Homebrew: Double Weapons

[Sception]

I was trying to come up with a homebrew implementation of double weapons that would keep them relatively simple, not break anything, etc. Here's what I've currently got:

Double Weapons are made of two separate light weapons connected together, usually by a single haft, with each weapon making up one of the double weapon's sides. Any two light weapons can be selected when inventing a double weapon. Usually, but not always, the same weapon is used for both sides. The double weapon is treated in all ways as two separate light weapons, with each side wielded in one of the character's hands, with the following exceptions:


The weapon requires two hands to attack, even if you're only attacking with one side of the weapon, just as with a single two-handed weapon
The weapon can be held (but not wielded) in a single hand, for instance you could hold the weapon in one hand while you use the other to climb, cast a spell, drink a potion, or make a grab attack, just as with a single two-handed weapon
The double weapon is treated as a single item for the purposes of damaging or disarming effects and item interactions like drawing & stowing
The two weapons that make up a double weapon lose the 'thrown' property, if they otherwise have it
The price of the double weapon is the sum of the prices of the weapons that make up its two sides
A double weapon is considered a single weapon for the purpose of the Warlock's "pact blade" class feature.
You are proficient with a double weapon if you are proficient with both of the weapons that make up its two sides.
If an ability would let you gain proficiency in a chosen weapon, you can choose a double weapon specifically, in which case you gain proficiency with both sides of the double weapon, but only when they are part of the double weapon.


proficiency example: A character could use the 'weapon master' feat to gain proficiency in a short sword / hand axe double weapon, but doing so would not grant them proficiency in either the short sword or the hand axe otherwise. On the other hand, if they used the feat to become proficient in both the short sword and the hand axe separately, they would also become proficient in the hypothetical sword/axe as well.


common double weapons using this system:

Double Sword/sword staff: both sides are short swords
Double Scimitar: both sides are scimitars
Double Axe: both sides are hand axes


Others could be added by the DM or invented by the players as desired, whether to represent weapons outside of D&D's usual milieu (kusari-gama as a double weapon with a sickle on one side, and a whip on the other), or just for fun (sword-chucks as an alternate double-sword).

Because the double weapon would for most uses be treated as two separate weapons, a magic double weapon where both sides are magic would effectively be two separate magic items, which the DM would need to take into account when determining treasure. On the other hand, only one side might be magical (kusari-gama with magical sickle but non-magical whip), or both sides might have different enchantments (ie a double-sword where one side is a flaming short sword and the other is a frost short sword).

[MagneticKitty]

I guess I'm missing the point of this? Seems like dual weilding with more draw backs?
Is the point just to overcome drawing two weapons with a single object interaction? There's a feat for that.
Doesn't seem mechanically broken.

[Sception]

I guess I'm missing the point of this? Seems like dual weilding with more draw backs?
Is the point just to overcome drawing two weapons with a single object interaction? There's a feat for that.
Doesn't seem mechanically broken.

The main, intentionally limited mechanical benefits are that it basically lets bladelocks dual wield pact blades, applying pact blade invocation bonuses to be applied to off hand attacks. That, and dual wielding gish types could momentarily let go of one of their weapons to cast a somatic spell without dropping or sheathing it, the same as gish types using two handed weapons currently can.

Beyond that, it's primarily a stylistic/aesthetic thing, trying to bring back some cool if impractical weapons of yesteryear D&D while introducing as few new or changed mechanics as possible, in order to avoid pushing optimization envelopes or creating balance problems.

[CTurbo]

I agree this homebrew looks harmless if not pointless. I like the idea of double weapons but they need to have some sort of feature to make them worth bothering with outside of flavor. The most obvious boon to give them is +1 to AC while you wield a double weapon. Like in 4e most if not all double weapons had the Defensive property.

[Sception]

The concern I have in something like that is not making them just objectively superior to dual wielding separate weapons. Optimization-wise they should be the same effectiveness as dual wielding regular weapons, which is why my proposed mechanics basically amounts to counts-as with pairs of existing light weapons. Admittedly though, that solution to the problem of balancing double weapons vs. dual weapons, while simplest and most direct, is also laziest & least mechanically interesting.

[AvvyR]

Being able to draw/sheathe two weapons without a feat (doubly so because anyone with that feat is highly unlikely to use light weapons), and being able to cast while effectively holding two weapons without a feat, and being able to object interact without clumsy sheathing and unsheathing is adequate enough reason for the rules to exist. Bladelocks and EKs that want to dual wield being able to make proper use of their class features is also appropriate.

This seems pretty balanced to me. When I read the title, what I immediately thought up as to how I'd implement this is identical to yours.

[CTurbo]

I wanted to make a Staff Fighter and my DM let me take the Dual Wielding feat and use a common Quarterstaff as a double weapon basically 1d8+Str in my main hand and 1d8+Str in my offhand too while also getting the +1 to AC that the feat gives. I thought this was a fair homebrew and similar in power to what PAM would have given me.

