[voydangel]

Wow, this triggered some kind of big shiny red button deep in my soul, I just spent like 30 minutes looking all this up and typing this up.... I sure hope it helps.. lol

For reference, the full text in the book:

Two Weapon Style
  A character using this maneuver has trained to wield a second melee weapon in his off hand. In order to use two weapons, each weapon must have a Reach of 0 or 1.
  The character may choose to apply the Full Defense option using only one of these weapons, attacking with the other weapon as normal (and without sacrificing an action). The defense or attack action with the off-hand weapon suffers the standard –2 off-hand weapon modifier.

Ok, so first, it specifically states in the first sentence that the weapon held in the off hand is melee. Also, it implies, by way of stating "second melee weapon" that the other weapon (in the main hand) is a melee weapon as well. Otherwise it would have stated "...to wield a melee weapon in his off hand." So I feel that we can safely forgo any further references to guns being held in either hand, unless we automatically assume they are out of ammo and are being used as melee weapons. So in this case, Bradd is correct. However, the sentence "The character may choose to apply the Full Defense option using only one of these weapons, attacking with the other weapon as normal (and without sacrificing an action)." actually does not imply that you must attack in order to receive the defensive bonus. I can't speak to the intent of the dev's, but I can say without a doubt that this sentence, as written, means that you get a free full defense, and you can attack if you want to, not that you are required to do so in order to receive the "free" full defense action. So in this case anotherJack is correct. So, basically what this boils down to is that if a character were wielding 2 (melee) weapons, and were shot at, spit at, stabbed at, or bludgeoned at etc., he would then be able to choose to make a full defense action without losing any actions as per the normal rules for going on full defense. From that point on, for the rest of the entire combat turn, he would be considered to be using full defense, and this would apply to all incoming attacking from any source.

Now for some more big block quotes from the book for reference (italics added by me):

Full Defense
  Characters who are expecting to be attacked can spend a Complex Action and go on full defense until their next Action Phase.
  Characters who choose this option focus all of their energy on dodging, weaving, ducking, and blocking incoming attacks. Characters on full defense may still walk or run, and in fact may be better off moving towards cover. Full defense can be taken as a full dodge, full parry, or gymnastics dodge.
  Full Dodge: Character on full defense may add their Dodge skill to their dice pool when defending against incoming attacks. So a character on full defense against a ranged attack rolls Dodge + Reaction, whereas a character on full defense against a melee attack could roll Dodge + Dodge + Reaction, or melee combat skill + Dodge + Reaction. Full dodge may be used against both ranged and melee attacks.
  Full Parry: Characters who go on full parry roll (melee combat skill x 2) + Reaction against any and all melee attacks made against them. Full parry may not be used against ranged attacks.
  Gymnastics Dodge: Characters skilled in Gymnastics can spend their action flipping, rolling, cartwheeling, etc. out of danger, and may add Gymnastics skill to their dice pool against either ranged or melee attacks.

So:
• if you choose to use "Full Dodge" as your Full Defense option, you would then be stuck using that option until the end of the round, rolling either ((Dodge x2) + Reaction), or (melee combat skill + Dodge + Reaction) as appropriate for the type of incoming attack (ranged or melee, respectively).
• if you choose to use "Full Parry" as your Full Defense option, you would then be stuck using that option until the end of the round, rolling either ((melee combat skill x 2) + Reaction) for incoming melee attacks, or straight Reaction for incoming ranged attacks.
• if you choose to use "Gymnastics Dodge" as your Full Defense option, you would then be stuck using that option until the end of the round, rolling either (Reaction + Gymnastics) for incoming ranged attacks. Against incoming melee attacks, you would roll either (Reaction + Dodge + Gymnastics) or (Reaction + melee skill + Gymnastics) as appropriate for whether you are dodging or parrying the incoming attack.

