It seems to me that the mechanic for dual-wielding introduces too much specificity into an abstract system. People are using "dual-wielding" with Brawl, arguing they can because they have multiple limbs. This seems game-breaking, and dual wielding should be remove from general consideration. It's far too easy. Even Saga required a couple of precious Feats to become remotely effective. If it needs to be re-introduced, do it through Talents in specific specialization trees.

I'll paste my argument from a thread I hijacked (sorry HappyDaze)

What if you think about the dual wielding fists as using your fists and your feet?

That's missing the point. All this is already factored into the Brawl skill. If you connect, you narratively explain that you send the other guy flying with a left-right combo to the face followed by a kick to the solar plexus. Everything else is dealt with that way, why not this?

It should be the same with melee. A wookiee is wielding a vibro-axe? Okay, he does 9 points damage..."the weight of it and the power behind it crushing through the stormtrooper's armour". A Duro is wielding two light sticks? Okay, he does 9 points damage..."the flurry of blows finds gaps in the armour and leaves the stormtrooper's helmet ringing." Any bonuses (e.g.: defensive) would be part of the weapon quality.

Note there is only one Brawl skill, only one Melee skill. You don't get penalized for unfamiliar weapons or styles of fighting because it's an abstract game. By catering to the "dual-wielding" crowd, they destroyed the abstract narrative, encouraged meta-gaming.

Ranged shouldn't even give a bonus, unless maybe the character takes some expensive Talents to train with it. I wouldn't have too much problem with it at that point, if it cost significantly.

Jet Li has fought in some scenes with one hand. He keeps his other hand in his pocket.

So Jet Li got a couple of setback dice, but he's so good it didn't matter. He doesn't add attacks because he has all his limbs, he suffers difficulties when he can't use all of them.

Narratively speaking dual-wielding means that you're not aiming the way (I don't mean as per the aiming maneuver) that you could with a single weapon whether one or two-handed. That, and I suspect that these rules were meant to lay the groundwork for eventual lightsaber dual-wielding.

I don't see the problem. You are increasing the difficulty and hoping for Success + Advantage for the chance at dealing extra damage (and a usually small amount of damage with Brawl, at that). Dual wielding + Brawl is just trying to get a couple of good, solid hits on your target.

As I mentioned in the other thread if you look at the beginner set character sheet it mentions unarmed entry as ​fists not fist. Under the dual wielding section it mentions only two weapon combat is possible with ranged (light), generally pistols and grenades - and one handed melee or brawl weapons.

Decjnition of brawl weapons page 166. Weapons designed to fit directly over the fists for into this category. Brass knuckles and shock gloves....

Even then if its unclear whether or not a weapon can be wielded one handed the GM gets the final say. So you can quite easily rule that they cannot be dual wielded as they already require the use of both hands to adequately use the brawl skill this way. Either way unarmed cannot be dual wielded since it is not a brawl weapon.

I don't see a problem with dual-wielding as it stands. 1 it increases the difficulty of attacking even more so than normal especially with different kinds of attack(especially with using the worst stat and skill of each); 2 it requires a specific amount of advantages or triumph to get the other attack to hit; 3 Unless their using 2 different weapons(not counting two different brawl) or weapon and an brawl attack they wouldn't be dual wielding because their body is one weapon using brawl weapons to modify it like they state in the books brawl weapons only augment an attack unlike other weapons ; 4 They would still get any armor they had versus both damages individually. As for your concern with fighting styles those are more implied by bonuses from talent tree IE look at any combat based talent tree and have that player focus on melee or brawl and compare it to someone who doesn't have those talents and it's the difference of a trained warrior versus someone who learns it on his own. As a player and a gm the dual wielding seems fine to me, especially for the cinematic feel that your supposed to have.

Example 1: Merick's kick to the side of the knee surprised and unbalanced the guard only for a split second but that was all he needed to jab his combat knife into the side below the armor.

Example 2; Merick performed a backwards stab at the guard behind him. The guard noticing it managed to step back just enough to avoid a fatal cut but not far enough to avoid the follow through when Merrick leaned into his attack as he pulled back his knife slamming his elbow into the guard's nose.

