Forums of the Megaverse®

... and it never did.

Mack wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:W.P. Paired Weapons has never let you dual wield firearms.

Based on how one interprets RUE p327, that's up for debate. (It can be read multiple ways, but I don't want to go down that rabbit hole.

No, it really cant be read multiple ways unless you're deliberately arguing in bad faith and without logic.


Straight up, it is under Ancient W.P.s

Not modern.

Full stop, end of story, no discussion.

If your definition of "could be read multiple ways" is "rules for modern weapons are somehow in a section dedicted solely to ancient weapons", then you've abandoned basic logic, and there's no point in trying to discuss it because we have no common frame of reality. Might as well say the claim the sun comes up in the west.

Couple that with the fact that there are a VERY few, specific OCCs that get a special OCC ability to dual-wield guns, which basically ends the discussion.

It wouldn't be a special OCC ability if they could just give the OCC W.P. Paired.

Well since the paired weapons usually comes from HTH then it does apply.

Agree w/Colonel_Tetsuya

I think the cause of confusion, is that Palladium placed the penalties of shooting two guns at once under the description of WP Paired. Or at least that is what was always cited in the past from arguments on this subject around here.

Even though the line right before that states, rather clearly, this skill is for melee weapons only and not guns.

Dustin Fireblade wrote:Agree w/Colonel_Tetsuya

I think the cause of confusion, is that Palladium placed the penalties of shooting two guns at once under the description of WP Paired. Or at least that is what was always cited in the past from arguments on this subject around here.

Even though the line right before that states, rather clearly, this skill is for melee weapons only and not guns.

That is part of the problem, the other part is that they use the same term for skills from different sources. There is W.P. Paired Weapon, the HTH skill Paired Weapons, and they talk about using two pistols separate from the W.P. Sharpshooter skill to Dual Wield two Rifles.

You can't dual wield rifles. Sharpshooting allows using a rifle one handed yes, but that doesn't allow dual wielding them.

Dustin Fireblade wrote:You can't dual wield rifles. Sharpshooting allows using a rifle one handed yes, but that doesn't allow dual wielding them.

The Ability to use a two handed weapon one handed implies that you can fire two of them at once. The whole Dual Wield of firearms is implied in the fact that they talk about penalties but don't talk about needing a skill to do it in the first place. So it can be taken that the ability to fire two pistols is inherent in W.P. Auto Pistol, W.P. Revolver, and W.P. E Pistol.

A Side comment, the whole W.P. Paired Weapons debate is convoluted in that in one source they state that you need a separate W.P. for each different set of weapons (i.e. w.p. paired Short and Long Sword, w.p. paired Long Sword and Shield, w.p. paired Knife and knife) and in another source they state that with W.P. Paired Weapons you can pair any weapons you have a W.P. in even such as W.P. Knife and W.P. Auto Pistol.

In HTH Martial Arts at level 7 they state that you get W.P. Paired Weapons and doesn't call it an A.W.P. (RUE pg. 348).

It all comes down to what you as a GM or player and the group you game with agree as to what W.P. Paired Weapons covers and allows.

OK in the 31 years I have been playing PB games I have seen a lot of things that are confusing and poorly defined, a LOT of things, that I have had to work out with players or house rule but WP Paired has never been one of them.

TMNT, first ed. Robotech, and the Rifts in RMB we never had a problem with this.

SpiritInterface wrote:

Dustin Fireblade wrote:You can't dual wield rifles. Sharpshooting allows using a rifle one handed yes, but that doesn't allow dual wielding them.

The Ability to use a two handed weapon one handed implies that you can fire two of them at once. The whole Dual Wield of firearms is implied in the fact that they talk about penalties but don't talk about needing a skill to do it in the first place. So it can be taken that the ability to fire two pistols is inherent in W.P. Auto Pistol, W.P. Revolver, and W.P. E Pistol.

I don't see this at all, not sure how one handed implies you can fire two weapons since when you can use two weapons in other cases (like W.P. Paired) it is very specifically stated.

SpiritInterface wrote:A Side comment, the whole W.P. Paired Weapons debate is convoluted in that in one source they state that you need a separate W.P. for each different set of weapons (i.e. w.p. paired Short and Long Sword, w.p. paired Long Sword and Shield, w.p. paired Knife and knife) and in another source they state that with W.P. Paired Weapons you can pair any weapons you have a W.P. in even such as W.P. Knife and W.P. Auto Pistol.

