D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
You're correct on all counts, I was aware of the feat investment in the double weapon, but since I added the double weapon comparison point as an edit after the fact, I didn't feel like running the numbers on a whole set of superior weapons. My main concern in the last analysis was to compare PHB weapon tempest fighters with other PHB weapon fighters, the urgosh comment was an afterthought. I ignored criticals out of laziness
I'm curious how you arrived at two feats for a tempest fighter to use defensive weapons to match the sword and board fighters AC? The only feat I see him needing is proficiency in the desired defensive weapon. Tempest fighters already get two weapon defense as a bonus feat.
I agree with your assertion that feats have to be taken into consideration and applied equally to both sides of a comparison when relevant, but my last post was more about PHB weapons in feat neutral builds.
Yeah, in my enthusiasm I sort of forgot that you threw in the double weapon as an edit. Sorry 'bout that
As for two feats to match AC, I also forgot that tempest fighters get TWD for free. D'oh!
Alright ... so yeah. My post shouldn't so much have been made as a rebuttal, but as a supplement. If you ignore your double weapon edit, everything you had was correct (except for the AC for sword-and-board - that still should've been 19 for scale + heavy shield) and fair. It was a good post, I just got a little overenthusiastic in my response
The double weapons originally had two different lines of text, like so:
Code:
Two-bladed sword +3 d10 — 40 gp 15 lb. Heavy blade
(Off hand) +3 d6 Light blade Off-hand
It's best to think of them that way, with each end having different traits. They're certainly not supposed to let you use a heavy blade with sneak attack on a technicality or anything like that.
To be honest, this contradicts both the picture and the description of it. The picture obviously has two of the same blade, not one Heavy Blade and one Light Blade. Second, the description says
"This well-balanced weapon combines the deadliness of two longswords with increased defensive capabilities."
One side being a Heavy Blade and the other being a Light Blade just does not make sense given what the weapon looks like and is described as. To be honest, it would make a lot more sense if the Light Blade property were removed and be done with it.
__________________ - Bryan
Last edited by Bryan Reese; 30th November 2008 at 10:49 PM..
No, the double sword does make perfect sense that way because of how you fight with it. You will tend to slash with the hand that you write with, as this gives you the chance to turn a slash into a parry. When you bring the sword around your arms are in a different configuration, usually letting you jab with the other blade. The blades must be equal for balance, but that doesn't automatically make you able to fight symmetrically. Although it is possible to jab with your primary hand and slash with your off hand, that is more for suprise than effectiveness as your primary hand tends to give stronger weapon blows.
The weapon is very, very hard to use properly. Having it be a bastard combination of light and heavy blades in the rules and all sorts prereqs on DEX to get the most out of it makes a lot of sense. A quarterstaff is WAY easier to use, because your hands can grip it where you need them without cutting your own hands off.
I think the problem people have is that they think of Darth maul. They actually came up with an original style of fighting for that weapon, because the traditional methods of fighting with a two bladed weapon are based on it having a sword plane, whereby the blade always has to be oriented the right way to slash with the edge. A lightsaber would be way easier to use as you don't need a lot of force to slash with a blade that cuts through anything and you don't care about where the plane of the cutting edge is at every moment.
I really haven't done much weapon fighting, but my sensei really struggles when using a two bladed sword even just to demo it.
No, the double sword does make perfect sense that way because of how you fight with it.
The double sword is an impossible weapon to fight with, since in the picture it's hilt is tiny. Overall, the weapon is simply impossible. Even Asians, well known for making bizarre weapons that don't often work on battlefields, have never made something like a double sword. The only double weapon that I'd allow in a homebrew is the Urgosh. And then it'd be a mainhand d12 axe and an offhand d8 spear.
Now, to balance the doublesword, rules wise, you'd need to do something like Logan said they used to do with it. I think d10 /d6 is better anyways.
__________________ I will build a throne with the skulls of my foemen.
The double sword is an impossible weapon to fight with, since in the picture it's hilt is tiny. Overall, the weapon is simply impossible. Even Asians, well known for making bizarre weapons that don't often work on battlefields, have never made something like a double sword.
It may be practical as a double spear, with a blade no longer than a dagger or short sword, and a long haft, weapons such as that did exist in Asia.
The double fail should also be illustrated more like a three sectioned staff, than the bash yourself on the head weapon it currently is.
Quote:
The only double weapon that I'd allow in a homebrew is the Urgosh. And then it'd be a mainhand d12 axe and an offhand d8 spear.
I'm not sure there is a historical equivalent to the Urgrosh, perhaps the closest would be a Halberd. Not the extreme length of a polearm but more shorter and with a spike on the end.
