Are doubles weapons not good enough? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Are doubles weapons not good enough? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
swindy
09-20-06, 01:42 PM Is it just me or does no one use the decent weapons meant for two weapon fighting aka orc double axe, two bladed sword and dire flail? They give a D8 as your light weapon. And there is no light weapon that can do a D8. Well, not to my knolwedge anyway. The only problem i see is that it doesnt reach the highest with the main (but makes up for it with the off hand mentioned earlier). And that it is just one weapon so if it gets sundered you end up with nothing (or if your DM's nice, two swords).

But i never see anyone use them. Is it cos they are uncool (i think they are amazing) or other reasons like using two bastard swords instead?

Whats all youre opinions on the double weapons. Cool, uncool, useful, useless or just not good enough?
Daruis
09-20-06, 01:53 PM I this its because a lot of people dont want to use the two weapon abilities that they have, and if your only going to use them as a one handed weapon, the extra GP for it.

Also, i believe the elven thinblade is a light weapon that deals 1d8
bondious
09-20-06, 02:05 PM I think double weapons are pretty cool, myself.

And when you compare the d8/d8 damage from like a two-bladed sword to the d10/d6 damage from using a bastard sword and short sword combo (which is one of the best combos utilizing a one-handed and a light weapon), it's pretty much the same possible damage.

I think that there aren't really that many players that are interested in Two-Weapon Fighting to begin with. I mean, you have to spend a feat to fight in a style that STILL imposes a penalty (-2 or -4, usually). And if you want to use a double weapon (all but the quarterstaff are exotic) then you have to spend ANOTHER feat. Now for a fighter that's no big deal, and if you're a ranger then half of that's covered by 2nd level, if I'm not mistaken. For other classes who could benefit from two-weapon fighting, like a paladin or maybe a barbarian, those feats are too precious to "waste" (in many folks minds) on Two-Weapon Fighting AND the Exotic Weapon [double weapon] feat as well.

There's also the camp that believe that most of the double weapons in the PHB are too unrealistic, and never should have been created, but that's an arguement for ANOTHER time...
SheerAscended
09-20-06, 03:08 PM I think that the double weapons are all great. I had a halforc barb who used an orc double ax and that made him unstoppable. (At least if he got there before the druid)
etraikov
09-20-06, 03:19 PM One way that double weapons are better than a bastard sword and a short sword is that weapon focus and weapon specialization apply to both sides of a double weapon. weapon focus & specialization dont really work for a bastard/short sword combo.
mvincent
09-20-06, 03:24 PM when you compare the d8/d8 damage from like a two-bladed sword to the d10/d6 damage from using a bastard sword and short sword combo (which is one of the best combos utilizing a one-handed and a light weapon), it's pretty much the same possible damage.Some advantages of a double weapon:
1) Weapon specific feats (weapon focus, weapon specialization, Improved Critica etc.) apply to both sides
2) It can be used more easily as a two-handed weapon (especially good when you charge or move and attack)
UmbralKnight
09-20-06, 03:26 PM Pfft. Double weapons.

I dont even know where to start on the issue.

I suppose this is as good as any;

Orc Double Axe.

The weapon makes no sense. Picture it. Think about it. It is completly illogical (yes, I know this is D&D, but still) and an antithesis to its own intended purpose. Im sure there are many weapons buffs here who can explain that better than I can though.

Its similiar with other double weapons. They dont really make sense in a fight. And they dont truly fit with fantasy flavour (admitted that last part is 110% my own opinion).
The one exception to this, in my humble opinion, is the Valenar Double Scimitar, and thats not even core.
But the rest?
Orc double axe? Disgusting.
Double sword? Why bother.
Dire flail? Rediculous.

Statistically, I suppose they are a valid way to go. But when you can duel wield a pair of bastards swords with only light off hand penalties with very little required for it, there's better ways to go if you want to be a damage tank. And, lets face it, if you want to use double weapons, you want to be a damage tank. I dont see any other attraction.

Orc double axe...What is this game comming to...
PhaedrusXY
09-20-06, 03:55 PM The urgosh is the best of them I think (in core at least). If you're a dwarf, you don't need to waste a feat for proficiency.

