus on the game and story, other stuff - rather than gear, abilities and comparing notes on beard, muscles and numbers. But that's me, so I can only assume that this falls on deaf ears.

Jegergryte said:

I don't think anyone is saying that it is - at least I'm not.

It's more about giving players that want to focus on it options to do so. Hence my suggestion for a Marauder talent that allows you to do that.

Jegergryte said:

Two weapons have neither of these options. My main problem is that it feels like going Ranged (Light) is simply inferior to using heavy weapons, light weapons deal less damage and have don't get the auto-fire quality; that isn't Star Wars IMHO. Star Wars should using blaster pistols to take on Storm Troopers, not killing the main characters with a lucky full auto attack.

Now, I'm not advocating giving the light weapons more damage or the auto-fire quality, but there has to be other ways of narrowing the gap between Ranged Heavy and Ranged Light. Rewarding people for going for certain (less effective) build choices is a good thing, especially if they have to use talents to do it.

3WhiteFox3 said:

Stat wise, yes they may be inferior. But they have options that heavy weapons don't have - three pop to mind immediately.

1. Ease of access. You can find a blaster pistol nearly everywhere, from military and peacekeeping sidearms to target pistols and other means of self-defense.

2. Legality. It's going to be much, much easier to find and purchase a blaster pistol than it is a heavy blaster rifle or a repeating blaster. *Any* self-respecting peace officer is going to ask to see a character's license to own a massive gun. Even if they have one, it's going to get a lot of wary looks and keep people on edge.

3. Concealability. You think you're going to sneak that heavy blaster rifle into a dinner party? Think again.

Cyril said:

Also, situational (despite how logical they may be) setbacks based solely upon fluff is very hard to balance over pure statistics. Mainly because those setbacks require that the GM enforce them and few GM's will likely enforce them the same exact ways. While GM fiat is good an all as a tool, you have to remember that rules can be used as tools as well. They can help make all concepts viable in almost any campaign.

I want to go ahead and discuss some issues I have with your individual points as well.

1. Ease of Access. This is very situational, once you have the weapon, how easy it is to get is meaningless, if you start with a heavy blaster rifle (because you paid obligation for it) then you don't really care about whether or not it's easy to purchase one. Also, I don't see it as being all that difficult to get a heavy blaster rifle, in the current rules the rarity of a Heavy Blaster Rifle and a Heavy Blaster Pistol are the same, even the easiest pistols to attain are only 2 rarity steps down. Since the rules about rarity are all we really have to go on, then this point has only partial merit, it's somewhat easier to attain a pistol but not enough to really deter someone who desires one.

2. Legality. Weapons, even pistols are legal without a license? I have a hard time believing that any self-respecting imperial officer will just allow someone to walk around with a pistol. Again, the rules don't say anything about pistols being all that more legal than heavy weapons, it might be in your campaign but not in all.

3. Concealability. There are ways to find a concealed weapon, again in some campaigns there might be more security that acts competently (ie. checks for concealed weapons). Also, I have a hard time believing that a concealed weapon is really more legal than an exposed Heavy Blaster Rifle, both have the capacity to do hurt people. While I'll concede that in a more general application that concealed weapons will draw less attention, but I don't feel like that really outweighs the fact that once combat does start the guy with the Heavy Blaster Rifle will be much safer (and more effective) than the guy with the pistol.

Players should not feel that they are being punished for using a weapon that makes sense for their character but is inferior once combat takes place, in fact even in combat there are reasons why light weapons should be more useful.

1. They are less cumbersome. (the cumbersome rules do address this somewhat, but that only gives you penalties for having a heavier weapon than you can hold, not having issues moving it around impeding terrain and cover.)
2. They are better in close quarters (granted, this is covered by the rules)
3. They don't impede movement or speed as much as a heavy weapon.

