Dual Weapon Attack and Parry

[Critical]

The context of this is a realistic game where dual weapon attack is allowed (but not the technique to buy it up). A character has ambidexterity, so both his weapons are at skill-4 when attacking with both simultaneously. My question is, does this affect his parry score? Does his parry drop down to (skill-4)/2 + 3 in a turn where he makes a dual weapon attack? If not, what if he's making a dual weapon attack but his opponent had a ready maneuver to strike at him as he's coming in for the attack?

I'm assuming that a character can hold two weapons and just attack with one at a time and suffer no penalties to attack or parry with either one. This is a major advantage as it allows two parries per turn before accruing any penalties for multiple parries. Is this correct?

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Critical

My question is, does this affect his parry score?

No it does not.

Originally Posted by Critical

If not, what if he's making a dual weapon attack but his opponent had a ready maneuver to strike at him as he's coming in for the attack?

It doesn't impact his parry any more than taking a -7 to hit the opponent in the skull would force him to use ((skill-7)/2)+3 for his parry score. Which is to say, it doesn't impact his parry score.

Originally Posted by Critical

I'm assuming that a character can hold two weapons and just attack with one at a time and suffer no penalties to attack or parry with either one. This is a major advantage as it allows two parries per turn before accruing any penalties for multiple parries. Is this correct?

This is correct.

[vierasmarius]

Nope. Just as making a Deceptive Attack or striking at his Vitals doesn't reduce effective skill for Parry, making a Dual Weapon Attack doesn't penalize any other use of the skill except for the attack itself. This is true even if the opponent Waits to strike during the attack (though a Riposte will penalize you if your to-hit margin is smaller, which is more likely with the -4; see MA pg.108). Having two weapons does open up the option of a Cross Parry (MA121) which ties up both weapons in one defense, but gives a nice bonus (+2 Parry, effective weapon weight of both combined, can Parry a Flail or Kusari with a Fencing weapon). This can be useful when dueling someone with a heavier weapon that would otherwise be dangerous to Parry, though it of course negates the benefit of being able to Parry two attacks at full skill.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Critical

The context of this is a realistic game where dual weapon attack is allowed (but not the technique to buy it up). A character has ambidexterity, so both his weapons are at skill-4 when attacking with both simultaneously. My question is, does this affect his parry score? Does his parry drop down to (skill-4)/2 + 3 in a turn where he makes a dual weapon attack? If not, what if he's making a dual weapon attack but his opponent had a ready maneuver to strike at him as he's coming in for the attack?

Er, no, Dual Weapon Attack doesn't have any effect on your parries. Not any more than Deceptive Attack, Hit Locations, Rapid Strikes, or assorted techniques, which is to say, not at all. Not even when you're facing an Wait-based attack in mid-maneuver.

It does mean that you've used both weapons in your attack, of course. If, for instance, you made a Dual Weapon Attack on a Committed Attack, the defensive drawback of Committed Attack would deprive you of both parries.

Originally Posted by Critical

I'm assuming that a character can hold two weapons and just attack with one at a time and suffer no penalties to attack or parry with either one. This is a major advantage as it allows two parries per turn before accruing any penalties for multiple parries. Is this correct?

Having two parry progressions is a big benefit of dual-wielding, yes. It also lets you cross parry. And if you wield two dissimilar weapons (which GURPS skill costs may discourage), you might use one that's more focused on defense and one that's better for attack (though this exposes you to the shield-side vs. weapon-side problem), or ones that are good at different techniques.

[gilbertocarlos]

The advantage of two parries(Or dual parry) and two attacks are offset by the lower damage and inability to use a shield.

And no, you don't lose not even 1 point in your parry, since it's a voluntary sacrifice, if you were grappled, you would have -2 to defend, because it reduces skill by 4, when someone does a dual attack, they only reduces the roll, not the skill.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by gilbertocarlos

The advantage of two parries(Or dual parry) and two attacks are offset by the lower damage and inability to use a shield.

What lower damage?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by trooper6

What lower damage?

Compared to a two-handed weapon, presumably.

Using a single one-handed weapon only isn't really a sound option unless you're planning to do something interesting like grapple with the free hand.

[Critical]

I agree that the rules do point toward all of the above responses being correct, but I am still a little unsatisfied. It does seem strangely inconsistent that you could strike with two weapons in the same second and suffer a penalty to hit because of the difficulty of using two weapons at once but parry with two weapons in the same second with no penalty - suddenly it's not so hard to use two weapons at once because you're using them defensively instead of offensively? Then again, I'm not a swordsman in real life, so maybe it really is this way.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Critical

I agree that the rules do point toward all of the above responses being correct, but I am still a little unsatisfied. It does seem strangely inconsistent that you could strike with two weapons in the same second and suffer a penalty to hit because of the difficulty of using two weapons at once but parry with two weapons in the same second with no penalty - suddenly it's not so hard to use two weapons at once because you're using them defensively instead of offensively? Then again, I'm not a swordsman in real life, so maybe it really is this way.

I'd suggest you're looking at Dual Weapon Attack in not quite the right light. Sure, you could say that it's penalized for the difficulty of coordinating two weapons at once...or you could compare it to Rapid Strike, and note that it's significantly easier (and somewhat more effective) than delivering two blows without the benefit of a second weapon.

As for the independent parry progressions, I can see why it might seem a bit too good. Maybe it is. But:
-In general, these multiple parries are not simultaneous. You need to be able to readily act with either hand, but for any given parry you're not using both together (unless it's a cross parry).
-Remember that you've already got unlimited no-cumulative-penalty dodges.

If you don't like the total independence of active defenses, I might suggest the following:

Take the optional rule where there is a cumulative penalty of -1 for multiple dodges, with a twist: that cumulative penalty applies to and accumulates from all active defenses, stacking with the penalty for repeated use of a particular parry or block. You probably should decrease the specific cumulative penalty for parries and blocks by one so that it works the same as RAW for someone only using a single defense progression.

[Dusqune]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I'd suggest you're looking at Dual Weapon Attack in not quite the right light. Sure, you could say that it's penalized for the difficulty of coordinating two weapons at once...or you could compare it to Rapid Strike, and note that it's significantly easier (and somewhat more effective) than delivering two blows without the benefit of a second weapon.

On the other hand (IIRC), in a cinematic game, Rapid Strike allows for increased number of attacks (with increasing penalties) compared to Dual Weapon Attack which is limited to the single 'double' attack. Was this meant to simulate the 'difficulty of coordinating two weapons at once'? If so, why does it only emerge in a cinematic game? In the OP's situation (non-cinematic) the whole issue of rapid strike being (potentially) better becomes moot and indicates that DWA is better than Rapid Strike. {In a summary, why do Rapid Strikes gain more potential than Dual Weapon Attacks once the game becomes cinematic while DWA's seem better in a non-cinematic setting?}

Personally I think it's a bummer to make a dual-wielder with the intent of "I get to make the most attacks" wheras the other players that dumped those points into pure weapon skill get to attack more often per turn via Rapid Strike. Seems counterintuitive to me.

But, back onto the topic of non-cinematicness, I have talked to some historians that have stated quite bluntly that the only people who weilded weapons in both hands (in a medieval time period) were berzerkers or idiots, that it hurt more than it helped, and that modern movies play it up only because it looks good. However, there is the main-gauche, or the parrying dagger, that was used a little later, mainly for--as the name indicates--defensive purposes. From a realistic and historical perspective? Everything points to not the best attack method but a decent boost to defense.

Then again I'm no expert on the subject and I'm only repeating what I've been told, so take it as you will.