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...

1) 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?

2) 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.

3) 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.

1) ... Meh. I think this is a mighty thin argument. But hey, different gamers different preferences.

2) I disagree. The difficulty increase, the addition of another difficulty die, is a considerable disadvantage for most characters, until later in the game at least (unless it's a one-trick pony). At least that is what my players' experience is so far, the benefit does not outweigh the inherent disadvantage of adding another die to the pool. I agree that wielding two weapons could get a boost die to Coercion check, but also setback dice to charm/negotiate checks.

3) You see, this is where I think it becomes too tier-based, too d20fied. First, and now I'm being pedantic, setback dice are environmental, external factors that affect the inherent, or what did Jay call it? Agnostic? I don't remember... the inherent difficulty of the check. So this is a thin argument perhaps, but on that alone I'd say that adding setback dice to using two weapons is wrong, because the difficulty should be based upon the inherent difficulty of wielding two weapons, not wielding one and happen to have second waving around like wind, or rain, or darkness, or uneven footing, etc... I'd say that wielding two weapons, in addition to increasing the difficulty as per the rules, could easily warrant the addition of more setback dice from other factors, such as uneven footing or darkness or whatnot, if it can be rationalised at least... Second, I think having so many talents, for so little gain and benefit is a poor suggestion. It's costly too, particularly since the gain is so poor.

About #3, I see your point about setback dice, and perhaps my suggestion was too expensive. I was just brainstorming, I don't really have a good suggestion, partly because it's not something I'm particularly eager to fix. Dual-wielding is just too John Woo for me, and in the entirety of canon, Lucas only goes there briefly. I would concede with ranged light weapons if it cost something. I'd allow a defensive quality, and maybe more, for melee (also costing something). Brawl...no way, the assumption is your total body is already involved.

Well, that's fair.

I'd allow it, simply because either through (dumb) luck or extreme skill/competence, will it really be any point in rolling against a base Hard check in melee, plus any other modifiers, upgrades and setback dice. Also, the gain would be negligible brawl damage being so low and all.

Of course I might change my mind, now that my players are all homing in on Dedication and dice pools will grow.

It being too John Woo, well, it can never get too John Woo now can it the more John Woo the better! and add some Takeshi Kitano and I'm all for it.

Would it help to think of it less as John Woo and more as Old West?

Yep, pretty much. In what world can someone just pick up two pistols and start blasting away with any hope of hitting anything?

You seem to be agreeing in this sentence that there would be a mechanical difference. That's counter to your just-make-the-description-different stance. It's harder for the untrained to do such, so you would be actually FOR applying a setback die or something similar?

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?

I would counter with asking you why did Jango Fett, Captain Rex, and Anakin Skywalker use two weapons? There had to be some benefit.

I'm completely with you that a person should require some sort of new talent to make dual-wielding beneficial. Without the talent, it's not an overall good thing to do (benefits outweighted by penalties and so Han and Luke don't try it). Jango and Anakin have picked up the talent, so they gain something by dual-wielding.

Dual wielding without some appropriate skill investment is just catering to fantasies of bad-ashery.

That's a good point for a game based on reality, not one actually based upon heroic 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.

Again, I agree with you on this point.

Would it help to think of it less as John Woo and more as Old West?

That hits the mark for me, my friend. In fact, it is the very model of this former Confederate soldier which has given inspiration for my current dual-wielding EotE character.

I see no reason why even Brawl couldn't be used with dual wielding. Just think of it as a martial arts move that focuses on many blows with less accuracy for each one. So it would have the potential of more bruises but less critical strikes. And I think you are assuming that not using Dual Wielding means you swing once or twice with each attack. Like a blaster, you are making several attempts to strike at your foe not always throwing a single punch or two. Dual wielding Brawl is just going all-out with many blows and might even include a kick or two.

And I think you are assuming that not using Dual Wielding means you swing once or twice with each attack.

Actually, I'm assuming the opposite, that Brawl already accounts for multiple strikes, blocks, jabs, feints, etc. That's why "dual wielding fists" makes little sense to me. I just don't see the need for a flurry of blows being mechanically different from a haymaker.

And I think you are assuming that not using Dual Wielding means you swing once or twice with each attack.

Actually, I'm assuming the opposite, that Brawl already accounts for multiple strikes, blocks, jabs, feints, etc. That's why "dual wielding fists" makes little sense to me. I just don't see the need for a flurry of blows being mechanically different from a haymaker.

