[4e] Double Weapons: why?

[Enlong]

OK, so I was looking through my copy of the Adventurer's Vault, and I noticed the Double-headed weapons, ilke the Double Axe and the Double flail, which act as weilding two weapons. I find myself asking: what's the point of these? In 4th edition, you don't get extra attacks for weilding two weapons, just the benefit of having two weapons to attack with, but with weapons like the Double Sword, which have the exact same damage and damage type on each end, there is no choice, 'cause both ends are the same.
Yeah, they all have the new Defensive property, but unless you're a Two-Weapon Ranger, a Heavy Shield works better for boosting your AC. I really don't see the point in spending the Weapon Proficiency feat on any of these. Am I missing something?

[Tacoma]

Does 4E make a difference among damage types? Because then I guess if you had a staff with a blade on one end and a ball on the other you could choose Slashing, Piercing, or Blunt damage.

They probably included it for people who like Darth Maul.

I was thinking about double weapons the other day, and realized that the quarterstaff is really the only one that makes sense as a double weapon. Everything else seems contrived to take advantage of the rule created for the staff.

Personally, I find that when using a bo staff you have the choice to use it as a "double weapon" in which case your attacks are all somewhat weak, or as a two-handed piercing or blunt weapon. But if you use it as a two-handed blunt weapon you're somewhat likely to crack it. And when using an overlong staff it's entirely possible to call it a reach weapon but you need a heck of a lot of space.

[LibraryOgre]

Two-weapon rangers are the main one, I imagine. I was thinking about making a ranger with a halberd, but realized I'd have to talk my DM into allowing it as a double weapon.

[Kurald Galain]

Does 4E make a difference among damage types?
No.


They probably included it for people who like Darth Maul.
Yes.


Everything else seems contrived to take advantage of the rule created for the staff.
Indeed.

Also, they do marginally more damage; for instance, a longsword/shortsword combo does d8/d6, whereas a double sword does d8/d8. This does not particularly seem worth a feat, though, particularly as double-weapon rangers can already do longsword/longsword automatically.

[skywalker]

Personally, I find that when using a bo staff you have the choice to use it as a "double weapon" in which case your attacks are all somewhat weak, or as a two-handed piercing or blunt weapon. But if you use it as a two-handed blunt weapon you're somewhat likely to crack it. And when using an overlong staff it's entirely possible to call it a reach weapon but you need a heck of a lot of space.

This is very true.

As to 4th edition double weapons, they're actually considered by many to be "teh borkenz0rz." I'm not entirely sure why, tho. I feel like maybe I used to know? It has something do with rangers, tho. It breaks the two-weapon ranger even further, somehow.

And 4e does not differentiate damage types.

[Enlong]

Two-weapon rangers are the main one, I imagine. I was thinking about making a ranger with a halberd, but realized I'd have to talk my DM into allowing it as a double weapon.

If you have the Adventurer's Vault, you could use an Urgrosh. One end is an axe, the other, a spear. (the only Double Weapon to have two different heads, by the way.)

Thinking back at it, yeah. I don't think weapon damage types are really used in 4E, which means that two-weapon fighting is pretty much only for Ranger and maybe Rogues nowadays. I just don't see any benefit to anyone else using it.

Edit: @ Skywalker: It probably has to do with the aforementioned Defensive property. All of the Double weapons give the wiedler a +1 bonus to AC that Rangers normally wouldn't get, 'cause they can't use shields.

Oh, another question: how do you Disarm in 4E? I can't find it.

[NEO|Phyte]

Do 4e double weapons need to have both ends enchanted separately?

[Man of Kaala]

My two cents: I tend to choose weapons/armor for how I want to roleplay my characters. In other words, if I picture them as using two weapons or a double-bladed weapon based on their past, what clan they belong to or just because it's cool, then I'll choose it regardless of penalties or usefulness. I admit this can be suicidal, harshtricky at lower levels, but I think it's worth it when developing the 'style' of your character.

