With increased suffering of conditions, wouldnt it make more sense to keep the offhand and the ambidextrous talent ?

I think about the crippling or loss of one hand which could very well lead to the sitaution where you need to rely on your weaker hand to survive.

Would make it more worth to call shot on the "good" hand.

I agree with this. I really think handedness should be brought back along with the ambidextrous rule to counter this for some combat characters.

I think about the crippling or loss of one hand which could very well lead to the sitaution where you need to rely on your weaker hand to survive.

That will happen to each group once. Then they will all buy ambidextrous so that it never happens again.

It is a risk you can take...but a gamble indeed

A risk that will probably come up about once in the whole game, and will add in extra modifiers to track when dual wielding. Meh. I'm fine with no handedness being included.

If you put the talent back, how do you make it expensive enough that people will avoid it, without also increasing the XP that needs to be spent on dual wielding ?

Your answer needs to cover dual ranged fighters, dual melee, ranged + melee (one in each hand or a blade on the guns) and someone that wants to be dual ranged sometimes, dual melee other times.

It is easy: make dual wielded attacks only -10, and off-hand -10

Ambidextrous (200) and Gunslinger etc. only gives benefit of ignoring the other -10

If I am not going ambidextrous, 200 saved XP is already a good thing.

Who exactly is saving XP ?

All I see is that dual-wielders have to spend another 200xp because, for them, ambidextrous is not an option.

As for everyone else, they also will spend the XP because the cost of not having ambidextrous when their main hand becomes unusable is too great. So they spend extra XP.

You could split the cost for dual wielders.

The others would have to pay additionally. Why not - was also this way in DH1

And it was pretty unnecessary in DH1, too.

In general, I think, the whole 2-handed fighting is still lack-luster.

I mean...what if I want to use only 1 weapon to attack, but use the other as a defensive tool.

Why is there no bonus then ?

Take a balanced power weapon in your offhand, then you've got a far better parrying tool than a typical blade.

Ultimately, adding extra maneuvers, attacks and special actions just bloats the book and bogs down combat.

It doesnt make a difference if I take one balanced weapon in my main hand or 2, one in my off- and 1 in my main hand.

I am a fan of many rules to be set.

If you dont want them, you can still exclude them.

But I myself dont want to create house rules for stuff that should be included. Thats what I buy a rule book for.

As combat is one of the most complicated & deadliest situation in any RPG, of course it should get the most room in the book.

That does not mean, that it needs to be the center of the mission, but it means that it needs to be clearified quite well, as it can have a big impact (death is something quite permanent).

You could split the cost for dual wielders.

The others would have to pay additionally. Why not - was also this way in DH1

Here is why it's a bad idea: Spending XP should require players to make choices. But, because the cost of not having ambidextrous is too high, it becomes a mandatory talent to grab. Removing the choice.

It is in no way mandatory.

The chance that your strong hand is accidentially crippled is not too high.

Do you train your off-hand in case you break your main one ?

Here is why it's a bad idea: Spending XP should require players to make choices. But, because the cost of not having ambidextrous is too high, it becomes a mandatory talent to grab. Removing the choice.

Not really I know many people who never took Ambidextrous in DH1. And this was because it didn't suit there play style. This was always a mix of both combat and non combat characters.

The only characters who took it were combat characters who were dedicated to wielding two weapons.

I've been thinking about dual wielding in this beta and realised its been really downgraded there's no reason to dual wield the same weapon type any more as you can get just as many attacks with a single weapon and with the changes to Melee weapons it really makes dual wielding melee weapons pointless unless you are are using one weapon solely for defence until you are a high level character. Unless I'm missing something.

The chances of losing limbs seem significantly higher in this edition, which is I believe what Bilateralrope is getting at.

As for dual wielding, the main appeal is that you can make TWO attacks, not one big one, as far as I understand it. Meaning your second attack can benefit from the wound modifiers the first inflicted.

Here is why it's a bad idea: Spending XP should require players to make choices. But, because the cost of not having ambidextrous is too high, it becomes a mandatory talent to grab. Removing the choice.

Not really I know many people who never took Ambidextrous in DH1. And this was because it didn't suit there play style. This was always a mix of both combat and non combat characters.

The only characters who took it were combat characters who were dedicated to wielding two weapons.

I've been thinking about dual wielding in this beta and realised its been really downgraded there's no reason to dual wield the same weapon type any more as you can get just as many attacks with a single weapon and with the changes to Melee weapons it really makes dual wielding melee weapons pointless unless you are are using one weapon solely for defence until you are a high level character. Unless I'm missing something.