[Eric Diaz]

There is nothing wrong with that and it is a cool concept for some characters.

It is better for spells such as "magical weapons" and, well, magical weapons, but you lose the "thrown" propriety which balances things a bit.

Making the quarterstaff a double club would actually fix the mace, the quarterstaff and the great-club all at once.

It is balanced, very similar to TWF, and still worse than things such as SS, PAM or GWM.

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/01/d-5e-fighting-styles-double-weapons.html

[Sception]

2) The 'double weapon' is just re-skinned standard two-weapon fighting.

This is basically the system I'm suggesting, only with a few relatively simple notes to make item interactions, getting disarmed, etc make sense. Having to draw a weapon you already drew, or simultaneously dropping and not dropping a weapon, the possibility that that allows for the weapon to be kicked away from you while it's also still in your hand, is the kind of immersion breaking issues that can happen if you run double weapons as re-skinned standard two-weapon fighting without any modifications, and the modifications I'm suggesting are the simplest I could come up with to resolve just those issues.



Making the quarterstaff a double club would actually fix the mace, the quarterstaff and the great-club all at once.
this occurred to me during the write up, but I didn't want to make it more controversial than it needed to be by suggesting it as a nerf to a popular, if silly, quirk of some of the existing rule mechanics. But yeah, you could use this system to replace the existing quarterstaff with a 'double club'. Then just remove quarterstaff from PAM (it already gets to attack with its off side this way anyway, albeit with less damage, and the other part of PAM never made sense with quarterstaff anyway). maybe add pike in its place, because honestly now.


http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/01/d-5e-fighting-styles-double-weapons.html

I like this write up as well, but i don't see why it prevents finesse from working with double weapons, and it also seems to have enchanting & atunement automatically affecting both sides, which is a power-up compared to regular dual wielding that I was specifically trying to avoid.

[Eric Diaz]

this occurred to me during the write up, but I didn't want to make it more controversial than it needed to be by suggesting it as a nerf to a popular, if silly, quirk of some of the existing rule mechanics. But yeah, you could use this system to replace the existing quarterstaff with a 'double club'. Then just remove quarterstaff from PAM (it already gets to attack with its off side this way anyway, albeit with less damage, and the other part of PAM never made sense with quarterstaff anyway). maybe add pike in its place, because honestly now.

Yeah, pike is very strange too. Anyway...


I like this write up as well, but i don't see why it prevents finesse from working with double weapons, and it also seems to have enchanting & atunement automatically affecting both sides, which is a power-up compared to regular dual wielding that I was specifically trying to avoid.

Honestly I don't remember why I wrote that bit about finesse; must have been a mistake. The power-up was intentional; I think dual wielding is bad enough as written and the power-up is not enough to make it unbalanced. I reckon the GM would give you more +1 short-swords than double-flails or whatever. TWF would also add some versatility: throw things, switch hands (maybe a fire dagger in one hand and an ice dagger in the other), etc. But your version is closer to TWF, and I agree with the idea.

[Sception]

Yeah, this is definitely aiming for "something that feels like double weapons without actually adding significant additional mechanical weight or pushing current optimization numbers at all", and not "fixing the perceived problems with two weapon fighting". Though it does by default fix the problem with multiple interactions to draw your weapons, that's not what the purpose was.

To the extent one believes there are problems with two weapon fighting in 5e as is, those should be fixed in and of themselves. The nice thing about 'double weapons as re-skinned two weapon fighting' is that fixes to two weapon fighting in general, like just letting the bonus attack apply stat mods by default, or replacing the bonus attack with a free extra attack made without stat mod to damage as part of the regular attack action, freeing the bonus action back up for other things, or treasure tables with chances of dropping enchanted light weapons in pairs, or to the atunement rules that would allow you to attune a matched pair of such weapons with a single slot, would apply equally well to these double weapons without needing any extra rules text to cover the interaction.

[Eric Diaz]

To the extent one believes there are problems with two weapon fighting in 5e as is, those should be fixed in and of themselves. The nice thing about 'double weapons as re-skinned two weapon fighting' is that fixes to two weapon fighting in general, like just letting the bonus attack apply stat mods by default, or replacing the bonus attack with a free extra attack made without stat mod to damage as part of the regular attack action, freeing the bonus action back up for other things, or treasure tables with chances of dropping enchanted light weapons in pairs, or to the atunement rules that would allow you to attune a matched pair of such weapons with a single slot, would apply equally well to these double weapons without needing any extra rules text to cover the interaction.

Sure, but since you fixed it for the warlock, I don't see why not let double weapons benefit from the "magical weapon" spell as well. Is not like this is throwing anything off balance.