| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup. IDK, homebrew 2H weapon with less than normal damage dice, but have Twin and/or Agile Traits to represent double-ended usage?
With the new action economy there really isn't a mechanical reason for the old 'double weapon' designation. So the Orc Double-axe isn't a thing right now. If your player just wants a two-bladed axe for flavor then the greataxe might work.
Greataxe: This large battle axe is too heavy to wield with only one hand. Many greataxes incorporate two blades, and they are often “bearded,” having a hook at the bottom to increase the strength of their chopping power.
I suppose that you could just make up a version with the double blades at both ends, but mechanically it wouldn't have any advantages.
I like Quandary's solution. Though, I’d caution to take a look at benchmarks... what is the highest die that is on a weapon with agile, and be suuuper careful when considering making a weapon that goes higher than that.
With the new action economy there really isn't a mechanical reason for the old 'double weapon' designation.Double Slice, Twin Feint, Twin Takedown...
IMO none of those would work with "a pole with two axes on it" since it's one weapon, not two.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd simply make it a D6 Slashing Advanced Orc weapon with this homebrew Double trait.
This weapon is specially designed to be two weapons in one. Weapons with this trait count as having two weapons for feats and abilities requiring multiple weapons. Doing so requires at least two hands gripped like a weapon requiring two hands. If a weapon with this trait states multiple damage dice (such as 1D6 S/1D4 P), the wielder must utilize both damage types with feats and abilities requiring two weapons, otherwise the listed damage is used each time attacks are made with this weapon. It is still otherwise considered a single weapon for all other purposes.
You can put in Sweep or Twin to make it a bit more dynamic, but the fact that it can be used with two weapon feats as a single weapon is plenty powerful enough.
You could also put in rules for each side of the weapon to be crafted or enchanted separately, but I'm of the opinion that this should be more simple than complex, and I'd rather not go down PF1 item rules like with the Bastard Sword or heaven forbid the Throwing Shield.
My personal solution would be to mechanically treat it as two battle axes and a doubling ring and then just flavor it as a double-axe. That's what I plan to do if any of my players express interest in a weapon like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal solution would be to mechanically treat it as two battle axes and a doubling ring and then just flavor it as a double-axe. That's what I plan to do if any of my players express interest in a weapon like that.
Fair enough. Its such a stupid impractical weapon from a real world point of view, I'm happy to see it go. But yes if someone really wants it, why not.
With the new action economy there really isn't a mechanical reason for the old 'double weapon' designation.Double Slice, Twin Feint, Twin Takedown...
Yes, it is irrelevant for entirely different reasons.
Before, double weapons tended to have an advantage because you could switch between two handing and TWF, allowing you to get 1.5 str and power attack when you couldn't full attack.
...now, that isn't really a thing. Even if you wanted to do something similar to two handed assault (use two hands on a one handed weapon briefly for better damage dice), the TWF actions often have great action economy, so you could probably jut go for those instead.
Anyway, just treat it like the guy is holding a couple hatchets or battle axes, and you will do fine.
|
Yeah the intuitive thing to me is to give it a Double Weapon trait that allows you to use it for feats that require you to use two weapons. However, a given rune enchants only one end of it unless you use Doubling Rings.
Damage and possible Agile traits should be picked so it doesn't outscale other two-weapon options, so it shouldn't really get any better than either not-Agile and d8/d8, or d8/d6 with the d6 end being agile.
It has some advantage with how many actions it takes to draw, but it doesn't allow you to do the "one enchanted weapon, doubling runes, use the other hand for the right special material for this monster" trick so that balances out.
(Orc) Double Axe
Advanced, Uncommon
Damage d8
Sweep, "Double"*, Backswing, Twin (or "Double" version of same)
*Something similar to what people have above plus noting both ends have to be used when acting like two weapons.
Mechanically, it's not a weapon I'd take, unless maybe a Half-Orc, yet the same could be said of the PF1 version.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I'm glad double weapons are gone. If you want the aesthetic of a double axe, I think it's just a greataxe. I can't even imagine why that image would suggest you can make rapid, multiple strikes with such a weapon.
I was definitely thinking precisely of the Orc Double Axe.
|
Unwarranted Random Homebrew!
[Weapon Trait]
A double weapon used for a basic Strike incurs a -2 penalty.
Double weapons have two "ends", which may have different damage dice and/or types.
A character using a double weapon to Strike chooses which "end" to use for each Strike.
A double weapon may count as two weapons for the purposes of using special attacks that require the character to be wielding two weapons, and when doing so, does not incur the -2 penalty (but Multiple Attack Penalty applies normally).
Both of the double weapon's "ends" benefit equally from all Property Runes the weapon has.
I think that's it?
Cheers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I didn't explicitly say so before, but treating each end as distinct 1H weapon for enchanting is way to go IMHO.
(at first I thought for special materials too, but realized that would "unbalance" it's mass, so probably not ideal)
Then it basically works as a tuned 2WF set-up, with advantages for Drawing and Dropping Hand->Regrip, which 2WF can't do normally.
It would of course be reciprocally treated as single wielded 2H weapon for Disarm and such.
As Agile weapons are mostly L and 1H weapons are mostly 1, I see this being more Bulky at 2 Bulk (not big deal for most, but relevant).
Especially Barbarians don't want both ends Agile, because that reduces their Rage bonus damage on 1st attack un-necessarily,
so probably even "visually" symmetrical double weapons should have that minor distinction between each end,
while more overtly asymmetrical double weapons (like Dwarven Ugrosh, with Piercing VS Slashing ends) could vary further.
