PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Double Sword For Rogues? What the heck?



Swiftest
2008-10-24, 11:41 AM
Ok, so I am noticing increasing numbers of rogue builds (especially on the Wizard forums) using double swords. I suspect that one of the new online supplements (Gladiator Combat or something?) that came out since Wizard made D&D Insider a pay-to-view product (as of last week) is responsible for this craziness, but I'm not sure. Does anyone know for sure where this is coming from?

From what I can see, no rogue should have any business wielding a double sword. They don't start with proficiency and even if they take the feat they still can't sneak attack with it, right? It isn't a light blade! If something is allowing it, how does the build work? I don't feel like paying Wizards for a monthly subscription to D&D insider before I have some idea (beyond the teensy blurb of text) of what the new content they're making me pay for is all about.

JaxGaret
2008-10-24, 11:54 AM
It isn't a light blade!

Here is where you are in error. A Double Sword is in fact a Light Blade (as well as being a Heavy Blade).

Myshlaevsky
2008-10-24, 11:54 AM
Here is where you are in error. A Double Sword is in fact a Light Blade (as well as being a Heavy Blade).

One half of it, anyway.

I like the Double Sword. Seems like a neat fancy weapon, and it's not particularly superior to a rapier, so it's a flavour thing.

JaxGaret
2008-10-24, 11:56 AM
One half of it, anyway.

It doesn't actually state that in the rules text. By RAW, a Double Sword is both a Light Blade and a Heavy Blade, regardless of which end you use, or if you use both ends.

However, if your DM rules it that way, it makes no difference for the question at hand, as your Rogue powers are only going to utilize the Light Blade half anyway.

Myshlaevsky
2008-10-24, 11:57 AM
It doesn't actually state that in the rules text. However, if your DM rules it that way, it makes no difference, as your Rogue powers are only going to utilize the Light Blade half anyway.

Yeah, I'm aware that is an entirely DM ruling. Both blades being Light and Heavy kind of makes me whinge, though.

Hzurr
2008-10-24, 12:01 PM
It doesn't actually state that in the rules text. By RAW, a Double Sword is both a Light Blade and a Heavy Blade, regardless of which end you use,

Hmm...so that makes it a medium blade? Or...hmm...it's a double sword, so we need something more exotic than simply "medium." *glances down at Starbucks cup in hand* Ok, from now on we're refereing to the double sword as a grande blade.

Erk
2008-10-24, 12:02 PM
Yeah, I'm aware that is an entirely DM ruling. Both blades being Light and Heavy kind of makes me whinge, though.

the entire double sword and all double weapons make me wince. Particularly double flail and double axe, which are phenomenally ridiculous. I was really happy when they were omitted from 4e... thanks, AV.

Tengu_temp
2008-10-24, 12:03 PM
I guess someone at Wizards played Final Fantasy 9.

(For those who haven't - the main character is a thief whose weapons are dual-wielded daggers, and double swords.)

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-24, 12:05 PM
aaaaaaaand another edition of D&D I will be playing "Core Only."

Delightful :smallannoyed:

Myshlaevsky
2008-10-24, 12:09 PM
aaaaaaaand another edition of D&D I will be playing "Core Only."

Delightful :smallannoyed:

In all seriousness? A weapon makes you stick to Core? Mad. :smalltongue:

It's a bit daft, but it's kind of cool as well. Was an Elf rogue that suited it in our game.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-24, 12:14 PM
aaaaaaaand another edition of D&D I will be playing "Core Only."

Delightful :smallannoyed:

Wow, did someone steal your cheerios and pee in your thunder? You don't have to use 100% of every supplement--even 10% of a book can be worthwhile, despite the rest of it being ridiculous.

Erk
2008-10-24, 12:14 PM
aaaaaaaand another edition of D&D I will be playing "Core Only."

Delightful :smallannoyed:
Or just pick and choose by your players, if you are the DM. If you think double weapons are ridiculous, tell any player who wants a proficiency in them that they don't exist in your world.

JaxGaret
2008-10-24, 12:16 PM
If you think double weapons are ridiculous, tell any player who wants a proficiency in them that they don't exist in your world.

Or, y'know, keep the mechanics and reflavor it however you want.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-24, 12:18 PM
In all seriousness? A weapon makes you stick to Core? Mad. :smalltongue:

It's a bit daft, but it's kind of cool as well. Was an Elf rogue that suited it in our game.

Well, AV in general.

At the moment, all of the weapons in the PHB are of some use to someone. Now, from what I've heard from leaks, it seems like a lot of the PHB weapons are strictly worse than the AV equivalents. It always annoys me when WotC starts releasing supplements that invalidate previous books.

Also: double weapons are silly, and a double sword that is both a light blade and a heavy blade seems to remove the weapon restriction on Sneak Attack... which was there to emphasize the finesse needed to pull those off. Can it really be argued that a weapon as unwieldy as a double sword is able to be as precise as, say, a dagger? Or, to flip it around, that a battleaxe is less precise than a double sword? Or a longsword for that matter?

