PDA

View Full Version : [4e] AV: Parrying Dagger & Waraxe questions



Townopolis
2008-09-21, 12:12 PM
Parrying Dagger
Is it worth it? Is it worth the feat for the extra +1 to AC while wielding what is basically a dagger in the offhand:
-For Rogues?
-For Tempest Fighters?
-For Rangers?
-For Wizards, Warlocks, etc...?

Waraxe
It looks like Dwarven Weapon Training gives proficiency in this (As well as Execution Axe, Craghammer, and Mordenkrad), is there anything that contradicts this?

Grynning
2008-09-21, 12:30 PM
Parrying Dagger

If you're trying to beef up AC without using a shield, it may well be worth it, especially since it's an untyped bonus and will stack with Two-Weapon Defense, The Defensive Weapon enchant later in the book, etc.

Although spending the feat to use a Double Weapon is likely much better, since they do more damage as an off hand and have the same property.

On the Waraxe:

I asked this in the FAQ by RAW thread and no one seemed to be able to say that Dwarven Weapon Training and Eladrin Soldier didn't give you proficiency with the superior weapons that matched the types listed. It would seem that they do.

Tengu_temp
2008-09-21, 12:31 PM
Although spending the feat to use a Double Weapon is likely much better, since they do more damage as an off hand and have the same property.

They make you look stupid as heck, too.

Grynning
2008-09-21, 12:34 PM
They make you look stupid as heck, too.

I never said you would look good, just have a more optimal build :smalltongue:

Personally I wish they'd added a one-handed sword with the defensive property and d8 damage die, that would have been really good for TWF rangers.

Edit: You could always re-fluff the double weapons and their proficiency feat as being special training in identical paired weapons. All the good crunch, none of the retarded weaponry.

Tengu_temp
2008-09-21, 12:36 PM
I find the bastard swords a better deal for rangers than a double sword anyway, to be honest - for a striker, it's better to improve your damage die than to have a better AC. Of course, you need to spend a bit more cash that way...

RTGoodman
2008-09-21, 12:43 PM
Waraxe
It looks like Dwarven Weapon Training gives proficiency in this (As well as Execution Axe, Craghammer, and Mordenkrad), is there anything that contradicts this?

Someone asked about the DWT and Eladrin Soldier feats and whether or not they give proficiency in ALL of their respective weapon categories (hammers, axes, spears, etc.) over in the Simple Q&A by RAW thread recently. Based on the wording, I think the RAW is that the feats do indeed give you proficiency in superior weapons of those types, though I feel like the RAI might be that you should need the specific EWP feat to use them.

EDIT: Well, looks like Grynning was the one that asked over in the Q&A thread. I still stick by my answer both here and there.

Grynning
2008-09-21, 12:47 PM
Based on the wording, I think the RAW is that the feats do indeed give you proficiency in superior weapons of those types, though I feel like the RAI might be that you should need the specific EWP feat to use them.

I think for my campaign I will house-rule that the feats give you proficiency in all martial Axes/Hammer or Spears, and ONE Superior version that fluff-wise makes sense for your racial history (I.E. Eladrin cannot learn the Urgrosh from taking that feat, even though it's a "spear", Dwarves would be limited to one of the ones with Dwarven fluff, not the Execution Axe, etc.). I doubt it will come up since we'll only have one Dwarf and I don't think he'll try to cheese it.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-21, 12:55 PM
Parrying Dagger
Is it worth it? Is it worth the feat for the extra +1 to AC while wielding what is basically a dagger in the offhand:

Overall, no, the feat isn't worth it (because you have better options). Furthermore, wizards and warlocks can't use a parrying dagger that way, because then they'd have to wield a weapon in their primary hand as well, which means they can't use an implement.

Grynning
2008-09-21, 12:57 PM
Furthermore, wizards and warlocks can't use a parrying dagger that way, because then they'd have to wield a weapon in their primary hand as well, which means they can't use an implement.

Unless the Warlock is using a Pact Blade/Hammer/Sword, or if the Wizard goes the Wizard of the Spiral Tower PP.

