Tempest Technique

[vhailor]

I chose for my fighter the Tempest Technique from the fighter talents, and equiped him with Double Sword and chainmail.
If he attacks with Dual Strike, will he take the +1 attack bonus and the +2 to damage rolls to both attacks
(Double Sword has off-hand property)?
In other words, the off-hand property applies to both ends of the weapon?

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Yes, and be discreet about it with your DM because most ban it for this reason.

What a silly weapon.

 

[Kordeth]

According to an unofficial clarification post by Mike Mearls a while back, each head of a double weapon was supposed to have its own entry and its own distinct weapon types and properties (e.g. no using Spear Push with the axe-head end of an urgrosh). Two-bladed swords were supposed to only have the off-hand property on one of the heads.

 

[vhailor]

But the the two edges from the Double Sword are the same, aren't they?
I agree about the Urgrosh because the heads are different.

Although I was thrilled the first time I pictured my fighter striking that hard, I find it unfair that a defender deals more damage than a striker with an at-will.

 

[Mengu]

If you change doublesword damage to 1d6/1d6, I think it solves most of the problems. It essentially becomes the equivalent of wielding 2 short swords, except you spent a weapon proficiency feat for the defensive property and for having one weapon for magic upgrades instead of two. This would make the feat much better balanced.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

If you change doublesword damage to 1d6/1d6, I think it solves most of the problems. It essentially becomes the equivalent of wielding 2 short swords, except you spent a weapon proficiency feat for the defensive property and for having one weapon for magic upgrades instead of two. This would make the feat much better balanced.

This is a houserule of mine.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

If you change doublesword damage to 1d6/1d6, I think it solves most of the problems. It essentially becomes the equivalent of wielding 2 short swords, except you spent a weapon proficiency feat for the defensive property and for having one weapon for magic upgrades instead of two. This would make the feat much better balanced.

Hmm, that's good. But that's a tempest fix that screws the ranger.

The ranger using the double sword was just getting the +1 to AC and the chance to pay for a single weapon since he could use two long sword anyway. That was reasonably balanced for a feat, to the point where many ranger either didn't use it or prefered two bastard swords.

It's the mysterious off-hand and light blade properties that cause problem with two case : It makes the rapier obsolete for the rogue and everything but double weapon obsolete for the tempest.

That's why I prefer fixing it bv removing the unexplainable off-hand and light blade quality on the weapon. Because without them, this is just a silly looking but balanced weapon for everyone.

 

[Mengu]

That's why I prefer fixing it bv removing the unexplainable off-hand and light blade quality on the weapon. Because without them, this is just a silly looking but balanced weapon for everyone.

Most silly rangers go with bastard sword so I hadn't thought of that angle. I was trying mostly to make it work for the Tempest, which seems is intended to use off-hand weapons.

Why not have both? We can have a double short sword and a double long sword. Push comes to shove you could do some surgery and have a double shlong sword.

 

[Byronic]

Why not have both? We can have a double short sword and a double long sword. Push comes to shove you could do some surgery and have a double shlong sword.

Simple, look at the pictures of the weapons. Not many people would be able to wield both of them.

 

[brendan candries]

If you read the entry for double weapons in the AV carefully it's actually clear for me that only one part has the off-hand property.

"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."

The general rule that assumes all properties mentioned on the table are applied to that weapon is clearly overwritten here by a more specific rule.

The real problem imho lies with the heavy/light blade group being shared by both ends. That just doesn't make sense.

Hell, it costs an Eladrin Rogue a feat to treat a Longsword as a light blade for rogue powers (at the cost of a sneak die). Even then it doesn't become a real light blade.