Given that you get no extra bonus at all against incoming ranged attacks - and just use the standard default Reaction roll against ranged attacks when using the "Full Parry" option, it would definitely be prudent to make sure you're not being shot at before choosing this option. However, if you assume you're not going to get shot at, it often will be the best choice for melee combatants because they usually have a much higher melee combat skill than dodge skill and therefore gain many more dice with that option that either of the other options. The trade of being that if someone does whip out a gun, they don't get a bonus. On the flip side, there's no rule stating that once you have chosen "Full Parry" you cant then choose to use up your attack that round to declare an additional full defense action in order to change to either Full Dodge, or Full Gymnastics Dodge. Also bear in mind that the "penalty" of having chosen Full Parry only lasts for the rest of that round, and in the next round (on the new initiative) you can choose to make your "free" Full Defense option a Full Dodge or Full Gymnastics Dodge.

Ok, so now that all the RAW is out of the way (and I hope I didn't miss anything)... my opinion:

Yes, this maneuver does fly in the face a little bit of logic, and is overpowered as written. It basically states that you are better at dodging just because you have a second weapon in your hand. However, for all intents and purposes, a fist is a melee weapon. So, realistically, two weapon style is not about whats in your hand, but instead is about the training. You have trained to be able to be aware of your surroundings, aware of incoming attacks from multiple sources, and to effectively utilize both hands (and ostensibly both feet) in combat, giving you an advantage that most people don't possess: the ability to attack as normal without sacrificing your defense. When viewed in this light, it pretty much forces the realization that you no longer have to have something in your hands to gain the benefit. That alone makes it overpowered, even if you completely ignore the logic that you could invoke this ability just as easily with a gun in your hand as well, since having a pistol in your hand wouldn't really be any different that having a Bagwa needle held in it, which is unarguably a melee weapon.

All in all, I think the only real thing we can do here is to house rule on it's usage. Forcing someone to have to make an attack that round in order to get the free defense would be one option, and a very good and balancing option at that, but I feel that there is a better option for me personally...

I just assumed that the description has a typo, and I read it as "The character may choose to apply the Full Parry Defense option using only one of these weapons, attacking with the other weapon as normal (and without sacrificing an action). The defense or attack action with the off-hand weapon suffers the standard –2 off-hand weapon modifier." I think this makes the maneuver very well rounded and balanced. Perhaps we'll see if this is what they intended if they ever update the errata for Arsenal.

[Bradd]

Here's how I parse the TWS rule: "The character may choose to apply the Full Defense option using only one of these weapons, [when he is] attacking with the other weapon as normal (and without sacrificing an action [according to the normal interrupt action rules])." The participial phrase modifies "character," making it a character who is attacking. That also makes more sense in that you are giving up the usual offensive benefits of two-weapon attacks (an extra attack and defense penalties for your target) in exchange for a defensive benefit.

And I'm still not sure whether you choose "Full Defense" as an action or "Full Dodge," etc. The RAW hint at both, and because there isn't a clear balance or realism issue, have no idea what the RAI are supposed to be. I personally have gone with "Full Defense is an action, Full Dodge etc. is how you respond to each attack," because it lets characters do cooler stuff, and it has a little less bookkeeping involved.

I do agree with you, however, that TWS reflects extra training and situational awareness. I think it also reflects the idea that when you have a serious offensive advantage (like two-weapon use), you can turn it into a defensive advantage.

EDIT: A couple more thoughts.

Given that the rules aren't very precise with language, it's probably a bad idea to base an argument on grammatical analysis. So consider this instead: When you use TWS, it only makes one exception to the usual interrupt action rules. You can attack without sacrificing an action, but that's the only thing you can do besides Full Defense.

And as for dodging, consider the fighting styles that typically use two weapons, in real life and fiction. I'd say the two most prominent inspirations for TWS are kenjutsu (katana + shoto) and Western fencing (sword + dagger). Kenjutsu is not a parrying art, because the blades are poorly suited for it. Fencers rely more heavily on parrying, but even so their image in pop culture is that of dodgy swashbuckler types.

By the way, for a fine example of Shadowrun-style combat (including paired katana), I recommend Resident Evil: Afterlife. The middle of the movie is survival horror, but the beginning and end is pure Shadowrun!

