Adventure's vault wackyness

[HighTemplar]

I don't mean to start arguing about point of views or ruling, and I think your point is valid if you wanna house rule it that way. Unfortunately everything points towards the double sword being identically symetrical an so it becomes nonsense when choosing which side is the heavy one and even which is the primary one.

Theoretically, the weapon's primary end is never defined until you enchant the said weapon. My guess is if you're right handed your primary end will be whichever side of the double sword is closest to the right hand. (even ambidextrous people have a better hand than the other.)

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Double sword vs. Rapier vs. Parrying Dagger vs spiked shield vs. ordinary Dagger.

Double Sword
One feat. Defensive bonus. Same damage, access to HBO, and TWF and TWD, possible synergy with ranger multiclass.

Rapier
Second hand is free. Carry a ranged weapon for more flexibility. Carry a shield for more defense. (Three feats (Rapier, light shield, heavy shield) add a +3 weapon with d8 damage and a +2 AC bonus just like the double sword (double sword, TWF, TWD) but also give a +2 reflex defense bonus).

Parrying Dagger
One free hand for a ranged weapon or shortsword. Same defensive bonus as the double sword. +4 attack bonus thanks to rogue proficiency. If you want, you can carry an ordinary dagger in the other hand and have a ranged weapon that you don't need to draw while qualifying for TWF and TWD.

Spiked Shield
+1 AC and +1 reflex. And you can still take TWF and TWD and enjoy the +4 proficiency bonus of your dagger.

Ordinary dagger.
Is a ranged weapon. +4 proficiency bonus. No feats.

Of all of these options, the only one that the double sword is clearly superior to is the rapier... if you don't plan to pick up a shield. Rapier and Heavy shield, while it sounds odd and ahistorical, is a viable defensive alternative to the double sword that trades +1 damage for +2 reflex defense and an armor check penalty.

 

[Starfox]

I'm more worried about double weapons for Tempest fighters. Double weapons are so much more powerful than Katars that its not funny. Of course, you can rule that both ends of the double weapon are not off-hand, but again, this is not what the rules say.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

These are all very true, but you guys are forgetting about the double sword's other property:

Lame: Your character is in a word....lame. All other PCs gain the ability to call you names to your face, in character and out of character.

So with that in mind, I think its compares pretty well to the rapier

I know most would call it a house rule, but in our group we ruled that the Lame property was applied to anyone that even asked to use such a silly weapon. The GM will, of course, refuse the request, making the true ugliness moot, but we felt that some things should not be allowed to even surface again, during the attempted drowning.

 

[DogBackward]

I think the Double-Sword is a great choice, yeah, bu I don't see it as overpowered, not at all. It becomes an obvious choice for certain things; Rogues, Tempest Fighters, and so on. But then, D&D has always had tons and tons of "obvious choices", so that's really no big change.

Plus, I REALLY the idea of using Deft Strike as an Opportunity Attack. Bad-guy moves away from you, headed for the door? Move 2 squares to block the doorway. And thwack him one if he's still adjacent. And I'm sure there are other nifty situations where moving 2 squares as an Op-Attack would be handy, too.

Hmm... badguy moves, you move 2 squares to the next badguy, who hasn't acted yet. Now, if HE moves... you do it again. You could cross the whole battlefield in one turn, if you time it right...

But still. While cool, it's not overpowered at all.

Except maybe the spiked shield. I'm currently contemplating a Swordmage with a spiked shield as his main weapon, for the +2 AC bonus, and nothing else. So, Swordmage Warding for +#, and spiked shield for +2. Nice...

 

[abyssaldeath]

I don't see it as an obvious choice for rogues. There are a lot of rogue powers that are ranged or burst that require a ranged weapon.

 

[Byronic]

The first die given in the damage column
of the table for a double weapon is for the primary (or
main) end of the weapon; the second damage die is for
the secondary (or off-hand) end

An enchanted double weapon receives an enhancement
bonus on both ends, but weapon properties or
powers conferred by the enchantment affect only the
primary end of the weapon.

These are two lines I meant (emphasis mine of course). Now, when they say "off-hand" then that means the "Light Blade" part of the Double Sword to me. The second part is self evident.

Now, I understand if other people disagree, but I see "off-hand" as the same "off-hand" property as mentioned in the PHB.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Now, I understand if other people disagree, but I see "off-hand" as the same "off-hand" property as mentioned in the PHB.

But 'off-hand' and 'light blade' are independent properties. There are weapons with the off-hand property that are not light blades (hand axe, say), and there are weapons that are light blades that do not have the off-hand property (rapier, say).

So whether you determine that only one end of the double sword has the off-hand property or not, that doesn't tell you whether only one end belongs to the light blade group.

-Hyp.

 

[FrozenChrono]

The Urgrosh is listed as

axe, spear d12/d8

In the detail of the weapon it specifies which end does which amount of damage. It would have been nice if they'd specified which end was heavy and which end was light in the double sword entry but because of the how the Urgrosh is presented it seems most likely they intended the heavy side to be one end and the light side to be the other.

Allowing Heavy and light blades to be the same weapon would make any other weapon selection for the rogue inferior. Because so much of 4.0 is based on balance and choices I do not believe they intended to give rogues a perfect obvious choice in the double sword.

I know this doesn't match up with what the sword looks like in the picture, both blades are the same size, but most of 4.0 rules are about fun and balance and not what makes sense.

I think this weapon was designed to give more options to tempist fighters, rogues, ranged rangers, and maybe even paladins.

Looking at the double sword ruled like this it's still a reasonable feat choice for a rogue at 1d8 damage with its light blade side and +1 defence in exchange for occupying an extra hand. Combining Light and Heavy blade just breaks things.

 

[Byronic]

The funny thing is I'm not even allowing Double X's in my game. I mean... look at the Double Flail?! If I was playing a light humorous game, then perhaps. If I was playing something ridiculously over the top, ok. But not in my try-to-adhere-to-a-plausible-world game.

I think I'll allow the Urgrosh though. That looks like a reasonoble weapon.