[4e] What's So Bad About Double Weapons?

[Tequila Sunrise]

I've heard a lot of folks badmouth double weapons, but none of my players have ever used one. I'm planning a game where I'll be encouraging players to use superior weapons, so I want to know if there's some hidden consequence of doubles that I should know about.

[Kurald Galain]

Some people don't like them because they don't make sense from an in-world perspective - any SCA person can tell you why a double axe would be a mindbogglingly stupid thing to fight with in real life.

Some people don't like them because the rules around them are unclear, e.g. whether you can use the non-spear end of a spear/axe with Rain of Blows, or which part is the "main" weapon, or how they interact with weapon enchantments.

Some people don't like them because they are unbalanced, e.g. that they allow the use of heavy blade feats and high damage dice with the rogue's sneak attack powers.

[Altima]

The first case that comes to mind is imbalances. Off the top of my head, the double-bladed sword. It's both a heavy blade and a light blade. Which means it can be abused with feats that target both.

In a lot of cases, you'd be silly NOT to take something like that, since there's no penalties for wielding two weapons (as you can only attack with one).

[Tengu_temp]

The first case that comes to mind is imbalances. Off the top of my head, the double-bladed sword. It's both a heavy blade and a light blade. Which means it can be abused with feats that target both.

In a lot of cases, you'd be silly NOT to take something like that, since there's no penalties for wielding two weapons (as you can only attack with one).

Except that sword and board or a two-handed weapon would deal more damage and give you better defense in the first case with the same feat expenditure. The only classes who benefit from double weapons are rangers and rogues - and it's rogues for whom using a double weapon is cheesy, because a double sword has the same benefits as a rapier, but gives you +1 AC on top of that.

Also, double weapons are silly - it's hard to make them look cool, and impossible to make them look realistic.

[Mando Knight]

The only classes who benefit from double weapons are rangers and rogues

This is incorrect. Tempest Technique Fighters also like double weapons, as both heads count as off-hand weapons and have the same damage dice as military one-handed weapons. For a Tempest Fighter, the Double Sword is strictly better than a Short Sword: average +1 damage/die, and +1 AC.

[kjones]

Some people don't like them because they don't make sense from an in-world perspective - any SCA person can tell you why a double axe would be a mindbogglingly stupid thing to fight with in real life.


Does 4e have a Dire Flail? If so, 'nuff said. I challenge anyone to try to hit anyone with that thing without clocking themselves good.

[Myshlaevsky]

Does 4e have a Dire Flail? If so, 'nuff said. I challenge anyone to try to hit anyone with that thing without clocking themselves good.

It has a Double Flail, yeah. However, for sheer magnitude of flail-based weaponry you want to play a Ranger dual-wielding Triple Flails.

[Inarius]

Honestly the double sword isnt that big of a deal, the only class that can really abuse it is the fighter (heck im pretty sure theyre the only class that can abuse any of the multi weapon class items) and in their case a spiked chain is probably a better option.

Rogues on the otherhand can use it as a 1d8 light blade too but I'd say it's better for them to go with a rapier(also a 1d8 light blade) and a dagger in the offhand which allows them to use both their melee and their ranged attacks. The only benefits the double sword gives over that combo to a rogue is +1 ac and its cheaper to buy one weapon instead of two.

As for what end you can use, yeah its not clearly defined, but in the axe/spear case my gut instinct would be to say you cant use the axe end on powers that require the spear end to get a benefit, but again its not clearly defined.

And when youre looking at multiple feat classes for the weapons, you have to remember alot of feat bonuses dont stack. For instance you cant use weapon focus for heavy and lightblades and get double the damage, and most of the other weapon class feats are rather subpar anyway. I think the heroic tier heavy blade option gives a bonus to opportunity attacks which is pretty lame. I guess my point is they arent horribly out of balance, they may be slightly so but the only one who really benefits from said balance issues would be the fighter due to them having a large variety of powers that require different weapon groups to use.

Edit:
Rangers tend to be way better off dual wielding something like 2 craghammers or two waraxes

[Tequila Sunrise]

Thanks all. I think a simple house rule is in order: double swords are heavy blades only. That takes care of the rogue and tempest fighter problem all at once, what look to be the two biggest issues.

