Right, got a reply from Sam Stewart. Summarised conclusions below:

1) You can use Brawl weapons with two-weapon fighting.

2) Brawl is intentionally open to interpretation, but yes you can use it with the two-weapon fighting rules as a kind of "flurry of blows". Sam does point out the increased chance of failure doing this however.

3) Therefore you can also use two-weapon fighting for a knife and fist/foot attack.

Right, got a reply from Sam Stewart. Summarised conclusions below:

1) You can use Brawl weapons with two-weapon fighting.

2) Brawl is intentionally open to interpretation, but yes you can use it with the two-weapon fighting rules as a kind of "flurry of blows". Sam does point out the increased chance of failure doing this however.

3) Therefore you can also use two-weapon fighting for a knife and fist/foot attack.

Based on "3)" then you could use Brawl to kick while also wielding a two-handed weapon allowing two-weapon combat with the joy of a vibro-ax!

Right, got a reply from Sam Stewart. Summarised conclusions below:

1) You can use Brawl weapons with two-weapon fighting.

2) Brawl is intentionally open to interpretation, but yes you can use it with the two-weapon fighting rules as a kind of "flurry of blows". Sam does point out the increased chance of failure doing this however.

3) Therefore you can also use two-weapon fighting for a knife and fist/foot attack.

Based on "3)" then you could use Brawl to kick while also wielding a two-handed weapon allowing two-weapon combat with the joy of a vibro-ax!

Nope because using a two handed weapon definitely does not come under the rules foe two weapon fighting. Technically you could call this out when using a feat like knockdown.

Right, got a reply from Sam Stewart. Summarised conclusions below:

Well, that answers that I withdraw my beef.

Right, got a reply from Sam Stewart. Summarised conclusions below:

1) You can use Brawl weapons with two-weapon fighting.

2) Brawl is intentionally open to interpretation, but yes you can use it with the two-weapon fighting rules as a kind of "flurry of blows". Sam does point out the increased chance of failure doing this however.

3) Therefore you can also use two-weapon fighting for a knife and fist/foot attack.

Based on "3)" then you could use Brawl to kick while also wielding a two-handed weapon allowing two-weapon combat with the joy of a vibro-ax!

Nope because using a two handed weapon definitely does not come under the rules foe two weapon fighting. Technically you could call this out when using a feat like knockdown.

Darth Maul can use kicks while using a double lightsaber. Having a character use a knee or headbutt while doing close-in fighting with a vibro-ax seems perfectly doable too.

Darth Maul can use kicks while using a double lightsaber. Having a character use a knee or headbutt while doing close-in fighting with a vibro-ax seems perfectly doable too.

I think if my players wanted to land an unarmed attack while wielding a 2-handed weapon, instead of using the two-weapon fighting ability, I would simply make that a normal unarmed attack. Mechanically, you'll be better off using your normal weapon for that action, instead of an unarmed attack.

Right, got a reply from Sam Stewart. Summarised conclusions below:

Well, that answers that I withdraw my beef.

That said, as he points out it is left open to interpretation, so that means that if you feel its "wrong" or doesn't fit, then by all means, there is nothing stopping you from disallowing it, I mean he specified that it was open for interpretation, and in that light it would be allowed, but I assume it could also be disallowed.

Edit: Just to add Sam's written question so you can read it yourself:

Yes. You can use brawl weapons with two weapon fighting, trading the increase in difficulty for the possibility of a second hit [...] [d]ue to the narrative nature of the game, unarmed combat is left deliberately open to interpretation. Unarmed combat is intended to represent any number of fighting moves and styles, from the Star Wars equivalent of kung fu to their version of MMA to the general drunken cantina brawl. That being said, if a player wants to trade accuracy for a flurry of blows (by "two weapon fighting" with their hands), then in general there's no reason this shouldn't happen. It provides an interesting tactical choice for someone who wants to go "melee" heavy, and in general, the increased difficulty is going to increase the risks of failing outright (or just not generating the extra advantage needed).

Right, got a reply from Sam Stewart. Summarised conclusions below:

1) You can use Brawl weapons with two-weapon fighting.

