Forums of the Megaverse®

Could someone please explain ( like I am a five year old) exactly what benefit Paired Weapons gives to a character. When I read through all of the combat rules it seems to either contradict itself or not really provide any kind of benefit.

A character with Paired Weapons can essentially double their attack/actions in a melee round; parry with one weapon and simultaneous attack with the other; parry two attacks at once (one with each weapon), attack two foes on one attack (within range, strike and damage rolls for each weapon), or attack one foe with two weapons (strike and damage rolls for each weapon).

A character without Paired Weapons can have a weapon in each hand, but the off hand has a penalty and no bonuses, and the character has to choose which hand they intend to use, and only use one hand per attack/action. Where's your confusion?

MADMANMIKE wrote:A character with Paired Weapons can essentially double their attack/actions in a melee round; parry with one weapon and simultaneous attack with the other; parry two attacks at once (one with each weapon), attack two foes on one attack (within range, strike and damage rolls for each weapon), or attack one foe with two weapons (strike and damage rolls for each weapon).

A character without Paired Weapons can have a weapon in each hand, but the off hand has a penalty and no bonuses, and the character has to choose which hand they intend to use, and only use one hand per attack/action. Where's your confusion?

The rule books say all of these things but the problem is any character that chooses a hand-to-hand skill can attempt to parry any incoming melee attack that they are aware of and then attack with that same weapon when it is their turn.

I haven't found anywhere in any of the books a penalty for parrying and attacking with the same weapon or a rule that says you cannot do it.

I realize that my question was a little poorly worded because I am aware of the obvious ability to attack two targets simultaneously but it also implies that if you use both weapons to attack that you cannot parry with them.

I guess the real question is does attacking/parrying with one weapon negate your ability to attack/parry the next attack also?

Jarethellenin wrote:Could someone please explain ( like I am a five year old) exactly what benefit Paired Weapons gives to a character. When I read through all of the combat rules it seems to either contradict itself or not really provide any kind of benefit.

1. If you have a weapon in each hand then PAIRED WEAPONS lets you try to hit the bad guy with both weapons at the same time, if you want to, and the bad guy can only try to block one of those weapons. But if you do that then you can't try to block any bad guy's next attack.

2. If you only try to hit the bad guy with ONE of the weapons and the bad guy tries to immediately hit you back, then PAIRED WEAPONS lets you try to block the bad guy's attack.

3. If a bad guy tries to hit you with their weapon, with PAIRED WEAPONS you can try to block that weapon and immediately try to hit them back - if you do that then they can't try to block your attack!

4. Remember the first thing I said, where you could hit ONE bad guy with both weapons? Well with PAIRED WEAPONS you can also try to hit TWO bad guys at once instead of just one. You pick a weapon and try to hit the first bad guy with it. Then with the other weapon and try to hit the other bad guy. Each bad guy can try to block, though. And if you do this then you can't try to block any bad guy's next attack.

I hope this clears things up.

Jarethellenin wrote:

MADMANMIKE wrote:A character with Paired Weapons can essentially double their attack/actions in a melee round; parry with one weapon and simultaneous attack with the other; parry two attacks at once (one with each weapon), attack two foes on one attack (within range, strike and damage rolls for each weapon), or attack one foe with two weapons (strike and damage rolls for each weapon).

A character without Paired Weapons can have a weapon in each hand, but the off hand has a penalty and no bonuses, and the character has to choose which hand they intend to use, and only use one hand per attack/action. Where's your confusion?

The rule books say all of these things but the problem is any character that chooses a hand-to-hand skill can attempt to parry any incoming melee attack that they are aware of and then attack with that same weapon when it is their turn.

I haven't found anywhere in any of the books a penalty for parrying and attacking with the same weapon or a rule that says you cannot do it.

I realize that my question was a little poorly worded because I am aware of the obvious ability to attack two targets simultaneously but it also implies that if you use both weapons to attack that you cannot parry with them.

I guess the real question is does attacking/parrying with one weapon negate your ability to attack/parry the next attack also?

Paired Weapons limits your ability to parry. Everything you're reading about combat without Paired Weapons involved is accurate. Once the skill gets used, those rules in the skill which limit the character's ability to parry take precedence and supersede the "regular" parrying rules for as long as the character chooses to engage in the use of this skill.

Thanks to all of you who have replied. That is how I was interpreting the rules but some of my players were curious because of the vagaries of some of the wordage.

Glistam wrote:2. If you only try to hit the bad guy with ONE of the weapons and the bad guy tries to immediately hit you back, then PAIRED WEAPONS lets you try to block the bad guy's attack.

Just to clarify:

When you say he "tries to immediately hit you back", do you mean if he chooses to do a SIMULTANEOUS strike? If not and you mean you attack him, then on his initiative he attacks you, can't you just parry it anyway?

By immediate I meant simultaneous strike, yes. I was trying to keep it in the "5 year old" tone.

I don't see how this has become so convoluted. The confusion over parry is irrelevant. What you have is a free attack in the simul..

Example:

With Paired Weapons- someone attacks you, you parry with one weapon and simultaneously attack them back; if they don't have paired weapons, they cannot parry or dodge your simultaneous attack.

Without Paired Weapons: someone attacks you, you parry and have to wait until your initiative to attack back. Or you take damage from their attack and simultaneously attack them, in which case they can only parry your simultaneous attack if they have paired weapons and didn't attack you with both weapons.

See the difference? if you choose to parry and attack and there are multiple enemies attacking you, you cannot parry any more attacks before your turn in the cycle, that's the lost parry, but frankly it's a good trade off, since it doesn't use your next attack to simultaneously attack the guy attacking you. Paired Weapons gives you a free attack when you are attacked.

