Combat Question...

[Dr. Whom]

Ok, so your in combat and you use Dual-attack, with rapid strike.
So does every attack suffer the penalty from rapid strike, or do you get the one dual wield at normal score and then the second and rapid strike attack at the penalty?

[SuedodeuS]

Every attack should suffer from using Rapid Strike. I've come to this conclusion by the way it works for Combinations, although there the additional penalty for Rapid Strike is only -5, not -6.

[Kelly Pedersen]

According to the RAW, you can't combine Dual-Weapon and Rapid Strike. It's one or the other.

[SuedodeuS]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

According to the RAW, you can't combine Dual-Weapon and Rapid Strike. It's one or the other.

True, but the rules for Combinations appear to contradict this. In there, it explicitly states that a two-handed combination can consist of two attacks at -4 (DWA) or three at -9. From this, it seems safe to assume it's possible to use DWA and Rapid Strike together, with at least the first Rapid Strike giving a -5 penalty.

[Dr. Whom]

although there the additional penalty for Rapid Strike is only -5, not -6.

On pg 370 of the campaign book, it says Rapid Strike has a -6 to hit. And trained by a master says that is reduced to -3. It also says that if you alrady have multiple attacks for any reason only one of them can be made into a rapid strike

[Kazander]

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS

True, but the rules for Combinations appear to contradict this. In there, it explicitly states that a two-handed combination can consist of two attacks at -4 (DWA) or three at -9. From this, it seems safe to assume it's possible to use DWA and Rapid Strike together, with at least the first Rapid Strike giving a -5 penalty.

No, they do not. They merely present another option for Rapid Strike, where you are allowed to attack with 2 different weapons rather than a single weapon, and it procedes to present the rules for doing so.

The subject of using RS and DWA together has come up many times on the forum, and has been clearly answered as Not Allowed.

The last sentence of the Two-Handed Combinations section makes it pretty clear that this is not in fact a DWA, since it says "Cinematic warriors are generally better off learning Dual-Weapon Attack (p. 83)."

The normal RS penalty is -6 per additional attack. All RS attacks during that turn take the same penalty.

[SuedodeuS]

Originally Posted by Kazander

No, they do not. They merely present another option for Rapid Strike, where you are allowed to attack with 2 different weapons rather than a single weapon, and it procedes to present the rules for doing so.

The subject of using RS and DWA together has come up many times on the forum, and has been clearly answered as Not Allowed.

The last sentence of the Two-Handed Combinations section makes it pretty clear that this is not in fact a DWA, since it says "Cinematic warriors are generally better off learning Dual-Weapon Attack (p. 83)."

The normal RS penalty is -6 per additional attack. All RS attacks during that turn take the same penalty.

I always thought the DWA comment was meant to address the fact that DWA was more generally useful. A two-handed combination that negates -4 costs 5 points and allows you to make two very specific attacks with some built-in penalties. DWA negates the -4, costs 5 points, and lets you make any two attacks with no built-in penalties. Personally, I think it makes sense to let a cinematic character drop some of the penalty for a two-handed combination by knowing DWA.

As for it not being allowed... that makes sense for Basic Set, but not when Martial Arts comes into play. In a cinematic campaign, Martial Arts lets you use RS to attack 3 times with one weapon at -12. It makes no sense if you can't attack 3 times if one of the attacks happens to be with a different weapon. As with Combinations, I'd probably let the character attack 3 times with a total penalty of -9 (-4 for DWA, -5 for RS). Of course, if the official ruling is that they can't be used together, I respect that... I just won't follow that ruling, as it makes no sense to me.