2) Brawl is intentionally open to interpretation, but yes you can use it with the two-weapon fighting rules as a kind of "flurry of blows". Sam does point out the increased chance of failure doing this however.

3) Therefore you can also use two-weapon fighting for a knife and fist/foot attack.

Based on "3)" then you could use Brawl to kick while also wielding a two-handed weapon allowing two-weapon combat with the joy of a vibro-ax!

I'd agree. Sam's specific answer to this question didn't consider two-handed weapons, but his answer could imply that you're right in your interpretation/assumption.

Here's Sam's written answer:

In the spirit of the previous answer ... you could two-weapon fight with a sword and your fist. Keep in mind, of course, that two weapon fighting becomes very punitive as soon as you start branching out into multiple skills. To make this effective, the character must buy up equal ranks in both combat skills, since he always has to use the worst of the two. However, if a character is willing to dedicate his XP to developing this, it could be a very interesting narrative fighting style, and really memorable as well.

So I agree with you, even if he doesn't specify two-handed weapons, mainly because of his last sentence about a narrative and memorable fighting style. Which seems to be the foundation upon which this system and game is based.

That said, and as Sam points out, the two-weapon fighting has penalties that can be harsh, use worst characteristic/skill and increase difficulty. Just in light of that I think it should be allowed for those that want to invest in it.

For balance purposes, I'd treat any attempts at two-weapon fighting with a two-handed weapon (Rifle butt, vibro-ax haft, etc) as Inferior . It makes sense that a character good do certain things, but if your weapon isn't designed for that use (like a quarterstaff would be), chances are greater for things to go wrong.

And of course I'd need a very creatively narrated attempt from the player in question.

Darth Maul can use kicks while using a double lightsaber. Having a character use a knee or headbutt while doing close-in fighting with a vibro-ax seems perfectly doable too.

In any case, it's spelled out in RAW that you can't (must be Ranged-Light or a one-handed weapon). I suppose if you allowed it you have to upgrade the difficulty, plus both attacks use the worse of your Brawl or Melee skill. But what's to stop the next cheese-seeking player from saying his boots have spring-loaded daggers in the sole, or he has metal-sheathed pointy elbows, or a helmet with a unicorn horn, so he gets to use the Melee skill for both? Where does it end?

Darth Maul can use kicks while using a double lightsaber. Having a character use a knee or headbutt while doing close-in fighting with a vibro-ax seems perfectly doable too.

It doesn't mean he did them in the same turn. He chose to use Brawl to kick Obiwan over the catwalk, getting a Knockdown, but that was it for the turn. I wouldn't have a problem with a player shifting skills like that across turns, though I might be tempted to upgrade the difficulty.

In any case, it's spelled out in RAW that you can't (must be Ranged-Light or a one-handed weapon). I suppose if you allowed it you have to upgrade the difficulty, plus both attacks use the worse of your Brawl or Melee skill. But what's to stop the next cheese-seeking player from saying his boots have spring-loaded daggers in the sole, or he has metal-sheathed pointy elbows, or a helmet with a unicorn horn, so he gets to use the Melee skill for both? Where does it end?

As for all of the examples you give, they sound like Brawl weapons to me in the same fashion as brass knuckles.

You forgot my kneepads of allure.

Now you cannot refuse my use of the unicorn helm in Melee.

It doesn't mean he did them in the same turn. He chose to use Brawl to kick Obiwan over the catwalk, getting a Knockdown, but that was it for the turn. I wouldn't have a problem with a player shifting skills like that across turns, though I might be tempted to upgrade the difficulty.

In any case, it's spelled out in RAW that you can't (must be Ranged-Light or a one-handed weapon). I suppose if you allowed it you have to upgrade the difficulty, plus both attacks use the worse of your Brawl or Melee skill. But what's to stop the next cheese-seeking player from saying his boots have spring-loaded daggers in the sole, or he has metal-sheathed pointy elbows, or a helmet with a unicorn horn, so he gets to use the Melee skill for both? Where does it end?

