PDA

View Full Version : Two-Bladed Sword



goken04
2010-05-25, 04:45 PM
All right, the two-bladed sword. It's two-handed when you're wielding it for Two-Weapon Fighting. Does that mean, when you're TWFing, you can add 1.5*STR to both attacks?

Boci
2010-05-25, 04:51 PM
It isn't considered two handed for the purpose of two-Weapon Fighting, it is considered a one handed in your main hand and a light weapon in your off hand, although what you propose sounds like a good houserule to make the weapon more worthwhile.

goken04
2010-05-25, 04:55 PM
It isn't considered two handed for the purpose of two-Weapon Fighting, it is considered a one handed in your main hand and a light weapon in your off hand, although what you propose sounds like a good houserule to make the weapon more worthwhile.

The only rules reference I have for this is specifically regarding attack penalties. I've never played like this, but I'm starting to wonder if it's not RAI.

Mike_G
2010-05-25, 04:56 PM
It shouldn't be made worthwhile.

It's a bad idea, as dangerous to the user as it is to his enemy. The fact that it allows TWF with the extra feat cost is fine, since using an actual set of two swords without the freaking pommels welded together would be a billion times more effective.

hamishspence
2010-05-25, 04:57 PM
I thought it was the other way round-

if you don't make use of any of the Two Weapon Fighting bonus attacks, it can count as a two-handed weapon, and if you do, it counts as a one handed weapon and a light weapon.

arguskos
2010-05-25, 04:57 PM
The only rules reference I have for this is specifically regarding attack penalties. I've never played like this, but I'm starting to wonder if it's not RAI.
I think that they meant that everything combat-related was as if it was a one-hander and a light weapon. It'd fit with the attack penalties thing, it's what I've always done, and it's what seems to make the most logical sense (can't put your full force behind each swing, etc).

It's not a super useful weapon, but that's because it's exotic. I think you could safely make it a martial weapon and nothing changes mechanically, except that some people might actually use it once in a great while.

Swok
2010-05-25, 04:57 PM
Highly doubtful that it's RAI, since there's a class feature that does exactly that.

(Legendary Force, capstone feature of Revenant Blade in Players Guide to Eberron)

Boci
2010-05-25, 04:59 PM
The only rules reference I have for this is specifically regarding attack penalties. I've never played like this, but I'm starting to wonder if it's not RAI.

If it was considered a two handed weapon for the purpose of two weapon fighting you would not be able to wield it because you cannot wield a two handed weapon when two weapon fighting.


It shouldn't be made worthwhile.

It's a bad idea, as dangerous to the user as it is to his enemy. The fact that it allows TWF with the extra feat cost is fine, since using an actual set of two swords without the freaking pommels welded together would be a billion times more effective.

Yes because in a world of magics and dragons, clearly only characters that make sense should be allowed, regardless of what the player wants.

lsfreak
2010-05-25, 05:03 PM
If it was considered a two handed weapon for the purpose of two weapon fighting you would not be able to wield it because you cannot wield a two handed weapon when two weapon fighting.
Greatsword + unarmed strike and greatsword + armor spikes would like to have a word with you.




Yes because in a world of magics and dragons, clearly only characters that make sense should be allowed, regardless of what the player wants.
Two-ended weapons break verisimilitude/suspension of disbelief far too much for some of us. Magic can be explained away in various ways. Someone wielding a weapon that's physically impossible to wield is something else.

Boci
2010-05-25, 05:05 PM
Greatsword + unarmed strike and greatsword + armor spikes would like to have a word with you.

Right you are.


Two-ended weapons break verisimilitude/suspension of disbelief far too much for some of us. Magic can be explained away in various ways. Someone wielding a weapon that's physically impossible to wield is something else.

Then don't wield it yourself, but are you really going to be bothered by another player at the table using one?

goken04
2010-05-25, 05:06 PM
Two-ended weapons break verisimilitude/suspension of disbelief far too much for some of us. Magic can be explained away in various ways. Someone wielding a weapon that's physically impossible to wield is something else.

But it's COOL. Can't you just let the EWP feat compensate for your verisimilitude?

lsfreak
2010-05-25, 05:10 PM
But it's COOL. Can't you just let the EWP feat compensate for your verisimilitude?

Cool doesn't mean useful. Me, personally? No, EWP wouldn't be enough. I like my fighters constrained by some semblence or realism - warblades are fine because they can be explained, (most) two-ended weapons can't be explained at all.

hamishspence
2010-05-25, 05:11 PM
Or describe it in a more plausible fashion. The Two bladed sword, for example, having a longer hilt (and slightly shorter blades) than usually depicted in the art.

Basically making it more a double-ended glaive.

Dire flails might be a bit harder to rationalize though (each flail head would have to be short to avoid damage to the wielder.)

And so on.

KillianHawkeye
2010-05-25, 05:13 PM
a weapon that's physically impossible to wield

Star Wars E1: The Phantom Menace would like to have a word with you.

And don't give me that "it works differently because a lightsaber has no weight" crap, because with sufficient strength involved the weight becomes a nonissue. Also, I don't recall Darth Maul accidentally dismembering himself with his own weapon.

Now, sword-chucks, on the other hand, ARE patently ridiculous and likely to get you killed.

goken04
2010-05-25, 05:13 PM
Cool doesn't mean useful.

Yeah, it's not useful. Not to mention prohibitively expensive at level 1. In fact, it's so useless I may have to rework my character concept, since it looks like we won't be able to use it.

lsfreak
2010-05-25, 05:16 PM
And don't give me that "it works differently because a lightsaber has no weight" crap, because with sufficient strength involved the weight becomes a nonissue. Also, I don't recall Darth Maul accidentally dismembering himself with his own weapon.

An actual weapon that had blades on it like that? You couldn't swing for ****. You'd be lightly tapping someone with the blade. The only reason it worked is that it's a choreographed fight with fictional weapons that can handwave the force the the blow.

Mike_G
2010-05-25, 05:16 PM
But it's COOL. Can't you just let the EWP feat compensate for your verisimilitude?

Me?

No. No I can't.

For a game, spending an extra feat to use a mechanically subpar fighting style is about right for such a bad idea.

I don't think it's all that cool. It's a bit less unworkable than the Orc Double Axe or Dire Flail, but it's in the category of Dehydrated Water or the Fragmentation Bayonet.

KillianHawkeye
2010-05-25, 05:17 PM
You're getting your reality in my fantasy. :smallannoyed:

lsfreak
2010-05-25, 05:19 PM
You're getting your reality in my fantasy. :smallannoyed:

And you're taking my fantasy and adding elements to unbelievable for me to stay focused on the fantasy.

arguskos
2010-05-25, 05:19 PM
Me?

No. No I can't.

For a game, spending an extra feat to use a mechanically subpar fighting style is about right for such a bad idea.

I don't think it's all that cool. It's a bit less unworkable than the Orc Double Axe or Dire Flail, but it's in the category of Dehydrated Water or the Fragmentation Bayonet.
I have a question, if you'd humor me. Is a gythka (http://norcumi.gargles-fans.org/pics/gythka.jpg) unworkable in your eyes as well? It's probably about 8-ft long, for your reference, and is wielded by a tall insectile multi-armed species. Is this improbable or unworkable? If so, why?

Note: I'm not trying to convince you that "ur doin it wrong" or whatever, I'm just curious about this line of thought. :smallwink:

Spiryt
2010-05-25, 05:22 PM
Star Wars E1: The Phantom Menace would like to have a word with you.

And don't give me that "it works differently because a lightsaber has no weight" crap, because with sufficient strength involved the weight becomes a nonissue. Also, I don't recall Darth Maul accidentally dismembering himself with his own weapon.

Now, sword-chucks, on the other hand, ARE patently ridiculous and likely to get you killed.

Did...

