|
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.
Although I agree with you in theory, can somebody do a quick calculation on how much more damage? It's one thing to claim it's broken, it's another to actually see it.
Because the whole reason it's not worth it in the first place is that taking multiple feats still does not make this style worth it. Taking a growth tree like TWF should reward the players. So if we allowed 1.5x and 3x damage, would it be worth it then? Or still too weak? Or way too strong?
Personally, I have used high strength 2WF to great effect. Ravendork, I don't know where your getting the "players will likely only have 14 in str and dex" from, but on a 15 point buy human: str 16(5+2), dex 15(7), con 13(3), mental 10s. Its harder for other races but an 8 in a mental and 12 con and you can still do it with elf. Sure, you could have an 18 in str instead, but thats not always the best idea.
I think 2WF is feat intensive and depends a lot on the type of game. If your DM likes high AC opponents, it quickly becomes useless in my experience. I find the feat tax a little high, but don't really think its out of line.
Like a couple other people pointed out, I think the real trap is weapon finesse. It encourages you to sac your str in favor of dex, and then you just end up not doing much, even as a rogue. I find if you don't have at least a 14 in str as a melee you are toast, even if you picked up a 22 dex. Two weapon fighters really need to make use of double slice and two weapon rend IMO to stay effective.
BYC, my Barb-2 Rogue-8 in the DPR olympics goes up more than 11 points of damage switching him to 1.5 str on a double weapon, bringing him up to 88.83, 108.15 when flanking.
|
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.
Although I agree with you in theory, can somebody do a quick calculation on how much more damage? It's one thing to claim it's broken, it's another to actually see it.
Because the whole reason it's not worth it in the first place is that taking multiple feats still does not make this style worth it. Taking a growth tree like TWF should reward the players. So if we allowed 1.5x and 3x damage, would it be worth it then? Or still too weak? Or way too strong?
Okay level 1
1d8+9/1d8+9. Have +3 to hit...assuming 18 str and weapon focus. Power attacking.
Level 8
1d8+17/1d8+17. Your to hit is 12/12/7/7...this assumes 22 str by this point and weapon focus and greater wepon focus...and weapon spec. This does NOT include magic weapon. Power attacking.
Level 12
1d8+26/1d8+26. Your to hit is 19/19/14/14/9/9...assumed 26 str at this point. Before magic weapons...weapon focus yada yada...power attacking.
And this is before any 3.5 feats that we can toss in. I actually did play a dwarf fighter under this rule set using the double axe...and it makes any other fighting style utter rubbish in comparision.
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.
Although I agree with you in theory, can somebody do a quick calculation on how much more damage? It's one thing to claim it's broken, it's another to actually see it.
Because the whole reason it's not worth it in the first place is that taking multiple feats still does not make this style worth it. Taking a growth tree like TWF should reward the players. So if we allowed 1.5x and 3x damage, would it be worth it then? Or still too weak? Or way too strong?
Okay level 1
1d8+9/1d8+9. Have +3 to hit...assuming 18 str and weapon focus. Power attacking.
Level 8
1d8+17/1d8+17. Your to hit is 12/12/7/7...this assumes 22 str by this point and weapon focus and greater wepon focus...and weapon spec. This does NOT include magic weapon. Power attacking.
Level 12
1d8+26/1d8+26. Your to hit is 19/19/14/14/9/9...assumed 26 str at this point. Before magic weapons...weapon focus yada yada...power attacking.And this is before any 3.5 feats that we can toss in. I actually did play a dwarf fighter under this rule set using the double axe...and it makes any other fighting style utter rubbish in comparision.
Except those numbers are useless without context. What does a normal person TWFing get? What would annother damage dealer get without TWF? And what is your average DPR versus a level appropriate foe. Without context, those numbers mean nothing. To me, none of those actually seem broken, especially for the feat investment. I mean, your only 2, 3, and 4 damage per hit off from a normal TWF with double slice. Without context, data is useless.
|
|
The other damage dealer in the party used a greatsword...did almost the same damage as me with a slightly better to hit per attack...at half the attacks. Honestly he had more hits land then I did about a dozen times thoughout the level 1-15 adventure. And that is the result of me rolling really badly. I do admit the archer still did okay though as the whole range thing still gives her something the two melee damager couldn't do. There was a monk as well...but that was just a mess. The druid and wizard...well they did what they do.
In anycase, yes currently the THF is king from an optimized PoV...but TWF can still hold a candle to it. What this ruleset does is take THF and doubles the number of attacks...which makes ANY other fighting style really pale in comparison.
You know ... if nothing else, those numbers bring to my mind one thing I've never been a fan of: automatic assumption of adding MORE damage to the 2-handed weapons.
They already tend to have one of 3 features present: (1) higher damage die, or multiples (2) higher crit. multipliers or (3) higher crit range.
My point: these things, ALREADY get boons for being 2-handed. What's with giving that boon, AND on top of it granting higher damage for Str bonuses!?!??!
Really, those numbers just leap out at me as WTF from the example.
Honestly, to give "2-handed specialists" a bit more of a "thing" to build (beyond simply Power Attack and be done!), I'd just divorce/delete/whatever EVERY feature/function of additional str gains for 2-handed weapons. They REQUIRE 2-hands in the first place. If you want to get something else ... let me direct you to the "2-handed specialist" feats.
Seriously ... am I the only one that find it strange that a whole dimension of combat is doubled up for 2-handed weapons? Especially when compared to say ... the TWF tree?
2-handed is just too good as it stands, IMO. Sure, you don't get the shield, but IMO shields are killer now as well ... :shrugs:
{shuffles off to look at Complete Fighter's Handbook from AD&D for references to the fighting styles posited in that book ...}
The other damage dealer in the party used a greatsword...did almost the same damage as me with a slightly better to hit per attack...at half the attacks. Honestly he had more hits land then I did about a dozen times thoughout the level 1-15 adventure. And that is the result of me rolling really badly. I do admit the archer still did okay though as the whole range thing still gives her something the two melee damager couldn't do. There was a monk as well...but that was just a mess. The druid and wizard...well they did what they do.
In anycase, yes currently the THF is king from an optimized PoV...but TWF can still hold a candle to it. What this ruleset does is take THF and doubles the number of attacks...which makes ANY other fighting style really pale in comparison.
At the cost of spending many, many, many more feats. A decent THF build needs 1 feat, power attack. A decent TWF build needs 5 to stay at the same point, 6 if you include power attack, which wont always increase your DPR. That is a significant portion of the character's resources, and the end result is someone who on average deals slightly less damage than a THF. Switching it so that he deals 1.5 str, I could see it flipping so he does slightly more, but not so far that it becomes the only build possible.
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.)
So...TWF is good because it costs you more gold to maintain and forces you to be MAD? o_O
Umm... praticallity is not the thing we're going for when we're playing these games. We're not creating characters (most of us that is) to be hyper-efficient uniformed SWAT stormtroopers. Sometimes it's just the fun of doing something different even if it's not always hyperoptimal. Eccentricities and individual choices are part of what makes adventurers stand out.
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.
Exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you, LazarX
So...TWF is good because it costs you more gold to maintain and forces you to be MAD? o_O
As someone who feels that making all classes MAD classes is good for the game, making more than one stat attractive to the TWF PC, if normally only one is, is a good thing.
So...TWF is good because it costs you more gold to maintain and forces you to be MAD? o_O
So what if it does? Are you that much more worried about spending imaginary money, and the fact that you might have to forgo having a stat of 22 or whatever?
No one is saying that you have to give up whatever you consider to be your "winning strategy"
However the contention that any way but the uber way is gimped, makes for a very strait-jacketed style of play.
What the hell are you talking about? "Imaginary money?" Yes, I;m TERRIFIED of spending gold. When I play D&D I don't even level up because that forces me to remember I have XP! Oh god *Cry cry cry*
Seriously I have no g#++*+n clue what you're blathering about. The person I quoted claimed that TWF is good because it costs you more gold then other styles, and because it forces you to dilute your stats more. That's bizarro logic. It's like saying that my car is better then your car because my car has terrible upholstery and a bad engine but still cost me more money.
Exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you, LazarXUmm... praticallity is not the thing we're going for when we're playing these games. We're not creating characters (most of us that is) to be hyper-efficient uniformed SWAT stormtroopers. Sometimes it's just the fun of doing something different even if it's not always hyperoptimal. Eccentricities and individual choices are part of what makes adventurers stand out.
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.
I stand by my original point - anyone who looks at "double-axe" and doesn't immidiately make the :| face in real life has a problem.
I don't care about realism. But there does reach a point where things just get goofy
About how much damage less are we looking at normally with TWF on average?
I see some people saying you can use a double weapon two handed to get the 1.5 Str. According to the book you can wield it one handed or double but not two handed. Where do you get the wield it 2 handed?
PRD: "A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round."
If you can wield it two handed then the double weapon gets that much better as you gain a bonus 1.5 str damage and your power attack is much better, great for mobility when you move into attack and make single attack then next round go TWF for the extra attacks. Otherwise the only real advantage I see with double weapons is if you get them with out spending a feat for exotic weapon. So by taking race with double weapon for a racial weapon then you aren't wasting a feat. Next TWF has to be something you want. If you do then double weapons are worth it Gold Pieces wise as you only have to buy one weapon. Buying two weapons to for TWF gets expensive and you suffer because of it.
So I'm thinking TWF strength based Half-Orc rogue using the Orc Double Axe.
EDIT: Does this work like I'm thinking?
PRD: "Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands."
So technically you can use two hands on any weapon to get the 1.5 Str damage except for light weapons? Since double weapons aren't light then therefor you could use two hands on them to get the 1.5 str damage.
I'm currently going TWF with my Fighter/Paladin. I'm enjoying it, and I don't feel gimped. I had DPR pretty much in the party, and more to the point, the adventure. I've played a half-orc Fighter/Barb (3.5e) who once did 130 points of damage in a round at 7th level (Power Attack, Rage, Bull's Strength, Haste, & 1 crit) with a spiked chain. Amusing, even memorable, but not really the stuff of great games.
|
In anycase, yes currently the THF is king from an optimized PoV...but TWF can still hold a candle to it.
Are we even absolutely sure of this statement? I've seen plenty of numbers that only factor in a 1v1 type of fight, but TWF should benefit almost twice as much from party buffs.
Obviously haste will be a bigger boon to the THF, but things like bard song will be almost double the benefit for the TWF. Might it be that TWF shines more in a party than THF?
Keep in mind that this doubling also applies to weapon specialization if you use a double weapon or two of the same weapon type. I'm sure there are already numbers out there comparing TWF fighter to THF fighter, but I haven't seen them yet.
Try a build with a Tengu Inquisitor of Nethys (destruction domain).
I don't care about realism. But there does reach a point where things just get goofy
The game has gnomes in it. I fail to see the problem with another bit of "goof". Don't like double weapons, don't use them.
The real problem is your assertion that everyone of us should be sharing your tastes in what's acceptable and what's not.
+1
I don't care about realism. But there does reach a point where things just get goofy
The game has gnomes in it. I fail to see the problem with another bit of "goof". Don't like double weapons, don't use them.
The real problem is your assertion that everyone of us should be sharing your tastes in what's acceptable and what's not.
On one hand, that's true.
On the other hand, double axes.
Gnomes are meant to be goofy. Double axes are meant to be taken seriously, which is why they're so tragically hilarious.
I don't care about realism. But there does reach a point where things just get goofy
The game has gnomes in it. I fail to see the problem with another bit of "goof". Don't like double weapons, don't use them.
The real problem is your assertion that everyone of us should be sharing your tastes in what's acceptable and what's not.
On one hand, that's true.
On the other hand, double axes.
Gnomes are meant to be goofy. Double axes are meant to be taken seriously, which is why they're so tragically hilarious.
Are Half-Orcs meant to be goofy, or taken seriously?
The point remains, a discussion of the esthetic merits of any given item/ability/creature/ANY plot device in a fantasy game/story/setting is going to be highly subjective. Try thinking of the stuff you see in ANY subset of the fantasy or sci-fi genres -- kung Fu movies, Star Trek, Star Wars, LOtR, Godzilla, the list goes on ad infinitum -- and you'll find things that are going to "Tragically Hilarious" to one person, but are going to fit well within the purview of "Suspension of Disbelief" for the next. And while discussions of game mechanics themselves may be far more empirical and objective, any conclusions as to the relative worth of something based on those mechanics WILL start to encroach on subjective, esthetic territory. That's because when you ask, "Is this (item, feat, feat tree, bloodline, race, class, etc.) worth taking?" the first response has to be, "Well, what are you trying to accopmlish?" If the answer is "The most damage psooible in combat" or "The highest likelihood of striking", then the numbers are easier to interpret. But if the answer is "To play a medieval fantasy version of Darth Maul, except I want him to be green and love nature", then the numbers might lead you to a different conclusion. But it's a bit narcissistic to assume that ones esthetic sensibilities are shared by all who play.
"Well, what are you trying to accopmlish?"
"To play a medieval fantasy version of Darth Maul, except I want him to be green and love nature"
I would mock the hell out of any player that said that, no lie.
I would mock the hell out of any player that said that, no lie."Well, what are you trying to accopmlish?"
"To play a medieval fantasy version of Darth Maul, except I want him to be green and love nature"
Yeah, so would I. But there are whole groups of people who would not only NOT do that, they'd probably think "Cool, I wish I'd thought of that". Are you saying you think the game shouldn't include the mechanics for someone to do just that?
I don't care about realism. But there does reach a point where things just get goofy
The game has gnomes in it. I fail to see the problem with another bit of "goof". Don't like double weapons, don't use them.
The real problem is your assertion that everyone of us should be sharing your tastes in what's acceptable and what's not.
On one hand, that's true.
On the other hand, double axes.
Gnomes are meant to be goofy. Double axes are meant to be taken seriously, which is why they're so tragically hilarious.
What is so goofy about a small sized being that generally can be as tough as a dwarf and better looking to boot? A gnome fighter that is potentially harder to hit than your last human opponent...or uses the hooked end of a weapon to trip you and then smash your **** with the hammer on the other end while you are laying on the ground?
Not every Gnome is a Tinker Gnome. :)
I personally enjoy having options. The game is only as "goofy" as you allow it to be... just change a little flavor text until you like the description of the material and then use the stats as is. ;)
This has been said lots of times by lots of people.
There are two kinds of make-believe in this game. One kind is the stuff that's just completely made up fantasy stuff and has no bearing on our real world at all. Fireballs and dragons and magic wands and such. The other kind is the game-version of stuff we have in this real world, or stuff that is fairly similar to it. Swords, flasks of oil, horses, castles, etc.
Now, nobody bats an eye whe we say "My elf can cast a fireball from his magic wand". That stuff is all made up anyway, we can have it be anything we want it to be, whatever the game says it should be.
But with the other kind of make-believe, it is harder to just blow it off with "just because".
That's why some gamers can point at something and say "That's unrealistic" while they completely ignore a thousand other unrealistic things. It the stuff that is or could be real in this world that, for me and some others, needs to be real in our games.
You see, I have swung an axe. A lot. I have lived in a house just 30 minutes from several ski resorts for about 8 years, and we had a wood-burning stove. Oh yeah, lots of wood-splitting. No, that's not the same as combat, but it is swinging an axe. Then I look at a an orcish double-axe and try to imagine chopping wood with that. And very quickly I am, in my imagination, watching the blood spurting from my severed hand or my gashed belly.
I tried swinging an axe in such a way that I pretended there was a blade at the other end. That meant I had to hold it near the middle or I would cut my arms. That meant no vertical chops or I would gut myself. That meant only rougly side-to-side swings, nearly horizontal. Anything else and I injured myself on this imaginary blade. This caused two problems:
1. No power. Those side-to-side attacks would barely sink the axe into a log, not even hard enough to stick.
2. A defender would always know your attack plan. With a normal axe you could change it up, go for his knees, take a vertical chop at his head, whatever. But with that double axe, it's just side-to-side predictable attacks.
I have used hatchets too, for chopping up the kindling. Lots of hand-axe (hatchet) work. The concept of saying "a double axe is like having two hand-axes (but bigger)" is all wrong. I look at my arm motion swinging a hatchet, and at any point pause that motion and imagine the handle of that hatchet growing an extra yard/meter long and then putting a second blade at the end of it, and that second blade is somewhere in my chest or belly. It's not off to my side, and it's not in front of my in my other hand.
The weapon would never work. I couldn't even chop wood with it.
Now, I can't tell you if fireballs are hot or if dragons have thick scales. But I can tell you that a double-axe would never work.
|
This has been said lots of times by lots of people.
There are two kinds of make-believe in this game. One kind is the stuff that's just completely made up fantasy stuff and has no bearing on our real world at all. Fireballs and dragons and magic wands and such. The other kind is the game-version of stuff we have in this real world, or stuff that is fairly similar to it. Swords, flasks of oil, horses, castles, etc.
Now, nobody bats an eye whe we say "My elf can cast a fireball from his magic wand". That stuff is all made up anyway, we can have it be anything we want it to be, whatever the game says it should be.
But with the other kind of make-believe, it is harder to just blow it off with "just because".
That's why some gamers can point at something and say "That's unrealistic" while they completely ignore a thousand other unrealistic things. It the stuff that is or could be real in this world that, for me and some others, needs to be real in our games.
You see, I have swung an axe. A lot. I have lived in a house just 30 minutes from several ski resorts for about 8 years, and we had a wood-burning stove. Oh yeah, lots of wood-splitting. No, that's not the same as combat, but it is swinging an axe. Then I look at a an orcish double-axe and try to imagine chopping wood with that. And very quickly I am, in my imagination, watching the blood spurting from my severed hand or my gashed belly.
I tried swinging an axe in such a way that I pretended there was a blade at the other end. That meant I had to hold it near the middle or I would cut my arms. That meant no vertical chops or I would gut myself. That meant only rougly side-to-side swings, nearly horizontal. Anything else and I injured myself on this imaginary blade. This caused two problems:
1. No power. Those side-to-side attacks would barely sink the axe into a log, not even hard enough to stick.
2. A defender would always know your attack plan. With a normal axe you could change it up, go for his knees, take a vertical chop at...
Hey there blake I'm an axe swinger myself and I have to disagree with you about the double axe. When you picture your orc double axe instead of picturing the one from the book, picture your typical woodcutting axe. If the woodcutting axe you used had an extra foot of handle and a blade on it, you couldn't still use it to chop wood with. I ask because I could, in fact since a typical axe doesn't even have a sharp edge along the bottom or top (or the axes I use even the cutting edge, hell the axe I chop wood with is so dull I could probably hold the axe head and use the handle as a club) I could use the extra length for more leverage in my swing. Now if someone attacked me, I'd hold it wide gripped close to the heads on either side, use the haft for blocking and then whenever I saw an opening chop with whichever end is nearer. Not an arcing swing, but more of a punch with an axe head making contact. I would be a completely different way of fighting with it than with a regular axe, and no I couldn't imagine it with the kind of double axe pictured in the 3.5 book. But I could picture it with a double headed woodcutting type blade axe. And I think with training (i.e. enough to get what would be considered a feat) I think I would be quite good with it. Now how does that compare with the axe that I wouldn't really need training with to use as a decent weapon, I can't say I'd have to see it in practice. But the double bladed axe is actually a lot easier to justify for me than the two-bladed sword, and levels above the kill yourself sillyness of the dire flail.
Hey there blake I'm an axe swinger myself and I have to disagree with you about the double axe. When you picture your orc double axe instead of picturing the one from the book, picture your typical woodcutting axe. If the woodcutting axe you used had an extra foot of handle and a blade on it, you couldn't still use it to chop wood with. I ask because I could, in fact since a typical axe doesn't even have a sharp edge along the bottom or top (or the axes I use even the cutting edge, hell the axe I chop wood with is so dull I could probably hold the axe head and use the handle as a club) I could use the extra length for more leverage in my swing. Now if someone attacked me, I'd hold it wide gripped close to the heads on either side, use the haft for blocking and then whenever I saw an opening chop with whichever end is nearer. Not an arcing swing, but more of a punch with an axe head making contact. I would be a completely different way of fighting with it than with a regular axe, and no I couldn't imagine it with the kind of double axe pictured in the 3.5 book. But I could picture it with a double headed woodcutting type blade axe. And I think with training (i.e. enough to get what would be considered a feat) I think I would be quite good with it. Now how does that compare with the axe that I wouldn't really need training with to use as a decent weapon, I can't say I'd have to see it in practice. But the double bladed axe is actually a lot easier to justify for me than the two-bladed sword, and levels above the kill yourself sillyness of the dire flail.
Yes, wood-cutting axes are wedges, not blades. Still, I keep mine sharp enough that you wouldn't want to hold it by the blade and club things with it. Too sharp, the cutting edge chips. Too dull, it takes more force and more sweat and more labor to chop the same pile of firewood.
I guess it depends on how much workout you want (and how far you want to chase those two split logs that go flying when a dull axe chops through).
Yes, a relativey tiny wood head on each end is far more swingable, but I was referring to the big old fantasy half-moon axe blades on the orcish weapon. My hands end up in front of my belt buckle, maybe a foot away from me when I chop wood. That foot of air would be fully filled with those big old fantasy blades, and there would still be more of the blade in my gut. Assuming I didn't get my wrists/forearms too close to the blade during the swing and lop off my arms (ask any archer why they wear a bracer - they know to keep their wrist away from that string, but even one moment of carelessness can lead to stitches).
That's it - Orcish double-axe bracers and girdle (made of the strongest steel) to keep you from hacking yourself to bits!
**********************************************
Yes, the double-sword would maim me in the first swing. I trained for quite some time at the bo (Japanese staff) and when swinging one end at your enemy, we braced the back end against our hip for added leverage. And braced it fairly hard. We'd often walk out of a bo session with our sensei and we all had bruised hips, even the sensei who'd been doing this for 30 years. Imagine if that had been a blade against our hips...
And the Dire Flail. You're right, pure suicide. I nearly killed myself a half dozen times with a kusari-gama (chain with a weight on one end and a hooked blade on the other) before I put that on the wall for decoration - forever. (Yes, I know, there are some people out there who really know how to use that weapon for deadly effect, but I decided I would rather live un-maimed than try to become one of them).
|
|
Yes, a relativey tiny wood head on each end is far more swingable, but I was referring to the big old fantasy half-moon axe blades on the orcish weapon. My hands end up in front of my belt buckle, maybe a foot away from me when I chop wood. That foot of air would be fully filled with those big old fantasy blades, and there would still be more of the blade in my gut. Assuming I didn't get my wrists/forearms too close to the blade during the swing and lop off my arms (ask any archer why they wear a bracer - they know to keep their wrist away from that string, but even one moment of carelessness can lead to stitches).
If you're swinging it like a wood-chopping axe then you're absolutely correct. However, I'm certain that if a weapon of that shape existed in a real medieval society then there would be an appropriate traditional fighting style to accompany it.
Just off the top of my head I could imagine more sweeping motions and attacks that were aimed at an angle for where the shoulder meets the neck. It would probably have been a good weapon for getting past shields as well, since you could bury one end into the shield and swing the other end into the groin area. Though yes, I'm well aware that it would be a risky maneuver since you'd limit your motion to defend a counter-attack. The point is that if you think more of someone developing a fighting style instead of someone who's been tought a fighting style you'll be able to view it in a different light.
Yeah,
Had to comment.
Double headed axe (fire axe) I could just barely see. Orc double axe? Blech. I'd instead make it more like a Klingon Batleth, and call it an Orcish Crescent Axe. Still double weapon, but much easier to see (since I've seen someone wielding one on tv!).
Dire flail... utterly stupid, realistically. Reminds me of Dynasty Warriors. :)
On that note though, I don't mind all that kind of sillyness if the concept of the game is an over the top kind of Dynasty Warriors setting.
To the kusari-gama, DM_Blake... SERIOUSLY, never start training with those! I had enough trouble with the staff (Aikido, so staff, not bo), but the sensei did have a class one time where he talked about all the 'martial movie weapons' we see. Hook swords, three-section staffs, chain weapons, all based on reality. However, he was very careful to tell us that you start off training with things that don't kill you, or anyone else, never with the weapon. Using a hook training sword (blank, no edges or sharp points), or a training chain (chain with a bit of wood or lead on the end to get used to how it moves), things like that. I'm surprised you didn't decapitate or blind yourself trying to use a kusari-gama untrained. Those things are dangerous. It takes years to master the more mundane weapons, and way longer with chain weapons.
On a separate note, there was a 3.0 class put out by (can't remember name) a 3rd party in their Cityscape book called the Pit Fighter. Basically, an urban barbarian. Limited rage and exotic weapon proficiencies every 2-3 levels. Awesome concept.
If you're swinging it like a wood-chopping axe then you're absolutely correct. However, I'm certain that if a weapon of that shape existed in a real medieval society then there would be an appropriate traditional fighting style to accompany it.Just off the top of my head I could imagine more sweeping motions and attacks that were aimed at an angle for where the shoulder meets the neck. It would probably have been a good weapon for getting past shields as well, since you could bury one end into the shield and swing the other end into the groin area. Though yes, I'm well aware that it would be a risky maneuver since you'd limit your motion to defend a counter-attack. The point is that if you think more of someone developing a fighting style instead of someone who's been tought a fighting style you'll be able to view it in a different light.
You're basically describing a Klingon Bathlet, like I said above. Again, I could see that, but you're right, the fighting style would be radically different than an axe.
Well ... I find "double axe" to be one of the most ridiculous things 3.x did (most of the double X weapons are, though), however I will say this about the double axe in defense of it's viability as a weapon: it will be FAR more balanced than any regular axe.
1) Standard axes are all weight on the head, and that's it. So ... swing, and BIG recovery to counter that forward weight - it's not a balanced weapon in the least.
2) Double axe has 2-heads, one for each end. Provided the smith is not brainless, then you've got 2 equally weighted axe heads that will make for a nicely balanced point along the length of the shaft. This would immediately open up new maneuvers simply from the balance standpoint.
3) Again, assuming the smith is not some idiot, the haft/shafts should be at least 1.5 if not 2 times as long as a regular. Point being: you're NOT swinging it even remotely like a normal axe - it's shaped differently. Also, given this change, I can't imagine this being anything other than a combat only sort of weapon development. You can use a normal axe for stuff outside of combat ... I can't imagine anything (maybe a door stop) to do with a double axe outside of combat, though.
:shrugs:
So, yeah ... not a fan of it, but I think approaching it even REMOTELY as if it's a regular axe just misses a few things. It can work as a weapon ... but it's purely a weapon. More like that klingon-thing would probably be the style I'd guess. Maybe even twist the different axe-heads in different directions (say 90 degrees from each other) and you can even get some 2-handed big chops in by grabbing at the base of one axe head (points facing away laterally from body), and using the other one (points facing to/away vertically from the body) to totally chop into something. Much, much longer swing than a regular axe on that, but at least you don't have to worry about catching yourself under the chin w/the blade of the non-target end in this fashion.
Edit: forgot to mention this, but fighting with a double anything and assuming that "realistically" it would use the same maneuvers as a bo/quarterstaff is equally nuts. If you know for a fact you get bruises on legs/ribs/backs with certain techniques ... clearly, if a BLADE is exchanged for the blunt end that would NOT be a technique for said weapon. *Dur!!!* ;-)
To the kusari-gama, DM_Blake... SERIOUSLY, never start training with those! I had enough trouble with the staff (Aikido, so staff, not bo), but the sensei did have a class one time where he talked about all the 'martial movie weapons' we see. Hook swords, three-section staffs, chain weapons, all based on reality. However, he was very careful to tell us that you start off training with things that don't kill you, or anyone else, never with the weapon. Using a hook training sword (blank, no edges or sharp points), or a training chain (chain with a bit of wood or lead on the end to get used to how it moves), things like that. I'm surprised you didn't decapitate or blind yourself trying to use a kusari-gama untrained. Those things are dangerous. It takes years to master the more mundane weapons, and way longer with chain weapons.
Hey, who said "start"?
I already had two 1st place ribbons for sai katas in tournaments (my favorite weapon btw). I had also a 3rd place ribbon for paired nunchaku (oh, how many times I whacked the back of my head learning to swap the two weapons from one hand to the other). And while I had never tried kama in a kata tournament, I had used them quite a bit in training.
So, not bad with flexible weapons, good with paired weapons, and blackbelt in Kenpo (not relevant, but I thought I was cool) and I was in my "Ninjas are cool!" phase (which I've thankfully outgrown long ago. I felt I had the basics down well enough to spend my hard-earned cash on a kusari-gama and see if I could be as cool as a ninja.
I quickly decided to stick with the sai, and then I upgraded to a shinobi and some shako, but the kusari-gama stayed on the wall.
I've never gotten bruises on my legs/ribs/back while using a bo. What -exactly- are you doing with it which would lead to these bruises?
Staves/bo use the same three sources of power. The hip bruises come from the translation power, similar to snapping your left hand back when you punch with the right. With a bo, you may be striking with your right hand and snapping your left hand back, bringing that bo back into your hips (or ribs if you're attacking low). The contact with your body is minimal, but the snapping motion and the impact on you translates into more striking power on the business end.
This can be easily demonstrated to a student by having them hold a padded shield (the kind we often held for letting our partner practice kicks at us). Just a swing causes some impact, but add in the translation power to the same swing makes a huge difference (when done right, like when our sensei would demonstrate it - me, I never got really all that good with a bo, medium-competent at best).
I've never gotten bruises on my legs/ribs/back while using a bo. What -exactly- are you doing with it which would lead to these bruises?
There are a couple of things about the ax that should be kept in mind for combat.
One, it is a hooking weapon. If you are going to hook with it, you can't generate enough force with a 180 degree turn to be very useful, but, following up from a hook, you can use a 360 degree turn.
Two, you need space at the blunt end of the handle so that it doesn't get hung up on anything.
Note, that the stuff you responded to was Blakes, not mine (but he already covered that). ;-) So ... yeah, never got bruises on myself either, and I've only just played around w/bo (no formal training - just an instructional video at most), but my point was about use and practice for weapon A not being appropriate to one of weapon B's design.
Hooking, though? I'm not following that ...
And a 360 degree turn would point it right where it came from in the first place (did you mean a 180?).
Space at the blunt end ... are you talking about normal axes? I'm with you there. A double, though, wouldn't work like a normal axe at all, though.
With an ax, we're either talking about an L shape or a T shape depending on whether the ax has two blades on the same end or one blade on that end (we're not even discussing the DnD double weapon here). Where the two straight lines intersect on the L or T is a hook. Like a Tonfa, you can use it to grab behind the knee or behind the neck or the elbow of the opponent and pull to take them out of position (possibly off balance).
That's what I mean by a hooking weapon.
Ok, thanks. So, I'd guess you'd *maybe* make a case for an axe (double bladed/battle or single-sided/hatchet) being able to be used on a trip sort of thing w/the "hook" then?
Damage wise, though, I don't see the hook making much of a difference as you're not trying to use that hook feature for damage. Makes good sense for unbalancing the opponent, catching a weapon, etc, though. Straight damage, though, you're just swingin' to get all of that weight to land on the axe-head and not bother with the hooking feature at all.
Just saying ...
I think you could make a very good argument for the axe having some sort of trip attack.
You could make the argument that, if the opponent is off balance, you can get a better hit on him/her/it which would, in turn, cause more damage.
Hmm ... interesting, but I don't think it meshes well with D20's level of abstraction overall. I mean, Power Attack, could *technically* hit that similar effect (not the trip, but the I hit you harder! piece).
I thought that most double weapons where for spell casters or ‘other’ types that needed one hand empty to perform their talents.
Spellcasters can wield two-handed weapons and cast spells by simply holding the weapon in the other hand; but two-weapon fighting would require you to drop one of your weapons in order to cast the spell (unless it has no Somatic components, or is “Stilled”), so I guess the idea is that a double-weapon can be held in one hand in similar fashion as a two-handed so that a multi-weapon wielding spellcaster doesn’t get penalized for fighting style.
|
|
... 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.
Meh... you can't have everything or be good at everything... if these weapons were meant for high STR dwarf or gnome rangers I have no problem with that... :)