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 (as long as 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

Turn off the news good man. Immerse yourself completely in your gaming universe get-away.

Easier said than done. Still. I have sent rule questions to FFG. Perhaps this time they will answer me?

Ah, but a vibrosword is one-handed

Axe, then. I'm sure you can imagine the point applying to a 2H weapon if you "think outside the box"

... straw man.

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.

Hopefully they will give us some new mechanics in the first update....=)

Seems relevant:-

... straw man.

How so? The poster I was responding to suggested a long stick could use the two-weapon rule. But if that's the case, then any 2H weapon could use the rule. In which case, it's no longer "two weapon fighting"...

In any case:

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.

Fine, I give I raised the issue, got some good feedback, concede a few points--such as perhaps the current rules are enough of a drawback to abuse prevention, at least for starting characters--but remain convinced that brawling with two fists doesn't qualify, I guess it'll be a house rule. Thank you all for your participation

I doubt they will update dual-wielding. As I recall, it was already poked and prodded during the beta test for EOTE.

... straw man.

How so? The poster I was responding to suggested a long stick could use the two-weapon rule. But if that's the case, then any 2H weapon could use the rule. In which case, it's no longer "two weapon fighting"...

How so? Its a misrepresentations of the intention of Away's statement. There's a difference, you know it and I know it, between a two-handed sword or axe, and a 6-7 foot long quarterstaff where both ends can be used for attacks. Right? One is a "double" weapon, at least in rpg terms, the others are not. So if your misrepresentation was intentional or not, I don't know, but it builds upon a fallacious premiss applied incorrectly to his statement.

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.

Fine, I give I raised the issue, got some good feedback, concede a few points--such as perhaps the current rules are enough of a drawback to abuse prevention, at least for starting characters--but remain convinced that brawling with two fists doesn't qualify, I guess it'll be a house rule. Thank you all for your participation

Oh, I apologize, that rant wasn't really aimed at you specifically! But it doesn't seem like you took offence, good

As for brawling, I've sent an email to CS to get some clarification on this matter, because I think both sides have good arguments for why and why not. Hopefully I'll get a reply, sometime soon.

How so? The poster I was responding to suggested a long stick could use the two-weapon rule. But if that's the case, then any 2H weapon could use the rule. In which case, it's no longer "two weapon fighting"...

How so? Its a misrepresentations of the intention of Away's statement. There's a difference, you know it and I know it, between a two-handed sword or axe, and a 6-7 foot long quarterstaff where both ends can be used for attacks. Right? One is a "double" weapon, at least in rpg terms, the others are not. So if your misrepresentation was intentional or not, I don't know, but it builds upon a fallacious premiss applied incorrectly to his statement.

This plays into one of my objections with two weapon fighting in this system in the first place. Real world weapon use isn't so restrictive. Yes, you'll get the best result by using the blade of an axe...if the opponent lays there like a block of wood. But in a fight for your life, you might your face inches from theirs, and that means the blade isn't that useful, it's out of reach in negative space. You're still going to do what you can with it, it has a metal handle after all. Same with a spear, just because it has a point doesn't mean you can't use it like a quarterstaff if you have to. In short, the double weapon is a myth...though as you say, there are those "RPG terms"...where it has a long history of catering to armchair enthusiasts.

Anyway, I'm not trying to reopen the argument, I'm just trying to explain why my comment wasn't a strawman, or at least not intended as one.

Oh, I apologize, that rant wasn't really aimed at you specifically! But it doesn't seem like you took offence, good

No worries even if it was. I've been pretty belligerent in this thread, high time I left it alone

Fair enough. Now, from what you said about being close up and all, that's all well and good, and as far as I know nothing stops you from narrating it that way, and instead of activating a crit with the vibroknife, you spend those advantages applying setback dice (as a sort of poor man's disorient) or boost dice (the hilt crunched his nose and his eyes are all blurry suddenly, giving you a boost).

I'd also say that the double weapon isn't a myth as such, having - a long time ago - learned how to fight with a long staff, I know that I'd have that any day over a sword, the reach and the speed with which you can make many attacks, like a double weapon, far surpasses the sword, but it is of course a completely different way of fighting than sword fighting.

As for the spear, I could allow a long spear to be used as a double weapon, or allow attacks with the other end of it, but those attacks would for instance not - if a spear had the quality - allow Pierce to apply in that case, nor any other quality that could, reasonably, be considered more tied to the blade than the length of the weapon. If you catch my drift.

This is still not the same as attacking twice with a sword in my opinion, even a two-handed one, because the larger weapon has leverage, that can be used for increased speed, and therefore - at least in an imaginary setting - produce two potential hits, its so much longer that it is basically two weapons.