[Thajocoth]

You can't attack with both ends unless you have a power that lets you attack with both your main and off-hand weapons. (Rangers and Fighters have some such abilities.) You also need to get magic on both ends... Really, it's just like carrying two separate weapons, except you also get +1 AC. For the axes, you can get Dwarven Weapon Prof if you're a Dwarf, and for the Spears, there's Eladrin Soldier for the Eladrin. One of the double weapons can be gotten through either feat.

Which side do you attack with? That's easy. Whichever one you want. If you have a sword in each hand and use a power, you can swing with either sword, so that fact effects double weapons as well.

So why wouldn't people use double weapons? If they're only getting to attack with one head of the weapon, they can get a Mordenkrad instead and deal a lot more damage. Or, if they are, two Waraxes gives you more damage as well. In either case you simply lose that 1 AC bonus.

For a rogue, a dagger is a must. Sure, maybe another Light Blade in the other hand, but you need to be able to throw.

[Myshlaevsky]

You can't attack with both ends unless you have a power that lets you attack with both your main and off-hand weapons. (Rangers and Fighters have some such abilities.) You also need to get magic on both ends... Really, it's just like carrying two separate weapons, except you also get +1 AC. For the axes, you can get Dwarven Weapon Prof if you're a Dwarf, and for the Spears, there's Eladrin Soldier for the Eladrin. One of the double weapons can be gotten through either feat.

Which side do you attack with? That's easy. Whichever one you want. If you have a sword in each hand and use a power, you can swing with either sword, so that fact effects double weapons as well.

So why wouldn't people use double weapons? If they're only getting to attack with one head of the weapon, they can get a Mordenkrad instead and deal a lot more damage. Or, if they are, two Waraxes gives you more damage as well. In either case you simply lose that 1 AC bonus.

Small bonuses have bigger value to most people in 4e.

The issue I have with the Double Sword is exactly what makes it a Light Blade. The description states that both ends of the weapon are longswords.

I agree with Tequila Sunrise's proposed houserule.

[Thajocoth]

Small bonuses have bigger value to most people in 4e.Exactly. That's why most go for the bigger damage dice over the 1 AC.

[Myshlaevsky]

Exactly. That's why most go for the bigger damage dice over the 1 AC.

For a Rogue, the Double Sword is just better than the Rapier, the standard go-to choice for Rogues looking for more [W] damage. It does everything the Rapier does and more.

[warrl]

The first case that comes to mind is imbalances. Off the top of my head, the double-bladed sword. It's both a heavy blade and a light blade. Which means it can be abused with feats that target both.

In a lot of cases, you'd be silly NOT to take something like that, since there's no penalties for wielding two weapons (as you can only attack with one).

Actually, from what I've seen, the bigger complaints about double weapons seem to come from fighter and ranger feats that DO let you attack with both weapons.

At level 2 it is really hard to do more average damage per round to a single target than a tempest fighter/ranger hybrid with double-sword or urgrosh proficiency.

And it is those two weapons that get the biggest complaint, because each of them is also two weapon CATEGORIES: light and heavy blade, spear and axe, respectively. Rendering their wielder feat-rich.

Plus, the double weapons boost AC.

[Tiki Snakes]

Conversely, given that the ranger could be duel weilding Broadswords for or with a feat, bastard swords in each hand if two-weaponing, they really don't seem like the ones who're going to be getting their jollies from dual-swords and friends.

Personally, however, I am playing a Sorcerer who will by second level be taking the Staff fighting feat which lets him treat his staff (which he can use as a quarter-staff) as a double weapon, and give's him a nice little ac boost too. Nothing world ending, but when combined with the martial-arts-mystic inspiration behind the character, is a nice and very flavourful use of a feat.

Theoretically, I believe I could also take two-weapon-fighting and defence to gain more ac and bonus damage (both on melee attacks and cheesily enough possibly on his spells? Shan't though, too many other more flavourful things I want to cram in. ^_^ It's a roleplaying heavy campaign.)

[Tengu_temp]

This is incorrect. Tempest Technique Fighters also like double weapons, as both heads count as off-hand weapons and have the same damage dice as military one-handed weapons. For a Tempest Fighter, the Double Sword is strictly better than a Short Sword: average +1 damage/die, and +1 AC.