RTGoodman
2008-09-21, 01:00 PM
I think for my campaign I will house-rule that the feats give you proficiency in all martial Axes/Hammer or Spears, and ONE Superior version that fluff-wise makes sense for your racial history (I.E. Eladrin cannot learn the Urgrosh from taking that feat, even though it's a "spear", Dwarves would be limited to one of the ones with Dwarven fluff, not the Execution Axe, etc.). I doubt it will come up since we'll only have one Dwarf and I don't think he'll try to cheese it.

I think that's probably a good houserule, and I honestly think the feats will eventually be errata'd as such (or, at least similar). Really, if they do errata the feats they'll probably give proficiency in JUST military weapons of your type, and you'd still have to take EWP for each superior weapon you want to wield.

Burley
2008-09-22, 10:22 AM
Overall, no, the feat isn't worth it (because you have better options). Furthermore, wizards and warlocks can't use a parrying dagger that way, because then they'd have to wield a weapon in their primary hand as well, which means they can't use an implement.

Aside from the options that Grynning gave, there's also the staff. A staff wizard would benefit greatly from the parrying dagger. The staff can work as a weapon, and his +1 to AC goes to +2. That's a really great deal, in my opinion.

ColdSepp
2008-09-22, 10:41 AM
I asked this in the FAQ by RAW thread and no one seemed to be able to say that Dwarven Weapon Training and Eladrin Soldier didn't give you proficiency with the superior weapons that matched the types listed. It would seem that they do.

I asked Cust Serv, and they said that those feats do give you proficiency in Superior weapons.

Grynning
2008-09-22, 12:05 PM
Aside from the options that Grynning gave, there's also the staff. A staff wizard would benefit greatly from the parrying dagger. The staff can work as a weapon, and his +1 to AC goes to +2. That's a really great deal, in my opinion.

Except a staff is a two-handed weapon. You can't wield it and the dagger at the same time. Now, if you were a staff wizard who went Wizard of the Spiral Tower, and spent the feats to get proficiency with the Parrying Dagger and the two-weapon defense feat, yes, your AC would be quite high.


I asked Cust Serv, and they said that those feats do give you proficiency in Superior weapons.

Well, good to have that cleared up I suppose. I'll probably still use my houserule though, otherwise Dwarves will have access to way more weapon proficiencies than everyone else.

Asbestos
2008-09-22, 05:27 PM
Well, good to have that cleared up I suppose. I'll probably still use my houserule though, otherwise Dwarves will have access to way more weapon proficiencies than everyone else.

Yeah, also makes the racial training feats go from 'hm, that's neat' to 'must have'. Prior to this ruling I saw the feats as being primarily for those classes that 'needed' some sort of extra weapon training (i.e those that only have simple weapon prof. to start with) and that those classes already trained in martial weapons were just getting a nice little boost to what they already have. Now they become feats that're awesome for all classes! Why would my dwarven cleric even bother with a battleaxe or maul anymore when he can just go waraxe or mordenkrand? My eldarin warlord also never ends up using a longspear and goes straight for the greatspear. They both gain a darn high increase in damage on nearly all attacks from just one feat. I'll probably adopt your houserule, Grynning, but likely not even allow the one superior weapon bit, characters will need to pick those up like everyone else. Hopefully a similar rule is put out in the next errata or else we've already drifted towards unbalancing things.

tbarrie
2008-09-22, 05:30 PM
They make you look stupid as heck, too.

The Urgrosh I can sort of see working. Maybe.

For that matter, the Dire Flail is suffciently ridiculous to make the Double Axe and Double Sword look kind of reasonable by comparison. Which may be why they kept it around.:)

Asbestos
2008-09-22, 10:37 PM
The Urgrosh I can sort of see working. Maybe.