The non-Agile end could even count as 2H weapon (not for general mechanics, which don't care, but 2H specific Feats etc).
That seems worth an Advanced Weapon designation to me... YMMV.
|
I agree - This could be handled with a new Weapon Trait "Double" quite handily.
Allowing it to be treated as two different weapons for the purposes of effects that care about that and retaining the same Rune Effects on both ends is fine if you ask me, just as long as they never give it the Agile Trait or try to fiddle with each "end" of the weapon using different Traits unique the side of the weapon being used.
Double Weapons have historically speaking in the setting, always been pretty big/heavy or in other words, bulky items. I don't foresee them allowing agile, that's just too much for ANY weapon budget thats getting a 2h Weapon Die of d8-d12.
I don't see how such a weapon would be Agile. If anything, it would be ponderous to swing because of the weight at the other hand, although if you could get a good swing in with it, it would hit like a machine.
Count me in the no-agile camp (unless d6) since a double weapon is already more useful than two weapons. Wielding two weapons makes swapping out hands rather tough. Yet a double weapon can be drawn in one action and let go of by one hand as a free action to get a free hand (so no dropping/sheathing).
That's pretty valuable in this system. You'd get access to all the 2-weapon feats w/ the utility of a single weapon.
I also think Backswing, Twin (perhaps incorporated into Double), Forceful, and some other traits make more sense depending on the balance, both mechanical (physics) and mechanical (game).
And they should all be Advanced IMO. Likely Uncommon too.
I'd probably just make double weapons work as a 2 handed weapon that have 2 separate entries for each of the weapons, but count as a single two handed weapon for the purposes of hand usage and interaction with actions like disarm. if both ends are largely the same, the most I would add is the twin trait. I would probably not let either side be D8 and agile, nor D8 and finesse.
There is really no reason to make it more complicated than that.
It'd be cool to have DIY Double weapons where you choose the different ends.
This could be done as having a list of options, probably one or two from most Weapon Groups. Then you can stick them on either end.
Ex. Axe head: 1d8S, Sweep
Pick head: 1d4P, Fatal d8?
Flail head: 1d6B, Trip, Disarm
So quite similar to their 1H versions, yet with set traits suitable for a 2H weapon + Advanced & Uncommon. Then all sorts of exotic combinations could be created in a balanced manner.
(Probably could use a Scythe head too, even if not a "Polearm head")
Or more boldly, you choose from all 1-Handed weapons, though they may lose traits like Agile or Finesse (even if smaller, since they're now part of a larger weapon.) That may be too hard to future-proof though.
In fact, way too hard so scratch that. Already have core weapons that would cause issues.
Surely there's a better way to make double weapons work than making them weird dual-wield weapons (that are somehow more unwieldy in their design and heavier, but are also supposed be help you make rapid attacks?).
I'm not sure what the best route here is, but a double-edge trait that lets you enchant both blades individually for even more diverse damage types seems kinda fun. Or perhaps something like the twin weapon trait? There are plenty of ways to make this work in a way that doesn't follow 1Es nonsensical way of handling these weapons.
Surely there's a better way to make double weapons work than making them weird dual-wield weapons (that are somehow more unwieldy in their design and heavier, but are also supposed be help you make rapid attacks?).
I'm not sure what the best route here is, but a double-edge trait that lets you enchant both blades individually for even more diverse damage types seems kinda fun. Or perhaps something like the twin weapon trait? There are plenty of ways to make this work in a way that doesn't follow 1Es nonsensical way of handling these weapons.
I believe the basic problem is, if you aren't planning on hitting with both ends of the weapon, why bother?
And if you are, then people are going to want to have a fancy spinny Darth Maul combat style, because that's how people be.
So IRL, a double weapon would really only make sense on something like a polearm- where the grip between the two hurty ends is long enough to make the thing maneuverable. Plus, a spike on the back end of a spear is a somewhat realistic thing to have.
So how I would conceive of a double weapon working is that you can use it as a d8 weapon with reach, or choke up (with an interact action) and use it as two d6 weapons.
It would be like a battle axe with Backswing instead of Sweep, Parry, and maybe Versatile B. Since a lot of the utility would be bashing with the haft.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole conceptual space of double weapons in PF1 were that they were TWF weapons.
I feel like a design that ends up not incorporating that concept will be failing to fit the brief.
Mechanically, I think it makes the most sense to just have a Double trait that more or less says that the weapon comes with another end that, unless otherwise stated, has the same damage and traits as the primary end and is enchanted separately. You can make attacks with either end and treat yourself as wielding two weapons for the purpose of feats and abilities that require that.
You end up being a lot less flexible than true TWF, but with some other advantages from having everything consolidated in one physical object.
Doesn't seem like the end of the world to do something like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole conceptual space of double weapons in PF1 were that they were TWF weapons.
I feel like a design that ends up not incorporating that concept will be failing to fit the brief.
And yet better in every way. TWF is not even a very central concept in PF2. Double weapons as implemented in 3.0 -- I mean PF1 -- were always dumb.
And yet better in every way.
How is the possibility of getting both your weapons disarmed with a single roll better than needing 2 with 2 weapons? Or attacks that target an object like the wreck attack of a Abrikandilu? Or monsters like the Mimic with Adhesive? IMO it's really shortsighted to think it's just better in every way without examining it from every angle first. Having all your eggs in one basket can be a boon [like drawing both at once] but can be a bane too [like losing both to an attack].