Huh, I thought only the off-hand side of a double weapon actually counts as off-hand, for some reason. Alright then, these guys benefit from double weapons too - probably the most from all of them, in fact.

[Gralamin]

I've heard Swordmages, for some reason, liked double weapons, but I don't pretend to know the details.

[Mando Knight]

I've heard Swordmages, for some reason, liked double weapons, but I don't pretend to know the details.

There's a feat that adds your off-hand implement's enhancement bonus to damage rolls with implement powers. A double sword is usable as an implement for a Swordmage, and the defensive property and Two-Weapon Defense makes up for the defense loss for wielding two weapons. When combined with things like an Enlarged Resounding Thunder Sword Burst, that's a decent amount of damage flying around you.

[Thajocoth]

For a Rogue, the Double Sword is just better than the Rapier, the standard go-to choice for Rogues looking for more [W] damage. It does everything the Rapier does and more.

No, a Rogue REALLY REALLY needs to be able to throw something occasionally. They can concentrate all they want on melee, but it's FAR easier to have a dagger in one hand than to keep switching weapons.


There's a feat that adds your off-hand implement's enhancement bonus to damage rolls with implement powers. A double sword is usable as an implement for a Swordmage, and the defensive property and Two-Weapon Defense makes up for the defense loss for wielding two weapons. When combined with things like an Enlarged Resounding Thunder Sword Burst, that's a decent amount of damage flying around you.

I could see someone making that trade off... But it costs a few feats to work. One side-benefit of that though is that, if they go unconscious, they only lose 1AC for the rest of the battle instead of 3, since only 1AC is coming from their class feature.

[Belobog]

No, a Rogue REALLY REALLY needs to be able to throw something occasionally. They can concentrate all they want on melee, but it's FAR easier to have a dagger in one hand than to keep switching weapons.

It's not all that hard to take Quick Draw and keep a dagger or a sling around, and drop the Double Great Swords or whatever they are when you need to.

[Kurald Galain]

It's not all that hard to take Quick Draw and keep a dagger or a sling around, and drop the Double Great Swords or whatever they are when you need to.
You don't need to drop anything - you can switch a two-handed weapon to one hand (or back) as a free action, although you can't attack with it while you're holding it in one hand.

That said, I do not believe a rapier is worth the feat for a rogue, given their to-hit bonus with daggers. A double sword could be worth it, if you combine it with some feats or weapon enchantments that only work on heavy blades.


I've heard Swordmages, for some reason, liked double weapons, but I don't pretend to know the details.
I think that's unlikely, because they get a substantial defense bonus for keeping one hand free.

[Mando Knight]

I think that's unlikely, because they get a substantial defense bonus for keeping one hand free.

With Two-Weapon Defense and a weapon with the Defensive property, this defense loss is mitigated, allowing Dual Implement Spellcaster to significantly increase the damage output of implement powers when combined with a decently enchanted Double Sword.

[Shadow_Elf]

With Two-Weapon Defense and a weapon with the Defensive property, this defense loss is mitigated, allowing Dual Implement Spellcaster to significantly increase the damage output of implement powers when combined with a decently enchanted Double Sword.

Also, for Hybrid Swordmagi, there's no reason not to use a Double Weapon. For example, I decided to make a level 10 Swordmage|Fighter modeled after Darth Maul, taking Tempest Technique rather than Warding. Its a very viable combination with the double weapon, as it also saves money on enchantment.

[Sinfire Titan]

Does 4e have a Dire Flail? If so, 'nuff said. I challenge anyone to try to hit anyone with that thing without clocking themselves good.

You do realize that the Dire Flail is a misrepresentation of a real-life weapon; the meteor hammer? If you can swing on of those without injuring yourself, you can probably use a Dire Flail.

[Yakk]

You don't need to drop anything - you can switch a two-handed weapon to one hand (or back) as a free action, although you can't attack with it while you're holding it in one hand.Without quickdraw, equipping a weapon takes a minor action.

Carrying your two-handed weapon in one hand is not having it equipped -- to equip it, it takes two hands.

I'd agree that dropping it from one hand (and carrying it instead of equipping it) is a free action.

With quick draw, you can equip it as part of an attack action that uses it.