Did you just use Star Wars as an argument for weapon being possible to wield (in reality)? :smalltongue:

Anyway, while double sword are pretty silly, I don't think that moaning about their realism in every thread is sensible.

If someone wants it he goes for it, although he could use some homebrew, because in game they're just as bad as normal TWF and burn a feat.

KillianHawkeye
2010-05-25, 05:25 PM
And you're taking my fantasy and adding elements to unbelievable for me to stay focused on the fantasy.

Hey, man, I didn't add two-bladed swords to D&D. If anyone's to blame, it's George Lucas (considering D&D 3rd Edition came out shortly after SW Ep 1).

Of course, Lucas didn't invent two-bladed swords. He just applied it to lightsabers. I don't know how old any of you are, but if you're old enough to remember Thundercats then you'll know where my first impression of a two-bladed sword comes from (although that one was more like a double-scimitar). Long story short, I have no problems with two-bladed swords because I grew up with the concept.

EDIT:

Did you just use Star Wars as an argument for weapon being possible to wield (in reality)? :smalltongue:

Sure, why not? The fight looked good, and the actors had to be swinging around something. Anyway, my point was that if you could do it with something small and light, it's theoretically possible to do it with something a little bigger and heavier. :smallwink:

arguskos
2010-05-25, 05:27 PM
(although that one was more like a double-scimitar)
As a bit of trivia, these actually exist in D&D, in the Eberron Campaign Setting book, page 120. /tangent

hamishspence
2010-05-25, 05:27 PM
I don't remember a double scimitar in Thundercats (but it's been a long time)- who was it that wielded that?

KillianHawkeye
2010-05-25, 05:30 PM
I don't remember a double scimitar (but it's been a long time)- who was it that wielded that?

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/1/19739/713826-mummra_flame_sword2_large.jpg

hamishspence
2010-05-25, 05:31 PM
I see. Maybe I missed that one.

KillianHawkeye
2010-05-25, 05:32 PM
IIRC, he had it for most of the latter half of the series, but don't quote me on that.

Spiryt
2010-05-25, 05:33 PM
Sure, why not? The fight looked good, and the actors had to be swinging around something. Anyway, my point was that if you could do it with something small and light, it's theoretically possible to do it with something a little bigger and heavier. :smallwink:

Because it's a movie. :smalltongue:

Actors are actors, they aren't doing it for real, they're doing it with 3 seconds of action, break, next take, doubles, special effects, stuntmen, choreography, script et cetera. Then comes the montage.

I don't think that I have to explain it to anybody here.

It's huge off top anyway, so go go go to the 3.5 books, people! :smallwink:

AstralFire
2010-05-25, 05:35 PM
Anyone with weapons training can confirm that Darth Maul's actor is a superb martial artist and that what he was doing with the double-bladed lightsaber (and indeed, most lightsaber fighting in the PT) is athletically very difficult, very pretty, and not at all efficient fighting.

A double-ended pike would be much more sensible, as mentioned, and I prefer to visualize the weapon that way.

From a balance standpoint, this would be the only way to make TWF worthwhile with something besides paired light weapons. TWF chain requires Dex 19, so you probably want to be able to weapon finesse what you're wielding.

Notably, however, they work just fine with ToB Tiger's Claw discipline, with the option of occasionally switching to a two-handed stance for some abilities in other disciplines. Wow, yet another thing ToB fixes!

hamishspence
2010-05-25, 05:41 PM
A double-ended pike would be much more sensible, as mentioned, and I prefer to visualize the weapon that way.



Maybe not quite as much of a stabbing-only weapon as the pike is- but a short staff with a double-edged blade on each end might be workable, up to a point.

In practice, the second blade would probably not come into play as much.

KillianHawkeye
2010-05-25, 05:42 PM
Because it's a movie. :smalltongue:

Fantasy movie, fantasy game. I'm still not seeing the problem here. :smallconfused:

Boci
2010-05-25, 05:43 PM
Even though I can understand the reasoning behind it, I find it funny that someone on this thread has essentially said "I can accept turning bat poo into an explosive and stopping time, but a two-bladed sword is just too much".

KillianHawkeye
2010-05-25, 05:46 PM
Yeah, that's also what I don't understand.

AstralFire
2010-05-25, 05:51 PM
Magic is a system of alternative physics with its own rules; it does not have to have any great relationship to reality.

Melee is either normal or an extension of normality. Thus, it does have to have a relationship to reality.

This is why great sci-fantasy never tries to explain its magic/high-tech within actual modern scientific terminology - because people who actually know anything about those subjects start facepalming. Avatar: The Last Airbender is significantly the better for its bending being based off of real life martial arts.

Spiryt
2010-05-25, 05:52 PM
Fantasy movie, fantasy game. I'm still not seeing the problem here. :smallconfused:

Seen my post? :smallconfused:

He said : weapon physically impossible to wield.

You answered : I disagree, and gave fricking Star Wars as an example.

So I disagreed too.

As soon as you're leaving physics and stuff behind, because you want fantasy like that, I have no objections, but that we were talking about physical abilities.

And that's it.

Bring it on!!! (http://transformery.pl/galerie/galerie/inne/swcw_plokoon/swcw_plokoon31.jpg)

Dr.Epic
2010-05-25, 05:53 PM
I don't think it's possible to wield it one handed. Kind of like using a bow with one hand.

KillianHawkeye
2010-05-25, 05:55 PM
Bring it on!!! (http://transformery.pl/galerie/galerie/inne/swcw_plokoon/swcw_plokoon31.jpg)

LOL :smallamused:

What the heck is that??

Spiryt
2010-05-25, 05:55 PM
LOL :smallamused:

What the heck is that??

Found in google.

Don't want to know. :smalltongue:

Reynard
2010-05-25, 05:57 PM
Depending how big the blades are, there doesn't seem to be much difference between how two-bladed swords and quarterstaves are used, beyond weight.

Yes, the weapon itself is impractical and dangerous in untrained hands, but the same can be said of any weapon.

Boci
2010-05-25, 05:57 PM
Oh please please please let this thread become a series of photoshopped ultimate weapons. Those are always so fun.

AstralFire
2010-05-25, 05:58 PM
Depending how big the blades are, there doesn't seem to be much difference between how two-bladed swords and quarterstaves are used, beyond weight.

Yes, the weapon itself is impractical and dangerous in untrained hands, but the same can be said of any weapon.

To agree with you - Historical two-blade swords are long haft, short blade as well - for a reason.

Spiryt
2010-05-25, 06:06 PM
To agree with you - Historical two-blade swords are long haft, short blade as well - for a reason.

If talking about this stuff is anyway seemingly unavoidable:smallamused:, do you know any sources about such swords?

Never've seen/read about one and I'm interested.

Baidas Kebante
2010-05-25, 06:08 PM
The Star Wars references for a double-bladed weapon are both right and wrong at the same time. You could technically wield it the way Ray Park did and it would be easier with a weighted weapon than with a lightsabre, but the fact is that he was using staff fighting techniques rather than sword techniques the whole time to make it work.

In a real fight (yeah, I know) you'd be safest using it as a double-bladed short spear rather than a sword, where the sweeping motions would serve more to distract than to kill. You wouldn't have enough strength behind the slashes to really depend on them. The actual killing blows would have to come from thrusts, where it would in fact reflect a two-handed weapon.

goken04
2010-05-25, 06:49 PM
but the fact is that he was using staff fighting techniques rather than sword techniques the whole time to make it work.

I went with a quarterstaff instead.

Mike_G
2010-05-25, 07:09 PM
I went with a quarterstaff instead.

The Two Bladed Sword, as seen in most D&D illustrations, won't work like a staff because the middle part isn't long, where you can shift your grip, and the blades are fairly long, so if I hit you with one, the other one is against my body, where I really don't want a swordblade.

Staff fighting relies on shifting your grips to get more reach, or to parry or change your striking technique. Plus, many moves leave the not whacky end of the staff against your body, but since it's not sharp, it's no biggie.