[Enlong]

Do 4e double weapons need to have both ends enchanted separately?

Enchantment affects the whole weapon, but Properties and Powers from enchantments only work with the primary head.
For example, a +3 Frost Double Sword would have the +3 on both ends, but the primary end is the only one to deal cold damage or can use the power to deal extra cold damage on a hit.

Edit: I would also like to know why Double Weapons could be considered borken. Explain this anomaly.

[skywalker]

Enchantment affects the whole weapon, but Properties and Powers from enchantments only work with the primary head.
For example, a +3 Frost Double Sword would have the +3 on both ends, but the primary end is the only one to deal cold damage or can use the power to deal extra cold damage on a hit.

Edit: I would also like to know why Double Weapons could be considered borken. Explain this anomaly.

You just described part of the reason. They get the +3 on both ends for the price of one. The "double weapons cost double of a single" rule doesn't exist in 4e. I know that, defensively speaking, they get a +1 to AC, but really, you could spend the same feat on Two-Weapon Defense and use a pair of longswords for the same effect.

So far all I can see is that the bonus applies to both ends for the price of one. With a +5 weapon, that's pretty intense, especially considering what a boon to-hit bonuses are in 4e.

[Edge of Dreams]

The most broken part of double weapons is letting a rogue use a double sword. A double sword is both a Heavy blade AND a light blade, so rogues can sneak attack with a d8 weapon, get +1 AC and take both light-blade and heavy-blade feats. On top of that, they can take TWF and TWD for even more benefit. It's not amazing, but it is one of the better options for a rogue.

[Kurald Galain]

It's not amazing, but it is one of the better options for a rogue.

Actually it's not, since the majority of a rogue's damage comes from sneak attack anyway, and he's therefore better off using daggers for an additional +1 to hit.

[Mando Knight]

The main use for double weapons appeared after Adventurer's Vault: Martial Power. Beastmaster Rangers may want to take a power or two that doesn't depend on their beasties, but then their melee powers would require two weapons. Since they don't have the Two-Weapon Fighting Style, they have to make due with Double weapons. For Tempest fighters, the double weapons allow them to use their class features with both hands without sacrificing damage die size.

For Brutal Scoundrel-type Rogues, the Double sword allows them to make use of their high Strength and use Heavy Blade Opportunity with a light blade. (Double sword is both!)

[Tsotha-lanti]

Oh, another question: how do you Disarm in 4E? I can't find it.

You don't. It would mess up monsters with Weapon powers too badly. What does a level 20 Brute that lost it's only at-will attack do? Disarming would win certain battles in a single action (or, rather, make them uninteresting and long exercises in whittling away at an enemy).

[Crow]

You don't. It would mess up monsters with Weapon powers too badly. What does a level 20 Brute that lost it's only at-will attack do? Disarming would win certain battles in a single action (or, rather, make them uninteresting and long exercises in whittling away at an enemy).

Can't ruin D&D by letting players be creative here...

You could always use a power than inflicts a slow or immobilize status and describe it as the enemy having to spend part of his time retrieving his weapon from the gorund.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Can't ruin D&D by letting players be creative here...

That doesn't really have anything to do with. It's just that the ability would be way, way, way, way unbalanced and plain wouldn't work, the way the game is built (i.e. powers-based combat).

Really, it's an incredibly powerful tactic in D&D 3.X, too, but mostly because of equipment dependence. If your opponent is any kind of classed melee humanoid, disarming them makes them harmless. 1d3+a little nonlethal damage per attack, and provokes each time?

Take most other games - RuneQuest or GURPS or whatever - and being disarmed isn't nearly as big of a deal. You can pick up any other weapon and use it, and probably have multiple equally good weapons on you (since they don't cost 1,000,000 gold and you don't have to invest 10 feats in them to be any good with them). Heck, in most other games, you can actually kill people with your bare hands, unlike D&D.

[Tacoma]

Or ... the Brute has a weakness inherent in its weapon, just like in real life and in every other edition of the game. A fighter specialist is useless without his weapon.