MADMANMIKE is 100% accurate in this.

With paired weapons, you can still parry attacks from 3 attackers as normal, but the added advantage beyond the ability to make two attacks per action is that you can simultaneously attack the opponent attacking you, AND parry their attack.

Basically, paired weapons allows you to hit twice as hard, and suffer less damage than someone without paired weapons.

I don't feel like I was clear enough, so I put together this example:

Player 1: 2 attacks per melee, paired weapons, initiative of 12
NPC 1: 2 attacks per melee, initiative of 18
NPC 2: 2 attacks per melee, initiative of 19

Combat begins; NPC 1 has a sword and a shield and swings his sword at Player 1. Player one has a sword and short sword, parries with the short sword and strikes NPC 1 with his sword.

NPC 2 has a two handed axe and swings at Player 1; Player 1, having lost the defense of his automatic parry by simultaneously attacking NPC 1, opts to go full monty and take the damage from the axe, simultaneously attacking with both sword and short sword.

Player 1 has the initiative, and chooses to to strike both NPCs at the same time, rolling two strikes, one for each weapon.

There, one full attack of a melee round, initiative rolls back to NPC 1, unless he decided to dodge Player 1's attack, which would use his other action and roll initiative to NPC 2.. All characters have only used one attack, but Player 1 has taken Paired Weapons and as a result has actually attempted five strikes and one parry!

Some people call paired weapons a game breaker, and without a good G.M., in a game where it devolves to numbers crunching without flavor, I can see the merits of that argument. But in my games, we always go for a cinematic feel, so Paired Weapons makes for some great swashbuckling. I've allowed a couple of players in my Aliens Unlimited game to pair a sword and pistol for great effect (although I'll admit our game will be a bit more like Ice Pirates than Star Wars)..

MADMANMIKE wrote:A character with Paired Weapons can essentially double their attack/actions in a melee round; parry with one weapon and simultaneous attack with the other;

That doesn't double the attacks, it simply negates the ability for non-paired people to defend, or enables you to defend against the same tactic.

This is an advantage for HTHless monsters who lack an automatic defense, of course, since they would normally spend an action to do it.

MADMANMIKE wrote:parry two attacks at once (one with each weapon)

This doesn't double anything. It's actually a relative step down for most people who get an auto-parry from their hand to hand since they can parry up to 3 opponents at once without even needing a WP skill.

The only defensive advantage to this tactic that I can see here is, like above, for monsters without HtH who lack an auto-defense.

MADMANMIKE wrote:attack two foes on one attack (within range, strike and damage rolls for each weapon), or attack one foe with two weapons (strike and damage rolls for each weapon).

This is really the only valid 'doubling' thing universally speaking. Although questionable if you have to give up an auto-parry (for people who lack autoparry, pretty much no disadvantage to using this technique since you lose nothing), super-advantageous if you have auto-dodge since you don't lose that, juicers love double-stab.

MADMANMIKE wrote:A character without Paired Weapons can have a weapon in each hand, but the off hand has a penalty and no bonuses, and the character has to choose which hand they intend to use, and only use one hand per attack/action.

Do you know where this is mentioned? I only recall off-hand penalties for paired firearms.

Glistam wrote:If you have a weapon in each hand then PAIRED WEAPONS lets you try to hit the bad guy with both weapons at the same time, if you want to, and the bad guy can only try to block one of those weapons.

I'm not entirely sure about this 'bad guy can only block 1' issue. I don't think the rules are expressedly clear about that being the case. I think this is instead an assumption we make when trying to interpret what the 'can parry 2 attacks' ability actually does, since it seems otherwise useless.

Glistam wrote:If you only try to hit the bad guy with ONE of the weapons and the bad guy tries to immediately hit you back, then PAIRED WEAPONS lets you try to block the bad guy's attack.

If by 'immediately' you mean 'simultaneous' then yes.

Glistam wrote:If a bad guy tries to hit you with their weapon, with PAIRED WEAPONS you can try to block that weapon and immediately try to hit them back - if you do that then they can't try to block your attack!

Unless of course they also have paired. Or if they have successfully used the strike/parry technique from N&SS (overriding a loss of auto-parry is pretty much the only use I can see in that technique...)

Glistam wrote:Paired Weapons limits your ability to parry. Everything you're reading about combat without Paired Weapons involved is accurate. Once the skill gets used, those rules in the skill which limit the character's ability to parry take precedence and supersede the "regular" parrying rules for as long as the character chooses to engage in the use of this skill.

This is something I never thought of until I saw people pointing it out on the forums a few months back, and I like it

Two goblins attack 1 guy wielding paired swords in same turn. He has to spend an action to parry them both. Three ther goblins attack 1 guy wielding a single staff. He spends no actions and can parry them both.

MADMANMIKE wrote:if you choose to parry and attack and there are multiple enemies attacking you, you cannot parry any more attacks before your turn in the cycle, that's the lost parry, but frankly it's a good trade off, since it doesn't use your next attack to simultaneously attack the guy attacking you. Paired Weapons gives you a free attack when you are attacked.

I'm not sure where you're getting this impression. Having an automatic parry does NOT mean that if you opt to simultaneously strike/parry with paired WP that the attack is free. It still costs an action. You don't get any extra attacks by using simultaneous strike/parry.

Even if you did though, it wouldn't necessarily be a good tradeoff to lose your auto-parry if you were against a huge group of opponents.

