|
Im currently playing a TWF character using a dire flail. (3.5e)
Sorc 4
Rogue 4
Barbarian 2
Dragon Disciple 4
I have a Str score of 28.
I have a dex of 16.
Ive been Permanently enlarged.
Dire flail is Adamantine / Cold iron with +1 holy on both ends.
I am swinging for 2d6+10 (+2d6 Sneak + 2d6 holy) / 2d6+6 (+2d6 Sneak + 2d6 holy)
Unfortunatly to get this versatility my BAB has suffered greatly. +9/+4 is not my friend. But because of the Str modifier I can still Power attack my heart away and still connect.
Were playing Second Darkness.
When I full i get to roll 5 attacks (5th is bite from Dragon disciple)and its devastating when I hit multiple times. Even the straight monk cant keep up when I unload.
To be viable you have to plan ahead well enough to know what your getting into. Yes a rogue could have a crap ton of Sneak attack dice by now or the 2h fighter could crush me in AC and damage. But that's not why i built Melnik the way i did. that's not his personality. He doesn't Eat Zombie flesh to disgust others around him he dose it because ITS DELICIOUS! the weapons are all about flavor and character personality. Ive broken I don't know how many walls down to escape places. But i do know that nothing says filling like using burning hands to cook your very own drow dinner!
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.
Fair point.
But I did say "I think my problem ..", not "the problem with double weapons". By this I mean that I'm well aware that it is my problem. Other people may well not have a problem with it and, so, if they want to use them, that's their thing.
Look, I was an anthropology student. When I watch a movie that gets anthropology wrong, it annoys me and rips me out of my suspension of disbelief. I know that when military people who have been in war see a war movie and that movie gets something wrong, it rips them out of their suspension of disbelief. I am also a computer security expert. When I see a computer hacking exploit in a movie which makes no sense (for example, creating a virus on a Mac to take down an alien spaceship), it rips me out of suspension of disbelief. So,...
Also an excellent point -- as is DM_Blakes about verisimilitude. But in both cases, we're still talking about subjective things. Things that might rip you or him out of your suspension of disbelief, other people (including me in some cases, not in others) can easily hand-wave them away. Stuff that makes me want to scream, or at least gives me a twitch, even in show I love (Sci-Fi that plays fast and loose with certain concepts in physics, F'rinstance), you might not even bat an eye at.
But my point is that while a gaming system can't be all things to all people, it should strive for the greatest versatility in accommodating as wide and varied a group of players as possible -- including allowing things that some players just can't stomach. I'm sure there's stuff DM_Blake's ok with that I'm not. Your "my problem" point is the best approach -- just don't include the stuff that jars your fantasy in YOUR campaign.
|
also what people need to stop doing is looking at pictures drawn by artists for games who have no practical history knowledge, or experience with weapons, and assuming that that's how the weapon is.
For example, DM Blake has already admitted that the type of double axe I described L shape with only a sharp forward edge (by the way blake I actually like the blade dull on a wood cutting axe because it becomes a calorie burning machine that's way more fun as exercise than getting on a treadmill) meaning that you don't risk cutting your hand with the blade unless you really f#!# up, is entirely feasible as a weapon, but that his disconnect comes from the art in the 3.5 book (pathfinder doesn't even picture it) that remember was not even drawn by a game designer. It was hired out to some guy, who looked at maybe one picture of an axe and just drew the same head on both sides. That's something else you need to do to in order for double weapons to work.
For example, I've already shown you a perfectly believable double axe lets see if I can do the same for the Two bladed sword (which I believe is much more challenging.
So in order to make a working two bladed sword. rather than imagining two long swords connected at the handle (like the 3.5 book pictures, or Darth mauls lightsaber) Instead imagine a staff like handle, 3-4 feet long, with a shorter 2ft blade on each end. The long staff would enable swings that enabled you to keep the other end behind you rather than stabbing into you and while some newb would still cut themselves open on the first try, it is concievable to create a fighting style around this (more of a double ended spear with really large bladed spearheads, than swords)
And now the ultimate challange. The dreaded silly flail. Okay there's just no way to make a silly flail that is one connected piece not be rediculous. So instead lets actually disconnect the two ends and say it's actually two seperate flails connected by a thin chain maybe 2-3 feet long. So really all your doing is fighting with two flails that are attached to each other by a long chain, and taking special training so that you aren't taking large offhand weapon penalties (I.E. TWF and XWP instead of just TWF) that's the only way I can see the silly flail working.
