Post/Author/DateTime

Post

#1 biznich Jun 10, 2008 3:25:21

One of the minor things that were added to 3e that I loved was the concept of the double weapon. A weapon which you could sacrifice something to use as two one handed weapons (i.e. spiked chain, orc double axe, etc). I sat down to design my personal iconic character, a spiked chain wielding Fighter. While browsing around I realized he might be much better translated, rules-wise, as a TWF ranger. So I'm trying to figure out a balanced to house rule to allow for it. Looking at the current equipment, pretty much anything you could pawn off as a double weapon has Reach (polearms & spiked chain, quarterstaff doesn't but I'll look past that at the moment). Would it be an unbalancing rule to say that any weapon that has Reach can sacrifice it to be treated as two single handed weapons? My only concern is mapping whether the damage output becomes unbalanced. A comparable weapon is the military longsword (1d8 damage, +3 prof bonus), whereas the spiked chain (2d4 damage, +3 prof bonus) does a *very* slight increase of damage over time you also paid a feat to gain its prof bonus. It sounds overall sound to me, just want to run it by some others. Help me pick it apart and come up with an equivalent rules otherwise.