WP Paired melee PS/Punch damage bonus

[narcissus]

How do people handle paired weapons PS/Punch damage bonus (SDC or from supernatural PS as per my other poll)?

[drewkitty ~..~]

To tell the truth I've never thought about it before you asked. And I don't think there is any rules texts that directly talks about it.

To keep it simple I'd do the following, if a strike hits....even if the character is using two melee weapons or using empty handed strikes, each hit gets the PS bonus added to it.

Now Talking about SNPS melee strikes.....each does what the SNPS Damage Chart says it does in MD while playing in Rifts and the 3G. Be sure to reference the breakage rules if the SNPS char is using a weapons that are of SDC construction.

[narcissus]

To keep it simple I'd do the following, if a strike hits....even if the character is using two melee weapons or using empty handed strikes, each hit gets the PS bonus added to it.

This is how I used to play it back in the day (TMNT), but now I use the second option (which I realize is very much a house rule). Here's why -

I don't think twice damage bonus was the original intent, and it makes WP Paired an absolutely essential skill for any melee fighter. Forget a 2-handed weapon - it doesn't double my damage bonus. From a logical perspective, a guy with a 2-handed axe and a PS of 30 is going to put everything he's got into it. So why does a guy with a PS of 30 and 2 hand axes hit twice as hard? There's no way that each of his arms is swinging as hard as the 2-hander. It'd be a like a baseball player going to bat with one arm instead of two.

I definitely appreciate knowing what you and other players/GMs do though, as I want to make sure my sheet has options to cover the bases.

[Killer Cyborg]

Stab somebody with a dagger, the damage is 1d6+PS bonus.
Stab somebody with a dagger twice, the damage is 1d6+PS bonus and 1d6+PS bonus.
Stab somebody with two daggers at once, the damage is (1d6+PS bonus) + (1d6+PS bonus).

[ITWastrel]

Stab somebody with a dagger, the damage is 1d6+PS bonus.
Stab somebody with a dagger twice, the damage is 1d6+PS bonus and 1d6+PS bonus.
Stab somebody with two daggers at once, the damage is (1d6+PS bonus) + (1d6+PS bonus).

This.

The bonus is added to every strike.

If your problem is too much damage from a melee weapon, your NPCs, or at least your bigger ones, need more health.

Not the mooks, though, you still need popcorn enemies your PCs can mow down to feel powerful.

I design NPCs based on the PC strengths. If the PCs do a ton of damage, they'll obliterate the mooks, sure, but the LTs and BBEGs will not be so easily destroyed.

[narcissus]

It's clear to me that the sheet needs to support the first option, but I do have some questions of logic for those of you that apply it.

Do people that add the PS bonus per arm double the PS bonus when using a two-handed weapon? If not, why not? If the PS bonus is per arm, then 2 arms used to power the attack should mean double PS bonus, shouldn't it?

Related, if a Rahu-Man (4 arms) has a PS of 30, he gets 4x his damage bonus on a 4-arm attack. Can he lift twice what a two-armed PS 30 creature can? He's using all 4 arms to lift, so if the PS is in each arm, why can't he lift more?

What about a Zebuloid? They have 1D4x10+18 tentacles. If they hit with 10 of them, do they get 10x their damage bonus? Conservatively, if they have 28 tentacles and use half of them to stand, giving them 14 "arm" tentacles, can they lift 7x more than a 2 armed creature with equivalent strength?

I feel like the two need to relate. Either the PS is "per arm", in which case lifting weight increases with the number of arms you have, or the PS is an attribute of the creature, and is the most they can lift - or the hardest they can hit - using all available appendages.

[Killer Cyborg]

It's clear to me that the sheet needs to support the first option, but I do have some questions of logic for those of you that apply it.

Do people that add the PS bonus per arm double the PS bonus when using a two-handed weapon?

Nope.

If not, why not?

It's still only one weapon making one attack.

If the PS bonus is per arm, then 2 arms used to power the attack should mean double PS bonus, shouldn't it?

The PS bonus isn't per arm; it's per attack and/or per weapon, depending.

Related, if a Rahu-Man (4 arms) has a PS of 30, he gets 4x his damage bonus on a 4-arm attack.

No.

Can he lift twice what a two-armed PS 30 creature can?

Nope.
PS isn't per arm; it's per person (or in some cases, per object).

He's using all 4 arms to lift, so if the PS is in each arm, why can't he lift more?

Because PS already takes that into account.

What about a Zebuloid?

Same deal.

They have 1D4x10+18 tentacles. If they hit with 10 of them, do they get 10x their damage bonus?

Nope.

Conservatively, if they have 28 tentacles and use half of them to stand, giving them 14 "arm" tentacles, can they lift 7x more than a 2 armed creature with equivalent strength?

Nope.

I feel like the two need to relate. Either the PS is "per arm",

It's not.

in which case lifting weight increases with the number of arms you have, or the PS is an attribute of the creature, and is the most they can lift - or the hardest they can hit - using all available appendages.

PS is an attribute of the creature, and that attribute adds damage to each attack made where PS bonus is applicable, such as stabbing somebody with a dagger.
Just like your PP bonus to Parry applies to any/all weapons you try to parry with. If you use Paired Weapons to parry against two opponents at the same time, you don't split your Physical Prowess bonus to Parry between the two attacks; you get full bonus for each attack.
Similarly, if you use your Paired Weapons to strike at two different targets, you get your full Physical Prowess bonus to Strike against each target; you don't split it between the two attacks.
Similarly, if you use Paired Weapons strike at one opponent while parrying an attack from that opponent (or from another opponent), you don't split your strike/parry/dodge bonus from PP between striking and dodging.
Similarly, if you perform a martial arts Parry/Attack with your arms, you do not split your strike/parry/dodge bonus from PP between striking and parrying.
Similarly, if you have the Juggling skill, you do not divide the skill percentage chance of success between your right hand and your left hand, nor does a four-armed creature have double the percentage chance of success, nor does an 8-armed creature divide the skill between 8 arms, nor does an 8-armed creature have quadruple the normal percentage chance.

[narcissus]

I'm really not trying to be obtuse, but I'm having trouble reconciling the following in my mind:

The PS bonus isn't per arm; it's per attack and/or per weapon, depending.

Related, if a Rahu-Man (4 arms) has a PS of 30, he gets 4x his damage bonus on a 4-arm attack.

No.

If the bonus is per weapon, and the Rahu-Man is hitting with 4 weapons - one in each of his arms - then why wouldn't he get the bonus on each weapon?

[Kraynic]

I'm really not trying to be obtuse, but I'm having trouble reconciling the following in my mind:

The PS bonus isn't per arm; it's per attack and/or per weapon, depending.

Related, if a Rahu-Man (4 arms) has a PS of 30, he gets 4x his damage bonus on a 4-arm attack.

No.

If the bonus is per weapon, and the Rahu-Man is hitting with 4 weapons - one in each of his arms - then why wouldn't he get the bonus on each weapon?

I can't speak for KC, but what I got from your example was a Rahu-Man using all 4 arms on one big weapon. I was trying to figure out what sort of motion would work to hold and swing in 4 arms... Individual weapons would be just the same as anyone else using a weapon in one hand. How many hands and weapons you have don't really enter into it.

As far as using more arms giving more bonuses, that is definitely a thing from D&D/Pathfinder (and maybe other systems as well). It isn't in Palladium, and I'm not sure it really needs to be. For one thing, watching videos of people that claim to know how weapons are used, don't really show 2 handed weapons being used in huge swings like you would use splitting wood, so you aren't really putting a lot more strength behind a 2 handed weapon, but need both hands for leverage based on the mass of the weapon being used. The mass and design is more integral to the damage caused, so it makes sense to me that the size/type of weapon has more to do with the damage dealt by a weapon than the number of hands used to wield it.

In the end, the "problem" with increased automation of sheets is how it can hinder people using home brew rule edits. I would look at all your sheet automations from that aspect. "If I set things up this way, can people still easily run things differently if they wish?" If you can keep that flexibility, then all should be good.

[Killer Cyborg]

I'm really not trying to be obtuse, but I'm having trouble reconciling the following in my mind:

The PS bonus isn't per arm; it's per attack and/or per weapon, depending.

Related, if a Rahu-Man (4 arms) has a PS of 30, he gets 4x his damage bonus on a 4-arm attack.

No.

If the bonus is per weapon, and the Rahu-Man is hitting with 4 weapons - one in each of his arms - then why wouldn't he get the bonus on each weapon?

I can't speak for KC, but what I got from your example was a Rahu-Man using all 4 arms on one big weapon.

Exactly!

If he's hitting with four weapons, that'd be 4 arm attacks, not a 4-arm attack.


If a quad-strike is possible akin to the twin strike available with Paired Weapons, it would do (weapon+PS bonus) + (weapon+PS bonus) + (weapon+PS bonus) + (weapon+PS bonus).

Edit: And just to elaborate, IF you make a mutant octopus with the extra limbs mutation from MiO, with multi-limb coordination, and you get WP Paired Weapons 5 times, and you give your character 10 sabers, I'm pretty sure you can do a deca-attack with all ten arms on the same target for 20d4 MD.
At least, that's basically how my old character Cuisinart worked, before I later replaced him with The Mighty Ginsu a similar octopus who had the Spin At Extraordinary Speed power and Sonic Flight.
Really, their names should have been reversed, but alas, that's not how the particular cookie crumbled.