Yes, but you've already stated that you think dual-wielding in general should be gotten rid of. So your argument for no dual-wielding for the Brawl skill is really overshadowed by your bias against the entire two-weapon fighting rule set in general.

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 disagreed with your "Brawl used in dual-wielding" thesis until this point. That's a neat idea, even if brawl is explicitly prevented from dual-wielding in the book.

That being said, it doesn't make any sense to me to allow brawl to dual wield with itself. Consider that in a fist fight, the 'normal' expected behavior is to use both your hands and your feet if necessary. If you fought with only your right hand, that'd be a handicap, not the norm.

Compare this to guns. The 'normal' behavior is to use only one (probably because in real life, dual wielding guns is stupid and pointless). However, in star wars and other heroic fantasy/sci-fi we see the occasional character dual wielding, but I can't think of any property where the majority of people in that universe would do so.

Therefore, it makes sense from a flavor standpoint to have a mechanical difference between a character who wields one weapon, and one who wields two.

I disagreed with your "Brawl used in dual-wielding" thesis until this point. That's a neat idea, even if brawl is explicitly prevented from dual-wielding in the book.

That being said, it doesn't make any sense to me to allow brawl to dual wield with itself. Consider that in a fist fight, the 'normal' expected behavior is to use both your hands and your feet if necessary. If you fought with only your right hand, that'd be a handicap, not the norm.

Compare this to guns. The 'normal' behavior is to use only one (probably because in real life, dual wielding guns is stupid and pointless). However, in star wars and other heroic fantasy/sci-fi we see the occasional character dual wielding, but I can't think of any property where the majority of people in that universe would do so.

Therefore, it makes sense from a flavor standpoint to have a mechanical difference between a character who wields one weapon, and one who wields two.

Where, in any of the books, is Brawl explicitly prevented from dual-wielding?

The arguments you make miss the point, IMO. The mechanics of dual wielding are that you increase the difficulty of the attack AND require 2 Advantage. Narratively, this makes sense that someone is trying REALLY HARD to cause more damage with their fists/feet/teeth/whatever else they're got on hand.

I'll look in EotE in a second on the brawl as dual wielding question.

Also, I agree, I think the mechanics in place for dual wielding are fine and don't really need tweaked. XD I was merely trying to refute arguments that say dual wielding shouldn't be mechanically different from single wielding at all. I also definitely think over defining it and requiring multiple talents for it's use would be counter-productive and not very edge like.

Edit:

Page 210 in EotE

"When attacking with two weapons, the character must be wielding two weapons that can each be reasonably held and wielding in one hand...generally pistols and grenades-and one-handed melee or brawl weapons."

So not as explicitly as I remembered it, but it seems to imply that you at least have to be using weapons of some kind and can't just dual wielding brawl by itself. Unfortunately, one of Edge's/AoR's weaknesses is a lack of precise terminology in places where it would be helpful (such as here), so it would be up to a GM call. In any case, dual wielding isn't really a huge benefit, so it wouldn't be gamebreaking eitherway.

Also, I agree, I think the mechanics in place for dual wielding are fine and don't really need tweaked. XD I was merely trying to refute arguments that say dual wielding shouldn't be mechanically different from single wielding at all. I also definitely think over defining it and requiring multiple talents for it's use would be counter-productive and not very edge like.

Totally. Multiple talents for dual-wielding are not needed. I think the RAW system is just fine, nice and easy and balanced.

Page 100s

I disagreed with your "Brawl used in dual-wielding" thesis until this point. That's a neat idea, even if brawl is explicitly prevented from dual-wielding in the book.

That being said, it doesn't make any sense to me to allow brawl to dual wield with itself. Consider that in a fist fight, the 'normal' expected behavior is to use both your hands and your feet if necessary. If you fought with only your right hand, that'd be a handicap, not the norm.

Compare this to guns. The 'normal' behavior is to use only one (probably because in real life, dual wielding guns is stupid and pointless). However, in star wars and other heroic fantasy/sci-fi we see the occasional character dual wielding, but I can't think of any property where the majority of people in that universe would do so.

Therefore, it makes sense from a flavor standpoint to have a mechanical difference between a character who wields one weapon, and one who wields two.

Where, in any of the books, is Brawl explicitly prevented from dual-wielding?