For that matter, the Dire Flail is suffciently ridiculous to make the Double Axe and Double Sword look kind of reasonable by comparison. Which may be why they kept it around.:)

The Dire Flail is like a hybrid between a three-section staff and a manriki-gusari. Urgrosh and Double Sword make good enough sense if you just view them as polearms with an added bottom point, double sword is really just a staff with blades on the end. All three of those have existed historically, more or less. The Double Axe is the one that's just silly.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-22, 10:41 PM
The Dire Flail is like a hybrid between a three-section staff and a manriki-gusari. Urgrosh and Double Sword make good enough sense if you just view them as polearms with an added bottom point, double sword is really just a staff with blades on the end. All three of those have existed historically, more or less. The Double Axe is the one that's just silly.

Here's something I've never understood: how the heck are you supposed to sheathe a Double Sword?

I mean, what do Double Sword wielders do with it when they're not killing folks? Carrying it like a regular polearm would be awful for the bottom blade, and there's no way you could strap it across your back without killing yourself... did it have some sort of wooden bottom sheathe that you just dropped when you needed to use both sides?

The worst part is that the grip is small enough that you couldn't really carry like a polearm even if you had some sort of wooden bottom sheathe.

Seriously, this has always confused me. Anyone else? :smallconfused:

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2008-09-22, 10:48 PM
Seriously, this has always confused me. Anyone else? :smallconfused:
Naw, whenever my group used a double sword I always told them to let Darth Maul die. :P

A double sword is just one of those weapons you don't sheathe I guess.

quillbreaker
2008-09-23, 12:32 AM
Here's something I've never understood: how the heck are you supposed to sheathe a Double Sword?

I mean, what do Double Sword wielders do with it when they're not killing folks? Carrying it like a regular polearm would be awful for the bottom blade, and there's no way you could strap it across your back without killing yourself... did it have some sort of wooden bottom sheathe that you just dropped when you needed to use both sides?


Emphasis mine.

You say "did it have" like someone ever wielded one of these monstrosities. Do these things originate from any historical period ever?

Your best bet would be to segment it in the middle - then you can separate it and carry it like a pair of spears.

Asbestos
2008-09-23, 01:57 AM
Emphasis mine.

You say "did it have" like someone ever wielded one of these monstrosities. Do these things originate from any historical period ever?


They do and they don't. Like I said earlier its just a staff with blades on both ends. This has been done http://books.google.com/books?id=SBENHIwJshMC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=double+headed+spear&source=web&ots=9mGfsRzPum&sig=qp4JQUw-hZzbtCdF9YUR4p5stog&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA26,M1 though it was spear heads instead of full on sword blades. That link also has some examples of the more goofy polearms (see page 45 if you want to see a real monstrosity and that thing that looks like a watermelon on a stick on page 27? wtf China?)

RTGoodman
2008-09-23, 02:04 AM
Here's something I've never understood: how the heck are you supposed to sheathe a Double Sword?

I always figured you DON'T sheathe the thing - you just end up walking around with it in your hand all the time, lookin' all goofy. Sorta like Kikuchiyo and his GIGANTIC sword in "Seven Samurai."

Burley
2008-09-23, 09:10 AM
I'm gonna say... Spring loaded mechanism, flashy lights and mirrors, and a box full of rats.
First, lights and mirrors puts the audience in a state of awe. Now that they are susceptable to being startled, you unleash the rats. Then, use the spring loaded mechanism to laungh the Double Sword over the horizon. Then, you get the Quarter staff you were hiding the whole time and say, "Look, I finished!" Everybody will clap and probably buy you a drink.

To unsheathe, repeat the process: Lights, awe, rats, distracted audience, launch, reveal the double sword you had hidden the entire time.

Make sure you have Quick Draw, because, logically, you can't do all that during a move action.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-23, 11:28 AM
I always figured you DON'T sheathe the thing - you just end up walking around with it in your hand all the time, lookin' all goofy. Sorta like Kikuchiyo and his GIGANTIC sword in "Seven Samurai."

Yeah, but the thing with a giant sword is it's only sharp on one end, and it has a long grip so you can sling it over your shoulder.

