PDA

View Full Version : Double Weapons



Admiral Squish
2009-07-23, 11:44 AM
What exactly is the advantage of wielding a double weapon as opposed to two light or one-handed weapons? Sure, it looks cool, but is that really worth a feat? Does it lessen the penatlies? Does it offer greater damage dice? Maybe it adds 1 1/2 str to damage? How does it interact with PA? Or Two-Weapon (X) feats?

NEO|Phyte
2009-07-23, 11:49 AM
It allows you to have access to multiple damage types without needing to have two different weapons, which is handy if you take weapon-specific feats. It is also harder to disarm/sunder, being a 2handed weapon. That's about it, really.

Random832
2009-07-23, 11:50 AM
You can choose on any given round whether to treat it as two weapons or one, without spending athree move actions to switch between your two-handed weapon and your pair of one-handed weapons.

Strawman
2009-07-23, 11:54 AM
I think that the current rules for double weapons are lacking. Perhaps they should include additional damage of 1/3 dexterity bonus.

Gnaeus
2009-07-23, 11:55 AM
If you use it as a single 2 handed weapon, you can power attack with either end at strength +1/2 and PA x2. You can choose, round by round, whether you want to use it for 2 weapon fighting, or as a single 2 handed weapon with the end of your choice. It interacts with 2 weapon fighting as if it were a 1 handed weapon and a light weapon. If it is one of the weapons with 2 damage types, such as slashing and piercing, you can choose whether to use the slashing or piercing end. You can enchant the ends differently and use whichever enchantment is better against your target.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#doubleWeapons

They are rarely worth a feat.

Draz74
2009-07-23, 11:56 AM
You can choose on any given round whether to treat it as two weapons or one, without spending a move action to switch between your two-handed weapon and your pair of one-handed weapon.

To expand on this, this means, for example, that you can make a character with both TWF and Power Attack. When you get a full attack, use TWF, and when you have to move on your turn and only get a single attack, use Power Attack instead. If your opponent has DR that you can't overcome, again, switch to Power Attacking. With a double weapon, it requires no action to switch between styles!

Is it worth a feat? Probably not, unless you're a Warblade. (Warblades can switch their Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat to any exotic weapon, and can use Tiger Claw to make TWF worthwhile without needing a gazillion feats. And Diamond Mind makes Power Attacking even more worthwhile than it already was.)

Admiral Squish
2009-07-23, 12:10 PM
Would it be reasonable to petition my DM to apply strength+1/2 to all attacks with a double weapon, due to applied leverage and the long haft? Would that make double weapons more worthwhile? It would be a significant power boost and a step towards making exotic weapons more worth the extra feat.

Spiryt
2009-07-23, 12:11 PM
Would it be reasonable to petition my DM to apply strength+1/2 to all attacks with a double weapon, due to applied leverage and the long haft? Would that make double weapons more worthwhile? It would be a significant power boost and a step towards making exotic weapons more worth the extra feat.

It would make such thing as double axe better than good old normal axe,

AND WE CAN'T LET THAT HAPPEN!

TO ARMS!

:smalltongue:

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-23, 12:13 PM
Would it be reasonable to petition my DM to apply strength+1/2 to all attacks with a double weapon, due to applied leverage and the long haft? Would that make double weapons more worthwhile? It would be a significant power boost and a step towards making exotic weapons more worth the extra feat.

I don't think the power boost is necessary; as has already been shown, the versatility is well worth it. What I don't think is necessary is spending a feat to use a single weapon, since most of the "exotic" weapons should probably be martial (for instance, why does sticking two short swords (simple) on a quarterstaff (simple) require such a different fighting style (exotic weapon) as to require a feat?).


TO ARMS!

I believe, in this context, you actually meant to say TWO ARMS! :smallwink:

Spiryt
2009-07-23, 12:20 PM
I don't think the power boost is necessary; as has already been shown, the versatility is well worth it. What I don't think is necessary is spending a feat to use a single weapon, since most of the "exotic" weapons should probably be martial (for instance, why does sticking two short swords (simple) on a quarterstaff (simple) require such a different fighting style (exotic weapon) as to require a feat?).

Short swords are martial.

And the difference would be huge.

