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...

Speaking of communicators. I don't know if the book addresses this, but how would you (or anyone else in this thread) handle that during battle?

Say, you're just using one blaster pistol, one handed. Would you say it's a maneuver to reach down to your belt, grab your commlink and speak into it? Just curious. This is the first time I've thought of this as I've never encountered it in a game yet.

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.

Which even more favors the heavier single weapon over two weapons since you're rolling the same dice (if the same kind of weapon is in each hand) versus a higher difficulty. That means more cancelled successes and cancelled advantages over the single weapon.

Putting away the extra weapon to ree up that hand, is a maneuver. That can be mildly inconvenient. In the end that's the only real drawback, and it makes sense.

Putting away the extra weapon to ree up that hand, is a maneuver. That can be mildly inconvenient. In the end that's the only real drawback, and it makes sense.

It's also a maneuver for each weapon when you draw them. Unless you have Quick Draw, you're going to be either skipping shooting when you get both guns out or taking strain. With your hands full, as a GM I'd also give you penalties to any types of movement, since it's harder to balance yourself.

So, overall, people are looking at a more difficult check (which means less chance for success and advantage) to have a chance of getting in two shots that takes up advantage you can't use on criticals, weapon special qualities, strain removal, or other benefits.

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.

I agree with this line of thinking as well. I personally believe that the point of the Aim mechanice would be to hold the weapon with the extra hand while it is free. Using what the OP suggested I feel should add a setback die and not allow the use of the Aim maneuver. If it still should allow the use of the Aim maneuver, I would still add the setback die since they are still only attacking with 1 hand and leaving their off-hand to their side.

Wait -- is this Star Wars or Mythbusters?

Wait -- is this Star Wars or Mythbusters?

It's obviously Star Wars - after all, Han Solo was absolutely FAMOUS for calculating the damage probability of a variety of fighting styles before making a selection. That was easily what made Empire Strikes Back the best movie of the entire trilogy - "Quick, Threepeio - what are the odds we'll get through this asteroid field??"

I would be disinclined to put any machanical benefits/drawbacks to usingone weapon versus two weapons if they don't already exist. I can aim while holding a gun in each hand, individually or together, just like I can aim while holding a carbine. I can carry a pistol in each hand and only use one of them relatively easily, but it will limit what I can do with my off hand. Like reloading my weapon, or tossing a grendade, or applying a stimpak.

I would love that suggestion (that Aiming counts as grabbing the weapon with both hands and taking a second to line up a shot) but there's nothing in the rules that prevents people that dual wield from using Aim as well. Should we, then, disallow people that dual wield from using the Aim maneuver?

And what if they have a comlink in their other hand? No aiming? You see where I'm going with this. XD

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.

Which even more favors the heavier single weapon over two weapons since you're rolling the same dice (if the same kind of weapon is in each hand) versus a higher difficulty. That means more cancelled successes and cancelled advantages over the single weapon.

Yeah that's my point

It's balanced and without dual pistols they would suck. It's well balanced and even with dual pistols you'll often be better off with a rifle

See, that's the problem. I don't want people to think that Blaster Pistols suck unless you dual wield. If someone wants to use just one vibrosword or just one blaster pistol, I feel like they should have access to something that makes it a little better. I think adding a boost die if they choose to use their other hand to brace the weapon as well would help entice people to consider the style, and not be like, "Well, I'd like to fight like that but I mean I won't be able to do anything because it mechanically sucks."

Obviously 2-handed weapons and rifles won't get that boost dice because they are meant to be wielded with two hands, so you don't get a bonus to using them with both hands. But I need to do something to give people a reason to use a pistol over a rifle or two pistols if they want, or a single vibrosword over a vibroaxe or two swords if they want, and not have them just be worse off simply because they wanted to be thematic. I don't want to penalize flavor in combat style choices.

And, I mean, if anyone's shot a pistol before, they KNOW that it is *WAY* easier to shoot it with two hands than it is to shoot it with one (and I'm not even talking about if you are using two. Just one and an open hand). I think the use of that second hand should count for something.

Wait -- is this Star Wars or Mythbusters?

It's obviously Star Wars - after all, Han Solo was absolutely FAMOUS for calculating the damage probability of a variety of fighting styles before making a selection. That was easily what made Empire Strikes Back the best movie of the entire trilogy - "Quick, Threepeio - what are the odds we'll get through this asteroid field??"

It must have been in one of those "special editions."

"Always tell me the odds!"