I didn't know this was a thing. I checked a few books and couldn't find this. Where is the confusing reference so I can take a look.

Now in a few places the wording is a little sloppy I guess but I always got the meaning that you took W.P. Paired once and then if you wanted to wield 2 knives you needed W.P. knife to add to it or W.P. Sword if you want 2 swords or both W.P.'s if you want a knife and sword but you only need W.P. Paired once.

SpiritInterface wrote:In HTH Martial Arts at level 7 they state that you get W.P. Paired Weapons and doesn't call it an A.W.P. (RUE pg. 348).

I don't understand this at all. In older books like 1ed. Robotech it just says paired weapons but in newer books like RUE is says specifically that it is W.P. Paired so what are you saying that it "doesn't call it an A.W.P. (RUE pg. 348)"?

SpiritInterface wrote:It all comes down to what you as a GM or player and the group you game with agree as to what W.P. Paired Weapons covers and allows.

This is absolutely true. KS talks about this all the time and this is what makes a pen & paper game different than a video game. I myself have a separate dual wielding W.P. for handguns and energy pistols but that is a house rule because I thought it would look cool and had a player that wanted it.

SpiritInterface wrote:Well since the paired weapons usually comes from HTH then it does apply.

You might wish to actually read W.P. Paired Weapons, then.

And its far more common to just take it as a WP than to get it from a H2H skill.

Think of how many classes (particularly M-A-As) that get to take several ANcient WPs.

For anyone confused, i was hoping more people would go and read it, but this is rather unequivocal:

RUE Page 327, second column, first paragraph wrote:W.P. Paired Weapons is designed for Melee Weapons like knifes, swords, clubs, etc, not guns.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:For anyone confused, i was hoping more people would go and read it, but this is rather unequivocal:

RUE Page 327, second column, first paragraph wrote:W.P. Paired Weapons is designed for Melee Weapons like knifes, swords, clubs, etc, not guns.

And then goes on to say "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." There is an argument to be made that trying to shoot two guns without WP Paired Weapons would just be treated as shooting wild and result in -6 to both attacks. Saying "is designed for" indicates intent, but does not exclude it from applying to guns the way that you imply, at least not as a matter of language. After all, why address it there if it doesn't apply? That argument is a bit weaker in Palladium books, where rules crop up in weird places all the time, but it is not a crazy argument, and certainly does not require that one be arguing in bad faith and without logic.

I've been looking at those other OCC that list dual-wielding as a special ability, but only had enough time to make it through the ones in New West. The special ability is presented as being able to shoot two handguns at once for full damage in a single melee action. Do you happen to know of an OCC that explicitly states that no penalties apply to the shot? It is clearly implied that bonuses would apply, since shooting at two targets results in only getting half bonuses, but nowhere does it state that no penalties apply, which could be read as meaning that the -2, -6 penalty does apply. I may have missed the reference, of course, as I was in a rush.

I care less about what the book says and more about what is and isnt a pain in the ass at the table.

Is it a pain in the ass to track each individual pair of weapons at the table? Yes, Yes it is.

Is it a pain in the ass to have a table full of characters dual wielding pistols? Not so much.

If i'm being honest, if both barrels are pointed at the same target? One strike roll. Both hit or both miss.
If barrels are pointed at two different targets? Two strike rolls, only one can be an aimed shot unless you're crosseyed.

Technically? Yeah. I entirely agree. By the book paired weapons is hand to hand and has nothing to do with pistols. Is it that big a deal for me if someone wants to use dual pistols? Nah.

Vincent Takeda wrote:I care less about what the book says and more about what is and isnt a pain in the ass at the table.

Is it a pain in the ass to track each individual pair of weapons at the table? Yes, Yes it is.

Is it a pain in the ass to have a table full of characters dual wielding pistols? Not so much.

If i'm being honest, if both barrels are pointed at the same target? One strike roll. Both hit or both miss.
If barrels are pointed at two different targets? Two strike rolls, only one can be an aimed shot unless you're crosseyed.

Technically? Yeah. I entirely agree. By the book paired weapons is hand to hand and has nothing to do with pistols. Is it that big a deal for me if someone wants to use dual pistols? Nah.

