One of my bounty hunters is interested in getting a two-sided sword, like the ones you can find in KOTOR. I'm totally down for this, and this is the general idea I have for it. What do you guys think?

Double-Bladed Vibrosword
Skill: Melee
Damage: +2
Crit: 2
Range: Engaged
Encum: 6
HP: 3

Price: 1750 Credits
Rarity: 6
Special: Pierce 2, Vicious 1, Defensive 1, Linked 1, Unwieldy 3

Unwieldy (name subject to adjustment: Works just like Cumbersome, but with Agility. So, for this, you'd need 3 Agility to wield it without penalties. You would upgrade the check by one per Agility point you had below three.

I intend to make a Double-Sided Lightsaber using similar changes later, since he is a FSE interested in getting one. What do you guys think about this general idea? You could easily make other double-sided weapons too, like quarterstaves or double maces/stuff.

I'd just have him buy two vibro swords, and either charge him 100 credits or make a Hard mechanics roll to join the handle.

Then just stack the encumbrance. leave the HP at 3. I wouldn't do much else though.

Maybe drop the enc to 5... Looks good to me.

I'd just have him buy two vibro swords, and either charge him 100 credits or make a Hard mechanics roll to join the handle.

Then just stack the encumbrance. leave the HP at 3. I wouldn't do much else though.

That's practically what I'm doing. I upped the price a little bit because the weapon is Linked instead (so you don't up the difficulty as you do with Dual Wielding) and you wouldn't have to buy 2x the weapon attachments, since it is one item at the end of the day. To counter that, I added the unwieldy thing as a difficulty and prerequisite to use it unimpeded, and I increased the encumbrance because carrying two separate swords is way less complicated than carrying two swords that are attached together. The weapon itself awkward to store/carry.

Oh, and obviously the weapon itself would require two hands instead of one.

Looks like someone is a Kir Kanos fan

Honestly, I'd drop the Linked and Unwieldy. If someone wants to get two hits with the weapon, let them use the dual weapon fighting rules. Being able to use a double-weapon with enough skill to hit with both ends should require an investment in the Melee skill.

Also, by putting Linked in the weapon, you open the chance for a really competent PC to use that and the dual weapon rules to score three hits during their attack. And if the character has the Marauder spec (almost a given for most melee-centric builds), he'll be able to saw through Minion groups with alarming ease and hew down most Rivals in one round.

Oh, with how I had it listed, you wouldn't be able to use the two-weapon fighting rules with it. It was essentially like a Vibro-axe or another two-handed weapon that counted as a singular weapon, but with the linked quality. Basically, I chose that because it would be easier to use (with the right training) to hit someone twice with it, but you couldn't target two different people (or minion groups) with the attacks like you could if you were dual wielding.

Alternatively, instead of the linked ability, we could instead use a mandatory two-weapon fighting ability that has to be used with the weapon, so they would always be rolling against 3 difficulty by default, but they would always be able to trigger an extra hit with the weapon with the right advantages. That would make the weapon more difficult to use than the linked, which is probably a good thing, since there really aren't that many linked personal weapons, probably for a reason.

Either way, I don't intend on allowing players to get more than 2 attacks. They could either trigger a second attack with Linked or a second attack with the mandatory two-weapon fighting thing. The only real difference is if the difficulty would be increased by one or not.

The unwieldy property was just another way to try and balance the weapon so that it wasn't a strictly better option than two-weapon fighting; just an alternative that is overall cheaper, but is more of a target, since it is a single target for disarms/sunders instead of two targets. There's a chance that, if I made it the mandatory dual wielding thing, with the increased difficulty, I would consider getting rid of the unwieldy trait, since that would factor in the difficulty of the weapon itself. I just liked the idea of a weapon that takes a certain level of manual dexterity, over raw strength, to even contemplate using without extreme difficulty and danger (Gotta love that Despair possibility ).

Meh... don't really like double ended swords. At least it isn't quite as eye-wateringly suicidal as a double ended lightsaber.

I can't think of a single historical example of a double-ended sword, so I can only presume they are as useless as they look. With the massive plethora of weapons that exist in the world, if they were practical weapons I am sure someone would have created them.

Sorry, inattentive posting while distracted and tired gives one foot in mouth disease.