I would be disinclined to put any machanical benefits/drawbacks to usingone weapon versus two weapons if they don't already exist. I can aim while holding a gun in each hand, individually or together, just like I can aim while holding a carbine. I can carry a pistol in each hand and only use one of them relatively easily, but it will limit what I can do with my off hand. Like reloading my weapon, or tossing a grendade, or applying a stimpak.

This is my instinct as well. I think there is already sufficient drawback in the Core Rules already. It becomes harder to hit with the primary and significantly harder to hit with the second weapon using just the core mechanics. Add to that the fact that special qualities will also be fairly difficulty to activate and you have all of the "benefits" to choosing one weapon over two already built in. In fact, I wouldn't recommend starting characters even consider using dual wield.

I think that ruling that you cannot aim while dual wielding would potentially remove 2 boost dice.

But of course ruling that you get a free upgrade or a boost die when using two hands for a one handed weapon would work too.

But if you make it too harsh, then everone will just use rifles.

Perhaps make pistols defensive against ranged weapons. While it's a bit weird I'd just say that it's easier do duck and cover with a pistol.

But giving pistols some advantage would work.

Pistols already have an advantage built in: they're easier to use when you're engaged. If a furious Gamorrean comes in with a vibroaxe and you don't have anywhere to run, you're going to be in a lot of trouble if you have to try to swing a big blaster rifle around. (Yes, I know there's no mechanics that say you can't get away from someone, but those are the sort of rulings a GM might make if say... you're stuck in a Turbolift or the enemy is blocking the door to freedom). You're also able to bring pistols into a lot of places that rifles and carbines are illegal, and it's a lot easier to hide a pistol than a rifle.

So, Pistols may not mechanically have a ton of advantages, but Edge of the Empire is about more than mechanics.

It is about more than mechanics, but if the mechanics make one option purely less feasible than another, then people are going to pick other options whose mechanics might better favor them. I'm just trying to make it so that people can do what they want in regards to combat and not suck at it because the mechanics don't favor the idea.

Why shouldn't rifles be better? After all, there's a reason the militaries of the world equip their personnel with rifles rather than dual pistols.

Rifles have more ammo (not really an issue here), longer range, are more accurate, and hit harder. Pistols are smaller, lighter, and easier to carry and conceal. They're often also acceptable in social environments where rifles - much less heavy rifles - are frowned upon, and require less maintenance.

You shouldn't develop tunnel vision on "If pistols can't do as much damage nobody will carry them". They SHOULD do more damage, but there should be limitations and tradeoffs on WHEN they can be used.

Dual wielding should require a high skill level to be feasible, imo. Consider canon; only true BAMFs were able to dual-wield successfully: Cad Bane, Anakin Skywalker, Jango Fett, and ARC Troopers. Many of the other characters may have carried two pistols, but usually only used one at a time. In fact, the aforementioned characters mostly only used one weapon unless they wanted to lay suppressive fire to cover or disengage.

Honestly, the entire point of this hasn't been pistols vs. rifles.

Pistols are smaller. Pistols are easier to conceal. Pistols are easy to modify. Pistols are less expensive. Ranged (Light) is a more common skill across classes than Ranged (Heavy). Pistols have less encumbrance.

Rifles are badass. Rifles do a lot of damage. Rifles can be modified a lot. Rifles have really long range. Rifles can get Auto Fire and rip stuff apart.

That's perfectly fine. I have no problem with the power gap between the two. Over the course of these three pages, people have misconstrued my argument to be pistols vs. rifles. More importantly, I'm talking about pistol vs. two pistols, or vibrosword vs. two vibroswords. And, I'm suggesting that adding a "wielding a one handed weapon in two hands" boost die would give players that care more about mechanics incentive to play to what their character would do, rather than what is going to make their character the most effective.

With my suggestion, they'd be able to choose from one of the following.

Hold a weapon in either hands. You can shoot one at the normal difficulty, or you can up the difficulty by one to potentially hit twice.

Hold a single 1 handed weapon in both hands. You can shoot normally, but if your hand is free and you want to use it to brace the weapon as well, you get a boost die, to show the added strength/stability of that kind of fighting form.

Without my boost dice addition, the only incentive to NOT carry another weapon in your off hand is to have a hand free for interacting with the environment, but at the added bonus of being able to fight with either one or two weapons depending on the circumstance.

Basically, the only reason I'm bringing this up is because I don't ever want to hear a player say "Well, I'd RATHER just use one pistol/sword, but there's literally no reason for me to not use two, since it is strictly better." And I have a player that *WOULD* say just that.

And fighting with two weapons does require a certain level of skill or natural ability, since it has a base difficulty increase of +1. I have no problem with that, and I don't really want to penalize people that want to dual wield. I'd rather provide incentive to people who choose NOT to for thematic or aesthetic reasons.