Another unmentioned benefit of double weapons is that you can make each head with different materials and enchantments, so that they are specialized for use against different creature types. Even if you never TWF with the weapon, this can be useful, as it reduces the necessity of the "golfbag".
Kalis Atrud
09-20-06, 04:44 PM Why take Exotic Weapon Proficiency(Double Sword), when I could take oversized two weapon fighting and use two long swords? It's a feat either way, and long swords are everywhere, while Double Swords are rare and should only show up if the GM is humoring you or you commission one.
mvincent
09-20-06, 06:32 PM Why take Exotic Weapon Proficiency(Double Sword), when I could take oversized two weapon fighting and use two long swords?Some reasons:
1) The campaign doesn't use oversized two weapon fighting (it is not in the core rules).
2) You want to quickly use a weapon two-handedly (for extra damage during a charge, standard action, whirlwind, spring attack, etc.).
CaoSlayer
09-20-06, 07:00 PM Some reasons:
1) The campaign doesn't use oversized two weapon fighting (it is not in the core rules).
2) You want to quickly use a weapon two-handedly (for extra damage during a charge, standard action, whirlwind, spring attack, etc.).

Also you get a +4 to disarm and the other benefits for a two handed weapon.

Anyway the argument it is a little silly because in both cases you have to spend a feat anyway, two feats for two bastard swords or dwarven axes...

For the weapon heads, some masters allow to use a normal battle axe head or flair head as one of the double weapons heads.
Rulebook
09-20-06, 07:33 PM its really the twf/2hf ability of double weapons that rock. also the ability to draw a single weapon and have 2 sets of enchantments is beyond awesome too! d8's for damage are just fine. if you're that bent out of shape for a single average point of damage you need to cut back on the munchkin and look at the big cheese.

I ran a twf tree ranger that used a quarterstaff, and he was incredibly effective in combat.
Nom
09-20-06, 09:53 PM My party has a ranger with a double sword. He was quite chuffed when he realised that his Power Attack feat granted 2x bonus when he swung the sword as a two-handed weapon.

The EWP pays for two things:
(1) A one die upgrade (or equivalent) on the off-hand weapon.
(2) The ability to shift from TWF to THF and back as appropriate.

If flexibility is more important than raw power and you can afford the feats, then double weapons are quite good.
Mitchell
09-20-06, 11:05 PM Reasons not to use a double weapon:
1) Sunder
2) Costs a feat
3) Doesn't fit your concept (perfectly valid)

Not saying that there aren't advantages to using a double weapon, just that there are drawbacks including, but not necessarily limited to, the above.
Vintar
09-20-06, 11:23 PM One thing I don't think anyone has said yet. Most guys who fight TWF are finesse fighters because of the high dex requirements. The main weapon of the double weapons is not finesseable - a major consideration to say the least.
runestar
09-21-06, 12:23 AM I think it is because TWF is generally viewed as inferior to 2-handed weapon fighting, both damagewise and because it can be very feat and stat intensive.

Dual wielding requires 3 feats and 19 dex ultimately to use effectively, which not every fighter can afford, much less a barb or paladin. Conversely, a barb can simply take power attack, wield a greatsword, and rely on a mithral fullplate or lightweight adamantine fullplate to make up for his lack of a good dex score, thereby avoiding MAD.

It's not just a problem limited to double weapons alone, but the stigma facing TWFing, IMO. No one would wield a double weapon as a 2-handed weapon when it costs you a feat and a superior alternative(greatsword) exists.:P

So from a pragmatic POV, there is really little reason to use double weapons whatsoever.
Bopple
09-21-06, 12:54 AM Other than Dwarven Urgrosh or Gnome Hooked Hammer, it's hard to justify using a double weapon.
But there are a few reasons like;
Exotic Weapon Master's Flurry ability.
Ancestral Relic
Kensai
Disarm
Sunder
__DnD4Life__
09-21-06, 03:13 AM Well, double weapons are cool, but I would much rather have a weapon that looks realistic. Orc axe: When you swing it, the haft is so short you end up jabbing yourself with the other end. There is just not enough room wo swong it. I have nothing wrong with the double sword, but the dire flail has the same problem as the orc axe. You swing with one end, and impale yourself with the spiked ball on the other. Other than that, they look awesome, and I think I want to play a dwarf weilding an urgosh.
Ranger REG
09-21-06, 03:55 AM Is it just me or does no one use the decent weapons meant for two weapon fighting aka orc double axe, two bladed sword and dire flail?