EDIT:
Hooray for provoking responses! :smalltongue:

In all seriousness, the unwinding of the apparent design choices made in Core by expansions is a worrying feature of WotC-run D&D. I had kind of hoped they had learned from 3e, but it seems that they have not.

Myshlaevsky
2008-10-24, 12:20 PM
Well, AV in general.

At the moment, all of the weapons in the PHB are of some use to someone. Now, from what I've heard from leaks, it seems like a lot of the PHB weapons are strictly worse than the AV equivalents. It always annoys me when WotC starts releasing supplements that invalidate previous books.

Also: double weapons are silly, and a double sword that is both a light blade and a heavy blade seems to remove the weapon restriction on Sneak Attack... which was there to emphasize the finesse needed to pull those off. Can it really be argued that a weapon as unwieldy as a double sword is able to be as precise as, say, a dagger? Or, to flip it around, that a battleaxe is less precise than a double sword? Or a longsword for that matter?

Tip: Remove Brutal.

Swiftest
2008-10-24, 12:23 PM
Apparently wielding a double sword also grants the wielder +1 ac? Or is that by way of the Two Weapon Defense feat? I don't have the AV here at work to stare at.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-24, 12:24 PM
Tip: Remove Brutal.

Yes, exactly. However, at what point have you removed enough of the stuff in a new book that it just doesn't seem worth using at all?

DM: Okay guys, you can use Adventurer's Vault. But you can't use double weapons or brutal weapons, and "superior" weapons require their own proficiencies - even if you take a racial feat that would suggest otherwise.

PCs: So... what's left?

DM: *shrug*

For that matter, what else is there in AV?

Fax Celestis
2008-10-24, 12:24 PM
In all seriousness, the unwinding of the apparent design choices made in Core by expansions is a worrying feature of WotC-run D&D. I had kind of hoped they had learned from 3e, but it seems that they have not.

What does that even mean?

Starbuck_II
2008-10-24, 12:24 PM
Wow, did someone steal your cheerios and pee in your thunder? You don't have to use 100% of every supplement--even 10% of a book can be worthwhile, despite the rest of it being ridiculous.

Wait, someone pees thunder?
That would be so cool.

Myshlaevsky
2008-10-24, 12:26 PM
Yes, exactly. However, at what point have you removed enough of the stuff in a new book that it just doesn't seem worth using at all?

DM: Okay guys, you can use Adventurer's Vault. But you can't use double weapons or brutal weapons, and "superior" weapons require their own proficiencies - even if you take a racial feat that would suggest otherwise.

PCs: So... what's left?

DM: *shrug*

All the mounts, alchemy and magic items?

I've always played that those weapons require proficiency, and removing Brutal does away with many of the overpowered weapons. I don't mind double weapons, so I'd keep them in.

There's my personal edit, IMO it's worth reading and deciding what you yourself would keep and lose.

Asbestos
2008-10-24, 12:27 PM
Well, AV in general.

At the moment, all of the weapons in the PHB are of some use to someone. Now, from what I've heard from leaks, it seems like a lot of the PHB weapons are strictly worse than the AV equivalents. It always annoys me when WotC starts releasing supplements that invalidate previous books.

Also: double weapons are silly, and a double sword that is both a light blade and a heavy blade seems to remove the weapon restriction on Sneak Attack... which was there to emphasize the finesse needed to pull those off. Can it really be argued that a weapon as unwieldy as a double sword is able to be as precise as, say, a dagger? Or, to flip it around, that a battleaxe is less precise than a double sword? Or a longsword for that matter?

EDIT:
Hooray for provoking responses! :smalltongue:

In all seriousness, the unwinding of the apparent design choices made in Core by expansions is a worrying feature of WotC-run D&D. I had kind of hoped they had learned from 3e, but it seems that they have not.

Well, within their various classes (simple, martial, superior) the weapons all seem balanced against each other. Personally I would probably still pick a longsword (+3, 1d8) over a broadsword (+2, 1d10) or khopesh (+2, 1d8, brutal 1) because it has the best to hit. The only problem I see is that the Eldarin and Dwarven weapon training feats need to be re-tweaked in light of the "must have" superior spears, axes, and hammers.

Purely using the printed books... I can't see any mechanical reason for a rogue to prefer a two-handed sword. My guess is that some random feat or paragon path in the Dragon feature the OP mentioned has made the choice more attractive. That being said, I should add in the disclaimer of "more attractive to optimizers".