[narcissus]

...what I got from your example was a Rahu-Man using all 4 arms on one big weapon.

Sorry for the ambiguity, I absolutely meant 4 separate weapons when I wrote "4-arm attack".

In the end, the "problem" with increased automation of sheets is how it can hinder people using home brew rule edits. I would look at all your sheet automations from that aspect. "If I set things up this way, can people still easily run things differently if they wish?" If you can keep that flexibility, then all should be good.

Ya, I have an options panel to let you do things different ways. I definitely know that Palladium isn't one-size fits all. And since everything in the sheet funnels into a profile as a modifier, it's easy to mix and match.

Exactly!

If he's hitting with four weapons, that'd be 4 arm attacks, not a 4-arm attack.


If a quad-strike is possible akin to the twin strike available with Paired Weapons, it would do (weapon+PS bonus) + (weapon+PS bonus) + (weapon+PS bonus) + (weapon+PS bonus).

Again, sorry for the miscommunication. So yes, what you're saying jives, in that the PS bonus is quadrupled in this case. And, a Zebuloid with 10 weapons in its tentacles striking with all 10 at once would have 10x their PS bonus applied. I understand the logic, but I still think it's somewhat ridiculous since it ties PS damage to the number of arms you can hit with. More arms, more weapons, more PS damage.

[Killer Cyborg]

So yes, what you're saying jives, in that the PS bonus is quadrupled in this case. And, a Zebuloid with 10 weapons in its tentacles striking with all 10 at once would have 10x their PS bonus applied. I understand the logic, but I still think it's somewhat ridiculous since it ties PS damage to the number of arms you can hit with. More arms, more weapons, more PS damage.

It's still not directly the number of arms.
If you stab somebody 10 times, you do 10x normal damage, whether or not you accomplish the task with one arm, ten arms, a hundred arms, or zero arms.
What it comes down to is that getting stabbed 10x equals getting stabbed 10x.
One way--perhaps the easiest way--of stabbing somebody 10x efficiently is to have a bunch of arms and the right skills, BUT it's not the only way.

A person with N&S Kickboxing's Lightning Kata and 10 attacks per melee could also hit somebody 10 times in a single initiative, but using only a single blade. That would do 10x the damage of one normal strike.
A person driving a Mark V Armored Personnel Carrier can hit somebody with a volley of 20 mini-missiles in a single attack, and that does 20x the damage of a single mini-missile strike.

Rifts can get real powerful real fast.

[narcissus]

Edit: And just to elaborate, IF you make a mutant octopus with the extra limbs mutation from MiO, with multi-limb coordination, and you get WP Paired Weapons 5 times, and you give your character 10 sabers, I'm pretty sure you can do a deca-attack with all ten arms on the same target for 20d4 MD.

In RUE WP Paired states:

Four-armed characters only need to take W.P. Paired Weapons once, not once for each pair of arms.

So I don't think you'd need to take it more than once. But I suppose it depends on if you interpret "four-armed" to be "exactly 4 arms" or "more than 2 arms". Given the "not once for each pair of arms" statement, I fall in the latter camp.

[Killer Cyborg]

Edit: And just to elaborate, IF you make a mutant octopus with the extra limbs mutation from MiO, with multi-limb coordination, and you get WP Paired Weapons 5 times, and you give your character 10 sabers, I'm pretty sure you can do a deca-attack with all ten arms on the same target for 20d4 MD.

In RUE WP Paired states:

Four-armed characters only need to take W.P. Paired Weapons once, not once for each pair of arms.

So I don't think you'd need to take it more than once. But I suppose it depends on if you interpret "four-armed" to be "exactly 4 arms" or "more than 2 arms". Given the "not once for each pair of arms" statement, I fall in the latter camp.

Well, that's handy!


Back in TMNT, it might have been different.
I made these characters pre-RUE, IIRC, so we either used some earlier rules, or just made something up based on what seemed reasonable.
My policy is/was to err on the side of caution, and since multi-limb coordination had to be done per pair of limbs (iirc), that might have been enough to make me assume the same was true of Paired Weapons.
Or maybe it's a rule somewhere. Too long ago for me to remember!

So post-RUE, that kind of character would be even more powerful.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I come to this thread to make a comment, only to realize KC has said everything that needed to be said.

[Killer Cyborg]

I come to this thread to make a comment, only to realize KC has said everything that needed to be said.

[ShadowLogan]

Nope.
PS isn't per arm; it's per person (or in some cases, per object).

Technically correct that applies the vast majority of the time for Lift/Carry or damage or damage bonuses. The exception being if you have limbs with individualized PS Stats (like with cybernetic/bionic limbs, bio-wizard limbs, and possibly specialized gear/powers that alters PS of that particular limb). While this exception doesn't apply to the specific examples used (Rahu-man, Zebuloid, or Octo-man/mutant-octopus), it can still apply in terms of limb numbers when augmented limbs are involved.

Back in TMNT, it might have been different.

It was different. Paired Weapons had to be selected for specific setups (going by the NPC examples, it isn't clear in the actual skill description). I'm not sure when it was changed megaversally, but I don't think its ever been part of Rifts (though IIRC the New West OCCs used it). Looking at the description in Heroes Unlimited (2Er pg69 and pg61) it reads that if taken as a skill (as opposed to HTH level up) it has to be declared. RUE seems to require that you have WP for the weapon used in Paired Weapons, and you can not use guns (which might explain New West's use of specialized skill for specific guns, though these are OCC special skills IIRC).

[Killer Cyborg]

Nope.
PS isn't per arm; it's per person (or in some cases, per object).

Technically correct that applies the vast majority of the time for Lift/Carry or damage or damage bonuses. The exception being if you have limbs with individualized PS Stats (like with cybernetic/bionic limbs, bio-wizard limbs, and possibly specialized gear/powers that alters PS of that particular limb). While this exception doesn't apply to the specific examples used (Rahu-man, Zebuloid, or Octo-man/mutant-octopus), it can still apply in terms of limb numbers when augmented limbs are involved.

True!

[narcissus]

and you can not use guns (which might explain New West's use of specialized skill for specific guns, though these are OCC special skills IIRC).

RUE does provide a provision for guns (though it's not awesome):

W.P. Paired Weapons is designed for melee weapons like knifes, swords, clubs, etc., not guns. When shooting two guns at once there is a penalty of -2 to strike with the regular hand and -6 to strike with the off-hand.

I assume that if you don't have WP Paired you're shooting wild for both hands (-6), so it does provide some respite - 4 less on the strike penalty with your primary hand.

[Blue_Lion]

The bonus damage would be on every hit.

[Killer Cyborg]

and you can not use guns (which might explain New West's use of specialized skill for specific guns, though these are OCC special skills IIRC).

RUE does provide a provision for guns (though it's not awesome):

W.P. Paired Weapons is designed for melee weapons like knifes, swords, clubs, etc., not guns. When shooting two guns at once there is a penalty of -2 to strike with the regular hand and -6 to strike with the off-hand.

I assume that if you don't have WP Paired you're shooting wild for both hands (-6), so it does provide some respite - 4 less on the strike penalty with your primary hand.

I assume the same thing, but I wish they'd been clearer; that could be just for anybody whether or not they have WP Paired, because Palladium likes to stick rules in when they think of them, more than when/where they're truly appropriate.

My interpretation of that rule is also that Ambidextrous characters can fire paired guns at -2 to strike with each hand, since both hands are effectively "the regular hand."

[Killer Cyborg]

2-handed weapons seem to lose so I'd houserule you can add double the PS damage when wielding that way (or double punch with SNPS)

D&D 3.x went with a 1.5x bonus instead of 2x, when dealing with two-handed weapons, and I think that might be more balanced.
Keep in mind that two-handed weapons in general already do extra damage to begin with, and part of that damage represents the strength it takes to wield them.

But whatever floats your boat; I'm just tossing out thoughts.

[narcissus]

Keep in mind that two-handed weapons in general already do extra damage to begin with, and part of that damage represents the strength it takes to wield them.

Kind of, but not when comparing against 2 one-handed weapons. Ex. a big, two-handed axe is in the neighborhood of 4d6, but a one-handed sword is around 2d6. So weapon damage is a wash with paired weapons. In a lot of cases the weapon damage from 2 one-handed weapons beats the weapon damage from 1 two-handed weapon.

[Borast]

To keep it simple I'd do the following, if a strike hits....even if the character is using two melee weapons or using empty handed strikes, each hit gets the PS bonus added to it.

This is how I used to play it back in the day (TMNT), but now I use the second option (which I realize is very much a house rule). Here's why -

I don't think twice damage bonus was the original intent, and it makes WP Paired an absolutely essential skill for any melee fighter. Forget a 2-handed weapon - it doesn't double my damage bonus. From a logical perspective, a guy with a 2-handed axe and a PS of 30 is going to put everything he's got into it. So why does a guy with a PS of 30 and 2 hand axes hit twice as hard? There's no way that each of his arms is swinging as hard as the 2-hander. It'd be a like a baseball player going to bat with one arm instead of two.