I've seen Lucerne Hammers like that, where the weapon combined spear point, hammer head and pick at one end and the opposite end had a larger spike that you could use to drive down into a prone opponent, but not a Halberd. The only Halberds I've seen had just an iron shod opposite end.
You are correct but I contend that it's the double weapons that are at fault rather than the Tempest Technique.
I agree.
That's why I ruled (I already wrote this in another thread but I'm to lazy to search for it) that I'll have the off-weapon quality of double weapons apply only for rangers.
I think this should be enough to keep them more or less balanced for every class.
That's why I ruled (I already wrote this in another thread but I'm to lazy to search for it) that I'll have the off-weapon quality of double weapons apply only for rangers.
What additional benefit do rangers get by it having the off-hand property?
Why not just remove the off-hand property from it altogether?
"Off-Hand: An off-hand weapon is light enough
that you can hold it and attack effectively with it
while holding a weapon in your main hand. You can’t
attack with both weapons in the same turn, unless
you have a power that lets you do so, but you can
attack with either weapon."
RAW Double weapons don't need the off-hand tag to be used, because they are held in both hands, but count as holding two one handed weapon to be used with powers that need two weapons.
Two Weapon Fighting and Two Weapon Defense Feats, don't require the weapons to have the off hand property.
Where does off-hand property actually need to be used? Other than the tempest bonus or for non-rangers that want to attack with their off-hand weapon.
What additional benefit do rangers get by it having the off-hand property?
Why not just remove the off-hand property from it altogether?
"Off-Hand: An off-hand weapon is light enough
that you can hold it and attack effectively with it
while holding a weapon in your main hand. You can’t
attack with both weapons in the same turn, unless
you have a power that lets you do so, but you can
attack with either weapon."
RAW Double weapons don't need the off-hand tag to be used, because they are held in both hands, but count as holding two one handed weapon to be used with powers that need two weapons.
Two Weapon Fighting and Two Weapon Defense Feats, don't require the weapons to have the off hand property.
Where does off-hand property actually need to be used? Other than the tempest bonus or for non-rangers that want to attack with their off-hand weapon.
Rangers can access all their powers even if they don't choose the two-blade combat feature (which allows them to wield one-handed weapons as if they were off-hand).
Archer style rangers would not be able to use their powers with requirement "you must be wielding a weapon in each hand" if double weapons had not the off-hand property, I think.
(yes, here I'm correcting my statement in the other thread where I wrote that I house ruled double weapons to carry the off-hand property ONLY for two-weapon style rangers; in this case, the off-hand quality does not affect them).
Plus, there *might* be powers or feat that specifically affect off-hand weapons. What I'm trying to do is barring the combo tempest/double weapons while leaving access to double weapons to rangers..
And by RAW, I don't think is correct for double weapons to "count as holding two one handed weapons". Double weapons belong to the double weapon category. Not to the one-handed or the two-handed. They are a separated category. Off-hand is a quality per se.
Thus I won't allow any power or feat that specifically affects one-handed weapons or two-handed weapons to be applicable to double weapons.
And by RAW, I don't think is correct for double weapons to "count as holding two one handed weapons". Double weapons belong to the double weapon category. Not to the one-handed or the two-handed. They are a separated category. Off-hand is a quality per se.
Okay but "Wielding a double weapon is like wielding a weapon in each hand." which is what most of the Ranger and Fighter powers require that you have a weapon in each hand. They do not require that one weapon be off-hand. I agree that saying one handed in my earlier post was a mistake.
As written there is nothing to say Double Weapons require two hands to use. In fact as written it seems more likely they are one handed weapons because otherwise you could not make use of the Defensive property they have. Maybe they need a new Editor at WotC.
Okay but "Wielding a double weapon is like wielding a weapon in each hand." which is what most of the Ranger and Fighter powers require that you have a weapon in each hand. They do not require that one weapon be off-hand. I agree that saying one handed in my earlier post was a mistake.
True. Fighter and ranger powers don't require that one of your weapons be off-hand, but the general rules DO.
You can wield a secondary weapon ONLY if it's an off-hand weapon (exception: rangers with two-weapon style). It's in the equipment chapter, where it defines what an off-hand weapon is.
So, if you remove the off-hand quality of double weapons you create a sort of Catch 22. Wielding a double weapon is like using a weapon in each hand, EXCEPT that you CAN'T.
It's in the equipment chapter, where it defines what an off-hand weapon is.
Technically since 4th Ed is meant to be an exclusion based rules system off-hand only defines what off-hand weapons can do. No general rule saying you cannot attack with any weapon in your off hand* actually exists you have to assume it, remember what I said about WotC needing a new editor .
So equally you could assume that with double weapons you can attack with either end, or both if a power allows.
Not entirely satisfactory.
___________________________________________
*Actually 4th Ed doesn't even really have handedness. I could swap my longsword from my right to my left hand and suffer no penalty to attacks.