Edit: The brutal mordekrand (or however that's spelled) is the only brutal weapon that comes across as truly overpowered to me. I mean, I know its 'supposed' to be more damaging than the execution axe because the axe also has high crit, but your damage roll range is 6-12 vs the axe's 3-12. This seems patently more ridiculous than the non-brutal ranges of 2-12 and 1-12. The other brutals... eh, they don't really seem that absurd, I mean, look at the Khopesh vs Broadsword/Battleaxe, don't they average out damage wise? Mind you, I didn't do any serious math here, just some very quick number crunching.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-24, 12:33 PM
I'm more concerned that anyone uses double swords than that Rogues do. WotC needs to learn, if it wasn't a real-world weapon, there's probably a reason. Double swords are idiotic.

JaxGaret
2008-10-24, 12:36 PM
All the mounts, alchemy and magic items.

Right. You can ban the entire weapons section of the AV, and you've lost what, 5 pages of a 225 page book?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-24, 12:37 PM
What does that even mean?

So, some 3e examples.

(1) Sneak Attacks
Core: Rogues can't use Sneak Attacks against undead, golems, oozes, or other creatures without weak points that can be taken advantage of.

Expansion: ...unless you take a feat. That makes it all better.

(2) Classes
Core: Monks are masters of unarmed combat, Paladins are warriors for Good and Justice, and Rogues are masters of deception and striking at weak points.

Expansion: ...and by "Monks" we meant "Unarmed Swordsages," "Paladins" means "Crusaders" and "Rogues" means "Scouts."

(3) Paladins again
Core: Paladins are special, LG holy warriors of certain LG deities. In return for their divine blessings, they must rigorously adhere to a strict Code and be eternally vigilant about their state of grace.

Expansion: ...except for Paladins of Freedom, who are held to much lower standards. They get pretty much the same powers though, so it's all cool.

In short, WotC seems to establish a basis for a system with some basic assumptions of how the world operates, and then starts chipping away at those assumptions with each new expansion. Why are there Paladins in a world with Crusaders? Is concentration really important for spellcasters, if they all can use some other skill to prevent their spells from being spoiled? Does CON really improve your Fort save if a feat allows you to substitute another stat for it?

IMHO, this sort of activity makes it much harder to keep the whole "rules universe" together, and puts unnecessary stress on the DM as mastery of the rules becomes more important than mastery of the story.

EDIT:

Right. You can ban the entire weapons section of the AV, and you've lost what, 5 pages of a 225 page book?

Y'know, fair enough.

I guess I've just been burned by Codex Creep so many times that I shy away from any evidence of it. And last I saw the Alchemy rules, they looked pretty reasonable.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-24, 12:38 PM
I'm more concerned that anyone uses double swords than that Rogues do. WotC needs to learn, if it wasn't a real-world weapon, there's probably a reason. Double swords are idiotic.

...

I don't have a pic of an old one, but they were used. Next you'll tell me punching daggers and chakram are ridiculous.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-24, 12:43 PM
So, some 3e examples.

(1) Sneak Attacks
Core: Rogues can't use Sneak Attacks against undead, golems, oozes, or other creatures without weak points that can be taken advantage of.

Expansion: ...unless you take a feat. That makes it all better.

(2) Classes
Core: Monks are masters of unarmed combat, Paladins are warriors for Good and Justice, and Rogues are masters of deception and striking at weak points.

Expansion: ...and by "Monks" we meant "Unarmed Swordsages," "Paladins" means "Crusaders" and "Rogues" means "Scouts."

(3) Paladins again
Core: Paladins are special, LG holy warriors of certain LG deities. In return for their divine blessings, they must rigorously adhere to a strict Code and be eternally vigilant about their state of grace.

Expansion: ...except for Paladins of Freedom, who are held to much lower standards. They get pretty much the same powers though, so it's all cool.

In short, WotC seems to establish a basis for a system with some basic assumptions of how the world operates, and then starts chipping away at those assumptions with each new expansion. Why are there Paladins in a world with Crusaders? Is concentration really important for spellcasters, if they all can use some other skill to prevent their spells from being spoiled? Does CON really improve your Fort save if a feat allows you to substitute another stat for it?

IMHO, this sort of activity makes it much harder to keep the whole "rules universe" together, and puts unnecessary stress on the DM as mastery of the rules becomes more important than mastery of the story.
That's "fixing inherent flaws with the base assumptions" ("sneak attack is hella damage!"), not "chipping away at the system". In particular, ToB and ToM were released explicitly to provide a fix the fighter-wizard power disparity.

That's not to say you have to know such material backwards and forwards--most DMs have players they can trust.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-10-24, 12:44 PM
Most of those things in 3e you mentioned were pretty much WotC dealing with the fact that core sucked game balance-wise, or that mediocre classes had annoying restrictions. They could have radically erratad the core classes to deal with it, or they could make up new more parable classes, bundle them with a bunch of crap prestige classes, and made ludicrous amounts of money selling supplemental sourcebooks. You do the math.

EDIT: wot Fax said.

Asbestos
2008-10-24, 12:45 PM
...

I don't have a pic of an old one, but they were used. Next you'll tell me punching daggers and chakram are ridiculous.