I definitely appreciate knowing what you and other players/GMs do though, as I want to make sure my sheet has options to cover the bases.

Like DK, never really thought of it.
If doing a simul strike, I would likely only apply ONE PS damage bonus. I know in some games, rules have 2-handers receiving a 50% damage bonus, or have the weapon doing a larger die of damage, and receiving only 100% of the bonus...

Incidentally, some players have successfully used a single arm when at bat. Peter Gray played in the Big Show in '45 - only had one arm, and an almost 26% on base percentage in 77 games played. More recently, Jim Abbot, despite playing in the AL ('89-'99), was reputed (by team mates) to have dinged several homers in batting practice, despite not having a right hand.

[Killer Cyborg]

Keep in mind that two-handed weapons in general already do extra damage to begin with, and part of that damage represents the strength it takes to wield them.

Kind of, but not when comparing against 2 one-handed weapons. Ex. a big, two-handed axe is in the neighborhood of 4d6, but a one-handed sword is around 2d6. So weapon damage is a wash with paired weapons. In a lot of cases the weapon damage from 2 one-handed weapon beats the weapon damage from 1 two-handed weapon.

Well, I can't really disagree with that, looking over the weapons lists.
Fair enough.


But out of curiosity, does anybody know how things stack up in real life combat?
Does dual-wielding come out more lethal than two-handed weapons?

[narcissus]

But out of curiosity, does anybody know how things stack up in real life combat?
Does dual-wielding come out more lethal than two-handed weapons?

It does when it's 2x PS damage vs. 1x PS damage.

Oh, you said real life. I have no idea

[narcissus]

If doing a simul strike, I would likely only apply ONE PS damage bonus.

I honestly think this was the intent. 1 PS bonus, no matter what. I can't remember which book(s), but I'm sure I've read that PS damage bonus is *not* doubled when a crit happens. Double weapon damage, single PS damage bonus. I definitely can't cite the book, but I'm sure I've read it. Not that anyone plays like that, but I'm pretty sure it's "canon".

But back to one PS damage bonus for 2 weapons - then the question arises of what happens if one of the two weapons is parried? Is it still the full PS bonus for the weapon that hit, or only 1/2?

[narcissus]

Incidentally, some players have successfully used a single arm when at bat. Peter Gray played in the Big Show in '45 - only had one arm, and an almost 26% on base percentage in 77 games played. More recently, Jim Abbot, despite playing in the AL ('89-'99), was reputed (by team mates) to have dinged several homers in batting practice, despite not having a right hand.

Sure... those guys had a PS of 45

[Borast]

Killer Cyborg asked:

But out of curiosity, does anybody know how things stack up in real life combat?
Does dual-wielding come out more lethal than two-handed weapons?

Speaking purely hypothetically...
Depends.
Generally speaking, the two-handed weapon IRL is "more" lethal, in that you can cause more trauma with it. But, you can kill someone with a saturday night special just as well as a Desert Eagle. The difference is the amount of trauma done AFTER impact.

In the case of a two hander, it is slower off the mark, harder to control than a smaller weapon, and more difficult for the wielder to recover from in the event of a miss. Also, if the wielder of the shorter weapon can make it within the arc of your weapon, you have two choices at that point, abandon the monster, or die.

For dual weilding, again, hypothetical, since I have no weapons training beyond "always treat is as loaded, and always point it away from whatever is not your target!" However, from what I have seen in various media and video of actual MAs, dual weilding is generally intended for the second weapon to act as shield and for opportunity attacks. I would presume that a dual blow would open the weilder to the foe for an attack that you could not defend against. It would likely also be slower than a typical attack, due to the need to change stance before the attack.
Think about it like a punch. How often do you see a fighter use a double fist punch? (I'm not talking about a two fisted hammer blow to the an exposed upper torso...you see those all the time... )
What I *do* know, and has yet to be reflected in any game I've ever played, BLOCKING a larger weapon with a lighter weapon is suicidal. Parry instead to cause the incoming blow to be deflected...otherwise, as you fall over dying, you'll be staring at the stub of what used to be your weapon.

Narcissus wrote:

Sure... those guys had a PS of 45

Nah, given the lack of 'roids and his background, I doubt Mr. Gray had more than a 10-12 range PS!
As for Mr. Abbot, even with the likely 'roid use, I doubt his PS is higher than a 16.

In any case, power is nothing. If all you have is power, you can crush. You need explosive power too. Take the average denizen of Muscle Beach, give him a bat and tell him to hit a pitch, he will likely miss every ball, because he's too slow (unless he does the clean & jerk style lifts). This is why excessively strong boxers regularly loose to weaker boxers who are faster...they never hit. But when they do, they put the faster guy on the mat!

[Killer Cyborg]

Killer Cyborg asked:

But out of curiosity, does anybody know how things stack up in real life combat?
Does dual-wielding come out more lethal than two-handed weapons?

Speaking purely hypothetically...
Depends.
Generally speaking, the two-handed weapon IRL is "more" lethal, in that you can cause more trauma with it. But, you can kill someone with a saturday night special just as well as a Desert Eagle. The difference is the amount of trauma done AFTER impact.

In the case of a two hander, it is slower off the mark, harder to control than a smaller weapon, and more difficult for the wielder to recover from in the event of a miss. Also, if the wielder of the shorter weapon can make it within the arc of your weapon, you have two choices at that point, abandon the monster, or die.

For dual weilding, again, hypothetical, since I have no weapons training beyond "always treat is as loaded, and always point it away from whatever is not your target!" However, from what I have seen in various media and video of actual MAs, dual weilding is generally intended for the second weapon to act as shield and for opportunity attacks. I would presume that a dual blow would open the weilder to the foe for an attack that you could not defend against. It would likely also be slower than a typical attack, due to the need to change stance before the attack.
Think about it like a punch. How often do you see a fighter use a double fist punch? (I'm not talking about a two fisted hammer blow to the an exposed upper torso...you see those all the time... )
What I *do* know, and has yet to be reflected in any game I've ever played, BLOCKING a larger weapon with a lighter weapon is suicidal. Parry instead to cause the incoming blow to be defected...otherwise, as you fall over dying, you'll be staring at the stub of what used to be your weapon.

Nice answers!


Yeah, I've seen the same in movies and such; paired weapons are usually used with one for blocking and opportunity strikes.
But sometimes there's a showy double-stab or such, and I'm curious if that's actually a thing, or if somebody seriously trained in paired weapon fighting would just use a single weapon for that.

Bringing fists into things is interesting, because yeah, double punches are rare.
BUT I have seen it happen in martial arts forms before, I'm pretty certain. Horse-riding stance, with simultaneous punches thrown from the hip, both arms doing the same thing.
Not sure what the combat purpose would be; maybe there isn't one.

[Borast]

Bringing fists into things is interesting, because yeah, double punches are rare.
BUT I have seen it happen in martial arts forms before, I'm pretty certain. Horse-riding stance, with simultaneous punches thrown from the hip, both arms doing the same thing.
Not sure what the combat purpose would be; maybe there isn't one.

Thinking more on the issue...I'd say a double strike would be one PS bonus. The horse stance punch is the perfect example. When you punch, you're throwing in your power from the hips up, and including the torque from the turning the torso into the blow. With the double punch, you're loosing all the power from the torso.

As for possible combat purpose...overwhelming defences? Your opponent may not be able to defend fully against simultaneous attacks against two separate locations? Once past the defences, you may be able to use the contacting hand to perform a lock or nerve hit?
I am aware of a twin blow that works - finger strikes to nerve junctures at the shoulder. It temporarily paralyses the arms, making the next strikes almost undefendable. (I have an acquaintance whom is trained, and claims he has used it in a match.)

[Killer Cyborg]

Bringing fists into things is interesting, because yeah, double punches are rare.
BUT I have seen it happen in martial arts forms before, I'm pretty certain. Horse-riding stance, with simultaneous punches thrown from the hip, both arms doing the same thing.
Not sure what the combat purpose would be; maybe there isn't one.

Thinking more on the issue...I'd say a double strike would be one PS bonus. The horse stance punch is the perfect example. When you punch, you're throwing in your power from the hips up, and including the torque from the turning the torso into the blow. With the double punch, you're losing all the power from the torso.

Yeah, I had the same thought; you don't get the snap from the waist when you're punching with both hands at once.
So realistically, with that kind of double-punch I don't see any reason to get full strength bonus to each attack; arguably you shouldn't get any.

Of course, Palladium's combat isn't necessarily about realistic physics, so what's Realistic and what Palladium intends aren't always the same thing.

As for possible combat purpose...overwhelming defences? Your opponent may not be able to defend fully against simultaneous attacks against two separate locations? Once past the defences, you may be able to use the contacting hand to perform a lock or nerve hit?
I am aware of a twin blow that works - finger strikes to nerve junctures at the shoulder. It temporarily paralyses the arms, making the next strikes almost undefendable. (I have an acquaintance whom is trained, and claims he has used it in a match.)