The answer is this Brute carries a second weapon in case of a disarm or sunder, or he picks the weapon up, or he grabs the PC's weapon, or he fights at less effectiveness with his fists.

The Brute creature does have statistics for attacking unarmed right?

[hamishspence]

Generally, no. Unless the DM makes them up. If said brute doesn't have a natural attack but an armed one, at least.

[Tsotha-lanti]

The Brute creature does have statistics for attacking unarmed right?

Most weapon-using monsters don't have non-Weapon attack powers, at least at-wills. Orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, ogres, etc. have no non-Weapon at-will powers.

You can use their regular attack bonus -2/-3 and have them deal 1d3 damage or whatever, but that's sort of the point - they are now completely useless and irrelevant in the combat.

[LibraryOgre]

If you have the Adventurer's Vault, you could use an Urgrosh. One end is an axe, the other, a spear. (the only Double Weapon to have two different heads, by the way.)

'Course, a halberd is a good option even without a spearpoint on the butt. It's a reach weapon if you're going solo, and it's got a nice metal-capped butt on the second end.

[Kurald Galain]

The Brute creature does have statistics for attacking unarmed right?
Of course not. Monsters are only relevant for the two or three rounds after they're spotted and before they're killed by the PCs, and anything unlikely to happen in those two or three rounds has been removed form the stat blocks.

[insecure]

This is very true.

As to 4th edition double weapons, they're actually considered by many to be "teh borkenz0rz." I'm not entirely sure why, tho. I feel like maybe I used to know? It has something do with rangers, tho. It breaks the two-weapon ranger even further, somehow.

And 4e does not differentiate damage types.

Wait, wait, wait... So rangers in 4E are broken now? I mean, wasn't 4E supposed to solve all balance problems?

[hamishspence]

Broken in 3.5 was - Can take over universe. Broken in 4th is- Can kill deity in 1 round- but can't do all that much else.

[Starsinger]

Can't ruin D&D by letting players be creative here...


That doesn't really have anything to do with. It's just that the ability would be way, way, way, way unbalanced and plain wouldn't work, the way the game is built (i.e. powers-based combat).

Really, it's an incredibly powerful tactic in D&D 3.X, too, but mostly because of equipment dependence. If your opponent is any kind of classed melee humanoid, disarming them makes them harmless. 1d3+a little nonlethal damage per attack, and provokes each time?

That's what creativity means in 3rd edition apparently. I mean after all, laying waste any enemy without ranks in tumble with Grease is considered creative.

On to the actual topic at hand double weapons exist mostly because people like them. There's nothing wrong with indulging in a little Rule of Cool.

[Enlong]

On to the actual topic at hand double weapons exist mostly because people like them. There's nothing wrong with indulging in a little Rule of Cool.

*failed attempt at a sagely nod* alright. I understand that.

[mikeejimbo]

I don't get it. Dual wielding in 4E doesn't seem to do anything at all unless you're a ranger with the two-weapon fighting style. Why would double weapons make what is essentially dual wielding any better for any other class besides ranger?

[Asbestos]

The main use for double weapons appeared after Adventurer's Vault: Martial Power. Beastmaster Rangers may want to take a power or two that doesn't depend on their beasties, but then their melee powers would require two weapons. Since they don't have the Two-Weapon Fighting Style, they have to make due with Double weapons. For Tempest fighters, the double weapons allow them to use their class features with both hands without sacrificing damage die size.

For Brutal Scoundrel-type Rogues, the Double sword allows them to make use of their high Strength and use Heavy Blade Opportunity with a light blade. (Double sword is both!)

^
This right here is what they're for. The brokenness is the whole two weapons for the cost of 1 type enchantment... or is it? I mean, it still costs a feat and it isn't like cash is hard to come by in the adventurer's line of work, as well both ends have to have the same enchantment on them. I think the issue was rogues basically having a defensive rapier if they picked up the feat and having TWF and TWD open to them.