I'm sorry iff any of my commentary has come across as critical, it was not my intention.

As far as, well munchkinism in a way, I'm not sure there's much I can say. If you feel that for your game and players the addition of the boost die will encourage a better play experience then by all means please do so. It seems that the root of the problem is in the player you referenced, not the mechanics however. Please understand it is NOT my intention to be insulting to you, your group or people whom I have likely never met. Just an independant observation.

If posed the question at my table my response would probably be, "define strictly better." your damage potential may be higher, if you are using both of them in the same round your chances to hit will be lower, but if that's the character you want to play, then go for it. Of course, if you reference the Repair information on page 158? I believe, mintaining two weapons can get very expensive, not to mention upgrading. Also, never forget that (apparently) frag and stun grenades are NOT restricted technologies. If they run a foul of the local authorities, have a 3 man squad of security guards open up with a grenade salvo, then switch to blasters. Or, for thematic purposes, utilize threat and despair to create scenarios where the character has a choice of actions, but must drop/store a weapon to accomplish it.

Historically, especially after the incorporation of gunpowder into society, most Western swordsmanship schools didn't fight with one weapon, outside of formal duels. rapier/saber/side sword and buckler/dagger/cape combinations greatly improved survivability.

My point is that the benefits of using one pistol over two are largely circumstantial and most importantly intangible. You may not be getting a "better" dice pool out of it, but there are benefits. It's a difference between narrative systems like EotE and tactical systems like Savage Worlds and D&D.

I hope this helps.

Wait -- is this Star Wars or Mythbusters?

It's obviously Star Wars - after all, Han Solo was absolutely FAMOUS for calculating the damage probability of a variety of fighting styles before making a selection. That was easily what made Empire Strikes Back the best movie of the entire trilogy - "Quick, Threepeio - what are the odds we'll get through this asteroid field??"

Never tell me the odds (of hitting)!

I just want to say, as a small point in all this, that to me a lot of the balance or what have you that goes on between pistols and rifles is simply that, generally speaking, rifles cost more.

There's more to it, I know that there is, but if you want more powerful weapons you generally have to fork over more credits. And if you've earned (or "earned") enough credits to do that, I say: have fun with your new awesome weapon that does more damage.

I'm sorry iff any of my commentary has come across as critical, it was not my intention.

As far as, well munchkinism in a way, I'm not sure there's much I can say. If you feel that for your game and players the addition of the boost die will encourage a better play experience then by all means please do so. It seems that the root of the problem is in the player you referenced, not the mechanics however. Please understand it is NOT my intention to be insulting to you, your group or people whom I have likely never met. Just an independant observation.

If posed the question at my table my response would probably be, "define strictly better." your damage potential may be higher, if you are using both of them in the same round your chances to hit will be lower, but if that's the character you want to play, then go for it. Of course, if you reference the Repair information on page 158? I believe, mintaining two weapons can get very expensive, not to mention upgrading. Also, never forget that (apparently) frag and stun grenades are NOT restricted technologies. If they run a foul of the local authorities, have a 3 man squad of security guards open up with a grenade salvo, then switch to blasters. Or, for thematic purposes, utilize threat and despair to create scenarios where the character has a choice of actions, but must drop/store a weapon to accomplish it.

Historically, especially after the incorporation of gunpowder into society, most Western swordsmanship schools didn't fight with one weapon, outside of formal duels. rapier/saber/side sword and buckler/dagger/cape combinations greatly improved survivability.

My point is that the benefits of using one pistol over two are largely circumstantial and most importantly intangible. You may not be getting a "better" dice pool out of it, but there are benefits. It's a difference between narrative systems like EotE and tactical systems like Savage Worlds and D&D.

I hope this helps.

No, I don't take any offense. I appreciate the discussion and the points you bring up.

And you do bring up some rather interesting points. I think I'll just talk to my group individually and see what they think about my suggestion. And I'll think on it more.

I'd still like to see what others have to say, though.

My only other thought would be that not every player created will be looking to maximize their mechanical potential. Heck, my most memorable character in the 15 yrs I've been playing was a comlete pacifist, in regards to human life (monsters were fair game).

If a person wants to dual wield as an expression of their character, then fantastic. Just make sure they are aware of the actoin economy for drawing/droping picking up weapons. After that, well in the words of Waynes World: Play on!

I would also be disinclined to add any negative dice for dual wielding across the board, I would however add a setback die to a maneuver where having no hands free would make it more challenging to do, like hopping over a bar or something.