They totally are :smallwink: Also, who in the world would ever ever use a Kyoketsu shoge, kusarigama, or any of those other nuts looking Japanese weapons?

Hm.. I'm really curious to see what it is in Dragon 368 that makes rogues think they can get away wielding what is essentially a polearm. If only it didn't cost me money!

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-24, 12:46 PM
That's "fixing inherent flaws with the base assumptions" ("sneak attack is hella damage!"), not "chipping away at the system". In particular, ToB and ToM were released explicitly to provide a fix the fighter-wizard power disparity.

That's not to say you have to know such material backwards and forwards--most DMs have players they can trust.

Meh. If you're going to change the fundamentals of a system, you should release a new edition. Prune out the old, bad stuff and see how the new stuff hangs together.

Sure, I'm happy that WotC released ToB and ToM so that they could get actual experience with those types of rules (I've become highly suspicious of WotC's internal playtesting process :smallannoyed:) but pretending that you're adding an "expansion" rather than a "patch" and making people pay money for the "patch" just rubs me wrong.

At least with a new edition, everyone knows where they stand.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-24, 12:52 PM
Meh. If you're going to change the fundamentals of a system, you should release a new edition. Prune out the old, bad stuff and see how the new stuff hangs together.

...

At least with a new edition, everyone knows where they stand.

Yes. Some people stand with the old edition; other people stand with the "screw this they're after me wallets" sign. New editions cost customers and cost money. Fixing an existing system satisfies some customers, perturbs others--but who cares since they've already bought what they're going to--and costs far less than developing a new edition.

Besides, if we went with that ideal--'make a new system when you find something wrong with the game'--we'd be on D&D v12.6 now, not 4.0.

Erk
2008-10-24, 12:53 PM
Yes, exactly. However, at what point have you removed enough of the stuff in a new book that it just doesn't seem worth using at all?

DM: Okay guys, you can use Adventurer's Vault. But you can't use double weapons or brutal weapons, and "superior" weapons require their own proficiencies - even if you take a racial feat that would suggest otherwise.

PCs: So... what's left?

DM: *shrug*

For that matter, what else is there in AV?

Interesting... I have always required Superior Proficiency to be one-weapon-only. I don't find the superior weapons in AV to be imbalanced with that rule; besides, as GM I am the arbiter of what magic items the characters find and what they can buy. if I find the Executioner's Axe too darned good, they are just not going to come across one, and I will let the player looking at it know that before he wastes a feat. It hardly invalidates the rest of AV, which is in general a well balanced and good book. With that many items, it's inevitable that a few would be too powerful or too weak for a given game

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-24, 01:02 PM
Interesting... I have always required Superior Proficiency to be one-weapon-only.

This came from the Eladrin Soldier and Dwarven Weapons Training feats that give the character proficiency with longswords & spears and axes & hammers, respectively.

With the Eladrin, it can be argued that any weapon with the "spear" description should count (e.g. longspear). But for Dwarves, it seems to say that any "axe" or "hammer" should count, since there is no such thing as a "axe" or "hammer" to be proficient in (unlike the "longsword" example).

Dwarves, therefore, should be proficient with Executioner's Axes if they take Dwarven Weapon Training, which means they will never use a Greataxe. Why should they?

Blackfang108
2008-10-24, 01:03 PM
Wow, did someone steal your cheerios and pee in your thunder? You don't have to use 100% of every supplement--even 10% of a book can be worthwhile, despite the rest of it being ridiculous.

Ahh, Breakfast in the rain.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-24, 01:05 PM
...

I don't have a pic of an old one, but they were used. Next you'll tell me punching daggers and chakram are ridiculous....How? It seems like you'd be restricted to the angles of attack of a polearm, but without the ability to adjust your grip as much.

Swiftest
2008-10-24, 01:05 PM
Apparently wielding a double sword also grants the wielder +1 ac? Or is that by way of the Two Weapon Defense feat? I don't have the AV here at work to stare at.

Anyone? So many responses and nobody notices the poor OP's second question. *cries*. From what I recall, the double sword is a +3 1d8/1d8 double weapon that has (as I now understand it) the properties of both a light and heavy blade. Are there any other properties than that? Is there a mystical +1 AC somehow granted by the weapon? I own the freakin' AV, too ... it's just at home =(.

Incidentally -- I, too, feel unnerved by the apparent reappearance of power creep in 4e ... and so soon, too? I think Wizards should've taken it a lot slower with the insanely strong items ... but meh. They've taken the first step, now, and all that's left for us is to wait for future books to see if they continue the trend or nip it in the bud. I fervently hope for the latter.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-24, 01:08 PM
Ahh, Breakfast in the rain.

It cheers me to see the Schlock quote used so often, but I think a link (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20030223.html) may be in order. :smalltongue:

EDIT:

Anyone? So many responses and nobody notices the poor OP's second question. *cries*. From what I recall, the double sword is a +3 1d8/1d8 double weapon that has (as I now understand it) the properties of both a light and heavy blade. Are there any other properties than that? Is there a mystical +1 AC somehow granted by the weapon? I own the freakin' AV, too ... it's just at home =(.

