Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ref

Can you do Dual wielding unarmed?

Recommended Posts

Think of Donnie Yen's signature moves, his triple jump kick. Or when a brawler grabs one guy and follows an armbar up with bashing his face against the wall. As said above, a combat round can be anything from 3 seconds to 3 minutes. They aren't standing in front of one another looking lovingly into each other eyes then swing once. No way

In my games I don't see it a lot, how often are you in engaged range of more than one opponent? Range attacks make sense, but melee combat has to be setup right to take advantage of it. Thats the gm's job.

And don't just think of 2 light sabers, or just 2 pistols. Imagine blocking with a lightsaber while shooting a pistol in the other hand. Or sweeping with your legs to trip the enemy then following it up with that huge 2h tree stump of a table leg before he even hits the floor. Twc is like technology, it's not useful till you find a use for it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You don't see a contradiction between a round of brawl being an abstract minute of unarmed boxing / attempts to strike your opponent and specifically deciding you want to try and punch someone with each hand? The contradiction as already explained is that it is mixing a weirdly specific fighting move into the framework of something highly abstract. Whether you regard it as a problem is up to you, but it is a pretty clear statement and the contradiction is there.

 

No I don't see a contradiction. TWC doesn't represent attempting to attack twice but doing damage twice. So you Brawl for a minute but you only land two real punches that do damage. The rest were either blocked or didn't connect hard enough. No contradiction exist. This operates the exact same way that TWC fighting works for weapons.

 

 

As to why people might regard Brawl differently to say, two lightsabres, is because that would change how you fight significantly. It is easy to imagine that with a second lightsabre it is easier to block (defensive qualities stack, for instance) or that with two blasters you can walk forward raining down twice as many rounds even though your individual aim might be weaker. But it is bizarre to think that unless someone uses "dual-wielding" they are boxing with only one hand. That is why "no-one thinks twice" about the others - because dual-wielding reflects something other than the norm which we expect the rules to provide some special provision for; and conversely why people DO think twice about dual-wielding your fists.

 

The thing is they aren't boxing with just one hand. TWC just represents doing real harm with both hands. If you don't TWC then what really happens is that you were throwing punches and only one punch did any real harm to the person. All the others were blows that the person could easily absorb. It's really bizzaree that it trips people up only for fist when the abstraction for boxing works on the exact same logic as for two pistols. If you're holding two pistols you're not just firing one shot that lands. You're firing off a volley of shots from both guns, one of which lands and does damage. Two shots land and do damage if you succed at a TWC roll. Same thing with punching.

 

TWC isn't like dual wielding from say D&D where each attempt represents just a single one attack. The attack roll from a single attack is meant to represent a bunch of different stuff. So even if you don't TWC with Brawling you're still tossing more than one punch. But only one of the many punches you throw does real damage. If you TWC then two of the many you throw do real damage.

 

It's abstract. Try not to overthink it.

Edited by Kael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I'm reading this, and realized that the generator doesn't let you two-weapon unarmed with itself.  So... you'll be able to do this now in the next release :)  And while I was at it, I fixed an issue with innate weapons not updating properly when you change shown, held, equipped, etc., multiple times.  And... when innate weapons were recreated, it wasn't transferring over things like notes or a rename, from the old weapon (innate weapons are re-created when the character is updated, since species unarmed abilities, or items that contain innate weapons, may have changed).  Fixed those, too.  So you should be able to rename your Unarmed weapon to "Fists of Steel" and have it take properly :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Along this same line of thinking... what would happen if you had a two handed weapon equipped? Could you make a second attack by following the same increase in difficulty?

 

Note that I'm not advocating either way - this is an open question.

 

I realize that two handed melee weapons have inherently larger damage output than one handed weapons (which could be argued as being sufficient), but I can also see the argument that in this system a Brawl attack = a Melee attack (rules wise).