(Please note that I do have limited experience with firearms so my points should be taken with a grain of salt)

But all of that still doesn't impact the fact that even in Star Wars series set in times of constant warfare, pistols are shown to be just as, if not more, effective than the heavy weapons. Pistols seem to be the go to weapon and they are treated as being just as lethal and potent in combat as the heavier weapons (to a point).

3WhiteFox3 said:

If I'm not completely mistaken, and I might be, linked requires gunnery, NOT ranged (heavy). A fine point, but essential. Linking weapons also takes up space, time and money. And ranged (light) isn't inferior, its a skill… yeah, some of those weapons are pretty low-powered, but that's the way it goes with smaller weapons… that's why we got attachments and mods in this game (granted there are not that many in game now, but I assume more will come - and one can make ones own).

Bigger weapons are easier to steal, loose (bottomless pits are frequent in this universe, pluss add the disarm through advantages = lost weapon) and they raise eyebrows/things/tentacles… and I think that looking at it from a pure numbers perspective enters the meta-gaming arena - I know some people think its the way it should be, but I react negatively when players bring in numbers - statistics - for why their character, or someone else's, should or should not do something based upon fractional differences on the character sheet… if its in the character nature to try, even if he only has one rank in stealth or no ranks for that matter, he should try - its more heroic than waiting those sessions for the extra xp so that one is finally one step closer to becoming that ninja character one wanted to play but didn't have enough starting-xp to make (its never enough) - this strategy is necessary in some games, but not in this in my experience - playing by numbers is in my opinion a faulty argument because it removes itself from the spirit of the game, gaming and the story making… I have had enough number-players that only do what their character sheet tells them that they can do with more than a reasonable chance for success… now when they plan stuff, and don't have the skill or something, instead of letting them go "oh well… once we get more xp we can get a rank or two" I tell them to try at least, takes some persuasion to get through thick-headed "but I don't have any ranks" or "my characteristics is too low" and the like, but it did work and they got amazed at how little numbers actually meant. Yeah, a hold-out blaster sucks against a stormtrooper, really really hard… so what? no/low-soak enemies are still going to be taken out by a hold-out blaster pretty quickly, with some clever playing, regardless of mod - high skill for one (as Donovan has already mentioned).

A bigger gun is bigger, hits harder or at least shoots longer, its why its bigger, its designed to do stuff like that - I would assume. So thinking that smaller weapons should… compete on a level playing field seems odd. Two heavy blasters are, as long as two adv's are scored, more powerfull than a rifle - even if soak is counted twice. 2 adv's are not that rare, and I think that 1 is too cheap. A guy with a heavy rifle should be more effective, as long as he manages to hit that is, than anyone with a small pistol. A small gun requires only one hand, whereas a heavier requires two - this limits the one with the heavier gun - setback to athletics manoeuvres for instance, cannot set stimpack - or if he does this adds setback to other actions like shooting for example. Of course, there is not much about this in the rules - but that's because this is neither (shudder) D&D, SWSE, RCR, RM, MERP or HARP… these games makes proper rules for it on some level or another, this game does not - that does not mean that players should expect these things to be non-existent in this game - creativity man. Bigger weapons are "better", but they come with their own limitations that smaller weapons don't have. While no weapon is legal without a license (in my version of the universe), it is a lot easier to get a license for a light blaster or blaster pistol, even a heavy blaster, than a carbine or rifle (and heavier stuff) - the latter being military type weapons, the former coming in under the obfuscating term "personal protection" license. Of course these things may make no difference in your game, but in mine it would matter - players hate bureaucracy and dealing with such stuff, which if fine, but then they need to be smart about it.. if not they have to fill out forms and run about town looking for the right office. So in that sense, Ease of access is a meritable and important point - its irrelevant if you got the rifle through obligations or not. What is relevant is license, how to acquire it, and if your non-human characters can actually get it at all. At this point weapon size become important just to stay armed, while avoiding customs and law enforcement officers. So all three points by Cyril are valid and important from a character's point of view, if not a power mongering player's point of view (ok, the mentally challenged weapons-freak Trandoshan would probably not even consider getting a license for any weapon, but I doubt he would ever settle for a one handed puny little plastic toy like a blastech DL-18 given any other choice)… smaller weapons are cheaper, easier to get hold of, easier to conceal, powerful enough to kill, handy in a fight, but not necessarily provocative enough to cause fights and nervous trigger fingers. I mean, unless your profession is bodyguard, mercenary, soldier and others that earn their living on war, you would not really want a real big gun (its detrimental to normal social interaction - unless you count robbery normal) - but if you do make your living on war, why would you even want a small plastic toy like a blastech DL-44? when you could have the blastech DLT20A or the Merr-Sonn Underslung Rotary Blaster Carbine?