Now the same assumption, for me, works with Brawl, until otherwise ruled by FFG. Using fists and feet as to points of attack makes sense. Using two fists, well, it could make sense. The increased speed required to make it work properly is well manifested in the additional difficulty die in the pool, and the benefit is largely pointless, but its cool and would - if successfully executed - allow the practitioner to gain a boost die to Coerce or some such check to cause fear in his opponents. Just like I would allow well timed use of Sunder to do the same.

Sword, no. Vibro-ax...I dunno, if it was a polearm and you treated one end as a truncheon or gaffi stick or something, with the Inferior quality...maybe. But then that's the beauty of the narrative system. Double weapons are huge in the Star Wars universe, and have been since at least 1999. And what is a double weapon? It's two weapons stuck together.

You want a double-vibroblade? Take two vibroswords, narrate that they're locked together at the hilt. Two-Weapon Combat rules still work, IMHO.

You want a quarterstaff? Take two truncheons or "gaffi sticks," describe them as fused together at either end, and keep using Two-Weapon Combat. (one could make a case for a gaffi stick being long enough by itself)

You want a long pike like an honor guard? Stick a gaffi stick and a vibroknife together, dual-weapon it up.

I guess we'll have to wait for the "official" word on Brawling. But really, we've got the rules and we have everything we need to make our games fun for our players.

That's what I meant by "thinking outside the box." Basically, just widening our parameters a bit so as to include the visions of our players (and, even better, other GMs scattered across the world!) in the narrative world we are creating together using a particular set of rules, with the end purpose of having fun together.

That's what I meant by "thinking outside the box." Basically, just widening our parameters a bit so as to include the visions of our players (and, even better, other GMs scattered across the world!) in the narrative world we are creating together using a particular set of rules, with the end purpose of having fun together.

You're making a global assumption based on a disagreement about one rule. It's condescending.

You're making a global assumption based on a disagreement about one rule. It's condescending.

Where is my assumption?

I will happily apologize for any inferred slight, but I can assure you that the inference is faulty. My intent was not to be condescending, but was two-fold: encouraging and correcting. Encouraging in that I am trying to use a positive tone to combat the rampant and pervasive negativity on these boards (to which I very well may be a contributor—please take care to note my attempt at being inclusive in my language, as I include and indict myself when possible), and correcting in that you had apparently mistaken what I had previously said about "thinking outside the box" (and used it in a manner that I thought was rather snarky). I tried to turn it around and offer my perspective on the issue, and yet you seem to approach the conversation with an antagonistic bent.

Antagonistic, so much so that the reply you gave had no mention of my actual game-mechanical suggestions, and I might even call that a classical ad hominem (though I am loathe to use that term). I do realize your post was coming on the heels of a perceived insult, but perhaps going forward we can try to help each other out (as one GM to the rest) rather than resorting to nitpicking.

Where is my assumption?

I guess I'm not sure how you go from a disagreement about a specific rule, to a global statement suggesting I can't think outside the box and am not interested in having fun with my players or catering to their desires. I didn't see what relevance that had to the discussion, nor why you would make such a blanket statement if you hadn't made such a blanket assumption.

Antagonistic, so much so that the reply you gave had no mention of my actual game-mechanical suggestions, and I might even call that a classical ad hominem (though I am loathe to use that term). I do realize your post was coming on the heels of a perceived insult, but perhaps going forward we can try to help each other out (as one GM to the rest) rather than resorting to nitpicking.

Fair enough. As you may have noted from other posts, I'm done with this rule discussion and didn't feel like your staff example was valid. That said, I apologize for my snark responding to it. Consider this thread my month of March...

The "blanket statement" was just meant to be a generalization of what I meant by "thinking outside the box." Not open-mindedness for open-mindedness' sake, but with the express purpose of making the game more fun for our players.

And NOT to say that people are close-minded or ignorant or whatever. Just that it's worth thinking creatively for our players' sake. I need that reminder, and often, so I suppose my assumption was others would benefit from it as well.

I honestly don't see how its that open to abuse.

So a guy can carry two pistols have the difficult of his roll increased and only have a chance of hitting with the second one (remember he needs the two advantage, that he could have used for something else) and both of them having to go through soak...

or

He can just carry a blaster carbine, do more damage, not increase the difficulty, and use any advantages on other things... like crits.

I know what you are thinking though, what about melee!