[Kurald Galain]

I don't get it. Dual wielding in 4E doesn't seem to do anything at all unless you're a ranger with the two-weapon fighting style. Why would double weapons make what is essentially dual wielding any better for any other class besides ranger?

Because people were complaining that other classes couldn't dual wield, so now a multiclass feat and a bunch of powers from Martial Power lets them.

[mikeejimbo]

Because people were complaining that other classes couldn't dual wield, so now a multiclass feat and a bunch of powers from Martial Power lets them.

Oooh. I don't have Martial Power, so that would explain it. (I never play Martial characters. In fact, I usually play Divine characters, which is coming last of all things.)

[Asbestos]

Because people were complaining that other classes couldn't dual wield, so now a multiclass feat and a bunch of powers from Martial Power lets them.

Not sure why that multiclass feat exists though, considering that double weapons do. I guess if you're a tempest fighter that wants to dual wield craghammers it'd be nice, but otherwise *shrug*

[Crow]

That's what creativity means in 3rd edition apparently. I mean after all, laying waste any enemy without ranks in tumble with Grease is considered creative.

Well I was talking about creatively re-flavoring your powers...but I'll run with it.

Are you serious? This has nothing to do with 3rd edition, wizards, grease, or tumble. I am a 4e character and the enemy is swinging a big dangerous implement at me. How is it so bad to want to get that implement away from that enemy? Please enlighten me.

Is it because there could be a *GASP* flaw in 4e and the powers system as it has been implemented for monsters? Maybe it's just as simple as the designers making an oversight and not giving monsters an unarmed attack. I doubt it though, as there aren't rules for disarming to begin with.

[Starsinger]

Is it because there could be a *GASP* flaw in 4e and the powers system as it has been implemented for monsters? Maybe it's just as simple as the designers making an oversight and not giving monsters an unarmed attack. I doubt it though, as there aren't rules for disarming to begin with.

Alright kids, take out your 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons Monster Manual and open it to Death Knight.

The sample human fighter Death Knight (level 17 Elite soldier)
Standard attack: Soulsword? The very next power? Containing Strike. Who here can tell me what the first two words of Containing Strike are? Anyone? For those of you who can't read, don't have the monster manual, or whatever have you... The first two words of Containing Strike are "Requires Greatsword"

It would take a fundamentally stupid person to be unable to infer that means you could encounter a Death Knight without a soul sword. Which leaves you with two options, the Death Knight has a couple encounter abilities and is then useless. Or the Death Knight uses the Unarmed Attack at will that all living creatures possess, which you can find detailed in your Player's Handbook under the Combat chapter, or the Death Knight continues to use Soulsword without said sword, which is a case of Gameplay and Story Segregation, but saves the DM from having to do the apparently mind numbing task of attempting to figure out a Death Knight's unarmed attack bonuses without having it directly infront of them.

[Kurald Galain]

Oooh. I don't have Martial Power, so that would explain it. (I never play Martial characters. In fact, I usually play Divine characters, which is coming last of all things.)

Be glad you're not into Ki, Elemental, or Shadow characters, who come even laster :smalltongue:

(not that I've yet heard a meaningful distinction between elemental and arcane, or between ki and either psionic or martial...)

[Edea]

Apparently disarming something is considered a level 17 Fighter exploit :/.

[Crow]

Alright kids, take out your 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons Monster Manual and open it to Death Knight.

The sample human fighter Death Knight (level 17 Elite soldier)
Standard attack: Soulsword? The very next power? Containing Strike. Who hear can tell me what the first two words of Containing Strike are? Anyone? For those of you who can't read, don't have the monster manual, or whatever have you... The first two words of Containing Strike are "Requires Greatsword"

It would take a fundamentally stupid person to be unable to infer that means you could encounter a Death Knight without a soul sword. Which leaves you with two options, the Death Knight has a couple encounter abilities and is then useless. Or the Death Knight uses the Unarmed Attack at will that all living creatures possess, which you can find detailed in your Player's Handbook under the Combat chapter, or the Death Knight continues to use Soulsword without said sword, which is a case of Gameplay and Story Segregation, but saves the DM from having to do the apparently mind numbing task of attempting to figure out a Death Knight's unarmed attack bonuses without having it directly infront of them.

