Okay, so I've been thinking about people using swords or blasters.

Having one is great.

But is there truly any downside to using two? I mean, the weapons only require you to use one hand, so even if you wanted to play it safe, you could just "Single Weapon Fight" with both weapons drawn, not increasing the difficulty and still keeping the option available for getting two attacks later.

I'm debating giving my players who choose the single-weapon aesthetic a bonus. You get a boost die for using a one handed weapon with two hands, since the added stability of holding a pistol with two hands totally helps, and the added strength that an extra hand can add to a vibrosword is more than noticeable. Do you think that would be a sufficient bonus to give single wielding a purpose besides just keeping a hand free for the rare task you might need?

Okay, so I've been thinking about people using swords or blasters.

Having one is great.

But is there truly any downside to using two? I mean, the weapons only require you to use one hand, so even if you wanted to play it safe, you could just "Single Weapon Fight" with both weapons drawn, not increasing the difficulty and still keeping the option available for getting two attacks later.

I'm debating giving my players who choose the single-weapon aesthetic a bonus. You get a boost die for using a one handed weapon with two hands, since the added stability of holding a pistol with two hands totally helps, and the added strength that an extra hand can add to a vibrosword is more than noticeable. Do you think that would be a sufficient bonus to give single wielding a purpose besides just keeping a hand free for the rare task you might need?

While I haven't gotten to the combat section of the book yet in my reading, I would certainly rule that having a weapon in each hand counts as duel wielding regardless of whether or not you choose to attack with them both.

Personally, I'd add a setback die when attacking with just the "off-hand" weapon, to represent the slight increase in difficulty that trying to coordinate an action using one's non-dominant hand represents. Of course, this also means they don't get any of the other perks of actively dual-wielding, namely scoring an extra attack with the other weapon.

That said, the image of a character firing a blaster pistol in one hand and swinging a vibroblade in the other is pretty cool.

There is certainly a downside.

When wielding two weapons, you decide the weaker of the two to determine the positive dice in the roll, THEN you decide which one has a higher difficulty and use that, THEN you increase the difficulty even further by 1 if the two weapons are of the same type, and by 2 if they are different, THEN you only hit with the second weapon if you score enough Advantage.

So it's a more difficult attack with no outright guarantee you will hit with both if you hit at all.

I think I have that right anyway.

There is certainly a downside.

When wielding two weapons, you decide the weaker of the two to determine the positive dice in the roll, THEN you decide which one has a higher difficulty and use that, THEN you increase the difficulty even further by 1 if the two weapons are of the same type, and by 2 if they are different, THEN you only hit with the second weapon if you score enough Advantage.

So it's a more difficult attack with no outright guarantee you will hit with both if you hit at all.

I think I have that right anyway.

That's if you're deliberately trying to hit with both weapons. My read of the OP's post was "what if I have a weapon in each hand, but I'm only attacking with one of them?"

It's actually an old gunfighter's trick back during the Wild West era, where the shooter would have two revolvers out, but only fire one of them (usually the one in their dominant hand) and then swap the pistols once the first one ran out of ammo. It was a sensible tactic given how long it could take to reload a revolver since you didn't have to waste time drawing the second pistol once the first one was out of ammo.

If you're really skilled with Ranged (Light), then two blaster pistols really is the way to go.

The same might be true of Lightsabers later on...

Yeah, there really is no downside to holding two weapons but only attacking with one. I suppose the advantage to holding both a pistol and a sword, for example, is that if an enemy engages you, you can attack him with your sword and not suffer the penalty for firing a ranged weapon while engaged. However, such a character would likely want to invest xp into both the Melee and Ranged (Light) skill to be truly effective, and it only costs a single maneuver to disengage to short range and then fire your pistol without penalty.

Where I feel like TWF is most useful is when you are wielding the same weapon in both hands, and you can back it up with a good attack pool. My Hired Gun, for example, invested starting XP to get 3 Agility and 2 ranks in Ranged (Light), and I will continue to push that skill up. I also grabbed the Point Blank talent. This is a character that I could see wielding two pistols and making 'salvo' attacks at short range, blasting away with both pistols at a single target. That's a base average [2 purples] difficulty attack where, if both guns hit and they're heavy blaster pistols, the attack would do damage like this:

[7 + successes + Point Blank ranks] + [7 + successes]

That's at least 16 damage in a single round, which is pretty solid for only average difficulty.