So in other words, DON'T let some artist who doesn't know jack s+&+ about medieval weaponry (which is why the warhammer is always pictured like Thor's hammer instead of an actual warhammer. or a maul look like an earthbreaker ) make you think some weapon that is actually viable if you put some mental legwork into it be ignored or break your versimilitude just because someone else makes a poor drawing of it. Because if that's the case, then I also want warhammers, earthbreakers, and sawtooth sabers thrown out of the game for being ludicrous.
*SNIP*
So in order to make a working two bladed sword. rather than imagining two long swords connected at the handle (like the 3.5 book pictures, or Darth mauls lightsaber) Instead imagine a staff like handle, 3-4 feet long, with a shorter 2ft blade on each end. The long staff would enable swings that enabled you to keep the other end behind you rather than stabbing into you and while some newb would still cut themselves open on the first try, it is concievable to create a fighting style around this (more of a double ended spear with really large bladed spearheads, than swords)
*SNIP*
Something like <<THIS>> perhaps?
|
America's become a rather strange paradox these days. We supposedly defend the right of people to make choices but all too frequently take the attitude that those whose choices differ from ours must be "mocked" or worse.
We don't even want to get into this conversation, because it's downright laughable if you think America defends the peoples' right to make choices. Btw, did you know the government is currently considering a law against the use of salt in processed foods? Yeah... they really care about our right to make our own choices...
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 meant, never start training with an actual kusari-gama, use a training one (dulled edges, weighted wood, etc). :)
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"
I'd just smile and say "Sure go right ahead." America's become a rather strange paradox these days. We supposedly defend the right of people to make choices but all too frequently take the attitude that those whose choices differ from ours must be "mocked" or worse.
The Charop types wonder why so many people dread the thought of going to a Charop board. It's atttiudes like this that are PRECISELY the reason I usually avoid those boards like the plague.
This is, like, the second or third time you've brought up Charop, and they have NOTHING to do with this.
I don't give a damn about the mechanics behind double weapons. I think they're stupid and goofy. That has nothing to do with America (wtf?). It has nothing to do with Charops (wtf?)
Seriously, what are you babbling about?
This is, like, the second or third time you've brought up Charop, and they have NOTHING to do with this.I don't give a damn about the mechanics behind double weapons. I think they're stupid and goofy. That has nothing to do with America (wtf?). It has nothing to do with Charops (wtf?)
Seriously, what are you babbling about?
He's talking about how we're debating in a culture that supposedly values freedom of choices yet nevertheless break up into opposing camps to ridicule each other for those choices. This is whether it's because a weapon is too unrealistic, a character isn't optimized enough, 4e kicked my dog, etc.
I thought his meaning was pretty obvious.
We don't even want to get into this conversation, because it's downright laughable if you think America defends the peoples' right to make choices. Btw, did you know the government is currently considering a law against the use of salt in processed foods? Yeah... they really care about our right to make our own choices...
Don't ever let the truth get in the way of a good rant.
What is actually happening is exactly what is supposed to happen. The FDA and the Dept. of Agriculture are reviewing the limits on NaCl that are allowed in preprocessed food in light of new research. New research, btw, that indicates that 100,000 people die prematurely from too much sodium, as well as costing all of us tens of billions of dollars in additional health care costs.
As for infringing on your "freedom," you do know there are these things called "salt shakers," right? In case you aren't familiar with them, they allow you to add as much salt to your meal as you'd like. They're neat! You should try one.
Btw, did you know the government is currently considering a law against the use of salt in processed foods? Yeah... they really care about our right to make our own choices...
Of course constraining the choices of corporations with regard to safe use of ingredients really damages your ability to make personal choices.
I think there is a big difference between the government telling corporations not to put salt in their food and them telling us we can't use our salt shakers.
There are tons of foods out there that have excess sodium when there doesn't need to be because corporations know people just love salt.
It's the corporations who are taking the choice away from us, not the government.
...er...can we get back on topic now?
I don't give a damn about the mechanics behind double weapons. I think they're stupid and goofy.
So why are you bothering to comment on a thread where the OP was specifically about the mechanics of them?
So why are you bothering to comment on a thread where the OP was specifically about the mechanics of them?
I don't give a damn about the mechanics behind double weapons. I think they're stupid and goofy.