Wouldn't it take a fundamentally stupid adventurer to not think about maybe getting that sword away from the Death Knight so as to more easily defeat him?

[Starsinger]

Wouldn't it take a fundamentally stupid adventurer to not think about maybe getting that sword away from the Death Knight so as to more easily defeat him?

Which indeed would be a way to fight a Death Knight without their soulsword (unless it was a sword mage who could then just summon it back). But I'm not the one who said that can't happen.

[Crow]

Which indeed would be a way to fight a Death Knight without their soulsword (unless it was a sword mage who could then just summon it back). But I'm not the one who said that can't happen.

A Death Knight Sword Mage would in fact, be awesome. Just throwing that out there.

[Starsinger]

A Death Knight Sword Mage would in fact, be awesome. Just throwing that out there.

Yes, yes it would.

[Enlong]

Just putting this out there: Death Knight Lore (DC 25) states that the Death Knight becomes dazed and weakened if they lose their soulsword, that the soulsword dazes and weakens anyone else carrying it, and that the Death Knight can reform the soulsword with a touch if it breaks.

So... all o' that suggests that it is indeed possible to disarm or sunder a weapon, but there don't seem to be any rules to do so, aside from that aforementioned Fighter 17 power. Odd...

[mikeejimbo]

Be glad you're not into Ki, Elemental, or Shadow characters, who come even laster :smalltongue:

(not that I've yet heard a meaningful distinction between elemental and arcane, or between ki and either psionic or martial...)

True. Those power sources aren't even out yet. Fortunately they don't interest me either.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Because I apparently like posting?

Double Weapons are unfortunate for two reasons.
(1) Defensive
Being able to get +1 AC from using two weapons without spending two feats (TWF & Two Weapon Defense) is a bit off.

(2) Weapon Choice
Because Double Weapons count for both weapon categories at the same time, you can result in crazy combos.

The easiest example is the Double Sword Rogue. To start with, this enables the Rogue to get a d8 weapon die and +1 AC; three feats (Rapier Proficiency, Two Weapon Fighting, Two Weapon Defense) for the price of one (Double Sword Proficiency). Secondly, it allows the Rogue to benefit from both Light Blade and Heavy Blade Feats at the same time. The Rogue can use Heavy Blade Opportunist (Deft Strike for OAs? Yes please!), Nimble Blade (+1 to hit), and so on. Even without Multiclassing (and the Ranger-Rogue with a Double Sword is pretty nasty), this is a lot of power to get from a single piece of equipment.

They were just really poorly thought out weapons. Sadly, a lack of playtesting seems to be WotC's hallmark these days :smallannoyed:

[KKL]

Double weapons make me cry tears of blood, so I banned them. I hated them in 3.5e and adding .5 to the goddamn edition changes nothing.

[Tengu_temp]

Broken in 3.5 was - Can take over universe. Broken in 4th is- Can kill deity in 1 round- but can't do all that much else.

Do note that the errata fixed Orcus Slayer, ages ago, and since that time it is no longer possible to kill Orcus in 1 round. Blade Cascade* isn't broken anymore.

* - the good think about 4e is that there aren't broken classes, just broken powers. And very few of them - only Blade Cascade and that one Cleric power that lets you kill anything if you have some sort of regeneration.



I think double swords are the best rogue weapon because someone on the 4e team likes Final Fantasy 9.

[The Mormegil]

Double Weapons in 4E are awesome because:

1) You save a LOT of money not having to buy two weapons. You do not have the properties on the second end, but that's not that much of a problem for some characters and it makes two weapons still viable for many classes (i.e.: ranger).