I believe that's the new "Defensive" weapon quality. I believe it has other restrictions, but I think many Double Weapons and Paired Weapons have those qualities.

Clearly, I don't have an AV, but I do read the threads :smallcool:

Fax Celestis
2008-10-24, 01:08 PM
Why should they?

Because their DM doesn't give them any? Because all the treasure they find is greataxes? Because weaponscrafters are forbidden from crafting them by imperial command? Take your pick.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-24, 01:10 PM
...How? It seems like you'd be restricted to the angles of attack of a polearm, but without the ability to adjust your grip as much.

It's like a bladed quarterstaff.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-24, 01:14 PM
Because their DM doesn't give them any? Because all the treasure they find is greataxes? Because weaponscrafters are forbidden from crafting them by imperial command? Take your pick.

OK, so why don't the dwarves have a stockpile of these weapons? Why would they bother making Greataxes at all, if Executioner's Axes are strictly better than Greataxes. Heck, for the cost of a feat, they can both use the Executioner's Axe and get an extra +2 to damage with it.

Shouldn't the dwarven army have these in spades? If not, why? "Imperial Law" is good and all, but there is going to be some hefty pressure by any dwarves around to make these weapons, particularly if they're already trained in them.

Or you can houserule the limitation on the feat. Or prevent the Executioner's Axe from existing at all.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-24, 01:15 PM
Or you can houserule the limitation on the feat. Or prevent the Executioner's Axe from existing at all.

Remember how I said "Because the DM doesn't give you any?" Yeah. This is what I meant.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-24, 01:20 PM
Remember how I said "Because the DM doesn't give you any?" Yeah. This is what I meant.

Bingo.

My argument is that, by RAW, Executioner's Axes should be the sole weapon used by Dwarven Soldiers (who don't use shields). So, either you need a convoluted reason why they don't use them, or you houserule it so that it no longer makes sense for them to use it.

I am not saying it's hard to keep them out of the hands of PCs, but when there is strictly superior equipment available, it is hard to understand why the NPCs don't arm themselves with it... particularly the military.

One "houserule" is just adventure design. The other "houserule" involves world design, and therefore the actual altering of the rules the players live by.

I, for one, don't like using any system which requires me to maintain a binder worth of houserules to use.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-24, 01:23 PM
Bingo.

My argument is that, by RAW, Executioner's Axes should be the sole weapon used by Dwarven Soldiers (who don't use shields). So, either you need a convoluted reason why they don't use them, or you houserule it so that it no longer makes sense for them to use it.

I am not saying it's hard to keep them out of the hands of PCs, but when there is strictly superior equipment available, it is hard to understand why the NPCs don't arm themselves with it... particularly the military.

Not having access to either material, I couldn't tell you the cost-effectiveness of one over the other. Remember, though, if you're equipping 5000 soldiers, a cost of 1 gp difference can equate immense savings. If it's more than that (say, 10 gp per soldier), that's still 50,000 gold--enough to likely buy a castle, some siege weaponry, or similar.

So herein lies the question: would you rather your soldiers deal slightly more damage on average, or have catapults to back them up?

hamishspence
2008-10-24, 01:27 PM
I checked- both are 30gp. Greataxe 12 lb, Execution axe 14 lb.

Closest thing to an explanation is- superior weapon proficiency is relatively rare feat, more common among PCs, and NPC fighters take some all-round utility feat.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-24, 01:30 PM
I checked- both are 30gp. Greataxe 12 lb, Execution axe 14 lb.

Closest thing to an explanation is- superior weapon proficiency is relatively rare feat, more common among PCs, and NPC fighters take some all-round utility feat.

Ha, I knew it! WotC strikes again!

The problem with the explanation is that Dwarven Weapon Training gives Dwarves proficiency with all hammers & axes - and that includes Executioner ones. And it stands to reason that every Dwarven Soldier in the Dwarven Army will have DWT - I mean, isn't that the reason for the feat?

The easiest way to fix this is to houserule that DWT only gives proficiency with Martial & Simple hammers and axes... but that's one more houserule to explain to your players before you begin.

Erk
2008-10-24, 01:31 PM
Not having access to either material, I couldn't tell you the cost-effectiveness of one over the other. Remember, though, if you're equipping 5000 soldiers, a cost of 1 gp difference can equate immense savings. If it's more than that (say, 10 gp per soldier), that's still 50,000 gold--enough to likely buy a castle, some siege weaponry, or similar.

So herein lies the question: would you rather your soldiers deal slightly more damage on average, or have catapults to back them up?

unfortunately, one area I agree WotC screwed the pooch is that most superior weapons cost the same as their regular counterparts. I agree on that being ridiculous, but then, I almost never use textbook pricing in my games so meh.