No idea what it might be for, really. Showing off? Making things harder to block?
Dunno.
There's a lot of martial arts stuff where it's unclear what the purpose is. Somebody told me a few years back that the entire purpose of the horseriding stance in the first place was because the normal sideways stances didn't work for people in certain kinds of armor. Googling around just now, most sources claim that the point of the stance is just to strengthen your leg muscles and such.
Pretty sure I've never used it during sparring or an actual fight!


So if the double-fist strike in forms requires the horse stance, it might not be for actual combat anyway.

[ITWastrel]

I think we need to keep in mind the facts.

We're not talking nitty-gritty wound tracks and depths, here. It makes zero difference if one strike or another would or would not be more devastating using one or two hands, nor does the stance, the exact maneuver, or any other minutia.

This is a game. SDC and HP are an abstract concept that covers not only physical health, but an overall fitness for combat. The damage numbers are also an abstract of just how devastating, on average, the weapon is.

Since it's an abstract with game rules, we can do some math and determine the Average damage for dual vs single wielding, and compare some weapons.


Weapon: Big Honkin' Sword.
3d6 SDC/HP per swing, two handed.
With a +10 PS damage bonus, min/max/avg damage: 13/28/20.5

Weapon: Two Pointy Boys
1d4 SDC/HP per swing, one handed, paired
With a +10 PS damage bonus, min/max/avg damage: 11/14/12.5

Assuming 4 APM and a 50% success rate for attacks vs dodge/parry, the average DPR here is:

BHS: Two successful attacks at (MMA13/28/20.5) inflict 26-56 SDC/HP, Average 41.

TPB: Four successful attacks at (MMA11/14/12.5) inflict 44-56 SDC/HP, Average 50.


The Big Honkin' Sword does more damage per swing, but the same (or less) damage per round. Because his weapon is big and slow, but devastating. Muscle makes that hurt worse, sure, but the main damage is from the sharp metal bits.

The Two Pointy Boys don't do anywhere near as much damage individually, though their ability to be used more often allows for more attempts at injury. This allowance is balanced in the game rules with a skill investment, Paired Weapons, and cannot be achieved without that skill and proficiency in the weapons used. PS damage bonuses (and other static damage bonuses) are more important here, as they are the mechanism through which that investment is paid.

The damage bonus appears to be well deserved for Paired Weapons. Does anyone disagree?

[narcissus]

I think we need to keep in mind the facts.

We're not talking nitty-gritty wound tracks and depths, here. It makes zero difference if one strike or another would or would not be more devastating using one or two hands, nor does the stance, the exact maneuver, or any other minutia.

This is a game. SDC and HP are an abstract concept that covers not only physical health, but an overall fitness for combat. The damage numbers are also an abstract of just how devastating, on average, the weapon is.

Since it's an abstract with game rules, we can do some math and determine the Average damage for dual vs single wielding, and compare some weapons.

I agree with all of this, however your example is not really apples to apples.

You selected a relatively high damage 3D6 two-handed sword vs. 1D4 daggers that do the same damage as no weapons at all (untrained punch is 1D4). As I mentioned here - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182371#p3110144 - a big two-handed axe maxes out around 4D6, and a one-handed sword maxes out around 2D6. So the weapon damage is a wash. I could even go so far as to say a pair of high-quality katanas does 3D6 per sword, which - weapon damage alone - would beat the big two-handed axe (are there any two-handed weapons that do 6D6?). Those numbers will definitely change your math outcome.

[Killer Cyborg]

I think we need to keep in mind the facts.

We're not talking nitty-gritty wound tracks and depths, here. It makes zero difference if one strike or another would or would not be more devastating using one or two hands, nor does the stance, the exact maneuver, or any other minutia.

This is a game. SDC and HP are an abstract concept that covers not only physical health, but an overall fitness for combat. The damage numbers are also an abstract of just how devastating, on average, the weapon is.

Since it's an abstract with game rules, we can do some math and determine the Average damage for dual vs single wielding, and compare some weapons.


Weapon: Big Honkin' Sword.
3d6 SDC/HP per swing, two handed.
With a +10 PS damage bonus, min/max/avg damage: 13/28/20.5

Weapon: Two Pointy Boys
1d4 SDC/HP per swing, one handed, paired
With a +10 PS damage bonus, min/max/avg damage: 11/14/12.5

Assuming 4 APM and a 50% success rate for attacks vs dodge/parry, the average DPR here is:

BHS: Two successful attacks at (MMA13/28/20.5) inflict 26-56 SDC/HP, Average 41.

TPB: Four successful attacks at (MMA11/14/12.5) inflict 44-56 SDC/HP, Average 50.


The Big Honkin' Sword does more damage per swing, but the same (or less) damage per round. Because his weapon is big and slow, but devastating. Muscle makes that hurt worse, sure, but the main damage is from the sharp metal bits.

The Two Pointy Boys don't do anywhere near as much damage individually, though their ability to be used more often allows for more attempts at injury. This allowance is balanced in the game rules with a skill investment, Paired Weapons, and cannot be achieved without that skill and proficiency in the weapons used. PS damage bonuses (and other static damage bonuses) are more important here, as they are the mechanism through which that investment is paid.

The damage bonus appears to be well deserved for Paired Weapons. Does anyone disagree?

In Palladium a dagger normally does d6 damage, short swords do 2d4, and some one-handed swords (scimitars and falchions) do 2d6 damage.
Which drastically changes the picture!

[ITWastrel]

Any mook can pick up a large weapon and do damage with it.

Zero skills needed. Zero investment. Mook + BHS = Damage.


A Paired Weapons fighter requires skill investment. You need Paired Weapons skill, and the Weapon Proficiency for that weapon.

TWO skills. BIG investment for some characters.

A PW shanker with pen knives invested two skills to be deadly with knives.
A PW beast swinging 2d6 weapons still paid two skills. They should profit too.

Why should you run around doubling bonuses or whatnot for the mook who picked up a club? What did he earn?

[Blue_Lion]

Any mook can pick up a large weapon and do damage with it.

Zero skills needed. Zero investment. Mook + BHS = Damage.


A Paired Weapons fighter requires skill investment. You need Paired Weapons skill, and the Weapon Proficiency for that weapon.

TWO skills. BIG investment for some characters.

A PW shanker with pen knives invested two skills to be deadly with knives.
A PW beast swinging 2d6 weapons still paid two skills. They should profit too.

Why should you run around doubling bonuses or whatnot for the mook who picked up a club? What did he earn?

What bonus are you talking about the mook with no skill is not getting a bonus.

The paired weapon fighter gets bonus to strike (hits more often).
options to do things that the mook with a big stick can not do.
Parry and attack at the same time gives you the option to avoid your foes auto dodge/parry skill.

The issue is not the mook getting bonuses but the PW shanker choosing sub par weapon to attack with.

Damage in this case is not a bonus but the nature of the weapon.

[ITWastrel]

Any mook can pick up a large weapon and do damage with it.

Zero skills needed. Zero investment. Mook + BHS = Damage.


A Paired Weapons fighter requires skill investment. You need Paired Weapons skill, and the Weapon Proficiency for that weapon.

TWO skills. BIG investment for some characters.

A PW shanker with pen knives invested two skills to be deadly with knives.
A PW beast swinging 2d6 weapons still paid two skills. They should profit too.

Why should you run around doubling bonuses or whatnot for the mook who picked up a club? What did he earn?

What bonus are you talking about the mook with no skill is not getting a bonus.

The paired weapon fighter gets bonus to strike (hits more often).
options to do things that the mook with a big stick can not do.
Parry and attack at the same time gives you the option to avoid your foes auto dodge/parry skill.

The issue is not the mook getting bonuses but the PW shanker choosing sub par weapon to attack with.

Damage in this case is not a bonus but the nature of the weapon.

Lemme try again.

The Mook with a big stick invested nothing to do 4d6+ps damage.

The Shanker, now armed with big, 3d6+ps super knives, invested two skills. One for Paired Weapons, another in WP Super Knives.

The Shanker spent TWO skills to get double attacks.

The Shanker deserves to do more damage.

Even if the dual weapons guy had a weapon that did 10 dice damage, he still spent two skills to get double attacks.

My argument is simple.

Spending two skills is an appropriate price to double your number of attacks, and there is no need to penalize paired weapons, nor to give unjustified buffs to two handed weapons.

[Blue_Lion]

Any mook can pick up a large weapon and do damage with it.

Zero skills needed. Zero investment. Mook + BHS = Damage.


A Paired Weapons fighter requires skill investment. You need Paired Weapons skill, and the Weapon Proficiency for that weapon.

TWO skills. BIG investment for some characters.

A PW shanker with pen knives invested two skills to be deadly with knives.
A PW beast swinging 2d6 weapons still paid two skills. They should profit too.

Why should you run around doubling bonuses or whatnot for the mook who picked up a club? What did he earn?

What bonus are you talking about the mook with no skill is not getting a bonus.

The paired weapon fighter gets bonus to strike (hits more often).
options to do things that the mook with a big stick can not do.
Parry and attack at the same time gives you the option to avoid your foes auto dodge/parry skill.

The issue is not the mook getting bonuses but the PW shanker choosing sub par weapon to attack with.

