|
As i see it, double weapons seem rather...ineffectual.
To properly make use of them, you need two-weapon fighting, if you are wielding them 2-handed, there is better alternatives.
Only, two-weapon fighting needs dex, and aside the fact that double weapons are not usually finessable, that cuts into strenght/hit/damage.
Now, to make them a viable option, i was considering the following changes:
A: In regards to double weapons, you can substitute your strenght score for your dex score when checking if you qualify for the two-weapon-fighting chain.
This doesn't make sense to me because you need good Dex to properly wield two weapons at once.
I would rather the game say:
When you are wielding two weapons, a double-weapon, or a Light weapon, you may substitute your Dex score for your Str score on attack rolls.
In this regard, I would eliminate Weapon Finesse as a Feat since it is, to me, ridiculous to require a Feat in order to fight in the manner someone would do naturally.
both are interesting ideas, but I'm not sure about the balance.
raiel74, why should a person really need to be that dexterous to wield a double ended weapon? In terms of real-life people dex 15 is astoundingly good and yet pretty much anybody can learn to fight with both ends of a staff if they train.
Double weapons are plain better than two weapons when it comes to two-weapon combat. The fact that you are able to make a two-handed standard attack (or AoO) with double weapons is a pretty good benefit when you have to consider that using a double weapon you already get damage on your offhand equal to a one-handed weapon.
It seem that the real problem behind what you post is simply that the Dex requirements for TWF are too high. It is a simple houserule to make them lower. I lower them by 2 point for instance, having Dex 13 for basic TWF (which gives the iterative attacks in my rules) is acceptable.
Double weapons are plain better than two weapons when it comes to two-weapon combat. The fact that you are able to make a two-handed standard attack (or AoO) with double weapons is a pretty good benefit when you have to consider that using a double weapon you already get damage on your offhand equal to a one-handed weapon.
It seem that the real problem behind what you post is simply that the Dex requirements for TWF are too high. It is a simple houserule to make them lower. I lower them by 2 point for instance, having Dex 13 for basic TWF (which gives the iterative attacks in my rules) is acceptable.
In what possible way are they 'plain better'? They don't cost less to enchant. They don't net you a better strength or power attack bonus--attacks with the offhand part are still considered attacks with a light weapon. They work in every way like wielding two seperate weapons. The only benefit is a slight boost to the size of the damage die in your off-hand weapon, and bigger damage dice are not what really boosts damage.
In what possible way are they 'plain better'? They don't cost less to enchant. They don't net you a better strength or power attack bonus--attacks with the offhand part are still considered attacks with a light weapon. They work in every way like wielding two seperate weapons. The only benefit is a slight boost to the size of the damage die in your off-hand weapon, and bigger damage dice are not what really boosts damage.
I will reiterate the point made in the post above mine: you can use a double weapon two-handed. Let's take a double-bladed sword. You have a two-handed weapon with 1d8 [av4.5]. Average damage wise, this is only 2.5 points less than the damage of a greatsword at 2d6 [av7]. Otherwise they function exactly the same.
Now you get into position to make a full-attack. Suddenly you have the option to make a two-weapon full-attack, which is likely more damaging than the two-handed strikes. The simple fact that you have this versatility should make it 'plain better'.**
If I'm totally wrong at this feel free to correct me, I have not done the math. If a two-weapon full-attack is worse than a two-handed full attack given the same Strength (and Double Slice) then I don't think the double weapon is the problem, but two-weapon fighting should be revised completely. Perhaps Two-Weapon Rend should be taken into account as well.
**I've got to admit I thought a double weapon could be used as 'two light weapons' instead of 'one onehanded, one light' as it is in the RAW. That makes a double weapon worse for a Dex-based build. So it's not 'plain better' for those builds, while it is for Str-based two-weapon fighters.
In what possible way are they 'plain better'? They don't cost less to enchant. They don't net you a better strength or power attack bonus--attacks with the offhand part are still considered attacks with a light weapon. They work in every way like wielding two seperate weapons. The only benefit is a slight boost to the size of the damage die in your off-hand weapon, and bigger damage dice are not what really boosts damage.I will reiterate the point made in the post above mine: you can use a double weapon two-handed. Let's take a double-bladed sword. You have a two-handed weapon with 1d8 [av4.5]. Average damage wise, this is only 2.5 points less than the damage of a greatsword at 2d6 [av7]. Otherwise they function exactly the same.
Now you get into position to make a full-attack. Suddenly you have the option to make a two-weapon full-attack, which is likely more damaging than the two-handed strikes. The simple fact that you have this versatility should make it 'plain better'.**
If I'm totally wrong at this feel free to correct me, I have not done the math. If a two-weapon full-attack is worse than a two-handed full attack given the same Strength (and Double Slice) then I don't think the double weapon is the problem, but two-weapon fighting should be revised completely. Perhaps Two-Weapon Rend should be taken into account as well.
**I've got to admit I thought a double weapon could be used as 'two light weapons' instead of 'one onehanded, one light' as it is in the RAW. That makes a double weapon worse for a Dex-based build. So it's not 'plain better' for those builds, while it is for Str-based two-weapon fighters.