 

If the abstract nature of a combat round allows a Brawl attack to increase damage output through TWC, a one handed Melee attack to increase damage output through TWC (when two weapons are equipped), a Ranged attack to increase damage output through TWC (ignoring autofire for this argument) (when two weapons are equipped), then why NOT increase damage output with a two handed weapon the same way?

 

It's just different narration...

 

(TWC = two weapon combat, as per one of the comments above)

 

Discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, first in FFGSW an Attack Action is not necessarily a single discreet blow/swing/shot  it can be but it's generally multiple blows/swings/shots and a Successful Attack Roll represents the outcome of those. A Success can mean landing one solid hit or multiple smaller grazes, it's irrelevant to the mechanic, only a Critical is an actual singular event. So let get back to the basics here and remember to let go of ones experience in other RPG combat systems where attack rolls mean individual, discreet actions.

Second, the other problem I'm seeing is that people are confusing Two Weapon Combat with Two Attacks, it's not two attacks it's one Attack Action using two weapons. This isn't a semantic argument it actually means two different things mechanically. You are only Attacking once just with two weapons..

 

In FFGSW RAW you cannot take two Actions in a single Combat Turn and Attack is an Action. Two Weapon Combat is one of the ways to allow multiple attacks within the system (Auto-Fire and Linked are others). In Two Weapon Combat you give up some accuracy (increased Difficulty and a required number of Advantages) for more Damage, Auto-Fire works the same way, and Linked works pretty much the same way except there is no added Difficulty. You basically pull a John Woo on your target throwing down a twice as many shots or in the OP's case a flurry of blows, in the hopes of doing more damage.
 

Edited by FuriousGreg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Along this same line of thinking... what would happen if you had a two handed weapon equipped? Could you make a second attack by following the same increase in difficulty?

 

Note that I'm not advocating either way - this is an open question.

 

I realize that two handed melee weapons have inherently larger damage output than one handed weapons (which could be argued as being sufficient), but I can also see the argument that in this system a Brawl attack = a Melee attack (rules wise).

 

If the abstract nature of a combat round allows a Brawl attack to increase damage output through TWC, a one handed Melee attack to increase damage output through TWC (when two weapons are equipped), a Ranged attack to increase damage output through TWC (ignoring autofire for this argument) (when two weapons are equipped), then why NOT increase damage output with a two handed weapon the same way?

 

It's just different narration...

 

(TWC = two weapon combat, as per one of the comments above)

 

Discuss.

 

I could be wrong but I think when using a two handed weapon to use the other side the weapon needs Linked, ie the double lightsabre. I could be wrong though. But I'm not sure if this game has a lot of two handed weapons. The double bladed lightsabre is honestly the only weapon that comes to mind. 

 

 

punch, punch, kick, kick, elbow, elbow, knee, knee and head butt. I'm going to need a lot more dice....

 

Also couldn't you use 2 pistols then kick someone? or use a vibro axe then kick etc?

 

You could in fact be holding two pistols and opt to kick. But you can't hit with two pistols and then kick in the same round. You would have to choose between using the second pistol and using your feet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Along this same line of thinking... what would happen if you had a two handed weapon equipped? Could you make a second attack by following the same increase in difficulty?

 

Note that I'm not advocating either way - this is an open question.

 

I realize that two handed melee weapons have inherently larger damage output than one handed weapons (which could be argued as being sufficient), but I can also see the argument that in this system a Brawl attack = a Melee attack (rules wise).

 

If the abstract nature of a combat round allows a Brawl attack to increase damage output through TWC, a one handed Melee attack to increase damage output through TWC (when two weapons are equipped), a Ranged attack to increase damage output through TWC (ignoring autofire for this argument) (when two weapons are equipped), then why NOT increase damage output with a two handed weapon the same way?

 

It's just different narration...

 

(TWC = two weapon combat, as per one of the comments above)

 

Discuss.

 

I could be wrong but I think when using a two handed weapon to use the other side the weapon needs Linked, ie the double lightsabre. I could be wrong though. But I'm not sure if this game has a lot of two handed weapons. The double bladed lightsabre is honestly the only weapon that comes to mind. 

 

 

punch, punch, kick, kick, elbow, elbow, knee, knee and head butt. I'm going to need a lot more dice....

 

Also couldn't you use 2 pistols then kick someone? or use a vibro axe then kick etc?

 

You could in fact be holding two pistols and opt to kick. But you can't hit with two pistols and then kick in the same round. You would have to choose between using the second pistol and using your feet. 

 

There's a cap on the number of attacks you're allowed to make?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

There's a cap on the number of attacks you're allowed to make?

There is a cap on the number of Attack Rolls you can make and it's one.
 
I think you are still missing an important concept of the game mechanic and are confusing Two Weapon Combat with Two Attacks, it's not two attacks it's one Attack Action using two weapons.
 
Edited by FuriousGreg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Along this same line of thinking... what would happen if you had a two handed weapon equipped? Could you make a second attack by following the same increase in difficulty?

 

Note that I'm not advocating either way - this is an open question.

 

I realize that two handed melee weapons have inherently larger damage output than one handed weapons (which could be argued as being sufficient), but I can also see the argument that in this system a Brawl attack = a Melee attack (rules wise).

 

If the abstract nature of a combat round allows a Brawl attack to increase damage output through TWC, a one handed Melee attack to increase damage output through TWC (when two weapons are equipped), a Ranged attack to increase damage output through TWC (ignoring autofire for this argument) (when two weapons are equipped), then why NOT increase damage output with a two handed weapon the same way?

 

It's just different narration...

 

(TWC = two weapon combat, as per one of the comments above)

 

Discuss.

I agree. This is essentially what I was getting at. If combat is non-abstract enough that you can choose whether you are fighting unarmed with "one weapon" or with "two weapons", even though in both cases you are simply fighting with both fists as normal, why can you not do the same with a single sword? When you mix abstraction levels in a game system, you always get issues like this. It's a natural consequence of mixing them.

However, I just got posts from people telling me how I should be thinking of it / how to make the description work. They missed my point. You have raised the same issue as me, however. Personally, I do not allow unarmed combat to count as dual-wielding for this reason. I already assume that a person with a single weapon or unarmed is doing their best to land as many and as damaging blows as possible. I consider dual-wielding to be useful for capturing when weapons have different or additive qualities. E.g. a defensive sword and a longer, striking one; a pistol and a sabre; two pistols allowing a greater rate of fire than one; and other such cases.

Edited by knasserII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 I consider dual-wielding to be useful for capturing when weapons have different or additive qualities. E.g. a defensive sword and a longer, striking one; a pistol and a sabre; two pistols allowing a greater rate of fire than one; and other such cases. 

 

I think this right here highlights why you're having a problem. You are adding something to the rules that it wasn't designed with. TWC is simply designed to handle doing damage twice with weapons in different hands. If you add in things like it's supposed to be used when there are different weapon qualities then you start thinking in a way that misses how the rule itself was designed. You've started to overthink the problem which is causing other problems to occur. The reason why you can't do two attacks with a single sword is because it's still a single weapon and therefore falls under the combat of single weapon use. Two fist are counted as two weapons in the same way that two pistols are counted as two weapons. A single sword is still a singular weapon.

 

I really think you're trying to overthinking the abstraction here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 I consider dual-wielding to be useful for capturing when weapons have different or additive qualities. E.g. a defensive sword and a longer, striking one; a pistol and a sabre; two pistols allowing a greater rate of fire than one; and other such cases. 

 

I think this right here highlights why you're having a problem. You are adding something to the rules that it wasn't designed with. TWC is simply designed to handle doing damage twice with weapons in different hands. If you add in things like it's supposed to be used when there are different weapon qualities then you start thinking in a way that misses how the rule itself was designed. You've started to overthink the problem which is causing other problems to occur. The reason why you can't do two attacks with a single sword is because it's still a single weapon and therefore falls under the combat of single weapon use. Two fist are counted as two weapons in the same way that two pistols are counted as two weapons. A single sword is still a singular weapon.

