StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I think double-bladed lightsaber was only added for its "coolness". An anlaysis was done back during TPM release demonstrating how difficult itis to use a dobule-bladed lightsaber.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:

ANGELUS wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:is there any other reason for that kind of weapon.

Training.

That's possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Fine. Natural selection then

Thirdfain wrote:

Slartibartfast wrote: Ruleswise, because you swing twice instead of once. Therefore your odds actually increase at higher levels.

That makes no sense. It would take less time to swing twice with a single-bladed lightsaber than it would with a double-bladed lightsaber, seeing as that with a single-bladed lightsaber, you don't need to avoid stabbing yourself in the chest.

Well it's not my fault these D20 dudes like double weapons (dire mace), they count as using two weapons. Stupid? Sure.

Nick Lancaster wrote:Multiple attacks only accrue when you attain the appropriate level, but you are nonethelss being penalized for both attacks, so you're not really gaining anything over a single-weapon/multiple-attack opponent.

I'm not that familiar with D&D rules, mostly from playing NWN and KotOR. I was pretty sure your attack speed increased when wielding dual weapons / double-sided weapons. At least in 2E you got 1.5x the amount of attacks, either independently of level, or you got 0.5 extra attacks on top of that. Otherwise, why would the rules allow it (or penalize it!?) at all?

ANGELUS wrote:Besides, think of it, if you master something as difficult as a double-bladed saber then wielding a regular one will be much easier. And if you accidentally kill yourself while training with it, well, I guess that means you were not worthy of beign a Sith Lord.

That's like saying that since it's a lot harder to use longbows than rifles, if you instead of practising shooting with a rifle you do it with the bow, using the rifle will be much easier.

I'd say the skills to wield a light staff and a light sword are very different and skill in one doesn't transfer to the other, at all.

Petrosjko wrote:Furthermore, I don't see how well blaster deflection would work with a polearm.

Notice how nobody bothered (read: were scared shitless) to shoot at Maul in the hangar in TPM? It would have been funny if a single blaster shot would have done him in

Slartibartfast wrote:Notice how nobody bothered (read: were scared shitless) to shoot at Maul in the hangar in TPM? It would have been funny if a single blaster shot would have done him in

Actually, Maul's weapon would probably be better for blaster deflection, by its design. It's in close combat where it fails the common sense test, because it confers few of the advantages of a staff while being a hell of a lot more dangerous to use.

Well Maul did use the sabre in single blade mode in his initial encounter with Qui Gon, knowing he was going to face 2 jedi at Theed he went double on them. He doesn't switch to single when dueling them separately though, which I think would've been cool. It does create a little dead zone in the center that Obi took advantage of and sliced it, but the double blades saved Maul alot of movement during his "tactical" retreating and spinning, and was great defense when having a Jedi behind and in front/side. So I'd say in the hands of the skilled it saves you movement and gives leverage to just flick your wrists to perform simple swipes instead of constantly swinging two blades at once.

During the end when Maul had one sabre vs Obi sure they went mental on each other, but I got the feeling Maul lost his advantage, with the double blades it forces you to change styles abit. It lost the mysterious where's he going to swing next type feeling, and until that force push it looked like it was going to be a long stalemate. I think it's the longer kill reach with the double blade that made Maul abit more unreachable to a single blade combantant, but at the same time I think dual welding blades would be the ultimate counter to a double blade.

The advantage of the double-saber is not offensive, but defensive, as Meest said. It allows you to fend off multiple attackers from different angles. Couple this with a Jedi's (or Sith's) precog, and you can greatly increase your efficiency of movement. It also allows for rapid attacks from multiple angles without changing the angle of your arms very much, although these attacks lack signifigant power, since you can't build up enough momentum.

Slartibartfast wrote:I'm not that familiar with D&D rules, mostly from playing NWN and KotOR. I was pretty sure your attack speed increased when wielding dual weapons / double-sided weapons. At least in 2E you got 1.5x the amount of attacks, either independently of level, or you got 0.5 extra attacks on top of that. Otherwise, why would the rules allow it (or penalize it!?) at all?

Exactly!

You gain a second attack, which is already a good -3 or so below your primary attack. Then you add the -4/-2 (and that's with the right combination of feats, the modifier can be much worse) ... and it seems you're stacking penalties for use of the weapon.

Nick Lancaster wrote:

Slartibartfast wrote:I'm not that familiar with D&D rules, mostly from playing NWN and KotOR. I was pretty sure your attack speed increased when wielding dual weapons / double-sided weapons. At least in 2E you got 1.5x the amount of attacks, either independently of level, or you got 0.5 extra attacks on top of that. Otherwise, why would the rules allow it (or penalize it!?) at all?

Exactly!

You gain a second attack, which is already a good -3 or so below your primary attack. Then you add the -4/-2 (and that's with the right combination of feats, the modifier can be much worse) ... and it seems you're stacking penalties for use of the weapon.

Ah, so the higher your level and more "natural" attacks you have, you suffer the penalties more for diminished returns (one extra attack after you already got 3 or 4). Yeah that sucks... but I've always thought D&D sucks

Slartibartfast wrote:That's like saying that since it's a lot harder to use longbows than rifles, if you instead of practising shooting with a rifle you do it with the bow, using the rifle will be much easier.

A hit with a lightsaber could be lethal, so if you learn not to hit yourself with a doble-bladed one then not hiting yourself with a single one will be easier. With the double one you have to pay atention to both blades, with the single one you only have to concentrate in one blade, that's what I meant when I said it would be easier.

Aya wrote:Chicks dig double bladed sabres.

You mean Geeks, right?

I would prefer two sabers that can be hooked together for use as a saber. But mainly two sabers.

