What is the point of a double weapon?

[silverwolfer]

Just asking over all, besides the ones that have blunt on one side, and slash or pentration on another. What are the point of them, if they both do the same damage type?

[Answerer]

There is none. They are poorly designed and poorly implemented, and there is literally no reason to use most of them.

The Revenant Blade prestige class uses them, and is at least kinda cool, but it's still not really enough to justify it.

[Glimbur]

They do make it easier to switch between THF and TWF... except you can also swing a greatsword and armor spikes instead.

[Piggy Knowles]

The only real advantage is that typically, you need a light weapon in your offhand to avoid too many penalties. A double weapon counts as though the "offhand" weapon is light no matter what it is, so you can use slightly higher weapon damage with the offhand.

Still not worth it (you're pretty much only ever talking about 1 point of damage difference), but I'm pretty sure that's why the designers considered them "good." A double-sword is the equivalent of two longswords, whereas a normal TWF fighter would need to wield a longsword and a shortsword.

[Gavinfoxx]

There is none, they are a totally unrealistic and badly implemented...

[silverwolfer]

I would not mind unrealistic weapons among fireballs and demons, but hey who am I to say.

[Greenish]

If you're, say, a swordsage or a warblade, there are a few maneuvers that work better with TWF, others that work better with a two-hander, so you might get some mileage out of that (if you don't want to go with armor spikes for some reason).

Beyond that, there isn't much reason to use them, unless you can convince your DM that they should be able to be enchanted as a single weapon.


As to why they're in the game, and most of them require a feat: they tend have slightly better statistics (damage, crit range/multiplier, etc.) than most light weapons, and both ends are affected by Weapon Focus line of feats. WotC designers honestly thought that the 1d8 from two-bladed sword in offhand was worth a feat over using a short sword.

[Norin]

Hah, double axe! Talk about the most awkward weapon in the history of gaming?

HOW do you even swing it!?:smallbiggrin:

Even more stupid than the double bladed axes everyone seems to love so much in fantasy settings.

[Gavinfoxx]

It's not just unrealistic is my issue... it's stupid. It makes no sense, not intuitively, and it breaks verisimilitude and just looks like something an eleven year old boy will come up with. AND it has no mechanical reason to exist, even if it has some minor mechanical excuses to exist... it plugs a silly hole that some designer thought needed to be plugged, because of an artifact of bad design in the weapon system.

[Azoth]

The only other reason, aside the one's listed above, that I can think of is style.

Often times, we playgrounders can forget about style over effectiveness.

While unrealistic, and even loopier to do, picture this: The fight grabs his trusted double bladed sword, and begins to spin in his hand. The with a mighty turn and flick of the wrist, he send it spinning out towards the enemies as a massive lawnmower blade of death. He watches it chew through the line of bandits before him, and with a single outstretched hand catches the blade as it comes flying back at him.

It is a badass image. Can't do it with a normal sword, but with the double weapon sword he can. I don't even think, I need to get into the mechanics of making the move doable...we can all think of several to get there.

*edit* I know mechanically, we can get the same effect with any melee weapon. I was refering to the imagery when I said it can't be done with a normal sword.

[Norin]

Quarterstaff TWF is pretty cool though. Just saying.

Not all double weps are retarded.

[hymer]

Hah, double axe! Talk about the most awkward weapon in the history of gaming?

The twobladed sword is even worse. With the double axe you can at least change your grip.

[Greenish]

The twobladed sword is even worse. With the double axe you can at least change your grip.I see your two-bladed sword and raise you Dire Flail. :smallcool:

http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1348/1261225204_8a3597bf0d_m.jpg

[Ashtagon]

About the only advantage I can think of for most double weapons is that they are a single object, and so you can pick it up if dropped as a single action, instead of the two actions if you were TWF with two weapons instead of the single double weapon.

That's quite aside from the fact that most of them have no basis in realistic combat techniques.

[Nightcanon]

I suspect that the answer is 'for reasons of style and flavour'; bonus marks awarded for mention of Darth Maul.

[Jack_Simth]

Just asking over all, besides the ones that have blunt on one side, and slash or pentration on another. What are the point of them, if they both do the same damage type?
Well, like many in this thread have already mentioned, they don't actually work well as written into D&D 3.5.

However, as has also been mentioned: The offhand side of a double weapon always counts as light, which means you can use slightly higher base damage (to the tune of an average of 1 point of damage). That Exotic Two-bladed sword (1d8/1d8) beats the longsword + Shortsword (1d8/1d6)... barely. Other than the little issue that it costs you an extra feat. And the extra feats for the two-weapon fighting chain.

There is a mild benefit in that as a two-handed weapon, it's more resistant to being disarmed, and that spell boosts to your weapons *might* apply to both ends (enchantments, however, do not). Likewise, if you're investing feats into the use of the weapon (aka, weapon focus, weapon specialization), you only need one set of those feats, rather than two.

But yeah. For the most part, you're better off grabbing a Greatsword and ignoring the double weapons altogether.

[Spiryt]

While unrealistic, and even loopier to do, picture this: The fight grabs his trusted double bladed sword, and begins to spin in his hand. The with a mighty turn and flick of the wrist, he send it spinning out towards the enemies as a massive lawnmower blade of death. He watches it chew through the line of bandits before him, and with a single outstretched hand catches the blade as it comes flying back at him.

It is a badass image. Can't do it with a normal sword, but with the double weapon sword he can. I don't even think, I need to get into the mechanics of making the move doable...we can all think of several to get there.

*edit* I know mechanically, we can get the same effect with any melee weapon. I was refering to the imagery when I said it can't be done with a normal sword.

Well, I don't know why by "imagery" it can't be done with normal sword though...

Like you mentioned, mechanics probably won't make difference, and from 'realistic' point of view, it makes no sense in either case anyway.

[Amnestic]

Well, like many in this thread have already mentioned, they don't actually work well as written into D&D 3.5.

However, as has also been mentioned: The offhand side of a double weapon always counts as light, which means you can use slightly higher base damage (to the tune of an average of 1 point of damage). That Exotic Two-bladed sword (1d8/1d8) beats the longsword + Shortsword (1d8/1d6)... barely. Other than the little issue that it costs you an extra feat. And the extra feats for the two-weapon fighting chain.

There is a mild benefit in that as a two-handed weapon, it's more resistant to being disarmed, and that spell boosts to your weapons *might* apply to both ends (enchantments, however, do not). Likewise, if you're investing feats into the use of the weapon (aka, weapon focus, weapon specialization), you only need one set of those feats, rather than two.

But yeah. For the most part, you're better off grabbing a Greatsword and ignoring the double weapons altogether.

Don't weapon crystals apply their bonus to both ends rather than just one as well? If you're planning on investing in some of the better ones, it might save a pretty penny (assuming you wanted to use the same one for two weapons, rather than mix+match, in which case the Double-Bladed Sword is obviously less ideal).

[Greenish]

The Revenant Blade prestige class uses them, and is at least kinda cool, but it's still not really enough to justify it.Side note on Revenant Blade and the feasibility of double weapons: in all the official art, people are always pictured holding the Valenar Double Scimitar in one hand, probably because none of the artists could figure out how to hold it with both hands without looking silly or ineffective.

Make of that what you wish.

[CTrees]

I suspect that the answer is 'for reasons of style and flavour'; bonus marks awarded for mention of Darth Maul.

This is what I was going to say. The Phantom Menace came out in mid-1999, 3e was released in 2000. Thus, two-bladed swords! From there, other double weapons, which were continued for coolness and inertia related reasons.

[Lord_Gareth]

Side note on Revenant Blade and the feasibility of double weapons: in all the official art, people are always pictured holding the Valenar Double Scimitar in one hand, probably because none of the artists could figure out how to hold it with both hands without looking silly or ineffective.

Make of that what you wish.

The Double Scimitar - because Drizz't just wasn't Drizz't enough.