Damage in this case is not a bonus but the nature of the weapon.

Lemme try again.

The Mook with a big stick invested nothing to do 4d6+ps damage.

The Shanker, now armed with big, 3d6+ps super knives, invested two skills. One for Paired Weapons, another in WP Super Knives.

The Shanker spent TWO skills to get double attacks.

The Shanker deserves to do more damage.

Even if the dual weapons guy had a weapon that did 10 dice damage, he still spent two skills to get double attacks.

My argument is simple.

Spending two skills is an appropriate price to double your number of attacks, and there is no need to penalize paired weapons, nor to give unjustified buffs to two handed weapons.

Wait you think the individual weapon should do more damage based off skill selection? (that seams unneeded and gives a even greater advantage than a dual wilder already has.)

The shankers double attack would be (3d6+PS)+(3d6+PS) =6d6+PS+PS to the mooks 4d6+PS see the issue does not exist. (your own numbers disproved your stance.)

At this point I do not think the issue is the skills or weapons. 1 two handed weapon should do more damage than 1 one handed weapon.

Skill is not about increasing damage but increasing chances to hit thus giving better chances to hit, it also gives you better defense so you take less damage.


Damage is a effect of a weapon not a skill (other than special cases like fencing).

[ITWastrel]

Wait you think the individual weapon should do more damage based off skill selection? (that seams unneeded and gives a even greater advantage than a dual wilder already has.)

Don't put words in my mouth, just read the ones I wrote. I said nothing about changing weapon damage.

The shankers double attack would be (3d6+PS)+(3d6+PS) =6d6+PS+PS to the mooks 4d6+PS see the issue does not exist. (your own numbers disproved your stance.)

I was comparing the benefit of double attacks. Not one weapon vs another. The damage is irrelevant, the FACT is that a LARGE percentage of a Paired Weapons user's damage is made of STATIC BONUSES, not DICE.
Reducing Static Bonuses will reduce the usefulness of paired weapons.

At this point I do not think the issue is the skills or weapons. 1 two handed weapon should do more damage than 1 one handed weapon.

Skill is not about increasing damage but increasing chances to hit thus giving better chances to hit, it also gives you better defense so you take less damage.


Damage is a effect of a weapon not a skill (other than special cases like fencing).

Huh? You lost me. Are you saying the benefits of parrying (something you can already do, by the way, for free, against multiple attackers) should make up for damage lost?
Or are you saying paired weapons skill doesn't increase damage, except that it does, directly, by up to doubling the number of attacks you can attempt?

Upon reflection, it may be that you are arguing ALL one handed weapons, not just Paired , should get 1/2 PS bonus, because they only use one arm.

If that is your argument, please reiterate it.

Otherwise, I don't know how to make "You paid two skills to potentially do double damage, so you potentially do double damage, and that's what the rules say, and it makes sense, and how every other player everywhere has ever played this game for 30 years, and here's why" any simpler.

Do you need a chart?

[Blue_Lion]

I did not put words in our mouth I asked a question.

Your stance is kind of confusing.
A person with daul wild should do more damage than a mook with a big stick but you are not talking about changing weapon damage.

Are you saying that because you pick up the two skills that each attack should get bonus damage based on the number of skills being used? (that seams like it could get really problematic.)

Wait you have an issue about daul wilders doing less damage than 2 handed weapon but you think the individual weapon damage is irreverent?

I never said that 1 handed weapons should only get 1/2 ps damage. Looking at the poll it is not a common tactic.

What i said is the bonus for skills is not damage but increase chance to hit, parry and perform moves that are not available without a skill.
Damage is a function of a weapon and some weapons are just better at dealing damage than others.


Looking up it appears your issue is you are dealing using high end and not average to throw off the numbers numbers. I would not think some random mook with a stick would have a PS of 25. With high end PS bonus should make up a significant part of the damage, but Two handed weapons do not get double bonus so some think they are treated unfairly by high end PS.



Lets assume average range of stats say PS 14, level 4.

Mook with a big stick base accuracy 80% base parry bonus 0.
Shanker base accuracy (going knifes) base accuracy 90% bonus to parry +2.


Now lets give them hand to hand skill basic.
they are 5 attacks with +2 parry dodge.

So in a vrs match.
Shanker is 90% accuracy +20% parry+10% dodge roll with punch.
Mook is is 80% accuracy +10% to pary doge or roll with punch. (I do not think roll with punch works with knifes.)

As you can see the shanker has clear statistical advantage not linked to damage.
Assuming no dodge adjusting accuracy for parry.
The Mook should hit 60% of the time.
the shanker 80% of the time.
Mook attacks 5 times lands 3 hits.
Shanker 5 double attacks attacks lands 4 attacks for 8 hits.
Hmmm..... seams daul wild should be wining this fight if we do not look at weapon damage.

Now lets look at damage.
You called out a big stick. The highest blunt damage according to rue pg 326 is 2d6.
you called out pen knifes so verry small 1d4.
So mook does 6d6 (6-36)
small knife shanker does 8d4 (8-32)
Normal knife shanker 8d6 (8-48)

So the mook has higher end damage but the sanker has better low end and likely average damage.
If the shanker was using a normal damage knife 1d6 He would completly blow the mook out of the water.
PS bonus for rolling high PS would also favor the shanker.


When most weapon skills do not add to individual weapon damage why should daul wild.
Looking at it with the bonus for skills your complaint seams shallow. (your both 50% accuracy negated the real bonus for skill)
Weather the do to static bonus from high stat or just weapon damage the double attack should be consistently doing more damage than the mook.

Note: dual wild is baked into some hand to hand styles so it would not always be a investment of two skills to daul wild.
I would think a shanker would be using hand to hand assassin and not basic.

[ITWastrel]

I did not put words in our mouth I asked a question.

Your stance is kind of confusing.
A person with daul wild should do more damage than a mook with a big stick but you are not talking about changing weapon damage.

Are you saying that because you pick up the two skills that each attack should get bonus damage based on the number of skills being used? (that seams like it could get really problematic.)

Wait you have an issue about daul wilders doing less damage than 2 handed weapon but you think the individual weapon damage is irreverent?

I never said that 1 handed weapons should only get 1/2 ps damage.

What i said is the bonus for skills is not damage but increase chance to hit, parry and perform moves that are not available without a skill.
Damage is a function of a weapon and some weapons are just better at dealing damage than others.


Looking up it appears your issue is you are dealing using high end and not average to throw off the numbers numbers. I would not think some random mook with a stick would have a PS of 25. With high end PS bonus should make up a significant part of the damage, but Two handed weapons do not get double bonus so some think they are treated unfairly by high end PS.



Lets assume average range of stats say PS 14, level 4.

Mook with a big stick base accuracy 80% base parry bonus 0.
Shanker base accuracy (going knifes) base accuracy 90% bonus to parry +2.


Now lets give them hand to hand skill basic.
they are 5 attacks with +2 parry dodge.

So in a vrs match.
Shanker is 90% accuracy +20% parry+10% dodge roll with punch.
Mook is is 80% accuracy +10% to pary doge or roll with punch. (I do not think roll with punch works with knifes.)

As you can see the shanker has clear statistical advantage not linked to damage.
Assuming no dodge adjusting accuracy for parry.
The Mook should hit 60% of the time.
the shanker 80% of the time.
Mook attacks 5 times lands 3 hits.
Shanker 5 double attacks attacks lands 4 attacks for 8 hits.
Hmmm..... seams daul wild should be wining this fight if we do not look at weapon damage.

Now lets look at damage.
You called out a big stick. The highest blunt damage according to rue pg 326 is 2d6.
you called out pen knifes so verry small 1d4.
So mook does 6d6 (6-36)
small knife shanker does 8d4 (8-32)
Normal knife shanker 8d6 (8-48)

So the mook has higher end damage but the sanker has better low end and likely average damage.
If the shanker was using a normal damage knife 1d6 He would completly blow the mook out of the water.
PS bonus for rolling high PS would also favor the shanker.


When most weapon skills do not add to individual weapon damage why should daul wild.
Looking at it with the bonus for skills your complaint seams shallow. (your both 50% accuracy negated the real bonus for skill)
Weather the do to static bonus from high stat or just weapon damage the double attack should be consistently doing more damage than the mook.

Note: dual wild is baked into some hand to hand styles so it would not always be a investment of two skills to daul wild.
I would think a shanker would be using hand to hand assassin and not basic.

That was a lot, and you don't get my stance, at all.

I am addressing the core question, how should PS damage bonuses be applied to paired weapons attacks.

How do you handle paired weapons PS/Punch damage bonus?

From OP.

The QUESTION of this THREAD is "How do you handle paired weapons PS/Punch damage bonus?"

The ANSWER is, obviously, 100% of PS damage bonus is applied to every attack, or Option A in the poll above. This is RAW, RAI, and how it's supposed to work.

The REASON is, because that damage, along with other static damage bonuses per swing, are how the Paired Weapons skill pays off the two (2) skill investment required for the toon to even attempt dual wielding.

The CONSEQUENCE of Option B, above, is that Paired Weapons skill loses most of it's value, as PW damage goes down dramatically, especially at higher strengths.