But i never see anyone use them. Is it cos they are uncool (i think they are amazing) or other reasons like using two bastard swords instead?

Whats all youre opinions on the double weapons. Cool, uncool, useful, useless or just not good enough?
How often do you come across double weapons that are magical in treasures and/or slain opponents? :smirk:
CaoSlayer
09-21-06, 04:29 AM How often do you come across double weapons that are magical in treasures and/or slain opponents? :smirk:

As say for a diferent head of your double axe or sword you only have to remove it from it´s shaft and put it into one of the double shaft´s ends.
Isnt explicity said at RAW but the other thing that can stop it from working it is considering the whole weapon as the magic item, including the wooden shaft.
swindy
09-21-06, 07:34 AM Our DM is quite good at fitting in things just for the characters. Because if you are going to say that it is quite rare to find, the DM could also do it the other way, put in weapons you are not likely to use at all.

I remember in one campaign finding a dancing dagger, yeah, useful...

But this thread isnt meant to be about finding the weapon, i want to know if you use them, or not, or if you like them or not and what are the reasons for your decision.
Ranger REG
09-22-06, 04:56 PM As say for a diferent head of your double axe or sword you only have to remove it from it´s shaft and put it into one of the double shaft´s ends.
Isnt explicity said at RAW but the other thing that can stop it from working it is considering the whole weapon as the magic item, including the wooden shaft.
RAW or not, the latter is applied to my games.
fatal error
09-22-06, 05:04 PM RAW or not, the latter is applied to my games.

Then why do I need to enchant both my weapon's blades seperately? Does the enchantment go half-way up the hilt? Then couldn't I fashion a sort of coupling to connect two longswords together and form a double weapon?

As for using double weapons:
You trade a feat for 1 damage on your offhand.
The ability to 2hf if you want to (though with a lower damage die than a real 2hander).
Weapon focus etc.

Alternatively you could spend that feat on a bastard sword, and go up 1 dmg on your main hand. This is obviously worse than the above since it lacks the weapon focus and 2hf benefits.

Or, you could go bastard sword and use two of them. You gain 3 damage on average (1 main, 2 off), but also get -2 to all attacks. Instead you could've taken the more versatile power attack (which leads to other good things not necessarily 2HF specific), and PA'd for -2 on each hand, and gone up 4 damage for the same to-hit loss.

You could go two bastard swords AND oversized two-weapon fighting, but now you've just used two feats in addition to TWF itself. So we have to compare that to a double weapon with something extra, like Power Attack charging to get into melee. That's at least a +4 on damage (converting just the +2 from charging into 4 damage since you're wielding it two-handed for the moment). Plus you just took power attack, which is, again, leading to more feats later on if you want them. Plus you'll probably end up using this charge+PA with your double weapon multiple times per encounter if the enemies are multiple and spread out.
Meanwhile, the double bastard sword wielder gets a single attack, without the bonus damage of yours, and can't take imp. sunder, imp. bull rush, imp. overrun or cleave the next level, or combat brute, shock trooper or great cleave the level after.

Or, you could just stick with rapier and shortsword (what I have found to be the most popular TWF combo) and use Weapon Finesse like most TWFers.

Of course, the irony in this is that most go weapon finesse because of the high dex requirements. The Ranger, the only class (other than the non-core and weapon specific samurai) that doesn't need the dex prerequisites, has to have a high dex to get good AC and stay alive in melee. Though, if a barbarian is fine in mithril full plate then the ranger should survive with 3 AC less from a mithril breastplate. Except for the whole D8 hit points thing, but that's an issue for another time.
StevenO
09-22-06, 07:15 PM In my opinion the biggest problem with double weapons is treating the "other end" as a light weapon. I agree that penalties should be assigned as a light weapon but otherwise it should be treated as wielding two one handed weapons when figuring damage and such.

Yes, being a two-handed weapon does give a double weapon some benefits but when using Oversized Two-Weapon fighting a pair of longswords can easily outdamage a two-bladed sword. A double weapon may be harder to disarm/sunder but once it is you're unarmed while a dual wielder still has one weapon left.

If you allow both ends of a double weapon to gain the normal benefits of a one handed weapon (Full Str and Power Attack) instead of treating one end as light you'll see an increase in double weapon use.
Ranger REG
09-23-06, 10:26 PM In my opinion the biggest problem with double weapons is treating the "other end" as a light weapon. I agree that penalties should be assigned as a light weapon but otherwise it should be treated as wielding two one handed weapons when figuring damage and such.
Technically, you still apply half-Str damage bonus to the designated off-hand end of a double weapon.
StevenO
09-23-06, 11:32 PM Technically, you still apply half-Str damage bonus to the designated off-hand end of a double weapon.

I am award of that. Technically, you also can't power attack with the off-end for anything either and if used in a special maneuver such as disarm you'd penalize it as a light weapon although you'd also get the TH bonus as well.
runestar
09-24-06, 12:58 AM If you wanted to power attack, you would wield it as a 2-handed weapon, not dual-wield with it.:P It gives more bang for your buck that way.:)
Seerow
09-24-06, 12:59 AM Or you'd be a Revenant Blade and power attack while weilding it as a double weapon, to get the best of both worlds.
Cold Napalm
09-24-06, 01:21 AM Honestly the dire flail is what gets me...you'd kill yourself in real life, before you hit your enemy with that one.
neostrider
09-24-06, 02:18 AM Its all about priorities. As a rouge, I'd recommend TWF because it increases the number of attacks you get, and so much more sneak attack damage per turn. It works perfectly because the -2 penatly pretty much balances the denied dex on average.

It all depends on your build. As a rouge, I can deal more damage from a fighter, assuming I use it alot. TWF increases my number of uses per round. A fighter with a few good feats can deal as much damage in a few good hits using power attack and weapon spec. 2 roads to the same means, pretty much. Its just personal preference.

As for the double weapons, Its just the idea of spending a feat to do it. They're versatile but unless you're human the feat hurts because you're using it to use something you're paying for anyway.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
swindy 09-20-06, 01:42 PM	Is it just me or does no one use the decent weapons meant for two weapon fighting aka orc double axe, two bladed sword and dire flail? They give a D8 as your light weapon. And there is no light weapon that can do a D8. Well, not to my knolwedge anyway. The only problem i see is that it doesnt reach the highest with the main (but makes up for it with the off hand mentioned earlier). And that it is just one weapon so if it gets sundered you end up with nothing (or if your DM's nice, two swords). But i never see anyone use them. Is it cos they are uncool (i think they are amazing) or other reasons like using two bastard swords instead? Whats all youre opinions on the double weapons. Cool, uncool, useful, useless or just not good enough?
Daruis 09-20-06, 01:53 PM	I this its because a lot of people dont want to use the two weapon abilities that they have, and if your only going to use them as a one handed weapon, the extra GP for it. Also, i believe the elven thinblade is a light weapon that deals 1d8
bondious 09-20-06, 02:05 PM	I think double weapons are pretty cool, myself. And when you compare the d8/d8 damage from like a two-bladed sword to the d10/d6 damage from using a bastard sword and short sword combo (which is one of the best combos utilizing a one-handed and a light weapon), it's pretty much the same possible damage. I think that there aren't really that many players that are interested in Two-Weapon Fighting to begin with. I mean, you have to spend a feat to fight in a style that STILL imposes a penalty (-2 or -4, usually). And if you want to use a double weapon (all but the quarterstaff are exotic) then you have to spend ANOTHER feat. Now for a fighter that's no big deal, and if you're a ranger then half of that's covered by 2nd level, if I'm not mistaken. For other classes who could benefit from two-weapon fighting, like a paladin or maybe a barbarian, those feats are too precious to "waste" (in many folks minds) on Two-Weapon Fighting AND the Exotic Weapon [double weapon] feat as well. There's also the camp that believe that most of the double weapons in the PHB are too unrealistic, and never should have been created, but that's an arguement for ANOTHER time...
SheerAscended 09-20-06, 03:08 PM	I think that the double weapons are all great. I had a halforc barb who used an orc double ax and that made him unstoppable. (At least if he got there before the druid)
etraikov 09-20-06, 03:19 PM	One way that double weapons are better than a bastard sword and a short sword is that weapon focus and weapon specialization apply to both sides of a double weapon. weapon focus & specialization dont really work for a bastard/short sword combo.
mvincent 09-20-06, 03:24 PM	when you compare the d8/d8 damage from like a two-bladed sword to the d10/d6 damage from using a bastard sword and short sword combo (which is one of the best combos utilizing a one-handed and a light weapon), it's pretty much the same possible damage.Some advantages of a double weapon: 1) Weapon specific feats (weapon focus, weapon specialization, Improved Critica etc.) apply to both sides 2) It can be used more easily as a two-handed weapon (especially good when you charge or move and attack)
UmbralKnight 09-20-06, 03:26 PM	Pfft. Double weapons. I dont even know where to start on the issue. I suppose this is as good as any; Orc Double Axe. The weapon makes no sense. Picture it. Think about it. It is completly illogical (yes, I know this is D&D, but still) and an antithesis to its own intended purpose. Im sure there are many weapons buffs here who can explain that better than I can though. Its similiar with other double weapons. They dont really make sense in a fight. And they dont truly fit with fantasy flavour (admitted that last part is 110% my own opinion). The one exception to this, in my humble opinion, is the Valenar Double Scimitar, and thats not even core. But the rest? Orc double axe? Disgusting. Double sword? Why bother. Dire flail? Rediculous. Statistically, I suppose they are a valid way to go. But when you can duel wield a pair of bastards swords with only light off hand penalties with very little required for it, there's better ways to go if you want to be a damage tank. And, lets face it, if you want to use double weapons, you want to be a damage tank. I dont see any other attraction. Orc double axe...What is this game comming to...
PhaedrusXY 09-20-06, 03:55 PM	The urgosh is the best of them I think (in core at least). If you're a dwarf, you don't need to waste a feat for proficiency. Another unmentioned benefit of double weapons is that you can make each head with different materials and enchantments, so that they are specialized for use against different creature types. Even if you never TWF with the weapon, this can be useful, as it reduces the necessity of the "golfbag".
Kalis Atrud 09-20-06, 04:44 PM	Why take Exotic Weapon Proficiency(Double Sword), when I could take oversized two weapon fighting and use two long swords? It's a feat either way, and long swords are everywhere, while Double Swords are rare and should only show up if the GM is humoring you or you commission one.
mvincent 09-20-06, 06:32 PM	Why take Exotic Weapon Proficiency(Double Sword), when I could take oversized two weapon fighting and use two long swords?Some reasons: 1) The campaign doesn't use oversized two weapon fighting (it is not in the core rules). 2) You want to quickly use a weapon two-handedly (for extra damage during a charge, standard action, whirlwind, spring attack, etc.).
CaoSlayer 09-20-06, 07:00 PM	Some reasons: 1) The campaign doesn't use oversized two weapon fighting (it is not in the core rules). 2) You want to quickly use a weapon two-handedly (for extra damage during a charge, standard action, whirlwind, spring attack, etc.). Also you get a +4 to disarm and the other benefits for a two handed weapon. Anyway the argument it is a little silly because in both cases you have to spend a feat anyway, two feats for two bastard swords or dwarven axes... For the weapon heads, some masters allow to use a normal battle axe head or flair head as one of the double weapons heads.
Rulebook 09-20-06, 07:33 PM	its really the twf/2hf ability of double weapons that rock. also the ability to draw a single weapon and have 2 sets of enchantments is beyond awesome too! d8's for damage are just fine. if you're that bent out of shape for a single average point of damage you need to cut back on the munchkin and look at the big cheese. I ran a twf tree ranger that used a quarterstaff, and he was incredibly effective in combat.
Nom 09-20-06, 09:53 PM	My party has a ranger with a double sword. He was quite chuffed when he realised that his Power Attack feat granted 2x bonus when he swung the sword as a two-handed weapon. The EWP pays for two things: (1) A one die upgrade (or equivalent) on the off-hand weapon. (2) The ability to shift from TWF to THF and back as appropriate. If flexibility is more important than raw power and you can afford the feats, then double weapons are quite good.
Mitchell 09-20-06, 11:05 PM	Reasons not to use a double weapon: 1) Sunder 2) Costs a feat 3) Doesn't fit your concept (perfectly valid) Not saying that there aren't advantages to using a double weapon, just that there are drawbacks including, but not necessarily limited to, the above.
Vintar 09-20-06, 11:23 PM	One thing I don't think anyone has said yet. Most guys who fight TWF are finesse fighters because of the high dex requirements. The main weapon of the double weapons is not finesseable - a major consideration to say the least.
runestar 09-21-06, 12:23 AM	I think it is because TWF is generally viewed as inferior to 2-handed weapon fighting, both damagewise and because it can be very feat and stat intensive. Dual wielding requires 3 feats and 19 dex ultimately to use effectively, which not every fighter can afford, much less a barb or paladin. Conversely, a barb can simply take power attack, wield a greatsword, and rely on a mithral fullplate or lightweight adamantine fullplate to make up for his lack of a good dex score, thereby avoiding MAD. It's not just a problem limited to double weapons alone, but the stigma facing TWFing, IMO. No one would wield a double weapon as a 2-handed weapon when it costs you a feat and a superior alternative(greatsword) exists.:P So from a pragmatic POV, there is really little reason to use double weapons whatsoever.
Bopple 09-21-06, 12:54 AM	Other than Dwarven Urgrosh or Gnome Hooked Hammer, it's hard to justify using a double weapon. But there are a few reasons like; Exotic Weapon Master's Flurry ability. Ancestral Relic Kensai Disarm Sunder
__DnD4Life__ 09-21-06, 03:13 AM	Well, double weapons are cool, but I would much rather have a weapon that looks realistic. Orc axe: When you swing it, the haft is so short you end up jabbing yourself with the other end. There is just not enough room wo swong it. I have nothing wrong with the double sword, but the dire flail has the same problem as the orc axe. You swing with one end, and impale yourself with the spiked ball on the other. Other than that, they look awesome, and I think I want to play a dwarf weilding an urgosh.
Ranger REG 09-21-06, 03:55 AM	Is it just me or does no one use the decent weapons meant for two weapon fighting aka orc double axe, two bladed sword and dire flail? But i never see anyone use them. Is it cos they are uncool (i think they are amazing) or other reasons like using two bastard swords instead? Whats all youre opinions on the double weapons. Cool, uncool, useful, useless or just not good enough? How often do you come across double weapons that are magical in treasures and/or slain opponents? :smirk:
CaoSlayer 09-21-06, 04:29 AM	How often do you come across double weapons that are magical in treasures and/or slain opponents? :smirk: As say for a diferent head of your double axe or sword you only have to remove it from it´s shaft and put it into one of the double shaft´s ends. Isnt explicity said at RAW but the other thing that can stop it from working it is considering the whole weapon as the magic item, including the wooden shaft.
swindy 09-21-06, 07:34 AM	Our DM is quite good at fitting in things just for the characters. Because if you are going to say that it is quite rare to find, the DM could also do it the other way, put in weapons you are not likely to use at all. I remember in one campaign finding a dancing dagger, yeah, useful... But this thread isnt meant to be about finding the weapon, i want to know if you use them, or not, or if you like them or not and what are the reasons for your decision.
Ranger REG 09-22-06, 04:56 PM	As say for a diferent head of your double axe or sword you only have to remove it from it´s shaft and put it into one of the double shaft´s ends. Isnt explicity said at RAW but the other thing that can stop it from working it is considering the whole weapon as the magic item, including the wooden shaft. RAW or not, the latter is applied to my games.
fatal error 09-22-06, 05:04 PM	RAW or not, the latter is applied to my games. Then why do I need to enchant both my weapon's blades seperately? Does the enchantment go half-way up the hilt? Then couldn't I fashion a sort of coupling to connect two longswords together and form a double weapon? As for using double weapons: You trade a feat for 1 damage on your offhand. The ability to 2hf if you want to (though with a lower damage die than a real 2hander). Weapon focus etc. Alternatively you could spend that feat on a bastard sword, and go up 1 dmg on your main hand. This is obviously worse than the above since it lacks the weapon focus and 2hf benefits. Or, you could go bastard sword and use two of them. You gain 3 damage on average (1 main, 2 off), but also get -2 to all attacks. Instead you could've taken the more versatile power attack (which leads to other good things not necessarily 2HF specific), and PA'd for -2 on each hand, and gone up 4 damage for the same to-hit loss. You could go two bastard swords AND oversized two-weapon fighting, but now you've just used two feats in addition to TWF itself. So we have to compare that to a double weapon with something extra, like Power Attack charging to get into melee. That's at least a +4 on damage (converting just the +2 from charging into 4 damage since you're wielding it two-handed for the moment). Plus you just took power attack, which is, again, leading to more feats later on if you want them. Plus you'll probably end up using this charge+PA with your double weapon multiple times per encounter if the enemies are multiple and spread out. Meanwhile, the double bastard sword wielder gets a single attack, without the bonus damage of yours, and can't take imp. sunder, imp. bull rush, imp. overrun or cleave the next level, or combat brute, shock trooper or great cleave the level after. Or, you could just stick with rapier and shortsword (what I have found to be the most popular TWF combo) and use Weapon Finesse like most TWFers. Of course, the irony in this is that most go weapon finesse because of the high dex requirements. The Ranger, the only class (other than the non-core and weapon specific samurai) that doesn't need the dex prerequisites, has to have a high dex to get good AC and stay alive in melee. Though, if a barbarian is fine in mithril full plate then the ranger should survive with 3 AC less from a mithril breastplate. Except for the whole D8 hit points thing, but that's an issue for another time.
StevenO 09-22-06, 07:15 PM	In my opinion the biggest problem with double weapons is treating the "other end" as a light weapon. I agree that penalties should be assigned as a light weapon but otherwise it should be treated as wielding two one handed weapons when figuring damage and such. Yes, being a two-handed weapon does give a double weapon some benefits but when using Oversized Two-Weapon fighting a pair of longswords can easily outdamage a two-bladed sword. A double weapon may be harder to disarm/sunder but once it is you're unarmed while a dual wielder still has one weapon left. If you allow both ends of a double weapon to gain the normal benefits of a one handed weapon (Full Str and Power Attack) instead of treating one end as light you'll see an increase in double weapon use.
Ranger REG 09-23-06, 10:26 PM	In my opinion the biggest problem with double weapons is treating the "other end" as a light weapon. I agree that penalties should be assigned as a light weapon but otherwise it should be treated as wielding two one handed weapons when figuring damage and such. Technically, you still apply half-Str damage bonus to the designated off-hand end of a double weapon.
StevenO 09-23-06, 11:32 PM	Technically, you still apply half-Str damage bonus to the designated off-hand end of a double weapon. I am award of that. Technically, you also can't power attack with the off-end for anything either and if used in a special maneuver such as disarm you'd penalize it as a light weapon although you'd also get the TH bonus as well.
runestar 09-24-06, 12:58 AM	If you wanted to power attack, you would wield it as a 2-handed weapon, not dual-wield with it.:P It gives more bang for your buck that way.:)
Seerow 09-24-06, 12:59 AM	Or you'd be a Revenant Blade and power attack while weilding it as a double weapon, to get the best of both worlds.
Cold Napalm 09-24-06, 01:21 AM	Honestly the dire flail is what gets me...you'd kill yourself in real life, before you hit your enemy with that one.
neostrider 09-24-06, 02:18 AM	Its all about priorities. As a rouge, I'd recommend TWF because it increases the number of attacks you get, and so much more sneak attack damage per turn. It works perfectly because the -2 penatly pretty much balances the denied dex on average. It all depends on your build. As a rouge, I can deal more damage from a fighter, assuming I use it alot. TWF increases my number of uses per round. A fighter with a few good feats can deal as much damage in a few good hits using power attack and weapon spec. 2 roads to the same means, pretty much. Its just personal preference. As for the double weapons, Its just the idea of spending a feat to do it. They're versatile but unless you're human the feat hurts because you're using it to use something you're paying for anyway.