[Yuukale]

Here's a good reason for, although unrealistic, double-bladed swords =)

Reason (http://www.wowction.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Illidan-Stormrage.jpg)

[TiaC]

Also, pretty much the only double weapons that were ever real things aren't included. The only ones I'm aware of in reality are quarterstaffs, meteor hammers/kusuri-gama, and sectioned staffs, only one of which was printed as a double weapon.

[Amnestic]

Here's a good reason for, although unrealistic, double-bladed swords =)

Reason (http://www.wowction.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Illidan-Stormrage.jpg)

Oddly, Warglaives in the WoWRPG aren't actually double weapons, however two can be attached together (how?) and can be used as a double weapon, however that works.

[Greenish]

Oddly, Warglaives in the WoWRPG aren't actually double weapons, however two can be attached together (how?) and can be used as a double weapon, however that works.And in WoW, they're just one-handed swords.

Not that Illidan would really use them like double weapons in WC3.

[Norin]

While unrealistic, and even loopier to do, picture this: The fight grabs his trusted double bladed sword, and begins to spin in his hand. The with a mighty turn and flick of the wrist, he send it spinning out towards the enemies as a massive lawnmower blade of death. He watches it chew through the line of bandits before him, and with a single outstretched hand catches the blade as it comes flying back at him.

It is a badass image.



Oh my, that reminds me of Tessai, one of the Devils of Kimon.

Have a look. (Some animated blood and gore warning if you are a bit squeamish) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtFoQUNxIPo)

Edit: Another here... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSlPyXeo_hc)

[Azoth]

Nothing like a little Ninja Scroll to make your day better.

[Norin]

Nothing like a little Ninja Scroll to make your day better.

Indeed! Such an old classic.

Even if it has stupid double bladed swords in it. :smallbiggrin::smallwink:

[hamishspence]

Also, pretty much the only double weapons that were ever real things aren't included. The only ones I'm aware of in reality are quarterstaffs, meteor hammers/kusuri-gama, and sectioned staffs, only one of which was printed as a double weapon.

Kusuri-gama were printed as a double weapon in Oriental Adventures, but for some reason the DMG made them single-handed light weapons.

[White_Drake]

I see your two-bladed sword and raise you Dire Flail. :smallcool:

http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1348/1261225204_8a3597bf0d_m.jpg

I see your dire flail and raise you a lynx-paw. (Sorry, no picture. Look in ROtW.)

[silverwolfer]

I win in the google image search

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/4343/lynxpaw.png

[Psyren]

Damn, I was just about to link it myself.

And yeah, that thing looks pretty dangerous - for the wielder :smalltongue:

[tiercel]

Personally, I find the idea of using armor spikes as a normal light weapon (instead of just grappling damage, or possibly on a bull rush) fairly ridiculous to envision; at least shifting between THF and TWF with a quarterstaff seems reasonably straightforward to picture.

But as long as greatsword+spiked armor is a mechanically viable THF/TWF combo, one of the few potentially significant advantages for a double weapon is nullified.

[Greenish]

And yeah, that thing looks pretty dangerous - for the wielder :smalltongue:I've never understood why that artist seems to always draw the handguard on the side of the sword opposite from the blade, either.

[White_Drake]

Maybe it somehow helps to protect the wielder from ripping his own hand off with the paw?

[Psyren]

Maybe it somehow helps to protect the wielder from ripping his own hand off with the paw?

Which still leaves his face, scalp, throat, scrotum...

[Roland St. Jude]

Still no swordchucks, yo. :smallfrown:

[OverdrivePrime]

Chainsaw Nunchucks! (http://drmcninja.com/archives/comic/5p38/) Because, awesome.

[ericgrau]

A little higher off hand damage. Switching between THF and TWF. Can be held (but not wielded) in one hand to let you do things like cast. Weapon feats apply to both ends without forcing you to wield two lower damage light weapons. Those feats may not be a big deal with a high op ubercharger, but with low to even medium-high op they're so good they're almost essential. If you are specialized then there are other ways to do each of these, but not all of these at once. Certain specific builds benefit from double weapons more than all other options. Not all builds or even close to all, but in terms of game design I consider that to be a good thing.

[Greenish]

Since no one else has done it, I shall.


The point of a double weapon is the sharp bit in either end.

[gooddragon1]

Since no one else has done it, I shall.


The point of a double weapon is the sharp bit in either end.

But the quarterstaff...

[TuggyNE]

But the quarterstaff...

Yeah, that's why quarterstaffs are so lousy.

[gooddragon1]

Yeah, that's why quarterstaffs are so lousy.

So they're pointless altogether?

[Answerer]

A little higher off hand damage. Switching between THF and TWF. Can be held (but not wielded) in one hand to let you do things like cast. Weapon feats apply to both ends without forcing you to wield two lower damage light weapons. Those feats may not be a big deal with a high op ubercharger, but with low to even medium-high op they're so good they're almost essential. If you are specialized then there are other ways to do each of these, but not all of these at once. Certain specific builds benefit from double weapons more than all other options. Not all builds or even close to all, but in terms of game design I consider that to be a good thing.
This response is annoying me. It vaguely responds to "low to even medium-high op" when it refers to them as "so good they're almost essential." It seriously reads to me like we are defining "low to even medium-high op" as "a level of optimization where anything obviously mathematically superior to EWP in a double-weapon is not used," because this is seriously circular reasoning.

You've delineated the advantages of double weapons. They are unimpressive. They don't really amount to much, even for the weird TWF-ing spellcaster you envision. But then, I suppose, it would be "high-high op" to suggest any of the many options that would be better?

[Mystic Muse]

It's not just unrealistic is my issue... it's stupid. It makes no sense, not intuitively, and it breaks verisimilitude and just looks like something an eleven year old boy will come up with.

I'm pretty sure I drew people with double-weapons when I was an 11 year old.

[Gavinfoxx]

I'm pretty sure I drew people with double-weapons when I was an 11 year old.

I remember the drawings that people in my class drew when we were ~11 years old. The boys had more weapons than the girls, generally. Gender differences tend to be rigidly enforced by peer pressure at around that age.

[ericgrau]

This response is annoying me. It vaguely responds to "low to even medium-high op" when it refers to them as "so good they're almost essential." It seriously reads to me like we are defining "low to even medium-high op" as "a level of optimization where anything obviously mathematically superior to EWP in a double-weapon is not used," because this is seriously circular reasoning.

You've delineated the advantages of double weapons. They are unimpressive. They don't really amount to much, even for the weird TWF-ing spellcaster you envision. But then, I suppose, it would be "high-high op" to suggest any of the many options that would be better?
It is not unusual to talk in the context in which 99% of offline people play. Online people know about more tricks, yet 90-95% still don't play super high optimization. It is unusual to demand vehemently that discussions cater to the top 1%. You can attempt to do well without delving into big cheese.

Without the oversight that is shock trooper, which forces everyone into THF: I would use a dire flail to get more trip attempts. Either on a gish to exploit double spell storing and permanancy enlarge person, or on a full BAB build with at least 4 fighter levels to get melee weapon mastery for maximum damage. In a humanoid heavy campaign I'd also pick up improved disarm, and in the first case I could quicken true strike to make one of my disarm attempts an automatic success. Probably the attack with the greatest penalty, since swift actions may be done at any time free actions may be done and you can use free actions between attacks.

[TuggyNE]

So they're pointless altogether?

Well played, sir. Well played.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I see your two-bladed sword and raise you Dire Flail. :smallcool:

http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1348/1261225204_8a3597bf0d_m.jpg


I see your dire flail and raise you a lynx-paw. (Sorry, no picture. Look in ROtW.)


I win in the google image search

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/4343/lynxpaw.png

I see your double weapons and raise you one Gyrspike.

http://i56.tinypic.com/2hckevq.jpg

Yes, that is a spiked ball attached to a sword. No, I do not know who would create this monstrosity.

How in the Nine Hells do you use this thing without knocking your own head off?

Note: Yes, I know that they use it in the novel Ghostwalker. I still don't get how he didn't take his head off, especially when he describes rolling it over his head.

[Ashtagon]

Note: Yes, I know that they use it in the novel Ghostwalker. I still don't get how he didn't take his head off, especially when he describes rolling it over his head.

That EWP? It's not used to get a new weapon so much as to make the laws of physics shut up and sit down.

[Sith_Happens]

I would use a dire flail to get more trip attempts.

And why do you need three extra trip attempts? If you're built for tripping then you should only need one per enemy, and without a crap-ton of reach you're highly unlikely to have more than two tripees on a given turn.

And secondly, what advantage are you gaining by tripping with a dire flail as opposed to two sickles? Hint: The answer is "none."


Either on a gish to exploit double spell storing and permanancy enlarge person,

Having a double weapon with Spell Storing on both ends is functionally identical to having two Spell Storing weapons.


or on a full BAB build with at least 4 fighter levels to get melee weapon mastery for maximum damage.

Well, if you really do mean maximum damage, then I suppose a dire flail is an improvement over a flail and sickle. It's just that the difference is a measly 0-2 damage (average 1) on half your attacks.

Oh right, except that "maximum damage" more or less means THF anyways.


In a humanoid heavy campaign I'd also pick up improved disarm, and in the first case I could quicken true strike to make one of my disarm attempts an automatic success. Probably the attack with the greatest penalty, since swift actions may be done at any time free actions may be done and you can use free actions between attacks.

If you're disarming then you want a two-handed weapon. If you still want to be dual-wielding trip-capable weapons on the turns you aren't disarming, then there are at least a few ways of doing that that are only slightly less obvious than using a double-weapon (a Glove of Storing, for instance).

----------

In all of your examples, you've spent a feat on Exotic Weapon proficiency to do something that you could do just as well without it. As in, using a double-weapon offers no benefit whatsoever over regular dual-wielding beyond a negligible damage increase. Which brings me to your first paragraph:


It is not unusual to talk in the context in which 99% of offline people play. Online people know about more tricks, yet 90-95% still don't play super high optimization. It is unusual to demand vehemently that discussions cater to the top 1%. You can attempt to do well without delving into big cheese.

If you're defining "super high optimization" as "capable of looking at something and asking 'How does this actually help me in any way?'," then yes, I do think that 90-99% of people play at "super high optimization." Because 99% of people have basic reasoning skills.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is going to sound odd, but here goes.

I don't actually see where a double weapon is restricted to only doing Str with the primary attack and 1/2*str with the off-hand. The entry on page 113 of the PHB says that they assume the attack penalties of wielding a one handed and a light weapon and the entry on page 160 says the same, but neither of those entries say that they do damage as a one-handed and a light weapon.

If that's correct, then double weapons should get 1.5*str damage to both ends since, while its taking the attack penalties as though it were a one-handed and a light weapon, it's still a two-handed weapon and would do damage as such.

This is generally regarded as wrong, however, so can someone please point to why?

[Answerer]

It is not unusual to talk in the context in which 99% of offline people play. Online people know about more tricks, yet 90-95% still don't play super high optimization. It is unusual to demand vehemently that discussions cater to the top 1%. You can attempt to do well without delving into big cheese.
Oh yes, people talk about it, but since we have no data they're all blind assertion, and somehow, just somehow, it seems that everyone asserts that this hypothetical "common man's op" is exactly optimized enough to make the speaker right. :smallsigh:

[lesser_minion]

The original point was that you dealt damage as per a two-handed weapon with both ends -- i.e. it was a "have your cake and eat it" option that gave you the benefits of both TWF and THF at the same time.

That was (supposed to have been) removed in the 3.5 update, where it was apparently considered overpowered (that view might be somewhat defensible if you consider melee in a vacuum).

As for being unrealistic, it's not easy to play D&D without becoming jaded to such things.

[lunar2]

This is going to sound odd, but here goes.

I don't actually see where a double weapon is restricted to only doing Str with the primary attack and 1/2*str with the off-hand. The entry on page 113 of the PHB says that they assume the attack penalties of wielding a one handed and a light weapon and the entry on page 160 says the same, but neither of those entries say that they do damage as a one-handed and a light weapon.

If that's correct, then double weapons should get 1.5*str damage to both ends since, while its taking the attack penalties as though it were a one-handed and a light weapon, it's still a two-handed weapon and would do damage as such.

This is generally regarded as wrong, however, so can someone please point to why?

i was thinking the exact same thing. i've never seen anything that states a double weapon deals damage as a 1 handed and a light, and you are wielding it two handed.

[Answerer]

This is going to sound odd, but here goes.

I don't actually see where a double weapon is restricted to only doing Str with the primary attack and 1/2*str with the off-hand. The entry on page 113 of the PHB says that they assume the attack penalties of wielding a one handed and a light weapon and the entry on page 160 says the same, but neither of those entries say that they do damage as a one-handed and a light weapon.

If that's correct, then double weapons should get 1.5*str damage to both ends since, while its taking the attack penalties as though it were a one-handed and a light weapon, it's still a two-handed weapon and would do damage as such.

This is generally regarded as wrong, however, so can someone please point to why?
From the System Resource Document (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#doubleWeapons):

Double Weapons
[Several weapons] are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he or she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
If you were right, that would be a reason to use double weapons, but that's not the case.


EDIT: Although I do note that it specifies that you take attack penalties just as though you were wielding a one-handed and light weapon, which says nothing about damage. Hmm. I'd allow it, but then I'd be inclined to allow it even if the rule explicitly said it was no good.

So TWF with 1.5 Str? Well, it's OK-ish for Rangers, I guess, though most are going to require too much Dex for TWF to make that work well. Ranger 2 and Gloves of the Balanced Hand work reasonably well though.

[Ashtagon]

The point of a double weapon is the bit that goes in the enemy.

[Coidzor]

I'm pretty sure I drew people with double-weapons when I was an 11 year old.

The depressing thing is that I've seen cultural demonstrations by martial arts groups where some idiot had 11 year olds with double-weapons on stage.

The staves at least made sense in context, but I really had to look askance at the man who approved of a child learning a two-bladed sword.


From the System Resource Document (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#doubleWeapons):

If you were right, that would be a reason to use double weapons, but that's not the case.


EDIT: Although I do note that it specifies that you take attack penalties just as though you were wielding a one-handed and light weapon, which says nothing about damage. Hmm. I'd allow it, but then I'd be inclined to allow it even if the rule explicitly said it was no good.

So TWF with 1.5 Str? Well, it's OK-ish for Rangers, I guess, though most are going to require too much Dex for TWF to make that work well. Ranger 2 and Gloves of the Balanced Hand work reasonably well though.

Certainly wouldn't give TWF too much teeth even if you condensed it down to one feat instead of the three or four, at least, as far as I can see. Might be worth considering for myself, I must admit...

[dspeyer]

A character with Vow of Poverty and Two Weapon Fighting can use a quarterstaff, despite being limited to "one weapon". Both ends receive the full enhancement bonus.

A twf gish might favor a double weapon because he can take one hand off for somatic components without dropping anything. Sure there's a somatic weaponry feat, but gishes tend to be feat-starved.

If you need to demonstrate how skilled an NPC is really quickly, just say "he has used a dire flail in battle and is still alive".

An urgosh is the only two-handed weapon I can really visualize being effective while climbing your enemies (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14463328#post14463328). Everything else needs too much room.

[Baroncognito]

And secondly, what advantage are you gaining by tripping with a dire flail as opposed to two sickles? Hint: The answer is "none."

The advantage is that, if you roll fail your trip attempt, you drop both your trip weapons instead of just one.

[Keld Denar]

If you only attack with one end, it is a 2 handed weapon and thus benefits from 2:1 PA. If you take levels in EWM from Comp War, you can use the Flurry of Strikes trick with any double exotic weapon. It does NOT state, however, that you have to TWF to use Flurry of Strikes. Thus, a Dwarf with an Urgrosh and a level of EWM could gain an extra swing per round wielding the axe end of his Urgrosh with only a minor damage downgrade from a great axe or war axe.

It's easy to get bonuses to hit. It's less easy to get stackable extra attacks that benefit from 1.5x Str and 2:1 PA. Combo with Haste and possibly Slashing Fury to get lots of full strength main hand attacks.

[T.G. Oskar]

Even more stupid than the double bladed axes everyone seems to love so much in fantasy settings.

Double-bladed...you're not speaking of the labrys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labrys) by any means, do you? Or is there another kind of double-bladed axe I'm not aware of?

Then again, you can blame having axes on a pole for the confusion of how to deal with weapons such as poleaxes, bardiches, glaives, guisarmes and halberds. Do you treat them as spears or as axes?

Which leads to: you can have a double-weapon work, but it requires having a pretty long pole and using it as you'd use a quarterstaff or spear. Note that spears' buttes (the weight at the other end of the pole) could be used as weapons on a pinch, and some were deliberately designed as spikes for this very purpose, though their uses were limited (mostly to distract while you drew a shorter weapon). Star Wars has it pretty close with the double lightsaber, and even that was treated as a quarterstaff (and the solid portion was too small to maneuver with), so it's not entirely credible. You also need smaller blades to make it work (much like halberds had small axeheads, which were then combined with a pike and a back spike).

It's probably the developers trying to appeal to "rule of cool", because having to enchant both sides of a double weapon instead of making the price cheaper (hey, why not enchant each side at 75% of its base price, so that the weapon only costs 50% more than a base weapon, and still allow you to end up with a cheaper option than enchanting two weapons.

[Talderas]

EDIT: Although I do note that it specifies that you take attack penalties just as though you were wielding a one-handed and light weapon, which says nothing about damage. Hmm. I'd allow it, but then I'd be inclined to allow it even if the rule explicitly said it was no good.

The PHB might be a bit more clear on this. After the second on TWF with a double weapon it goes on to say you may wield it with two hands and attack with just one end and treat it as though it were a two-handed weapon.

It also states that you are treated as using a light and one handed weapon. So while it would be nice to get the benefits of TWF with the benefits of two-handed fighting, it's rather clear that the intent is not that.

[Answerer]

The PHB might be a bit more clear on this. After the second on TWF with a double weapon it goes on to say you may wield it with two hands and attack with just one end and treat it as though it were a two-handed weapon.

It also states that you are treated as using a light and one handed weapon. So while it would be nice to get the benefits of TWF with the benefits of two-handed fighting, it's rather clear that the intent is not that.
The SRD's text generally matches the PHB; the only time it differs is when errata is applied. It says that your attack penalties are just like using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. The line about being able to use only one end is largely irrelevant; it only states that you're not required to use the Two-Weapon Fighting combat option when using one, which is good since it means you can avoid the penalties for doing so if you want.

I simply don't agree that intent is "clear" here, nor do I think it much matters what they intended. I don't care if they intended the weapons to be worthless, I prefer to increase the number of mechanically-interesting options rather than decrease them.

[Talderas]

The SRD's text generally matches the PHB; the only time it differs is when errata is applied. It says that your attack penalties are just like using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. The line about being able to use only one end is largely irrelevant; it only states that you're not required to use the Two-Weapon Fighting combat option when using one, which is good since it means you can avoid the penalties for doing so if you want.

I simply don't agree that intent is "clear" here, nor do I think it much matters what they intended. I don't care if they intended the weapons to be worthless, I prefer to increase the number of mechanically-interesting options rather than decrease them.

It comes from the fact that you treat the the offhand end of the double weapon as a light weapon. From there we can easily tell that a light weapon deals your strength modifier as bonus damage and that a one handed weapons also deals your strength modifier. Lacking any specific rule to the contrary, the general rule would apply.

[Answerer]

It comes from the fact that you treat the the offhand end of the double weapon as a light weapon. From there we can easily tell that a light weapon deals your strength modifier as bonus damage and that a one handed weapons also deals your strength modifier. Lacking any specific rule to the contrary, the general rule would apply.
False. The "fact" in question is that for the purpose of attack penalties, the double weapon counts as a one-hand weapon and a light weapon. It does not say that the double weapon behaves that way for any other purpose.

[lunar2]

yeah, it's the exact same reason an allip can defeat the tarrasque. the tarrasque's natural weapons count as epic for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction. they are not actual magic weapons, and can't hit incorporeal creatures.

[Twilightwyrm]

To be cool mostly. The Exotic Weapon Master PrC lets you Flurry with them, but unlike with Uncanny Blow, that is hardly reason enough to use most of them. They don't have many advantages over just using two weapons of the same type as they often have Exotic Weapon proficiency requirements, and you only end up saving about 300 gp from only having to buy one masterwork weapon. it helps that both sides are considered light for the purposes of two-weapon fighting (as that means you can still technically power attack with them as well), but considering you could mitigate that with a single feat (which you have to spend on Exotic Weapon Prof. if you want to use a double weapon), it's generally not worth it. This becomes slightly better if your base race is automatically familiar with them (such as in the case of the Dwarven Urgosh), but otherwise it really isn't mechanically worth it. Still, you do get points for style.

[Talderas]

False. The "fact" in question is that for the purpose of attack penalties, the double weapon counts as a one-hand weapon and a light weapon. It does not say that the double weapon behaves that way for any other purpose.

It appears you're having a problem with grammar.


A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he or she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

The commas separate out a separate portion of the sentence. They are setting aside a clause that is not essential to the sentence. Once you realize that and ignore that portion, it's quite clear how to treat the double weapon for the purpose of damage.


A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

[Zubrowka74]

Monk's spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk%27s_spade), anyone ?

And on the topic of Star Wars' double lightsabers, I do believe I saw a Jedi somewhere that wielded two of those... But honestly, they're Jedis (or Siths) so they can justify using the force to wield ridiculous weapons. Otherwise Darth Maul would've been known as Darth Crippled.

[Gotterdammerung]

Pretty much agree with some of the points alredy listed.

Provides adaptability between fighting styles.

Allows for a stronger off hand attack when 2 weapon fighting.



But I would like to add that there is the occasional exploit available for double weapons.

For example, the Death Devotion feat can only be applied to one weapon. Applying the effect to a double weapon will allow you to essentially achieve twice the intended effect.

There are other similar exploits scattered throughout the game. Whether or not they are "worth" using, is entirely up to you and your GM.

[Shred-Bot]

Personally, I find the idea of using armor spikes as a normal light weapon (instead of just grappling damage, or possibly on a bull rush) fairly ridiculous to envision; at least shifting between THF and TWF with a quarterstaff seems reasonably straightforward to picture.

Yeah... the first thing that tends to come to mind with armor spikes is CHESTBUMP OF DOOM!

Though against an opponent 2 or more size categories smaller you could convert it to a bellyflop of doom for additional damage.

[lunar2]

It appears you're having a problem with grammar.



The commas separate out a separate portion of the sentence. They are setting aside a clause that is not essential to the sentence. Once you realize that and ignore that portion, it's quite clear how to treat the double weapon for the purpose of damage.

that's not how it works. sorry. read the second quote.

A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons/ just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

you see the problem? the first section already states that fighting with a double weapon is like fighting with two weapons, making the last section redundant. it's needless repetition. the sentence only makes sense if taken as a whole. while that may be bad sentence structure, that is the way it was meant when it was written, based on the actual words used. WotC simply has grammar as bad as the rest of us.

[Nagukuk]

I see your Darth Maul(s)

And your warcraft

and raise you ...

GALTAR and the Golden Lance!

http://emveeart77.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/galtar-and-the-golden-lance/



besides that twf penalties were different on 3.0, having an off hand attack with the same (read slightly better then light weapon damage) as your main hand with a reduced penalty was probably the main draw, second by rule of cool,... and the "supremecy" of fire ball.

and so the brave developers realized even with the "awesome perks" that the double weapons had ... NO ONE was using them ... and so they created prestige classes to bribe the players ...

and so, their developing p-power shined and changed a whole race and their creed and their GOD?

......introducing the craptastic grummish orc prestige class... the picture of which uses a 2handed axe...

and the Orcs were over heard saying YES ... LET UZ ORKZ BE LIKES GRUMMISH An USED DIS WONKY DUBBEL AXES, DEN WE POKES OUTS OR EYE JUS LIKE GRUMMISH AN WE BE JUS LIKE EM! ...

hey wait ... Grummish uses a spear don he?