A five foot staff with a one foot blade at either end might be workable, as an odd, exotic martial arts type weapon, but it would still be a lot of training for not much actual advantage over say, a glaive, a spear or sword and dagger combo.

Its silliness offends me. Wizards casting magic doesn't offend me.

In a fantasy game/movie/book we expect to see spells do the impossible. We call BS on people doing real world stuff that doesn't work.

Threeshades
2010-05-25, 07:34 PM
And you're taking my fantasy and adding elements to unbelievable for me to stay focused on the fantasy.

But you are fine with wizards, sorcerers and clerics who use the magical powers of their gods? :smalleek:

JonestheSpy
2010-05-25, 07:37 PM
I think part of the problem here is the bad illustrations, not the weapon concept itself. As folks have pointed out, something like a staff with short blades to cut and stab would work pretty well - it'd be tricky to learn well, but that's what the feat is for. And speaking as someone who's had some staff experience, you can get a lot of force there (but no, I don't think you'd get the X1.5 bonus).

This seems a lot like the discussion about the spiked chain from awhile back. If you look at the illustration in the PH it's fricking ludicrous, but the actual historical weapon it's based on is quite impressive.

BTW, yes, there is a big difference between believing in wizards and believing in idiotic weapons actually working. Reminds me of a similar argument about comics I got into in a different forum: accepting the existence of Superman and Green Lantern for the purposes of the story does not mean accepting that Bruce Wayne can survive being punched so hard by a robot that he goes through a brick wall.

Mike_G
2010-05-25, 07:38 PM
But you are fine with wizards, sorcerers and clerics who use the magical powers of their gods? :smalleek:

YES.

Gandalf does not ruin the feel of Lord of the Rings, nor do Elves, Orcs, or even the Balrog, but Sam dual wielding flaming sticks of French Bread, riding Bill the pony up the side of Orthanc and knocking Barad Dur over with epic flatulence would send my willing suspension of disbelief crashing to the ground.

Threeshades
2010-05-25, 07:44 PM
YES.

Gandalf does not ruin the feel of Lord of the Rings, nor do Elves, Orcs, or even the Balrog, but Sam dual wielding flaming sticks of French Bread, riding Bill the pony up the side of Orthanc and knocking Barad Dur over with epic flatulence would send my willing suspension of disbelief crashing to the ground.

All gandalf ever does is acting as a glorified lantern and doing a few magical pushes. That'S nothing compared to what casters in D&D do. While your Sam example is largely exaggerated compared to a bit of over the top martial arts. I don't think an elven warrior with a two bladed sword would've ruined the feel at all. Especially not if the wizards in the Lord of the Rings would've done anything the wizards in DnD do.

Boci
2010-05-25, 07:44 PM
YES.

Gandalf does not ruin the feel of Lord of the Rings, nor do Elves, Orcs, or even the Balrog, but Sam dual wielding flaming sticks of French Bread, riding Bill the pony up the side of Orthanc and knocking Barad Dur over with epic flatulence would send my willing suspension of disbelief crashing to the ground.

What about an elven warrior wielding a two-bladed sword?

NEO|Phyte
2010-05-25, 07:52 PM
All right, the two-bladed sword. It's two-handed when you're wielding it for Two-Weapon Fighting. Does that mean, when you're TWFing, you can add 1.5*STR to both attacks?


I don't think it's possible to wield it one handed. Kind of like using a bow with one hand.


The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#doubleWeapons)
Already been answered as far as I can see, but I figured I'd add in rule citations. :smalltongue:

Foryn Gilnith
2010-05-25, 07:55 PM
But you are fine with wizards, sorcerers and clerics who use the magical powers of their gods? :smalleek:

Yes, that's pretty much what they've (we've?) been saying for quite some time.

Matthew
2010-05-25, 08:00 PM
What about an elven warrior wielding a two-bladed sword?

AstralFire pretty much said it all above, in that if it is a magical two-bladed sword, then fine, if it is non-magical, then it is not fine. The DMG even talks about this exact issue, in that everything in D&D is assumed to correspond to normal expectations of physics except the elements that are... magical.

However, there are many non-magical things about D&D that do contravene the normal expectations of physics, such as two-bladed swords. It is not unreasonable to want to excise those elements, nor to keep them in, but it is on a different continuum from the bits of the game that are supposed to be inexplicable except by the existence of magic.

AstralFire
2010-05-25, 08:06 PM
If talking about this stuff is anyway seemingly unavoidable:smallamused:, do you know any sources about such swords?

Never've seen/read about one and I'm interested.

I don't. I know this from being in a museum in Korea as a small child and - when finally lifted up by my sister to be able to see into the display case - seeing it and finding it remarkably less impressive than its placard indicated it would be. I was wondering why the blades were so short and the not-important part was so long. :smallamused:

(It was the historical weapon of Admiral Yi, one of the world's great strategists and tacticians.)

lsfreak
2010-05-25, 09:05 PM
But you are fine with wizards, sorcerers and clerics who use the magical powers of their gods? :smalleek:

Yes. Because one is fairly internally consistent and does exactly what it claims to do, and one claims to be based in reality and then ignores reality completely.

Gerrtt
2010-05-25, 09:21 PM
I always thought the pictures of the two-bladed sword and the Orc double axe made no sense.

Then I played Neverwinter Nights and they suddenly looked a lot better to me. In both cases the handle portion became much longer than the picture in the PHB and it looked like something that to a certain extent could be a little more plausible.

I still think the Gnome Hooked Hammer takes the cake for stupid ideas. Right up there with the Dire Flail.

Boci
2010-05-25, 09:22 PM
Yes. Because one is fairly internally consistent and does exactly what it claims to do, and one claims to be based in reality and then ignores reality completely.

So you can't believe someone with 19 dex could safely wield a two-bladed sword?

Mike_G
2010-05-25, 09:26 PM
So you can't believe someone with 19 dex could safely wield a two-bladed sword?


Not the one from the PHB.

He could maybe not hack himself to death with it, but he'd be much better off taking a hacksaw to the stupid thing and then dual wielding the two halves.

There's a real good reason that in the three thousand or so years that people designed, forged and used swords in combat that a two balded sword never caught on.

tonberrian
2010-05-25, 09:32 PM
Meh, as far as ridiculous weapons go in D&D, I feel that the Two-bladed sword isn't so bad (other than the picture in the Player's Handbook, of course). It would take a lot of training and not be terribly effective - seems pretty accurately statted to me.

On the other hand, I could just be jaded because of the much more ludicrous weapons printed - the scissors sword (from Savage Species, I believe), or those hair blade things from Dragon.


two balded sword

:smalltongue:

Gorbash
2010-05-25, 10:08 PM
or those hair blade things from Dragon.

I've actually seen it work suprisingly cool. In a movie of course.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1247640/

That movie is coreographed by the guy who invented parkour, so it's not make believe and there's a cute asian chick who attached a blade to the end of her long pony tail and swings it around. Seemed real enough to me.

Mike_G
2010-05-25, 10:09 PM
What about an elven warrior wielding a two-bladed sword?

Magic and nonhuman races are part of fantasy. But they pretty much are whatever the writer/director/game designer wants them to be. He can say Magic is granted by the gods, or gained through study of ancient lore, or from your own chi/karma/ whatever and I can't say "That's not how magic works." Same for Elves, or Githyanki. Never met one, can't say that they don't have immunity to Sleep spells or whether they can travel the Astral Plane.

But I know what a sword is, and how a sword works. I've held them, and swung them and cut with them and parried with them. Ditto for a staff.

So it's easy for me to look at the drawing of the two bladed sword in the PHB and think it's silly, because I know it would be hard to use, and even though I'm pretty good with a sword or staff or bayonetted rifle, I think I'd hurt myself trying to use the thing in the drawing.