I am UNINTERESTED in continuing this. I will not return to this thread.

If you cannot figure my stance out now, call whomever is supposed to be in charge of you and maybe they can help you.

[Blue_Lion]

I did not put words in our mouth I asked a question.

Your stance is kind of confusing.
A person with daul wild should do more damage than a mook with a big stick but you are not talking about changing weapon damage.

Are you saying that because you pick up the two skills that each attack should get bonus damage based on the number of skills being used? (that seams like it could get really problematic.)

Wait you have an issue about daul wilders doing less damage than 2 handed weapon but you think the individual weapon damage is irreverent?

I never said that 1 handed weapons should only get 1/2 ps damage.

What i said is the bonus for skills is not damage but increase chance to hit, parry and perform moves that are not available without a skill.
Damage is a function of a weapon and some weapons are just better at dealing damage than others.


Looking up it appears your issue is you are dealing using high end and not average to throw off the numbers numbers. I would not think some random mook with a stick would have a PS of 25. With high end PS bonus should make up a significant part of the damage, but Two handed weapons do not get double bonus so some think they are treated unfairly by high end PS.



Lets assume average range of stats say PS 14, level 4.

Mook with a big stick base accuracy 80% base parry bonus 0.
Shanker base accuracy (going knifes) base accuracy 90% bonus to parry +2.


Now lets give them hand to hand skill basic.
they are 5 attacks with +2 parry dodge.

So in a vrs match.
Shanker is 90% accuracy +20% parry+10% dodge roll with punch.
Mook is is 80% accuracy +10% to pary doge or roll with punch. (I do not think roll with punch works with knifes.)

As you can see the shanker has clear statistical advantage not linked to damage.
Assuming no dodge adjusting accuracy for parry.
The Mook should hit 60% of the time.
the shanker 80% of the time.
Mook attacks 5 times lands 3 hits.
Shanker 5 double attacks attacks lands 4 attacks for 8 hits.
Hmmm..... seams daul wild should be wining this fight if we do not look at weapon damage.

Now lets look at damage.
You called out a big stick. The highest blunt damage according to rue pg 326 is 2d6.
you called out pen knifes so verry small 1d4.
So mook does 6d6 (6-36)
small knife shanker does 8d4 (8-32)
Normal knife shanker 8d6 (8-48)

So the mook has higher end damage but the sanker has better low end and likely average damage.
If the shanker was using a normal damage knife 1d6 He would completly blow the mook out of the water.
PS bonus for rolling high PS would also favor the shanker.


When most weapon skills do not add to individual weapon damage why should daul wild.
Looking at it with the bonus for skills your complaint seams shallow. (your both 50% accuracy negated the real bonus for skill)
Weather the do to static bonus from high stat or just weapon damage the double attack should be consistently doing more damage than the mook.

Note: dual wild is baked into some hand to hand styles so it would not always be a investment of two skills to daul wild.
I would think a shanker would be using hand to hand assassin and not basic.

That was a lot, and you don't get my stance, at all.

I am addressing the core question, how should PS damage bonuses be applied to paired weapons attacks.

How do you handle paired weapons PS/Punch damage bonus?

From OP.

The QUESTION of this THREAD is "How do you handle paired weapons PS/Punch damage bonus?"

The ANSWER is, obviously, 100% of PS damage bonus is applied to every attack, or Option A in the poll above. This is RAW, RAI, and how it's supposed to work.

The REASON is, because that damage, along with other static damage bonuses per swing, are how the Paired Weapons skill pays off the two (2) skill investment required for the toon to even attempt dual wielding.

The CONSEQUENCE of Option B, above, is that Paired Weapons skill loses most of it's value, as PW damage goes down dramatically, especially at higher strengths.

I am UNINTERESTED in continuing this. I will not return to this thread.

If you cannot figure my stance out now, call whomever is supposed to be in charge of you and maybe they can help you.

That has already been answered. It is as written it is every weapon does WD+PS bonus.

I am not addressing the original question.
I am addressing your statement about the mook and the shanker. (something I thought was clear.)
You made it quite clear you think a character should profit from investing two skills into a weapon.

A PW shanker with pen knives invested two skills to be deadly with knives.
A PW beast swinging 2d6 weapons still paid two skills. They should profit too.

Why should you run around doubling bonuses or whatnot for the mook who picked up a club? What did he earn?

That is the question I am addressing.
What did he do to earn the PS bonus, get high PS score but I no have I seen anyone else double bonuses to skills for him.

It almost seams like I disproved your Mook stance so you tried to shift the goalpost back to just the original question as you step out.

[Prysus]

A PW shanker with pen knives invested two skills to be deadly with knives.
A PW beast swinging 2d6 weapons still paid two skills. They should profit too.

Why should you run around doubling bonuses or whatnot for the mook who picked up a club? What did he earn?

That is the question I am addressing.
What did he do to earn the PS bonus, get high PS score but I no have I seen anyone else double bonuses to skills for him.

It almost seams like I disproved your Mook stance so you tried to shift the goalpost back to just the original question as you step out.

Greetings and Salutations. I have no idea what you think you disproved. I'll try to recap some of this thread for you.

Original Poster asks about the rules.
People agree it's per hit.
Some people commented they don't think that's the intent, because it makes 1-handed weapons more deadly than 2-handed weapons. There are mentions of reducing the 1-handed P.S. damage bonus, as well as talks of doubling (or at least x1.5) the P.S. damage for 2 handed weapons. Note: Not necessarily both together, just different ideas.
ITWastrel comments on being okay with 1-handed weapons with Paired Weapon doing more damage than a 2-handed weapon due to the skill investment. The example provided involves a 1D4 damage 1-handed weapon.
Others reply about the low damage in the example (which it was) , and how daggers do 1D6 damage and there's 1 handed weapons that inflict 2D4 (as well as 2D6 damage), which changes the example provided (increasing the damage of Paired Weapons).
ITWastrel replies that it doesn't matter whether the character uses 1D4 weapons or 2D6 weapons with Paired Weapons, it still involves 2 skills to invest (1 skill for the W.P. and a 2nd skill for Paired Weapons) and that should be fine if the Paired Weapons character is inflicting more damage than a character wielding a single 2-handed weapon.

This is where you came in and, honestly, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue or what part of this do you feel you've disproven? Farewell and safe journeys.

[Blue_Lion]

A PW shanker with pen knives invested two skills to be deadly with knives.
A PW beast swinging 2d6 weapons still paid two skills. They should profit too.

Why should you run around doubling bonuses or whatnot for the mook who picked up a club? What did he earn?

That is the question I am addressing.
What did he do to earn the PS bonus, get high PS score but I no have I seen anyone else double bonuses to skills for him.

It almost seams like I disproved your Mook stance so you tried to shift the goalpost back to just the original question as you step out.

Greetings and Salutations. I have no idea what you think you disproved. I'll try to recap some of this thread for you.

Original Poster asks about the rules.
People agree it's per hit.
Some people commented they don't think that's the intent, because it makes 1-handed weapons more deadly than 2-handed weapons. There are mentions of reducing the 1-handed P.S. damage bonus, as well as talks of doubling (or at least x1.5) the P.S. damage for 2 handed weapons. Note: Not necessarily both together, just different ideas.
ITWastrel comments on being okay with 1-handed weapons with Paired Weapon doing more damage than a 2-handed weapon due to the skill investment. The example provided involves a 1D4 damage 1-handed weapon.
Others reply about the low damage in the example (which it was) , and how daggers do 1D6 damage and there's 1 handed weapons that inflict 2D4 (as well as 2D6 damage), which changes the example provided (increasing the damage of Paired Weapons).
ITWastrel replies that it doesn't matter whether the character uses 1D4 weapons or 2D6 weapons with Paired Weapons, it still involves 2 skills to invest (1 skill for the W.P. and a 2nd skill for Paired Weapons) and that should be fine if the Paired Weapons character is inflicting more damage than a character wielding a single 2-handed weapon.

This is where you came in and, honestly, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue or what part of this do you feel you've disproven? Farewell and safe journeys.

I was disproving that paired weapons come up short on damage.
My first example made it clear that I put the PS on both weapons as it says to do in the rules.
ITWastrel counter that was saying the issue is that a big part of dual wielded damage bonus was static and not dice base, and that the weapons damage did not mater.
Then I disproved that a Mook was getting bonus was getting a bonus.

I also said that damage is not based on skill but nature of a weapon.

ITWastrel stance seamed to be getting bonus damage should be about skill. I stated that typically WP do not provide bonus.

He then accused me of arguing for Boasts stance. When nothing in my posts actually supported that idea.

I was addressing what did the mook do to earn bonus damage, not Boasts house rule.

[Borast]

He then accused me of arguing for Boasts stance. When nothing in my posts actually supported that idea.

I was addressing what did the mook do to earn bonus damage, not Boasts house rule.

Technically, I don't have a stance... I'm just trying to figure it out like everyone else!
I haven't HR'd it, 'cause it hasn't ever come up before.
But, I'm willing to look at reasonable arguments in any direction.

That being said, looks like I need to stop skimming, and start reading!

[Prysus]

I was disproving that paired weapons come up short on damage.