I never interpreted the racial feats as meaning they granted proficiency with superior weapons, only up to martial. While they do seem that way, I'd argue that goes against RAI for the very reasons you are complaining about. Perhaps we should push for it to be errata'd

hamishspence
2008-10-24, 01:36 PM
I checked- NPCs dont get feats at all. If you don't do everything as PCs, but armies are mostly NPC fighters, no reason to take superior weapons. Because, it costs a feat, either SWP, or Dwarven Weapon Training, to use them fully.

Asbestos
2008-10-24, 01:37 PM
Anyone? So many responses and nobody notices the poor OP's second question. *cries*. From what I recall, the double sword is a +3 1d8/1d8 double weapon that has (as I now understand it) the properties of both a light and heavy blade. Are there any other properties than that? Is there a mystical +1 AC somehow granted by the weapon? I own the freakin' AV, too ... it's just at home =(.

Incidentally -- I, too, feel unnerved by the apparent reappearance of power creep in 4e ... and so soon, too? I think Wizards should've taken it a lot slower with the insanely strong items ... but meh. They've taken the first step, now, and all that's left for us is to wait for future books to see if they continue the trend or nip it in the bud. I fervently hope for the latter.

Alright, I just cracked open the book and checked it out. A double sword is a +3, d8/d8, Heavy blade, Light blade, Defensive, off-hand weapon. Defensive grants a +1 to AC (if you have another melee weapon in the other hand, the Double-sword counts as two weapons so... it satisfies this.) As for the light blade thing, I think that the intent of the rule is that one end is a heavy blade and the other is a light blade, much like the urgosh is Axe, Spear. Presumably rogues are picking it up and using the light blade end to stab things while getting that +1 to AC granted by the weapon being 'defensive'.


I think that the weapon that WotC intended for rogues to take proficiency in is the Parrying Dagger, a +2, d4, defensive, off-hand weapon. It counts as a dagger for the purposes of rogue weapon talent. This would mean that a rogue wielding one normal dagger and one parrying dagger would have...
a +4, d4 weapon in one hand, and a +3, d4 defensive weapon in the other. So, since he's only going to be attacking with the +4 dagger anyway and is only using the light blade end of the double sword to attack the issue is "is a +4, d4 weapon better or worse than a +3, d8 weapon" Nothing else really matters since both examples are giving a +1 to AC and both cost a feat. Hm... the easiest solution is probably just dropping "light blade" from the double sword. With that gone the weapon should still be balanced as a 'superior' weapon for rangers and TWF Fighters (yes, it isn't out yet, but neither are 'Beast Companions' and AV has magic items for them) which are the classes I think it was intended for.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-24, 01:39 PM
I never interpreted the racial feats as meaning they granted proficiency with superior weapons, only up to martial. While they do seem that way, I'd argue that goes against RAI for the very reasons you are complaining about. Perhaps we should push for it to be errata'd

It's hard to argue with the RAW for Dwarven Weapon Training:

You gain proficiency and a +2 feat bonus to damage rolls with axes and hammers.

Since there is no such weapon as an "axe" or a "hammer" it seems this can only refer to the weapon classes of "axe" and "hammer."

Eladrin Soldier is just as bad:

You gain proficiency with all spears and a +2 feat bonus to damage rolls with longswords and all spears.

Why use a Longspear when you could use a Superior Longspear?

No, this is ripe for an Errata, but I hate all the errata'ing that WotC is doing. Yes, it is important to fix a broken game, but WotC has already re-written an entire chapter of the DMG via "errata." Why buy the books at all, if they don't tell you how to play the game?

I'd be happy if, in the next printing of the Core Books, WotC went in and edited them to reflect the Errata. While this screws over the early adopters (in a sense), it would be the fairest thing they could do for their potential customers. Heck, it might even encourage their customer base to buy a whole new set of Core books, just for completeness :smalltongue:

But somehow, I don't see WotC doing this. And for some reason, that ticks me off too.

EDIT:
@Asbestos - oh yeah, Parrying Daggers are made for Rogues, but look here. Rogues can either get Two-Weapon Defense by buying a Parrying Dagger (and presumably the proficiency in it), or they can get TWD & Proficiency (Rapier) for the cost of a single feat.

The choice is clear. Doesn't WotC think about these books before they release them?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-24, 01:44 PM
No, this is ripe for an Errata, but I hate all the errata'ing that WotC is doing. Yes, it is important to fix a broken game, but WotC has already re-written an entire chapter of the DMG via "errata." Why buy the books at all, if they don't tell you how to play the game?I don't even play and I was annoyed that WotC errata'd Blade Cascade to only 5 hits. Errata is to fix errors, not balance. Using it to fix balance means people playing with different errata have different rules.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-24, 01:45 PM
No, this is ripe for an Errata, but I hate all the errata'ing that WotC is doing. Yes, it is important to fix a broken game, but WotC has already re-written an entire chapter of the DMG via "errata." Why buy the books at all, if they don't tell you how to play the game?

I'd be happy if, in the next printing of the Core Books, WotC went in and edited them to reflect the Errata. While this screws over the early adopters (in a sense), it would be the fairest thing they could do for their potential customers. Heck, it might even encourage their customer base to buy a whole new set of Core books, just for completeness :smalltongue:

But somehow, I don't see WotC doing this. And for some reason, that ticks me off too.

Do you remember the uproar over the 3.5e Rules Compendium? The cries of "I already HAVE this book! It's called the DMG!" Doing this would be like that, but worse. Gamers are a fickle bunch.

Asbestos
2008-10-24, 01:47 PM
I don't even play and I was annoyed that WotC errata'd Blade Cascade to only 5 hits. Errata is to fix errors, not balance. Using it to fix balance means people playing with different errata have different rules.

I think it could be argued that something that causes such an unbalance is an error. Also, where do people get different errata? WotC is the only source of it and the most current errata is right there for anyone to take a look at.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-24, 01:48 PM
I don't even play and I was annoyed that WotC errata'd Blade Cascade to only 5 hits. Errata is to fix errors, not balance. Using it to fix balance means people playing with different errata have different rules.

Well, I'm OK with them using Errata to fix balance issues, but I'm irritated with the sheer number of "balance errata" entries so far. It's why I wonder (loudly) whether WotC play tests anything they release.

I mean, the Orcus Slayer took, what, less than a week after the release of 4e to make? And they re-wrote the entire Skill Challenge chapter a month or two after release. Next up should be "errata'ing" the Demigod Epic Destiny, I'm sure :smalltongue:

EDIT:

Do you remember the uproar over the 3.5e Rules Compendium? The cries of "I already HAVE this book! It's called the DMG!" Doing this would be like that, but worse. Gamers are a fickle bunch.

Maybe, maybe not. While I don't actually remember the uproar ('cause I wasn't paying attention at the time) I imagine that a reprint would be slightly different, if for no other reason than the re-printed books would be made anyways (WotC has to run out of their current printing run sometime) and Errata are supposed to be "corrections" to the initial rules, not suggested alternate rules or a fusion of "expansion rules."

But perhaps you can enlighten me more on the original debacle?

Starsinger
2008-10-24, 01:51 PM
oh yeah, Parrying Daggers are made for Rogues, but look here. Rogues can either get Two-Weapon Defense by buying a Parrying Dagger (and presumably the proficiency in it), or they can get TWD & Proficiency (Rapier) for the cost of a single feat.

Wait what? What's this awesome feat that I'm missing where you can get TWD & Proficiency Rapier?

As for Dwarf-Eladrin soldier it's interesting to note that in the player's handbook, there are no Superior axes or spears, and such feats are select "Martial Weapon Training".

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-24, 01:55 PM
Wait what? What's this awesome feat that I'm missing where you can get TWD & Proficiency Rapier?

As for Dwarf-Eladrin soldier it's interesting to note that in the player's handbook, there are no Superior axes or spears, and such feats are select "Martial Weapon Training".

Look at the Double Sword.

A d8/d8 Heavy/Light Blade that is Defensive (+1 to AC when wielded) and has a +3 proficiency bonus.

A Rapier is a +3 Light Blade that does d8 damage.
TWD gives you +1 AC (and +1 Reflex I just remembered :smallredface:).

So, I guess Proficiency (Double Blade) would actually only give you a Rapier and 1/2 TWD, but in both cases you get to skip out on TWF, which is the "Dodge" of 4e :smalltongue:

EDIT:
As for your note on Dwarven Weapon Training, this is true. However, this just points to more sloppy craftsmanship on WotC's part. Don't say "all X" unless you mean "all X." And if you plan to create expansions, don't use "all X" unless you really mean it.

JaxGaret
2008-10-24, 01:57 PM
The Double Sword can also be used as a Heavy Blade, in case anything you want keys off of that. So it's a bit more than Prof:Rapier + 1/2 TWD.

Starsinger
2008-10-24, 01:59 PM
Look at the Double Sword.

A d8/d8 Heavy/Light Blade that is Defensive (+1 to AC when wielded) and has a +3 proficiency bonus.

A Rapier is a +3 Light Blade that does d8 damage.
TWD gives you +1 AC (and +1 Reflex I just remembered :smallredface:).

So, I guess Proficiency (Double Blade) would actually only give you a Rapier and 1/2 TWD, but in both cases you get to skip out on TWF, which is the "Dodge" of 4e :smalltongue:

Ahh.. yeah. That's true, of course, to be honest, the Rapier is a horrible weapon. The only "superior" thing about the Rapier is that it's a 1d8 lightblade. IMO I'd rather have the rapier have innate weapon finesse "You may use your dexterity modifier with basic attacks." or something because, as is the Rapier is crap. I had a hard enough time justifying it's (in 4e low) cost of a feat before AV.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-24, 02:00 PM
The Double Sword can also be used as a Heavy Blade, in case anything you want keys off of that. So it's a bit more than Prof:Rapier + 1/2 TWD.

