The diff is that it's also a defensive weapon.It's not really an issue to me. the superior weapon feat, in general, gives you +1 damage over an equivalent military weapon. The Double Sword does a d8 damage instead of the d6 of a short sword. It's right in line with where it should be.
The distinction becomes important for the Rogue with the Heavy Blade Opportunist feat, for example.
When an OA is provoked, can he use the Heavy Blade Opportunist feat with his double sword? He can, since it's a heavy blade. And can he use the Sly Flourish power as his OA? He can, since it's a light blade. But that only works if you read double sword to be simultaneously a heay blade and a light blade.
If you read it to be separately a heavy blade and a light blade, then he can use HBO with one end... but the feat allows him to use a power, and most of his powers require a light blade, which is the other end.
It's not strictly better, as it occupies both hands. A rapier wielder has options that the double sword wielder does not, such as the ability to wield an implement, the ability to wield a different weapon (usually a dagger or shuriken), or the ability to use a shield.The diff is that it's also a defensive weapon.
The double sword is, quite simply, better than the rapier. Because it has the same stats, but gives you a +1 to ac.
True. But if not strictly better, I still worry that it's better.It's not strictly better, as it occupies both hands. A rapier wielder has options that the double sword wielder does not, such as the ability to wield an implement, the ability to wield a different weapon (usually a dagger or shuriken), or the ability to use a shield.
I agree. If I housefuled double swords to be Heavy Blades only, is there any balance or flavour implication that I'm missing?Personally, I see no compelling flavor or mechanical reason for this weapon to be a light blade.