... SADDUP WHAT YOU KNO DIS DUBBA AXES IS DA BEST! NOW POKE OUT YOUR EYE! ... me shudda been a crazy bezerker then me coulda keeled all you afore joos tanted Grumish's name...

[Greenish]

Double-bladed...you're not speaking of the labrys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labrys) by any means, do you? Or is there another kind of double-bladed axe I'm not aware of?That's probably what he meant. He wouldn't be the only one to be annoyed by that. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boioSxBIkfk)


Monk's spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk%27s_spade), anyone ?Monk's Spade is statted out in Secrets of Sarlona, if someone cares.


... and so they created prestige classes to bribe the players ...More than one. Eye of Gruums doesn't even have anything related to actually using a double weapon, unlike the already mentioned Exotic Weapon Master and Revenant Blade.

[T.G. Oskar]

That's probably what he meant. He wouldn't be the only one to be annoyed by that. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boioSxBIkfk)

But wait: didn't you use axes to crush helmets, ideally as a crushing weapon and not as a slashing one? I may not be the erudite this man claims to be, but I've read pretty well that axe blades were somewhat dull, so as to use them as crushing wedges rather than razor-sharp blades. Well, at least battleaxes and two-handed axes were built with that purpose.

At least he admits double-bladed axes exist, and their ceremonial purpose, but certainly he's not speaking about...well, someone who's stronger than the best medieval man-at-arms hacking the trunk-like neck of a dragon, no? Even though he does speak about D&D...

Funny...it seems he wants to show-off his knowledge on a discipline that's still open to interpretation.

[Coidzor]

My understanding was that you didn't so much crush helmets as dent or puncture them in very specific areas that caused a large amount of structural damage to the skull and delicious brainmeats, I must admit.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Roleplaying wise, if you're an orc using a double axe you can claim to be a better orc than the other orcs because of it?

[TuggyNE]

Roleplaying wise, if you're an orc using a double axe you can claim to be a better orc than the other orcs because of it?

I thought orcs invented double axes so they could handicap other races' armies by getting them to attempt using them.

That, or they wanted to fly.

[Runestar]

It's probably one of those ideas that sounded good on paper, allowing a player to use it as a 2-handed or dual-wield, whichever was more beneficial at that moment.

Which could have worked, if it wasn't so expensive to master just one feat tree, and 2-handed fighting ended up being stronger for most part anyways. :smalltongue:

[Togo]

I still find some weapons quite useful. A kensai exostic weaponmaster with a gnomish hook hammer has a single magical weapon that he can use both for THF and TWF, applying tricks to both. He has a choice of which head to make his primary attacks wih, and they can be made of different materials, have different enchantments and kensai enchantments, and are alreadty different damage types, and can make trip attacks with one end while attacking for damage with the other.

Given the slightly unsual scenario that you've decided two-weapon fighting is for you, a double weapon has several obvious advantages over two weapon fighting, not least that you don't need quickdraw to get them out in the first round of combat.

[lunar2]

I thought orcs invented double axes so they could handicap other races' armies by getting them to attempt using them.

That, or they wanted to fly.

lol, thanks for that. i completely forgot i made that.

[Amnestic]

The advantage is that, if you roll fail your trip attempt, you drop both your trip weapons instead of just one.

Ah, luring your foes into a not-false sense of security, a crafty plan.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Personally, I find the idea of using armor spikes as a normal light weapon (instead of just grappling damage, or possibly on a bull rush) fairly ridiculous to envision; at least shifting between THF and TWF with a quarterstaff seems reasonably straightforward to picture.


Yeah... the first thing that tends to come to mind with armor spikes is CHESTBUMP OF DOOM!

Though against an opponent 2 or more size categories smaller you could convert it to a bellyflop of doom for additional damage.

Easy. You use the follow-through of a swing to hit him with your shoulder. Or, you know, half the Muay Thai moves...

[Gavinfoxx]

Yea, a TON of swordfighting happens at that range... just close to that range while you use your weapon...

[Phaederkiel]

As I had the unpleasant experience to wield a dualweapon (a two-lyly, or a double sword) I can tell you: they are not cool.
They are cool for whirling them around, but as soon as you attack an opponent with one side, the other side cuts your leg.
And they rob you of the length advantage a long weapon should have.
Make no mistake, the quarterstaff is held at one end, exactly like a spear, not in the middle. When you grab it in the middle, you give up both range and leverage. Starwars: pepsidose 1 was as wrong as you can ever get.


And before someone comes and tells me that I do not know how to wield a sword, I teach swordfighting...



oh, and about lindybeige, he is quite funny to watch, and while he has some hilarious ideas ( Look at his "point about pommels", and the videoanswer i felt compelled to make... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEAOY-BPvTs ), he is quite right that smaller axeheads are absolutely sufficent to kill a man. Big doublehanded axes have still their uses, as you can very well block with your axehead and strike with the wooden shaft, but i would not like to have another axehead anywhere near my crotch.

[nedz]

Mechanical advantage of a Quarterstaff comes from :- Shillelagh, Brambles, Spikes or Entangling Staff — if you are a Druid of the 2x4 persuasion. Yes I know these are spells.

Ed: Oh and Phaederkiel is right about how you actually use this weapon IRL.

Also


Given the slightly unusual scenario that you've decided two-weapon fighting is for you, a double weapon has several obvious advantages over two weapon fighting, not least that you don't need quickdraw to get them out in the first round of combat.


Draw or Sheathe a Weapon
...
If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.

[TheifofZ]

There are plenty of flimsy reasons that double weapons are legit, but I wont even deign to repeat them.
What it really comes down to, and what most of you have forgotten.
It sounds really cool. It looks really cool.
D&D is more than just mechanics and numbers, although it's easy to forget that. It's a game for a bunch of nerds (forgive me for that slight,) to sit down at a table around and live out their fantasy of high magic, dragons, demons, monsters, damsels in distress, world ending plots, and megalomaniacal villains.
Style and appearance and doing what you think sounds fun and awesome is actually -more- important than being as powerful as possible. I know it sounds crazy.

[Hiro Protagonest]

There are plenty of flimsy reasons that double weapons are legit, but I wont even deign to repeat them.
What it really comes down to, and what most of you have forgotten.
It sounds really cool. It looks really cool.
D&D is more than just mechanics and numbers, although it's easy to forget that. It's a game for a bunch of nerds (forgive me for that slight,) to sit down at a table around and live out their fantasy of high magic, dragons, demons, monsters, damsels in distress, world ending plots, and megalomaniacal villains.
Style and appearance and doing what you think sounds fun and awesome is actually -more- important than being as powerful as possible. I know it sounds crazy.

Except 3.5 doesn't come off like that. It doesn't present itself like that. Okay, Eberron does, but that's a setting, not the whole game (I think it's also the only campaign setting that acknowledges the existence of double weapons). 4e presents itself as this vibrant game, where you're badasses in a Brave New World. FATE takes advantage of its genericness to come up with ideas like Spirit of the Century, Wild Blue, and Camelot Trigger. But 3.5 tried to keep that more rustic feel from TSR.

Also, I liked Thibbledorf Pwent. And Pwent with a greataxe would be even better.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Except 3.5 doesn't come off like that. It doesn't present itself like that. Okay, Eberron does, but that's a setting, not the whole game (I think it's also the only campaign setting that acknowledges the existence of double weapons). 4e presents itself as this vibrant game, where you're badasses in a Brave New World. FATE takes advantage of its genericness to come up with ideas like Spirit of the Century, Wild Blue, and Camelot Trigger. But 3.5 tried to keep that more rustic feel from TSR.

Also, I liked Thibbledorf Pwent. And Pwent with a greataxe would be even better.

No axe is needed when you have the shredding hug of Death.

I do concur on his general awesomeness, however.