Of course, the risk here is that my character is wide open for some nasty melee attacks, being that close to the enemy and armed with only guns.

Exactly. So, is there any reason for someone to *not* dual wield? Having that option open is just too strong IMO.

And I don't want to penalize people for holding things in their off hand, since the weapons themselves don't need to be held in two hands, unless they are actively using them, in which case they would get the typical dual wield penalties. I would rather give people bonuses for using two hands where only one is required, but two would make the job easier. It seems like that incentive boost die could possibly be enough to make people consider just using one weapon, and making it not just mechanically worse than having two available.

The only downside I can think of is your nose is bound to start itching because both hands are full. It is quite difficult to scratch your nose without injuring yourself with a sword in your hand.

No real downside besides not having a free hand, and maybe encumbrance if that's an issue. And of course it means you can't use more powerful 2-handed weapons.

sounds like a great way to burn through some ammo packs with Despairs!

Yeah, there really is no downside to holding two weapons but only attacking with one. I suppose the advantage to holding both a pistol and a sword, for example, is that if an enemy engages you, you can attack him with your sword and not suffer the penalty for firing a ranged weapon while engaged. However, such a character would likely want to invest xp into both the Melee and Ranged (Light) skill to be truly effective, and it only costs a single maneuver to disengage to short range and then fire your pistol without penalty.

Where I feel like TWF is most useful is when you are wielding the same weapon in both hands, and you can back it up with a good attack pool. My Hired Gun, for example, invested starting XP to get 3 Agility and 2 ranks in Ranged (Light), and I will continue to push that skill up. I also grabbed the Point Blank talent. This is a character that I could see wielding two pistols and making 'salvo' attacks at short range, blasting away with both pistols at a single target. That's a base average [2 purples] difficulty attack where, if both guns hit and they're heavy blaster pistols, the attack would do damage like this:

[7 + successes + Point Blank ranks] + [7 + successes]

That's at least 16 damage in a single round, which is pretty solid for only average difficulty.

Of course, the risk here is that my character is wide open for some nasty melee attacks, being that close to the enemy and armed with only guns.

Wouldn't the damage be [7 + successes + Point Blank ranks] - Soak + [7 + successes] - Soak = ?

along with 2 separate die rolls to hit?

Grrr... wish my book would come in!

Wouldn't the damage be [7 + successes + Point Blank ranks] - Soak + [7 + successes] - Soak = ?

along with 2 separate die rolls to hit?

Grrr... wish my book would come in!

I figure he left Soak Value out since it can be safely assumed the target's Soak Value would be applied to each hit.

And it's not two separate dice rolls. It's just one dice roll, with the difficulty increased by 1 and the attacker needing to roll two uncancelled Advantage to hit with the second weapon in addition to needing at least one uncancelled success to hit with the primary weapon. If your attack roll misses (i.e. you end with no uncancelled successes), then both attacks missed. If you just have uncancelled successes but no Advantage, then you only hit with the weapon the attacker designated as their primary weapon for the attack.

Lets see

With a weapon in both hands:

GM:'Bob is sliding off the catwalk and about to fall into the molten lava. What do you do!?!'

Notbob:'I grab him and drag him back up!'

GM:'Your hands are full, are you going to drop your blaster or your vibrosword?'

Notbob:'Sorry Bob, I aint dropping nuthin.'

Bob:'ahieeeeee'

GM:'splat hissssssss'

Without a weapon:

GM:'Bob is sliding off the catwalk and about to fall into the molten lava. What do you do!?!'

Notbob:'I grab him and drag him back up!'

GM:'You grab him and drag him back up!'

Bob:'Yea!'

There are more than a few reasons to not have both hands full. Hit a switch, grab some loot, pickpocket the impy officer you are using as a shield, grab a rope, give someone back their grenade, save a friend, etc.

<snip>

Of course, the risk here is that my character is wide open for some nasty melee attacks, being that close to the enemy and armed with only guns.

I know. Just ask Jango Fett...Oh wait.

<snip>

Of course, the risk here is that my character is wide open for some nasty melee attacks, being that close to the enemy and armed with only guns.

I know. Just ask Jango Fett...Oh wait.

I see what you did there.

You are obviously restricted to only being able to use one handed weapons... which counts any of the big nasty stuff out, Lightsabers I suspect will be two handed weapons. But for two one handed weapons then the off hand would be at negatives obviously - cue setback die or two.