There is no "punishment" in the fact that smaller, cheaper weapons cause less damage than larger, more expensive ones. If the focus is only on these numbers, then I feel that something is askew in the game as a whole. The ones with larger weapons will also more likely be the target of any opponents, simply because they have the big gun - which makes it more likely that the big-gun sentient will go down or end up wounded, than the small-weapon sentient; which is still effective and can take out opposition pretty nicely (unless you got a holdout against a stormtrooper at long range). Two-weapon fighting increases the effectiveness of these small weapons pretty well - at what I consider a very low cost. Decreasing this further would make the choice into "auto-fire or two-weapon fighting" … which I would not enjoy. Of course, I'd like the snap-shot quality to remain a quality that could be added to pistols cheaply, or as a talent for the scoundrel and/or some bounty hunter specs… which in turn could in itself improve the two-weapon fighting option further…

Riffles and Pistols has each their strengths, the balance of which depends on GM, Campaign Style etc

Riffles

* Better upgrades available - so if u have a great mechanic available, this favors riffles over pistols

* Better range, so if all encounters starts at extreme range or its easy to just keep you distance well …there u go!

* More punch, so if all you are fighting are soak 5+ guys, pistols are pretty useless

* Autofire … currently outright broken! In our group we currently play with it RAW except we dont allow mulitple hits to same target, and its still awsome - depending on the rule u use, this is either outrageously powerful or still just great when fighting multiple opponents.

Pistols

* Easy to carry, so you probably always have this on you …where as a heavy riffle … I mean you probably dont bring this when u just go shopping or to a cantena to grab a beer ?!

* Easy to conceal (if carrying it around would be illigal … or perhaps those thugs insist on padding u down, before taking u to their boss)

* Might be legal, where a riffle would be outright illigal to carry around ….

* Better in tight, crowded conditions …

Ultimately, how the above balences out - depends on your campaign ….

Would it be worth changing the penalty from + 1 difficulty to +1 setback dice?

Statistcally you have about the same fail, but i feel like that would make the roll feel less punished, especially since you depend on advantage for the effect?

3WhiteFox3 said:

Just to clarify a few points that you brought up.

I'll concede that ease of access is very situational. But when it comes up and the players are stripped of their weapons and need to come up with replacements, they're probably going to look at easy to obtain stuff until they can find what happened.

Legality. It's completely legal to own a handgun, provided you have a license. Getting your hands something that's military grade like an assault weapon is a helluva lot harder, and it's going to draw a lot more attention. The Star Wars universe isn't much different. Blaster pistols are fairly common sights on most civilized worlds - maybe not worn on people's hips, but certainly for purposes of home security. It may not be RAW, but it's absolutely supported by the laws of the setting.

Concealability. Yes, there are going to be competent security forces out there, but I can see any number of times in an Edge of the Empire game where they're not going to be able to have a visible weapon where they're going to want one. Maybe they made it to the last table of a very lucrative, very highly televised sabaac tournament. But they also know they're likely to have assassin's in the crowd hired by another player to make sure they don't make it to the last hand. They don't have the funds to hire a bodyguard or an assassin of their own, but they do have the means to procure a small pistol they can hide on their person. It may not be much, but it's better than nothing.