A Double Sword? It has a short grip in the middle, so if your hand slips you'll just cut yourself on the bottom blade. And the darn things almost have to be double-edged to even be remotely effective, so the bottom blade is just going to chop you up if you walk with it over your shoulder or something.

Now, the double spear is wacky enough, but you can see how it was supposed to work - you can flip your grip in case you do some of the wacky flippy moves with the spear, and instead of a blunt end, you have the sharp end. But that thing has to be loads lighter than a double-sword and it had plenty of haft to hold.

I'm sad, but not surprised, that nobody can figure out how you're supposed to sheathe that thing. :smalltongue:

RTGoodman
2008-09-23, 11:56 AM
A Double Sword? It has a short grip in the middle, so if your hand slips you'll just cut yourself on the bottom blade. And the darn things almost have to be double-edged to even be remotely effective, so the bottom blade is just going to chop you up if you walk with it over your shoulder or something.

Yeah, that's why you just hold it in one hand out in front of you all day. Resting something on your shoulder is for pansies - you've gotta just carry it the whole time.

And actually, the only double-sword I could conceive of even being close to possible would be like a double scimitar with the blades curving in opposite directions, and even THAT is a big stretch. If you've got one of those, though, you should be able to put it over your shoulder (assuming you've got it turned the right way :smallbiggrin:).

Asbestos
2008-09-23, 02:53 PM
Attach an over the shoulder carrying strap with ends secured at the base of each blade, could be either left on or removed by just slipping it off the blades. If you're not in a hurry, say not throwing the sword over your shoulder so you can book it, you can take a little extra time to slip some sort of sheathe over each blade. The extra sheathe over the blade should also apply to pretty much all axes and spears since even when stowed the pointy ends will be exposed to the elements... and your clumsiness.

Colmarr
2008-09-23, 05:27 PM
Attach an over the shoulder carrying strap with ends secured at the base of each blade, could be either left on or removed by just slipping it off the blades. If you're not in a hurry, say not throwing the sword over your shoulder so you can book it, you can take a little extra time to slip some sort of sheathe over each blade. The extra sheathe over the blade should also apply to pretty much all axes and spears since even when stowed the pointy ends will be exposed to the elements... and your clumsiness.

I think you're onto something. A "sheathe" for a double sword wouldn't be a sheathe in the normal sense of the word. It's probably be two leather covers that are slipped over each blade, and the whole weapon is then slung over the shoulder like a spear or 2h sword.

Drawing a double sword from it's sheathe would not be a minor action if verissimilitude were to be maintained.

The only problem with that is the double swords are normally depicted without hilts and the question then is "how do you hold the leather covers in place"?

The other option is to carry the double sword like you would a javelin - have a quiver-like container on your back to slip the sword into. You'd need to be careful pulling it back out (it has cutting blades rather than just a piercing tip) but it's a workable solution.

Grynning
2008-09-23, 07:49 PM
http://sdf.kag.org/images/batleth.jpg

That's a workable double-sword/axe design that I'm sure a lot of people are familiar with.

I think a lot of the hate for double weapons is the fault of D&D artists, who always draw them as completely unusable monstrosities. Granted, double weapons aren't really practical, but with a little imagination you can at least come up with ideas for ones that would be plausible. A "double-sword" does not have to be just two swords taped together in the middle as a lot of people seem to think.

Edit: On the topic of sheathes: Historically, many weapons were carried without a sheath, especially greatswords. They also weren't meant to be carried around all the time, because the real world isn't like D&D (i.e. you don't go around armed and armored all the time...because it would be very uncomfortable and impractical).

Grynning
2008-09-23, 08:08 PM
Also, just as a follow up, an example of a double-weapon from the real world, the monk's spade. This would essentially be a double-axe in D&D world.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Monk-Spade.jpg

Townopolis
2008-09-23, 08:23 PM
You could also fluff them as paired weapons, much like butterfly knives or paired Chinese broadswords.

Paired flails really don't work though.

Asbestos
2008-09-23, 10:44 PM
Paired flails really don't work though.

Nunchucks?