[Greenish]

It sounds really cool. It looks really cool.I should think this thread is enough of an indication that opinions differ on that considerably. :smallamused:


Now, I do happen to think that, say, double scimitars are pretty damn cool, but when I try to visualize how you'd use one…

[Zadhadras]

A pollaxe is a double weapon. It has an axe head, a hammer head, a spear point at the top, and often a spear point at the bottom.

A dwarven urgosh is basically a type of pollaxe.

[Phaederkiel]

A pollaxe is a double weapon. It has an axe head, a hammer head, a spear point at the top, and often a spear point at the bottom.

A dwarven urgosh is basically a type of pollaxe.

important about the point on the lower side: its main function is to stab it into the ground to set the weapon against cavalry. A poleaxe is mainly a formation weapon (and a formidable one), even if it is also very useful in one-on-one.


There are plenty of flimsy reasons that double weapons are legit, but I wont even deign to repeat them.
What it really comes down to, and what most of you have forgotten.
It sounds really cool. It looks really cool.

D&D is more than just mechanics and numbers, although it's easy to forget that. It's a game for a bunch of nerds (forgive me for that slight,) to sit down at a table around and live out their fantasy of high magic, dragons, demons, monsters, damsels in distress, world ending plots, and megalomaniacal villains.
Style and appearance and doing what you think sounds fun and awesome is actually -more- important than being as powerful as possible. I know it sounds crazy.

while I am all for the second half of your post (yay for fun and flavor!), you are getting all the disagreement I can muster for saying these abominations are cool.
They might look good as long as they are just florished, but as soon as they make contact with an opponent, they are an unwieldly danger to their user and look damn stupid.

The problem is, people always think whirling a weapon constitutes as a good basic position. It does not. You can strike from there all right, but you are killing your reach and thus getting your hand into stabby range from the guy who has a weapon a third of the length of yours. And a shield. Or a second weapon...

[Kelb_Panthera]

No axe is needed when you have the shredding hug of Death.

I do concur on his general awesomeness, however.

How do you not love a guy whose basic battle strategy is, "give him a hug, then have a seizure."

[lunar2]

okay, i can understand that using a double weapon is dangerous, but it really isn't that hard to visualize one in use.

and not just hte whirling over your head thing, either, but actual hold it in front of you like a staff use.

[Phaederkiel]

You do not use a friggin staff like that.
You do not hold it in the middle.

You hold it at one end,
and stab the other in your opponents face,
again and again.


here, it looks like this:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WDAI0WUsJt4/SqPaldvChGI/AAAAAAAAABY/FxqgafTUubs/s320/QUARTERSTAFF%2B%2839%29.jpg

I am very sorry, but this is more than just a pet peeve of mine.

[lunar2]

that may very well be the proper way to use it. i have seen staves used the other way, however, and in most media, they are held in the middle.

i simply pointed out that it isn't hard to visualize, especially because in media that's how they tend to be used.

[Ravens_cry]

I see your quarterstaff and raise you a buck and quarter quarterstaff (http://www.220.ro/desene-animate/12-Robin-Hood-Daffy/AfsKpWk3ZR/).:smallbiggrin:

[Greenish]

okay, i can understand that using a double weapon is dangerous, but it really isn't that hard to visualize one in use.

and not just hte whirling over your head thing, either, but actual hold it in front of you like a staff use.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/pgte_gallery/95054.jpg

"Just hold in the middle."

[Aliek]

Well, you could have one end with eager, defending and other 'passive' enhancements, while the other have your collision and other damaging ones. Then you THF with the damaging end.

Might be easier to fly through than armor spikes. It feels more 'right', in a way.

Also, revenant blade, the main user of double weapons.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You do not use a friggin staff like that.
You do not hold it in the middle.

You hold it at one end,
and stab the other in your opponents face,
again and again.


here, it looks like this:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WDAI0WUsJt4/SqPaldvChGI/AAAAAAAAABY/FxqgafTUubs/s320/QUARTERSTAFF%2B%2839%29.jpg

I am very sorry, but this is more than just a pet peeve of mine.

That's one way to use a staff, but it's not the only way. Not by a long-shot.

A jo would be statted as a quarterstaff and it's wielded in a completely different manner. A waxwood staff would also be statted as a quarterstaff and be wielded in an entirely different manner from both a jo and the long-staff in your picture.

A two-bladed sword doesn't handle like any of those, of course, but people insisting that their style is the only correct style is one of -my- pet peeves.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

okay, i can understand that using a double weapon is dangerous, but it really isn't that hard to visualize one in use.

and not just hte whirling over your head thing, either, but actual hold it in front of you like a staff use.

I went through a phase of thinking this way about double weapons, but here's the problem. Picture, or actually use a staff or broomsick if visualizing doesn't work for you, holding a staff in front of yourself in a defensive ready stance either level or at a 45 degree angle with the ground.

Now swing one head toward an imaginary opponent. You'll notice that the opposite end swings in toward you. With an axe you'll need to check your swing while a sword could come to rest against your side as a staff head might only more dangerous when your opponent counterattacks.

Of course there are things you can do to mitigate this flaw. You could check your swing, meaning weak attacks. You could Shift your grip down the weapon and hold your arms farther from your body, but that means you'll be using it as a two-hander with a blade at the butt rather than as a double weapon. Probably the best option would be to step into every swing effectively dodging the backswing. While this style would allow repetitive strong swings, it would be incredibly poor in a fight as it would have no real options in a fight and wouldn't cinematically fit anything but mighty cleaving through armies of mooks.

[Xerxus]

Number one point is to allow you to have a single weapon into which you pour your weapon focus feat tree. Trying to do it with any other kind of weapon means that:

1: You are using two light weapons - short sword or whatever - and so you lower your damage potential by one point for every attack.

2: You just can't pull off a dazzling display description the same way that someone with a double weapon can. (Pathfinder only)

3: You cant get the Gnome Weapon Focus or Orc Weapon Expertise feat in order to get even more fun stuff out of your weapon. (Pathfinder only)

[TuggyNE]

1: You are using two light weapons - short sword or whatever - and so you lower your damage potential by one point for every attack.

This is plausible enough, but extremely weak; burning a feat (EWP; there are no martial or simple double weapons that do more damage than two shortswords that I know of) for an extra 1 point of damage is even weaker than Weapon Specialization, which is saying something.

[lesser_minion]

A pollaxe is a double weapon. It has an axe head, a hammer head, a spear point at the top, and often a spear point at the bottom.

That's more reasonable, and you wouldn't use it anything like how you use a D&D double weapon (which I'm pretty sure boils down to "hold it in the middle, close to your body, spin round and round in circles really fast, and wish you'd thought this through a bit more" -- not a very safe tactic, and not hard to evade).

[Xerxus]

This is plausible enough, but extremely weak; burning a feat (EWP; there are no martial or simple double weapons that do more damage than two shortswords that I know of) for an extra 1 point of damage is even weaker than Weapon Specialization, which is saying something.

Well, for a two-weapon fighter with a focus on putting out the hurt each damage point matters, since you get so many more attacks (especially with speed weapons).

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is plausible enough, but extremely weak; burning a feat (EWP; there are no martial or simple double weapons that do more damage than two shortswords that I know of) for an extra 1 point of damage is even weaker than Weapon Specialization, which is saying something.

You can also get the exact same net-effect by taking oversized TWF instead of EWP for a double weapon. The former is even arguably better since you're not locked into the same weapon in each hand unless you also take weapon focus; unless of course my earlier supposition about the damage of double weapons is correct. I haven't seen anything remotely compelling to the contrary.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well, for a two-weapon fighter with a focus on putting out the hurt each damage point matters, since you get so many more attacks (especially with speed weapons).

Multiple instances of the speed weapon property don't stack. Neither do they stack with the extra attack from haste. If you can reliably get a haste effect, speed is a terrible enhancement to put on a weapon.

[Xerxus]

Multiple instances of the speed weapon property don't stack. Neither do they stack with the extra attack from haste. If you can reliably get a haste effect, speed is a terrible enhancement to put on a weapon.

I think it works like that in Pathfinder at least. The description reads:

When making a full-attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack uses the wielder's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.)