Which is great with MC Fighter.

BTW, is the Defensive bonus a Shield bonus? If not, then actual TWD would stack too :smallamused:

EDIT:

Ahh.. yeah. That's true, of course, to be honest, the Rapier is a horrible weapon. The only "superior" thing about the Rapier is that it's a 1d8 lightblade. IMO I'd rather have the rapier have innate weapon finesse "You may use your dexterity modifier with basic attacks." or something because, as is the Rapier is crap. I had a hard enough time justifying it's (in 4e low) cost of a feat before AV.

Actually, I've found Rapiers work well for Swashbuckler characters. Of course, I build 'em either a Rogue with MC Fighter or (interestingly) Fighter with MC Rogue. That d8 weapon die works nicely with the weapon multipliers that Fighter powers give you.

But yeah, it's not a "strictly better" weapon - but I like that :smallbiggrin:

Blackfang108
2008-10-24, 02:16 PM
It cheers me to see the Schlock quote used so often, but I think a link (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20030223.html) may be in order. :smalltongue:

Originally, I was going to revoke Fax's metaphor privilages.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-24, 02:26 PM
Originally, I was going to revoke Fax's metaphor privilages.

And then what, you realized it was a thinly-veiled webcomic subculture reference?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-24, 02:30 PM
And then what, you realized it was a thinly-veiled webcomic subculture reference?

As was that. (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20080916.html)

mangosta71
2008-10-24, 03:34 PM
Double swords just seem like awkward weapons to me. I mean, either the blades are really short, or the blades are long and the haft is short, or the thing is twice as long as the person using it is tall. Or the blades are of unequal length, which leads to weight imbalances that make it cumbersome. Perhaps I have the wrong picture associated with the double sword in my head, though.

Look at the other light blades. Dagger, short sword, rapier, katar...all small weapons, all designed primarily for thrusting attacks (hence the piercing damage in 3.x). How do you do that with a double sword? Essentially it would require the wielder to grab it and jab with it like a spear, except his reach is severely limited because he can't choke up and down the haft. There's nothing sneaky or subtle about it.

Theodoric
2008-10-24, 04:02 PM
Meh, I just picture the bladed equivalent of a double-bladed lightsaber, with both blades cutting in the other direction.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-24, 04:09 PM
Huh. Something ate my earlier post. :smallannoyed:

@ Theodic: And who said the Double-Bladed lightsabre was a smart weapon? It reduces precision with a blade that can cut off a limb by touching something.

hamishspence
2008-10-24, 04:11 PM
That and the short hilt a la Exar Kun's lightsaber were iffy ideas. At least Maul's has a long hilt.

Lord_Ventnor
2008-10-24, 04:16 PM
As was said before, I think the best way to balance the Double Sword is to drop the whole "light blade" aspect altogether. I mean, in the weapon's description, it says it "combines two longswords." If this is so, then where does the light blade property come from?

Starsinger
2008-10-24, 04:18 PM
As was said before, I think the best way to balance the Double Sword is to drop the whole "light blade" aspect altogether. I mean, in the weapon's description, it says it "combines two longswords." If this is so, then where does the light blade property come from?

I believe that may be a throw back to du... older times. In 3.5 Double weapons were considered both light weapons for purposes of TWF and non-light weapons for purposes of Power Attack.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-24, 04:21 PM
@ Theodic: And who said the Double-Bladed lightsabre was a smart weapon? It reduces precision with a blade that can cut off a limb by touching something.
It did look cool though, and that's all some people need.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-24, 04:24 PM
Huh. Something ate my earlier post. :smallannoyed:

@ Theodic: And who said the Double-Bladed lightsabre was a smart weapon? It reduces precision with a blade that can cut off a limb by touching something.

What about a double brillant weapon weilded by an undead? He can't be cut by it because he isn't living.

Is that less stupid?

hamishspence
2008-10-24, 04:26 PM
That was 3rd ed. 4th ed brilliant energy weapons can do radiant damage. Maybe not ideal for undead. One fumble and Ouch.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-24, 04:27 PM
What about a double brillant weapon weilded by an undead? He can't be cut by it because he isn't living.

Is that less stupid?Much. That's actually a brilliant justification for how it's wielded, and allows the strength of 2 hands with the flexibility of 2 blades. Darth Maul was obviously a Vampire.:smallwink:

Talya
2008-10-24, 04:29 PM
Double lightsaber and quarterstaff are the only double weapons I've ever liked. I suppose the lajatang was a real (practical) double weapon in addition to the quarterstaff.

hamishspence
2008-10-24, 04:30 PM
would you say 4th ed Brilliant is more lightsaber-ish than 3rd ed: when weapon is switched to all radiant damage?