Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BattlemageLv57 06-12-06, 04:24 PM	Ok this is not about a weapon with a blade on each end its about a weapon like a kantana with two blades comeing out of the hilt in the same direction the only example I have is from Final Fantasy 7 Advent children the weapon that Kadaj had it had two blades and they were side by side would a weapon like that do double the damage of the single bladed version or what.
Dalthbar 06-12-06, 04:30 PM	I say just treat it like a bastard sword and it requires an exotic weapon proficiency to use properly. And please don't bring up that it doesn't "make sense" because it already doesn't make sense that a weapon like that could even stay together under normal use - it'd break so easily. Game balance needs to be preserved.
MADGator 06-12-06, 05:00 PM	A weapon like that would likely be less effective than a single-bladed weapon. The extra mass would make for a more powerful swing, but the mass is spread out over a larger area, negating any benefit. The larger surface area would also reduce the penetration of the blades. Furthermore, the weapon would be unbalanced and much harder to control. All in all, a regular weapon of whatever type would suck. Remeber: just because it looks cool in anime doesn't mean it would be any good.
RavenDrake 06-12-06, 08:25 PM	Grah... can't find a good pic of it at the moment, but what you're looking for is similar to a weapon weilded in an anime called Ruroni Kenshin by a character named Cho. It was a katana with two parallel blades that, supposedly, would inflict wounds that couldn't be stitched properly and would not heal on thier own. This, of course, is wishful thinking at best, and as will be pointed out by more than a handful of the more vehement "Historical accuracy" advocators such a weapon has probably never existed, could not exist for blah, blah, blah, insert laundry-list of metalurgical, historical, and physics based reasons why here. *I* say, if you want to include something like this for flavour, It should deffinintely require an Exotic weapon proficiency to use(like the Gold/Platinum "Heavy weapons" feat), and should provide a definitive benefit. For example: Futaba Blade Any slashing damage bladed weapon can be made with a Futaba Blade. Futaba Blade weapons have two identical blades, set in parallel, extending from thier hilts. Such weapons require additional training to use properly but can provide devistating results. A Futaba blade adds a +4 bonus to the roll to confirm a critcal hit. Additionally, on a roll of a natural 20, the weapon will inflict a grevious bleeding wound on the target. This wound will continue to bleed for 1 point of damage each round until the subject gains the benefit of a heal check (DC 17) or recieves at least 1 point of magical healing. In addition to the normal -4 non-proficiency penalty, a non-proficient weilder using a Futaba blade does not inflict bleeding wounds with a natural 20. Making a Futaba blade is exacting and complex, and such weapons cost three times as much as a standard version of said weapon. [b]Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Futaba Blades[b] [b]Prerequisites[b]: Base Attack Bonus +1, Str 13 [b]Benefit[b]: You are considered to be proficient with the Futaba blade version of any weapon with which you are already considered proficient. Of course, this is only an example...
MADGator 06-13-06, 02:23 AM	Ack! Mention not Kenshin! Even when they had historic names, the weapons in that show were crap. It was girl's anime though anyways, so what do you expect.
lukelightning 06-13-06, 09:52 AM	Realistically speaking (I might regret this...), a "double blade" would offer no advantages; Two blades means the force of the blow is spread out over twice the area, meaning the cuts would be half as deep as a single blade. Technically that would mean there is even less chance of a critical.
Ryu Katsuragi 06-13-06, 10:23 AM	You could simply count is as a double-ended sword, but simply describe both blades as being on one end? Could be used for Two-Weapon Fighting, making a seperate attack roll for each blade.
fendrin 06-13-06, 10:37 AM	you could also just count it as a weapon one size/type up. For instance, a double-longsword would be mechanically equivalent to a bastard sword, and a double bastard sword would be equivalent to a greatsword. Not very accurate, perhaps, but definately balanced and easy to use. Not every cool idea needs to have it's own new mechanic to cover it. The game is as much or more about description and imagination as it is about numbers and mechanics. And really, physics does not belong in a game where spouting the right gibberish can cause an explosion... but only a certain number of times a day...
lukelightning 06-13-06, 10:39 AM	You could give it a bonus to disarm, as you could catch weapons in between.
Dalthbar 06-13-06, 10:43 AM	And really, physics does not belong in a game where spouting the right gibberish can cause an explosion... but only a certain number of times a day... It doesn't when you're discussing magic. However, when you're trying to adjucate weapon damage and comparing a weapon build to other weapons, one needs to look at how the weapon will be used and it's effectiveness (and physics are a part of that). But, to amend that, one also has to remember we're dealing with fantasical things (like a double-bladed sword) and certain things need to be "casually ignored" since we are in a fantasy setting (such as the fact that a sword like that would snap towards the hilt where the two blades join down into one after some moderate use). The fact of the matter is that D&D tries to model the rules of a defined universe. This universe (or multiverse, if you will) is different from our own due to magic and a number of other factors. However, the usual physical rules are mostly the same and we can't ignore that when talking about purely physical activities.
Sennet 06-13-06, 10:43 AM	Well there's a "double bladed sword" in the "Arms and Armor"-Guide for the d20-system. It's the size of a longsword, but does 1d10 damage...
fendrin 06-13-06, 10:55 AM	... However, the usual physical rules are mostly the same and we can't ignore that when talking about purely physical activities. <rant>In general, I completely agree with you, except for this line. Physics does not come into play much at all in D&D rules (not a complaint, an observation). It's mostly to keep things simple, which is a good thing. Seriously, I can't think of a single rule where physics has trumped simplicity and balance. Nor should it. If I want physics, I'll pick up a textbook. If I want a fun, simple, and balanced game, I'll pick up a rulebook.</rant> Ok, flight maneuverability. What a pain that is! I can't think of two...