Examples 1 and 2 emphasize using different weapons as the primary and making something cinematically pleasing out of it. I'm not saying you're entirely wrong just that you're overlooking a few details that make it balanced while fun and are most likely dealing with players who are skimming the rules for what they want to see instead of what it is if this is a common issue for you.

I hope you find this assessment satisfactory and not offensive.

I'm fine with the two-weapon rules, even for empty handed combat, but please don't take my Jet Li example seriously. It was meant to be a joke.

That was certainy the way I took it happydaze, there were a number of other people I thought of doing the same thing when I made myoriginal post that you replied to. I would say though that getting rid of dual wielding is a bit extreme given that this is a cinematic game and there are frequently many examples of it , Jango Fett, Darth Maul even General Greivous, never mind the 100s more cinematic options from king arthur through to roman gladiators. Books as well with Waylander by David Gemmel, all dual wielding and inspiring players to do the same.

I would say though that getting rid of dual wielding is a bit extreme given that this is a cinematic game and there are frequently many examples of it , Jango Fett, Darth Maul even General Greivous, never mind the 100s more cinematic options from king arthur through to roman gladiators. Books as well with Waylander by David Gemmel, all dual wielding and inspiring players to do the same.

All of which can be dealt with narratively, not mechanically...

Yes, however mechanically therebis a advantage from a damage point of view in using for example 2 swords in comparison with 1 with a trade off of difficulty (as shown in the game), whereas my point in unarmed is that you normaly fight with more than one hand and you disadvantage yourself when fighting with ony one hand. This makes brawl a '2 handed' skill to begin with.

Dual wielding should be different in the game it should increase damage potential at the cost of difficulty like it does in game, otherwise there would be no incentive to creat dual wield characters. I dont consider this power gaming, after all 3 advantage is enough to do a crit, so adding difficulty and having a 2 advatage trigger is actually a good trade off, since single wielding and rolling a similar result with the dicewould usually either mean more damage because you roll less fails, or a critical if you roll one less threat. So given the law of averages you would get(with a6dmg weapon)

Dual Wield =7dmg*2 (-soak *2)

Single wield= 8 dmg (-soak) with a critical ,given that both rolls were similar

Single wield would hit more often and critical way more often, whereas dual wielding would probably miss more but could potentially have higher damage against easy targets, however a gainst harder targets the difficulty would make a major difference to not only the hit rate but also the advantage rolled, making them disadvantaged against tougher opponents as well as those with a higher soak. They also have the additional enc , which in this game can be a major issue.

Its only when you start powergaming does dual wield become an issue but then so does the scathing tirade politico build or the auto fire blaster riflebuilds I have heard bandied about. It doesnt make dual wield in itself broken enough to remove it.

I'm already "dealing narratively" in interpreting the current rules... and I stand by what I said about this possibly being the groundwork for eventual lightsaber dual-wielding rules (you know it's gonna come up).

Yeah but given how much dmg you can do with a single lightsaber its hardly going to make a difference, however lightsabers are not mentioned in two weapon fighting at this time.

I'm already "dealing narratively" in interpreting the current rules... and I stand by what I said about this possibly being the groundwork for eventual lightsaber dual-wielding rules (you know it's gonna come up).

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with dual wielding if it was dealt with using Talents or some XP progression. I expect (hope) that lightsaber dual wielding, if modelled at all, will require that.

But still, in the end it shouldn't matter. Nothing in the rest of the game models that kind of specificity. The game doesn't model each swing or shot, why do people think it has to model each involved limb? Why stop at two hands, I have two feet, and a head for head butting...let's go with quinta-wielding, shall we?

If a player wants to play someone swinging multiple weapons, let them describe it to their heart's content, it just doesn't need a separate mechanic that's ripe for abuse.

With how the rules are I don't see the abuse you speak of. I do however find it somewhat realistic in the cost and effect. As for your request for talents dealing with it I'm glad they haven't put in any that get rid of the disadvantages (that I've noticed, if they have please enlighten me) you get from dual wielding unlike the d20 systems where a few feats and class features made it broken. And if you use the whole multi-limb angle you need to re-read the section on brawling as it explains that doesn't work nor does having multiple brawl weapons because brawl weapons only modify your brawl attack and since they don't say that the weapon bonuses stack with each other I see no issue. Also please don't try to refer other systems for 2 weapon fighting as it was possible to do so in any of them without special abilities. Where is it broken and how?