Even if we assume that there is a way to fight such thing effectively, it would indeed be funky.

lvl 1 sharnian
2009-07-23, 12:24 PM
I don't think the power boost is necessary; as has already been shown, the versatility is well worth it. What I don't think is necessary is spending a feat to use a single weapon, since most of the "exotic" weapons should probably be martial (for instance, why does sticking two short swords (simple) on a quarterstaff (simple) require such a different fighting style (exotic weapon) as to require a feat?).

I believe it has something to do with weight and balance, it's now atleast the length of 2 short swords and you cant just use stabs (atleast I think that's what the shortswords main fighting style was) as you have to consider where the other side is going to end up since you're holding it by the middle. The extra weight should screw up the timing for both the quarterstaff and shortsword styles normally used.

Spiryt
2009-07-23, 12:30 PM
Swordguy had posted his rather interesting thoughts about fighting with such thing, but it seems that thread purge ate it... :smallannoyed:

Admiral Squish
2009-07-23, 12:31 PM
It would make such thing as double axe better than good old normal axe,

AND WE CAN'T LET THAT HAPPEN!

TO ARMS!

:smalltongue:
But, indeed, shouldn't something with a greater cost offer a greater reward in exchange? You have to burn a feat to get acess to the double axe without crippling penalties, so why not make it more valuable?

AstralFire
2009-07-23, 12:33 PM
The biggest issue with Double Weapons is that you need high Dex to TWF and you can't finesse with them. Which, when you get down to it, is really just another manifestation of 'TWF sucks' more than 'Double Weapons suck'.


But, indeed, shouldn't something with a greater cost offer a greater reward in exchange? You have to burn a feat to get acess to the double axe without crippling penalties, so why not make it more valuable?

He was being facetious.

Spiryt
2009-07-23, 12:37 PM
But, indeed, shouldn't something with a greater cost offer a greater reward in exchange? You have to burn a feat to get acess to the double axe without crippling penalties, so why not make it more valuable?



He was being facetious.

Of course :smalltongue:

Anyway, you are most certainly right, I just don't like the idea of "exotic weapons" at all, let alone the double weapons.

If anything should be made "needs additional training to even use" it should be sling, for example, not bastard sword.

Double weapons could probably be martial, only different.

But 3.5 weapons system is too simple for such nuances, as it is.

AstralFire
2009-07-23, 12:39 PM
Weapon Groups make everything better.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-23, 12:59 PM
Short swords are martial.

:smallredface: Same difference.


And the difference would be huge.

Even if we assume that there is a way to fight such thing effectively, it would indeed be funky.


I believe it has something to do with weight and balance, it's now atleast the length of 2 short swords and you cant just use stabs (atleast I think that's what the shortswords main fighting style was) as you have to consider where the other side is going to end up since you're holding it by the middle. The extra weight should screw up the timing for both the quarterstaff and shortsword styles normally used.

Realistically, yes there would be a difference; I know there's a difference in fighting styles that would make a double sword mostly unusable in real life. In a system where a level one person can fight equally well with longbows, greatswords, scythes, heavy maces, and longspears (none of which really share any fighting techniques in common)? Not so much--at least not enough to require a feat for each weapon when fighters can easily be proficient with a few dozen weapons at least.

Spiryt
2009-07-23, 01:00 PM
Weapon Groups make everything better.

In my humble opinion system from Baldurs Gate 2 rocked (I believe it was standard 2e one?)

AstralFire
2009-07-23, 01:02 PM
Never played Baldur's Gate. Not really a fan of FR and most of BioWare's work that I've played, with the exception of Mass Effect PC, has been thoroughly mediocre for my tastes.

Was referring to this system: Weapon Groups (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm). I am given to understand it does have its roots in 2E, though.

John Campbell
2009-07-23, 01:25 PM
Double weapons should suck. Having them take feat-level extra training to be not totally unusable but still not as good as a proper weapon is totally appropriate.

The problem with the two-bladed sword isn't that it messes up the balance or the timing or anything like that... it's that you can't shift your grip on it. You can only hold it with two hands close together on the short grip in the middle. This means that you get all of the in-close unwieldiness of a long, two-handed weapon, and more, but you don't get any of the reach and leverage advantages of a long two-handed weapon. And you have to worry about emasculating yourself with the lower end. It's the worst of all worlds.

