YaanaOhtar Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 Dual wielding as it looks in (most) movies and games is ofc silly, but there were styles where you'd use a sword and dagger for example. You don't get extra attacks as in RPGs but you do get extra options. You can bind or deflect the opponent's weapon with one of yours and still have another one to stab him with. Which does take training and skill to make proper use of so you're no't automatically better off just because you can bring two weapons. I do agree that it will give you extra option - i belive fencing school has duel dagger with rapier - But duel gun and lightsaber against normal one does not give you an easy win either. Since they can deflect the shot back and you can't shield while shooting at the same time. Unless you are an idiot, ypu will keep running and they will keep pursuing which result in who will running out of stamia or a lucky shot. And it look wierd. As we see in clone war, Yoda and 3 clones got pinched down by a squaron of droids. He easily used the force to destroy them. Or In Rebel, Ezra eaily control the walker and destroy the enemies. There is no reason they would carry a gun even for an extra option Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ndrag Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 I can't remember the exact quote but there's something in the RPG books (and other places) that says by putting themselves within arm's reach of those they must kill, Jedi are forcing themselves to truly experience the taking of a life in a way that they can't ignore. They have to feel it, even though they don't want to, because the moment they stop caring about the lives they end, that is when they are on the path to the Dark Side. The Jedi are supposed to kill only as a last resort, and only in defence of themselves and others. That´s also said about modern warfare. Since often combat is a push of a button (drones, missiles) it´s a surreal situation where you never reach that kind of personal experience. Conscience might do it´s trick, but still not the same. Take GoT´s Battle of the Bastards for example, that pictures quite well how gory and messy medival times warfare was. There little personal about the kills there and little time to hestitate or contemplate. In a duel the Jedi awareness may justify this (as well as a Sith´s intend to inflict fear and agony), in a fully fledged large scale war like spear-heading an clone trooper assault, even Jedi should have a hard time to account for every kill they make in the fray. Maybe some "meditation" afterwards will bring that personal caring back, but right in the fray, it just has to be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emencie Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 I do agree that it will give you extra option - i belive fencing school has duel dagger with rapier - But duel gun and lightsaber against normal one does not give you an easy win either. Since they can deflect the shot back and you can't shield while shooting at the same time. Unless you are an idiot, ypu will keep running and they will keep pursuing which result in who will running out of stamia or a lucky shot. And it look wierd. But as soon as you take away the ability for the lightsaber to reflect shots, it becomes a less than ideal weapon against a ranged combatant. This is why one of the most famed (non force using) Jedi killers of all time used flame throwers, missiles, bombs, and slugthrowers to very effectively kill Jedi who could not redirect his weapon projectiles with their melee weapon. Lightsabers can reflect blaster fire, that is the single reason they are useful against Blaster wielding combatants. However blasters are not the sole ranged weapon in the galaxy, and the question isn't why don't force users use blasters, it's why don't they use guns. In lore bullets do just fine against Jedi, in fact they do very well against Jedi. However, for some reason (coolness factor) people in universe very rarely use them, unless you are a Tusken Raider. I would say that a Jedi using a slugthrower against a Sith who is only using a lightsaber, would be in a very good position. Especially since having a single pistol, doesn't mean the Jedi cannot also have their lightsaber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YaanaOhtar Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 But as soon as you take away the ability for the lightsaber to reflect shots, it becomes a less than ideal weapon against a ranged combatant. This is why one of the most famed (non force using) Jedi killers of all time used flame throwers, missiles, bombs, and slugthrowers to very effectively kill Jedi who could not redirect his weapon projectiles with their melee weapon. Lightsabers can reflect blaster fire, that is the single reason they are useful against Blaster wielding combatants. However blasters are not the sole ranged weapon in the galaxy, and the question isn't why don't force users use blasters, it's why don't they use guns. In lore bullets do just fine against Jedi, in fact they do very well against Jedi. However, for some reason (coolness factor) people in universe very rarely use them, unless you are a Tusken Raider. I would say that a Jedi using a slugthrower against a Sith who is only using a lightsaber, would be in a very good position. Especially since having a single pistol, doesn't mean the Jedi cannot also have their lightsaber. Actually, Force user can easily deflect those bullets, missiles, etc.... through pushing. In the Force Awaken, Kylo Ren stop the blaster shot, Obi-wan In Clone wars. It is like you are trying to shoot Jean Grey with a gun. Most likely these are more effective because of element of surprise. Force user can carry gun, but they had become trinkets when you add Force into the equation and promoting using it is better than choosing the easy way out specially with the Sith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emencie Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 Actually, Force user can easily deflect those bullets, missiles, etc.... through pushing. In the Force Awaken, Kylo Ren stop the blaster shot, Obi-wan In Clone wars. It is like you are trying to shoot Jean Grey with a gun. Most likely these are more effective because of element of surprise. Force user can carry gun, but they had become trinkets when you add Force into the equation and promoting using it is better than choosing the easy