Rainbownaga
2010-05-26, 01:08 AM
What about an elven warrior wielding a two-bladed sword?

Which they actually had in the opening scenes, if I'm not mistaken.

Ravens_cry
2010-05-26, 01:27 AM
LOL :smallamused:

What the heck is that??
A soon-to-be quintuple amputee. :smallamused:

Thurbane
2010-05-26, 01:46 AM
Mercurial Two Bladed Sword for 1d8/x4, 1d8/x4?

arguskos
2010-05-26, 01:47 AM
Mercurial Two Bladed Sword for 1d8/x4, 1d8/x4?
Are you trying to give Mike_G and/or lsfreak a hernia? http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u250/bloodydoves/Emotes/Smallhappymurderous.png

Also, I approve heartily, I do.

Partysan
2010-05-26, 07:39 AM
Sorry, but I don't see it as impossible to wield. It's a mixture of Quarterstaff and Long Sword, and that way it should be used. Now sure, the illustration is bad and the grip should be way longer (not that we didn't know bad illustration from the PHC - spiked chain anyone?), but still, it IS a weapon requiring specific training.
It is possible, if tactically questionable, to wield a quarterstaff only in middle grip and generate the force of the blows the way you'd use a bastard sword. It will be inferior to using the staff with shifting grips, but the blades will not need as much force to cause damage as a blunt staff, you'd mainly lose in reach and versatility.
Now sure, you might be in danger of cutting yourself, but that's what special training and armor is for - you won't hit yourself with a lot of force if you didn't do it also with a quarterstaff, and if you hit yourself with a quarterstaff hard enouh to make it hurt, you're doing something wrong or at least in a very strange way.
Now don't get me wrong, it is a strange and probably not overly effective weapon, but it is in no way impossible to wield and doesn't break my suspension of disbelief in the slightest.

Kaiyanwang
2010-05-26, 07:41 AM
Mercurial Two Bladed Sword for 1d8/x4, 1d8/x4?

This should be similar to the double scythe in Sandstorm.

2d4/x4, 2d4/x4 IIRC.

Matthew
2010-05-26, 08:11 AM
Which they actually had in the opening scenes, if I'm not mistaken.

First time I saw that scene I thought the same thing, but now I think it is just the way they are using them. I would have to go back and take another look, but I seem to recall that was my conclusion a couple of years ago...



Yes. Because one is fairly internally consistent and does exactly what it claims to do, and one claims to be based in reality and then ignores reality completely.

Just to play devil's advocate here, although the DMG is clear about expectations and physics and such, the WotC website hosted an article on weapons in D20 saying that they deliberately broke with previous editions with regards to arms and armour, going for more "fantastical" weapons. So, there are (unsurprisingly) two conflicting claims to some extent.



Now don't get me wrong, it is a strange and probably not overly effective weapon, but it is in no way impossible to wield and doesn't break my suspension of disbelief in the slightest.

That is one of the interesting aspects of fantasy adventure games, not everybody has the same "break point" for suspension of disbelief, even folks with a similar degree of knowledge about real world arms and armour.

2xMachina
2010-05-26, 08:13 AM
As for magic vs double weapon verisimilitude, I'd say I'd be more likely to be able to wield a double weapon safely than cast ANYTHING.

Glyde
2010-05-26, 08:28 AM
It's okay, Serge... The bad men will be gone soon.



As a DM, I let my players use whatever weapon they want and I don't go "Phhbt, *rolls randomly* you cut off your own arm." It's about fun, not about arguing whether or not something makes sense.

If it bothers you, don't use it. If someone else wants to, don't try to dissuade them - especially if they aren't even at your gaming table. If they are, you might be able to convince them otherwise if a fantastical weapon in a fantasy game really sucks the ever-living fun out of you like that.

AstralFire
2010-05-26, 08:48 AM
It's okay, Serge... The bad men will be gone soon.



As a DM, I let my players use whatever weapon they want and I don't go "Phhbt, *rolls randomly* you cut off your own arm." It's about fun, not about arguing whether or not something makes sense.

If it bothers you, don't use it. If someone else wants to, don't try to dissuade them - especially if they aren't even at your gaming table. If they are, you might be able to convince them otherwise if a fantastical weapon in a fantasy game really sucks the ever-living fun out of you like that.

No one here has mentioned critical fumbles in game.

A discussion is going on here, not a "U R STOOPID IF U USE DOSE."

:|

2xMachina
2010-05-26, 08:51 AM
I think he's not saying Crit fumbles, but rather:

Huh? Using a stupid weapon? Everytime you do anything, I roll randomly to see if you amputate yourself.

That's on top of crit fumbles of course. And your crit fumbles are more deadly.

Boci
2010-05-26, 08:54 AM
So it's easy for me to look at the drawing of the two bladed sword in the PHB and think it's silly, because I know it would be hard to use, and even though I'm pretty good with a sword or staff or bayonetted rifle, I think I'd hurt myself trying to use the thing in the drawing.

So an elven warrior with a double bladed weapon would have ruined LotR for you?


Which they actually had in the opening scenes, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't think so, although it does look that way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9lcJJuHPEs The quality is bad but I'm pretty sure the weapons are single bladed.

Glyde
2010-05-26, 08:54 AM
Hey, critical fumbles made me fall down a flight of stairs and stab out my own eye - I'm allowed to be bitter :smalltongue:

AstralFire
2010-05-26, 08:54 AM
I think he's not saying Crit fumbles, but rather:

Huh? Using a stupid weapon? Everytime you do anything, I roll randomly to see if you amputate yourself.

That's on top of crit fumbles of course. And your crit fumbles are more deadly.

I don't believe anyone here has mentioned doing that, just that you'd do it IRL. Discussion was more along the lines of 'spend a feat to get a subpar fighting style, sure' and 'I just don't allow it' or 'I imagine the weapon in a more reasonable manner.'

The Big Dice
2010-05-26, 11:26 AM
I don't think so, although it does look that way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9lcJJuHPEs The quality is bad but I'm pretty sure the weapons are single bladed.

They are definetly single bladed. Here's a pic.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0211/fig3.gif

JohnnyCancer
2010-05-26, 11:41 AM
What about a two hilted sword? You would need a huge armspan to hold both hilts, but other than that...no, it's still stupid.

Spiryt
2010-05-26, 12:10 PM
What about a two hilted sword? You would need a huge armspan to hold both hilts, but other than that...no, it's still stupid.

Uh....

Where would you want this second hilt? :smallbiggrin:

AstralFire
2010-05-26, 12:20 PM
Uh....

Where would you want this second hilt? :smallbiggrin:

There's a joke here, but I'm not getting it.

DragoonWraith
2010-05-26, 12:22 PM
Uh....

Where would you want this second hilt? :smallbiggrin:
I believe he means two hilts with a blade in between them...

Boci
2010-05-26, 12:23 PM
There's a joke here, but I'm not getting it.

In any case double hilted weapons are not unheard of in the fantasy genre, although the only one I can think of off the top of my head is when Spartecus goes to fight in the pits. In the final battle he gets one.

Spiryt
2010-05-26, 12:29 PM
I believe he means two hilts with a blade in between them...

That would work....

As a saw.

Greenish
2010-05-26, 12:33 PM
In any case double hilted weapons are not unheard of in the fantasy genre, although the only one I can think of off the top of my head is when Spartecus goes to fight in the pits. In the final battle he gets one.One of the Three Swords in Memory, Sorrow and Thorn was double hilted, I seem to recall.

Then there are the big swords where the handle continues past the crossguard: http://www.tritonworks.com/content/images/cervenka_bidenhander.jpg

Matthew
2010-05-26, 12:38 PM
One of the Three Swords in Memory, Sorrow and Thorn was double hilted, I seem to recall.