This is my position as well. The rules should help facilitate game play, not restrict it. That's why we have Rule 0, after all.

Rifts Ultimate Edition, page 327, second column, first paragraph wrote: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.

Greetings and Salutations. So above is the quote, both the part that is considered absolute proof it doesn't apply to guns along with the part that creates contention that it does apply to guns (but at reduced capability). I can see about three ways to interpret the above line ...

1: W.P. Paired is not intended for guns, but can still be used with the penalties listed.

2: W.P. Paired cannot be used with guns. ANYONE can used guns paired automatically at the penalties listed (no special skill required).

3: W.P. Paired cannot be used with guns. The penalties listed apply to the few specific O.C.C. which grant that ability.

I find the third option improbable. At no point does it mention such limited circumstances, reference any of the O.C.C., reference another book (such as New West) which allows such a feat (though RUE references other books often in other places), and the O.C.C. in those other books give no indication of such a penalty. I see little support for this interpretation.

The second option is plausible. Palladium does put rules in odd places at times. However, in this case, it does feel ... unusual. Not only does is this in an odd location, but it has other implications that are left unanswered. Guns don't have a skill to fire at the same time (outside of specific O.C.C.) so it can't get better, but at the same time firing two guns becomes easier to using two melee weapons at the same time (which, by all indications, cannot be done AT ALL without the skill). Also, this ends up causing other O.C.C. (such as Gunslingers) which are designed to use two weapons at the same time at a greater penalty as a result of not excluding them from this penalty (and their O.C.C. does not exclude them from this penalty). This interpretation has complications, but it's possible.

The first option I find the most likely. While the skill is not intended for use with guns, it's possible (with the skill) with penalties. This supports the fluff text. Also, it doesn't grant any random person with two guns and no training the ability at equal penalty to those trained for it. Additionally, as the Gunfighter and the like have O.C.C. specific abilities (not the skill), they are not hindered by a skill specific penalty (which allows them to excel in their field of expertise).

That's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience. Farewell and safe journeys.[/justify]

I mean at the very least it should give you proficiency in using the pistols as kubotons to pistolwhip your opponent and parry incoming attacks from swords and knives right? Lol.

Cloud Strife had the gun blade. What we need now is a hybrid pistol/bichwabaghnach. Paired.

We can call them bichwaboombaghnach. Big bada boom.

Vincent Takeda wrote:I mean at the very least it should give you proficiency in using the pistols as kubotons to pistolwhip your opponent and parry incoming attacks from swords and knives right? Lol.

Cloud Strife had the gun blade. What we need now is a hybrid pistol/bichwabaghnach. Paired.

We can call them bichwaboombaghnach. Big bada boom.

Write it up and I'll use it!

Rifts Canada has the most interesting insight on this that I have seen.
On both page 112 and 234 it states "W.P. Any, including Paired Firearms and/or Sharphsooting as described in Rifts New West. However each of these two New West skills counts as two O.C.C. Related skill selections and cannot be take as Secondary Skills."

I note this because the Paired Firearms skill explicitly does not have the penalties found in W.P. Paired (melee).
I further note that there is no combination or use of W.P. Paired in its intended role aka with melee weapons, where a penalty of any sort is applied. This further emphasizes the unusual nature of there being a penalty in the first place.
This leads me to conclude that while Paired Firearms is the skill that should be used for this... one can substitute W.P. Paired instead of the correct skill. But like any other substitution it is done at a penalty that does not affect properly skilled attempts. It would be a GMs call if you can offset this penalty with things like W.P. Bonuses or the like or if the nature of the 'unskilled improvisation' negates those normally present bonuses.

Father Goose wrote:

Vincent Takeda wrote:I care less about what the book says and more about what is and isnt a pain in the ass at the table.

Is it a pain in the ass to track each individual pair of weapons at the table? Yes, Yes it is.

Is it a pain in the ass to have a table full of characters dual wielding pistols? Not so much.

If i'm being honest, if both barrels are pointed at the same target? One strike roll. Both hit or both miss.
If barrels are pointed at two different targets? Two strike rolls, only one can be an aimed shot unless you're crosseyed.

Technically? Yeah. I entirely agree. By the book paired weapons is hand to hand and has nothing to do with pistols. Is it that big a deal for me if someone wants to use dual pistols? Nah.

This is my position as well. The rules should help facilitate game play, not restrict it. That's why we have Rule 0, after all.

No, you have Rule 0 because Kevin is lazy. No other reason. Rather than fix his rules system, he falls back on the “just change it if you dont like it” line. If you think it exists for any other reason, you may be interested in some real estate i have in Brooklyn.

Also, having to continally fall back on “Rule 0” rather proves the point that the system is unworkable.

Prysus wrote:[justify]

Warshield73 wrote:

SpiritInterface wrote:A Side comment, the whole W.P. Paired Weapons debate is convoluted in that in one source they state that you need a separate W.P. for each different set of weapons (i.e. w.p. paired Short and Long Sword, w.p. paired Long Sword and Shield, w.p. paired Knife and knife) and in another source they state that with W.P. Paired Weapons you can pair any weapons you have a W.P. in even such as W.P. Knife and W.P. Auto Pistol.

I didn't know this was a thing. I checked a few books and couldn't find this. Where is the confusing reference so I can take a look.

It isnt in any of the core books for any of their game lines. I too, would be interested in that page number.

Now in a few places the wording is a little sloppy I guess but I always got the meaning that you took W.P. Paired once and then if you wanted to wield 2 knives you needed W.P. knife to add to it or W.P. Sword if you want 2 swords or both W.P.'s if you want a knife and sword but you only need W.P. Paired once.

Greetings and Salutations. This is a rule in HU2 (though "sword and sword" is sufficient, and does not require specifying which type of sword more so), and possibly N&S (I know the katas get rather specific, but not sure about W.P. Paired in general). I've seen this house ruled into other settings as well, but am unaware of any official support of applying the rule to Rifts (other than house rules, and such), as Rifts specifies different criteria.

Specifically, it is from N&SS, but the interpretation the poster presented was still wrong. In N&SS, you cant use your Martial Arts skill with any weapons unless they have a Weapon Kata with that weapon. Many of the Martial Arts Forms have -restricted- versions of Paired Weapons skill. (I.E. they can only use specific weapons paired). The generic W.P. Paired, though, even in N&SS, is with any melee weapon you have a WP for. N&SS is HEAVILY modified from the basic Palladium system, which is one of the primary reason it functions so well and is so internally consistent and relatively balanced.

dreicunan wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:For anyone confused, i was hoping more people would go and read it, but this is rather unequivocal:

RUE Page 327, second column, first paragraph wrote:W.P. Paired Weapons is designed for Melee Weapons like knifes, swords, clubs, etc, not guns.

And then goes on to say "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." There is an argument to be made that trying to shoot two guns without WP Paired Weapons would just be treated as shooting wild and result in -6 to both attacks. Saying "is designed for" indicates intent, but does not exclude it from applying to guns the way that you imply, at least not as a matter of language.

As a matter of language, you're 100% incorrect. Ill take the word of my wife, who is working on her PHD in Linguistics.

The penalties its listing are the same for anyone who tries to use two melee weapons without WP Paired. Its not like there is some magical force preventing you from picking up and using a second weapon if you dont have WP Paired.

After all, why address it there if it doesn't apply? That argument is a bit weaker in Palladium books, where rules crop up in weird places all the time, but it is not a crazy argument, and certainly does not require that one be arguing in bad faith and without logic.

For the same reason that the rules about penalties for firing a Riflle one handed (which were later superceded by WP Sharpshooting making this a wild shot) appear in a weapon description in World Book 5. Because Kevin puts rules wherever his flow-of-consciousness writing style deposits them. When writing about it, he thought "oh, and using two guns is this penalty.." and just put it there.

I've been looking at those other OCC that list dual-wielding as a special ability, but only had enough time to make it through the ones in New West. The special ability is presented as being able to shoot two handguns at once for full damage in a single melee action. Do you happen to know of an OCC that explicitly states that no penalties apply to the shot? It is clearly implied that bonuses would apply, since shooting at two targets results in only getting half bonuses, but nowhere does it state that no penalties apply, which could be read as meaning that the -2, -6 penalty does apply. I may have missed the reference, of course, as I was in a rush.

Remember that part about arguing in bad faith? You're doing it right now. Like.. textbook example.

Warshield73 wrote:OK in the 31 years I have been playing PB games I have seen a lot of things that are confusing and poorly defined, a LOT of things, that I have had to work out with players or house rule but WP Paired has never been one of them.

TMNT, first ed. Robotech, and the Rifts in RMB we never had a problem with this.

After 35 years of playing PB Games with the same group we have come across just about every kind of contradiction or ambiguity that there is in PB.

In Heroes Unlimited 2nd Ed (pg. 61) it states that for each separate set of type of weapons it requires a separate W.P.

Warshield73 wrote:

SpiritInterface wrote:

Dustin Fireblade wrote:You can't dual wield rifles. Sharpshooting allows using a rifle one handed yes, but that doesn't allow dual wielding them.

The Ability to use a two handed weapon one handed implies that you can fire two of them at once. The whole Dual Wield of firearms is implied in the fact that they talk about penalties but don't talk about needing a skill to do it in the first place. So it can be taken that the ability to fire two pistols is inherent in W.P. Auto Pistol, W.P. Revolver, and W.P. E Pistol.

I don't see this at all, not sure how one handed implies you can fire two weapons since when you can use two weapons in other cases (like W.P. Paired) it is very specifically stated.

As The OP pointed out that the "Paired Weapons" skill is listed as an A.W.P. (ancient weapons proficiency) so it does not apply to modern weapons such as guns. Nowhere in any of the books do they mention any skill outside of very specific OCCs that allows you to fire two modern weapons, however they do list penalties for doing so.

Warshield73 wrote:

SpiritInterface wrote:A Side comment, the whole W.P. Paired Weapons debate is convoluted in that in one source they state that you need a separate W.P. for each different set of weapons (i.e. w.p. paired Short and Long Sword, w.p. paired Long Sword and Shield, w.p. paired Knife and knife) and in another source they state that with W.P. Paired Weapons you can pair any weapons you have a W.P. in even such as W.P. Knife and W.P. Auto Pistol.

I didn't know this was a thing. I checked a few books and couldn't find this. Where is the confusing reference so I can take a look.

Now in a few places the wording is a little sloppy I guess but I always got the meaning that you took W.P. Paired once and then if you wanted to wield 2 knives you needed W.P. knife to add to it or W.P. Sword if you want 2 swords or both W.P.'s if you want a knife and sword but you only need W.P. Paired once.

Again In Heroes Unlimited 2nd Ed (pg. 61) it states that for each separate set of type of weapons it requires a separate W.P.

Warshield73 wrote:

SpiritInterface wrote:In HTH Martial Arts at level 7 they state that you get W.P. Paired Weapons and doesn't call it an A.W.P. (RUE pg. 348).

I don't understand this at all. In older books like 1ed. Robotech it just says paired weapons but in newer books like RUE is says specifically that it is W.P. Paired so what are you saying that it "doesn't call it an A.W.P. (RUE pg. 348)"?

As The OP pointed out that the "Paired Weapons" skill is listed as an A.W.P. (ancient weapons proficiency) in multiple places ( so it does not apply to modern weapons such as guns. It also states in the skill itself in some places that it specifically does not apply to guns.

Warshield73 wrote:

SpiritInterface wrote:It all comes down to what you as a GM or player and the group you game with agree as to what W.P. Paired Weapons covers and allows.

This is absolutely true. KS talks about this all the time and this is what makes a pen & paper game different than a video game. I myself have a separate dual wielding W.P. for handguns and energy pistols but that is a house rule because I thought it would look cool and had a player that wanted it.

We also came up with similar rules.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:
No, you have Rule 0 because Kevin is lazy. No other reason. Rather than fix his rules system, he falls back on the “just change it if you dont like it” line. If you think it exists for any other reason, you may be interested in some real estate i have in Brooklyn.

Also, having to continally fall back on “Rule 0” rather proves the point that the system is unworkable.

Actually, every rpg has a version of Rule 0. So your hateful comment should read "all game designers are inherently lazy and can't be bothered to fix their rules."
Well done. Now if only every gaming company would hire you, the rest of us could relax knowing that all games are now perfect.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:No, you have Rule 0 because Kevin is lazy. No other reason. Rather than fix his rules system, he falls back on the “just change it if you dont like it” line. If you think it exists for any other reason, you may be interested in some real estate i have in Brooklyn.