Going back to the original reason for the thread, why exactly is dual wieding ripe for abuse. Given that unarmed is not alowed for two weapon use at all, how is it a problem. If you use it narritively then you remove any incentive to dual wield i the first place since you need to pretty much use up your enc allowance to do so.

Even when you figure in talents like the one that adds your skill rank to the damage it does notoverpower the dual wielder (you get that bonus only on one hit per round). Remember it takes 2 advatage to trigger the second hit, what can you do with that.

If you are using an autofire weapon you could hit 3 times with it (with the right talents)

With a superior weapon you could generate a critical with the same advantage and hit moreoften due to the reduced difficulty compared with dual wielding.

Except against minions , dual wielding does not give any kind of significant advantage.

Edit gearlocke beat me to it just

People are using unarmed and shock gloves as dual wielding:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/91555-stun-damage-a-metagaming-problem/?p=882701

I think that's what started my nerd rage

For non-brawl, I don't think the penalties are appropriate for the benefits, plus I think the specificity takes away from the narrative style...but I've said all that, I don't want to flog a dead horse.

That sounds a wee bit house rule there if you ask me...

Mind you, if I were house-ruling dual-wielding I would have essentially treated dual-wielding as akin to the Linked quality... but that's just me.

I'm already "dealing narratively" in interpreting the current rules... and I stand by what I said about this possibly being the groundwork for eventual lightsaber dual-wielding rules (you know it's gonna come up).

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with dual wielding if it was dealt with using Talents or some XP progression. I expect (hope) that lightsaber dual wielding, if modelled at all, will require that.

But still, in the end it shouldn't matter. Nothing in the rest of the game models that kind of specificity. The game doesn't model each swing or shot, why do people think it has to model each involved limb? Why stop at two hands, I have two feet, and a head for head butting...let's go with quinta-wielding, shall we?

If a player wants to play someone swinging multiple weapons, let them describe it to their heart's content, it just doesn't need a separate mechanic that's ripe for abuse.

What HappyDaze describes is part of why I said that that in my case I would have just done up dual-wielding as being "Linked 1", with the attack roll being "do you hit with any of the guns or not"... and truthbetold, any mechanic is potentially ripe for abuse.

The rules on page 148 only allow dual wielding for ranged-light and melee weapons - NOT brawling weapons.

Brawl weapons are a separate category from melee weapons (see page 120).

And the dual wielding rules work VERY well for armed melee. And for two pistols. And for knife and gun.

Not to mention that changing it now would break rules continuity with Edge.

Aramis I almost used your argument however if you fully read it brawling/brawling weapons are included in it in the second paragraph.

All of which can be dealt with narratively, not mechanically...

So a guy has one Blaster Pistol. Then he picks up a second during battle with his off-hand and starts shooting it too. The player asks you what difference will this make for me? You answer, nothing, I just use different pretty words when describing it??

I think a rule IS needed. Narrative is not a good reason to toss it. I could make the same argument that stun/strain rules are not needed. Just use standard damage and wound threshold and describe what happens differently. Some nuts and bolts are required.

All of which can be dealt with narratively, not mechanically...

So a guy has one Blaster Pistol. Then he picks up a second during battle with his off-hand and starts shooting it too. The player asks you what difference will this make for me? You answer, nothing, I just use different pretty words when describing it??

Yep, pretty much. In what world can someone just pick up two pistols and start blasting away with any hope of hitting anything? It's not even prevalent in the movies or TCW. Only a few characters, like Jango Fett, or Captain Rex, make use of it. Why not Han, or Luke? Were they just too dim to think of it?

Dual wielding without some appropriate skill investment is just catering to fantasies of bad-ashery. Allowing an easy mechanic with minor penalties just encourages the silliness. If the player wants to invest 50+ points in Talents to get there, fine, you can be Jango. Otherwise, no, you can "only" be Han.

I'm of two minds. This is a heroic, slightly over-the-top setting with energy swords, energy pistols, starships travelling/crossing distances faster than light... I have no issue with someone deciding to pick up a second gun and attempt to use both with a benefit beyond narration.