Hafted double weapons like the double axe and the urgrosh aren't so bad, though they don't offer tremendous advantages over a plain old axe. The urgrosh, for that matter, probably shouldn't even exist. Just get a battleaxe and say it's got a butt-spike on it.

The dire flail, on the other hand, is just lunacy.

AstralFire
2009-07-23, 01:31 PM
Spiked chain, John.

D&D needs to either entertain some lunacy in its weapons or ban it outright, I don't think a double-bladed sword (the historical type, with a very long haft and short blades) is anywhere near the realm of insanity present in the Spiked Chain.

Morty
2009-07-23, 01:36 PM
Somehow I don't think many people mind double weapons but are fine with spiked chains. Then again, people do use chains as weapons, so it's not a bad idea in itself, it's just that it shouldn't work as illustrated in PHB.
And on a side note, I'm reasonably certain Baldur's Gate series are made by different people than the game referred to as "BioWare games", i.e. NWN and KOTOR. And it's better.

Grommen
2009-07-23, 01:37 PM
I train with weapons in martial arts. Their is a lot of issues when you try to make rules for fighting styles and uses for weapons, and yes some styles are better than others. However in D&D all styles have to be kinda even for purposes game balance. That is where the problems lie.

Is my off hand really half as strong as my primary? No way in hell, even when I was not training to punch bricks. But in the sake of game balance off hands are 1/2 strength. And with the "Push/Pull" techniques used in my staff training I can most likely double the impact with both hands than if I hit with one hand on the weapon. Not the 1.5 x STR that a two handed weapon gets. I can also put up a pretty good defense without the need for a shield.

Does this lead to good RPG rules? Probably not I would say.

I don't really like double weapons cause they look odd. Other than a quarterstaff. I like using double weapon rules with a quarterstaff, makes one of the worlds most commonly improvised weapon have some teeth. I think I've also applied 1.5 STR to the damage too cause it made sense. I've been wrong before.

Anyway for the most part I have not seen an advantage other than if your DM is strict and likes to make you use up movement actions for pulling out other weapons. It's also considered one weapon for feats like improved crit, and specializations, so you don't have to spend feats on other weapons you would use in your off hand, assuming you use a medium weapon in one hand and a light in the other.

Riffington
2009-07-23, 01:40 PM
I don't think the power boost is necessary; as has already been shown, the versatility is well worth it.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute.
With Two Weapon Fighting, you pretty much need quickdraw. That fixes most of the versatility problems here, because you just two-hand your main blade if you want to two-hand it, and you quickdraw your second blade when appropriate. So this exotic weapon proficiency feat substitutes for the quickdraw feat. The exotic has a few minor benefits, but quickdraw is probably a better feat overall.

Also, the ability to get 1.5*strength is very useful for a high-strength fighter, but if twf is mostly good for sneak-attacking rogues (who are unlikely to have 18+ strength ), then the power boost is primarily going to the very person who needs a boost.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-23, 02:32 PM
(Does responding to a devil's advocate argument make me a demon's advocate?)


Let me play devil's advocate for a minute.
With Two Weapon Fighting, you pretty much need quickdraw. That fixes most of the versatility problems here, because you just two-hand your main blade if you want to two-hand it, and you quickdraw your second blade when appropriate. So this exotic weapon proficiency feat substitutes for the quickdraw feat. The exotic has a few minor benefits, but quickdraw is probably a better feat overall.

Also, the ability to get 1.5*strength is very useful for a high-strength fighter, but if twf is mostly good for sneak-attacking rogues (who are unlikely to have 18+ strength ), then the power boost is primarily going to the very person who needs a boost.

1) That's a symptom of the "feat tax" system--you can already draw a weapon as part of another move action with +1 BAB or more (2 with TWF), so you really should be able to just quick draw by default at a certain BAB and Quick Draw might as well not exist. I don't consider this a fair comparison, because both feats are really unnecessary. YMMV and all that.

2) TWF is mostly good for rogues with SA and PA is mostly good for chargers...but with a double weapon, a rogue can PA and a charger can use SA. Does this mean every rogue will pick up SA and every charger will dip rogue? Of course not, but it makes Str rogues and Dex chargers more viable and allows anyone who happens to have high enough stats to pick up both.