Wayfarer's Guide to Ebberon: "Published?" The Double-Bladed Scimitar: Overpowered?

[Damon_Tor]

Are we supposed to treat the Wayfinder's guide as "playtest" material? Generally at my table my policy is that playtest material has to be "whitelisted" (I usually do) and I try really hard to not have a "blacklist" of published material. I don't consider "setting fluff" as a valid reason to ban something. Having a dragonmark in Forgotten Realms wouldn't have the same social implications as it does in Ebberon, for example, but if a player wanted one I'd work it into the lore.

It seems to me this weapon is a far better better way to play a "two-weapon" type of character. 2d4 for damage dice is slightly better than 1d8 right out the gate, but benefits disproportionately from the "Great Weapon Fighting" fighting style available to fighters and paladins. It gives a 1d4+ability mod minor action attack (reminiscent of Polearm Mastery) for free. And it gets really nuts if you're an elf and take the feat for this weapon: you get +1 AC, finesse with the weapon, and the bonus action attack moves up to 2d4, the normal damage for the weapon. I feel like the weapon by itself is overpowered enough, but the feat makes it almost strictly superior to most other options.

[Man_Over_Game]

The Wayferer's Guide is actually playtest material, don't take it as 100% balanced quite yet.

Let's assume we have two Rangers, with 18 Dex and 12 Str.

Without feats, here's a comparison:


Two Weapon Fighting:1d6 + 1d6 + 4 = 11
Double Scimitar: 2d4 + 1d4 + 1 = 8.5


Without feats, but with the relevant Fighting Style:


Two Weapon Fighting:1d6 + 1d6 + 8 = 15
Double Scimitar: 2d4 + 1d4 + 1 = 8.5 (+1 to AC)


With Feats, no relevant Fighting Style:


Two Weapon Fighting:1d8 + 1d8 + 4 = 13 (+1 to AC)
Double Scimitar: 2d4 + 2d4 + 8 = 18.5 (+1 to AC and Dex)


With Feats, and relevant Fighting Style:


Two Weapon Fighting:1d8 + 1d8 + 8 = 17 (+1 to AC)
Double Scimitar: 2d4 + 2d4 + 8 = 18.5 (+2 to AC, +1 to Dex)


So...yeah. It is a lot stronger, if you're willing to put in the investment. But feel free not to use it anyway. Keep in mind, the investment at this point means you're forcing your race, your level 4 feat, and your whole build off of this one item. It does scale well, which was the main concern of Two Weapon Fighting to begin with. At level 1 it seems strong, but at level 5, it looks just good, and it's not even possible until level 4.

[Damon_Tor]

Let's assume we have two Rangers, with 18 Dex and 12 Str.

Not really a fair comparison. If he's planning to be in melee without a finesse weapon he's going to have invested in STR. An elf planning on taking the feat at level 4 would simply use another finesse weapon.


Two Weapon Fighting:1d6 + 1d6 + 4 = 11
Double Scimitar: 2d4 + 1d4 + 1 = 8.5
Your math isn't accounting for the fact that the bonus action attack granted by the weapon adds your stat modifier to the damage. It should be "2d4 + 1d4 + 2 = 9.5" But the reality is, it would be much higher because +1 as a strength modifier is not what we would expect to see on a character using this weapon without the feat. Apples to apples, assuming a str of 16 "2d4 + 1d4 + 6 = 13.5" beating TWF even without a relevant racial bonus.


Two Weapon Fighting:1d8 + 1d8 + 8 = 17 (+1 to AC)
Double Scimitar: 2d4 + 2d4 + 8 = 18.5 (+2 to AC, +1 to Dex)

You're not properly accounting for the GWF rerolls. For every d4 that lands on a 1 or 2 (50% of the time) you get to (and should) reroll it. So each d4 will have an average roll of 3, not 2.5. (3*2)+(3*2)+8=20.

[Corran]

I don't think that the feat is that powerful. Rogues and rangers might want it, but the benefits are not crucial for a rogue, and as far rangers are concerned, well, maybe they could do with a little boost (same with twf).

The weapon alone is more powerful than twf with two shortswords/scimitars, but there aren't many characters that would profit all that much by a better STR-version of twf (maybe oathbreakers?).

[KorvinStarmast]

The double bladed scimitar has been critiqued here already, and it's a crap idea in terms of it fitting with the rest of the weapons methodology in 5e.

typical bloat, though, as an edition progresses. Look for more stupid decisions soon.

[Damon_Tor]

I don't think that the feat is that powerful. Rogues and rangers might want it, but the benefits are not crucial for a rogue.

It's a half feat, so it will give them +1 Dex
At 2d4 it's the biggest finesse weapon AND it gives them, in effect, the benefits of the Two Weapon Fighting style and and the all the benefits of the Dual Wielder feat.
It's basically two and a half feats.

The only hangup for a rogue is the need to dip/spend a half a feat to gain proficiency. But seeing as both Weapon Master and the feat to make to make maximum use out the weapon are both "half-feats" and that rogues are one of the most single-attribute-dependent classes in 5e, and since the feat is only available to a +2 Dex race to begin with, I can't see a circumstance where any elf rogue would be using another melee weapon after level 8.

IMO: the weapon should simply be a 1d6 light, finesse, two-handed weapon and a special "this counts as wielding a different weapon in each hand" rule. It could interact with both two-handed weapon game elements and "weapon in each hand" elements, giving it some niche builds where it could spread its wings, but wouldn't directly overshadow any other weapon quite so completely.

[Corran]

Ah, good points. Ok, I buy it, the feat is stronger than it should be.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I mean, even if it is, things should be a little overpowered in Ebberon, right?

For anywhere else I'd just say "that's a Ebberon only weapon".

[JackPhoenix]

It's Wayfinder, not Wayfarer. It's even correct in the OP, if not in the title.

And it's Eberron, not Ebberon.

Though I wonder: why should things be "a little overpowered" in Eberron?

[NaughtyTiger]

typical bloat, though, as an edition progresses. Look for more stupid decisions soon.

i really liked 5e based on the phb. so many options, most were well balanced.

[GreyBlack]

I'm fine with it. I mean, we're already fine with the Greatsword as strictly better than the Greataxe, with one being strictly mechanically better in core. Why is this any different?

But then, I'm one of those weirdos who thinks that not everything should be balanced, and this pursuit of "balance" just falls into the same trap 4th edition fell into. Feel free to take this with a mountain of salt.

[GlenSmash!]

The double bladed scimitar has been critiqued here already, and it's a crap idea in terms of it fitting with the rest of the weapons methodology in 5e.

typical bloat, though, as an edition progresses. Look for more stupid decisions soon.

Clap, clap. Couldn't agree more.


Though I wonder: why should things be "a little overpowered" in Eberron?

I wonder that too. It's my understanding that Eberron has prevalent low level magic, but I doubt that would produce superior weapons for one specific culture.

[Sception]

Its an iconic weapon of one of the eberron cultures, i see no reason why it shouldnt exist. Implementation feels a bit off, particularly compared to regular twf, but then again math crunchers have been complaining that regular twf is underpowered compared to other options sunce the phb. 'Better than a subpar existing option' doesnt exactly feel like a terrible crime to me.

That said, it is still in playtest, and plenty of people have complained about it, so it'll probably be nerfed into oblivion, in a later revision, and frankly the game will be poorer for it.