Page 210 under two weapon fighting

'When attacking with two weapon, the character must be wielding two weapon that can reach be reasonably held in one hand. Generally, the weapons are Ranged(light) weapons-generally pistols and grenades-and one handed melee or brawl weapons.

The important part flr the counter argument is the next section.

If it is unclear whether or not a weapon can be wielded one-handed, the GM makes the final determination as to if it can be used.

For the pedantic: "Two-Weapon Combat"

"a character may opt to carry a Ranged (Light) weapon or a melee weapon in each hand, increasing his volume of attacks at the expense of accuracy." "When attacking with two weapons, the character must be wielding two weapons"

Brawl skill is used for Unarmed Combat.

"Dual Wield" is not a rule in this game.

The rules for Two-weapon combat clearly reference a character attacking with "two weapons" not two "attacks, weapons or appendages". Likewise the rules for unarmed combat use the Brawl skill, possibly with added qualities from a Brawl weapon. No mention is made of two weapon combat being used with the Brawl skill. It is either/or. Also I would rule that "shock gloves" are one weapon, not two. Under the two weapon combat rules it states that only one-handed weapons may be used, shock gloves (like fists) are generally employed as a two-handed weapon.

I don't see any problem with the two weapon combat rules. Especially when a sniper on the roof top with a heavy blaster rifle will take care of any two-gun mojo in short order.

DavetheLost, in the text you quoted it specifically mentions Brawl weapons as a possibility.

This is really getting ridiculous, to the point that I'm not sure I understand what is being debated anymore. Brawl weapons are mentioned as a possibility, and it's called out that the GM makes the call about which weapons can be wielded in one hand.

I'd like to point out that the rules don't allow you to aim your second weapon at a different target because it's done as one attack. When you think about it's not as uncommon as you'd think to see someone focusing on an opponent with a cross-slash of two swords or lining up their pistols to shoot at someone. What would be ridiculous would be the ability to split the attack on two separate targets. And ironically enough in real life it's sometimes easier to learn quick little combos with different things than to fully learn a martial style(my uncle and dad were both military while my uncle was also a martial arts instructor some of the first things he showed me were such basic combos to protect myself) I've done two-weapon fighting in EotE (in a game where I'm the only character who's has a combative focus) and quickly realized until I improve it (which may be a while because there are other skills and talents I need especially since I'm the only combat guy) I don't really want to do it unless I'm dealing with easy targets, and that was with 2 ranks in the skill and 4 for Agility. As for the earlier talk about why did Jango and those some characters do it while Han and others didn't that's easy. The characters you described are ones that focused on combat skills meaning they most likely had 3-5 ranks in the skills and a good stat to go with it. Han may be good with a blaster but his specialty is piloting and some gunnery meaning that the skills he got up high are completely different. And most of the other characters had more diverse skills.

However I agree dual wielding brawl with brawl doesn't work according to the RAW if you fully read it especially since every brawl weapon is listed as a plural meaning it already takes into account using at least two of them . For those that want to see multi-strikes from brawl I'd say wait until more of the supplements come out. You'll probably see talent trees that involve martial styles that allow that sort of thing since most of the reference for combat styles are EU and so far it looks like anything EU will be in supplements while the movies are going to be core.

Either way these particular rules are already done as is they just need clarification on a few things so I'm thinking we'll probably see an errata for EotE while the things they decide to errata for it will be already applied to AoR if they get enough for it in time.

Well, as Brawl weapons can be used - as per the core rule book - I see no reason not to allow two weapon combat to be used with brass knuckles, shock gloves ... or even bare fists and steel tipped/spiked boots for that matter.

Well, as Brawl weapons can be used - as per the core rule book - I see no reason not to allow two weapon combat to be used with brass knuckles, shock gloves ... or even bare fists and steel tipped/spiked boots for that matter.

I'm not saying you can't use brawl at all for two weapon combat, but from the description under Unarmed combat and the little box at the top of the page about grappling it already takes into consideration that you're doing multiple strikes or motions in it's basic use. A pair of shock gloves are a single weapon per the book so you can't go shock with shock. You can however still mix it with a melee weapon or pistol as those are a different weapon. Also brawl weapons only augment your unarmed unlike other weapons so it's still only using one weapon, your body.