Also, having to continally fall back on “Rule 0” rather proves the point that the system is unworkable.

Whoa there. Foul on the play!

Hi there, I've worked for a number of RPG companies, all of them have some version of rule zero.

Tabletop RPGs aren't video games and aren't designed to be completely codified. From White Wolf to WotC to Pinnacle to Paizo every single one has rules SNAFUs and clashing grey areas.

Palladium may have liberal use of it, but all classic games do. Trying to minimize it is how you end up with games where everyone has the same attack and skill bonuses and where unique character traits are not only few and far between but are also entirely optional.

The more in-depth your game is the more issues there will be, that's just the moving parts principle.

I mean its not like every one of us isnt homebrewing the hell out of just about every game system we've been playing to some extent...

If you game, you homebrew. Even 'pathfinder society play' though agreeing on a set of rules, has agreed on a set of 'house rules' that are different than the published game.

Tell me you haven't been using 4d6 drop lowest in systems that never even *mention* it.

The fact that so many systems mention rule zero in their actual rules means if you're NOT using rule zero at your table, you're probably doin it wrong.

Anyone who professes to game in a rule zero free environment I don't find very credible.

Exactly. It is expected (and usually encouraged) that you customize the rules to fit your game. Not just for PB games, but for all games. Even when White Wolf owned the Camarilla Fan Club, the club had "rules addendum" that rewrote huge chunks of the game. Was that a product of Kevin's laziness? No. It was a necessity because no game is perfect or one-size-fits-all.

-YAWN-
Bored now...
Yet again the rules lawyers and munchkins are getting into a knock-down drag-out circular argument about something that is AGAIN; the purview of the GM.
WHO [censored] cares If it is legal or not according to 'The Book'?
If the GM says "No way Joze-ay!" then the player(s) should shut up, sit down and soldier on.
If the GM says it is cool and allow for "The Wu" to flow, then the rules lawyers should shut the [censored] up and allow the game to continue.

RIFTS and frankly, any of the Palladium games is about cinematic FUN.
That word...
FUN.

As is enjoyment of something without endless debate, arguing or phallus waving along with rules-books highlighted and footnoted.

But by all mean continue to bleat away to prove your are "RIGHT" (either side of the argument).
Congratulations... you win.
There.
Feel better?
No one reading your drivel does.

DhAkael wrote:-YAWN-
Bored now...
Yet again the rules lawyers and munchkins are getting into a knock-down drag-out circular argument about something that is AGAIN; the purview of the GM.
WHO [censored] cares If it is legal or not according to 'The Book'?
If the GM says "No way Joze-ay!" then the player(s) should shut up, sit down and soldier on.
If the GM says it is cool and allow for "The Wu" to flow, then the rules lawyers should shut the [censored] up and allow the game to continue.

RIFTS and frankly, any of the Palladium games is about cinematic FUN.
That word...
FUN.

As is enjoyment of something without endless debate, arguing or phallus waving along with rules-books highlighted and footnoted.

But by all mean continue to bleat away to prove your are "RIGHT" (either side of the argument).
Congratulations... you win.
There.
Feel better?
No one reading your drivel does.

I disagree. The rules are there as a guideline. They set up reasonable player expectation and allows for some consistency between GMs.

DhAkael wrote:-YAWN-
Bored now...
Yet again the rules lawyers and munchkins are getting into a knock-down drag-out circular argument about something that is AGAIN; the purview of the GM.
WHO [censored] cares If it is legal or not according to 'The Book'?
If the GM says "No way Joze-ay!" then the player(s) should shut up, sit down and soldier on.
If the GM says it is cool and allow for "The Wu" to flow, then the rules lawyers should shut the [censored] up and allow the game to continue.

RIFTS and frankly, any of the Palladium games is about cinematic FUN.
That word...
FUN.

As is enjoyment of something without endless debate, arguing or phallus waving along with rules-books highlighted and footnoted.

But by all mean continue to bleat away to prove your are "RIGHT" (either side of the argument).
Congratulations... you win.
There.
Feel better?
No one reading your drivel does.