But since there is no accumulation since you are using two different weapons, it would be weird if this did not grant you an extra attack with each hand.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I think it works like that in Pathfinder at least. The description reads:

When making a full-attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack uses the wielder's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.)

But since there is no accumulation since you are using two different weapons, it would be weird if this did not grant you an extra attack with each hand.

I honestly couldn't tell you much of anything about pathfinder outside of the firearms rules. I'm even a little fuzzy on them; as I haven't really drilled them into my mind just yet.

Anyway, both weapons are trying to grant you an extra attack at your highest BaB when they explicitly can't do that.

[TuggyNE]

I think it works like that in Pathfinder at least. The description reads:

When making a full-attack action, the wielder of a speed weapon may make one extra attack with it. The attack uses the wielder's full base attack bonus, plus any modifiers appropriate to the situation. (This benefit is not cumulative with similar effects, such as a haste spell.)

But since there is no accumulation since you are using two different weapons, it would be weird if this did not grant you an extra attack with each hand.

Unless spell stacking rules have changed in PF, that won't have any different result than it does in 3.5; that's basically the same language 3.5 speed uses. Haste, another speed weapon, or anything else that gives a similar effect ("an extra attack at highest BAB") won't stack with that, as Kelb said.

[Phaederkiel]

I see your quarterstaff and raise you a buck and quarter quarterstaff (http://www.220.ro/desene-animate/12-Robin-Hood-Daffy/AfsKpWk3ZR/).:smallbiggrin:

yes, and what happens at 2.27 is about what happens when you really use quarterstaff like that...


@kelb: this is not the least bit about style. This is about physics.
to whirl a staff around or to grab it in the middle eats your range advantage.
No Style made for fighting rather than for filming does that.

here is a picture of jo-use:
http://www.seishan-karate.co.uk/DSC00439_edited.jpg

as to the waxwood staff: here is a video, in which some correct techniques are shown (at 0.22 for example) amongst some crowd pleasers, and some training methods, which are not used for striking.
http://video-hned.com/video/m7JX3vp25BU/Tai-Chi-STAFF-Fundamentals-YMAA-Taiji-and-Shaolin-Dr-Yang-Jwing-Ming.html

I have a friend who trains mantis-style gongfu and had opportunity to watch his staff usage, he might grip it in the middle, but when he strikes he always has shifted towards an end. (as the video above demonstrates at 0.26)

Whirling a staff is the same as all combat stances: it does not need to be functional, as long as the opponent is not in striking range.

[Kelb_Panthera]

yes, and what happens at 2.27 is about what happens when you really use quarterstaff like that...


@kelb: this is not the least bit about style. This is about physics.
to whirl a staff around or to grab it in the middle eats your range advantage.
No Style made for fighting rather than for filming does that.

here is a picture of jo-use:
http://www.seishan-karate.co.uk/DSC00439_edited.jpg

as to the waxwood staff: here is a video, in which some correct techniques are shown (at 0.22 for example) amongst some crowd pleasers, and some training methods, which are not used for striking.
http://video-hned.com/video/m7JX3vp25BU/Tai-Chi-STAFF-Fundamentals-YMAA-Taiji-and-Shaolin-Dr-Yang-Jwing-Ming.html

I have a friend who trains mantis-style gongfu and had opportunity to watch his staff usage, he might grip it in the middle, but when he strikes he always has shifted towards an end. (as the video above demonstrates at 0.26)

Whirling a staff is the same as all combat stances: it does not need to be functional, as long as the opponent is not in striking range.

The problem I had with your previous post is that you said that a staff was primarily a thrusting weapon. This just isn't the case. Staffs certainly can be thrust, but the damage a thrust staff does is minimal compared to the damage that same staff will do with a vertical or horizontal swing.

You're right in that you don't really ever grip the weapon right in the middle with both hands, but you most assuredly can enact a quick flurry of one-two strikes by gripping a staff such that either end extends somewhat past your grip. In skilled hands a staff can even be used to gain extra leverage with certain joint-locks.

It's just not limited or even especially suited to being just a thrusting weapon.

[nedz]

Well there are different combat styles.

If you look at the German school of fencing which was focussed on the use of Long swords (that's the 8' long weapon — quite different to the D&D one) there is a technique known as half-swording where you shorten your grip and attack with the pommel. This allows you to use a long sword as a double weapon. You can use a quarterstaff with these techniques.

[Talya]

The real advantage of a double weapon comes for the power-attacker.

The offhand is NOT a light weapon, it just counts as one for TWF penalties, so you can power-attack with both hands.

Of course, the single feat "Oversize Two-Weapon Fighting" is better, but on a feat-starved build, that might not be an option.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The real advantage of a double weapon comes for the power-attacker.

The offhand is NOT a light weapon, it just counts as one for TWF penalties, so you can power-attack with both hands.

Of course, the single feat "Oversize Two-Weapon Fighting" is better, but on a feat-starved build, that might not be an option.

You spend a feat either way; OTWF or EWP.

Which is better depends on whether you get str*1.5 to damage with both ends of a double weapon or not. I'm inclined to think that this is the case, since I can't find anything to the contrary and noone else has provided a compelling case.

[nedz]

Double Weapons

You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon were a light weapon.

It depends on how you interpret the bolded phrase really. Is one of the penalties of a light weapon that you can't use it for Power Attack ? YMMV

[Phaederkiel]

The problem I had with your previous post is that you said that a staff was primarily a thrusting weapon. This just isn't the case. Staffs certainly can be thrust, but the damage a thrust staff does is minimal compared to the damage that same staff will do with a vertical or horizontal swing.

You're right in that you don't really ever grip the weapon right in the middle with both hands, but you most assuredly can enact a quick flurry of one-two strikes by gripping a staff such that either end extends somewhat past your grip. In skilled hands a staff can even be used to gain extra leverage with certain joint-locks.

It's just not limited or even especially suited to being just a thrusting weapon.



have you ever been stabbed with a staff?
I have, and it packs at least as much power as any strike.
On the other hand, striking with a staff is much more difficult, you need a larger movement, you need to hit the sweet spot of the staff, etc.

No, really a staff is mainly a thrusting weapon, even if most teachers will mainly teach the striking techniques. presumeably a) because of the image people have of staff-fighting and b) because stabbing techniques are far more dangerous.

Perhaps we can settle this easier if we told each other our style?
I do mostly German Greatsword / Longsword following Thalhoffer and Liechtenauer, and I do buckler and sword after the i33.
In our group, we try to find out which techniques really work by testing them in combat.





If you look at the German school of fencing which was focussed on the use of Long swords (that's the 8' long weapon — quite different to the D&D one) there is a technique known as half-swording where you shorten your grip and attack with the pommel. This allows you to use a long sword as a double weapon. You can use a quarterstaff with these techniques.

The technique you describe here is basically a grappling technique, use only between two fully armored fighters. It allows for throws and afterwards driving your point in your opponents armor chinks. It is used with quite normal longswords (8'? isn't that really long? My main sword is 160 cm long, and it is quite difficult to wield even for me, and i am strong. The swords normally used for this halfswording are about 100 to 120 cm long), which are only sharpened at the tip, as not to cut your hand with it.

And you can use your pommel anyway. I think that about 20 to 30 % of all hits are made with the pommel in a realistic combat between to longsword users.

How you want to translate those techniques which are only for a very special occasion and relie heavily on having a crossguard to using a quarterstaff I do not know.

[Ravens_cry]

You spend a feat either way; OTWF or EWP.

Quarterstaff are double weapons that are simple weapons.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It depends on how you interpret the bolded phrase really. Is one of the penalties of a light weapon that you can't use it for Power Attack ? YMMV

The penalties that sentence is refering to are the attack penalties that you take for wielding two weapons. The same attack penalties that are mentioned in the other entry for double weapons in the weapon section.

This is exceedingly plain to see if you read the entire TWF section that quote is drawn from rather than just the quoted section by itself.

[Deadline]

Quarterstaff are double weapons that are simple weapons.

Yes, but you don't get the benefit of the better double weapons (that being a larger damage die for your off hand).