Ha! I have read that series, but I do not recall it, though I can well believe it! :smallbiggrin:



Then there are the big swords where the handle continues past the crossguard: http://www.tritonworks.com/content/images/cervenka_bidenhander.jpg

As I understand it, that is just "wrapping" around the non-sharpened portion of the blade for "half swording" technique. I have no idea how historically accurate it is, but I have seen it on a few two-handed replicas, such as this one:


http://www.netlinetrading.com/ebay/images/Swords/william%20wallace%202.jpg


Ah, here we go The Tyrolean (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-landesknecht-tyrolean.htm) at Albion Swords, complete with 16th century wood cut.

Spiryt
2010-05-26, 12:48 PM
Seeing that sword in your post doesn't look like anything historical, and there is "Wallace" in the URL it's probably can be called "movie replica" at most.

But it was sometimes used historically too, I believe.

http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/albums/aa_antique/CMA_.1919.71.jpg

EDIT: And yeah, it seems that Albion plans to do something like that in their replica.

Mongoose87
2010-05-26, 12:56 PM
That would work....

As a saw.

Would it be a warsaw?

Greenish
2010-05-26, 01:05 PM
As I understand it, that is just "wrapping" around the non-sharpened portion of the blade for "half swording" technique. I have no idea how historically accurate it is, but I have seen it on a few two-handed replicas, such as this one:I'm not an expert on swords, so maybe I will be forgiven for referring to a non-sharpened part with wrapping made to allow gripping it the "handle".

Seeing that sword in your post doesn't look like anything historical, and there is "Wallace" in the URL it's probably can be called "movie replica" at most.The picture was just something I grabbed from google to show what I meant, I didn't think it had to be the most real sword evah, sorry. Try these:http://www.thearma.org/essays/2hndlandsk.JPG
http://www.thearma.org/essays/two-handers.jpg[Edit]: Okay, you weren't talking to me, sorry. :smallredface:

Matthew
2010-05-26, 01:09 PM
Seeing that sword in your post doesn't look like anything historical, and there is "Wallace" in the URL it's probably can be called "movie replica" at most.

But it was sometimes used historically too, I believe.

Certainly, I meant the "wrapping" rather than the sword itself. :smallbiggrin:



And yeah, it seems that Albion plans to do something like that in their replica.

I have to admit I look at that wood cut and wonder whether the leather on the blade is just some sort of baldric. Still, I am sure that Albion know more about it than me.



I'm not an expert on swords, so maybe I will be forgiven for referring to a non-sharpened part with wrapping made to allow gripping it the "handle".

Nor am I, and nothing to forgive. Just adding some information to the discussion. :smallwink:

Spiryt
2010-05-26, 01:10 PM
The picture was just something I grabbed from google to show what I meant, I didn't think it had to be the most real sword evah, sorry.

I was refering to the Matthews pic, which looked like replica of Mel Gibson sword.

Yours seems to be Cervenka made sword and pretty decent take on something 16th century.

And anyway, the part of blade specifically meant to grab was called ricasso, and it seems that indeed was sometimes covered with some kind of fabric.


Would it be a warsaw?

http://www.chemicalgraphics.com/kaya/Albums/Our%20Cats/SukokaakaSukoSuksSuksSuks/waitiseesomethingoverthere.jpg

Kaiyanwang
2010-05-26, 01:39 PM
This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweihander) could be of interest.

JohnnyCancer
2010-05-26, 01:43 PM
Would it be a warsaw?

Forming the basis of the Warsaw Pact...

Threeshades
2010-05-26, 03:22 PM
I still think it is silly to shun the two-bladed sword for its lack of realism and still be fine with magic. If one impossible thing is possible there is no reason for the other (far less) impossible thing to be possible. Well I don't care what you guys do with it. I keep it in my games and im happy as long as my GMs keep it, for the two-bladed sword is awesome.

AstralFire
2010-05-26, 03:32 PM
I still think it is silly to shun the two-bladed sword for its lack of realism and still be fine with magic. If one impossible thing is possible there is no reason for the other (far less) impossible thing to be possible. Well I don't care what you guys do with it. I keep it in my games and im happy as long as my GMs keep it, for the two-bladed sword is awesome.

Tell me, do the characters in your games follow mostly coherent rules of personality? Would they be believable as real people?

Would you like it if a sizable number of the personalities in the game suddenly became completely incredulous, incoherent, and solely directed for purposes of a plot?

Spiryt
2010-05-26, 03:34 PM
I still think it is silly to shun the two-bladed sword for its lack of realism and still be fine with magic. If one impossible thing is possible there is no reason for the other (far less) impossible thing to be possible. Well I don't care what you guys do with it. I keep it in my games and im happy as long as my GMs keep it, for the two-bladed sword is awesome.

It's completely different kind of "non realism".

Magic is something that doesn't exist, is impossible, and with it in setting we simply walking in the fantasy territory.

Double sword is something that any smith could do, and isn't impossible anyhow. There's just no point of making such thing.

That said, I wouldn't have much against double swords in my game if my player wanted one necessarily.

It's not that D&D combat makes so much sense.

The major problem would be making it balanced - not as poor as now.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-05-26, 03:44 PM
Behold! All is saved! I come with a New Way! :smallwink:

Lots of talk here is about the silliness / not-silliness of two-bladed swords, especially with respect to the silliness / not-silliness of making explodey death out of joke material components.

I guess that the issue here isn't so much about realism in D&D, which, being a fantasy game, isn't going to be chock full of hardcore reality - but it's about where the line is drawn between mundane kit and magic.

Is a fireball magic? Yes. That's fine, magic can turn poo into fire and kill people.

Is a two-bladed sword magic? No. Oh dear, not-magic things can't act in a not-magic way.

I'm not a martial artist, but I've LARPed.
In LARP, a two-bladed sword is a perfectly workable idea - it doesn't matter that you keep hitting yourself with the end you're not currently attacking with, as long as you don't call the damage on yourself. :smallredface:
In reality, I just can't see a two-bladed sword working. Other people have posted plenty of reasoning here.

But what, oh guru, of this New Way? you ask. Teach us, that we may learn.

Sure, says I, for I am magnanimous. :smallcool:

We must walk the Middle Path between the silliness and the not-silliness.

So, if the two-bladed sword can exist in D&D, because D&D has magic and stuff, but the two-bladed sword can't exist and be practical in the real world, then the two-bladed sword must be purely magical - in which case, they got the price wrong. It should be 4000gp.

Greenish
2010-05-26, 03:50 PM
making explodey death out of joke material components.It's not a joke material, guano is a great fertilizer!

Oh dear, not-magic things can't act in a not-magic way.Uhm, what? Do you mean that non-magic things can't act in magical way? Or that non-magical things can only act in magical way?

Anyhow, Ex abilities can break the laws of physics, and even that doesn't make a two-bladed sword a sensible weapon.

Aron Times
2010-05-26, 04:00 PM
Us 4e players hear the "unrealistic weapon" argument and say, "Who cares?"

Now excuse me while I Twin Strike with dual-wielded bastard swords. :smallcool:

Or Rain of Steel with a BFS (fullblade). :smallbiggrin:

arguskos
2010-05-26, 04:16 PM
So, if the two-bladed sword can exist in D&D, because D&D has magic and stuff, but the two-bladed sword can't exist and be practical in the real world, then the two-bladed sword must be purely magical - in which case, they got the price wrong. It should be 4000gp.
/thread, seriously guys. This thread is now over. :smallbiggrin:

goken04
2010-05-26, 04:29 PM
I still think it is silly to shun the two-bladed sword for its lack of realism and still be fine with magic. If one impossible thing is possible there is no reason for the other (far less) impossible thing to be possible. Well I don't care what you guys do with it. I keep it in my games and im happy as long as my GMs keep it, for the two-bladed sword is awesome.