I would suggest going with the Two Weapon rules and keep the unwieldy property with no other bonuses or restrictions (except maybe a setback die if in close quarters or a Boost die if surrounded and you have room to helicopter...) . I'd keep the unwieldy because because of it's size, weight, and the fact that unlike a staff you need to be able to keep the blades' cutting edges aligned with the target to do damage. Although there are examples of double bladed weapons in real life they have never been more than a curiosity as far as real combat goes and when they are used they are generally used like a spear or halberd with a follow-up end. Theres a reason why this type of weapon is mostly a fantasy thing. Not that this should keep people form having them, it is a fantasy game after all, but lets not get carried away.

Watch the highly choreographed Darth Maul sequence or look up some youtube staff fighting and you'll get a good idea of how such a weapon would work. You'll see that each swing is a single attack even though there are two potential striking points. Here's a good example of what I mean:

Yeah gotta agree just use dual wielding rules. If you really feel the weapon would be more accurate throw a boost. But in general a weapon should t just be better than the other options unless there is some drawback

Since Encumbrance is about both mass and bulk/size, a two-bladed sword should likely have an Encum of 7 or so - more than twice what a sword would have. These things would not be easy to carry around if you're already loaded up with other stuff. Obviously this doesn't apply to the lightsaber version, but that's another story.

I'm inclined to agree, Happy. I might up it one more to 7.

And about the "Each strike is one attack" thing. With Dual Wielding, you COULD attack two different engaged targets, albeit at a higher difficulty. To simulate that "each strike with one attack" thing, the Linked quality is triggered the same way, but it doesn't allow you to actually use that attack on a different person you are engaged with. It can only be applied to the initial target, symbolizing that overwhelming attack force of cutting down one dude. However, it wouldn't increase the difficulty of the weapon if you had the prerequisite agility. I kind of like that aspect of it more, however.

Thought. What if I kept it with Linked and gave it Unwieldy 4, requiring four agility to use it without penalty? That means someone using it with 2 agility would use two Challenge Dice and someone with three would use one difficulty and one challenge. I really like the aspect of giving those threats of Despair if you use it without the proper dexterity because what self-respecting GM doesn't love the threat of that Despair chance?

Oh, and DM, it is REALLY hard not to like Kir Kanos. I mean, seriously.

Here's my updated idea.

Double-Bladed Vibrosword

Skill: Melee
Damage: +2
Crit: 2
Range: Engaged
Encum: 7
HP: 3

Price: 1750 Credits
Rarity: 6
Special: Pierce 2, Vicious 1, Defensive 1, Linked 1, Unwieldy 4

-Increased Encumberence to 7, from 6.
-Increased Unwieldy from 3 to 4.
-Kept Linked 1 to simulate that "Two strikes as one" quality exemplified by the Darth Maul choreography.

So using this weapon is not easy with these new penalties. Its encumbrance requires decent brawn, and the unwieldy requires decent Agility. With only one, the weapon wouldn't reach its potential without proving dangerous in some cases. Seem better?

Yeah, because we're worried about Earth-style realism in a galaxy far far away, with space wizards in the past future.

That was an interesting video though . He didn't mention the fact that dual wielding is really cool nearly enough, though.

I've already made up some stats for this weapon. Its more in line with dono's suggestion. Make it count as two weapons. I can't remember the exact stats, but its on my blog, and in the catalogue I think.

I found yours and the only real difference is how you do Double instead of the Linked and the Unwieldy quality, the encumberence is a bit lower, and it is cheaper, with a higher rarity. I do like yours, but I think I would be more inclined to use the stats I've made. The penalties are a bit more severe, but I like the idea of having those potential despair more than just increasing the difficulty by one. I don't hate yours, but I just prefer that idea that I've already created. I definitely plan on utilizing some of the other ideas you've made, if nothing else for inspiration for my own .

Yeah, because we're worried about Earth-style realism in a galaxy far far away, with space wizards in the past future.

Uh, yeah we are! First, we don't throw everything out the window just because a few things stretch our imagination. In fact, we embrace artificial gravity on ships so we can more easily relate to it and bring it closer to that Earth-style realism. Second, you're trying to slot this weapon with characteristics between other weapons ... At the very least you're worried about its realism in relation to other weapons, and those already (presumably) have some relation to our Earth-style expectations.

A double blade is basically a quarterstaff with edges. Leaving aside that the handle isn't really wide enough to grip it properly and doesn't provide enough leverage, the basic utility of a long pole is to thump someone and block their attack. If you know what you're doing, it's better than a club because you can use it to defend, but you generally don't get to hit more often. Instead of being Linked, the weapon should be Defensive. And it's dangerous to use if you don't know what you're doing, so it should have a Challenging property that automatically upgrades a difficulty die.