Ok, so I increase the difficulty, and then spend 2 advantage (if I have it) to hit a second time... but wait, all the melee weapons also have fairly low crit ratings. If you have the right mods on it, that second hit could have instead been used for a crit with +10 to the roll.

Lightsabers, now here dual weilding is pretty awesome because of the Breach... but even then you are throwing away potential crits to hit with the second saber.

Brawl weapons... eh, I wouldn't let dual wielding work with brawl personally.

Brawl weapons... eh, I wouldn't let dual wielding work with brawl personally.

YMMV, but just give page 210 a read and you'll notice Brawl weapons are directly mentioned in the Two-Weapon Combat rules. This was mentioned earlier, but it was probably easy to miss amid all the ranting

And given that you could use that 2 Advantage to trigger a Knockdown or Disorient (or Stun 3 in the case of Stun Gloves), it's still a pretty hefty tradeoff.

Brawl weapons... eh, I wouldn't let dual wielding work with brawl personally.

YMMV, but just give page 210 a read and you'll notice Brawl weapons are directly mentioned in the Two-Weapon Combat rules. This was mentioned earlier, but it was probably easy to miss amid all the ranting

And given that you could use that 2 Advantage to trigger a Knockdown or Disorient (or Stun 3 in the case of Stun Gloves), it's still a pretty hefty tradeoff.

I meant for my personal games, but I agree, doing it with brawl is just as much of a cost trade as it is for anything else.

When you remove brawl (not brawl weapons ) from the equation , I've yet to be convinced that two weapon fighting is broken in any way, in fact my only gripe is that there are no feats yet that make it easier to use, because from what I see single wielding is actually more effective, certainly against the targets that count. The jury is out on using lightsabers, however RAW you cannot use them yet(edit- to dual wield that is)

When you remove brawl (not brawl weapons ) from the equation , I've yet to be convinced that two weapon fighting is broken in any way, in fact my only gripe is that there are no feats yet that make it easier to use, because from what I see single wielding is actually more effective, certainly against the targets that count. The jury is out on using lightsabers, however RAW you cannot use them yet(edit- to dual wield that is)

What would make unarmed Brawl attacks so broken that they need to be removed from the equation?

Sword, no. Vibro-ax...I dunno, if it was a polearm and you treated one end as a truncheon or gaffi stick or something, with the Inferior quality...maybe. But then that's the beauty of the narrative system. Double weapons are huge in the Star Wars universe, and have been since at least 1999. And what is a double weapon? It's two weapons stuck together.

The original Gaderfii was 1977... and is obviously a double-weapon. Bladed mace on one end, a stout awl-pick on the other.

And ISTR a couple of butt-strokes in ROTJ, but I'd have to rewatch to be certain, and the LaserDisk is not easily accessed at the moment. (Yeah, I got it on laserdisk. Somewhere, I've got it on VHS, too. The DVD set I got has only the revised prints... if only I'd waited another year, I'd have the originals as well.)

When you remove brawl (not brawl weapons ) from the equation , I've yet to be convinced that two weapon fighting is broken in any way, in fact my only gripe is that there are no feats yet that make it easier to use, because from what I see single wielding is actually more effective, certainly against the targets that count. The jury is out on using lightsabers, however RAW you cannot use them yet(edit- to dual wield that is)

What would make unarmed Brawl attacks so broken that they need to be removed from the equation?

There are a few feats that might open it up to abuse, even then Im still relatively sure it is not broken, I just havent looked closely enough at the feats to judge (things like pressure point etc). I still just see brawl is 2 handed already. Personally its just a flavor thing, as well as following RAW, I certainly would not fall out with anyone who was GMing that allowed it.

When you remove brawl (not brawl weapons ) from the equation , I've yet to be convinced that two weapon fighting is broken in any way, in fact my only gripe is that there are no feats yet that make it easier to use, because from what I see single wielding is actually more effective, certainly against the targets that count. The jury is out on using lightsabers, however RAW you cannot use them yet(edit- to dual wield that is)

What would make unarmed Brawl attacks so broken that they need to be removed from the equation?

There are a few feats that might open it up to abuse, even then Im still relatively sure it is not broken, I just havent looked closely enough at the feats to judge (things like pressure point etc). I still just see brawl is 2 handed already. Personally its just a flavor thing, as well as following RAW, I certainly would not fall out with anyone who was GMing that allowed it.

If the issue is Pressure Point, then I suggest errata for that Talent rather than limiting perfectly reasonable attempts to two-weapon fight with unarmed attacks.

Actually im going to do a u turn here brawl actually calls out martial art skills as included under the description of brawl weapons, so RAW its down to the GM whether its included in two weapon combat, its under the brawl skill description.