Dog_O_War wrote:you can still parry attacks from 3 attackers as normal, but the added advantage beyond the ability to make two attacks per action is that you can simultaneously attack the opponent attacking you, AND parry their attack.

This is not an 'added' advantage. Since you have to choose EITHER a dual strike OR a simultaneous strike/parry, it is an ALTERNATIVE advantage.

Dog_O_War wrote:Basically, paired weapons allows you to hit twice as hard, and suffer less damage than someone without paired weapons.

Wrong. This is an OR issue, not an AND issue. You either hit twice as hard (in which case, you probably suffer MORE damage since you lose your auto-parry, Juicers and co excepted) or you use simultaneous strike-parries, in which case you can avoid automatic damage from simultaneous strikes that can't normally be defended against, and more reliable damage since your opponent is opting not to defend.

MADMANMIKE wrote:NPC 1 has a sword and a shield and swings his sword at Player 1. Player one has a sword and short sword, parries with the short sword and strikes NPC 1 with his sword.

NPC 2 has a two handed axe and swings at Player 1; Player 1, having lost the defense of his automatic parry by simultaneously attacking NPC 1, opts to go full monty and take the damage from the axe, simultaneously attacking with both sword and short sword.

This could not happen. By opting to simultaneously attack NPC 1 with his (long?) sword, the player spent his next attack and would not have one available to do this dual strike.

Tor wrote:

MADMANMIKE wrote:NPC 1 has a sword and a shield and swings his sword at Player 1. Player one has a sword and short sword, parries with the short sword and strikes NPC 1 with his sword.

NPC 2 has a two handed axe and swings at Player 1; Player 1, having lost the defense of his automatic parry by simultaneously attacking NPC 1, opts to go full monty and take the damage from the axe, simultaneously attacking with both sword and short sword.

This could not happen. By opting to simultaneously attack NPC 1 with his (long?) sword, the player spent his next attack and would not have one available to do this dual strike.

Alright, I'll send you on a wild goose chase.. Give a page number and book, with a quote that states that a simultaneous attack uses your next attack..

So to get back on topic and away from glaringly obvious flame baiting..

I have a PC who has paired weapons and HtH Basic. That's it. No other WP's. Is this a valid/do-able thing?
The way I see it I can pick up 2 of anything and do all the sweet paired weapons tricks that the skill allows; I just don't get any bonuses to strike or parry with whatever it is I'm holding (knives, sticks, bricks, garden implements, etc..)

Your thoughts Mike?

MADMANMIKE wrote:Alright, I'll send you on a wild goose chase.. Give a page number and book, with a quote that states that a simultaneous attack uses your next attack..

Benefit of having just spent the time to make my own Gamemaster Screen...GMG p32

"Doing a simultaneous attack still counts as one attack, and will use the character's attack up like normal."

MADMANMIKE wrote:I'll send you on a wild goose chase.. Give a page number and book, with a quote that states that a simultaneous attack uses your next attack..

Simultaneous attacks are attacks. Attacks always use your next attack. Plus what Buzzard found.

The Oh So Amazing Nate wrote:I have a PC who has paired weapons and HtH Basic. That's it. No other WP's. Is this a valid/do-able thing?
The way I see it I can pick up 2 of anything and do all the sweet paired weapons tricks that the skill allows; I just don't get any bonuses to strike or parry with whatever it is I'm holding (knives, sticks, bricks, garden implements, etc..)

If you don't get paired WP from HtH then you can't use it with anything, you have to buy it multiple times for each different combination.

So 1 skill for paired daggers, another for paired swords, a third for paired sword/dagger, etc.

Tor wrote:

The Oh So Amazing Nate wrote:I have a PC who has paired weapons and HtH Basic. That's it. No other WP's. Is this a valid/do-able thing?
The way I see it I can pick up 2 of anything and do all the sweet paired weapons tricks that the skill allows; I just don't get any bonuses to strike or parry with whatever it is I'm holding (knives, sticks, bricks, garden implements, etc..)

If you don't get paired WP from HtH then you can't use it with anything, you have to buy it multiple times for each different combination.

So 1 skill for paired daggers, another for paired swords, a third for paired sword/dagger, etc.

What book do you get that out of? Cause I've never seen in in Tmnt, Hu1r or AtB2

The TMNT version didn't have these limits, so you could consider that skill a superior version if you like (much like TMNT guys heal SDC faster).

HU2p61 under the skill description says:

"when taken as a skill, only two specific kinds of paired weapons are included. For example, the character may be skilled in paired short swords, or paired ax and short sword, but not both (that would required two paired weapon skills)"

Out of curiosity I checked out some of other games and can't seem to find this statement elsewhere though... besides TMNT I do not see it in N&SS, in PF2nd, in Rifts (Warlords of Russia, was not in main book) or in Dead Reign...

This has got me wondering if anyone has found it elsewhere.

When RUE addressed the skill it added some new limits (Men at Arms only, only works with stuff you have WP in) but nothing like HU2's huge "1 skill per combo" limit which is a major gamechanger.

I found it in Fantasy also. Can't remember the page number right now though.

The Oh So Amazing Nate wrote:So to get back on topic and away from glaringly obvious flame baiting..

I have a PC who has paired weapons and HtH Basic. That's it. No other WP's. Is this a valid/do-able thing?
The way I see it I can pick up 2 of anything and do all the sweet paired weapons tricks that the skill allows; I just don't get any bonuses to strike or parry with whatever it is I'm holding (knives, sticks, bricks, garden implements, etc..)

Your thoughts Mike?

