A double weapon usually isn't a great weapon to choose unless you are dual-wielding both ends with Two-Weapon Fighting (otherwise, you would mos likely be using a different weapon).
However, the Two-Weapon Fighting line of feats requires a high Dexterity score and and a fairly significant feat investment. Despite this ability score/feat investment, you are generally getting diminishing returns with each new feat you take.
Having to have a high Dexterity score would have been fine--if double weapons were at all finessible. As written, however, they are not. That means you need a high Dexterity AND a high Strength to get the most out of them, something that is rarely worthwhile compared to simply wielding two finessible weapons (such as short swords) so as to not spread your ability scores so thin (or suffer from MAD, as they say).
Am I right in this? Are double weapons an inherently subpar option: A trap for unaware newbs who think such weapons are "cool?"
Do you think that making all double weapons inherently finessible (sinply for being double weapons) bring them a little closer to balance?
Please discuss.
|
Double weapons are good against disarm attempts and you can switch to "two handed" mode to optimize your damage (i.e. STR x 1.5, and power attack x 3)
So a power attacking ranger with high STR is the best combo, as he does not need to meet the dex requirements for his bonus two-weapon style feats.
A dwarf or gnome is even better as you get the exotic weapon proficiency for free.
Well. Double scimitars have Revenant Blade from Eberron. They're pretty insanely awesome!
...Granted, every single other double weapon is just terrible.
I dunno. I don't really get double weapons. Not just mechanically, I don't get the fluff draw to them. They don't seem awesome to me. They seem more lame and retardo and bizarre then anything else.
So, all these cool weapons and only dwarves, gnomes, and rangers can use them without handicapping themselves?
Check.
So, all these cool weapons and only dwarves, gnomes, and rangers can use them without handicapping themselves?
Check.
For a given value of cool, I suppose :\
Double weapons are awesome for their flexibility. Since you can treat a double weapon as a two handed weapon (using either end), two weapons (using both ends) or a one handed weapon (using only one end at a time) they are easily the most versatile weapon in the game. One of my players rolled up a TWF Fighter and is loving this fact - without needing to spend a bunch of time shuffling weapons around, he can be using a double weapon and a shield to sword and board, just the double weapon for power attacking or two weapon fighting, or even draw and use some throwing axes without having to stop wielding the weapon.
Plus since each end can be enchanted differently, it's like being able to switch between two different weapons at will if you are clever with your enchantments.
|
A double weapon usually isn't a great weapon to choose unless you are dual-wielding both ends with Two-Weapon Fighting (otherwise, you would mos likely be using a different weapon).
An even bigger newb trap is weapon finesse, since in all cases other than a rogue you end up completely gimping your damage (by reducing strength), which makes having the ability to hit nearly useless. Your real question doesn't have anything to do with double weapons at all. Your real question is about the viability of two-weapon fighting.
Stuff.ProfessorCirno and I finally found something we agree on.
I think my problem with double weapons is that I can't get over how impractical they are.
Do you know how hard it is to use a bo and use it well (note that I didn't say "use it with flash, I said "use it well")? To the point where you won't get your hind quarters handed to you (anyone with at least a normal dex can spin a bo, again I'm talking about using it not pretending to be a majorette)? Well, most double weapons aren't bo. They are things like double bladed swords. You're going to either eviscerate yourself or spend so much time trying not to eviscerate yourself that the other guy is going to have the advantage. The only reason they exist in the game is because Star Wars episode 1 came out shortly before 3.0 was released.
which explains why most people take huge penalties for using it without the feat that represents training to use it correctly...
|
|
I've had a player take a two weapon fighter with a 2-bladed sword from level 1-13 and never feel gimped or weak once, in fact was one of the strongest damage dealers in the group. That was about a 2 and a half year campaign and I haven't had another campaign that went as long as that one. Maybe TWF breaks down at high level, but it holds up perfectly well at low levels/mid levels, and while weaker I don't think it's useless at high levels. So no I don't think it's a trap.
...a power attacking ranger with high STR is the best combo, as he does not need to meet the dex requirements for his bonus two-weapon style feats...
I forgot about the ranger. Still, I don't think that being able to use double weapons well should be limited to rangers (and specific rangers at that).
... A dwarf or gnome is even better as you get the exotic weapon proficiency for free...
Proficiency doesn't matter much if you still suck on account of being forced to spread everything out across Strength AND Dexterity.
Double weapons are awesome for their flexibility. Since you can treat a double weapon as a two handed weapon (using either end), two weapons (using both ends) or a one handed weapon (using only one end at a time) they are easily the most versatile weapon in the game. ...
I think that last part (wielding a double weapon in one hand) is still under debate by many.
An even bigger newb trap is weapon finesse, since in all cases other than a rogue you end up completely gimping your damage (by reducing strength), which makes having the ability to hit nearly useless. Your real question doesn't have anything to do with double weapons at all. Your real question is about the viability of two-weapon fighting.
Though Weapon Finesse does have its own drawbacks, I don't think it is as bad as you say. For a feat, I can have my offensive capabilities (attack rolls including many combat maneuvers) AND my defensive capabilities (Armor Class) solely dependent on a single ability score. That means I can afford to either spread my ability points to other desirable areas (Constitution for toughness or Wisdom to make up for a low Will save) or to really focus in a single area (Dexterity for real accuracy and defense).
Two-Weapon Fighting also has its own drawbacks (namely terrible prerequisites and diminishing returns), but that doesn't change the fact that the very weapons that are meant to work well with that fighting style...simply don't.
I've had a player take a two weapon fighter with a 2-bladed sword from level 1-13 and never feel gimped or weak once, in fact was one of the strongest damage dealers in the group.
Being a straight-classed fighter at all will usually allow you to out damage most other characters in a party.
They work pretty good when your DM doesn't understand how they are supposed to work and rules that every attack you make with a double weapon gives you two to hits.
Basically the "benefit" of using a double weapon is that the base damage of the weapon is going to be slightly better than paired light weapons.
This of course is only really and advantage at all if you are primarily Strength based, since the dual weapon is not going to be a finesse weapon.
So basically - you could have a Str based dual weapon fighting Ranger use dual short swords for 1d6 damage each, or a double bladed sword for 1d8 damage each. So that's +1 damage on average for the cost of a feat, which isn't a very good deal anyways.
If you are a Half-Orc Str based dual weapon fighting Ranger, you may find the Orc Double Axe to be your best mechanical choice. However, you probably aren't really concerned about good mechanical choices because you are playing a half-orc dual weapon fighting Ranger.
I would suggest it's not double weapons that is the trap - it's two weapon fighting itself.
|
|
Being a straight-classed fighter at all will usually allow you to out damage most other characters in a party.
Well in that case we have fighters who are going to be good at it apparently no matter what, rangers who can do it by making strength and getting the spare feats for free, paladins who can smite to hell with it, and rogues who can SA with it. So the only full BAB class who doesn't get very good with it is the barbarian, and he's made up for it by a secondary BAB class that's good with it. Then what's the problem, where's the trap?
Well. Double scimitars have Revenant Blade from Eberron. They're pretty insanely awesome!
...Granted, every single other double weapon is just terrible.
I dunno. I don't really get double weapons. Not just mechanically, I don't get the fluff draw to them. They don't seem awesome to me. They seem more lame and retardo and bizarre then anything else.
ProfessorCirno and I finally found something we agree on.
I think my problem with double weapons is that I can't get over how impractical they are.
Do you know how hard it is to use a bo and use it well (note that I didn't say "use it with flash, I said "use it well")? To the point where you won't get your hind quarters handed to you (anyone with at least a normal dex can spin a bo, again I'm talking about using it not pretending to be a majorette)? Well, most double weapons aren't bo. They are things like double bladed swords. You're going to either eviscerate yourself or spend so much time trying not to eviscerate yourself that the other guy is going to have the advantage. The only reason they exist in the game is because Star Wars episode 1 came out shortly before 3.0 was released.
And maybe that's not such a bad thing. It's one thing to debate the mechanical merits of the weapons and feats surrounding them, it's another to discuss the merits of the, ahem, "Fluff Draw". One is objective and measurable, the other is a matter of personal taste.
I think that's the thing to remember when judging feats/trees like TWF and, as mentioned also in this thread, WF. Their strength is not necessarily an ability to maximize your character mechanically in how often you hit and/or how much damage you deal, their strength is in allowing you to customize your character from the standpoint of roleplaying flavor, without having to suck mechanically.
Case in point: I discovered both WF and TEF back in 3.0 when I decided to play a Fighter who was essentially a Duellist before I knew there WAS such a thing (or maybe even before there was, can't recall). I wanted people to mistake him for a rogue, but he was all fighter -- I even accepted that he would be sub-optimized because most of the skills he took were cross-class skills -- but DEX was his main ability, and he took WF, then later TWF. He very much looked and felt like a Musketeer, except for the lack of firearms. Was he the best fighter in our group? Nope. But thanks to WF he WAS able to at least contribute significantly in combat, while retaining an entirely different feel and flavor than your tyoical fighter.
Right- it's not a trap for fighters. TWF does diminishing returns but for a fighter- whose to hit is around 5 higher than a same stat ranger or paladin (Gtr wpn fcs, wpn training) those iteratives will hit more.
A fighter can TWF with a double wpn and still have feats for other stuff.
But he still got to have a high strength AND a high Dexterity to get the most out of it. Odds are he will (at first level) end up with 14s in each instead of something better.
It's a good thing he averages 5 points higher than other combat characters (and that assumes he take WF and GWF). He's looking a -2 reduction from Two-Weapon Fighting, and another -1 or -2 from having lower ability scores than the NON-dual-wielding combat character.
When you take into account just how many feats said fighter had to invest in order to (1) be able to dual wield at all and to (2) make up for the fighting style's inherent weaknesses, he STILL ends up a step or two behind the two-handed fighter or the archer fighter (who doesn't have to make up for any attack roll loss).
|
An even bigger newb trap is weapon finesse, since in all cases other than a rogue you end up completely gimping your damage (by reducing strength), which makes having the ability to hit nearly useless. Your real question doesn't have anything to do with double weapons at all. Your real question is about the viability of two-weapon fighting.A double weapon usually isn't a great weapon to choose unless you are dual-wielding both ends with Two-Weapon Fighting (otherwise, you would mos likely be using a different weapon).
The feat Dervish Dance helps to balance this out from being entirely true. We just houserule it to be capable of being used similarly with any weapon finessable one handed weapons.
Right- it's not a trap for fighters. TWF does diminishing returns but for a fighter- whose to hit is around 5 higher than a same stat ranger or paladin (Gtr wpn fcs, wpn training) those iteratives will hit more.
A fighter can TWF with a double wpn and still have feats for other stuff.
Wait, I don't get it. Are you saying it IS a trap for the other classes but it is NOT a trap for fighters because fighters have more feats?
If so, then I totally disagree. I would say forcing a character to "burn" excessive feats just to be average is still a trap - oompare that to a fighter who gets good at just one weapon, like a Greatsword, and has all those feats the other guy "burned" available to him to make himself even more powerful.
Just because the fighter has more combat feats than anyone, doesn't mean wasting them on a weapon that is a trap for everyone else is a good idea - put those feats to better use and pick a better weapon.
It doesn't even come down to realism for me.
I can't imagine how you can look at the double-axe and not immidiately think "Hahahahahaha! That's so g!*#&$n goofy!"
Double Weapons are goofy to the extreme. Historically only one "double-weapon" was ever found widespread use in medieval europe: the pole-ax (who had a axe/hammer combination at one side and a spike at the other).
However it's not double weapons that are a trap but TWF for anyone except a Rogue. Rangers are much much better off with a bow, Fighters are much better with a great weapon or a shield (which, historically, always was used as a 2nd weapon in duels).
That said, a TWF Ranger or a TWF Fighter isn't totally gimped, it's just that he sacrifices a lot to do something with two weapons which he can do nicely with one great weapon and have a lot of feats free.
Fighters are much better with a great weapon or a shield (which, historically, always was used as a 2nd weapon in duels).
I'm not so sure I would say "always".
The main gauche was quite common in fencing styles, and the Florentine style of fighting was, while not common, certainly a viable TWF style that flourished in Europe.
Of course, in the Far East, we have countless examples of TWF: sai, tonfa, numchaku, kama, butterfly swords, katana/wakizashi, even katana/katana. And all kinds of stick fighting (think of the opening scene in the 3rd Rambo movie).
No, the shield wasn't "always" used in duels. In fact, I daresay that a man who would use a main gauche in a duel would go to war with a sword and shield - duels were the playground of TWF but real battlefields were for solid, safe choices.
All the rest of the stuff that you and others are saying about Pahtfinder TWF being gimped, mechanically, is quite true of course.
All the rest of the stuff that you and others are saying about Pahtfinder TWF being gimped, mechanically, is quite true of course.
I don't know about gimped. With armour training, the fighter now has serious incentive to have a high dex. A 15th lvl fighter with 20 dex applies all +5 to his AC with full plate on. He only needs 19 dex to pull off the TWF chain.
So what's the problem?
It always amuses me that because an option does a few points less damage it is considered "gimped" by many.
The option of having two weapons with different metal types or different enhancements often helps make up for that lack of damage. Not every campaign reaches high level play with +3 or greater weapons. Having options is great!
One persons "gimped" is another persons "gold" you might say.
Also... Pathfinder has build in magic items for middle and higher level play that help increase multiple physical stats or multiple mental stats. Just because two weapon fighting as an option (for anyone except rangers) requires a decent strength and dexterity does not mean it is a trap as the game itself has built in methods of keeping up. (Belt of Physical Might for the win.)
Paraphrased: ...TWF is a trap for anyone except a Rogue.
I disagree. Considering the heavy feat investment, and the lack of feats a rogue can get, it is a trap even for rogues.
It has been mathematically proven on these boards that you can play a two-hander rogue, deal only slightly less damage than a dual-wielder rogue (~5 less if I recall), and still have several feats left open to do with as you please. Among other things, the two-hander rogue had the option of being more mobile (making it less likely to get killed by standing around).
That and tasking the two-weapon fighting feats all the way up in 3.5 was a trap, so I always build a two-weapon user with high strength and decent dex, using magic items to qualify for Improved TWF. Greater TWF was such a joke. Another -10 to hit? Woohoo, a chance to crit with my low... damage... weapon? Hey, come back here with that feat PHB, you ain't worth it no more.
Now that the feats are actually worth it... This would still be the best option. Eating another feat for weapon finesse is the height of undesirability. Come on, now. I have to use those feats for TWF tree, and all my money's going into making Lefty the shortsword Icy Burst. I'm stretched thin here, no dexterity you cannot have a boost. Throw a level of Barbarian in here and you have every multi-weapon using NPC I have ever rolled up.
Plus for Fighters (and strangely enough the Cavalier with the right order, you know the one) TWF becomes very viable without being a bugbear or a gnoll. I meant race, not the particular nuisances for the build, but at any rate, the bonus to hit is the big problem and the capstone fat solves that now. Just stop feeding all your feats to your dexterity and start concentrating on dealing damage and we'll all be fine.
...I'm not so sure I would say "always".
The main gauche was quite common in fencing styles...
I was saying mediveal. Rapier, Main Gauche and the likes are post medieval renaissance weapons, when duels were fought without much protection at all and Shields were considerd uncool and cumbersome to carry around. A Main Gauche (or a Say/Jitte) is good only when facing a Rapier or similar smallbladed Sword while a shield is always good except while trying to look flashy.
A rapier simply can not pierce a full plate nor can a Long Sword bite into it - and it isn't ment to.
However Full Plates are much to cheap in D&D and much too convenient. It takes half an hour to strap it on with the help of a trained squire who also needs at least an hour a day to care for the full plate. The monthly price to care and maintain for your full plate exceeds the average cost of sleeping and eating.
D&D mixes early medeval, late medival and renaissance weapons and styles as well as heavy armored war and no armor duel/street fighting.
Almost all asian weapons assume that the opponent has next to no armor and no shield. Many were only used under the pretense that their wielders were forbidden to use any real weapon and put to death instantly if found doing it. If you face the choice of nothing or a nun-chak, then a nun-chak seems good, else it doesn't.
...It has been mathematically proven on these boards that you can play a two-hander rogue...
Yes, thats true, but I still have problems picturing a greatsword rogue sneak attacking - it's just against everything I ever saw and imagined about rogues.
...It has been mathematically proven on these boards that you can play a two-hander rogue...Yes, thats true, but I still have problems picturing a greatsword rogue sneak attacking - it's just against everything I ever saw and imagined about rogues.
A sneak attack is all about catching your opponent in a unguarded moment and attacking a vital area of the body. A mace to back of the skull, a dagger to the kidney, a long sword to the lungs, a greatsword to sever the spine...
...A sneak attack is all about catching your opponent in a unguarded moment and attacking a vital area of the body. A mace to back of the skull, a dagger to the kidney, a long sword to the lungs, a greatsword to sever the spine...
Yes, of course, but the greatsword is just that, great. It can't be worn at the belt, even holding it for some time is not easy for anyone of 8-12 strength. It is constantly in the way while doing dextrous things.
It also requires a wide arc because its damage comes from being swung violently and not from little stabbity stabs. Same with mace.
While the whole concept of doing more damage if you hit vital areas is basically what combat is all about, the extra extra damage that a Rogue does is due to the fact that he hits the vital areas with even more precision - else everyone striking an oponent from behind would get that bonus damage.
However precision and greatsword do not exactly match tightly in my mind and in my experience, having fought with Renaissance Bidenhanders, which are the role models of D&Ds "Greatswords".
One step further lies the sneak attack scene from "The Gamers" where the Rogue uses a heavy ballista in an inn - hilarious.
|
While the whole concept of doing more damage if you hit vital areas is basically what combat is all about, the extra extra damage that a Rogue does is due to the fact that he hits the vital areas with even more precision - else everyone striking an oponent from behind would get that bonus damage.
A house-rule that you can only sneak attack with a light or finessable weapon could help codify that perception that you're looking for.
In Dark Ages of Camelot, the Midgardian (basically Norse) 'rogue' class had the enviable ability to wield a two-handed swords and axes (while the Albionian / British and the Hibernian / Celtic equivalents were limited to lighter weapons), leading to some funny visuals of vikings sneaking up on people and shoving greataxes into their skulls...
While the other rogues were tickling kidneys, the norse rogues backstab attack looked like the chestburster scene from Aliens.
...In Dark Ages of Camelot, the Midgardian (basically Norse) 'rogue' class had the enviable ability to wield a two-handed swords and axes..While the other rogues were tickling kidneys, the norse rogues backstab attack looked like the chestburster scene from Aliens.
Yeah, looked nice, until the Infiltrator evaded your swing and stunned you back with his awesome evade-chain ability because two handed weapons gave a bonus to the other guys evasion...
|
|
...In Dark Ages of Camelot, the Midgardian (basically Norse) 'rogue' class had the enviable ability to wield a two-handed swords and axes..While the other rogues were tickling kidneys, the norse rogues backstab attack looked like the chestburster scene from Aliens.Yeah, looked nice, until the Infiltrator evaded your swing and stunned you back with his awesome evade-chain ability because two handed weapons gave a bonus to the other guys evasion...
True, true. I mostly played casters anyway, so the only real experience I had with rogues was getting ganked by them in the battlegrounds. :)
My Shadowblade stayed PVE and that huge initial backstab was a nice conversation starter when solo-ing mobs.
Well ... how much *would* anything be affected if you did let both ends of a double weapon get the str bonus of a regular 2-handed weapon?
I mean, you're paying a feat to just use the thing w/out the penalties ... why not let it be "2-handed" even when using only a single end of it? (ie: you're still swinging w/2-hands anyway, and combat is already all kinds of abstract as it stands, so particular "I swing like this" declarations seem irrelevant to resolution, IMO.)
I've honestly never thought much about this, though, before this thread ... interesting topic and discussion.
I've never even thought that much about 2-weapon fighting being a disadvantage.
...A sneak attack is all about catching your opponent in a unguarded moment and attacking a vital area of the body. A mace to back of the skull, a dagger to the kidney, a long sword to the lungs, a greatsword to sever the spine...Yes, of course, but the greatsword is just that, great. It can't be worn at the belt, even holding it for some time is not easy for anyone of 8-12 strength. It is constantly in the way while doing dextrous things.
It also requires a wide arc because its damage comes from being swung violently and not from little stabbity stabs. Same with mace.
While the whole concept of doing more damage if you hit vital areas is basically what combat is all about, the extra extra damage that a Rogue does is due to the fact that he hits the vital areas with even more precision - else everyone striking an oponent from behind would get that bonus damage.
However precision and greatsword do not exactly match tightly in my mind and in my experience, having fought with Renaissance Bidenhanders, which are the role models of D&Ds "Greatswords".
One step further lies the sneak attack scene from "The Gamers" where the Rogue uses a heavy ballista in an inn - hilarious.
Love the gamers reference. However a great sword could be used for more than just slicing. You could grab the dull part of the blade and stab with it for more "controlled" attacks.
I understand the flavor you are going for though.
|
|
Quite frankly, if I wanna TWF, I'd rather use a shield...yeah more feats needed...but with access to improved shield bash and shield slam, it's probably the best way to TWF.
This, right here, is exactly why two-weapon fighting is so hosed in this game - the best option for fighting with two weapons is only fighting with one weapon and using a shield with screwy scaling as the other.
The shield issue is one thing - you can get your AC and have a one handed weapon that does 2d6 base damage, it's completely legit - but the fact that, even ignoring the bashing enchant, sword and board is *still* the best way to go TWF is why the path is so messed up.
|
|
No, the shield wasn't "always" used in duels.Fighters are much better with a great weapon or a shield (which, historically, always was used as a 2nd weapon in duels).
I could be wrong, since he's responded and didn't mention this already, but I didn't get the same thing out of that statement that you did. What I saw the statement to mean was that anyone who used a shield in a duel used it as an offensive weapon as well as a defensive weapon - not that everyone used shields in duels.
I could be wrong, since he's responded and didn't mention this already, but I didn't get the same thing out of that statement that you did. What I saw the statement to mean was that anyone who used a shield in a duel used it as an offensive weapon as well as a defensive weapon - not that everyone used shields in duels.No, the shield wasn't "always" used in duels.Fighters are much better with a great weapon or a shield (which, historically, always was used as a 2nd weapon in duels).
Yes, indeed, if someone experienced uses a Shield, he always uses it offensively as well as defensively. But not in all duels there is a Shield used.
Most beginners make the critical error of using a shield like it's often seen in films - held firmly to the body with the arm holding the sword protuding far out during an attack.
If used that way an opponent simply needs to cut the arm while it swings the weapon - easy as hell.
So you need to bring the shield to the front to cover your attacking arm and while you do this, if the other parries with his shield you use your shild to bash his and hopefully trap it and his weapon with your shield shortly to openly strike at him.
Quite frankly, if I wanna TWF, I'd rather use a shield...yeah more feats needed...but with access to improved shield bash and shield slam, it's probably the best way to TWF.This, right here, is exactly why two-weapon fighting is so hosed in this game - the best option for fighting with two weapons is only fighting with one weapon and using a shield with screwy scaling as the other.
The shield issue is one thing - you can get your AC and have a one handed weapon that does 2d6 base damage, it's completely legit - but the fact that, even ignoring the bashing enchant, sword and board is *still* the best way to go TWF is why the path is so messed up.
Well all the fighter feats apply to both of the same weapon, which is what I always did. An extra 4 damage didn't used to be so much, but now the scaling increases it to 8. Even though it's "Only" a 5 damage difference, and it factors in at high levels, it's still there.
The main fault of this is the damage scaling for size increases being stupid. Otherwise it would be no contest a still insignificant difference.
1d4 goes into 1d6. 1d6 goes into 1d8. Therefore 1d8 becomes 2d6.
Wait, what?
Then there's also the fact that Mithral doesn't make one-handed weapons easier to wield light. I will be the first to say that fighting with two rapiers is just silly, but c'mon now. Mithral halves the weight, right? This Mithral Rapier is now 1 lb. The same weight as a dagger according to the rules (Although that's a dagger with one heavy pommel). What in the blue blazes is making this thrusting weapon so unwieldy? Is it the length? I would buy that. Regardless, thrusting weapons of all things are the least affected by their length in terms of the energy used to attack with them unless you're swinging them like a baseball bat. The weight would be all I can see.
Or we could let a +1 enhancement turning a one-handed weapon into a light weapon solve these shenanigans. There is one that's third party in 101 Magical Weapon Properties by Rite Publishing. That would let the Two-Weapon Fighter invest their cash in something besides a +2 weapon right off the bat. Then they can be properly insane and wield two bastard swords or longswords like a certain ninja turtle. Or half the minis from classical fantasy with other improbable weapon combos, like an axe and a flail.
And if you're objecting to this on the basis of a "realism" factor? Just remember this is the same game where archers can fire off multiple arrows in 6 seconds with some accuracy.
From my perspective as a DM, two-weapon fighting in 3.5 tended to be a bit weak as far as damage went. Players were, I think, too likely to focus just on advancing their Dex and ability to hit with their finesse weapons.
That said, once the swashbuckler got her rapier and short sword enchanted as wounding weapons, she became pretty scary on the battlefield. With the extra attacks and her full BAB, who cared how much primary damage she did? The Con damage was brutal.
|
A couple of points.
1) If you need a 40 point stat build to make twf viable, then it aint.
2) If you give 1.5 str for double weapons on both end, it becomes way too good. Allow the 3x for power attack and you break it.
3) Light shields and bucklers make for good weapons in real life. In fact, in real life, TWF with these are superior to using 2 weapons for most people once they get over the idea that shields are for defense only that people seem to have. Even certain large shield designs make for good shield bashing.
4) Weight isn't the end all be all of how agile a weapon is. It's not even something as simple as length and point of balance. Mass distribution matters quite a bit too. However since D&D only gives weight, you really can tell squat realistically.