Discussions/FireImmaculateDualSwordBenefits - Revision history

Wordman: Script: fix links messed up in conversion

2010-06-08T17:41:01Z

Script: fix links messed up in conversion

Conversion script: link fix

2010-04-06T01:15:44Z

link fix

Conversion script: link fix

2010-04-06T00:35:28Z

link fix

Conversion script: link fix

2010-04-05T08:06:30Z

link fix

Conversion script: link fix

2010-04-03T09:02:42Z

link fix

Eldmar: *

2006-02-03T10:58:04Z

New page

What actual advantages does the Fire Aspect MA path two sword weapon skill give? What use is it to be able to fight with to swords? You still have to divide your dice pool. Except from the visual this seems like a useless ability compared to the other MA path weapons abilities.
Are there any advantages for any character to fight with two weapons at any time? Normal characters get a -1 on their left hand attack. But what are the benefits? -[[Trueform]]

I don't know if it's canon, but it makes sense that if you have two weapons you should be able to make two parries against the same attack, granted you still have to split to do so. Some clarifacation or an official answer to this would be very welcome. -EndlessChase

I believe the Fire Path special power allows you to make two full Melee actions with your swords, provided they are versus the same target. The description is confusing.\\
-[[Ikselam]]

Actually Ikselam i believe you can attack 2 or more targets, however there is a redundant phrase saying both that you take all penalities for duel weilding and one saying you get the -1 in your off hand for attacking 2 or more targets (which is the duel weild penalty).\\
So basically you get 2 actions, but if you use them to attack 2 or more seperate targets than your off hand takes a -1 penalty.
-[[Killed]]

I'll just take a second here to toss in some [[Braydz/Dual | dualwield rules]] that [[Braydz]] and I came up with a few days ago. They don't seem unbalanced to me, but I'm curious about others' reactions. - SilverMeerKat

This seems to be a hard question. But I like the ideas of beeing able to block twice. The other rule by [[Killed]] seems to confusing.
I think the rules are good. But it does not seem to consider the minuses for using a weapon off hand. Or am I overseeing something here? Anyway what would the benefit for the fire aspect example in the original question be?
-[[Trueform]]

Ok basically you get an action with each sword. But if you choose to attack 2 different targets (one with each sword) your off hand suffers a -1 penalty as per the duel weilding rules in the core book.
-[[Killed]]

OK. Yes this is simple and balanced compared to the other aspect abilities. And it seems somewhat in line with the book rules. -[[Trueform]]

I have brought up to things we've used in two different games on this:
*The character gets two full dice pools as per an extra action Charm (Sun and Moon Method for Solars specifically), but its incompatable with other extra action effects and the actions can't be split.
*Lower the extra-action penalties by two for all actions involving two-handed fighting against one target.

I like the second one to be honest. But it might be a bit ackward or powerful. Dunno. Just some imput.

Stuff. [[Blaque]]

** I allow the Fire aspect immaculate in my game to reduce the multiple action penalty by one, so if taking 4 actions - 2 attacks and 2 parries (3 extra actions)then he actually gets a penalty of -2 to the first then -3, -4, -5 as opposed to the standard of -3 to the first then -4, -5, -6. I also increase his weapon rate by one. [[Eldmar]]

According to page 92 of the core rules, multiple action penalties are assessed based on the total number of actions taken, rather than the number of extra actions - i.e. taking four actions results in penalties of -4, -5, -6, and -7. 
Sorry -_-; 
~WillCoon, "No, Marc, that spell kills all of us."

**Yes I know that, I didn't say that I was quoting cannon rules, just what happens in our game. But you are right - I should have made that clear in my post, my bad. [[Eldmar]]

WillCoon: That's not how multiple actions work...

2006-02-02T22:28:12Z

That's not how multiple actions work...

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 -[[Killed]]
-I'll just take a second here to toss in some [[Braydz/Dual | dualwield rules]] that [[Braydz]] and I came up with a few days ago. They don't seem unbalanced to me, but I'm curious about others' reactions. - [[SilverMeerKat]]
+I'll just take a second here to toss in some [[Braydz/Dual|dualwield rules]] that [[Braydz]] and I came up with a few days ago. They don't seem unbalanced to me, but I'm curious about others' reactions. - [[SilverMeerKat]]
 This seems to be a hard question. But I like the ideas of beeing able to block twice. The other rule by [[Killed]] seems to confusing.