It has happened in my games that one or two of the players decided to use two weapons, not due to efficiency or whatever, but because of fear of their enemies. Good roleplaying I think. Now, the increase of difficulty isn't a minor penalty in my opinion. Rarely have my players ever succeeded in activating a second hit with the increased difficulty (some miss completely due to this extra die). Of course this is partly due to them spending what XP they get on other stuff than just combat (I don't really have any one-trick ponies in my group). Wielding two heavy blasters and firing at medium range requires a Hard check, that's three dice, before upgrades from Adversary (and the like, Fear checks for instance) and setback dice (for many and varied reasons). At short range it's a different matter perhaps. Melee is also going to be Hard by default when dual-wielding. That's not minor in my experience. Perhaps I'm hard on my players by using my NPCs, minions or rivals or nemeses, effectively, using cover, giving them heavy armours (with defence and many have Adversary and other stuff), but I'm not stingy on XP, far from it.

Now, I do agree that there could be some talents involved for two-weapon fighting, but as things stands, using one weapon is more effective and easier than two. If I'm not mistaken a lot of talents only apply damage bonus to one attack/hit, in these cases dual-wielding also is also less powerful.

Now, how could this be treated differently?

If anyone tried to use two weapons without the appropriate talent what should the penalty be? Should it be possible at all? Or would a talent introduce the increased difficulty and advantage/triumph mechanic for a secondary hit? Would subsequent talents be two-weapon versions of other damage giving talents, just boosting the potential secondary hit? I don't mind the idea, depending on the solution of course, but as it stands today I have few issues with the two weapon fighting rules in the game, but then it has not been abused in my games, my players avoid it due to the ineffectiveness it results in.

This discussion is mostly academic at this point. The Edge rules have gone to final press and you are stuck with these two handed rules.

I happen to like academic discussion so I'll jump in.

I don't buy the narrative argument. Every game that has adhered too closely to a philosophical ideal has been a failure. I like that this game works hard to find a middle ground. It's primarily narrative, but is still a game with rules and all that stuff.

I think that two weapon wielding was intended to work with Brawl. I think a highly skilled martial artist can use the various parts of her body to act like two separate weapons. That's why a player should invest in a high Brawl skill. Against an inferior opponent it allows for a quicker take down.

That's more narrative in my book. It certainly fits with cinematic concepts where goons get taken out by a quick combo to the face. I do agree that dual shock gloves is cheesy and such players should be kicked in the jimmies (to ensure they never breed). Hands are one weapon under this concept and feet are another.

This is fine. More importantly it encourages players to branch out and expand their character and skills. Under the talent view players get forced into spending on a narrow set of skills and talents in order to be effective. Under the broad skill based approach any character who invests enough points into the requisite skills can make a stab at dual wielding.

I like the idea of the sword fighter who treats his off hand and his feet as his "second weapon". It certainly fits with what we see in cinema. The punch to the face to disorient followed by a slash to the throat. That's what good fun combat is about. He's spent a lot of points to be a good brawler and melee-er. Why should't he get some advantage for that.

I hate systems that say, "Don't bother with multiple combat skills because you can't use them at the same time anyway." Boring.

I'm of two minds. This is a heroic, slightly over-the-top setting with energy swords, energy pistols, starships travelling/crossing distances faster than light...

Yep, and in that setting, dual wielding is only seen a couple of times. Even Ahsoka starts with one lightsaber, only adopting two as she grows up.

Now, how could this be treated differently?

If anyone tried to use two weapons without the appropriate talent what should the penalty be? Should it be possible at all? Or would a talent introduce the increased difficulty and advantage/triumph mechanic for a secondary hit? Would subsequent talents be two-weapon versions of other damage giving talents, just boosting the potential secondary hit?

Without Talents I'd say it has no mechanical effect...that would be my concession, because I actually feel you'd be at a disadvantage. You could still have fun with it, say, using Coercion to appear to be more bad-ash that you really are.

A gunslinger talent tree might let you get a mechanical bonus for 10 points, similar to the current rules except starting at 3 setback dice instead of the upgraded difficulty. Subsequent Talents (15, 20) would let you reduce this to 2 and 1 setback dice. It would never go lower than 1 setback die.