[anotherJack]

I just assumed that the description has a typo, and I read it as "The character may choose to apply the Full Parry Defense option using only one of these weapons, attacking with the other weapon as normal (and without sacrificing an action). The defense or attack action with the off-hand weapon suffers the standard –2 off-hand weapon modifier." I think this makes the maneuver very well rounded and balanced.

Same interpretation, but I would allow too the Full Dodge with [reaction + weapon skill + dodge] and the Gymnastics dodge with [reaction + weapon skill + gymnastic], it may explain why they wrote "Full defense" instead of "Full parry", it fits with the mention "using one of these weapons", and both options still only applies to melee attacks.

[Bradd]

I figure that's exactly why it's Full Defense and not Full Parry. While many martial artists will specialize in a weapon, I can easily see somebody building a generalist melee character with Close Combat Group 4 and Dodge 4 (Melee +2), in which case Full Dodge is their best option.

Where I disagree is that Full Dodge should only apply to melee attacks. If that's what they meant, it should explicitly say so, because if you're dodging then you should be able to dodge everything and not just melee attacks. Ignoring TWS for a moment: You can use a weapon for Full Defense normally, including Full Dodge. Using the weapon does not preclude you from dodging ranged attacks! You simply don't add the weapon dice to the ranged defense tests. Without an explicit rule, I don't see why this should change because there's a weapon in your other hand.

(By the way, in English we have an idiom similar to your French one: "to have your cake and eat it too.")

[voydangel]

...
And I'm still not sure whether you choose "Full Defense" as an action or "Full Dodge," etc. The RAW hint at both, and because there isn't a clear balance or realism issue, have no idea what the RAI are supposed to be. I personally have gone with "Full Defense is an action, Full Dodge etc. is how you respond to each attack," because it lets characters do cooler stuff, and it has a little less bookkeeping involved.
...

I personally always assumed that the "Full Dodge", "Full Parry" and "Gymnastics Dodge" were the actual actions, and you had to pick one of them to apply for the round. However, I do really like the idea of being able to change your defensive 'strategy' mid stream. It does open up more cool moves for the characters, but I think it might also make it a bit too buff, especially when used with the TWS maneuver (based on my interpretations). However, the RAW seem to back you up on this idea as well since "full defense" is listed as one of the complex actions in the combat section, although its only implied and not explicitly laid out as such (pg.148 SR4A). Definitely food for thought. =)

... but I would allow too the Full Dodge with [reaction + weapon skill + dodge] and the Gymnastics dodge with [reaction + weapon skill + gymnastic], it may explain why they wrote "Full defense" instead of "Full parry", it fits with the mention "using one of these weapons", and both options still only applies to melee attacks.

True, by allowing only the "melee versions" of the dodge/gymnastics dodge defenses, it adds some variety to the mix, while still keeping with the (melee based) spirit of the maneuver.

***

I think I will actually use both of these things in my games from now on. That is:
• When using full defense as a complex action as normal, you can use whichever "version" of full defense you want to against any incoming attack as you see fit, changing at will from attack to attack.
• When using full defense as a free action from Two Weapon Style, you can still choose to change "versions" at will based on incoming attacks, but you only get said benefits when defending against melee attacks. Bear in mind that the character actually receives and extra +1 to his full parry defense because he is dual wielding (pg 163 Arsenal). However, if someone shoots at him, he only gets to roll Reaction as normal. (Also, you are not required to make an attack that round in order to receive/use the free full defense action.)

While this solution may not put the discussion to bed over what the RAW were supposed to mean, I feel this is a very balanced and fair ruling.

[voydangel]

Given that the rules aren't very precise with language, it's probably a bad idea to base an argument on grammatical analysis.

I completely agree with the grammatical analysis bit, I'm sure the writers didn't think that much about it.. lol

When you use TWS, it only makes one exception to the usual interrupt action rules. You can attack without sacrificing an action, but that's the only thing you can do besides Full Defense.

I completely understand where you are coming from with this, but, the English language is a funny funny thing... see, cause my interpretation would be: "You can defend without sacrificing an action, but it takes so much attention, that the only other thing you could possibly do would be to (counter)attack one of your aggressors."