My first post WAS regarding the mechanics :3
My first post WAS regarding the mechanics :3So why are you bothering to comment on a thread where the OP was specifically about the mechanics of them?
I don't give a damn about the mechanics behind double weapons. I think they're stupid and goofy.
Partly. You made mention of one double weapon you thought was worthwhile, then went on to dismiss the concept of them in gneral, specifically from a fluff POV as well as mechanics.
Just saying, if you don't like the fluff behind them, fine, you don't, don't play them, don't allow them in your local game when you GM. Hell, I'm no big fan myself, strictly from a fluff standpoint. But I understand that some people think they're neato, and want to be able to play them, and I can separate my disdain for them esthetically from a willingness to discuss how to fix them mechanically. Because I understand that not everyone has the same esthetic sensibilities as I WRT suspension of disbelief, and that it's just a game, and they're going to play it differently than I would.
|
|
My first post WAS regarding the mechanics :3So why are you bothering to comment on a thread where the OP was specifically about the mechanics of them?
I don't give a damn about the mechanics behind double weapons. I think they're stupid and goofy.Partly. You made mention of one double weapon you thought was worthwhile, then went on to dismiss the concept of them in gneral, specifically from a fluff POV as well as mechanics.
Just saying, if you don't like the fluff behind them, fine, you don't, don't play them, don't allow them in your local game when you GM. Hell, I'm no big fan myself, strictly from a fluff standpoint. But I understand that some people think they're neato, and want to be able to play them, and I can separate my disdain for them esthetically from a willingness to discuss how to fix them mechanically. Because I understand that not everyone has the same esthetic sensibilities as I WRT suspension of disbelief, and that it's just a game, and they're going to play it differently than I would.
Funnily other than the dire flail, I think anyone claiming that double weapons are silly is just not thinking creatively enough, as it took me about 15 seconds of thought to envision a double axe and a double sword that while more difficult than a normal weapon are both functional and realistic as weapons. The problem once again came from artists who know nothing about weapons. Not the weapons themselves, with exception of course for the dire flail, which I just can't envision without a staff section so long that at that point the flails would be even more of an inconvenience. But still while maybe not an optimized choice, most of the double weapons are neither silly nor trap feats.
|
|
Funnily other than the dire flail, I think anyone claiming that double weapons are silly is just not thinking creatively enough, as it took me about 15 seconds of thought to envision a double axe and a double sword that while more difficult than a normal weapon are both functional and realistic as weaponsHow much actual training do you have in weaponry?
I mean, I can imagine all kinds of things with about 15 minutes of thought. There's a big difference between a 15 minute thought experiment and actually knowing what you're talking about.
Not much admittedly, however, I am proficient enough with an axes (real world training with them) to know what I'm talking about to know that my version of the proposed double axe would work, and while I have no experience with a double sword/can't arguably say that I'm right, the linked picture of the sword while once again requiring more training to use properly, I do not believe for a second it is somehow less functionable as a weapon than a kusuri-gama, which I'm pretty sure if not for asain monks, people on this board would call rediculous and silly. Now I actually have agreed several times that the versions pictured in the book are silly. However, the pictures in the book =/= the actual weapon, otherwise, the picture of the lance wouldn't show a tourney lance, it'd just show a longspear.
|
|
Funnily other than the dire flail, I think anyone claiming that double weapons are silly is just not thinking creatively enough, as it took me about 15 seconds of thought to envision a double axe and a double sword that while more difficult than a normal weapon are both functional and realistic as weaponsHow much actual training do you have in weaponry?
I mean, I can imagine all kinds of things with about 15 minutes of thought. There's a big difference between a 15 minute thought experiment and actually knowing what you're talking about.
Then prove him wrong by building said weapon and demonstrating on youtube that it will not work.
The actual difference between a thought experiment and antually knowing is experience. When discussing weapons that do not exist, experience is hard to come by. His statements regarding the viability of the weapons match the weird fantasy weapons people used to create for Quest (similar to AmpGard). They used the weapons in similar ways.
Sould someone with an 18 str who was combat trained use a real weapon like that? The answer is just a thought experiment, until you gind a guy with an 18 str, have him train in the weapon, and get him a real one to swing around.
Thanks for the backup :D
I've tried going through this thread to find the real answer of why they put in double weapons, but I didn't see it. I may have missed it. . .