I'm going to have to side with the people who keep saying it's different, even if I think two-bladed swords are awesome. You're comparing apples and oranges. Magic is part of the willing suspension of disbelief for the setting (in a literature-sense, not in an ECS-sense). One expects magic to do unbelievable things. In the same way, one expects mundane weapons to act in the same way they do in the real world. And in the case of the two-bladed sword depicted in the PHB, we're talking extremely dangerous. However, I, like others in this thread, put it in the same category as the spiked-chain. That is, not to be imagined as it is in the picture, but in a more practical fashion.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-05-26, 04:43 PM
So it's easy for me to look at the drawing of the two bladed sword in the PHB and think it's silly, because I know it would be hard to use, and even though I'm pretty good with a sword or staff or bayonetted rifle, I think I'd hurt myself trying to use the thing in the drawing.

I think the problem with the PHB picture is each blade is sharp on both ends. I've seen other drawings of staff swords where each blade is curved slightly and sharp on just one side of each blade. This way if you hit yourself with the other blade its simply a bludgeon. Given that people are able to wield staffs with out hurting themselves that makes it much more plausible.

Knaight
2010-05-26, 05:06 PM
You still need far more room on the grip, but that would help some. Most staff styles use long end strikes more than short sweeps from the middle though, many even have most grips way over on one end. I'm not really sure why they even made the staff a double weapon, its just fairly quick and very versatile.

ArcanistSupreme
2010-05-26, 10:26 PM
My problem with suspending my belief for the two bladed sword (as drawn) is I just can't imagine how it would work. I have no problem visualizing a fireball or a Dragon, but I my mind steadfastly refuses to accept the two bladed sword.

Again drawing on the Star Wars reference, every fight involving Darth Maul is so blatantly choreographed it's sickening. Ever notice how Obi-Wan attacks low every time Qui-Gon goes high? If at any time they had considered coordinating their attacks, Darth Maul would have been S.O.L. (not that getting cut in half was super pleasant, but at least the travesty of a movie would have been over sooner /rant).

Fhaolan
2010-05-27, 12:29 AM
There are a variety of two-bladed weapons in RL, but they are all dueling, self-defence, or more often simply kata weapons, and weren't for battlefield use. Interestingly nearly all of them are Indian or Chinese.

The only non-pole one I know of is a rather heavy-looking double-ended kris-bladed dagger from India. All the others are quarterstaves/spears with small blades on each end. I would be curious to see how that dagger was used, as I've not seen anyone work with the thing.

Roderick_BR
2010-05-27, 12:53 AM
Greatsword + unarmed strike and greatsword + armor spikes would like to have a word with you.




Two-ended weapons break verisimilitude/suspension of disbelief far too much for some of us. Magic can be explained away in various ways. Someone wielding a weapon that's physically impossible to wield is something else.
They made it look cool in Star Wars. And that was a lightsaber, much, much easier to cut yourself in a wrong move.

And to the OP, I think that's it. You can wield a double weapon as a single two-handed weapon, gaining x1.5 strength bonus, and x2 return with Power Attack. How that works, beats me.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-05-27, 02:07 AM
/thread, seriously guys. This thread is now over. :smallbiggrin:
*bows*
:smallbiggrin:

Baidas Kebante
2010-05-27, 02:24 AM
They made it look cool in Star Wars. And that was a lightsaber, much, much easier to cut yourself in a wrong move.

And to the OP, I think that's it. You can wield a double weapon as a single two-handed weapon, gaining x1.5 strength bonus, and x2 return with Power Attack. How that works, beats me.

Depends on the weapon. For the double-bladed sword the most efficient way to use as a two-handed weapon is to thrust it like a spear. For the double-bladed axe the only way to do it effectively is to grip it by one end of the shaft and pretty much swing it like a shaolin spade.

Ossian
2010-05-27, 02:34 AM
I see magic as a on-off toggle. It either works or does not work, and it is something no one us has any experience with IRL. So, if the basic premise is that stuff we have never experienced exists (from magic to magic using dragons, oozes with nunchucks etc..) it is easy to just carry on and enjoy the game.

However sticking the sharp end in the other guy IS something we have been up to for a good 8,000 years. There is some expertise in that field. Enough to figure that, for example, if a blade is made of steel cutting weightless plasma that does not need any strength to slice through a tank and is wielded by a warrior who has battle precognition (aka the force) it is not the same as if you were trying to slice and thrust through a living body (forget about steel) with a sheet of sharp metal (aka blade). It needs a whole different kind of leverage, it has to land from different angles etc...

Personally, being the 2BS an exotic weapon, I assume that whoever spends a feat slot for it has also had extensive training over many a hard months full of sweat and pain to learn a unique style made of flips, sudden rotations, thrusts and using the leverage of the shaft against one's body. In short, a lot of flashy wuxia stuff (red tassels at the blade-shaft connection aren't a bad idea, btw :smallsmile:). The shaft can be as long as 6 feet, and the blades are mostly one-edged, short, flexible and curved, and they face opposite directions.

O.

2xMachina
2010-05-27, 12:42 PM
Quarterblades?

Quarterstaff, except it's a full metal blade, with sliding metal grips where you can hold it. This way, you can fight using it the same way you fight with a quarterstaff. Except it's sharp now.

Also, don't experts in nunchucks never hit themselves at all? So, can't they wield sword-chucks the same way?

DragoonWraith
2010-05-27, 12:46 PM
Nun-chucks with short blades on the ends exist. Emphasis on short, though - I'm talking shorter even then a knife, really just a triangle of sharpened metal on the end. That would work.

As for your sliding grips: What? How would you make them be where you want to grab the thing when you want to grab it? As soon as you let go of one, your chances of catching it again are close to nil. I can believe Darth Maul-esque fighting styles with a two-bladed sword, at least within the realm of immersive fantasy though not real life, but that thing you describe would break immersion for me.

Morty
2010-05-27, 12:50 PM
I'm going to have to side with people who say that double swords and magic are completely different cases of lack of realism. Magic is unrealistic by definition. We can make magic do anything and it won't look any more unrealistic than it does just because it exists. Same goes for purely fantastical creatures such as dragons or demons. Meanwhile, melee combat using weapons exists and humans have been doing this for almost as long as they existed. Therefore, we can say which weapon is realistic and which isn't. And personally, I don't buy into the "it's awesome" argument because for me, if something looks blatantly silly and unrealistic - like the double sword - it's neither cool nor awesome.
Naturally, an unrealistically skilled fighter would be able to make the double sword work, but someone with a level of skill required to make an impractical weapon practical would be even more efficient with a practical weapon.

Partysan
2010-05-27, 01:06 PM
I'd rather use a double sword than wielding a bastard sword purely onehanded (both requiring EWP).
A double sword is a quarterstaff with higher damage potential but more difficult to wield, but a long sword purely in one hand requires insane strength and endurance...

2xMachina
2010-05-27, 01:09 PM
Ok then.

Chainmail gauntlets with padding inside. Shouldn't hurt your hand when you grab the blade.

Spiryt
2010-05-27, 01:13 PM
Ok then.

Chainmail gauntlets with padding inside. Shouldn't hurt your hand when you grab the blade.

It's generally not so easy to hurt yourself grabbing the blade (halfswording for example) and of course mail and other gauntlets were used by those who could afford it.

What you're referring to, though?

DragoonWraith
2010-05-27, 01:19 PM
I believe he's referring to a lengthy double-edged blade with no grip at all, and pointed tips at each end, which you then wield like a quarterstaff while using sufficient hand protection to avoid crippling yourself.

I am... skeptical.

Spiryt
2010-05-27, 01:22 PM
With full mail crippling yourself won't be much problem, indeed.

However, if you hit yourself with your own weapon, the fact that you aren't cutting yourself is just small retribution for the fact, that you can't wield it fluidly.

lsfreak
2010-05-27, 01:28 PM
I believe he's referring to a lengthy double-edged blade with no grip at all, and pointed tips at each end, which you then wield like a quarterstaff while using sufficient hand protection to avoid crippling yourself.

