|
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 Let's find the real world historical references of Pseudodragons and Aboleths while we're at it.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.
You know why some weapons don't get developed, because they take more training to use. You know the reason double axes and double swords didn't get developed. Because why waste the time training people to use double weapons when single weapons require less training and are readily available. The only culture that developed any complicated weaponry that I'm aware of are monks in asia where they dedicated their lives to martial training and so using more and more exotic weapons wasn't as much of a difficulty since they weren't merely being trained enough to be killed in a weeks time (you'll also note that a lot of weapons developed by said monks were never used by anyone outside of said monks). And also because what's the point of making a double sword when a single sword would do? that's the reason they don't show up, because neither are they better than a single version nor are they cheaper. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are viable at all and everything to do with the fact that even if viable, they are no more effective than a normal sword or axe.
I've never argued that double weapons can't work. My focus has been specifically on the double axe. "a distance attack followed or preceded by a short-range attack". How do the characteristics of the double axe apply to this principle?
I can envision it perfectly. First, imagine a WWI soldier with a bayonet on his M1 garand. He races forward, stabs the enemy with the blade then brings the butt of the rifle up in a short vicious arc to the bottom of the chin.
Same thing would apply with the double ended axe he's talking about, overhand swing with one end, step into the attacker and use the same sort of short vicious swing with the other end into his belly as you jam up against him.
Regarding the double axe... Swing with a low grip like a traditional axe and then on your follow through bring the lower blade in tight like you are throwing an elbow or more accurately like hitting someone with the butt of a rifle.
or alternately swing like a traditional axe and in a spin let the pole slide so that you can back swing with the other head.
or alternately hold at center like a bow staff and swing both ends in quick jabs.
or alternately swing one end high spinning in hands like a baton and swing low.
I can think of many ways it can be done.
It's not a question of where he'd grip it! It's a simple question of weight ratios!
It's not a question of where he'd grip it! It's a simple question of weight ratios!Both are factors.
I had no idea imaginary combat was so scientific.
My principle maneuvers are as follows:
I hit him with the pointy end! Then the other one!
Less fluff more crunch please. Those of you who think it's a trap, how could it be more viable? Those who think it's OP, what would bring it closer to balance?
What are some in-game mechanical methods players have used to get the most out of double-weapons?
I do realize that good RP involves much more descriptive attacks, and no, I don't call out shots like the above when I play. I was simply making a point about applying science to imaginary fantasy combat; as soon as a proper hypothesis is derived, someone imagines a new variable.
Let's call the two axes 'A' and 'B'. If you 'swing with a low grip like a traditional axe' with 'A' and you 'follow through bring the lower blade in tight', where -exactly- is 'A' as you are following through? Your grip is, presumably, between 'A' and 'B' and 'B' is presumably further away from you (and, hopefully, striking your opponent). 'A' is then swinging pretty near your face or gut. This has all kinds of 'OMG that was a dumb move' all over it. Remember, we're not talking about a sword (narrow blade) here. And where is the power translation? Is it vertical through the base of your spine or horizontal along the length of the axe handle(keep in mind that the path of such a large and heavy weapon as the double axe is going to be somewhat immobile during the spin)?
You are beginning to remind me of those kids in school who keep insisting you have to give them more detailed instructions.
Snark: How do I call someone?
Me: Pick up the receiver, type their number in, talk, hang up phone.
Snark: But but, how do I pick up the receiver?
Me: With your hand!
Snark: Which Hand?
Ad Infinitum.
I'll give it one last try, then I'm done. It's actually not a bad concept...
Assume a four foot haft, reinforced, with a 3 pound axe blade on each end (built like a woodsmans axe, not a firemans axe). We'll call the ends A and B. Next, on the first attack, grab the haft 6 to 8 inches from B with both hands (Point 1), bring the weapon down in an overhand chop. Step into your opponent and while keeping your dominate hand on Point 1, slide your subordinate hand to a position 6 to 8 inches from head A. Now, pull back on head A while thrusting forward as hard as you can with head B. This produces a lever action centered on the midpoint of the haft and drives the B head into the enemies stomach with significant force.
An advanced user could then sidestep the victim and bring the entire axe around in an arc (keeping his hands on point 1 and point 2) and drive head A into the opponents back with a nice arcing swing as they whirl in their sidestep.
"pull back on head A while thrusting forward as hard as you can with head B" This doesn't make a lot of sense.
I think what is becoming apparent is that we could solve a lot of this disagreement if we were face to face. Its difficult to explain, in text, what everyone of us is thinking of.
Hmmm,
Ok, try this. Imagine a 4 foot long wooden shaft with an axe-head on one end, and a pick head on the other end. Axe-head is A, pick head is B. The axe head and pick blade both point in the same direction (IE:, away from the wielder).You brain the guy in the head with the axe end while holding it near the pick head, then you step up and drive the pick head into his stomach while pulling back on the end with the axe head.
You're adding leverage to the pick end by pulling on the other end of the shaft with your other hand.
It's not a question of where he'd grip it! It's a simple question of weight ratios!
Seriously? Nobody? That's the last time I throw a Python line out there for you guys!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It's not a question of where he'd grip it! It's a simple question of weight ratios!Seriously? Nobody? That's the last time I throw a Python line out there for you guys!
I was more amused at lilith's thrall's straight faced answer to it. (Yes I got it, just read the thread)
Regarding the double axe... Swing with a low grip like a traditional axe and then on your follow through bring the lower blade in tight like you are throwing an elbow or more accurately like hitting someone with the butt of a rifle.Let's call the two axes 'A' and 'B'. If you 'swing with a low grip like a traditional axe' with 'A' and you 'follow through bring the lower blade in tight', where -exactly- is 'A' as you are following through? Your grip is, presumably, between 'A' and 'B' and 'B' is presumably further away from you (and, hopefully, striking your opponent). 'A' is then swinging pretty near your face or gut. This has all kinds of 'OMG that was a dumb move' all over it. Remember, we're not talking about a sword (narrow blade) here. And where is the power translation? Is it vertical through the base of your spine or horizontal along the length of the axe handle(keep in mind that the path of such a large and heavy weapon as the double axe is going to be somewhat immobile during the spin)?
In this instance "A" would be two to three feet past your shoulder, assume the attacker rolls his wrists to get the blade in postion...takes some strength I dont deny that but not impossible given the implied level of strength and some exotic training.
It's not a question of where he'd grip it! It's a simple question of weight ratios!Both are factors.I had no idea imaginary combat was so scientific.
My principle maneuvers are as follows:
I hit him with the pointy end! Then the other one!
Less fluff more crunch please. Those of you who think it's a trap, how could it be more viable? Those who think it's OP, what would bring it closer to balance?
What are some in-game mechanical methods players have used to get the most out of double-weapons?
** spoiler omitted **
Too me the crunch is that you get to use to larger damage weapons with two weapon fighting with less feats. Damage on two Axes is alot better than two short swords.
Now you know at least what I am getting from your conversation!Hmmm,
Ok, try this. drive the pick head into his stomach while pulling back on the end with the axe head.You're adding leverage to the pick end by pulling on the other end of the shaft with your other hand.
Do I really need to say anything about this?
Anyway back to the actual topic....
No, I'd really prefer you didn't, since you apparently can't comment on something without being snarky about it. I do give you points for actually asking if anyone wanted your input though. My vote is no, unless you plan on being polite and reasoned.
In the game, what specifically are the problems with double weapons? Their advantages are that they are harder to be disarmed....
Knowing the differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder would seem to be an important part of any rules discussion. Two-handed weapons no longer receive a bonus against Disarm attempts.
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?
Except, with both of these attacks, you forgot to mention that the final step is bandaging the wounds you gave yourself, in your abdomen or chest, with the impossibly huge axe head that hits you when you hit your opponent with these imaginary maneuvers.
Except, with both of these attacks, you forgot to mention that the final step is bandaging the wounds you gave yourself, in your abdomen or chest, with the impossibly huge axe head that hits you when you hit your opponent with these imaginary maneuvers.
Man ... so, so, SO derailed, BUT look to the lengths given before as well first, and don't be so locked into 1 picture from 1 book, either.
The weapons posited so far have been 4-5' in length - with big honkin' hunks o'metal on the ends (maybe another 6+ inches or so - at least). One weapons posited had only 1 side of an axe blade used (ie: L vs. the T shape), and how with both weapons facing the same direction would *you* be the target of any swing from the other blade end? Swing it up/down and the other end is also up/down and away from your own body (only 1-head/face/blade to the axe). It's "safe" relatively speaking.
If you assume a T shape, then it's 2-blades per side. It's still like 5' length overall, and you're wielding it from the middle - the edges stay outside of your body. Not buying it? Fine. Make it 6' long, then, it's *still* something within the realm of *possible* for a crazy fantasy setting, IMO (and I'd lay odds that a team of modern researchers could do it and have a pretty fine fighting style in the end).
ON TOPIC: I've always hated that the magical enhancements of "double weapons" need to be enchanted separately. I mean, polearms are still 1 weapon, 2-handed, and you don't enchant them 2 times ... wtf???
For *me* making the double weapons subject to single enchantment would make it more viable overall, and attractive.
<other stuff showing he actually read the posts rather than gut-checking>
ON TOPIC: I've always hated that the magical enhancements of "double weapons" need to be enchanted separately. I mean, polearms are still 1 weapon, 2-handed, and you don't enchant them 2 times ... wtf???
For *me* making the double weapons subject to single enchantment would make it more viable overall, and attractive.
I'm of two minds. I mean, I understand why they did it that way. It's to keep people from doing TWF and not paying the same as someone with two daggers (which would need to be enchanted separately).
On the other hand, it's still one weapon, requires a feat to use, and so it should be cheaper than two separate weapons.
I wonder if a compromise might be best?
Double-Weapon Enchantment
When enchanting a double weapon, any enchantment that applies to both ends of the weapon, and are applied simultaneously, cost 50% more than the cost to enchant a single weapon. Enchantments that apply to only one end of the weapon cost normal.
For example, enchanting both ends of a masterwork double axe to be +1 would cost 3,000 (2,000 * 1.5). If you could only afford to enchant one end, then it would cost 2,000. Future enchantment of the other end to +1 would cost the same amount, 2,000.
Another example, if our double axe (at +1) were to be enchanted to give one end Flaming (another +1), the cost would be normal. The other end could then be enchanted to be Frosting (another +1 to that end).
If, at any time, the two ends of the weapon do not have the same Enhancement Bonus, and the same effective bonus level, then each end must be enchanted separately until they are in sync again, or until the effective limit of +10 is reached.
With regard to the double axe, another manuveur (stance?) to consider is one in which the hands are placed adjacent to each blade in the same manner one wields a half staff (say roughly 2-3 feet apart), but instead the blows become short up close up jabs with either the blade or the blunt outside of the axe (like a thrust). Used as such the haft would also become a striking surface.
You could also go to the other extreme and wield it like a regular axe with the bottom blade being used more like a blocking guard and when your big slashes are deflected the upper hand sildes up the haft to strike with the lower blade in a jab or blunt thrust.(ie. you wouldn't step back on a deflection or block, you'd step into it.)
Also keep in mind that with a regular axe, by reversing it, and gripping just below the blade it makes a pretty handy club and the weight of the head actually makes it spin a little faster. Adding a second axe head to it would allow some of that momentum to be caputured in slashes or cleaves.
In short, I don't think that the double axe would function much like one expects an ax to. It'd be all about short chopping motions and blocks with the haft. You'd be up close and personal more like a boxer than a swordsman or the trandition vision of axe wielding (with wide guarding slashes and a shield.)