Regardless of whether the weapons are realistic or not, the point was to give a TWF character a one-handed weapon + light weapon that keyed off the same feats/abilities. For instance, if you want to dual-wield short swords, you can't use Power Attack to treat one of your weapons as a one-handed weapon (and get +2 damage vs. +1 damage for light weapons). If you use a longsword/shortsword combo, you have to take two separate Weapon Focus feats to buff both weapons. If you use TWF with two longswords, you take significantly more hit penalties. The fact that double weapons deal as much damage as dual-wielding longswords is a nice bonus, but it's not really the main benefit.
A few examples of 'Double Weapons' that can be found in real life :
Poleaxe : A Medieval weapon with an hammer head and an axe blade (or beak type blade) on one end, and a sharpened metal spear point on the other end. You could cut, hammer, or brace it in the ground with the point used to skewer a charging opponent.
Quarterstaff/Bo Staff : A simple wooden stick that can be used to attack with both ends, rather effectively with training.
Three-section staff : A longer martial staff that is segmented with short pieces of chain between each of the three pieces, it is excellent for tripping, bypassing shields, and generally beating the snot out of an unarmored person.
Kusarigami : This chain weapon can, in the hands of a well trained user (note, don't try to use a real one to start training with, use a training model that has no sharp edge to learn to use!), each end can be used as a separate weapon in close combat, swinging the heavy counterweight with one hand and the sharpened blade edge with the other.
Greek Hoplite Speares : These heavy spears had a 1 foot long spear blade on one end, and a sharp point on the other end for killing downed foes as you moved past them.
Dueling Cutlass/Rapier : The fancy hand guards on these Renaissance weapons could be used as a very effective fistload in close combat, acting like a gauntlet.
M1 Garand : In addition to firing a rifle round, the M1 could be fitted with a bayonet, and the rifle used as a spear, while the butt could be used as a club. Soldiers are still trained in pugilistic combat for this reason.
I'm sure there are more examples, but these are a few I either knew about, or found in 5 minutes of searching on the internet.
|
|
A quick google search will solve that!Since I have no idea what either of those are anyways, spelling is of no concern to me.(similar to AmpGard)I don't mean to harp on spelling, but just in case there's someone out there confused I'd like to mention that this refers to Amtgard.
Google, what is this aboriginal language you have begun speaking?
Double Weapons are unwieldy, and you'd probably hurt yourself with them, unless you were specially trained in these exotic weapons, correct? So...what's the problem with them? Taking the Exotic Weapon Prof. feat means you can use said weapon without killing yourself. Why all this discussion about how realistic it may or may not be?
We're playing a fantasy game where people can warp the fabric of reality, impossible creatures exist, and people can channel the power of their god through themselves. If anything is realistic in the game, it's the double weapons that people have to take special training to use.
Note that I didn't say that there are no double weapons which work. The double weapons in DnD don't work.
If you look at the weapons you listed, almost all of them are either
a.) staffs (typically, but not exclusively, four feet to 5 feet) with weapons on either end. Those with lengths outside the 4-5 foot range tend to be special purpose weapons (for example, used in a phalanx).
b.) two weapons connected with a chain (the three sectional staff is an interesting variant of this category)
c.) weapons of opportunity - like the fistload in a Renaissance weapon or the bayonet attached to an M1
The double axe falls into none of these categories.
Didn't direct it at you, just pointing out to some people on here who said double weapons were stupid in concept and not used in the real world.
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.
While it's not in the PF core book, there is the Oversized TWF feat from Complete Adventurer that allowed you to wield a one-handed weapon in your off-hand as if it were light. I used the feat quite a bit, more for flavor than anything else. Mechanically, you are just upping the damage die by one, basically. A 1d6 short sword is replaced by a 1d8 longsword, or even by a bastard sword if you are willing to take another feat. I'd allow it if I were running PF; it's never been inherently game-breaking, and helps make some character concepts more feasible; the character could just take one Weapon Focus feat, for example.
|
|
Note that I didn't say that there are no double weapons which work. The double weapons in DnD don't work.
If you look at the weapons you listed, almost all of them are either
a.) staffs (typically, but not exclusively, four feet to 5 feet) with weapons on either end. Those with lengths outside the 4-5 foot range tend to be special purpose weapons (for example, used in a phalanx).
b.) two weapons connected with a chain (the three sectional staff is an interesting variant of this category)
c.) weapons of opportunity - like the fistload in a Renaissance weapon or the bayonet attached to an M1
The double axe falls into none of these categories.