way out specially with the Sith. Good point, but on that level force users can also deflect lighsabers with their bare hands too. So how does having or not having a lightsaber matter? Once we add the force into the equation everything changes because it is the primary power of force users. If we are asking why don't they use a different weapon, well they did. In the EU there were force users using everything from lightwhips, blasters, and even those who did not have a weapon at all, because they were so powerful in the force. That is why I say, objectively on the battlefield the gun is a more, useful weapon than a sword. When we add in the phenomenal powers of the force users it doesn't change the dynamic between the sword and the gun. Unless one of those people do not have those powers. On a basic level, deflecting blaster bolts is already a feat of wonder. Either the force user has some sort of battlefield precognition, or they are so inhumanly fast they can see the blaster bolts then react to them before they go from barrel to target. Either way, the lightsaber itself has very little to do with defending against blasters, all it allows is the Force user to turn those blaster bolts against the enemy. Which is something that having a blaster themselves, they could also do fine by stepping out of the way of the blaster bolts and returning fire, by stopping the blasters bolts with their hand and returning fire, by absorbing the power in those blaster bolts and returning fire, or any number of the very numerous ways we know force users can stop virtually any weapon used against them. Lightning, force push, bullets, lightsabers, blasters bolts, blaster cannons, missiles, fire, poison gas, even vehicle cannons. We have seen all this and more deflected by a simple hand wave or palm. To me this means that the lightsaber is simply for slashing stabbing and cutting people in half as a weapon, and not truly necessary for defense. With that in mind, I feel a blaster or gun is a far better offensive weapon than the lightsaber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YaanaOhtar Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 (edited) Good point, but on that level force users can also deflect lighsabers with their bare hands too. So how does having or not having a lightsaber matter? Once we add the force into the equation everything changes because it is the primary power of force users. If we are asking why don't they use a different weapon, well they did. In the EU there were force users using everything from lightwhips, blasters, and even those who did not have a weapon at all, because they were so powerful in the force. That is why I say, objectively on the battlefield the gun is a more, useful weapon than a sword. When we add in the phenomenal powers of the force users it doesn't change the dynamic between the sword and the gun. Unless one of those people do not have those powers. On a basic level, deflecting blaster bolts is already a feat of wonder. Either the force user has some sort of battlefield precognition, or they are so inhumanly fast they can see the blaster bolts then react to them before they go from barrel to target. Either way, the lightsaber itself has very little to do with defending against blasters, all it allows is the Force user to turn those blaster bolts against the enemy. Which is something that having a blaster themselves, they could also do fine by stepping out of the way of the blaster bolts and returning fire, by stopping the blasters bolts with their hand and returning fire, by absorbing the power in those blaster bolts and returning fire, or any number of the very numerous ways we know force users can stop virtually any weapon used against them. Lightning, force push, bullets, lightsabers, blasters bolts, blaster cannons, missiles, fire, poison gas, even vehicle cannons. We have seen all this and more deflected by a simple hand wave or palm. To me this means that the lightsaber is simply for slashing stabbing and cutting people in half as a weapon, and not truly necessary for defense. With that in mind, I feel a blaster or gun is a far better offensive weapon than the lightsaber. Well Lightsabers do allow Force User to enhance their connection to the force, force crystal and all. The force users are also able to enhance their lightsaber allow it to cut through more resistant material or deflect against powerful blast - Walker, AT-AT ? -. More like style of fighting. Those like to enhance their martial art abilities or those like to use it directly. If we take it out of context - Satele Shan was struggling to stop Magus lightsaber. It is not just a weapon like a gun or rocket launcher or a rock, the connection to the force of the lightsaber, again The Force changes the equation, make it more compatible to use for force user. Edited October 12, 2016 by YaanaOhtar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walknoga Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 I dont think that force users need any kind of weapon to kill anything (at least Samuel F. Jackson, i mean Mace Windu, dont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sage_of_Battle Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 I dont think that force users need any kind of weapon to kill anything (at least Samuel F. Jackson, i mean Mace Windu, dont. They really don't, once they get to the levels of Yoda, Sidious, Mace, pretty much any of the High Council members. That's why Yoda and Sidious don't use them in the OT. Sidious practically looks at it as if it's a child's toy. I believe in the ROTS novelization, Sidious kills the Jedi with a saber mainly as a show of power and mockery. The Prequels had to have a bunch of saber fights to appease the crowds that just want to see high octane action, flashes and explosions. The fact that we just had to get Yoda whip out a child sized lightsaber in AOTC and ROTS just completely defeats the mysticism of the force that we got in the OT. But not all Jedi are on that level so they supplement it with some martial combat skills. But if they ever truly wanted to be combat effective, there's no reason not to have both lightsaber and blaster. They already have some other utility gear like zip lines and oxygen masks. That was probably a Karen whatshername book wasn't it? Nah the John Wagner one. Enemy of The Empire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordnikolas Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 