Besides the obvious narrative implications and weapon category restrictions, I feel it's mostly a matter of personal preference, an asthetics. And encumbrance.

I've been thinking about this myself. I like your idea about using a boost die by using a pistol with two hands. However, like your topic states "why not dual wield", a similar question would be "why not always hold the pistol with two hands?" if you're going to get a straight up bonus for it every time, except for times when you're using your free hand for something else, might as well always have the boost (combined with Aim, that's two boosts every turn.) Without trying it out, it's hard to say if that's OP for a simple pistol.

Lets consider a heavy blaster pistol and a heavy blaster rifle.

Pistols, 2 successes = 9+9-2xSoak

Rifle, 2 successes = 12-soak

Against 3 soak:

Pistols: 12 damage

Rifle 9 damage

Against 5 soak:

Pistols: 8 damage

Rifle: 7 damage

against 7 soak:

Pistols: 4 damage

Rifle: 5 damage

But of course the rifle has autofire and can do much more damage than that.

Just look at two weapon fighting as a sort of weaker auto fire. Otherwise the pistols get shafted in terms of balance.

Wouldn't the damage be [7 + successes + Point Blank ranks] - Soak + [7 + successes] - Soak = ?

along with 2 separate die rolls to hit?

Grrr... wish my book would come in!

I figure he left Soak Value out since it can be safely assumed the target's Soak Value would be applied to each hit.

And it's not two separate dice rolls. It's just one dice roll, with the difficulty increased by 1 and the attacker needing to roll two uncancelled Advantage to hit with the second weapon in addition to needing at least one uncancelled success to hit with the primary weapon. If your attack roll misses (i.e. you end with no uncancelled successes), then both attacks missed. If you just have uncancelled successes but no Advantage, then you only hit with the weapon the attacker designated as their primary weapon for the attack.

Add to this the fact that you need an additional Advantage beyond the two needed for the second weapon to hit in order to activate any special qualities, I feel the two-handed rule is fairly balanced. I'd also be more inclined to upgrade the extra difficulty dice on a two-handed check rather than grant a single wield bonus. Just my 2 creds.

Moving away from the system-side at the moment, there's a reason that most fighting styles don't carry incidental stuff around in the off hand. If it holds an extra weapon, it uses that weapon. If it doesn't, the off hand is free. Doing otherwise messes with all sorts of balance issues. Even with pistols, as Rookhelm suggests, actual trained personnel generally use two hands if they have any choice.

Cinematic weapon handling is another matter, and Star Wars is certainly cinematic. But I'd feel no guilt over adding an extra setback die to someone intentionally unbalancing themselves while trying to exploit the dual wield rules.

Lets consider a heavy blaster pistol and a heavy blaster rifle.

Pistols, 2 successes = 9+9-2xSoak

Rifle, 2 successes = 12-soak

Against 3 soak:

Pistols: 12 damage

Rifle 9 damage

Against 5 soak:

Pistols: 8 damage

Rifle: 7 damage

against 7 soak:

Pistols: 4 damage

Rifle: 5 damage

But of course the rifle has autofire and can do much more damage than that.

Just look at two weapon fighting as a sort of weaker auto fire. Otherwise the pistols get shafted in terms of balance.

Just 2 successes won't get off that second shot. You need advantages on top of the successes to get that other hit in.

I think the main reason for not going two weapons is flexibility in the environment, without a hand free you can't reload or grab stuff, or assist in hopping over a bar or other object higher than your thighs, or using a communicator, and these things are pretty important in a gun battle. Not having that other hand to help should make any of these actions more difficult, if not impossible.
Sure you can always drop the other gun but then, well you've just dropped your other gun...

Lets consider a heavy blaster pistol and a heavy blaster rifle.

Pistols, 2 successes = 9+9-2xSoak

Rifle, 2 successes = 12-soak

Against 3 soak:

Pistols: 12 damage

Rifle 9 damage

Against 5 soak:

Pistols: 8 damage

Rifle: 7 damage

against 7 soak:

Pistols: 4 damage

Rifle: 5 damage

But of course the rifle has autofire and can do much more damage than that.

Just look at two weapon fighting as a sort of weaker auto fire. Otherwise the pistols get shafted in terms of balance.

Just 2 successes won't get off that second shot. You need advantages on top of the successes to get that other hit in.

I know... was just looking at raw damage. On top of that getting critical hits and using weapon qualities favor the heavy weapon even more.