| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I was looking into the Two-Weapon Fighting and Double Weapon rules today to double check my work, and I noticed something that I hadn't before.
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
...
Double Weapons: You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon was a light weapon.
Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
...
Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. 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.
Now, I was expecting to find that when using a double weapon (normally two-handed and thus granting 1.5xSTR damage) in a TWF full attack that one attack would be at 1xSTR damage and the other at 0.5xSTR damage. My logic was that the primary hand was treated as a one-handed weapon, and the off-hand as a light weapon. However, ALL of the language in the sections quoted above make direct mention of attack rolls only, and no mention of damage modifiers.
The d20 system is a set of general rules, narrowed by specific exceptions. Based on what I've read today, the general rule is that (for instance) a quarterstaff is a two-handed weapon. When used in TWF however, it is treated as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon for the purposes of penalties to attack rolls only. In other words, both primary and off-hand attacks get 1.5xSTR to the damage rolls because its still treated as a two-handed weapon for everything BUT attack roll penalties.
Is this interpretation incorrect? Is there language somewhere that I've missed?
I think you mostly got it, except for the off-hand attack.
The off-hand attack IS an off-hand attack, and the 1/2 STR multiplier does apply to it. The ambiguity for me is to whether the off-hand modifier would be multiplicative with the 2-handed modifier (=.75), or whether the 0.5 modifier over-rides any other modifiers to STR bonus (= 0.5 off and 1.5 main).
The main-hand damage should be 2x STR because the ¨treated as 1 handed and light¨ bits only apply to the 2WF penalties - which don´t even address STR damage bonus on the main hand.
I brought this up before, and James Jacobs commented that he plays it as 1x/.5x STR bonus on main-hand/off-hand, but didn´t actually respond to the specific rules quotes and points I had made. There does seem to be a certain ¨gamist¨ perspective which assumes an ëquivalent¨ 1.0/0.5 STR mod for 2WF but I just don´t see that in the RAW.
I don´t really see the problem with this, especially if only the main-hand benefits (if the off-hand does benefit multiplicatively, 0.5 vs. 0.75 isnt that much of a difference anyways). It seems reasonable to me that 2WFing with a Quarterstaff would be somewhat more damaging than 2WFing with 2 Clubs, for example, and without the 1.5/0.5 approach I don´t really think Exotic Proficiency in 2XWeapons is worth it in the long term since it is then just about marginally better base damage (on Full Attacks not Attack Actions). Anybody trying to ¨take advantage¨ of this is already splitting their stats (STR/DEX) while blowing a Feat for Exotic Proficiency, so I don´t feel bad if it actually is viable.
...I think there´s also a rules inconsistency between the various places where the relevant rules are discussed (superfluously, and in the case of inconsistent rules, confusingly) but I don´t have the time to look it up again.
I think you mostly got it, except for the off-hand attack. The off-hand attack IS an off-hand attack, and the 1/2 STR multiplier does apply to it.
Problem is, I'm not even seeing that. The only place I've found that you get 0.5xSTR damage to an off-hand attack is in the equipment section under light and one-handed weapons. From what I read, a two-handed double weapon is treated as a one-handed/light weapon for attack penalties only.
Under this interpretation, a 2nd level TWF ranger with STR18 and a quarterstaff (and we'll assume non-masterwork, no other applicable feats) can do +4/+4 to attack (+2 BAB, +4 STR, -2 TWF) and deals 1d6+6 with each end.
I feel like I've found a loophole that makes double weapons far more attractive than a pair of light weapons (or a one-handed+light weapon). Having said that, with the specific mentions of attack rolls only, it seems pretty deliberate. I can easily come up with justifiactions for either stance, so I guess I'm just trying to glean the developer's intent. Is this an unintended exploit, or an overlooked gem?
I think you mostly got it, except for the off-hand attack. The off-hand attack IS an off-hand attack, and the 1/2 STR multiplier does apply to it.Problem is, I'm not even seeing that. The only place I've found that you get 0.5xSTR damage to an off-hand attack is in the equipment section under light and one-handed weapons. From what I read, a two-handed double weapon is treated as a one-handed/light weapon for attack penalties only.
Under this interpretation, a 2nd level TWF ranger with STR18 and a quarterstaff (and we'll assume non-masterwork, no other applicable feats) can do +4/+4 to attack (+2 BAB, +4 STR, -2 TWF) and deals 1d6+6 with each end.
I feel like I've found a loophole that makes double weapons far more attractive than a pair of light weapons (or a one-handed+light weapon). Having said that, with the specific mentions of attack rolls only, it seems pretty deliberate. I can easily come up with justifiactions for either stance, so I guess I'm just trying to glean the developer's intent. Is this an unintended exploit, or an overlooked gem?
The double slice feat would be useless if it worked like you are trying to explain it. Why waste my feats when I can just pick up a double weapon? The rule works the same way it did in 3.5. Nothing has changed.
If the double weapons excluded the damage penalty then it would only reference the attack rolls, and not the attack which includes the damage. It states that the double weapon incurs the penalties of a normal weapon and a light weapon(1/2 str mod in the off hand).
PS: You can twist almost any rule in the game if you want to. They can try to write every possible abuse of the rule into the book, but the cost and weight of the book will go up a lot.
PS2: I am not saying you are trying to abuse the rule, but I am saying the majority of the posters wont agree with you because they know the intent, and as many times as TWF has been in threads if the community had it wrong they would have stepped by now, and clarified it. Most likely even WotC would have said something by now, before Pathfinder even came to exist.
Double weapons are not 2-handed weapons in the sense you're thinking. If using both ends of a double weapon as TWF you do not get the 1.5xSTR damage bonus, you get 1xSTR for the main hand and .5xSTR for the off hand. In the example of the quarterstaff you can hold it in both hands and make attacks using 1.5xSTR damage but then you're only using one end and making a single set of attacks.
It looks like you missed the second part of the entry under double weapons which says:
"The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round."
The double slice feat would be useless if it worked like you are trying to explain it.
I thought of that. Let's read the full text:
Your off-hand weapon while dual-wielding strikes with greater power.
Prerequisite: Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting.
Benefit: Add your Strength bonus to damage rolls made with your off-hand weapon.
Normal: You normally add only half of your Strength modifier to damage rolls made with a weapon wielded in your off-hand.
There's nothing there that contradicts my interpretation. It references only weapons "wielded in your off-hand." A double weapon is held in both hands. The feat is still very useful for those who do traditional two-weapon fighting. Also note that the quarterstaff is the only non-exotic double weapon, so this interpretation doesn't necessarily make a double weapon the automatic, obvious choice.
While we're looking at feats, note that Two-Weapon Defence specifically calls out Double Weapons and Two-Weapon Rend does not. This also makes sense when visualized. Using a staff to increase your defense is seen countless times in media. Rend however has always been described as using two weapons (usually claws, but the feat opens the option to PCs now) to tear open the opponent after landing two simultaneous blows. It's hard to imagine doing that with a double weapon since only one end can be in the target at a given time. To me, it looks like it was deliberately left out.
It looks like you missed the second part of the entry under double weapons which says:
"The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round."
Nope, I didn't miss anything. Note that the part that you quote there specifically says two things. One, that you can use a double weapon as a normal two-handed weapon. That is, you're not FORCED to use two-weapon fighting with it. Second, if you wield a Double Weapon in one hand, you can't alternate which end you're attacking with, you have to pick one. This can matter if the ends deal different damage types (like the Gnome Hooked Hammer) or if they have different enhancement bonuses or magical abilities. Nothing in that those two paragraphs address strength modifiers to damage, which is where the issue lies.
Double weapons are not 2-handed weapons in the sense you're thinking. If using both ends of a double weapon as TWF you do not get the 1.5xSTR damage bonus, you get 1xSTR for the main hand and .5xSTR for the off hand.
I agree that this is how the rules have always been interpreted, including by myself. However, I can find nothing that actually STATES that. Double weapons are two-handed weapons. They are treated as a one-handed and light weapon for the purposes of two-weapon fighting attack penalties. That's what the rules say, quite specifically.
If this was not intended, there need not have been the qualifer about attack penalties. Simply stating that a double weapon used while two-weapon fighting is treated as a one-handed and light weapon would have been sufficient. By stating that this is for attack penalties only implies that it does not change the rule for two-handed weapons gaining 1.5xSTR modifier to damage.
Just to add, I fully realize that I'm going against the grain here. I'll bet there's even published NPCs out there that use double weapons that only have the 1.0/0.5 STR bonuses listed. I think the likely intent is that TWF has the same basic rules regardless of whether you're wielding two weapons, or a double weapon. However, that's not what the rules actually say, unless I'm missing something. Am I missing something?
There's nothing there that contradicts my interpretation. It references only weapons "wielded in your off-hand."
To add to the confusion, there's great uncertainity on what constitutes an "off-hand". Generally, an off-hand only reference to TWF penalties for using two weapons - as long as you use a single weapon, there's no off-hand. The thing that makes it confusing is that there are cases where you can clearly make off-hand attacks without using a hand (a monk can strike with a kama as a main attack and kick as an off-hand attack), so off-hand doesn't really have to mean a hand. On the other hand (pun intended), the rules clearly say that you can wield a weapon in your off-hand - you can't wield something with your feet.
So we don't know if an off-hand even is a hand.
Anyway, I can see the rule being interpreted in either way. We're playing with 1.5/0.5, as that's the rule interpretation that makes most sense to me: "attacks with one-handed weapons deal 1.0 and twohanded deal 1.5" for the main hand attack. That rule though, is a more general rule than "attacks with off-hand weapons deal 0.5", and specific trumps general, so .5 for off-hands.
Also, it makes sense balance-wise in most cases. If you want to dual-wield and don't know how to use martial weapons, a quarterstaff might often be the best choice. Two-weapon fighters are often feat-starved, so the investment in a double weapon isn't really worth considering if all it does is +1 damage (1d8/1d8 for double sword vs. 1d6/1d6 for dual short swords).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gee, to me the logic seems pretty clear. Once you start using a 2H weapon as a double weapon with the TWF feats it essentially becomes two weapons. Therefore, you don't get to use 1.5xSTR modifier for damage. You don't swing the weapon like a baseball bat then grab it in the middle to do your off-hand attacks. The order of attacks really should be MH1, OH1, MH2, OH2, etc and with a double weapon you can decide which end is MH and which is OH in any given round.
A double weapon is not a two-handed weapon, that's why the have separate entries in the book. Yes, you hold a double weapon with two hands. Yes, you can use it like a two-handed weapon but that's a special case. Would you decide to start using a greatsword or a falchion as a double weapon? If they intended them to be interchangeable they wouldn't have put two totally separate entries in the list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, and I don´t think anybody in this thread has suggested there is no difference between Double Weapons and non-Double Weapons. At least that is clear now if anybody was confused.
The RAW still does not support the ¨separate but equal modes¨(2H/2WF) of melee styles. There ARE NO PENALTIES for the main-hand of a standard (2 weapon) 2WF set-up besides the -2 to-hit. That´s it. Rules pertinent to 2WF do not ever mention damage bonuses on the main-hand. The only mention of the main-hand attack of a Double Weapon being treated as a 1-handed weapon is subsumed under a clause restricting the scope to ¨the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat¨.
Double Weapons DO say the extra attacks from 2WF´ing with them ARE an ¨off hand attack¨ and the rules for those state ¨When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus.¨ ...Which is ambiguous whether it would STACK with the 2-Handed STR Bonus (since you are wielding the Double Weapon in 2 hands), the ¨you add only¨ part can be read as excluding any other modifier of the STR bonus or simply as a ¨minimizer¨ (i.e., ´Your Dad is ONLY 5´ tall?!?´), but the difference is 50% STR bonus (if it´s exclusive) or 75% (if it stacks with the +50% 2 Handed Bonus).
What´s silly is that the amount of words the Core Rulebook spends on this subject (2WF/off-hand/double weapon ¨duplicated¨ twice) are MORE than enough for whatever functionality to be adequately described. Yet the current RAW does not direct one to the functionality assumed to be the case by those who think ¨1x STR main, 0.5 STR off¨ is how 2WF is supposed to work in D&D (basically, irregardless of whether you use a double weapon or not). I basically think it´s reasonable to err on the side of the off-hand modifiers NOT stacking, but the main-hand is too clear a case to dismiss - so basically 1.5x STR on main-hand and 0.5 STR on off-hand is how I see it.
Even if you allow this, all it means is that thowing EVERY Feat into optimizing a melee 2WF Full Attack, a Double Weapon user can JUST BARELY beat the Full Attack DPR of an optimized 2-Handed Fighter (they still lose on Attack Actions, AoO´s, Cleaves, etc). Such a 1-trick pony 2WF character is easily countered, while the extra Feats allowed by a Falchion / Elven Curve Blade build allow for Great Cleave, Quickdraw/Rapid Shot, Greater Grapple, Improved Iron Will, Skill Focus:Acrobatics, whatever. Heck, Treantmonk thinks ROGUES can do well by a single 2-Hander build, so it´s not going to die out or anything.