In kotor 2 HK says the line "If I see one more assasin try to use a gun to kill a jedi" A blaster and lightsaber is probbably most effective but when you can reflect blaster bolts with a lightsaber and a blaster cant reflect lightsaber blades as far as I see lightsabers win out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KainrycKarr Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 Actually, Force user can easily deflect those bullets, missiles, etc.... through pushing. In the Force Awaken, Kylo Ren stop the blaster shot, Obi-wan In Clone wars. It is like you are trying to shoot Jean Grey with a gun. Most likely these are more effective because of element of surprise. Force user can carry gun, but they had become trinkets when you add Force into the equation and promoting using it is better than choosing the easy way out specially with the Sith. I think it depends on the user. Obi-wan gets his blaster shot literally out of his hand by some random Mando grunt in season 2. Maul gets his shot out of his hand in his duel with Viszla. As far as stopping with JUST the force....I think the bit with Kylo is meant to imply that he is a prodigy, which he is, as opposed to every force user being able to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlazeTomahawk Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 I'm more surprised that they never developed a kind of Force based shield to carry off hand during intense combat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adormitul Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 Because its cool the rule cool beats everything. Cool>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBDNicodemus Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 I would think this is a pretty easy answer, jedi carry tools, a saber is more then a weapon its, a light, a torch, a symbol, an extension of one self. Sure you can aim better as force wielder then a muggle, but with a lightsaber you can put more strength, more speed, and most importantly you can stop the strike. If I pull the trigger I can't take it back, I can't stop it, if someone gets in the way it will still hit them. but with my saber, I have control up to the point of entry its on me... its not random there is no chance, there is the force and my ability. as a jedi guns are ment for killing and against the jedi way. As a sith... your meant to show power, your meant to kill jedi... you don't kill jedi with guns, you kill jedi with surprise, overwhelming odds, or overwhelming power... or of course the bane of every good guy... with someone they love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SithKoriandr Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Don't bring knives to a gunfight - Well, that guy wasn't a force user able to deflect that shot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeneas_Falco Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Rule of Cool! In universe the reason is that lightsabers have much more utility for force users than blasters. They can practically cut through anything and unlike blasters are capable of deflecting incoming blaster bolts or absorbing force lightning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rammur Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 why do martial artists use their hands and feet and not guns? its just a traditional thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlNick Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 A trained lightsaber duelist wins agaisnt blaster fire, thats why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalonVII Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 A trained lightsaber duelist wins agaisnt blaster fire, thats why. Then why did so many jedi die to blaster fire? Not just in order 66, but across the clone wars and beyond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casirabit Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 Best reason they have: Because they want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fovzwk Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 Then why did so many jedi die to blaster fire? Not just in order 66, but across the clone wars and beyond. Because it's not a complete shield that defends you from all blasterfire indefinitely and people, even force sensetive ones, get tired, make mistakes and can be caught off guard or be overwhelmed by sheer numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalonVII Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 Because it's not a complete shield that defends you from all blasterfire indefinitely and people, even force sensetive ones, get tired, make mistakes and can be caught off guard or be overwhelmed by sheer numbers? Then the guy I replied to should of said "it's good against blasterfire" not "it wins against blasterfire". There is a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavengorII Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 I think the Sith / Jedi use energy swords because its practical. Hey can have range by using Force Throw and can use very powerful close range attacks with it. Having a blaster instead of a sword might proof being a drawback in a certain situation. On the other had a sword might be not as useful as a blaster in some situation. In the end it might be because of the style... You know they like to be bada'sses! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yurnerocit Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 Because guns are so uncivilised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revkashepard Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Considering a force user could easily deflect a blast by using a force barrier or a lightsaber, I don't see how effective it was for both force users to fight using one. A lightsaber is essentially a long powerful glowstick that could melt metal, kinda hard to protect yourself from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psandak Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Considering a force user could easily deflect a blast by using a force barrier or a lightsaber, I don't see how effective it was for both force users to fight using one. A lightsaber is essentially a long powerful glowstick that could melt metal, kinda hard to protect yourself from that. The Jed'aii used metal swords before the lightsaber. So your supposition does not hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts