Proposal Adventurers Vault

Lord Sessadore · Jan 2, 2009

SeaPainter said:
If it were "off hand" only to offset the oversized off hand weapon penalty that afflicts anyone who isn't a 2W ranger... other than that, it doesn't get the benefit of being an off-hand weapon.

That could definitely be one solution. It really doesn't matter, as far as I can see, until and unless tempests are approved. For tempests, without double weapons, you need to use a smaller [W] weapon to get your bonus damage from Tempest Technique, so it doesn't make sense to me that they should be able to spend one feat to get both a defensive weapon and a larger [W] than any other off-hand weapon.

Anyway, giving them a sort of pseudo-off-hand property that merely lets you wield the double weapon, but doesn't provide the other benefits of an off-hand weapon seems fine to me.

covaithe · Jan 2, 2009

I guess I know what I'll be reading for the next while.

Halford, could you perhaps edit your original post with a carefully worded proposal on what the actual rules change you're proposing is? Something like, "I propose that we adopt as approved content the level 10 and below items from AV, with the exception of the following items: blah, blah, blah" Someone has got to keep track of the list of problematic items in one place, or we'll never be able to vote sanely.

Halford · Jan 2, 2009

I was planning to maintain a list of problomatic items for discussion in the second post.

Personally I am not a big fan of the items of level 10 and lower approach as it will require a very picky selective reading and will simply put off thje problem - and for very few items at that all things considered.

I can see it being a large amount of information to digest, so maybe we could consider a section at a time? Holy Symbols for example, have not a single problematic item in their number imo.

Honesty I believe we would be better simply spending a month or so going over the book and getting it out of the way, if we have to take a few months thats fine to. I think the book is worth it, i know I badly want to start using it

.

Atanatotatos · Jan 2, 2009

Yeah it's a great book.
I agree on the girdle of Dragons.
If it depended on me, I'd also ban double weapons. If one wants them for flavor, he can just take two weapons mechanically and describe the character and the actions as if it's a double weapon.
Regarding reckless and bloodclaw weapons, i'm sure you do have to wield them to use the power. I still think they can be quite problematic in the hands of a battlerager fighter...

covaithe · Jan 2, 2009

So I've just looked over the double weapons section. At the moment, it seems to me that the only trouble is a lack of clarity in a few bits of the RAW, which I think can be fairly easily cleared up with a little common sense.

The heavy blade / light blade confusion for the double sword is obviously a problem. Here's my take: no single weapon can be both a heavy blade and a light blade. A double weapon is effectively two weapons; either one can be heavy or light, but not both. You can have heavy blades at both ends, or light blades at both ends, or one of each, but you have to pick at item creation or purchase time. I imagine we could also allow the enchant item ritual to enact a permanent change, if you wanted, though that might be needlessly permissive.

Likewise, obviously only one end of the thing gets the offhand property, and you have to pick which. Duh.

Also, I think it's worth clarifying explicitly that you need to wield the thing in two hands to get any bonus from it at all. You can't have a battleaxe mainhand and a double axe offhand and claim the AC bonus as well as a d10 offhand attack. That's just ridiculous. Not that a double axe isn't completely ridiculous in the first place.

I'm not too concerned about having a d10 offhand weapon, because a) you have to take a feat to get it, and b) to get it, you have to limit yourself to d10 main hand. There's no way to get d12/d10 that I can see. d10/d10 has the same expected damage per pair of attacks as d12/d8, and is worse if you don't get to attack with both ends.

caveat: I haven't looked at tempest fighter yet.

Ozymandias79 · Jan 2, 2009

What is the big controversy doubleweapons? I don't see what so great about them in the AV, can someone please explain it?(and I futher don't see how a tempest can out-damage any other fighter)

about the doublesword I belive the wizards has answered that

I really don't care for the doubleweapons but I might aswell play the role of the devil's advocate here :angel:

as for the belts, my fix is switch the price and level for the belts

Lord Sessadore · Jan 2, 2009

It is true that you have to spend a feat to get that d10 off-hand, but you also get a defensive weapon. Every other defensive weapon has the same [W] size as a comparable weapon, only adding defensive. That's my big beef with that one - you get two benefits for one feat which usually only gives you one benefit.

Of course, for pretty much everybody it only amounts to getting a defensive battleaxe. However, as soon as the tempest gets thrown into the mix, along with any two-weapon fighter powers from Martial Power, it gives you two benefits.

I'm not really sure how to solve that particular problem ... it would help if I had the book with me

Lord Sessadore · Jan 2, 2009

Ozymandias79 said:
What is the big controversy doubleweapons? I don't see what so great about them in the AV, can someone please explain it?(and I futher don't see how a tempest can out-damage any other fighter)

about the doublesword I belive the wizards has answered that

I really don't care for the doubleweapons but I might aswell play the role of the devil's advocate here

as for the belts, my fix is switch the price and level for the belts

Well, with the most advantageous interpretation of RAW double weapons, at higher levels tempests can easily out damage great weapon fighters, as well as have defenses comparable to a sword-and-board fighter. I was involved in a couple threads a while ago that worked out some math for it all, I'll see if I can dig them up. It's not too much of a concern at lower levels, and we only really compared at-will powers' damage, so it might not be much of a concern at higher levels either since you won't use your at-wills as much.

EDIT: Ok, my bad. The reason tempests out damage other fighters at high levels is simply because they get multiple attacks. Since static damage like weapon enhancement and the tempest technique bonus apply to each attack, at later levels Str bonus and [W] size don't matter as much in the damage. Interpreting double weapons as both sides being off-hand simply lets the tempest wield two off-hand weapons with larger [W] than any other off-hand weapons. Still haven't found the threads, but I remember that bit now.

EDIT pt. 2: Linkage! Found both threads, they are here and here. The first discusses 1st level at-will damage, the 2nd involves high-level calculations. Note that part of the reason the tempest gets so far ahead at epic levels is because of Reckless weapons, which we've already designated problematic.
Also, this link might help us too: [Adventurer's Vault] Problematic Items

Atanatotatos · Jan 2, 2009

My proposal is getting rid of the defensive property of double weapons, so that they give you only one benefit (one-handed weapon dmg on the off-hand) just like the other superior weapons; and making the double sword a heavy blade, so a fighter wielding it is like a fighter wielding two rapiers, except it's a heavy blade. Seems balanced enough to me.

covaithe · Jan 2, 2009

Ozymandias79 said:
about the doublesword I belive the wizards has answered that

Gah. That's really upsetting. It doesn't really answer the question of whether a rogue can sneak attack and get Heavy Blade Opportunist at the same time with the same weapon, but still, it's nonsensical hogwash. With that interpretation I'm tempted to vote no on double weapons. Though; I admit that this is at least partly annoyance with the concept in general. I mean, the idea that two axes somehow become more powerful if you tie them to both ends of a pole: WTF? Aside from the fact that every time you hit with one you'd be hitting yourself in the groin with the other, how on earth do you expect to block more attacks if your defensive thing is less maneuverable? Why does it suddenly become less useful for defense if one of your axeheads falls off, leaving you with a polearm in your hands? And of course, just to put the icing on the cake, the kind of double weapon that would actually be useful and helpful in real combat, e.g. a butt-spike on a polearm or a pommel on a greatsword, is completely unrepresented.

Okay, end rant. As you can tell, I have a thing about double weapons. They really screw with my suspension of disbelief, in a way that magic missile never did.