Greetings and Salutations. From what I can tell no one has claimed Paired Weapons is short on damage. The only real debate is whether it's logical or intent of the rules for it to do as much damage as it does. So you disproved a claim no one made and are now in agreement with others.

IMy first example made it clear that I put the PS on both weapons as it says to do in the rules.

Good. We're all in agreement on what the actual rules state.

ITWastrel counter that was saying the issue is that a big part of dual wielded damage bonus was static and not dice base, and that the weapons damage did not mater.

This seems like you greatly misunderstood anything being said. ITWastrel did make the point about the weapon damage not mattering in the sense of the point being made (that Paired Weapons takes two skills to use, and it could do more damage).

For clarity though, the "static" damage number is in reference to the P.S. damage number. So, as an exampl, if I have a P.S. 30, I get +15 damage. This could be a big chunk of the damage I'm inflicting with Paired Weapons whether I'm using 1D6 daggers or 2D6 long swords.

ITWastrel provided an example earlier. Math was included. Even if you can't understand the words used, the math should clarify things.

To put it a different way: ITWastrel provided an example. The details of the example aren't important to the point the example is making (because changing a few of the details still proves the exact same point).

This by no means suggests details are never important, and attempts to disprove details are never important is irrelevant since no one made the claim.

Then I disproved that a Mook was getting bonus was getting a bonus.

Well, the only bonus ITWastrel gave the mook with the two-handed sword and no skill was the damage from P.S.

Are you claiming that a character without a W.P. doesn't get to add a bonus from an exceptional P.S.? If so, that's a house rule.

If that's not your claim, you haven't really disproven anything from what I can tell. Have you tried rereading the thread to follow the full conversation?

I also said that damage is not based on skill but nature of a weapon.

Both true and false. The nature of the weapon does matter in regards to the damage being dealt (and no one is disagreeing).

Of course, skills can help you deal more damage. Fencing, for instance, deals more sword damage. There are a few others as well

Similarly, as the case of this thread, skills such as W.P. and Paired Weapons can help a character to inflict more damage by the bonuses they provide, allowing you to hit an opponent more and thereby deal more damage.

ITWastrel stance seamed to be getting bonus damage should be about skill. I stated that typically WP do not provide bonus.

Reading the thread as a whole will tell you that ITWastrel's stance is 1: to use Paired Weapons takes two skills, and 2: ITWastrel is fine if with someone with Paired Weapons using 1 handed swords ultimately doing more damage than someone with a 2 handed sword, due to expending more skills.

If you disagree with 1 or 2, please clarify. If not, then there's no disagreement and you're basically arguing about things no one said.

I'm getting tired. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

[Blue_Lion]

@Prysus

Any mook can pick up a large weapon and do damage with it.

Zero skills needed. Zero investment. Mook + BHS = Damage.


A Paired Weapons fighter requires skill investment. You need Paired Weapons skill, and the Weapon Proficiency for that weapon.

TWO skills. BIG investment for some characters.

A PW shanker with pen knives invested two skills to be deadly with knives.
A PW beast swinging 2d6 weapons still paid two skills. They should profit too.

Why should you run around doubling bonuses or whatnot for the mook who picked up a club? What did he earn?

What bonus are you talking about the mook with no skill is not getting a bonus.

The paired weapon fighter gets bonus to strike (hits more often).
options to do things that the mook with a big stick can not do.
Parry and attack at the same time gives you the option to avoid your foes auto dodge/parry skill.

The issue is not the mook getting bonuses but the PW shanker choosing sub par weapon to attack with.

Damage in this case is not a bonus but the nature of the weapon.

Lemme try again.

The Mook with a big stick invested nothing to do 4d6+ps damage.

The Shanker, now armed with big, 3d6+ps super knives, invested two skills. One for Paired Weapons, another in WP Super Knives.

The Shanker spent TWO skills to get double attacks.

The Shanker deserves to do more damage.

Even if the dual weapons guy had a weapon that did 10 dice damage, he still spent two skills to get double attacks.

My argument is simple.

Spending two skills is an appropriate price to double your number of attacks, and there is no need to penalize paired weapons, nor to give unjustified buffs to two handed weapons.

hmmmm that seams to be a statement about lack of damage on lack of damage on daul wield. In response to me asking what bonus he is talking about and saying.

My next post clarified how damage was done.
Then ITwastrel made a statement that most of a dual wielders damage is static and the weapons damage does not matter.
That reducing static bonus would reduce effectiveness of two handed weapons.
That indicated his stance was that daul wield required high PS characters to be worth while.
(So I did an example without PS bonuses to show even with 0 static bonus dual wield is still a good at damage.)

ItWastel even said you paid two skills to potentially do double damage. Then asked if I needed a chart. (That seams to be a statement about thinking damage was linked to skills. (Odd given it followed a quote where me saying the bonus from skills is not damage but increased accuacy and parry and dual wield options to do things a single weapon can not.)

See It all started with me trying to find out what bonus he thought two handed weapons where getting, and why he thought attack damage was linked to skills.

At the point where I wrote out the damage as two handed Xd6+ps and double attack dual wield Yd6+PS+PS; it was clear that I was not talking/considering about doubling PS bonus to two handed weapons.

Well, the only bonus ITWasrel gave the mook with the two-handed sword and no skil was damage from PS.

Are you claiming that a character without a W.P. doesn't get to add a bonus from exceptional P.S. Is so, that's a house rule.

I have no idea how you came to such a contradictory idea of what I am saying.
I clearly said that damage was not linked to skill.(accept in special cases pointed out earlier.
The one who made references to should affect damage was ITwastrel with statements like The shanker deserves to do more damage.


For some one talking about my misunderstandings you seam to have some of your own.
Honestly for some one not wanting to argue that does kind of seam what you are doing while also talking down to me Prysus.

(I addressed special cases like fencing earlier so really confused while you bring it up.)
Let me clarify seams how you are misunderstanding.
Accept in rare cases like fencing, the damage of a weapon attack is not affected by skill.
(Dual wield does not double a weapons damage but lets you use to. So it does not make my statement false.)
The bonuses from skill as I said earlier are inproved accuracy, and to chance to parry.

Honestly the nitpicking approach to my wording of a summery and the tone it almost feels like you are trying to either argue with me, or are trying to attack my intelligence.

I disagree with 3.
That spending more skills means you deserve more damage.

Even with dual wield the double attack is just one option it gives. (and honestly not always the best choice in combat.)
The Parry attack allows you defeat your enemies defense important for high PP foes like juicers.

Lets try this why does spending two skills mean you deserve more damage.
If I took two over lapping W.P. (such as W.P. blunt and W.P. Staff.)
I spent two skills does that mean I deserve to do more damage than a person with just one?
So while spending two skills may seam significant that alone is not justification for increase damage.

[Hotrod]

How do people handle paired weapons PS/Punch damage bonus (SDC or from supernatural PS as per my other poll)?

The idea that a two-handed strike should have more of a damage bonus than a one-handed strike is interesting, and I explored this in a set of house rules I made in an effort to make melee equipment choices more interesting in Palladium Fantasy. One of the basic concepts of this idea was to double all damages and damage bonuses for 2-handed weapons. I haven't given much thought as to how I might house rule Rifts along similar lines.

[Prysus]

Well, the only bonus ITWasrel gave the mook with the two-handed sword and no skil was damage from PS.

Are you claiming that a character without a W.P. doesn't get to add a bonus from exceptional P.S. Is so, that's a house rule.

I have no idea how you came to such a contradictory idea of what I am saying.

Well, I didn't necessarily think you were making that claim, but I was giving room that I may have misunderstood your point. Note: There should have been a question mark after the "Are you claiming" line as it was a question.

With that said, you state you have no idea how I "came to such a contradictory idea of what" you were saying. So let me walk you through this thread with quotes.

Then I disproved that a Mook was getting bonus was getting a bonus.

Well, let's start with this statement. This starts with "Then I disproved that," with a second portion "a Mook was getting bonus was getting a bonus." Okay, so the first part says you disproved the second portion. The statement is really poorly worded, but from what I can decipher you're saying that the mook should NOT get a bonus (because "getting a bonus" has been disproven). The second possibility I can get from that statement is that maybe you were saying that the mook is supposed to have a bonus that ITWastrel was NOT providing, and you've disproved the lack of inclusion of the bonus (though this one seemed less likely for a variety of reasons). So let's start with what bonuses ITWastrel actually provided the mook.

Any mook can pick up a large weapon and do damage with it.

Zero skills needed. Zero investment. Mook + BHS = Damage.
[snip]
Why should you run around doubling bonuses or whatnot for the mook who picked up a club? What did he earn?

The Mook with a big stick invested nothing to do 4d6+ps damage.

Similar statements can be found in other posts. So the only "bonus" ITWastrel provided to the mook is the P.S. Damage bonus. So if you're disproving the mook gets a bonus, the only bonus you can claim to disprove is the P.S. damage bonus (because it's the only one there).

Now, I did quote the part where ITWastrel states: "Why should you run around doubling bonuses or whatnot for the mook who picked up a club?"

