Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kroll 10-07-04, 06:29 PM	2 bladed sword.... number of feats required... (compared to other 2 weapon combinations) excotic weapons weapon focus and specialazation in 1 weapon... damage 1d8 on both blades... light light 2 weapon penalities the 2 bladed weapons are too powerful imo, I have disallowed them in my campaign due to this fact, a ranger or anyone for that matter that dosen't use a double bladed sword if he fights with 2 weapon style is a statistical moron (but nescesarily a bad roleplayer ;) ) 3.5 did alot of good balancing all the stuff in the game, and I do realize a game can never be totally balanced out, but each weapon shoudl have pro/cons....as I see it....as far as a 2 weapon combo goes, 2 bladed sword has it all.... as a minimum it shoudl be stated in the rules that you have to use double feats for focus and weapon specialazation for theese..otherwise using double weapons or alike weapons in each hand is too good compared to fx...longsword -shortsword combo.... am I missing something or ?.. I choose to outlaw the eastern weapons too ..due to the fact that there is alot of debate about how good theese should be (at least in my campaign) so please only stay on the "classic" weapondry.
Beamup 10-07-04, 06:32 PM	Actually double weapons are drastically underpowered. To the extent that anybody who does use them is badly handicapping himself. Compare to, for example, double Short Swords. 1 damage/hit for a feat - a very weak choice. And especially compare to Greatsword+Spiked Armor, which is strictly superior in every aspect. You get all the advantages of THF even when you're TWFing as well. Also, consider the fact that TWF builds need to be Dex-based to work well - either to get the TWF feats at all, or they're a Ranger which naturally lends itself far more to Dex-based fighting than Str-based. And then realize that double weapons can't be finessed. Double weapons are very bad. They were bad before it was ruled that you could TWF greatsword and armor spikes, but at least they had the advantage of being able to switch seamlessly between TWF and THF. Now even that advantage is gone, to the point where there is literally no reason to use them other than flavor, and you give up a large chunk of power in order to do that. Anybody using a double weapon for its power is a statistical moron, because they are extremely weak. And all that is comparing to other styles of TWF, which is in general a significantly weaker style than THF.
Tony Vargas 10-07-04, 07:32 PM	You're missing that you can use a pair of light weapons, and gain weapon-specific benefits like specialization from them. Given that, the advantage you get from choosing a double weapon is +1 average damage (about typical for an Exotic weapon), and the minor advantage of being able to use them as two-handed weapons (for a little boost to STR or Power Attack damage) when you make a standard attack. It's also harder to disarm than a light weapon (+4 vs -4, pretty substantial), but, then again, a single successful disarm and you lose it, while with a pair of weapons, it takes two... So, really, it's no overpowered at all. If you don't have a lot of feats, it's hardly worth it at all. In fact, if you use the Armor Spikes ruling Beamup mentioned, the exotic double-weapons are profoundly underpowered by comparison (one indication that it's a bad ruling). But, if you ever considered banning double-weapons, you obviously wouldn't use that ruling...
Talanall 10-07-04, 08:48 PM	The primary difference between using Two-Weapon Fighting with a double weapon, and using it with a pair of light weapons, is that you usually have to pay a feat just to be proficient with a double weapon. Let us compare, piece by piece. I'll assume a level 6 human ranger with the following ability scores: Str 16, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 12, Wis 11, Cha 10. First, I'll do a feat breakdown: Double-bladed sword ranger: EWP: Double Bladed Sword, Power Attack, TWF, Weapon Focus: Double Bladed Sword, Improved TWF, Two-Weapon Defense Paired Short Swords: Weapon Focus: Short Sword, Power Attack, TWF, Two-Weapon Defense, Improved TWF, Cleave Advantage: Short swords -- you don't need a feat to be proficient with them, so that's one more feat that you can spend on something else. Okay, so it's a dead heat so far. How about monetary investment? We can try that. Let's say we go with masterwork weapons. Maybe this guy's just an NPC, and spent his cash on armor. Double bladed sword: 700gp (masterwork on each blade, at 300gp each, and 100 gp base price) Short swords: 310gp each, x2 for 620gp. Advantage: Short swords. They're cheaper. Now, a discussion of attacks/damage: Double bladed sword: Full attack routine +9/+9/+4, dmg 1d8+3/1d8+1 Short Sword: Full attack routine +9/+9/+4, dmg 1d6+3, 1d6+1. Advantage: Double bladed sword, by 1 point worth of average