Well, for starters, it already has the Defensive quality. It also has linked, because if you get a good enough opportunity, you can hit him twice. I think that's reasonable, no? I mean, look at Darth Maul and Kir Kanos. That's how they fight, correct?

And if we are going to start saying that dual wielding sucks, should we remove that option from players? I don't think so. People want to dual wield and use sword staves. Sure, it isn't a good idea in real life, but there also isn't a mystical energy that allows you to levitate things and shock people to death with your mind. Above all things, it is cool!

And the "challenging" property you suggest is practically what Unwieldy is . The only difference is that you upgrade the difficulty of the check per your agility being below 4. So with low agility, it is even more severe than your "challenging" property, but if you have at least 4 agility (which means "Well above average") then you can negate it. I think that's entirely fair, and not all that different from what you are suggesting anyways.

Dude, I'm pwned I was thinking more about the 2 hits and didn't really absorb your weapon description at all, sorry about that. I don't agree about the Linked, but the rest is good.

Well, with all of the other nerfs, i'm not inclined to ALSO make it use regular dual wield rules. That would mean that you would not only have to fight against Hard difficulty all the time, but without having four agility, you would also upgrade it. That's too much IMO. Linked is just another way of getting that second hit without making this weapon just too hard to use, thus not good enough to conventionally use.

I agree with Whafrog on not agreeing with having linked on that.

First of all, Darth Maul was using a light saber that has no blade weight.

So this weapon has to basically be super fast and flexible to get that hit in.

Every rpg that has double-sided weapons like that treat it if you want to use the other end you have to use the dual wielding rules.

This player will eventually go...hey I will dual-wield two of these and get a chance to get in 4 hits an attack. That is very dangerous and disruptive to game balance. I know if I had a player who wanted to use something like this I would be using a despair he rolls to have the other end hit him for the same damage he is doing, twice if he used the linked on that attack.

Well, I know I said this once, and I will say it again. This weapon will be a Two Handed Weapon! It would work just like a Force Pike or a Vibro Axe. You can't hold one in either hand because that's just reckless and impossible. I appologize if I am seeming a little rude here at this point, but I'm pretty sure this is the third time that I have reiterated this point.

The only way I would possibly consider letting a player do this is if they had four arms, like a Besalisk, and only because we have a precedent of a besalisk jedi dual wielding saber staves already. But I'm NOT even considering that being an issue right now. There is NO more risk of someone trying to dual wield these than there is someone trying to dual wield Light Repeaters or Vibro Axes, both of which ALSO explicitly say that they require TWO HANDS to operate and fight with. I'm sorry if I seem a little short, but I have said this already two times, and common sense also dictates that it wouldn't be at all feasible to let someone try and dual wield these unless the circumstances were absolutely phenomenally unique.

The Linked quality in every other case symbolizes two weapons being joined together so that they can both hit them together, like a double-barreled weapon. I think that translating to a double weapon in melee makes perfect sense, especially given the consideration that I already added the "it isn't easy to use this weapon" caveat in the form of the Unwieldy quality, rather than the dual wield penalties. Having BOTH would be too much, and having neither wouldn't make it different enough from just dual wielding for me to like it personally.

I mean, if I kept both the Unwieldy thing and the dual wielding penalty, someone with 2 agility using this would be rolling against RRP if they were fighting a regular minion with no adversary. That's a bit much. With my system here, they'd just be rolling against RR. It isn't as high of a difficulty as dual wielding two swords, but the challenge dice add an entirely different kind of danger in the form of the weapon being really hard to use right, so a despair could, as you suggest, cause you to hurt yourself very very easily.

The only potential issue with Linked is that I don't believe there are any Linked personal scale weapons... but it's not necessarily broken on its own. With Linked 1 they could get one more hit in against the same target. The real problem is that Linked appears to bypass soak for the second hit, just adding damage on top of the total rather than being treated like a second attack.

The only potential issue with Linked is that I don't believe there are any Linked personal scale weapons... but it's not necessarily broken on its own. With Linked 1 they could get one more hit in against the same target. The real problem is that Linked appears to bypass soak for the second hit, just adding damage on top of the total rather than being treated like a second attack.

That is incorrect. The damage of each hit is reduced by soak/armor.