There is plenty of incentive to dual wield.

Dual wielding is the only way to perform 2 attacks in one round. Otherwise, you're performing 1 attack, with a high RoA.

Wound modifiers are locked in at the start of an attack. In other words, just because you got a lot of hits in, doesn't really mean you'll get a benefit of having the wound modifiers.

Having a second attack means you can get a bonus from all the wound modifiers you inflicted from the first attack.

For example, if the target began the turn with 0 wounds, and the first attack you made inflicted 3 wounds, then each of those wounds receive a +0 effect modifier for each damage roll. Not +0, +5, and +10 on each of them.

With the second attack though, any wound caused will receive a base +15 to their wound effect score. Thats a big deal.

Personally I'm of the thinking that an Ambidextrous talent would be a good way to have a pre-requisite for the other two dual wielding talents, and have it cover half the modifer (bring it to only a -10 instead of -20). And then have Gunslinger/the melee dual wielding talent remove the last -10. See my other thread on why those talents are redundant as well.

quote name="KommissarK" post="839954" timestamp="1376507851"]

Dual wielding is the only way to perform 2 attacks in one round. Otherwise, you're performing 1 attack, with a high RoA.

Wound modifiers are locked in at the start of an attack. In other words, just because you got a lot of hits in, doesn't really mean you'll get a benefit of having the wound modifiers.

Having a second attack means you can get a bonus from all the wound modifiers you inflicted from the first attack.

For example, if the target began the turn with 0 wounds, and the first attack you made inflicted 3 wounds, then each of those wounds receive a +0 effect modifier for each damage roll. Not +0, +5, and +10 on each of them.

With the second attack though, any wound caused will receive a base +15 to their wound effect score. Thats a big deal.

This works when you are using a high ROF attack for the first the only one of which is the Autopistol which would be good a against low power appoints but when dealing with higher level enemies this will be much more unlikely because of the low damage out put.

Of cause I'm dismissing the idea of taking the recoil gloves or custom grip and dual wielding with basic weapons as this leads to some rather amusing but ridiculous sights of people dual wielding with bolters, autoguns etc which while funny would not be realistic.

There is plenty of incentive to dual wield.

Dual wielding is the only way to perform 2 attacks in one round. Otherwise, you're performing 1 attack, with a high RoA.

Wound modifiers are locked in at the start of an attack. In other words, just because you got a lot of hits in, doesn't really mean you'll get a benefit of having the wound modifiers.

Having a second attack means you can get a bonus from all the wound modifiers you inflicted from the first attack.

For example, if the target began the turn with 0 wounds, and the first attack you made inflicted 3 wounds, then each of those wounds receive a +0 effect modifier for each damage roll. Not +0, +5, and +10 on each of them.

With the second attack though, any wound caused will receive a base +15 to their wound effect score. Thats a big deal.

Personally I'm of the thinking that an Ambidextrous talent would be a good way to have a pre-requisite for the other two dual wielding talents, and have it cover half the modifer (bring it to only a -10 instead of -20). And then have Gunslinger/the melee dual wielding talent remove the last -10. See my other thread on why those talents are redundant as well.

I really like the idea of Ambidextrous as a pre-requisite for Gunslinger/Bladedancer. Preferably this would be implemented with a reduced cost for the two later (200 ambi, 400 per GS/BD) which would reduce the cost for a blade+pistol combo.

I've always found that having to be ambidextrous in order to dual wield sort of ridiculous. With training people can learn how to do that without being ambidextrous.

Yeah, I don't think full ambidexterity is needed to use two guns or swords at once. And anyway, do we really need MORE talents added on to make a playstyle viable?

I think the differention would be a nice thing.

Furthermore, I would rather add some more Talents and make them cheaper.

The problem with not balancing out dual-wielding is that everyone will just dual-wield anyway. If there isn't "handedness", one might as well get the extra attacks and damage. There would be no incentive to only carrying one weapon if nobody had to buy extra skills or talents to dual-wield.

The dual-wielding vs. wielding a single weapon vs. wielding a heavy two handed weapon needs to be balanced so that there are different benefits to each but all options are worth choosing.

I am not quite sure, why multiple attacks with a high RoF one-handed are treated differently from additional attacks with the second hand!

There is no reason to apply the second hands hits later, as the first hands several hits also hit at the same time.

I think the whole ruules are still lackluster...