Is there something in the air today that is driving people to be so dismissive of reality?
By your logic we might as well ditch the books and dice, since rules and chance are a boring waste of time. Instead, we should just let the GM decide what happens and wait patiently for the story to be dictated to us.

I'm struggling to see how this attack was in anyway helpful or related to the topic being discussed. What am I missing?

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:

dreicunan wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:For anyone confused, i was hoping more people would go and read it, but this is rather unequivocal:

RUE Page 327, second column, first paragraph wrote:W.P. Paired Weapons is designed for Melee Weapons like knifes, swords, clubs, etc, not guns.

And then goes on to say "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." There is an argument to be made that trying to shoot two guns without WP Paired Weapons would just be treated as shooting wild and result in -6 to both attacks. Saying "is designed for" indicates intent, but does not exclude it from applying to guns the way that you imply, at least not as a matter of language.

As a matter of language, you're 100% incorrect. Ill take the word of my wife, who is working on her PHD in Linguistics.

Well, then just like the last time you tried citing your wife as an authority, I'll again remind you that I have a few degrees of my own, but that is really irrelevant because even a Ph.D. whose wrong about something is still wrong. Just because something was designed for a specific purpose does not mean that it can't be used for or apply to something else.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:The penalties its listing are the same for anyone who tries to use two melee weapons without WP Paired. Its not like there is some magical force preventing you from picking up and using a second weapon if you dont have WP Paired.

Source on that being the penalty for any kind of dual-wielding? I can't recall seeing that as a rule anywhere, and I don't currently have my books at hand.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:

After all, why address it there if it doesn't apply? That argument is a bit weaker in Palladium books, where rules crop up in weird places all the time, but it is not a crazy argument, and certainly does not require that one be arguing in bad faith and without logic.

For the same reason that the rules about penalties for firing a Riflle one handed (which were later superceded by WP Sharpshooting making this a wild shot) appear in a weapon description in World Book 5. Because Kevin puts rules wherever his flow-of-consciousness writing style deposits them. When writing about it, he thought "oh, and using two guns is this penalty.." and just put it there.

So your counter to my argument is to restate my acknowledgement that it isn't as strong of an argument with Palladium books? You also missed the point, which is that assuming that the placement of the rule here must be deliberate does not require someone to be crazy or to be arguing in bad faith and without logic. Indeed, the normal assumption in any other situation would be that where rules are placed does matter! Your insistence that "it really cant be read multiple ways unless you're deliberately arguing in bad faith and without logic," gives a very interesting insight into your psychology, but it is not a correct position. Keep in mind, you are the one who said:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:If your definition of "could be read multiple ways" is "rules for modern weapons are somehow in a section dedicted solely to ancient weapons", then you've abandoned basic logic, and there's no point in trying to discuss it because we have no common frame of reality. Might as well say the claim the sun comes up in the west.

So does the location of the rules matter or not? You ridicule the idea that rules for modern weapons somehow be in a section dedicated solely to ancient weapons, yet also state "Because Kevin puts rules wherever his flow-of-consciousness writing style deposits them. When writing about it, he thought 'oh, and using two guns is this penalty..' and just put it there." Which version of your position are we to believe?

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:

I've been looking at those other OCC that list dual-wielding as a special ability, but only had enough time to make it through the ones in New West. The special ability is presented as being able to shoot two handguns at once for full damage in a single melee action. Do you happen to know of an OCC that explicitly states that no penalties apply to the shot? It is clearly implied that bonuses would apply, since shooting at two targets results in only getting half bonuses, but nowhere does it state that no penalties apply, which could be read as meaning that the -2, -6 penalty does apply. I may have missed the reference, of course, as I was in a rush.

Remember that part about arguing in bad faith? You're doing it right now. Like.. textbook example.

To paraphrase Iñigo Montoya, "You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means." Asking you if you have a source for that ability not being subject to the penalties mentioned under WP Paired for firing two guns at once is not arguing in bad faith. It is the product of reading the text and noting what the ability actually says. I couldn't find one that said that those penalties don't apply. I acknowledged that I may have missed it. I asked you if you knew of a clear reference. That isn't arguing in bad faith. That isn't even adopting a solid position yet! It is essentially saying, "Here is what I found so far. Do you know of some other sources that apply here?"

If anyone can cite a place that actually says that the penalties in RUE wouldn't apply, I'd appreciate it.