 

I really think you're trying to overthinking the abstraction here.

 

to attack twice with 1 weapon you need to use something like saber swarm or sarlac sweep...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are really starting to take this topic a little too personally for a topic that was answered right away.... Personal thoughts on the system aside; TWC works with unarmed and the Devs have already stated that. End of line.

It's an abstract system designed to cram attacks with fists, feet, knees, head, elbows, shoulders, hips, blasters, knives, swords, lightsabers, rifles, and much much more into one roll of combat. Sometimes two or more with the right actions/talents. Even not rolling at all doesn't mean your character isn't attacking. It just means mechanically his/her attacks aren't affecting the narrative. That's how the system is, that's how it always has been, and that's what the dev team was going for so I doubt it will change. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other great game systems that do really well at capturing the tactical and semi-realistic combat simulation you are itching for and they are easilly accessible and their cores are pretty dirt cheap if you don't look for the flawless pretty ones.

 

 

Side note, even D&D (after Dev clarification) allowed you to use TWF completely unarmed, with a sword and fist, staff and kick, etc. Even Monks could TWF during a Flurry of Blows. This is nothing new. The human body is a swiss army knife of striking surfaces, not just one trick pony Mr Fisto.

Edited by OfficerZan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

to attack twice with 1 weapon you need to use something like saber swarm or sarlac sweep...

 

 

Yes but that's a singular weapon with special abilities to allow for an exception to the rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I consider dual-wielding to be useful for capturing when weapons have different or additive qualities. E.g. a defensive sword and a longer, striking one; a pistol and a sabre; two pistols allowing a greater rate of fire than one; and other such cases. 

I think this right here highlights why you're having a problem. You are adding something to the rules that it wasn't designed with. TWC is simply designed to handle doing damage twice with weapons in different hands. If you add in things like it's supposed to be used when there are different weapon qualities then you start thinking in a way that misses how the rule itself was designed. You've started to overthink the problem which is causing other problems to occur. The reason why you can't do two attacks with a single sword is because it's still a single weapon and therefore falls under the combat of single weapon use. Two fist are counted as two weapons in the same way that two pistols are counted as two weapons. A single sword is still a singular weapon.

 

I really think you're trying to overthinking the abstraction here.

But I'm not having a problem. Everytime I post you tell me I am and how I need to think about dual-wielding. Oddly, you don't seem to be able to recognize a position other than your own as a valid one. I will, yet again, explain, this time paring it down to the bare bones:

EotE provides an abstract combat system where a round can be a minute long and where that should be interpreted as someone trying their best to beat their opponent in whatever normal ways are available, rather than trying to say "this is a kick", "this is a punch", etc. as some older rules systems were wont to do. This is quick, can be flavoured well by GM and players and works. The EotE system ALSO provides a handy way of representing the results of slightly odder ways of fighting - such as a pistol and a knife, lightsabres with different qualities, etc. Having the rules for such cases on top of the more usual case is useful because, for example, whether you damage someone with a knife or a pistol might make a difference.

So put the two together and you have a nice and elegant approach - one that is quick and abstract normally but also contains a quick way of handling more complex scenarios without people feeling fun details have been lost.

All this is fine. Now you CAN back-port the second approach to the first if you wish, but I don't. - And this is not, despite Kael's repeated insistence, because I need help with this; nor do I do it because the concept of hitting someone twice is mind-blowingly difficult for me to comprehend as they seem to believe. I avoid it simply because I do not like mixing different levels of abstraction which leads to oddities. Normal combat rolls for unarmed ALREADY represent someone fighting with both hands and trying to land as many damaging blows as possible. There is no need to apply more complexity to it than that in a system like EotE. So I don't.

I fail to see what is unintuitive about my approach or why every time I give it, Kael feels obliged to tell me I have problems understanding things or wishes to "help" me understand what abstraction is.