2) Defensive is actually cumulable to TWD, so you can have the same AC of a shield wielder with a two-weapon fighter, but at the cost of three feats. Good but not yet broken.

3) Double weapons work with two weapon groups. As it has been mentioned before, there are some crazy combos out there for this. Tempest Fighter far more than Rogue, actually: with a double sword it can tear things apart with great ease, thanks to both fighter powers and feats for both weapon groups.

As for disarming, sundering etc., yeah it always make me go "meh". I like 4E, but this still makes me go "meh". I understand in 3.5 they weren't that much of an option, unless you really focused on them, but still... 4E should have improved this. Maybe in PHBII... :smallfrown:

[skywalker]

Double weapons make me cry tears of blood, so I banned them. I hated them in 3.5e and adding .5 to the goddamn edition changes nothing.

I was specifically thinking of you when I said: "Some think they're broken..."

Glad you finally showed up.

[KKL]

I was specifically thinking of you when I said: "Some think they're broken..."

Glad you finally showed up.

I love you too?

[NPCMook]

(2) Weapon Choice
Because Double Weapons count for both weapon categories at the same time, you can result in crazy combos.

The easiest example is the Double Sword Rogue. To start with, this enables the Rogue to get a d8 weapon die and +1 AC; three feats (Rapier Proficiency, Two Weapon Fighting, Two Weapon Defense) for the price of one (Double Sword Proficiency). Secondly, it allows the Rogue to benefit from both Light Blade and Heavy Blade Feats at the same time. The Rogue can use Heavy Blade Opportunist (Deft Strike for OAs? Yes please!), Nimble Blade (+1 to hit), and so on. Even without Multiclassing (and the Ranger-Rogue with a Double Sword is pretty nasty), this is a lot of power to get from a single piece of equipment.

Okay, so lets do some number crunching, a character gets 18 feats(19 for humans) for a rogue to even consider using the so called broken weapon he must first take the feat to be proficient with it, then Two-weapon fighting, Two-Weapon Defense, Nimble Blade, Blade Opportunist, Surprising Charge* Well now your level 10, and guess what, the other rogue who is using a dagger is still out damaging you, with his Back Stabber feat, which you have neglected to take in hopes to become broken.

*+1[W] damage when charging with a Light Blade or Spear.

[KKL]

Blade Opportunist, Surprising Charge

WHY THOSE TWO FEATS? BO is unjustified, you're not going to be making many OAs. At all. And Surprising Charge well...No.

[NPCMook]

I was just going with his build, if you are going to take Heavy Blade Opportunist, might as well just take Blade Opportunist in Heroic

Surprising charge isn't bad, but its not good either

[Enlong]

Do note that the errata fixed Orcus Slayer, ages ago, and since that time it is no longer possible to kill Orcus in 1 round. Blade Cascade* isn't broken anymore.

* - the good think about 4e is that there aren't broken classes, just broken powers. And very few of them - only Blade Cascade and that one Cleric power that lets you kill anything if you have some sort of regeneration.



Which power is that?

[NPCMook]

Its a Rogue Power Level 15 Daily

[Enlong]

Its a Rogue Power Level 15 Daily

I thought he said that it was a Cleric power?

[NPCMook]

I thought he said that it was a Cleric power?

I only knew of the Rogue one, no idea what the Cleric power is

[Enlong]

I only knew of the Rogue one, no idea what the Cleric power is

And you're talking about Garrote Grip?

[KKL]

Its a Rogue Power Level 15 Daily

Blade Cascade is the level 15 Ranger Daily.

[Enlong]

Blade Cascade is the level 15 Ranger Daily.

Mmm-hmm. And which one is the Cleric power?

[Starsinger]

Seal of Binding; level 25

[KKL]

Seal of Binding; level 25

AKA "I can solo Orcus in two hours."

[Starsinger]

"I can solo Orcus in two hours."

But can you see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

[KKL]

But can you see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

Vecna demands it?

[Enlong]

Vecna demands it?

No, look! It's because of the explosive runes on every bite!