This is my evidence. Right here.

Agent Fisher wrote:I would prefer two sabers that can be hooked together for use as a saber.

Maul's saber is actually two sabers with some kind of binding device that allow 'em to be used as a double one. It is also said in Star Wars Episode I: The Visual Dictionary (page 45).

ANGELUS wrote:

Agent Fisher wrote:I would prefer two sabers that can be hooked together for use as a saber.

Maul's saber is actually two sabers with some kind of binding device that allow 'em to be used as a double one. It is also said in Star Wars Episode I: The Visual Dictionary (page 45).

Really? Didnt know that.

That would be a nasty trick- in the middle of a parry, hit the button, split the double-bladed saber, and cut the opponent in two with a scissor slash. One thing I remember about Exar Kun (or maybe Maul, I'm not certain...) is that he would use the force to adjust the saber controls in the middle of a battle. AKA, turn one off abruptly and do a hard slash; or turning down the power for one blade so low that it did nothing at all (not even parryable, just still visible like usual) they doing a slash at the opponent with that. The opponent blocks, and he spins around the other blade and chops off his head. Nasty stuff.

It also allows for rapid attacks from multiple angles without changing the angle of your arms very much, although these attacks lack signifigant power, since you can't build up enough momentum.

Does the momentum really matter when you're using a weapon that can kill instantly with a light touch?

This is the one redeeming quality of the double-bladed lightsaber, if you can avoid killing yourself with it, you can make quick attacks from both sides of your opponent, something that would be very difficult to block.

Ah, so the higher your level and more "natural" attacks you have, you suffer the penalties more for diminished returns (one extra attack after you already got 3 or 4). Yeah that sucks... but I've always thought D&D sucks

Not really. The off-hand attack is made at your full attack bonus, unlike the extra attacks gained from higher level. With the appropriate feats and weapons, you take a -2 penalty on all attacks to get a second roll with your best to-hit chance. It's the same principle that makes you use rapid shot 95% of the time, your odds of scoring a hit go up significantly.

Two Words:


Lightsaber-chucks yo



Gamewise i prefered two sabers over the double bladed saber since you got to use more crystals that way

Jaepheth wrote:Gamewise i prefered two sabers over the double bladed saber since you got to use more crystals that way

Yeah but if you have a unique very powerful crystal (like the Yavin wank-crystals) you only need to add it to one double-bladed saber and it will empower all the attacks (as if you had two and split it among two sabers).

In KotOR 1, there was a bug where if you used the double-blade it failed to apply the penalties to your attack or something. Can't remember if they eventually fixed it in a patch.

Slartibartfast wrote:In KotOR 1, there was a bug where if you used the double-blade it failed to apply the penalties to your attack or something. Can't remember if they eventually fixed it in a patch.

I never knew. No wonder I was kicking so much ass...

Slartibartfast wrote:

Jaepheth wrote:Gamewise i prefered two sabers over the double bladed saber since you got to use more crystals that way

Yeah but if you have a unique very powerful crystal (like the Yavin wank-crystals) you only need to add it to one double-bladed saber and it will empower all the attacks (as if you had two and split it among two sabers).

In KotOR 1, there was a bug where if you used the double-blade it failed to apply the penalties to your attack or something. Can't remember if they eventually fixed it in a patch.

yeah, I'd put heart of the gaurdian in the right hand and mantle of the force in the off hand. I used dual short sabers for the massive +toHit opila +solari or whatever

then I'd have a purple double bladed w/ the anti-droid crystals in reserve

ANGELUS wrote:Besides, think of it, if you master something as difficult as a double-bladed saber then wielding a regular one will be much easier. And if you accidentally kill yourself while training with it, well, I guess that means you were not worthy of beign a Sith Lord.

No, this is the kind of dumb feed that made Bob Brown flip a shit. The training for a polearm (especially one with lethal ends you can't grip or allow to touch you) is totally different than a sword.

well the sith were training basically to be fighting the jedi, who totally outnumber them. the double-bladed lightsabre is probably specifically for fighting more than one opponent. maul probably knew he would have to fight more then one jedi at once because they were generally outnumbered by the jedi, so he probably began training with the double bladed lightsabre for that reason

How is a double ended sabre good for fighting more than one opponent? I mean, this isn't D&D: the double blades, can't be controled independently, and the skill required to fight two people at once (the way Maul did) is huge, regardless of weather or not you're using a stupid weapon.

I think a 'polearm' lightsabre would be cool - just a long (say, 5-6 feet) handle, and a thrusting and 45 degree offset blade. Range advantage, but bad for parrying. But hey, dodge! The length should allow the user to keep their distance, anyway.

Since sabres are essentially all 'blade', you can't really make a 'proper' polearm, because you can't hold any part that hurts people. Although, force user + long, SW-material staff has got to hurt someone

Since spear analogues are safe weapons for poorly trained warriors, a extended-hilt weapon should be 'safer' for non-force users to use, since they've got more to hold and the tip would be dangerous for a normal spear too.

As an aside, I think the EU sabres are shockingly unimaginative. I want a light naginata - if I got the name right, thats 3 feet of grip, 3 feet of blade.

avoidingthepo wrote:well the sith were training basically to be fighting the jedi, who totally outnumber them. the double-bladed lightsabre is probably specifically for fighting more than one opponent. maul probably knew he would have to fight more then one jedi at once because they were generally outnumbered by the jedi, so he probably began training with the double bladed lightsabre for that reason

Acording the Shadow Hunter. Maul picked the double ended saber, precisely becuase it was the most difficult to use and thus required the most skill. He knew he could affording ot be anything less than the best of the best of the best. (SIR!)