Hopefully this fourth time of explaining, it might be accepted that I actually know what I'm talking about and have a supported position on this?

Edited by knasserII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 I avoid it simply because I do not like mixing different levels of abstraction which leads to oddities. Normal combat rolls for unarmed ALREADY represent someone fighting with both hands and trying to land as many damaging blows as possible. 

 

Except the Devs have already said it doesn't and that to represent damage from multiple hits in Brawl you use TWC in the same fashion that it would for pistols. 

 

 

 

I fail to see what is unintuitive about my approach or why every time I give it, Kael feels obliged to tell me I have problems understanding things or wishes to "help" me understand what abstraction is.

 

Look dude you're the one that came to me first. You quoted me, opened up a line of discussion, and sought out my opinion. If you didn't want to have the discussion then maybe you shouldn't have quoted me several times and engage in a conversation. You're the one that indicated that you did in fact have a problem. That you saw a contradiction with the way Brawl worked and how TWC works. Though why you're acting as if I was the only one to say you were over thinking it or that you were missing something is beyond me. But I'll be the bad guy if you really need me to be the bad guy. 

 

 

Hopefully this fourth time of explaining, it might be accepted that I actually know what I'm talking about and have a supported position on this?

 

 

You're the one who expressed you did not agree with the supported position of the game. If the Devs have already said that they intended for it to work with this particular skill I'm not sure what you're hoping to get support on. If you're asking if it's ok for you to do it differently then sure, no one is saying that at your table you can't do it differently. What has been said by myself and others in this thread though is that the positions of the rules is that Brawl works with TWC. Deviate from that at your leisure. 

Edited by Kael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, looks like you are insistent on trying to shoot down my position. So fifth time around, I guess. To your specific points:

 

I avoid it simply because I do not like mixing different levels of abstraction which leads to oddities. Normal combat rolls for unarmed ALREADY represent someone fighting with both hands and trying to land as many damaging blows as possible.

Except the Devs have already said it doesn't and that to represent damage from multiple hits in Brawl you use TWC in the same fashion that it would for pistols.

No, there is nothing that says a round of fighting which can be a minute long, represents a single "to hit" roll, a lá WH 1st Ed. or similar games. It is abstract. And you yourself gave the figure of a round being a minute earlier in the thread. It is stretching belief rather too far to think that in a minute of unarmed fighting there is one blow. It is similarly silly to suppose that each opponent would ever be fighting using only one arm. So a normal Brawl roll can and does represent normal brawling fighting over the course of a minute. The system both works fine that way and fits that interpretation quite normally. To argue that it represents a single blow and using only one arm - that is unintuitive and unsupported. There's nothing in the book that suggests this and I doubt that your "devs" have said such a thing either.

There's nothing wrong in the above and therefore no need or particular reason to have to use dual wielding to simulate normal unarmed combat. Indeed, the book gives simple brawl rolls as the way to normally handle unarmed combat. So either you accept that the non-dual wielding system represents normal unarmed combat, or you somehow think that normal unarmed combat involved a single blow and one-handed fighting. All this is straight-forward chain of logic.

You can use dual-wielding rules with unarmed combat if you wish, but that does not mean that regular unarmed combat rolls do not already represent fighting with both hands / legs / foreheads and do not represent multiple blows. Which is therefore a reason to keep to just using that because having different layers of abstraction for the same thing is prone to raising weird issues. If you already have a system that represents something well, don't complicate it by introducing a second system that represents the same thing differently.

 

I fail to see what is unintuitive about my approach or why every time I give it, Kael feels obliged to tell me I have problems understanding things or wishes to "help" me understand what abstraction is.

Look dude you're the one that came to me first. You quoted me, opened up a line of discussion, and sought out my opinion.