It seems this may be one of those tootsie pop questions... the world may never know. lol

[Bradd]

If I'm understanding you correctly, that's actually a little closer to how I read the rule. Normally, when you do something in addition to Full Defense, you need to sacrifice your next complex action (interrupt rules). TWS makes an exception, but only for attacking with one of your melee weapons.

In any case, I think it's the same end result as what I was proposing as the RAI: You can use Full Defense normally as a complex action, you can melee attack normally as a complex action, and with TWS you can additionally do both together as a single complex action (no interrupt sacrifice necessary). However, it doesn't let you combine just any action with Full Defense; you couldn't cast a spell or draw your weapons, for example.

[anotherJack]

Where I disagree is that Full Dodge should only apply to melee attacks. If that's what they meant, it should explicitly say so, because if you're dodging then you should be able to dodge everything and not just melee attacks. Ignoring TWS for a moment: You can use a weapon for Full Defense normally, including Full Dodge. Using the weapon does not preclude you from dodging ranged attacks ! You simply don't add the weapon dice to the ranged defense tests.

So you don't use the weapon to make this dodge, you just carry it while you dodge, so there is absolutely no gain from TWS or from any weapon that would apply, he would have done exactly the same dodge if he was unarmed, or if he handled a gun, or two, or anything else.
As the gun you handle does not interfer in ranged full dodge, the melee weapon does not interfer in ranged full dodge, you just make a classic full dodge by spending a complex action.
The text is really clear about this : "The character may choose to apply the Full Defense option using only one of these weapons". It does mean the character uses actively a weapon for defense, not that he just carry it and shazam ! he suddenly can full dodge ranged attacks for free !

For me, the RAI is very clear : you have two weapons. One is dedicated to attack, the other is dedicated to defense. But a weapon dedicated to defense can't be used against melee attacks, or it already would apply with only one weapon - and it doesn't - so there's no gain from this technique against ranged attacks.

No need to call for kenjutsu or fencing, put a bushi in front of Indiana Jones, unless Indy's gun is empty the bushi's gonna be shot, no matter how many swords he has (oh yes, shiva arms… cry baby, cry).
I was just surprised when you extended the rule to ranged attacks, because it's for me obviously a nonsense, and I'm afraid it clearly sounds like munchkinning to my ears.

[Andinel]

Somehow, TWS seems to only make sense to me if errata was published to make it so that you can choose the Full Parry full defense option. That's the advantage of having two melee weapons: you can attack with one and parry with the other.

[Bradd]

Full Dodge and Gymnastic Dodge both make sense too, since they both have parrying options.

I understand why people expect a melee maneuver to improve parrying and nothing else. However, skill in one area can easily improve skill in another area, especially if you're learning to eliminate hindrances or distractions – or if you're learning to coordinate two different things.

For example, have you ever tried to sing while you're playing a musical instrument? It's very hard, and you'll miss notes or words or lose rhythm, or more likely all three. Without practice, you can only concentrate on one or the other. However, if you get really good at the instrument, you'll sing better too. Does that mean that guitar practice makes you better at singing? No, it just means that your guitar doesn't distract you from the singing so much anymore. Of course, you do even better if you practice coordinating the two.

In exactly the same way, improving your melee ability can improve your overall combat ability. It's not that melee skills make you better at dodging bullets, it's that they don't distract you from it anymore, just like the guitar stops detracting from your singing ability when you get better and practice them together.

@anotherJack: Ignore TWS for the sake of argument. Consider the way Full Dodge works normally. Somebody attacks you with a knife, you use Full Dodge (Reaction + Dodge + Blades) to parry with your sword. Clearly you are using your weapon for Full Defense! You are not just carrying it, and it's helping with your defense. Before your next phase, somebody else shoots at you. Now you roll (Reaction + Dodge) to defend. Are you now just carrying your sword? Did it stop helping with your defense? No, of course not, because if a third foe punches you, the sword is still there to defend. You are still using and defending with your sword, and dodging bullets.

Do you disagree with any of that? If not, what is materially different about TWS? Why can you normally dodge bullets while defending with a sword, but not while you're carrying a knife too? At exactly which point are you no longer allowed to dodge ranged attacks?