I would go with this interpretation. You can't use a two handed weapon to two weapon fight unless the weapon is some sort of double weapon. For those of you who want to swing a vibro-axe and kick at the same time. I call foul.

I dare you.

Get and axe (or better a splitting maul) and go into your backyard (or some other place away from people and breakable things) and swing the axe while standing on one leg. Please capture video and post to YouTube so the rest of us can laugh at you.

Swinging any large heavy object is about balance and footwork. You can't do it effectively without both legs planted. Any player who argues that his fun trumps the groups' immersion is someone who needs a timeout. No playing with the group until head is removed from sphincter.

Meh, cinematics, style and awesomesauce, with a good (and creative) narration of how to execute it, I'd allow them to try, but slap on the Inferior quality for the attempt (i.e. 1 auto-threat ... and whatever else?). Cool ideas, narrations and awesomesauce trumps strict and rigid interpretations of the rules any day.... well... most days... thing is, the penalties for going melee/brawl in itself is going to be pretty bad (use lowest rank), increase difficulty (twice perhaps? there's something about more than one increase I think, unless that was one of the beta-attempts for an earlier fix)... that's at least a Hard attack plus upgrades, plus melee defence... with 1 auto threat, to potentially, gain brawn+successes additional damage. I cannot understand why this should be a problem, from a cool-factor perspective nor a balance perspective... from "realism" ... perhaps, but this is Star Wars, who care about realism?

... but this is Star Wars, who care about realism?

I've always found that a cop-out argument. People's immersion is heavily dependent upon being able to expect certain things to conform to "real" expectations. We expect most of the laws of physics and gravity, and any variances are locked away inside magic black-box devices: starship drives and gravity generators, blaster and lightsaber energy cells, droid brains, etc. Even the Force is barely more than "what if all those stories of ESP and telekinetics were true". So, saying "I can do anything because it's not real anyway" entirely misses the point. It destroys the immersion.

I think it is more important for Star Wars to conform to how things work in movies. So fighters fly like Mustangs and Spitfires from war movies, Jedi fight like Samurai in samurai movies and gunslingers fast draw like gunslingers in cowboy movies.

Also these days video games. An average roleplayer will have played far more Call of Duty than they will have spent time being actually shot at, so something that conforms to how things work in CoD will actually be more familiar to them than something more realistic.

Or, the expectations you are conforming to are set by Max Payne 3:-

I'd disagree. You have expectations sure, but the level of realism would vary a lot, and I think, based on the nature of the Star Wars universe that certain of the "real" expectations are poorly placed. It's not a cop-out argument, its a style of gaming, fantasy and imagining a different world, for immersion, escaping the real world for a break, to have fun, be heroic and awesome.

Because, I wonder, where do you decide where the "line" between what is ok for a fantasy game, and what is to be expected using real world criteria. This is more or less arbitrary and heavily dependant upon each group. You say we expect most laws of physics and gravity, except where those do not fit in with the setting. When we play computers games we have similar expectations, but they are modified by the rules and laws within the setting we immerse ourselves. Why not so with roleplaying games? We read about it in books and comics, see it in films and tv-shows, play it in computers games.

What is so unnatural, unrealistic and problematic about letting someone with a two-handed vibro-axe also try to attack with the other end (for bludgeoning damage) or a roundhouse kick as part of the swing? The penalties would discourage most to do it, and if the player has invested XP for that style of fighting, shouldn't they be allowed? Does this really break the immersion so completely if someone is performing feats that are extreme by real world standards, but not impossible? For anyone to succeed such a manoeuvre, and be remotely effective, depends a lot upon luck, or serious investment of XP in skill ranks, and some pretty high characteristic(s).

What is so unnatural, unrealistic and problematic about letting someone with a two-handed vibro-axe also try to attack with the other end (for bludgeoning damage) or a roundhouse kick as part of the swing?

I'm not quibbling over that level of specificity, only the statement "who cares about realism". I certainly do, so do my players. Of course we'll each decide for ourselves what level of realism we want to adhere to. My bar is pretty high, given the context. Surely you draw your own lines somewhere. So why are you suggesting that the rest of us shouldn't care?