I didn't "come to you" for help. You posted something. I gave my own alternative approach. We differ and that is fine. But what you do is keep posting telling me how I need to think of things or telling me I have problems. I don't and the approach I take is clean, consistent with the rules and works nicely and intuitively. I do not have a problem here. If your only issue is that I am not doing things the way you do, then drop all the assertions about what I don't understand and just accept that there are other approaches allowed by the rules.

 

You're the one who expressed you did not agree with the supported position of the game. If the Devs have already said that they intended for it to work with this particular skill I'm not sure what you're hoping to get support on. If you're asking if it's ok for you to do it differently then sure, no one is saying that at your table you can't do it differently. What has been said by myself and others in this thread though is that the positions of the rules is that Brawl works with TWC. Deviate from that at your leisure.

I'm not asking for anything. I'm saying how I run things and that it fits with the rules and works well and is less prone to complications than mixing different levels of abstraction. You are welcome to disagree with that and I will happily debate it from now till 2020 if you want to keep it running that long. But I do think it reasonable to not simply be told how I need to change things or that I don't understand what I'm talking about. Which has been your response to each of my posts so far.

Edited by knasserII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, there's no need to argue to convince someone else to play your way or even to accept that your way is valid. Why does it matter what someone far away thinks of your play-style? Let's work together to keep the rule-based topics to RAW.

 

By RAW, as clarified by the Devs themselves, unarmed combat works with TWC. Fluff it as a thousand hits or two if you want, it's purely a mechanical effect that says you possibly landed two good blows instead of one for the trade off of higher difficulty. It was a balance decision not an, "is this a realistic combat simulation?" one. If it doesn't fit how you play, don't allow it. Now let's move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rule that a fist is a two-handed weapon.

 

Can you hold your own hand without having to use both? No? Case closed.

Why can't you punch and kick as a combo which is a real life move much like a sword and knife combo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 So either you accept that the non-dual wielding system represents normal unarmed combat, or you somehow think that normal unarmed combat involved a single blow and one-handed fighting. All this is straight-forward chain of logic.

 

As I explained before TWC in general represents more damage over time from different sources. So if I have two pistols out I'm firing both pistols. If I don't opt to use the TWC then the damage I roll comes from one. If I use TWC then the damage comes from both. But no matter what I fired both pistols. I'm not assuming that a person with two weapons is only striking with one. I'm assuming that only one of those weapons is doing any real harm unless you TWC. So this could apply to having two knives, or two lightsabres, or two of anything. You have two arms. I assume you are fighting with both. But unless you make a TWC roll you are only doing real harm from like a single solid strong punch. If you use TWC then you do harm from two solid punches. No matter what though the person was punching with both fist. Or kicking. Or however the character wants to describe it really. I'm using the same logic across the board, that TWC is more about the damage from multiple weapons than anything. If you're holding two weapons you're using both weapons, but if you're not making use of TWC only one of those weapons lands a solid hit. The other one does not. 

 

 

 

If your only issue is that I am not doing things the way you do, then drop all the assertions about what I don't understand and just accept that there are other approaches allowed by the rules.

 

I never really care what people personally do at their tables. Not my game, not my problem. But it doesn't mean that if I'm discussing something with someone that I won't feel that they aren't seeing it right or that they are missing something or that they maybe are overthinking it (of which I was not the first or only person to suggest that). The point of a debate though is to sway the other person to your POV. If there is no chance that either side is changing then there is no real discussion occurring. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Devs say Two weapon rules are meant to work with brawl as well then if you are not allowing it in your games that's cool, but that is by definition a house rule and the post asked if it is allowed. So the answer by raw is it is allowed unless you house rule it isn't. It isn't over complicating it if it is the rules. If I'm a brawler pc and want to do two weapon combat in a game with a GM that doesn't allow it then the concept of my pc is not allowed when it clearly is means I will just play another concept or another gms game. I won't play a concept halfway if the concept works raw. Only tIme I would ever play a half way concept is if it's due to not enough xp or because the raw of a system doesn't allow for it.

Edited by Kilcannon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...