Gearlocke, striking two targets is completely within the means of Two-Weapon Combat. When establishing Difficulty, you figure out which weapon a higher difficulty. If you have selected two targets, then each of those targets might well have a higher difficulty. If you hit against the higher-difficulty target, you can spend 2 Advantage to hit the lower-difficulty target. It's just like autofire in that respect.

Brawl weapons are listed in plurals for simplicity's sake. The whole tone of the equipment chapter is that these items are presented as loosely and simply as possible in order to facilitate fun roleplaying with gear that makes sense for the particular character.

Furthermore, to take the argument from a linguistic stance, "Brass Knuckles" only exist in plurals. One metal piece that fits over the hand is called "brass knuckles." To say that I can't wear a set of brass knuckles on one hand and a shock glove on the other hand is far over the other side of nonsensical, achieved only by a very limited interpretation of the minutiae of the rules (can the "Computers" skill be performed only when the user has access to two or more computers? Must someone than buys into the Outlaw Tech tree be an outlaw?). I just don't buy it.

Ask yourself what you'd say if a player asked you, "Can I wear brass knuckles on one hand and a shock glove on the other?" Perhaps, "Sure, but you can only use one or the other unless you want to use the Two-Weapon Combat rules." That seems entirely within the scope and intent of the rules. And it's just plain good GMing.

The rules should be used to facilitate, rather than stifle, creativity and fun.

Well, as Brawl weapons can be used - as per the core rule book - I see no reason not to allow two weapon combat to be used with brass knuckles, shock gloves ... or even bare fists and steel tipped/spiked boots for that matter.

I'm not saying you can't use brawl at all for two weapon combat, but from the description under Unarmed combat and the little box at the top of the page about grappling it already takes into consideration that you're doing multiple strikes or motions in it's basic use. A pair of shock gloves are a single weapon per the book so you can't go shock with shock. You can however still mix it with a melee weapon or pistol as those are a different weapon. Also brawl weapons only augment your unarmed unlike other weapons so it's still only using one weapon, your body.

Again, interpreting the rules in a narrow way that is outside of the context.

ALL combat checks assume "about a minute's worth" of activity. It is true; one's man's cantina fight is another man's martial arts exposition. Both are achieved by the Brawl skill. But taking this inclusiveness and simplicity presented in the rules and the trying to narrow it down and say "this is the only thing you can do with this" is not conducive to fun (and therefore anti-rules).

Saying that Brawl weapons "only augment" your unarmed combat is an odd way of stating things. Read page 211 again. They don't "only augment;" the sense of the wording here is that they "AUGMENT!" your Brawl checks (as opposed to how other combat skills work; the idea here is that Brawl weapons are cooler in that respect than other weapons. I hope you get that same sense).

So, what, a character with two fists can't "two-weapon" fight? So a character with two ends of a long stick can't "two-weapon" fight because, "Sorry dude, it's just one weapon"? Really, this is downright rules-lawyering. The rules should be inclusive, not prohibitive. My thoughts: strive to think outside the box, not try and fit everything into the box.

So, what, a character with two fists can't "two-weapon" fight? So a character with two ends of a long stick can't "two-weapon" fight because, "Sorry dude, it's just one weapon"?

Then you might as well call it "double strike", because you could argue that you can bash people's teeth with the hilt of a vibrosword as well as stick them with the pointy end... But given the name they used, I doubt that was the designer's intent.

Ah, but a vibrosword is one-handed

I don't believe they would get rid of dual-wielding. IIRC, PUBLISHED MECHANICS aren't up for beta testing - it's the new material that we have the power to request amendments to.

People will still make an effort to point out stuff they don't like or agree with for some reason. Whether it's two weapon fighting, heavily armoured starfighters or something else. They will use what they can from the movies (and perhaps tcw) to argue a point ad nauseam. Same goes for the "opposition", which will use the same sources and angled slightly differently to use as support. Reminds me of lawyers sometimes. It must be enjoyable, because we all do it, from time to time, particularly when its something we feel strongly about. It doesn't really matter if there's any chance whatsoever for change, our voices must be heard, we're entitled our opinions (until some imaginary line is crossed and someone feel their opinion is infringed upon or some such nonsense), we have freedom of speech, we have rights! Damned be any duties, responsibilities and any consideration of the community, we have, as individuals, rights that must be expressed whenever, wherever, however we like! And any commie who says differently should not have survived the McCarthy era