You have expectations sure, but the level of realism would vary a lot, and I think, based on the nature of the Star Wars universe that certain of the "real" expectations are poorly placed. It's not a cop-out argument, its a style of gaming, fantasy and imagining a different world, for immersion, escaping the real world for a break, to have fun, be heroic and awesome.

"heroic and awesome" will mean different things to different play groups. If I allowed what you're suggesting, my play group would lose interest. They want something they can relate to (ie: cowboys in space), not something to have anime fantasies about. It was risky enough getting them to try this game because of the setting, but I've kept everything pretty low key and they love it so far.

I'm not suggesting you shouldn't care, I'm just stating that this will vary and that it doesn't hurt to be open to more generous options and possibilities, because it can enhance the game, as well as making it boring of course. I do have difficulty to understand why two-weapon fighting is such a game breaker though.

Going full on MMA and dirty fighting isn't anime anymore than swords of engergy, blaster pistols, moving things with your mind, seeing the future or travelling faster than light really. I'd say two-weapon fighting comes a long way down on that list.

So "realism" becomes moot point in a fantasy game really, not to say that some sort of "realism" is desired, but I'd not call it realism, I'd call it plausibility structures, internal logic and consistency, rather than "realism", because it has little to nothing to do with that. It can certainly resemble it, be based on it, but its not "realism" as such.

So in the end, do as you want, but naming a thread "Get rid of dual-wielding, please" will get you reactions and suggestions for why and how this is not necessarily such an issue, put it into different perspectives. Not that you need to listen to it of course, but the game does open for it, it is intentionally open to interpretation in many areas, just so that some would allow two-weapon fighting with your fists, and others wouldn't - neither is illegal. Going the next step and allow two-weapon fighting with a vibro-axe and your knees/steel-capped boots (while also adding more penalties) isn't unnatural, unrealistic or anime-style crazy. I doubt anyone would want to try it, but why disallow it for the moron who'd like to try? So, I guess my stance is more on openness for this, than encouraging it in play, but I'm against restrictive and "no"-game mastering.

As with any RPG system... use "house rules" to benefit your style of game play.

It's just that simple.

-=troll out!=-

I'm not suggesting you shouldn't care, I'm just stating that this will vary and that it doesn't hurt to be open to more generous options and possibilities, because it can enhance the game, as well as making it boring of course. I do have difficulty to understand why two-weapon fighting is such a game breaker though.

Going full on MMA and dirty fighting isn't anime anymore than swords of engergy, blaster pistols, moving things with your mind, seeing the future or travelling faster than light really. I'd say two-weapon fighting comes a long way down on that list.

So "realism" becomes moot point in a fantasy game really, not to say that some sort of "realism" is desired, but I'd not call it realism, I'd call it plausibility structures, internal logic and consistency, rather than "realism", because it has little to nothing to do with that. It can certainly resemble it, be based on it, but its not "realism" as such.

So in the end, do as you want, but naming a thread "Get rid of dual-wielding, please" will get you reactions and suggestions for why and how this is not necessarily such an issue, put it into different perspectives. Not that you need to listen to it of course, but the game does open for it, it is intentionally open to interpretation in many areas, just so that some would allow two-weapon fighting with your fists, and others wouldn't - neither is illegal. Going the next step and allow two-weapon fighting with a vibro-axe and your knees/steel-capped boots (while also adding more penalties) isn't unnatural, unrealistic or anime-style crazy. I doubt anyone would want to try it, but why disallow it for the moron who'd like to try? So, I guess my stance is more on openness for this, than encouraging it in play, but I'm against restrictive and "no"-game mastering.

Yup, verisimilitude will vary by playing group and is the reason house rules were born.

It doesn't mean he did them in the same turn. He chose to use Brawl to kick Obiwan over the catwalk, getting a Knockdown, but that was it for the turn. I wouldn't have a problem with a player shifting skills like that across turns, though I might be tempted to upgrade the difficulty.