[anotherJack]

@anotherJack: Ignore TWS for the sake of argument. Consider the way Full Dodge works normally. Somebody attacks you with a knife, you use Full Dodge (Reaction + Dodge + Blades) to parry with your sword. Clearly you are using your weapon for Full Defense! You are not just carrying it, and it's helping with your defense. Before your next phase, somebody else shoots at you. Now you roll (Reaction + Dodge) to defend. Are you now just carrying your sword? Did it stop helping with your defense? No, of course not, because if a third foe punches you, the sword is still there to defend. You are still using and defending with your sword, and dodging bullets.

Do you disagree with any of that? If not, what is materially different about TWS? Why can you normally dodge bullets while defending with a sword, but not while you're carrying a knife too? At exactly which point are you no longer allowed to dodge ranged attacks?

But you CAN dodge ranged attacks, how many times will I have to say it ?
You have a sword and you want to make a full dodge against ranged attacks, no problem, you just spend a complex action or make an interrupt action, and you make your full dodge, it's the core rulebook rule, and I do agree with it, actually whether you have a sword or not does not involve in this.
But now, you have a sword and you want to use actively it in your full defense, then you only have three options, including some of the full dodge options, the three options available involve the melee skill, but the three can't do anything against a ranged attack, that's core rulebook, again.
SO you CAN'T use the TWS maneuver to gain a free full dodge against ranged attacks : the gain of the TWS comes from the fact that' you dedicate one of your two weapons to defense, it is obviously said in the text, and a melee weapon never helps against rangeds attacks.
It DOESN't mean you can't make a full dodge against ranged attacks, but then it's no more the TWS maneuver, it's a basic, classic full defense, you spend your complex action, you make your full dodge.
Isn't it obvious enough ?

For example, have you ever tried to sing while you're playing a musical instrument? It's very hard, and you'll miss notes or words or lose rhythm, or more likely all three. Without practice, you can only concentrate on one or the other. However, if you get really good at the instrument, you'll sing better too. Does that mean that guitar practice makes you better at singing? No, it just means that your guitar doesn't distract you from the singing so much anymore. Of course, you do even better if you practice coordinating the two.

Yay, that's why the two wielding allows you to make a full defense for free using this weapon.
But it's not because you have the technique to sing and play at the same time that it allows you to cook and drive a car too while you play and sing.
You're just trying to extend the rule to an area of application where it obviously can't apply.
What's the next ? you can use the full defense option in the matrix, will you too apply the TWS maneuver to cyberfight, justifying it by "yeah, you practiced with two sword, in fact it just trained you to be less easily distracted, so it does apply in cyberfight" ?
The rule isn't about being less distracted, or about a guitar hero, or about western fence and kenjutsu, the rule is about dedicating one weapon to the attack, and the other to the defense, and that's all.

[Bradd]

You're just trying to extend the rule to an area of application where it obviously can't apply.

I strongly disagree, because parrying is compatible with ranged dodging, according to the normal rules for this kind of thing. I don't accept that using a weapon limits you to just the parrying forms of defense, because clearly it isn't normally true. Unless you have something more to support your conclusion, it doesn't hold up.

What's the next ? you can use the full defense option in the matrix, will you too apply the TWS maneuver to cyberfight, justifying it by "yeah, you practiced with two sword, in fact it just trained you to be less easily distracted, so it does apply in cyberfight" ?

I'm not proposing any of these things. I'm just proposing that you can use the normal rules for physical combat, while in physical combat. It really isn't helpful to keep throwing out these exaggerations, claims I'm not making. They just heat up the argument and obscure the main point.

I get the feeling that you're envisioning this kind of defense differently than I am. You interpret it to mean that you can still parry, even though you're attacking. That is not how I visualize it. My understanding of TWS is that you become so good with two weapons that you can take Full Defense and still make an attack with one weapon. Perhaps that will help you see where I'm coming from? You aren't using one weapon specially to parry, you're using one weapon specially to attack.