[Ravens_cry]

Yes, but you don't get the benefit of the better double weapons (that being a larger damage die for your off hand).
Most damage doesn't come from your die code anyway, which is why Bastard swords aren't as awesome as they might sound.

[Phaederkiel]

what you get is a weapon which can have both sides enchanted but can be held in one hand.
Dictum writes somewhere that wizards should get a defending, warning / Spelldefending (do not know the real name), eager quarterstaff.
They do not use it to hit anybody and the enchantments stack cheaper.
And it does not require armor for armor spikes.

[Deadline]

Most damage doesn't come from your die code anyway, which is why Bastard swords aren't as awesome as they might sound.

True, I was just mentioning it in response to your reply to Kelb. His mention of OTWF or EWP seem to indicate the larger damage die as the desireable outcome for the feat expenditure.

[Zubrowka74]

You do not use a friggin staff like that.
You do not hold it in the middle.

You hold it at one end,
and stab the other in your opponents face,
again and again.


here, it looks like this:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WDAI0WUsJt4/SqPaldvChGI/AAAAAAAAABY/FxqgafTUubs/s320/QUARTERSTAFF%2B%2839%29.jpg

I am very sorry, but this is more than just a pet peeve of mine.

They way to handle the stick you describe comes from asian martial arts. I'm not saying it's better (that's the way I learned it too, the butt and about one third) but the quarterstaff takes its name from .... quarters : one hand at 1/4 of the stick and the other at 1/2. So it has some historical weight.

Also, not every strike is straight forward. I'm not defending the efficiency of doubble weapons, mind you, but you could manage holding the weapon at 45 degrees from your body, free to spin or twirl it without (or with less) fear of maiming yourself. As another example, the Dao (chinese broad saber) form I practice makes liberal use of holding the back of the blade. Nothing says you couldnt do it with a double scimitar or such.

In the context of a medieval fantasy setting it makes sens to allow this. It's just the game mechanics behind it that's unappealling.

[Answerer]

As another example, the Dao (chinese broad saber) form I practice makes liberal use of holding the back of the blade. Nothing says you couldnt do it with a double scimitar or such.
Supposing one were to attempt something along these lines, would the two scimitars have the edge on the same side or opposite?

[lunar2]

depends on the style they are designed for.

if they are designed to be held like the half dragon in the monster manual, then both blades should face the same way. if they are designed to be twirled like a baton, then the blades should face opposite directions.

alternatively, they could be made with detachable blades that could be flipped depending on the preference of the user.

[Answerer]

if they are designed to be twirled like a baton, then the blades should face opposite directions.
I was under the impression that such twirling would accomplish almost nothing outside of a ceremonial blade dance (where its purpose is to look pretty).

[Zubrowka74]

It's also pretty impressive. Remember not everyone is a God Wizard. If a guy is willing to risk one or more fingers just to twirl a relatively innefficient double blade, he must be some kind of bloodthristy nut-job.

[Zubrowka74]

It's also pretty impressive. Remember not everyone is a God Wizard. If a guy is willing to risk one or more fingers just to twirl a relatively innefficient double blade, he must be some kind of bloodthristy nut-job.

I meant, impressive to non-chicken-infested commoners.

[Greenish]

what you get is a weapon which can have both sides enchanted but can be held in one hand.
Dictum writes somewhere that wizards should get a defending, warning / Spelldefending (do not know the real name), eager quarterstaff.
They do not use it to hit anybody and the enchantments stack cheaper.
And it does not require armor for armor spikes.Of course, you could stack said enhancements on gauntlets or spiked gauntlets (because while wearing a chain shirt restricts your movements enough to interfere with spellcasting, wearing plated gloves does not).

Granted, a staff is more wizardly and has space for two wand chambers.

the quarterstaff takes its name from .... quarters : one hand at 1/4 of the stick and the other at 1/2.[Citation needed] (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=quarterstaff)

[Phaederkiel]

They way to handle the stick you describe comes from asian martial arts.

no.


As another example, the Dao (chinese broad saber) form I practice makes liberal use of holding the back of the blade.

do you train a form, or do you train to fight?
Dao forms have a lot of blade grabbing, which loses you fingers in fights.

Answerer has it right, twirling dont work.

[Mirakk]

Sometimes what appears to be a double weapon is used very differently than you'd expect.

I've used a Bakuhatsu-kama before. Tried swinging it like a nunchaku and almost broke my hip with the weight attached to the end. God that was painful.

Turns out you use the length of chain for trapping, the weight for pommel striking, and the kama for in-close cutting once you've trapped the opponent's attacking/defending limb.

I suspect that the Lynx paw was an attempt at such a usage, but the long blade makes that fairly impossible. The Gyrspike is just....good lord no :(

And I lol'ed at Dire Flail.

[Zubrowka74]

[Citation needed] (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=quarterstaff)

"quarterstaff(weapon) (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/486410/quarterstaff)". Encyclopædia Britannica.

[Baroncognito]

Counter Citation, Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, published 1971, reprinted in 1979.


Quarterstaff. 1. A stout pole, from six to eight feet long and tipped with iron, formerly used as a weapon by the English peasantry.
The exact sense of quarter is not clear: quot. 1589 suggests that the staff may have been made from a tree of a cerain size cleft in four: cf. Quarter-cleft

[nedz]

Counter Counter sitation (http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Quarter-Staff) — Encyclopædia Britannica 1911 edition.

[Baroncognito]

Counter Counter sitation (http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Quarter-Staff) — Encyclopædia Britannica 1911 edition.

Seeing as that's still the Encyclopædia Britannica, it's the same citation.

The point of my counter-citation was the bolded section, that the etymology is not clear. Reasonable scholars can disagree about why it has the name it has.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Counter Counter sitation (http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Quarter-Staff) — Encyclopædia Britannica 1911 edition.

I wouldn't really call that a counter counter citation - you're using the same source (albeit an earlier edition) as the original citation.

[nedz]

I wouldn't really call that a counter counter citation - you're using the same source (albeit an earlier edition) as the original citation.

Well we have two citations from the EB roughly 100 years apart.

It's very common on the internet to find multiple references to the same thing: Baroncognito's and Greenish's citations are obviously derived from the same source since their text is almost identical — their reference is even the same.

More citations required I think.

[Baroncognito]

I actually hadn't noticed that the [citation needed] was a link. If I had noticed, I probably wouldn't have gone to the trouble of pulling out my dictionary. However, I can actually quote the citations from the Oxford English Dictionary.


a 1550 Play of Robin Hood in Child Ballads Ill. 127 With a stout frere I met, QAnd a quarter-staffe in his hande. 1589 R. Harvey Pl. Perc. (1860) Plodding though the Aldersgate, all armed as I was, with a quarter Ashe staffe on my shoulder.

[Answerer]

Well we have two citations from the EB roughly 100 years apart.

It's very common on the internet to find multiple references to the same thing: Baroncognito's and Greenish's citations are obviously derived from the same source since their text is almost identical — their reference is even the same.

More citations required I think.
I agree with this point, anyway. It's hard to argue that either pair is really distinct. In fact, etymology.com lists the Oxford English Dictionary as one of its primary sources (in particular, the 2nd edition from 1989), so it's almost certainly the same claim from the same source.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I would say that the 1911 EB should carry some weight as a seperate reference. It proves that, at a minimum, EB didn't pull the origin out of common belief/hearsay in the last 100 years.

[Zubrowka74]

Hey, no need to argue to death over this point. I'm not trying to prove the true origin of the name. I'm just pointing out that at least one credible source is citing the grip as the reason. The other sources say the origin is uncertain. This means it cannot be confirmed it is from the grip or the wood used. The two are merely different theories.

All this to say that Phaederkiel's view should not stop at what he thinks is the only absolute answer. Other stuff do exist, even if it's not the best proven method.

And by the way, I do practice Dao applications. And fittingly the grips are usually used against a staff. Again, I'm in no way saying that spinning double blade is an efficient combat technique. I'm just saying it can be done, and that gripping the back of a one-edged blade is something possible and seen in other martial arts.