If that's your character concept and the G.M. allows it (I would), then knock yourself out. Until RIFTS Game Master Guide's Q.&A. section came out, no main rule book prohibited this use of the skill. RIFTS Ultimate Edition further clarified that you must have a W.P. in the weapon(s) being used for Paired Weapons to work. I would still allow it in my games because of Rule #1: Have fun.

BuzzardB wrote:

MADMANMIKE wrote:Alright, I'll send you on a wild goose chase.. Give a page number and book, with a quote that states that a simultaneous attack uses your next attack..

Benefit of having just spent the time to make my own Gamemaster Screen...GMG p32

"Doing a simultaneous attack still counts as one attack, and will use the character's attack up like normal."

In RIFTS, since that GMG Q&A, yes, it can easily be argued that simultaneous attacks will use up attacks like normal. However, in no iteration of the Paired Weapons skill is this specifically stated; "Users of Paired Weapons can: 1. Strike and Parry Simultaneously. In other words, those skilled in W.P. Paired Weapons can often perform two actions for every one action/attack." As Paired Weapons is a combat training skill, it could be argued that it is a special circumstance not covered by the standard "simultaneous attack" rule's limitation of "uses the character's attack up like normal".

There are all sorts of arguments that can be made on both sides, but in the end, I always fall back on Rule #1. They are games, after all.. if it's fun for everyone (that includes the G.M.), then do it.

Tor wrote:

MADMANMIKE wrote:A character with Paired Weapons can essentially double their attack/actions in a melee round; parry with one weapon and simultaneous attack with the other;

That doesn't double the attacks, it simply negates the ability for non-paired people to defend, or enables you to defend against the same tactic.

Tor, those marks, the weird slightly diagonal line with a dot above it - it looks like " ; ". That's called a "semi-colon", which represents two different thoughts within a sentence. He's saying that both are available.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:you can still parry attacks from 3 attackers as normal, but the added advantage beyond the ability to make two attacks per action is that you can simultaneously attack the opponent attacking you, AND parry their attack.

This is not an 'added' advantage. Since you have to choose EITHER a dual strike OR a simultaneous strike/parry, it is an ALTERNATIVE advantage.

Wrong. And we went over this in another thread regarding paired weapons and simultaneous strikes; there is a difference between a twin strike and a twin, simultaneous strike.

Tor wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Basically, paired weapons allows you to hit twice as hard, and suffer less damage than someone without paired weapons.

Wrong. This is an OR issue, not an AND issue.

The only issue here is your ability to read what has been written in plain English; this is the direct quote for Paired Weapons, straight out of...

R:UE wrote:Paired Weapons (R:UE pg.346) : "...Users of paired weapons can strike and parry simultaneously, con do twin strikes against a single target or against a pair of targets, and can parry two different opponents at the same time. In other words, combatants skilled in Paired Weapons often can do two actions for every one of their melee attacks... ...However, a twin, simultaneous strike with both weapons means losing the automatic parry and leaves the character open to his opponent's next attack without benefit of a parry (dodge is optional but uses op a melee action/attack)..."

Now, does it say that twin strikes (which is shown as a "thing" that exists within the quote) leaves you without the option to parry, or does it say twin, simultaneous strike (which has also been shown as a "thing" that exists within the quote)?

Because they're two separate, distinct things.

MADMANMIKE wrote:

BuzzardB wrote:Benefit of having just spent the time to make my own Gamemaster Screen...GMG p32

"Doing a simultaneous attack still counts as one attack, and will use the character's attack up like normal."

In RIFTS, since that GMG Q&A, yes, it can easily be argued that simultaneous attacks will use up attacks like normal. However, in no iteration of the Paired Weapons skill is this specifically stated; "Users of Paired Weapons can: 1. Strike and Parry Simultaneously. In other words, those skilled in W.P. Paired Weapons can often perform two actions for every one action/attack." As Paired Weapons is a combat training skill, it could be argued that it is a special circumstance not covered by the standard "simultaneous attack" rule's limitation of "uses the character's attack up like normal".

There are all sorts of arguments that can be made on both sides, but in the end, I always fall back on Rule #1. They are games, after all.. if it's fun for everyone (that includes the G.M.), then do it.

BuzzardB is absolutely correct. Any attack wether normal attack, simultaneous attack, paired simultaneous attack, ect... always counts as one attack. Paired weapons does not confer additional free attacks, just becasue you used one while automatically parrying one attack and simultaneously attacking with your other paired weapon.

MADMANMIKE wrote:I don't feel like I was clear enough, so I put together this example:

Player 1: 2 attacks per melee, paired weapons, initiative of 12
NPC 1: 2 attacks per melee, initiative of 18
NPC 2: 2 attacks per melee, initiative of 19

Combat begins; NPC 1 has a sword and a shield and swings his sword at Player 1. Player one has a sword and short sword, parries with the short sword and strikes NPC 1 with his sword.

NPC 2 has a two handed axe and swings at Player 1; Player 1, having lost the defense of his automatic parry by simultaneously attacking NPC 1, opts to go full monty and take the damage from the axe, simultaneously attacking with both sword and short sword.

Player 1 has the initiative, and chooses to to strike both NPCs at the same time, rolling two strikes, one for each weapon.

There, one full attack of a melee round, initiative rolls back to NPC 1, unless he decided to dodge Player 1's attack, which would use his other action and roll initiative to NPC 2.. All characters have only used one attack, but Player 1 has taken Paired Weapons and as a result has actually attempted five strikes and one parry!

MMM in your scenario above due to the 2 simultaneous attacks your Player 1 used, Player 1 would not be able to take the action of simultaneously attacking both opponents and would then be out of attacks for that round while both NPC's would have one left and Player 1 would no longer have the benefit of autoamtic parry and could be in for a world of hurt if those first 2 simultaneous strikes didn't put the NPC's down. Your scenario with paired weapons allowed the Player 1 to make 3 attacks in the first action and still only use up one of his attacks that round. That just doesn't work. Your example would also make your Player with paired weapons, get more attacks the more opponents he is fighting, becasue your rule allows for "completely FREE" simultaneous attacks.

MMM your house rule sounds extrememly fun for those that have paired weapons (for slaughtering lowly NPC's), but grossly unfair to those that don't know exactly how your rule works upfront. I can see your way being fun, but please identify it as a house rule, not as the intention of how the rule is supposed to work per the books.

Ughh..
Paired weapons can:
1.) Block an attacker AND hit them at the same time (counts as one attack)
2.) Block 2 separate attacks at the same time (Free move! due to the auto parry rule from HtH training)
3.) Attack 1 opponent with 2 weapons (counts as one attack)
4.) Attack 2 separate opponents (one with each hand) at the same time. (counts as one attack)

When do you lose the auto parry? (I think this is right)
I attack you with both hands (my turn in the inititative)
You fore go defending and attack me right back (simultaneous attack) (your response)
You attack me (your turn in the initiative)
I'm screwed because both weapons are engaged and cannot auto parry. I either take the hit or burn an attack defending.

Did I get that right?

MADMANMIKE wrote:In RIFTS, since that GMG Q&A, yes, it can easily be argued that simultaneous attacks will use up attacks like normal. However, in no iteration of the Paired Weapons skill is this specifically stated; "Users of Paired Weapons can: 1. Strike and Parry Simultaneously. In other words, those skilled in W.P. Paired Weapons can often perform two actions for every one action/attack." As Paired Weapons is a combat training skill, it could be argued that it is a special circumstance not covered by the standard "simultaneous attack" rule's limitation of "uses the character's attack up like normal".

There are all sorts of arguments that can be made on both sides, but in the end, I always fall back on Rule #1. They are games, after all.. if it's fun for everyone (that includes the G.M.), then do it.

Because the RUE is a newer "edition" of the rules than GMG and the RUE does NOT mention specifically that a simultaneous strike uses up your next action I would have no problem if a GM in a game I was in ran it that way.

I, myself, run it as using the next action for a couple reasons. It's how I initially assumed it worked when I first used it, the GMG guide says it does, and the Melee FAQ section on this forum also says it does. That was enough for me, though an assumption, a Q&A and a forum FAQ is not enough for everyone and I don't hold that against them.

Tor wrote:If you don't get paired WP from HtH then you can't use it with anything, you have to buy it multiple times for each different combination.

So 1 skill for paired daggers, another for paired swords, a third for paired sword/dagger, etc.

I have never heard that before. Any possible citation you can give? Due to how powerful paired weapons can be in my opinion doesn't make that sound too bad.

42dragon wrote:... Paired weapons does not confer additional free attacks ...

It quite specifically says that it confers free attacks.
It says you may do two actions for every one of your melee attacks; that is literally free attacks.

Dog_O_War wrote:

42dragon wrote:... Paired weapons does not confer additional free attacks ...

It quite specifically says that it confers free attacks.
It says you may do two actions for every one of your melee attacks; that is literally free attacks.

Yes, in a very specific view it could be seen as free attacks. Overall it is not free attacks just because you used simultaneous attacks. Please use my entire sentance as a whole when trying to dispute it. "Paired weapons does not confer additional free attacks, just becasue you used one while automatically parrying one attack and simultaneously attacking with your other paired weapon."

I can attack with a weapon in my right hand, or a weapon in my left hand but not both at the same time if I do not have paired weapons (1 attack). With paired weapons I can attack with both my weapons at one time either at 1 opponent or 2 opponents (1 attack). You are still only making one attack just with multiple weapons in the same space of time. While you do get to use 2 weapons (for more damage) it is still jsut one attack, not free extra attacks. The example I was disputing was when the player was getting to do simultaneous attacks with paired weapons and those were not counting against his total attack per melee.

42dragon wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

42dragon wrote:... Paired weapons does not confer additional free attacks ...

It quite specifically says that it confers free attacks.
It says you may do two actions for every one of your melee attacks; that is literally free attacks.

Yes, in a very specific view it could be seen as free attacks. Overall it is not free attacks just because you used simultaneous attacks. Please use my entire sentance as a whole when trying to dispute it. "Paired weapons does not confer additional free attacks, just becasue you used one while automatically parrying one attack and simultaneously attacking with your other paired weapon."

That, quite specifically, is not an attack with paired weapons - that is simultaneous attack. But see there, paired weapons is giving you a free defence when you simultaneous attack.

The breakdown is thus; paired weapons gives you the ability to attack twice with a single action, and when you perform a simultaneous strike (note here how you're not performing a paired weapons attack, because in order to enact a simultaneous attack, conditions must be met), you have the option of striking with both weapons, or parrying with one, thanks to paired weapons.

But that does not change what I wrote; I mean, at its base, parry is not free. Period. Parry costs you an attack unless conditions are met. That would still put paired weapons squarely in the free attacks zone no matter how you swing it.

Sometimes, just sometimes, I wonder if people actually consider the rules they've read. Yeah, sure - everyone and their dog is likely to have a hand-to-hand skill to get free parries, but the thing of it is, that is not the rules' basic premise or form.

Dog_O_War wrote:Yeah, sure - everyone and their dog is likely to have a hand-to-hand skill to get free parries, but the thing of it is, that is not the rules' basic premise or form.

I have 2 dogs. Both are Ninja's. Both get free parries. People without HtH skills can suck it. It being my furry ninja fist.

Jarethellenin wrote:I found it in Fantasy also. Can't remember the page number right now though.

I'd be interested in knowing where. Neither the combat listing (page 46) or the skill listing (page 60) in PF2 appear to mention having to purchase it multiple times like HU2 does (in both places).

MADMANMIKE wrote:in no iteration of the Paired Weapons skill is this specifically stated; "Users of Paired Weapons can: 1. Strike and Parry Simultaneously. In other words, those skilled in W.P. Paired Weapons can often perform two actions for every one action/attack."

Key phrase being 'one action/attack' not 'combined in automatic defenses.'

MADMANMIKE wrote:As Paired Weapons is a combat training skill, it could be argued that it is a special circumstance not covered by the standard "simultaneous attack" rule's limitation of "uses the character's attack up like normal".

Argued based on what? Where does it imply any deviation from this?

Dog_O_War wrote:a "semi-colon", which represents two different thoughts within a sentence. He's saying that both are available.

Semicolons do not always clarify whether distinct or potentially overlapping ideas are being used. Words like 'or' and/or 'and' are much better at doing this than commas or semicolons or even periods.

I read this in the context of Mike discussing automatic attacks coupled with auto-parries which would double the attacks outside of dual strikes.

Dog_O_War wrote:we went over this in another thread regarding paired weapons and simultaneous strikes; there is a difference between a twin strike and a twin, simultaneous strike.

The phrase is muddy, 'simultaneous' is also used to refer to both hits of the twin strike hitting simultaneously (thus why they only require one strike roll) and not exclusively to the context of simultaneous counterattacks (I think we should totally add in 'counter' since it makes sense).

Dog_O_War wrote:The only issue here is your ability to read what has been written in plain English; this is the direct quote for Paired Weapons, straight out of...

R:UE wrote:Paired Weapons (R:UE pg.346) : "...Users of paired weapons can strike and parry simultaneously, con do twin strikes against a single target or against a pair of targets, and can parry two different opponents at the same time. In other words, combatants skilled in Paired Weapons often can do two actions for every one of their melee attacks... ...However, a twin, simultaneous strike with both weapons means losing the automatic parry and leaves the character open to his opponent's next attack without benefit of a parry (dodge is optional but uses op a melee action/attack)..."

Now, does it say that twin strikes (which is shown as a "thing" that exists within the quote) leaves you without the option to parry, or does it say twin, simultaneous strike (which has also been shown as a "thing" that exists within the quote)?

Because they're two separate, distinct things.

I think you should pay closer attention to the part in parenthesis at the end. An optional dodge that uses up a melee attack. If this were referring to simultaneous counter-attacks, dodging would NOT be an option, because you must give up all defenses to attack simultaneously. The only exception to that would be a simultaneous strike-parry.

'twin simultaneous strike' is referring to both paired weapons hitting simultaneously relative to one another, this phrasing has been used elsewhere such as paired turrets for various robots, if you look around. I've actually underlined it in several places

It doesn't refer to them being used in a simultaneous counter-attack. Doing so would rid you of your auto-parry, true, but it would also rid you of any ability to dodge. Since that ability is retained, it is talking about a basic twin strike used on a person's initiative turn, not a responsive simultaneous attack, so the auto-parry is lost in all contexts of dual-striking.

Newer books like Dead Reign (page 215) have presented the phrasing a little more clearly to avoid this confusion. It also added the benefit that only 1 of 2 weapons used in a dual-strike can be auto-parried unless the person also has paired WP (presumably finally putting a use to the double-parry skill). I don't really like that part, I think someone using a bo staff should be able to parry a twin sword attack. I think this should only apply to people using small 1-handed weapons.

42dragon wrote:Any attack wether normal attack, simultaneous attack, paired simultaneous attack, ect... always counts as one attack.

I still hold out for 'automatic kick' deep in my heart. Even though FAQs dispute it, I really think it should say 'gains kick at level 1' if that's what it meant...

Besides that though... we have the automatic body flip, and body flips are arguably an attack since they inflict damage Also if you use the Dervish Dance talent in Nightbane you get free counter-attacks (epic broken power).

The Oh So Amazing Nate wrote:2.) Block 2 separate attacks at the same time (Free move! due to the auto parry rule from HtH training)

After much struggling to understand how this added anything, I more buy into people's explanation that this is actually a limitation of the auto-parry (usually limited to 3 opponents) rather than an addition to it.

3.) Attack 1 opponent with 2 weapons (counts as one attack)
4.) Attack 2 separate opponents (one with each hand) at the same time. (counts as one attack)

The Oh So Amazing Nate wrote:When do you lose the auto parry? (I think this is right)
I attack you with both hands (my turn in the inititative)
You fore go defending and attack me right back (simultaneous attack) (your response)
You attack me (your turn in the initiative)
I'm screwed because both weapons are engaged and cannot auto parry. I either take the hit or burn an attack defending.

Did I get that right?

That appears to be correct, yes, the loss of auto-parry I think only applies to the next attack you receive... or the next from the opponent you dual-striked... or the entire next turn of attacks. Not utterly clear on that.

BuzzardB wrote:RUE is a newer "edition" of the rules than GMG and the RUE does NOT mention specifically that a simultaneous strike uses up your next action I would have no problem if a GM in a game I was in ran it that way.

RUE is not mentioned as erasing preceding rules, so it would only do so where direct conflicts existed, and one does not here.

If you want to take the approach that "Rifts Ultimate" is a totally different world and game system than Rifts, I am utterly fine with that of course, in which case no world or dimension book lacking "Ultimate" on the cover should be relevant to that single-book setting.

BuzzardB wrote:I have never heard that before. Any possible citation you can give? Due to how powerful paired weapons can be in my opinion doesn't make that sound too bad.

HU2p61/69, have not found it in any other books yet though. Paired Weapons descriptions in HU2 contain this but I don't know if any other games' main books do. Only just noticed this yesterday TBH, we don't always notice subtle conflicts or omissions between books. Sometimes we learn rules collectively in Palladium reading multiple main books and form an opinion others would not reading 1 main book exclusively.

Dog_O_War wrote:It quite specifically says that it confers free attacks. It says you may do two actions for every one of your melee attacks; that is literally free attacks.

Being able to perform 2 attacks for every 1 is not the same as having additional attacks. There's a very subtle difference. Like in your options, for example. Paired WP limits you to repeating the same action twice much like a Battle-Fury Blade does. It doesn't supplement your base choices though. If I have 4 attacks and 1 free fire breath attack, I can do 4 body flips. But If I have paired WP, I can at most do 3 body flips if I want to get even 1 extra attack by using a twin strike.

Dog_O_War wrote:That, quite specifically, is not an attack with paired weapons - that is simultaneous attack. But see there, paired weapons is giving you a free defence when you simultaneous attack.

If you're using a simultaneous strike/parry via paired WP during a simultaneous attack, that still qualifies as an attack with paired weapons. "Attack with paired weapons" does not solely describe twin strikes, it can also describe an attack with 1 weapon and a defense with the other, since you're using the skill to enhance your attack.

Dog_O_War wrote:The breakdown is thus; paired weapons gives you the ability to attack twice with a single action, and when you perform a simultaneous strike (note here how you're not performing a paired weapons attack, because in order to enact a simultaneous attack, conditions must be met)

SA conditions do not negate that it still qualifies as a paired weapons attack, a broader phrase than 'twin strike'.

Dog_O_War wrote:you have the option of striking with both weapons, or parrying with one, thanks to paired weapons.

Or parrying with both. Initially viewable as a limitation but with later games (Dead Reign) clarifying that you can't auto-parry twin strikes without paired WP, the 'spend an attack to do 2 parries' ability suddenly gains a use.

Although I'm still very confused as to the use of 'parry 2 opponents at once'. Except for armies of toy soldiers via the PU1 power who literally attack simultaneously, I can't think of any other use for THAT specification.

Dog_O_War wrote:But that does not change what I wrote; I mean, at its base, parry is not free. Period. Parry costs you an attack unless conditions are met. That would still put paired weapons squarely in the free attacks zone no matter how you swing it.

Wrong: it's not under the 'free attacks zone' if you 'swing it' under the context of auto-parries. If you already get a parry for free then you don't exactly gain anything from free parries. Unless of course we were to interpret that a person got TWO auto-parries (which would be pretty rad) but that's a tricky area.

Dog_O_War wrote:Sometimes, just sometimes, I wonder if people actually consider the rules they've read. Yeah, sure - everyone and their dog is likely to have a hand-to-hand skill to get free parries, but the thing of it is, that is not the rules' basic premise or form.

You appear to have overlooked my preceding mention of monsters who lack HtH skills and how the simultaneous strike/parry is especially useful for them =/

Upon realizing this use some months back I've taken to vandalizing the skill sections of all monsters and underlining those who start with (or are capable of selecting) paired WP to figure out who had such a major advantage in HtH.

Oh, look...this argument again.

*loads six shooter*

If modern WP are brought into this too I'll be overwhelmed

Tor wrote:If you want to take the approach that "Rifts Ultimate" is a totally different world and game system than Rifts, I am utterly fine with that of course, in which case no world or dimension book lacking "Ultimate" on the cover should be relevant to that single-book setting.

I don't quite understand the point of what you said there.

One rule in an updated rulebook being missing, from a Q&A no less, and all of a sudden it's a separate book in a separate universe? And books have to say ultimate on them now to be in this new universe instead of just being new enough to use the updated rules? Whatever you were trying to imply seems like it escalated quickly.

BuzzardB wrote:

Tor wrote:If you want to take the approach that "Rifts Ultimate" is a totally different world and game system than Rifts, I am utterly fine with that of course, in which case no world or dimension book lacking "Ultimate" on the cover should be relevant to that single-book setting.

I don't quite understand the point of what you said there.

One rule in an updated rulebook being missing, from a Q&A no less, and all of a sudden it's a separate book in a separate universe? And books have to say ultimate on them now to be in this new universe instead of just being new enough to use the updated rules? Whatever you were trying to imply seems like it escalated quickly.

Tor just doesn't like RUE. He is of the opinion that things in both RUE and RMB should both exist, and that RUE should just be treated as a dimension book, ie that all things both books are canon, just in different universes. He also feels, on a related tack. That anything in RMB that is not, explicitly removed, from RUE still exists. IE that changes must be explicit. I don't agree with it, but that is what he has presented. I hope that helps make sense of the post.

My point here is that whatever logic is used to omit RMB stuff from the RUEniverse is also being used here to ignore GMG guides. Based on the idea that if a rule (or other data) isn't reprinted in RUE that it no longer applies.

In which case I say, why stop with RMB/GMG? Apply that to all the world books too, since most of them also predate RUE.

I am only identifying one approach. If RUE isn't a separate dimension book then all the preceding books still apply except where RUE explicitly overrides them.

In blatent cases like sucking PPE from other people now sucking, and sucking PPE from ley lines now ruling, GMs have the burden of explaining this with concoctions like PPE pole-shifting or whatev.

I think it's acceptable to apply old rules where they make sense, Tor.

Let's try to stick to the argument at hand, though, eh? Besides, I think we answered this guy's questions a while ago.

Tor wrote:My point here is that whatever logic is used to omit RMB stuff from the RUEniverse is also being used here to ignore GMG guides. Based on the idea that if a rule (or other data) isn't reprinted in RUE that it no longer applies.

In which case I say, why stop with RMB/GMG? Apply that to all the world books too, since most of them also predate RUE.

I am only identifying one approach. If RUE isn't a separate dimension book then all the preceding books still apply except where RUE explicitly overrides them.

In blatent cases like sucking PPE from other people now sucking, and sucking PPE from ley lines now ruling, GMs have the burden of explaining this with concoctions like PPE pole-shifting or whatev.

Gotcha

Back to Paired Weapons.

There is so much line by line quoting in this thread that many of the words have lost all meaning to me right now, so if someone could clarify this for me that would be appreciated.

Character A has 2 daggers and W.P. Paired Weapon
Character B has 1 sword.

On Character B's turn he attacks Character A with his sword.
Character A decides to do a Simultaneous Strike, taking B's hit, but hitting him back.

A can attempt to parry B with one dagger while trying to hit him with the other anyway because W.P. Paired Weapon says he can Strike and Parry Simultaneously (The word simultaneously in this case having no baring on the fact it is a simultaneous strike)

Instead of doing that could A perform Twin, simultaneous strikes against B, not attempt to parry at all and use his Simultaneous Strike to hit with both weapons.

I honestly cannot tell by the wording if Twin, simultaneous strikes is just describing the Twin Strike as being simultaneous, or it it is a Twin Strike that can be performed as a Simultaneous Strike (The action of negating your defense to attack someone attacking you on their turn)

A has 2 daggers and Paired weapons
B has 1 sword

B attacks A

A can Block with one dagger and do a simultaneous attack (Hit B while B is in the act of hitting him) with the other.

A can avoid defending (take B's hit) and instead do a TWIN simultaneous attack with both daggers (Hit B while B is in the act of hitting him).

The difference is that in example 1 you only get to stab B one time (only costing you 1 attack). In example 2 you get to stab B 2x (still only costing you 1 attack). The downside is that you're taking damage in order to get the extra stab in.

The Oh So Amazing Nate wrote:A has 2 daggers and Paired weapons
B has 1 sword

B attacks A

A can Block with one dagger and do a simultaneous attack (Hit B while B is in the act of hitting him) with the other.

A can avoid defending (take B's hit) and instead do a TWIN simultaneous attack with both daggers (Hit B while B is in the act of hitting him).

The difference is that in example 1 you only get to stab B one time (only costing you 1 attack). In example 2 you get to stab B 2x (still only costing you 1 attack). The downside is that you're taking damage in order to get the extra stab in.

Excellent, so you can do Twin, Simultaneous Strikes as a Simultaneous Strike.

BuzzardB wrote:Excellent, so you can do Twin, Simultaneous Strikes as a Simultaneous Strike.

Yep. Things like that are what make Paired Weapons one of the most valuable skills in the game. Like Boxing (+1 APM, yes please!) people are going to take it (if they can) whether it fits the character concept or not.

Tor is right in that some Main Books have restrictions on it such as: Only available to Men At Arms, Only usuable for weapons the PC is trained in (WP sword. Wp dagger, WP chain etc). But those rules aren't present in all books. Personally I prefer to play without those restrictions, but I can see where they make sense and are valid points. I mean there are some character classes where having weapons training, let alone dual weapons training, doesn't make any sense (other than the fact that you're playing in a game ABOUT being an adventurer).

I think putting as many restrictions as possible on paired WP is a rather good idea.

I have a dog in this fight as well.

Hand to hand martial arts. Paired weapons at level-7

Electric flight costs 2 actions to use. At level-7 can I now E-fly for 1 attack??

say652 wrote:I have a dog in this fight as well.

Hand to hand martial arts. Paired weapons at level-7

Electric flight costs 2 actions to use. At level-7 can I now E-fly for 1 attack??

No.
Electric Flight would be one "weapon" of the two you're able to use.

No. Electric flight isn't an attack (and even if it were, it would be a body block/tackle and not an hth strike.) it is a movement power. Having paired weapons doesn't reduce the cost of an attack. It allows you to make more than one attack at the same time.

The Oh So Amazing Nate wrote:Ughh..
Paired weapons can:
1.) Block an attacker AND hit them at the same time (counts as one attack)
2.) Block 2 separate attacks at the same time (Free move! due to the auto parry rule from HtH training)
3.) Attack 1 opponent with 2 weapons (counts as one attack)
4.) Attack 2 separate opponents (one with each hand) at the same time. (counts as one attack)

This is how I do it.

When do you lose the auto parry? (I think this is right)
I attack you with both hands (my turn in the inititative)
You fore go defending and attack me right back (simultaneous attack) (your response)
You attack me (your turn in the initiative)
I'm screwed because both weapons are engaged and cannot auto parry. I either take the hit or burn an attack defending.

Did I get that right?

I dont think you do lose auto parry, you gain the ability to simul attack while parrying, and in that case you don't get a free parry (your action is to parry and attack at once) but your opponent lost their ability to parry due to the simul attack rules.

As to the other part about being screwed because both weapons are engaged I don't see why that would be the case. You stabbed him with both he attacked simul (using his next attack) so by the time he can attack you again you would have pulled your swords back and be able to parry (and if you chose simul him without using up your next attack).