I guess that's technically an improvement, but it seems like such a slight one that I would hesitate to use the term 'plain better'. 'Plain better', to me, implies the level of superiority of, say, a falcata you're allowed to wield two-handed. This is a benefit which can be replicated by investing in a weapon cord.
Plus, it's no help in the games I run, where the house-ruled TWF, in addition to scaling with level, allows one attack to be made with both weapons as a standard action. Not everyone's issue, of course, but there it stands. Perhaps that's what biases me against double weapons.
|
|
both are interesting ideas, but I'm not sure about the balance.
raiel74, why should a person really need to be that dexterous to wield a double ended weapon? In terms of real-life people dex 15 is astoundingly good and yet pretty much anybody can learn to fight with both ends of a staff if they train.
It takes a lot of coordination to fight with two weapons at once - or two ends of one weapon. That is why.
However, you are correct that Dex 15 is pretty high for a normal person. Now, a double-weapon like a quarterstaff doesn't seem that hard to me, but that could just because I've trained with them in real-life.
Still for game balance, it makes perfect sense that fighting with both ends of a double-weapon would have the same requirements as fighting with two weapons.
|
|
In what possible way are they 'plain better'? They don't cost less to enchant. They don't net you a better strength or power attack bonus--attacks with the offhand part are still considered attacks with a light weapon. They work in every way like wielding two seperate weapons. The only benefit is a slight boost to the size of the damage die in your off-hand weapon, and bigger damage dice are not what really boosts damage.I will reiterate the point made in the post above mine: you can use a double weapon two-handed. Let's take a double-bladed sword. You have a two-handed weapon with 1d8 [av4.5]. Average damage wise, this is only 2.5 points less than the damage of a greatsword at 2d6 [av7]. Otherwise they function exactly the same.
Now you get into position to make a full-attack. Suddenly you have the option to make a two-weapon full-attack, which is likely more damaging than the two-handed strikes. The simple fact that you have this versatility should make it 'plain better'.**
If I'm totally wrong at this feel free to correct me, I have not done the math. If a two-weapon full-attack is worse than a two-handed full attack given the same Strength (and Double Slice) then I don't think the double weapon is the problem, but two-weapon fighting should be revised completely. Perhaps Two-Weapon Rend should be taken into account as well.
**I've got to admit I thought a double weapon could be used as 'two light weapons' instead of 'one onehanded, one light' as it is in the RAW. That makes a double weapon worse for a Dex-based build. So it's not 'plain better' for those builds, while it is for Str-based two-weapon fighters.
I guess that's technically an improvement, but it seems like such a slight one that I would hesitate to use the term 'plain better'. 'Plain better', to me, implies the level of superiority of, say, a falcata you're allowed to wield two-handed. This is a benefit which can be replicated by investing in a weapon cord.
Plus, it's no help in the...
You can also choose to use a longsword two-handed so I don't get the arguments that a double-weapon is "plain better" than all other weapons. You can't use a shield while using a double-weapon . . .
In games I play, usually you can't switch your type of attack when making an Attack of Opportunity. So if you were using a your double-weapon as two weapons, you can't decide to use it as a two-handed weapon on your AoO just to get the higher damage bonus. I don't know if this is official or just how I think games I've played have been run.
learn to fight with both ends of a staff if they train.
It takes a lot of coordination to fight with two weapons at once - or two ends of one weapon. That is why.
Except that for some reason guys who spend some time in nature learning about how to fight certain monsters can be the most uncoordinated bastards in the world and do it just fine.
If you are doing non-finesse two-weapon fighting, a two-bladed sword is a superior weapon to any of longsword-and-longsword (better to-hit, ability to make two-handed attacks without dropping a weapon), longsword-and-shortsword (ability to use weapon-specific feats with both ends, better damage with off hand, ability to make two-handed attacks without dropping a weapon), or shortsword-and-shortsword (better damage, ability to make two-handed attacks at all).
Whether it's a whole EWP expenditure better is debatable, of course.
According to the PRD:
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.
So, a double weapon is one you can wield in two hands, in one hand, or as two weapons. You can use the SAME weapon:
* to attack two-handed when you move or charge
* to defend yourself when you're climbing or in a grapple,
* to TWF when you have a full attack,
* while you're casting a spell, even if it's your arcane bond,
* while you're using lay on hands, even on someone else, if you're a paladin.
Sure, you can juggle offhand weapons with a weapon cord, but then you're not using arcane strike, a quickened spell, or lay on hands.
Well, you also only need one series of weapon focused/specialization feats, something that is otherwise problematic. The EXotic WP feat is paid for quickly. Or you can use two light weapons with the damage that implies.
You can also choose to use a longsword two-handed so I don't get the arguments that a double-weapon is "plain better" than all other weapons. You can't use a shield while using a double-weapon . . .
It's good that I didn't compare a double-bladed sword with a longsword or using a shield then.
|
|
Except that for some reason guys who spend some time in nature learning about how to fight certain monsters can be the most uncoordinated bastards in the world and do it just fine.learn to fight with both ends of a staff if they train.It takes a lot of coordination to fight with two weapons at once - or two ends of one weapon. That is why.
It's the power of nature and all that herbal tea they drink!