In any case, it's spelled out in RAW that you can't (must be Ranged-Light or a one-handed weapon). I suppose if you allowed it you have to upgrade the difficulty, plus both attacks use the worse of your Brawl or Melee skill. But what's to stop the next cheese-seeking player from saying his boots have spring-loaded daggers in the sole, or he has metal-sheathed pointy elbows, or a helmet with a unicorn horn, so he gets to use the Melee skill for both? Where does it end?

I would go with this interpretation. You can't use a two handed weapon to two weapon fight unless the weapon is some sort of double weapon. For those of you who want to swing a vibro-axe and kick at the same time. I call foul.

I dare you.

Get and axe (or better a splitting maul) and go into your backyard (or some other place away from people and breakable things) and swing the axe while standing on one leg. Please capture video and post to YouTube so the rest of us can laugh at you.

Swinging any large heavy object is about balance and footwork. You can't do it effectively without both legs planted. Any player who argues that his fun trumps the groups' immersion is someone who needs a timeout. No playing with the group until head is removed from sphincter.

With your example, try throwing a punch while standing on one foot. Try swinging a pair of swords a the same moment. Both simply don't work if you try to treat them as some sort of a Linked weapon.

How about trying it the way I suggested? An Action is more than a single attack, so rather than trying to swing the axe while on one foot, consider mixing in knee/elbow strikes, trips/sweeps, and headbutts in during an exchange while wielding an axe. It's not as unrealistic as you make it sound. IRL, techniques for doing so exist for greatsword combat, and a good fighter could adapt them to other two-handed weapons.

Darth Maul can use kicks while using a double lightsaber. Having a character use a knee or headbutt while doing close-in fighting with a vibro-ax seems perfectly doable too.

I think if my players wanted to land an unarmed attack while wielding a 2-handed weapon, instead of using the two-weapon fighting ability, I would simply make that a normal unarmed attack. Mechanically, you'll be better off using your normal weapon for that action, instead of an unarmed attack.

You could also have them spend some Advantages to inflict Strain upon an enemy. As Strain can be suffered from bludgeoning damage (kicks, punches, etc), it'd be fitting to detail an attacker getting in a sneaky punch, headbutt or kick during his assault.

Darth Maul can use kicks while using a double lightsaber. Having a character use a knee or headbutt while doing close-in fighting with a vibro-ax seems perfectly doable too.

I think if my players wanted to land an unarmed attack while wielding a 2-handed weapon, instead of using the two-weapon fighting ability, I would simply make that a normal unarmed attack. Mechanically, you'll be better off using your normal weapon for that action, instead of an unarmed attack.

You could also have them spend some Advantages to inflict Strain upon an enemy. As Strain can be suffered from bludgeoning damage (kicks, punches, etc), it'd be fitting to detail an attacker getting in a sneaky punch, headbutt or kick during his assault.

Good call. I like this.

With your example, try throwing a punch while standing on one foot. Try swinging a pair of swords a the same moment. Both simply don't work if you try to treat them as some sort of a Linked weapon.

How about trying it the way I suggested? An Action is more than a single attack, so rather than trying to swing the axe while on one foot, consider mixing in knee/elbow strikes, trips/sweeps, and headbutts in during an exchange while wielding an axe. It's not as unrealistic as you make it sound. IRL, techniques for doing so exist for greatsword combat, and a good fighter could adapt them to other two-handed weapons.

They exist in quantity for greatsword primarily because it's practically useless inside 4'.

There are plenty of similar techniques for rapier as well - but again, because, close in, it's pretty worthless - and it's a 1-hand weapon. (The modern 42" practical rapier is a short rapier by historical standards - 60" are not unheard of, and 72" examples have been found. And still, the engagement range for a 42" rapier is 4'-7'; up to 12' for a fleche.)

Kicking is a desperation move in melee. So are elbow strikes. Mostly because they're risky as hell. Now, stomping on an opponent's foot has some practical use, especially if one has hard soles and they don't have rigid topped boots nor sabatons. (Again, not allowed in most reenactment groups - because it can cripple the victim. But in the period manuals.)