And by RAW, I don't think is correct for double weapons to "count as holding two one handed weapons". Double weapons belong to the double weapon category. Not to the one-handed or the two-handed. They are a separated category. Off-hand is a quality per se.
Thus I won't allow any power or feat that specifically affects one-handed weapons or two-handed weapons to be applicable to double weapons.
It's only possible to wield a weapon in each hand if the weapon's are one-handed. The description is overly short, but if it's like wielding a weapon in each hand, I'd say it's like wielding a weapon in each hand - in all respects except those specifically mentioned to be different.
This, incidentally is also the interpretation espoused by CS in previous questioning (for which you'll either need to ask them again, or do some searching, I don't remember where this was posted).
__________________
4e balanced random loot system
- Think item wishlists are devilspawn?
- Dislike the impact of a few bad item picks by the DM on the party?
- Or find it ludicrous that PC's constantly just "happen" to find magic items tailored to their needs?
Try: A simpler treasure system for (mostly) random loot.
3.5 death&dying variant
- Tired of players that won't cure their mortally wounded allies 'cause "he's only at -2"?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which uses anachronistic d10's?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which never kicks into action for high level characters, which tend to go from alive and kicking to instant death before anyone can intervene?
- Tired of horribly complex house rules?
Try: Death & Dying - a better (and simple!) system
It may be practical as a double spear, with a blade no longer than a dagger or short sword, and a long haft, weapons such as that did exist in Asia.
That wouldn't be a double sword, though it's not an impossible weapon to have rules for.
Quote:
The double fail should also be illustrated more like a three sectioned staff, than the bash yourself on the head weapon it currently is.
Also not a double flail, but again it's not an impossible weapon to have rules for.
Quote:
I'm not sure there is a historical equivalent to the Urgrosh, perhaps the closest would be a Halberd. Not the extreme length of a polearm but more shorter and with a spike on the end.
The Urgrosh is Dwarven origin weapon, so I don't expect to have a human historic equivalent. However, there have been weapons in human history which are a medium length pole with a cutting edge on one end, and a stabbing point on the other, so I can conceive of how an Urgrosh would be wielded.
Quote:
I've seen Lucerne Hammers like that, where the weapon combined spear point, hammer head and pick at one end and the opposite end had a larger spike that you could use to drive down into a prone opponent, but not a Halberd. The only Halberds I've seen had just an iron shod opposite end.
A search for "martial arts weapons" in google images yields several medium length pole arms with a spike on the other end.
__________________ I will build a throne with the skulls of my foemen.
It's only possible to wield a weapon in each hand if the weapon's are one-handed. The description is overly short, but if it's like wielding a weapon in each hand, I'd say it's like wielding a weapon in each hand - in all respects except those specifically mentioned to be different.
This, incidentally is also the interpretation espoused by CS in previous questioning (for which you'll either need to ask them again, or do some searching, I don't remember where this was posted).
I'd say that it's possible to wield a weapon in each hand if they are both one-handed AND the weapon in your off hand is an off-hand weapon (sword + dagger, for example).
The feature that lets rangers wield a one-handed weapon as an off-hand weapon would not have sense, if everyone could already do this.
I think one should use some common sense in interpreting the rules, anyway. Double swords are off-hand weapons. I don't think it means that the RAI is to have characters go around with a bastard sword in their primary hand and a double sword in their off hand!
If it is actually heavy on one end and light on the other, it's a terrible weapon. Rogues can only use half of it, and everyone else will generally want a matched pair of weapons for use with whatever weapon feats they have.
Or takes in to account hand dominance/strength. If a character were truly ambidextrous (or close), two separate weapons are simply a better choice in "reality". I could use a double sword easily enough, but the part swinging from the right is going to be coming harder and faster.
Khopesh is moderately broken, axe+heavy blade,
And I have a bone to pick on Kukri, It's grouped as a Light blade however the text says "Kukri: The blade of this heavy knife curves forward for greater potency. A rogue proficient with the kukri can treat it as a dagger for the purpose of the Rogue Weapon Talent class feature.
Khopesh is moderately broken, axe+heavy blade,
And I have a bone to pick on Kukri, It's grouped as a Light blade however the text says "Kukri: The blade of this heavy knife curves forward for greater potency. A rogue proficient with the kukri can treat it as a dagger for the purpose of the Rogue Weapon Talent class feature.
an artifact of using common language to mean something in the rules. It might be a heavy knife and still be a light blade where blades are a larger category that even include great swords. Is it heaver then say a short sword? if not its really not a problem.
Unless their is something less obvious at work here i don't really get it.
__________________ -Devin
is 4e cool, yes. but ask me that again when i can play a druid ;p
Maybe they need a new Editor at WotC.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