You know what's amazing, an axe has a handle of typically 3 feet, I specifically said add another foot to the handle making it 4 feet, and have axe heads with cutting edges only on one side. Which means that it qualifies as your A) category. Which means either you're ignoring things people are saying to repeat arguments made by others or once again only envisioning what was drawn in the book, which was already agreed was a ludicrous representation that hurts the idea more than helps. And then you responded to my descriptions saying they are invalid because I am not a shaolin monk or something when my descriptions clearly put the double sword and double axe in the A) category and the dire flail in the b) category. and yet you still maintain that a even though it falls into the categories you yourself used to explain off the real world double weapons, it is inherently a silly weapon.
While it's not in the PF core book, there is the Oversized TWF feat from Complete Adventurer that allowed you to wield a one-handed weapon in your off-hand as if it were light. I used the feat quite a bit, more for flavor than anything else. Mechanically, you are just upping the damage die by one, basically. A 1d6 short sword is replaced by a 1d8 longsword, or even by a bastard sword if you are willing to take another feat. I'd allow it if I were running PF; it's never been inherently game-breaking, and helps make some character concepts more feasible; the character could just take one Weapon Focus feat, for example.
Yeah, I've used it, and had it used, in my games and in general it's not a breaker.
It does allow things like dual katana wielding (provided you take Exotic Weapon Prof (Bastard Sword) as well, as you said), or dual rapier, or dual hook swords.
Honestly, using dual weapons in real life is actually done (hook swords are a good example), and dual rapiers were not unheard of as well.
|
|
You know what's amazing, an axe has a handle of typically 3 feet, I specifically said add another foot to the handle making it 4 feet, and have axe heads with cutting edges only on one side. Which means that it qualifies as your A) category. Which means either you're ignoring things people are saying to repeat arguments made by others or once again only envisioning what was drawn in the book, which was already agreed was a ludicrous representation that hurts the idea more than helps. And then you responded to my descriptions saying they are invalid because I am not a shaolin monk or something when my descriptions clearly put the double sword and double axe in the A) category and the dire flail in the b) category. and yet you still maintain that a even though it falls into the categories you yourself used to explain off the real world double weapons, it is inherently a silly weapon.Note that I didn't say that there are no double weapons which work. The double weapons in DnD don't work.
If you look at the weapons you listed, almost all of them are either
a.) staffs (typically, but not exclusively, four feet to 5 feet) with weapons on either end. Those with lengths outside the 4-5 foot range tend to be special purpose weapons (for example, used in a phalanx).
b.) two weapons connected with a chain (the three sectional staff is an interesting variant of this category)
c.) weapons of opportunity - like the fistload in a Renaissance weapon or the bayonet attached to an M1
The double axe falls into none of these categories.lastknight, I don't care if you are a Shaolin monk. I asked you how much weapons training you have. You said "none".
I, also, didn't say that any staff of 4-5 foot length with weapons on either end makes a good double weapon. So, please don't put words in my mouth. What I said is that one category of good double weapons are a class of weapons which are 4-5 foot in length with weapons on either end. One category of...
no I said not much, there's a difference. And I do have enough training with and experience with an axe to once again know what I'm talking about. And even then, so explain to me why the double bladed sword and the double axe as I've explained it wouldn't work since you're so convinced that I'm not in the realm of possible, but merely posting are thought experiments. And then explain to me how if people who never saw a kusuri-gama used by people who didn't spend several years training with it wouldn't then write it off as silly as a double bladed axe.
|
|
...
lastknight, I don't care if you are a Shaolin monk. I asked you how much weapons training you have. You said "none".
I, also, didn't say that any staff of 4-5 foot length with weapons on either end makes a good double weapon. So, please don't put words in my mouth. What I said is that one category of good double weapons are a class of weapons which are 4-5 foot in length with weapons on
How are you using it -exactly-? I could go on and on about how different styles won't work, but that'd take us forever. So, rather than put me in the position of proving a universal negative, tell me how you intend to use it. What other real world weapons are used the way you imagine this double axe to be used? Which weapon principles are you using?
Did you not read, I've already done that, I'm not going to retype something to save you the hassle of scrolling back a page. And explain to me how I'm trying to disprove a universal negative, which universal negative is that please.