I am... skeptical.

I am skeptical that it wouldn't just turn into the most complicated longsword ever, since my (albeit very limited) understanding of staves is that they are almost always used two-handed on the offense. So you'd end up wearing protection so that you could turn your 2-bladed sword into a standard longsword, but with the "advantage" of being able to switch ends if needed.

EDIT: And, of course, what Spiryt said. You've now made yourself a longsword that you can easily stab yourself with and that's harder to wield than any longsword.

2xMachina
2010-05-27, 01:32 PM
Huh, I thought quarterstaff fighting and longsword fighting are very different?

cfalcon
2010-05-27, 01:41 PM
I've never played or DMed in a game where this thing is allowed, but the mechanics of it are pretty clear. You are basically spending an extra feat to be able to the ability to get "double longswords" instead of "double shortswords". Normally if you were to wield a martial one handed weapon, you would have something like 1d8 19-20 or 1d6 18-20, and your martial light in your offhand would be 1d6 19-20 or 1d4 18-20- and if you took weapon focus or weapon specialization, it would only apply to one at a time. If you are planning to go this route in core, you are unable to dual wield longswords, even with a feat (later, this feat was printed). You *can*, however, dual wield shortswords, which costs you mainhand damage, but both hands benefit from any benefits you have to shortswords (or kukri or whatever).

The mechanical benefit is supposed to be this. Because each blade has to be enchanted by itself (and each end of a quarterstaff, for goodness sakes), you don't really get anything else besides this.

My early houserule was to allow a feat that let characters treat a one-handed weapon as light. While that's not realistic either, I only get a couple raised eyebrows. Allowing a non-magical weapon that can't work in the real world would likely get me laughed off the table, and the inclusion of it in core definitely caused some scowls.

Spiryt
2010-05-27, 01:42 PM
Wait, so all metal stick with...

Then way just don't make middle part blunt? Or mount a proper handle for the record... :smallconfused:

Anyway, either I don't understand something, or we entering territories that are no fun without drugs. :smalltongue:

Foryn Gilnith
2010-05-27, 01:46 PM
My early houserule was to allow a feat that let characters treat a one-handed weapon as light.

That was printed in one of the Complete books, and it's pretty much better than the two-bladed sword.

cfalcon
2010-05-27, 01:57 PM
That was printed in one of the Complete books, and it's pretty much better than the two-bladed sword.

I know, I referred to it in the post you quoted. The reason it was an early houserule (like when 3.0 first launched) is because no such feat formally existed.

cfalcon
2010-05-27, 02:15 PM
If you want to make this weapon viable, I'd start by asking what flavor you want it to have versus dual wielding an oversized offhand.

Currently, the big advantage I think it has is that it counts as a two-handed weapon for purposes of being disarmed or sundered. I doubt that's a compelling reason to pick a weapon that is likely very rare.

It was proposed earlier that you could apply full strength bonus to the offhanded side (I have this as a base feature of dual wielding). Someone else proposed 1.5x strength bonus to both hands, which would make it mechanically amazing. Another option could be to gain a +1 dodge bonus for the next round versus any opponent you strike with both edges in the same round. There's a lot of ways you could roll with it. You obviously accept fantasy fighting styles if you let this self-stabber into your games, so I'd go look at what it looks like Darth Maul is doing with his weapon (he's able to fend off two attackers with what appears to be greater ease, for instance). I don't know how to model that because if you fight defensively you already get the benefit against all attackers, and it wouldn't make sense to be *more* effective with more dudes trying to kill you. Maybe you could declare your dodge bonus against an additional opponent that you made a melee attack with in the last round, for two active dodge bonuses- but now you've just committed to dodge.

lsfreak
2010-05-27, 02:17 PM
Huh, I thought quarterstaff fighting and longsword fighting are very different?

They are, but fundamentally, it's "I grab one end of the long pain-inducing rod I have with both hands, using the other end to attack." My knowledge of staff fighting is very limited, but my understanding is that you only really 'TWF,' using both ends simultaneously, on defense, and offense is going to almost entirely be 2-handed, just like a longsword (though both weapons have exceptions). If you take a staff, and add blades to both ends (or make it entirely blade), you've made yourself a weapon that's both extremely hard to fight with (poor grip, needs gauntlets to function, still have to try and avoid stabbing yourself) and not much better than the longsword or staff you started with.

imp_fireball
2010-05-27, 02:41 PM
It isn't considered two handed for the purpose of two-Weapon Fighting, it is considered a one handed in your main hand and a light weapon in your off hand, although what you propose sounds like a good houserule to make the weapon more worthwhile.

Actually lets see.

Fighter with +4 Str wields the weapon - He deals +4 with the weapon in main hand, and +2 with the weapon in off-hand.

I think the only house rule you need is that you should be able to power attack with the second side of the blade (off-hand section) despite it being a light weapon. It could count as a 1 handed weapon (+1 damage per BAB sacrificed) for this purpose, but the primary (main hand) section would count as a 2 handed weapon (+2 damage per BAB sacrificed).

That way, wielding it with two weapon fighting offers the advantage of more power attacks rather then simply more damage in exchange for having to successfuly roll to hit twice.


If you take a staff, and add blades to both ends (or make it entirely blade), you've made yourself a weapon that's both extremely hard to fight with (poor grip, needs gauntlets to function, still have to try and avoid stabbing yourself) and not much better than the longsword or staff you started with.

Make it exotic. Also, taking weapon focus with the weapon unlocks more stuff you can do with it (some homebrew concept I've been itching to post for a while now; in fact, there's four entire tiers of 'weapon focus' - greater as well as specialization and greater specialization. This would be in addition to the +1 to attack and +2 to damage with the given weapon, mind you.).

cfalcon
2010-05-27, 02:58 PM
I think the only house rule you need is that you should be able to power attack with the second side of the blade (off-hand section) despite it being a light weapon.

Well if it doesn't have that then isn't it still strictly worse than the guy dual wielding longswords, with the applicable feat?

A good point, however.


It could count as a 1 handed weapon (+1 damage per BAB sacrificed) for this purpose, but the primary (main hand) section would count as a 2 handed weapon (+2 damage per BAB sacrificed).

That would be a decent buff. I'm often concerned about buffs that offer uneven scaling, especially as many DMs allow that feat that converts AC into +damage via power attack, for instance. In other words, you risk this weapon becoming the "powerattack niche weapon" by giving it a greater power attack scaling than other stuff. Still a good idea. I would just convert both as one-handed weapons, because the idea seems to be to treat both edges as one handed weapons. When possible I try to get all the dual wield things to be symmetrical via houserules.



Make it exotic.

That's not good enough for all of us. Exotic weapons don't just include fantasy weapons that don't physically work: it also includes a set of real world weapons. That puts some of us in a bind. You shouldn't be telling people who ban physically unrealistic weapons to start allowing them, much as I'm not telling you to ban them (and the folks arguing for the removal of this weapon should also not be trying to meddle in the games of folks who like this style of fantastic fighting).


Also, taking weapon focus with the weapon unlocks more stuff you can do with it (some homebrew concept I've been itching to post for a while now; in fact, there's four entire tiers of 'weapon focus' - greater as well as specialization and greater specialization. This would be in addition to the +1 to attack and +2 to damage with the given weapon, mind you.).

This sounds like I would like to hear more, I like houserules to differentiate weapons. Do you have different things for each weapon, a subset of which each weapon gets some, or is it just identical for all weapons?

Greenish
2010-05-27, 03:35 PM
I don't know how to model that because if you fight defensively you already get the benefit against all attackers, and it wouldn't make sense to be *more* effective with more dudes trying to kill you.If you fight defensively with it, you can't be flanked?

Spiryt
2010-05-27, 03:38 PM
If you fight defensively with it, you can't be flanked?

Why?

It's not like one blade just sticking out in the rear is going to make you immune to getting reared...

Greenish
2010-05-27, 03:39 PM
Why?Because it improves your connection to the dark side of the force, d'oh!

arguskos
2010-05-27, 03:39 PM
Why?

It's not like one blade just sticking out in the rear is going to make you immune to getting reared...
Greenish was asking the question as well, or so it seems to read, anyways.

Also, I just checked the flanking and defensive fighting rules, and there is no such statement, which makes me curious how it even came up.

goken04
2010-05-27, 03:41 PM
Greenish was asking the question as well, or so it seems to read, anyways.

Also, I just checked the flanking and defensive fighting rules, and there is no such statement, which makes me curious how it even came up.

Greenish just forgot his [joke] tags.

Greenish
2010-05-27, 03:44 PM
Greenish was asking the question as well, or so it seems to read, anyways.

Also, I just checked the flanking and defensive fighting rules, and there is no such statement, which makes me curious how it even came up.I was making a suggestion, because cfalcon was wondering how to implement the increased defense from a two-bladed sword.

Anyway, there is an exotic weapon somewhere which has the property, I seem to recall.

arguskos
2010-05-27, 03:47 PM
I was making a suggestion, because cfalcon was wondering how to implement the increased defense from a two-bladed sword.

Anyway, there is an exotic weapon somewhere which has the property, I seem to recall.
Ah, well, that makes more sense. As for said exotic weapon, I'm unaware of it. The closest thing I can find is the Ward Cestus from the Arms and Equipment Guide, which gives a +1 AC when you take the Total Defense action in combat.

Also, for the record, the Bladed Staff exists in D&D. /tangent

Greenish
2010-05-27, 04:07 PM
As for said exotic weapon, I'm unaware of it.Longstaff, Dragon Mag. #331.

arguskos
2010-05-27, 04:10 PM
Longstaff, Dragon Mag. #331.
Ah. Btws, better source is the Dragon Compendium. Forgot about the Longstaff. Notably, it also permits you to prevent flanks if you shift 2 points or more to your AC thanks to the Combat Expertise feat.

Anyhow, good find, forgot about it.

Partysan
2010-05-27, 04:19 PM
You know, staff fighting essentially has two modes. Gripping one end and strike with the other (good reach and hard strikes, but you have to shift your grip everytime to change between right or left) and gripping the middle part and strike/block with both sides (less reach, less power, but faster attacks/parries, alternating sides is a lot easier since your grip is symmetrical).
The second one is decidedly more double-weapon-ish. When wielding a long staff you'd normally use both of them. A double sword would prohibit the first one, but at least partly offset the weakness of the second (less power less important because of blades). You lose in reach and versatility, but it is still a viable way of using the weapon. You'd practically limit yourself to half-staff techniques. It is decidedly NOT ridiculus or impossible. It is... exotic. There isn't really a reason to do it. But it can work.

Susano-wo
2010-05-27, 04:20 PM
I'd rather use a double sword than wielding a bastard sword purely onehanded (both requiring EWP).
A double sword is a quarterstaff with higher damage potential but more difficult to wield, but a long sword purely in one hand requires insane strength and endurance...

Um...Miyamoto Musashi. Also, a well balanced Bastard sword is wieldable in one hand. Really, its not that hard, assuming you have the STR to wield swords in the first place. It's known as a hand and a half sword for a reason.

And I like the staff with single edged blades on the end of it, rather than the little handle with big blades, since physics would laugh at the latter, but the former is close enough to realistic to not give me an aneurysm. XD

One mo--re thing: The difference between magic breaking physics and mundane doing the same is that magic is supposed to do so. It is an in-fiction method of messing with physics. a non-enchanted sword is not. So unless it stated(or otherwise bought into by the audience: see Anime) that physics is different/doesn't matter, its painful to many brains to have mundane items break physics too badly.

Greenish
2010-05-27, 04:20 PM
Ah. Btws, better source is the Dragon Compendium. Forgot about the Longstaff. Notably, it also permits you to prevent flanks if you shift 2 points or more to your AC thanks to the Combat Expertise feat.Yeah, longstaff has that too.

Optimator
2010-05-27, 05:56 PM
I see no problem at all with the sword. In D&D warriors are more skilled than any real human so why can't they wield an unwieldy sword? These heroes can jump higher and run faster, but not swing better?

arguskos
2010-05-27, 06:05 PM
Yeah, longstaff has that too.
...that's what I said? :smallconfused: I was talking about the longstaff, which was reprinted in the Dragon Compendium (a much more accessible source for most people than a random Dragon Magazine).

Greenish
2010-05-27, 06:34 PM
...that's what I said? :smallconfused: I was talking about the longstaff, which was reprinted in the Dragon Compendium (a much more accessible source for most people than a random Dragon Magazine).It appears that someone has houseruled that I can fail skill checks with natural 1 regardless of the ranks I have in the skill. Well, either that or my Reading Comprehension (Int) is lower than I thought.

But yeah, I don't have access to Dragon Compendium (or to any actual dragon magazines).

arguskos
2010-05-27, 06:36 PM
It appears that someone has houseruled that I can fail skill checks with natural 1 regardless of the ranks I have in the skill. Well, either that or my Reading Comprehension (Int) is lower than I thought.

But yeah, I don't have access to Dragon Compendium (or to any actual dragon magazines).
Ah. Happens. Nat 1s just suck, what can I say.

As for the DC, well, you should get on fixing that one. :smalltongue: It's a glorious book in all respects.

balistafreak
2010-05-27, 09:16 PM
For your reading pleasure the Longstaff is also in the Complete Adventurer, pg 116, for those of you who revile the Dragon Magazine. (And not without good reason in many cases. :smalltongue:) Seems to have all the discussed abilities, so I'm assuming it's identical.

Kaiyanwang
2010-05-28, 02:00 AM
I see no problem at all with the sword. In D&D warriors are more skilled than any real human so why can't they wield an unwieldy sword? These heroes can jump higher and run faster, but not swing better?

I agree completely.

Zen Master
2010-05-28, 05:16 AM
Would it be a warsaw?

It would be ..... a DIRE WARSAW!

SlyGuyMcFly
2010-05-28, 06:06 AM
I see no problem at all with the sword. In D&D warriors are more skilled than any real human so why can't they wield an unwieldy sword? These heroes can jump higher and run faster, but not swing better?

This sums up my opinion very nicely.

Partysan
2010-05-28, 05:39 PM
Um...Miyamoto Musashi. Also, a well balanced Bastard sword is wieldable in one hand. Really, its not that hard, assuming you have the STR to wield swords in the first place. It's known as a hand and a half sword for a reason.
Myamoto is generally described as unusally large and strong and generally fought duels. Of course you can wield a bastard sword in one hand, I did it myself. However you lose in speed, it's very tiring, and you don't gain much in terms of power by it. For a duel it may be ok, not for a skirmish or battle. (And a Katana is usually a bit shorter than a bastard sword.)


And I like the staff with single edged blades on the end of it, rather than the little handle with big blades, since physics would laugh at the latter, but the former is close enough to realistic to not give me an aneurysm. XD

One mo--re thing: The difference between magic breaking physics and mundane doing the same is that magic is supposed to do so. It is an in-fiction method of messing with physics. a non-enchanted sword is not. So unless it stated(or otherwise bought into by the audience: see Anime) that physics is different/doesn't matter, its painful to many brains to have mundane items break physics too badly.
Agreeing with the physics thing, but I do not think the sword as depicted (though badly depicted) breaks physics. Agreeing on a staff with edges being better too, though.

Thurbane
2010-05-28, 08:21 PM
I see no problem at all with the sword. In D&D warriors are more skilled than any real human so why can't they wield an unwieldy sword? These heroes can jump higher and run faster, but not swing better?
Add me to the chorus of agreement here.