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Are there any advantages for any character to fight with two weapons at any time? Normal characters get a -1 on their left hand attack. But what are the benefits? -[[Trueform]]
-<i>I don't know if it's canon, but it makes sense that if you have two weapons you should be able to make two parries against the same attack, granted you still have to split to do so.  Some clarifacation or an official answer to this would be very welcome.</i> -EndlessChase
+<i>I don't know if it's canon, but it makes sense that if you have two weapons you should be able to make two parries against the same attack, granted you still have to split to do so.  Some clarifacation or an official answer to this would be very welcome.</i> -[[EndlessChase]]
 I believe the Fire Path special power allows you to make two full Melee actions with your swords, provided they are versus the same target. The description is confusing.\\
@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 -[[Killed]]
-I'll just take a second here to toss in some [[Braydz/Dual | dualwield rules]] that [[Braydz]] and I came up with a few days ago. They don't seem unbalanced to me, but I'm curious about others' reactions. - SilverMeerKat
+I'll just take a second here to toss in some [[Braydz/Dual | dualwield rules]] that [[Braydz]] and I came up with a few days ago. They don't seem unbalanced to me, but I'm curious about others' reactions. - [[SilverMeerKat]]
 This seems to be a hard question. But I like the ideas of beeing able to block twice. The other rule by [[Killed]] seems to confusing.
@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 According to page 92 of the core rules, multiple action penalties are assessed based on the <i>total</i> number of actions taken, rather than the number of <i>extra</i> actions - i.e. taking four actions results in penalties of -4, -5, -6, and -7. <br>
 Sorry  -_-;<br>
-~WillCoon, <i>"No, Marc, that spell kills </i>all<i> of us."</i>
+~[[WillCoon]], <i>"No, Marc, that spell kills </i>all<i> of us."</i>

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Are there any advantages for any character to fight with two weapons at any time? Normal characters get a -1 on their left hand attack. But what are the benefits? -[[Trueform]]
-<i>I don't know if it's canon, but it makes sense that if you have two weapons you should be able to make two parries against the same attack, granted you still have to split to do so.  Some clarifacation or an official answer to this would be very welcome.</i> -EndlessChase
+<i>I don't know if it's canon, but it makes sense that if you have two weapons you should be able to make two parries against the same attack, granted you still have to split to do so.  Some clarifacation or an official answer to this would be very welcome.</i> -[[EndlessChase]]
 I believe the Fire Path special power allows you to make two full Melee actions with your swords, provided they are versus the same target. The description is confusing.\\
@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 -[[Killed]]
-I'll just take a second here to toss in some [[Braydz/Dual | dualwield rules]] that [[Braydz]] and I came up with a few days ago. They don't seem unbalanced to me, but I'm curious about others' reactions. - SilverMeerKat
+I'll just take a second here to toss in some [[Braydz/Dual | dualwield rules]] that [[Braydz]] and I came up with a few days ago. They don't seem unbalanced to me, but I'm curious about others' reactions. - [[SilverMeerKat]]
 This seems to be a hard question. But I like the ideas of beeing able to block twice. The other rule by [[Killed]] seems to confusing.
@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 According to page 92 of the core rules, multiple action penalties are assessed based on the <i>total</i> number of actions taken, rather than the number of <i>extra</i> actions - i.e. taking four actions results in penalties of -4, -5, -6, and -7. <br>
 Sorry  -_-;<br>
-~WillCoon, <i>"No, Marc, that spell kills </i>all<i> of us."</i>
+~[[WillCoon]], <i>"No, Marc, that spell kills </i>all<i> of us."</i>
 **Yes I know that, I didn't say that I was quoting cannon rules, just what happens in our game. But you are right - I should have made that clear in my post, my bad. [[Eldmar]]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Are there any advantages for any character to fight with two weapons at any time? Normal characters get a -1 on their left hand attack. But what are the benefits? -[[Trueform]]
-<i>I don't know if it's canon, but it makes sense that if you have two weapons you should be able to make two parries against the same attack, granted you still have to split to do so.  Some clarifacation or an official answer to this would be very welcome.</i> -[[EndlessChase]]
+<i>I don't know if it's canon, but it makes sense that if you have two weapons you should be able to make two parries against the same attack, granted you still have to split to do so.  Some clarifacation or an official answer to this would be very welcome.</i> -EndlessChase
 I believe the Fire Path special power allows you to make two full Melee actions with your swords, provided they are versus the same target. The description is confusing.\\
@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 -[[Killed]]
-I'll just take a second here to toss in some [[Braydz/Dual | dualwield rules]] that [[Braydz]] and I came up with a few days ago. They don't seem unbalanced to me, but I'm curious about others' reactions. - [[SilverMeerKat]]
+I'll just take a second here to toss in some [[Braydz/Dual | dualwield rules]] that [[Braydz]] and I came up with a few days ago. They don't seem unbalanced to me, but I'm curious about others' reactions. - SilverMeerKat
 This seems to be a hard question. But I like the ideas of beeing able to block twice. The other rule by [[Killed]] seems to confusing.
@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 According to page 92 of the core rules, multiple action penalties are assessed based on the <i>total</i> number of actions taken, rather than the number of <i>extra</i> actions - i.e. taking four actions results in penalties of -4, -5, -6, and -7. <br>
 Sorry  -_-;<br>
-~[[WillCoon]], <i>"No, Marc, that spell kills </i>all<i> of us."</i>
+~WillCoon, <i>"No, Marc, that spell kills </i>all<i> of us."</i>

← Older revision	Revision as of 01:15, 6 April 2010
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 00:35, 6 April 2010
(No difference)