damage per successful hit. It's also worth noting that you can power attack with the 1d8+3 end of the double bladed sword. But the penalty to your attack rolls is distributed over all your attacks, and you don't get the damage bonus with the off-hand end of the weapon. So it probably comes out as a wash in terms of cost/benefit. Misc. other things: Double bladed swords are harder to disarm/sunder. Short swords are a lot easier to conceal. Short swords also weigh 2 lbs. each, and a double sword weighs 10 lbs. Sometimes that matters. So basically, you get 1 point of extra damage, on average, every time you hit using a two-bladed sword. Excuse me if I don't wet myself in excitement. Now, this starts to look slightly more attractive if you're playing a gnome or dwarf, since they get weapon familiarity with the gnome hooked hammer and the dwarven urgosh, as racial weapons. That means that for a TWF ranger of those two races, yes, a double weapon is more advantageous because it offers higher damage yields than a pair of light weapons. The gnome hooked hammer and the dwarven urgosh, in fact, are both pretty sweet weapons -- if you are a gnome or dwarf. But gnomes tend not to make really good physical attackers, because they've got that -2 Str mod. Dwarven rangers have cause to rejoice, though. Charisma is pretty much a dump stat for rangers to begin with, so they get to be unusually tough rangers with an unusually good TWF option at their disposal. And given that a dwarven ranger is probably going to spend most of his time underground, probably in close quarters, TWF is even somewhat logical instead of archery. In closing, I will also note that TWF is inherently the least attractive non-spellcasting attack method available. You're better off taking archery as a ranger, because you can attack just as often, except from range, with more Str bonus to damage rolls, and without having to pay for two weapons. My typical reaction to someone who chooses the two-bladed sword, orc double axe, or dire flail is to query, "Ah. So did you choose that weapon for 'role playing reasons'?" That's really the only good reason to take proficiency with any of those three -- otherwise, it's mechanically more advantageous to use a pair of weapons that don't cost you a feat that can be spent on trying to mitigate the immense suckitude that is Two-Weapon Fighting.
Naeron 10-08-04, 04:50 AM	2 bladed sword.... number of feats required... (compared to other 2 weapon combinations) excotic weapons weapon focus and specialazation in 1 weapon... damage 1d8 on both blades... light light 2 weapon penalities <snip>. You are missing TWF off this list so 4 feats. Someone who choses 2 shortswords as a style can take TWF, weapon focus and specialisation and use 3 feats. By spending the extra feat the 2 bladed sword user gains +1 average damage, the ability to go THF and greater protection vs disarm. This seems balanced against the feat spent for the exotic proficiency.
billboyjones 10-08-04, 07:31 AM	For me personally, TWF with a double weapon is fantastic if you go around the two big barriers to entry. The feat expenditure for the TWF, and the feat expenditure for exotic weapons (assuming you're using an exotic double weapon that is). My solution was Gnome ranger weilding gnome hooked hammer. Damage dice are lower than double sword, but crits are better. Plus I'm not pouring feats into TWF and I didn't have to spend a feat to get an exotic weapon proficiency for the gnome hooked hammer. My dude is definitely whooping some major @ss. As far as dealing damage per round goes, at 10th level gnome ranger, I'm blowing away our parties 9th level half-orc barbarian. On average, he's doing 30+ points of damage on a full attack, where I'm averaging 45 - 60. I even got up to 89 game before last. My character is currently referred to as the gnomish blender. That's my experience.
Zelphi 10-08-04, 08:02 AM	The double weapons aren't too bad. They're ability to become two handed is actually useful if you need to shift to single attacks. I think they become a poor choice in some circumstances, but the Orcish Double Axe is a better weapon (because its better than two handaxes) and the other ones are pobably better still. Quarterstaves aren't too bad either, but the nature of 3.5's increased need for dex (which Rangers annoying ignore). I'd say its better for Fighter Rangers or even Fighter/Barbarian/Rangers who can up its damage more. As for that offhand armour spikes thing - its fairly dumb, if useful (for things like reach weapons especially). They do require double specialisation and you're probably better off with a large weapon in the main hand (and take that -2 main hand attack penalty). Dire Flails aren't too bad, but those double lesser weaopons should probably be better. Possibly 1d10 damage instead of 1d8. Sadly you can't use double weapons in conjunction with armour spikes to get even more attacks.