However, quick draw is probably a good idea for a rogue that is using a non-equipped dagger to attack with. :)

[kjones]

My understanding of the meteor hammer is that you don't attack with both ends at once. That's not how dire/double flails are represented.

[Gralamin]

My understanding of the meteor hammer is that you don't attack with both ends at once. That's not how dire/double flails are represented.

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hOL8juiy1w) video shows the user using one end as a handle, except for a few attacks where he uses both ends at the same time (While the rope is around his arms).

[Fhaolan]

You do realize that the Dire Flail is a misrepresentation of a real-life weapon; the meteor hammer? If you can swing on of those without injuring yourself, you can probably use a Dire Flail.

*blink* The RL meteor hammer is a single large weight on the end of a long chain and uses similar movements to the RL rope dart and other chain weapons, modified for the increased weight of the hammer itself. You are only trying to control one moving weight.

The D&D dire flail is a pole with weights on chains on either end. As usually depicted, the chains are not long enough for the weights to meet in the middle of the pole, and the pole is long enough that it has become the only control point of the weapon. As such, you are attempting to control two moving weights on opposite ends of a single control point.

While the meteor hammer is somewhat impractical in real combat, which is why it is a 'martial arts weapon' and was never seen on the battlefield, the dire flail could only be used in katas and artistic juggling. If you actually *hit* anything with one of the weights, the other would quickly go out of control and require significant time to bring both back up to speed/control. This wouldn't work in a combat situation.

If the pole didn't exist, and the flail heads were simply on either end of a long chain, this would become more workable. Both ends could then be controled independantly with either hand. I would then agree that this is a modified meteor hammer. But with the pole added in, it changes the dynamic enough that I don't beleive they can be equated.

Unless of course they changed the dire flail for 4e, and I missed it. :smallsmile:

[Tiki Snakes]

*blink* The RL meteor hammer is a single large weight on the end of a long chain and uses similar movements to the RL rope dart and other chain weapons, modified for the increased weight of the hammer itself. You are only trying to control one moving weight.

The D&D dire flail is a pole with weights on chains on either end. As usually depicted, the chains are not long enough for the weights to meet in the middle of the pole, and the pole is long enough that it has become the only control point of the weapon. As such, you are attempting to control two moving weights on opposite ends of a single control point.

While the meteor hammer is somewhat impractical in real combat, which is why it is a 'martial arts weapon' and was never seen on the battlefield, the dire flail could only be used in katas and artistic juggling. If you actually *hit* anything with one of the weights, the other would quickly go out of control and require significant time to bring both back up to speed/control. This wouldn't work in a combat situation.

If the pole didn't exist, and the flail heads were simply on either end of a long chain, this would become more workable. Both ends could then be controled independantly with either hand. I would then agree that this is a modified meteor hammer. But with the pole added in, it changes the dynamic enough that I don't beleive they can be equated.

Unless of course they changed the dire flail for 4e, and I missed it. :smallsmile:

I think I just decided on a very small homebrew, if they haven't. :) I never had any interest in the dire flail at all, until this alternate possible interpretation. Hehe.

(Admittedly, watching the linked video, all I could think was how cool it would be to see a heavily armoured sword-n-sheilder just wade through that and gut the fancy chain-weapon-fighter. Damn my fighter obsession. To the character builder!)

[Fhaolan]

I think I just decided on a very small homebrew, if they haven't. :) I never had any interest in the dire flail at all, until this alternate possible interpretation. Hehe.

(Admittedly, watching the linked video, all I could think was how cool it would be to see a heavily armoured sword-n-sheilder just wade through that and gut the fancy chain-weapon-fighter. Damn my fighter obsession. To the character builder!)

Interestingly enough, this makes the dire flail and the spiked chain almost the exact same weapon. Interpret the spiked chain as being the morning star version of the dire flail, and it *almost* makes sense. Requires a little bit of stat fiddling, and they're still very dangerous to the unskilled user, of course, but it's now posible to visualize how both weapons would technically work in RL... badly, but not so completely impossible as the 'official' versions.

With a spiked ball on either end of the chain, the movements possible become *really* limited relative to what the normal stuff is for rope darts/meteor hammers, but I find it easier to hand-wave away those problems from that point. It depends on what your tollerance is for silly weapons. :smallsmile: