Actually you have one other advantage, and that is that you can swing your double weapon as a two-handed weapon, so if you only have a standard action to attack with you get Str bonus x 1.5 to your damage.
So using a double-sword rather than a pair of short swords gives you:
1d8 rather than 1d6 damage
Strength bonus x 1.5 on single attacks when you need them.
Not bad for the cost of a feat.
Some of them are also racial weapons, which means you can skip the Exotic Weapon Proficiency if you are the right race.
It also allows you to get the damage die/crit bump on the main hand, while still using only one type of weapon. This can be useful if you are planning on taking other feats/class abilities that are limited to a specific weapon.
Assume that you want to take TWF, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization and Improved Crit. You have three options, if you want all of the feats to apply to all of your attacks.
Two short shords, doing 1d6/1d6 damage and requiring 4 feats.
Long sword and short sword, doing 1d8/1d6 damage and requiring 7 feats.
Double sword, doing 1d8/1d8 damage and requiring 5 feats.
A fighter also only needs one type of weapon training for a double weapon, which means he can select a ranged weapon at level 9 rather than his off hand weapon. At level 20, weapon mastery can be applied to the double weapon, rather than requiring him to pick one of his two weapons.
On a similar note to two handing, you can use the weapon in 1 hand and attack with 1 side. This is useful because you don't have to sheath and unsheath your weapon, so classes like Bard can bennefit from TWF without worrying about having a hand to cast.
That sums it up nicely, yes. In fact, it's more efficient for TWFers to use a double weapon or a pair of light weapons than for them to use a light weapon and a one-handed one.
If you go backwards, into 3.5 and 3.0, there are a LOT of exotic weapons out there. Most of them are NOT worth the feat, and some of them are frankly worse than, say, the morningstar.
While this has gotten better with Pathfinder (thanks in part to changes in CMB and DR), the other possibility is that double weapons are -not- that great.
The disadvantages are:
1) hard to find
2) more expensive to MW/enchant
3) can't trade equipment between party members
The only one I've ever used was the quarterstaff, which I feel is a quite good weapon.
|
On a similar note to two handing, you can use the weapon in 1 hand and attack with 1 side. This is useful because you don't have to sheath and unsheath your weapon, so classes like Bard can bennefit from TWF without worrying about having a hand to cast.
This, which I think is the greatest boon to any kind of caster that wants to fight with two weapons. Also, if you are a wizard (or sorcerer with the arcane bloodline) you can select a two-bladed sword (or any other double weapon) as your focus and be able to enchant both sides without Craft Magic Arms and Armor. Of course, as wizards and sorcerers are generally weak in melee, YMMV.
On a similar note to two handing, you can use the weapon in 1 hand and attack with 1 side. This is useful because you don't have to sheath and unsheath your weapon, so classes like Bard can bennefit from TWF without worrying about having a hand to cast.This, which I think is the greatest boon to any kind of caster that wants to fight with two weapons. Also, if you are a wizard (or sorcerer with the arcane bloodline) you can select a two-bladed sword (or any other double weapon) as your focus and be able to enchant both sides without Craft Magic Arms and Armor. Of course, as wizards and sorcerers are generally weak in melee, YMMV.
Eldritch knights get a benefit though.
It used to be that how many hands you held on the weapon affected how easy/hard it was to disarm or sunder.
So, a person trying to disarm your light offhand weapon had an 8 point difference between that and disarming the guy holding onto his large weapon with two hands.
I believe sunder had a similar modifier.
Now in Pathfinder, they don't seem to care about the size or handedness of the weapon being disarmed/sundered, so there's that gone now too.
On a similar note to two handing, you can use the weapon in 1 hand and attack with 1 side. This is useful because you don't have to sheath and unsheath your weapon, so classes like Bard can bennefit from TWF without worrying about having a hand to cast.
Huh, that must have been another those changes from 3.5 to PF. In 3.5, you could only wield it one-handed if you were a larger size than the weapon was meant for (it was a two-handed weapon irregardless of if both ends were used or only one).
On a similar note to two handing, you can use the weapon in 1 hand and attack with 1 side. This is useful because you don't have to sheath and unsheath your weapon, so classes like Bard can bennefit from TWF without worrying about having a hand to cast.Huh, that must have been another those changes from 3.5 to PF. In 3.5, you could only wield it one-handed if you were a larger size than the weapon was meant for (it was a two-handed weapon irregardless of if both ends were used or only one).
It depends on how you interpret the last line of the double weapon description in the equipment section.
On a similar note to two handing, you can use the weapon in 1 hand and attack with 1 side. This is useful because you don't have to sheath and unsheath your weapon, so classes like Bard can bennefit from TWF without worrying about having a hand to cast.Huh, that must have been another those changes from 3.5 to PF. In 3.5, you could only wield it one-handed if you were a larger size than the weapon was meant for (it was a two-handed weapon irregardless of if both ends were used or only one).
I think he means that you need only one hand to hold the weapon while using the other to cast, not attacking with the double weapon held in one hand. Personally I don't see it as a problem to use one hand to hold two short swords while casting and the to grab the sword back with the empty hand to be ready for AoOs. That's a free action IMO.
I think he means that you need only one hand to hold the weapon while using the other to cast, not attacking with the double weapon held in one hand. Personally I don't see it as a problem to use one hand to hold two short swords while casting and the to grab the sword back with the empty hand to be ready for AoOs. That's a free action IMO.On a similar note to two handing, you can use the weapon in 1 hand and attack with 1 side. This is useful because you don't have to sheath and unsheath your weapon, so classes like Bard can bennefit from TWF without worrying about having a hand to cast.Huh, that must have been another those changes from 3.5 to PF. In 3.5, you could only wield it one-handed if you were a larger size than the weapon was meant for (it was a two-handed weapon irregardless of if both ends were used or only one).
Hmm, I guess that is not how I read the bolded part.