So what you're really saying is that if you hold a quarterstaff in the middle with both hands you can swing it as hard as if you hold it at one end. I'd like you to examine how a lever works. Just because you're holding something with two hands doesn't mean you swing them the same way.
Hold an oar in the middle and see if you can paddle a boat as fast.
Hold a baseball bat in the middle and see if you can hit a ball as far.
Hold a staff in the middle and see if you can swing it as hard (and try not to crack your own ribs while doing so).
I can't see why the rules have to specifically say that you don't get 1.5xSTR damage when using the main hand attack with a double weapon. I guess I just can't suspend my belief in reality enough to do it that way.
|
Its my understanding that it works like this.
I move to a monster, make a Single attack with a Double bladed sword.
Swing the sword, putting all the power into one end. (or consider it a thrust, which doesn't really jive with the dmg type, Slashing, but makes sense attack wise)
I Would get 1.5 str on this attack
the next round, I make a full round attack, swinging at the monster with both ends.
I get normal 1 handed str with the main hand
I get .5 str with the off hand end.
I'm pretty sure thats how it works, unless i'm missing something?
|
Its my understanding that it works like this.
I move to a monster, make a Single attack with a Double bladed sword.
Swing the sword, putting all the power into one end. (or consider it a thrust, which doesn't really jive with the dmg type, Slashing, but makes sense attack wise)I Would get 1.5 str on this attack
the next round, I make a full round attack, swinging at the monster with both ends.
I get normal 1 handed str with the main hand
I get .5 str with the off hand end.
I'm pretty sure thats how it works, unless i'm missing something?
This is how it works.
This is how it worked in 3.5 too. No need to try and rules lawyer this; its worded pretty clearly, and rather than waste your time with this endless debating search for the other 9,000 threads on the internet concerning it.
This is how it worked in 3.5 too. No need to try and rules lawyer this; its worded pretty clearly, and rather than waste your time with this endless debating search for the other 9,000 threads on the internet concerning it.
I thought it was pretty clear too until I actually went looking to confirm it. I've been playing 3.5 since it came out and always assumed it was 1.0/0.5 for double weapons, just like normal two-weapon fighting. If you can provide actual rule citations that show that, I'd be more than happy to accept them. Likewise if someone official says "Yup, that's really how it's supposed to be, everyone's been doing it right from day one." I'm not trying to be a rules lawyer. I'm not twisting it around or picking on a minor grammatical slip. I'm just reading what the book says.
I'll tell you what, point out to me the passage that says you add 1.5xSTR bonus to damage when using a double weapon.
I'll tell you what, point out to me the passage that says you add 1.5xSTR bonus to damage when using a double weapon.
All double weapons are two-handed weapons.
All two-handed weapons get 1.5xSTR bonus to damage.
The exceptions for treating double weapons as a one-handed and light offhand weapon when two-weapon fighting refer to attack penalties only.
All the relevant passages that I know of from the PRD are quoted in my original post.
Edit: Added the italicized text
Really you can't have your cake and eat it too. The answer ton your question really is in your original post. You either wield a double weapon as a double weapon with all the benefits and penalties. Or you wield it as a one handedvwiepon.
I think the mistake you are making is the assumption that a double weapon is a two handed weapon. It isn't it is a double weapon. The fact that you need two hands to you a double weapon is irrelevant. If you want to get a two handed weapon bonus you treat it as a one handed weapon wielded two hands.
Really the benefit of these is they reduce some of the feats you need by needing only one weapon focus etc for the weapon. The fact that many of them are impractical is unfortunate
But double weapons are not two-handed weapons, they are weapons you hold with both hands (yes, there is a difference). As I said further up the post, they have separate entries in the book for a reason.
The exception you point out is not an exception, it is the rule. Making a two handed attack with a double weapon is the exception. In fact, making a two-handed, 1.5xSTR bonus damage attack with one end of a double weapon follows the same rules as making a two-handed attack with a one-handed weapon.
Since there is no particular passage that CLEARLY says double weapons are two-handed weapons then they should not get the 1.5XSTR bonus to damage. If you're going to infer that double weapons are two-handed weapons then why can't you infer that using a double weapon TWF style means you use the same rules as if you were using two different weapons?
EDIT: Beat to the punch by a minute or two.
But double weapons are not two-handed weapons, they are weapons you hold with both hands (yes, there is a difference). As I said further up the post, they have separate entries in the book for a reason.
The exception you point out is not an exception, it is the rule. Making a two handed attack with a double weapon is the exception. In fact, making a two-handed, 1.5xSTR bonus damage attack with one end of a double weapon follows the same rules as making a two-handed attack with a one-handed weapon.
Since there is no particular passage that CLEARLY says double weapons are two-handed weapons then they should not get the 1.5XSTR bonus to damage. If you're going to infer that double weapons are two-handed weapons then why can't you infer that using a double weapon TWF style means you use the same rules as if you were using two different weapons?
EDIT: Beat to the punch by a minute or two.
So then by this logic, Longspears, Glaives, Guisarmes, Lances and Ranseurs don't benefit from the 1.5xSTR bonus either because they're not Two-Handed weapons, they're Reach weapons.
Now I know that's not what you think, but Double weapons and Reach weapons are applied the same way. By giving an otherwise ordinary entry on the weapons table a special property, and describing further in the specific entry for that weapon if appropriate.
Is there anything in the Reach weapon property that says that you get 1.5xStr to damage? Nope, because it's assumed that as a two-handed weapon (with the exception of the whip), it'll be applied normally.
So where does it say that Double weapons have the 1.5xStr bonus taken away? Everyone has said so far that "it's just the way it works," and I agree that it would make sense that it would work that way. But it's not what the book says. The only thing that determines what STR modifier to use on your damage is whether it's a Light, Light in the off-hand, One-Handed, One-handed in the off-hand or Two-Handed weapon. The fact that a weapon has Brace, Disarm, Double, Monk, Non-Lethal, Reach or Trip special properties does nothing to change this.
Edit: Corrections and clarifications
|
|
"Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon, including a sling. (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only half the character's Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive 1–1/2 times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)"
Bolding mine.
You get 1.5 str on melee attacks you use 2 hands on, NOT just 2 handed weapons. So if you have a long sword that you use with 2 hands, you would get 1.5 your str to the attacks.
Now, Power attack helps confirm this...
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls.
Again bolding mine.
Also, the Double weapons entry states:
"The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it"
The only time a double weapon can be used as a 2handed weapon is when you are making an attack with only one end (a single attack)
So in this situation, you would get 1.5 str on that attack. But not when doing a full round attack useing both ends of the weapon
EDIT: That came out snarky sounding and I don't want to get into that.
If you want to continue applying the 1.5xSTR bonus to the MH attack with a double weapon then I don't think anyone can stop you from doing so (except maybe your GM).
The section you say refers to attack rolls does not say it only refers to atrack roll penalties. It says attack penalties. A penalty to damage bonus is a penalty applied on an attack. Stop inferring implications without clear wording.
"you incur all the normal attack penalties" does not just reference "penalties to your attack roll." If it did, thats how it would have been worded.
For instance: if something said: "you take a -4 penalty to damage on you first attack each round"
And you had a spell active that read: "ignore all penalties on your first attack each round"
I would bet you would argue they interact to preven that damage penalty...
In this case. The .5 offhand/1.0 mainhand is technically a penalty for using multi attacks/offhand weapons.
Here is the place that talks about damage bonus, under strength....
Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon, including a sling. (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only half the character's Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive 1–1/2 times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)
Says nothing about double-weapons, thus they must fall under one section: One handed and off-handed, or two-handed.
If they are two-handed, the how the crap are you getting an off-hand attack with that other end???
That means they are one-handed and off-handed, thus incur only a 1.0/0.5 str. Bonus to damage.
Show me where it describes attacking with a double weapon as a two-handed attack. It mentions that only once, an then it forces you to use only one head of the weapon in th attack, denying you your off-hand attacks.
Wielding a weapon with two hands does not a two-handed attack make. Otherwise we could do the same with Light weapons. Read where it allows you to do that...
Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons : This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.
...
Two-Handed : Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
And then double-weapons
Double Weapons : Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat , just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
Looks pretty clear. Used to make off-hand attacks, its treated like a one-handed/off-hand wielded weapon. No 1.5 str. Bonus for U!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stop inferring implications without clear wording.
Don't worry about them inferring anything, they probably stopped posting 2 years ago.
what your forgetting is that the advantage already gained from wielding a double weapon most of the time already. normal 2wf you either have a 1 handed and light doing slightly less base damage with the off hand, or 2 lights throwing a lower damage die on both, while most double weapons you can throw a nice beefy d8 on both hands. not really a numerically awesome bonus, but it's there. The intent isn't to give a loophole on the off hand strength penalty. I think the fact that it doesn't say it changes the damage rolls at all shows that they stay the same as if you had 2 seperate weapons.
Asta
PSY