[Usda Beph]

Um guys... Have either of you tried to Parry a ranged attack? If not let me give my experience on the subject. Using foam throwing stars to practice with, If you are not distracted at all you can parry them, sometimes. If you are distracted you can parry them occasionally, however that occasionally is not as often as you are going to bleed to death.

I'm not sure what the rules say about "full actions" yet. But from personal XP parrying attacks from A leaves you wide open to attacks from B. cause you cannot split your attention and get the full benefit of defense.

[anotherJack]

Bradd, or you're kidding me, or you just strongly disagree because you're searching for an extra bit of power for your character.
Re-read the rule, compare it, word by word, with what you "visualize", it just doesn't fit.

I re-quote the full rule for you :

A character using this maneuver has trained to wield a second melee weapon in his off hand. In order to use two weapons, each weapon must have a Reach of 0 or 1.
The character may choose to apply the Full Defense option using only one of these weapons, attacking with the other weapon as normal (and without sacrificing an action). The defense or attack action with the offhand weapon suff ers the standard –2 offhand weapon modifier.

1) Do you have to fit the conditions of the TWS maneuver rule to get the benefits of the TWS maneuver rule ?
- Yes, obviously
2) Does it say you use a weapon fort attack ?
- Yes (The rule above)
3) Does it say you use a weapon for Full defense ?
- Yes (The rule above)
4) Does it say that the defense action with the offhand suffers a modifier ?
- Yes (The rule above)
5) Do the answers to the questions 2), 3) and 4) mean that, in order to fit the conditions of the TWS maneuver rule, you must make both the attack and the defense action with the weapons in your hands ?
- Yes
6) So do you need to use a weapon for Full defense to fit the conditions of the TWS maneuver rule ?
- Yes (The rule above)
7) Can you use the [Full dodge against ranged attacks] option by using a weapon ?
- No (The core rulebook)
8 ) So, knowing the answer to the question 5), do you fit the conditions of the rule when you make a Full dodge against a ranged attack ?
- No
9) So can you take the benefit of the TWS maneuver rule if you make a Full dodge against a ranged attack ?
- No
10) Is there any full defense option against ranged attacks that involve the using of a weapon ?
- No (The core rulebook)
11) Does it mean you just can't use a weapon in the full defense options against ranged attacks ?
- Yes (The core rulebook)
12) Then do you fit the TWS maneuver rule conditions when you make a full defense against a ranged attack ?
- No
13) Then can you take the benefits of the TWS maneuver rule when you make a full defense against rangeds attacks ?
- No
14) Then can you make a full defense for free against rangeds attacks by using the TWS maneuver rule ?
- No
15) Then do you have to spend a complex action if you want make a full defense against a ranged attack, even if you use the TWS maneuver ?
- Yes
16) Then, can you dodge a ranged attack when using the TWS maneuver rule ?
- Yes, but only with the standard reaction test, not with a full defense option (The core rulebook)
17) Does it fit with a visual interpretation ?
- Yes. the character use one weapon in melee to attack, the other melee weapon for defense, it allows him to attack and parry melee attacks in nearly the same time.
18) So, does this interpretation fit with both the rule as written and the RPG conventions ?
- Yes
19) Does an interpretation which says you can use the TWS maneuver rule to get free full defense againts ranged attacks fit with both the rule as written and the RPG conventions ?
- No, it doesn't fit with the rule, and barely with the shadowrun universe conventions.
20) Can a player use the interpretation which says you can use the TWS maneuver rule to get free full defense againts ranged attack ?
- Yes, of course, if his GM allows him to. But it's not the normal rule, it's a house rule.

[Bradd]

Bradd, or you're kidding me, or you just strongly disagree because you're searching for an extra bit of power for your character.

I am not kidding you, I am a GM, and I don't appreciate the incredulity and personal attacks.

7) Can you use the [Full dodge against ranged attacks] option by using a weapon ?
- No (The core rulebook)

The Full Defense rule allows you to dodge ranged attacks just fine while defending with a weapon, so I disagree with you. Since your entire argument rests on this, and you haven't offered any other reason why we should rule against it, other than insulting slippery slopes, I simply don't find your argument compelling. Unless you have something different to add, I'm done with this.