If you think, for any reason, that ITWastrel was claiming that we should double bonuses for the mook, then you're incorrect. When put into context of the rest of ITWastrel's posts, it's clearly AGAINST the idea upping two-handed weapon damage (or decreasing the P.S. damage for Paired Weapons). Now, this is the part you came in and decided to start disagreeing with ITWastrel's stance. As such, it could give the concept when you disagree with someone's stance about NOT doubling damage that you're for doubling damage. You have made it clear you are NOT arguing in favor of doubling the damage.

So if we take the statement that you've disproved the bonuses of the mook, and the only bonus the mook gets is Weapon Damage plus P.S. damage bonus, then you feel the mook deserves additional bonuses or you feel they deserve less bonuses. If you feel the mook with no applicable skills only gets Weapon Damage and P.S. Damage Bonus, then you're not disproving but agreeing with the stance.

Now, if you truly feel that ITWastrel provided (or denied) some other bonus, please quote that specific part. There's the possibility I missed it (though I've reread the posts multiple times), and I'll admit I'm wrong/mistaken. Or, what I currently consider more likely, you're in agreement and were arguing against something that wasn't actually said.

Then ITwastrel made a statement that most of a dual wielders damage is static and the weapons damage does not matter.

Well, that's true, but only in context to the conversation.

1: The character with Paired Weapons used two (2) skills to use Paired Weapons.
2: The character with a two-handed weapon used only one (1) or less skills to use the two-handed weapon.
3: The characters will have a P.S. damage bonus (as that's the premise of the entire thread and question).

With a sufficient P.S. attribute, it doesn't matter if the Paired Weapons user is using a 1D4 damage weapon or a 3D6 damage weapon, because with those P.S. Damage bonus will still allow the Paired Weapons user to inflict more damage (if attacking with both weapons, and hitting each time). And what the exact damage of the weapon inflicts is irrelevant to the fact that the Paired Weapons character is dealing more damage. So exact weapon damage "does not matter" to the point being made, not that it doesn't matter in any situation at all.

Whether or not you feel P.S. Damage bonuses are common is also irrelevant to the point, as the entire premise of this thread is based around P.S. Damage bonuses.

That reducing static bonus would reduce effectiveness of two handed weapons.

This is actually true, it would reduce the effectiveness. You even use the word "reducing" bonuses to discuss how someone else feels it would "reduce" effectiveness. Let's put this a different way, if I reduce your pay check, regardless if it's $0.01 or $5.00, is the amount you make reduced?

Regardless of how much it's reduced, by your own words, it's reduced. The degree is really just something you can nitpick at, but it won't change the fact it's been reduced.

That indicated his stance was that daul wield required high PS characters to be worth while.
(So I did an example without PS bonuses to show even with 0 static bonus dual wield is still a good at damage.)

All this indicates is ITWastrel was against reducing the effectiveness. Now, let's set another person's stance aside for the moment, are you arguing in favor of reducing the P.S. Damage bonus to Paired Weapons? If not, then ask yourself why you felt the need to argue about something you seemingly agree upon.

ItWastel even said you paid two skills to potentially do double damage. Then asked if I needed a chart. (That seams to be a statement about thinking damage was linked to skills. (Odd given it followed a quote where me saying the bonus from skills is not damage but increased accuacy and parry and dual wield options to do things a single weapon can not.)

Well, the topic is about dealing damage with Paired Weapons, the poll is even specifically about dealing damage with both at the same time. So, in the context of this thread (attacking with both weapons using Paired Weapons), you are potentially doing double damage. You don't need to change the weapon damage, as Paired Weapons effectively gives you twice as many attacks (when discussing this specific aspect of it), and if you're attacking twice as much then you can potentially do twice as much damage. Or, let's do some more quotes ...

The Shanker, now armed with big, 3d6+ps super knives, invested two skills. One for Paired Weapons, another in WP Super Knives.

The Shanker spent TWO skills to get double attacks.

The shankers double attack would be (3d6+PS)+(3d6+PS) =6d6+PS+PS to the mooks 4d6+PS see the issue does not exist. (your own numbers disproved your stance.)

So, ITWastrel gives the example of a character with Paired Weapons dealing 3D6+PS damage bonus, and they're effectively getting double the amount of attacks (a.k.a. double damage).
Your response is the damage would be (3D6+PS)+(3D6+PS) = 6D6+PS+PS.

So your own example is effectively doing twice as much damage. So you clearly understand how this can potentially double damage ... and yet arguing against it when others say it for some reason?

See It all started with me trying to find out what bonus he thought two handed weapons where getting, and why he thought attack damage was linked to skills.

Okay, I'll respond with another quote.

Weapon: Big Honkin' Sword.
3d6 SDC/HP per swing, two handed.
With a +10 PS damage bonus, min/max/avg damage: 13/28/20.5

Which part of that bonus do you find confusing and/or which part of that do you disagree with? With clear numbers provided, I can clearly understand what is being said. As far as I can tell, this is absolutely correct by the book.

I clearly said that damage was not linked to skill.(accept in special cases pointed out earlier.
The one who made references to should affect damage was ITwastrel with statements like The shanker deserves to do more damage.

Except damage output can potentially be linked to the skill by doubling the potential attacks (if someone opts to go that route, and the entire topic of this thread).
Now, if spending two skills deserves to do double damage is a matter of opinion. You're welcomed to disagree with that opinion, but trying to say this skill can't affect your damage output is provably false by your own numbers above (where you show you can do more damage by attacking with both weapons).

For some one talking about my misunderstandings you seam to have some of your own.

Well, I'm okay with admitting I can have misunderstandings. In fact, I'm a person who will often say I have some reading issues, which is why I typically have to read something multiple times before I can understand it. Sometimes I can still make mistakes. In fact, I took this comment seriously enough that I decided to wait a while before responding so I could take the time and re-read the relevant posts again.

Honestly for some one not wanting to argue that does kind of seam what you are doing while also talking down to me Prysus.
[snip]
Honestly the nitpicking approach to my wording of a summery and the tone it almost feels like you are trying to either argue with me, or are trying to attack my intelligence.

The nitpicky/arguing there is more of a pot/kettle thing in this case. Also, I generally don't like to argue, and truth be told I probably wouldn't have responded if it wasn't for the self-congratulatory claim at the end when you claimed how you had disproven the other's points that I really decided to respond at all.

Though if you'll note, my first response was to do a small recap of the thread, and ask what you felt you disproved.

You then claimed to disprove the mook's bonuses (which was Weapon Damage + P.S. damage), as well as disproving stuff as far as I can tell you actually agreed with and/or that no one actually said.

My suggestion (more than once) was to reread the thread. You feel my asking you to read something is attacking your intelligence?

Now do I feel you didn't understand much of what was said in this thread? Absolutely! There are several possibilities for this such as a reading impediment (e.g. dyslexia, and I fall into this category somewhere ... which is why I'll typically wait a while and reread before posting), you saw one line and made a snap response without considering the context (very common on these boards), you misunderstood something and now refuse to see any other possibility, etc.

(I addressed special cases like fencing earlier so really confused while you bring it up.)

You're right, you did. When you claimed that skills don't affect damage, my instinct was to correct. That was my mistake, and I'm okay with admitting that fact.

Let me clarify seams how you are misunderstanding.
Accept in rare cases like fencing, the damage of a weapon attack is not affected by skill.
(Dual wield does not double a weapons damage but lets you use to. So it does not make my statement false.)

So you admit it can effectively double damage by doubling your attacks (attacking with both weapons at the same time, which is what this entire thread is about), yet want to argue against anyone saying it'll double damage. Do you see the irony of how nitpicky that is?

I disagree with 3.
That spending more skills means you deserve more damage.

So you're opinion varies from someone else's opinion. Cool.

Even with dual wield the double attack is just one option it gives. (and honestly not always the best choice in combat.)
The Parry attack allows you defeat your enemies defense important for high PP foes like juicers.

Well, I agree it's not always the best choice in combat. With that said, that's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand as the premise of this thread is discussing the damage inflicted by attacking with both weapons.

Lets try this why does spending two skills mean you deserve more damage.
If I took two over lapping W.P. (such as W.P. blunt and W.P. Staff.)
I spent two skills does that mean I deserve to do more damage than a person with just one?
So while spending two skills may seam significant that alone is not justification for increase damage.

Well, whether or not W.P. Blunt and W.P. Staff stack has been debated. To avoid that separate debate, let's take W.P. Archery and W.P. Targeting. There's a clear note of them having synergy, and there being a bonus as a result. I don't personally mind that. It's not doubling damage, but it is a bonus of some sort.

Paired Weapons is basically another synergy skill. It requires another W.P. to be selected first, and then compliments how that W.P. works. In the specific case of attacking with two weapons at the same time, it can effectively double damage. But let's ask this a different way:

Do you object to a skill giving a bonus to another skill (e.g. Targeting giving Archery a bonus)?
Do you object to Paired Weapons being able to do potentially increased damage by using two attacks at the same time?

I'd suspect based on your responses so far that your answer to both of those would be: No objections. And, if you don't object, why are you objecting to someone being okay with Paired Weapons providing a bonus? And if it's only objecting to the specific words used, ask yourself if you're just being nitpicky.

I think I'm done for now. Farewell and safe journeys.