I'm telling you you are breaking an omniversal truth, I'm not saying what it is, but you are and I'm not even going to bother to explain how. But you are a breaking and omniversal truth.
Did you not read, I've already done that, I'm not going to retype something to save you the hassle of scrolling back a page. And explain to me how I'm trying to disprove a universal negative, which universal negative is that please.
I'm telling you you are breaking an omniversal truth, I'm not saying what it is, but you are and I'm not even going to bother to explain how. But you are a breaking and omniversal truth.
I just scrolled back through this discussion for the third time and, no, you didn't explain how -exactly- the weapon will be used. What real world weapons are used the way you imagine this double axe would be used? Are you planning to use it like a Sansetsukan? Like a tetsubo? Like an Italian rapier? Like a Kali axe? You haven't said.
And I have no idea what "breaking an omniversal truth" even means.
You made an assertion that this weapon you dreamed up in 15 minutes could actually work in a real world situation. Given that it is derived from a common implement which has been turned into a weapon all over the world (the axe), one would expect that in the hundreds of years such a device has been used in warfare, if it made any kind of sense and could be thought up in 15 minutes of day dreaming, that it (or something very similar to it) would have existed in the real world.
The *only* thing I'll say in defense is that *most* people probably don't sit around just day dreaming about "killing s!%!e" all day ... probably. {Enter RPG-Geeks, and now we do exactly this sort of thing, eh?}
That said, the ones that *do* (or did historically) are in it for $ and power, typically. What's to say development of such extreme weapons wasn't simply derailed as a matter of cost effectiveness, OR (really where I'd put $ down if I was to bet) that someone just ran with the BEST innovation period - gunpowder. Gunpowder literally changed the entire face of warfare ... REALLY fast, too, given the general human progression of tech and combat sophistication.
Just saying ... I don't think "universal negative" works at all for this LT. I think there are far more reasonable, and maybe even more "universal" reasons that are likely to have scuttled development of these exotic types of weapons.
How much experience do I personally have handling weaponry? Not much. How much have I spent time reading and researching combat in the ancient world and developments, etc? Quite a bit. Why mention this? Because somehow you're equating direct experience as the *only* acceptable position to speak from ... and that's crap. There are plenty of books written by many with practical and studied knowledge within them - exposure to it may not make anyone an expert in "practice" of the weaponry, but how the HELL can you just assume full ignorance by default of "no experience swinging X weapon" outright. That's just crazy.
:shrugs:
Needless arguing over semantics aside, I don't really care what history book or supposed "training" someone has had with a double weapon. In a fantasy game world where people can be mystical half-breed races flinging spells that alter reality, I really don't think the idea of a staff with blades on the ends is really that hard to imagine or take seriously.
I've made at least 2 characters who used double-swords and I had a lot of fun playing them. They are very fluff/flavor type weapons. Like anything else though, the right combo of feats and equipment can make them pretty tough, like anything else in the game.
Seriously, are you guys going to sit here and try and compare your "real life training"(which means squat thanks to internet anonymity) and historical textbooks to justify/negate the idea of an exotic weapon? Let's find the real world historical references of Pseudodragons and Aboleths while we're at it.
Needless arguing over semantics aside, I don't really care what history book or supposed "training" someone has had with a double weapon. In a fantasy game world where people can be mystical half-breed races flinging spells that alter reality, I really don't think the idea of a staff with blades on the ends is really that hard to imagine or take seriously.
I've made at least 2 characters who used double-swords and I had a lot of fun playing them. They are very fluff/flavor type weapons. Like anything else though, the right combo of feats and equipment can make them pretty tough, like anything else in the game.
Seriously, are you guys going to sit here and try and compare your "real life training"(which means squat thanks to internet anonymity) and historical textbooks to justify/negate the idea of an exotic weapon? Let's find the real world historical references of Pseudodragons and Aboleths while we're at it.
If you'd bothered to read the thread before posting, you would have discovered that no one is arguing over whether any such double weapon is acceptable in a world "where people can be mystical half-breed races flinging spells that alter reality."
What we're discussing is whether a 15 minute thought experiment by someone who has no weapon training, can't articulate the relevant principles, and can't reference any similar real world weapons is sufficient to determine whether an object which fits into none of the common double weapon types is functional as a double weapon.
lol - you *do* realize there's not even much of a difference of semantics in how both statements are phrased ... right? ;-)
Jandrem: "Real world doesn't matter in fantasy ... impossible crap takes place."
LilithsThrall: "I'm not arguing about the fantasy world, but whether 'real' world standards were applied in the design process."
I have NO dog in this fight - just trying to point out some oddities/potential miscommunication (entirely possible I'm mis-reading the intent of both statemets as well, but that's what I'm reading there anyway :shrugs:)
LT, if you concede reality doesn't matter ... then, you must in fact concede it and let it go.
On the part of responding to my junk, I have this:
*Double Axes - never developed because they had a much more simple, and practical, and more widely used application - cutting wood. Seriously, it was a tool first, and a weapon second. Almost always, though, it was a tool. It got adapted to smaller size and better weight distribution (throwing types), and also adapted more for quick combat/direct combat with the 2-headed axe (ie: the "t" shape I believe referenced earlier) to be a better use on a backswing w/out maneuvering the hand, etc and to add greater weight overall (2-heads are heavier ==> more damage), so it's all practical use. The idea of linking them together would come from some sort of pure thought experiment in the first place ... it takes time, leisure and (presumably) skill to pull something off in the first place. Writing it off of history for lack of evidence of development ... where's that even go? It's more a matter, IMO, of people more concerned with living daily life - and that doesn't leave much time to spend on frivolous crap like thought experiments. What the fantasy world has done is to take the "real world" issues aside and provide craftsmen and warriors time to both (a) develop and design such a weapon and (b) create an effective fighting style around such a thing {ie: Exotic WP}.
*Of COURSE there are no books with a double axe ... it's NOT a real world weapon. Point?
This doesn't mean that, given resources and guidance some team could not put together a weapon like a double axe and develop an effective fighting style for it, though (modern day I'm talking about). IMO, it probably *would* come off like the Klingon weapon, though {bathlea?}, and be used in a similar manner style-wise.
*Weapon and design principals would become relevant, in the "real world" as soon as the imaginary team above starts to design our imaginary weapon with proto-types, etc. Do you really think it's not possible for some modern weapon smiths and combat experts to put their heads together and come up with a lethal weapon of unusual design AND create a combat style to compliment it? I don't ... and I wouldn't write humanity off as a whole as having the potential to develop such tools and the skills with which to utilize them best.
:shrugs:
Just answering your points, though. Again - NO dog in the fight.
File, I’ll do it.
Attack 1: The overhead chop/upswing
First, hold your weapon about midway down the shaft with your leading hand and position your other hand about chest-length down from there. The attack is initiated by bringing the leading head down in an overhead vertical attack. Your leading foot should be on the same side as your leading hand. The angle can be adjusted as necessary. If the overhead attack connects and stops (by body impact or shield), step forward with your rear foot and pivot your torso and the opposite axe end into your opponent. A well-executed move will not allow the enemy time to react to the second attack, which is much faster and less telegraphed than the first.Attack 2: The shaft block/upswing or downswing
First, hold your weapon about midway down the shaft with your leading hand and position your other hand shoulder length up or down from the lead. Whichever you choose will determine if the attack will be an upswing or a downswing. The attack is initiated by closing with your opponent and blocking/bashing them with the shaft of the weapon favoring the non-leading hand’s edge. Your leading foot will be opposite the leading hand. If the opponent tries to counter, step back with the leading foot while pivoting your torso and weapon into the opponent. If the opponent tries to disengage, immediately attack while stepping forward.Satisfied, or do I need to imagine more attacks?
+1 man!
LOL!
See? Human ingenuity and creativity at work! ;-)
lol - you *do* realize there's not even much of a difference of semantics in how both statements are phrased ... right? ;-)I'm not arguing over whether 'real' world standards were applied in the design process. They clearly weren't. And I agree that, for many people, they didn't need to be.
What I said is that the fact that they weren't makes it difficult for me to suspend disbelief, but that it may not be so disruptive to other people.
Fair enough, then. *Your* suspension is broken, but leave it as *your* problem.
Challenging others on theirs? I'm pretty sure this will lead no where, AND it's totally off the thread topic in the first place.
Edit: Speaking of "off topic" any chance we can ditch the "it wouldn't work anyway" and move back towards the "help make it work in game" discussion again? {Or at least start up some other thread to discuss the "won't work" stuff ... ?}