Double sword, not as good as everyone thinks

[pemerton]

I think the damage dice of all double weapons should have been lowered by one from the beginning.

A +3 d6/d6 double sword for example would be perfectly fine. Compared to short swords you would have to use on feat, but get +1AC, heavy and light blade type, and the benefit of having the enhancement bonus count on both ends (but just on "slot" or special weapon abilties).

But doing it this way is a bit of a purge to non-tempests, I think. At the moment a non-tempest can take a double weapon and (in return for the feat) get a boost to off-hand damage and +1 AC. Under your suggestion this wouldn't be the case.

Hence my preference for keeping the double weapon damage as-is, but changing the rule about Tempest bonus damage.

 

[FrozenChrono]

No, the rules are clear. They just don't say what some people want them to. A ruling is based on what the rules say, not what you want them to say. You're twisting bits and pieces of the rules into a different rule that gives you the answer you want. That isn't a ruling, it is a house rule.

If the rules are clear, why do so many people ask for clarification? I've sited
my sources and my reasons for my interpretation, the FAQ quote you sited in no way diverges from my second interpretation. Treating double weapons as single weapons in no way makes both ends off hand. In fact it supports my interpretation because the double sword is treated as two single weapons, meaning that each weapon can have different properties.

Your second interpretation isn't an interpretation. it is something you fabricated. You created a split where none exists, in either the description of the double sword in the text or in the table. WOTC_Logan has already made two posts, one in which he explained that the orginal writeup had two seperate lines and one in which he said he couldn't speak to the reasonthat it was changed, but that it was a moot point with regard to the "final double sword" which he only used as an example. It changed, and the description clearly describes it as two identical longsword blades, not a longsword blade an a rapier blade. However you dress it up, your "interpretation" isn't a ruling or interpretation, it is a house rule.

Would you mind posting a link to the WOTC_logan thread. I've lost track of it. Thanks.


Fabrication
Fab`ri*ca"tion\, n. [L. fabricatio; cf. F. fabrication.]1. The act of fabricating, framing, or constructing; construction; manufacture; as, the fabrication of a bridge, a church, or a government.



That's an odd thing to say about someone, but it's clearly a false statement. There's no way I could do anything of those things on a forum . . . so you must be lying. Dun dun dun!

Sorry, I really couldn't resist. Anyway so here's a few facts you may not have noticed, at least I hope you haven't cause then I'll have written them twice for no good reason and I hate wasting effort!

• Flavor text =\= rules text.
• The light blade and heavy blade being separate isn't part of my interpretation, it was a side-note. (though because of how useless it makes the rapier I'd likely house rule it into a heavy blade only)
• The point was different sides can have different properties (the Urgrosh is only half / axe half spear) [but all man]
• In the explanation of double weapons it specifically names one side as the off hand side, and the other as the main hand side.
• Therefore: only one side has the offhand property!

This is wholly irrelevant when posting about what a rule is. A rule says what it says, regardless of whether you like it. Again, if you're twisting a rule to make it say something other than what it actually says, you've moved past making a ruling and into making a house rule.

I think I've already answered this. Next!

As an aside, I don't like double weapons at all, any of them, period. I do like options though, I just like them to be meaningful and different. Which means that some options will be better in some combinations than others. A bastard sword isn't as good for a tempest fighter as a double sword. That doesn't mean the double sword (or double weapon property) is overpowered. Just like it didn't mean that the bastard sword (or the versatile property) was overpowered because it is a better choice for most swordmages than a double sword. There are options which make the double sword nice for the swordmage and options where weapons other than the double sword or whatever are nice for the tempest. Those options aren't always as simplistic as using a different weapon and getting the same level of results. Sometimes you need to mix feats, races, magic items, paragon paths and/or multiclassing to get the benefit of a switch. I prefer complex options to simple options. And, if you have good and viable combinations, and make the good combinations only viable by making a component worse, combinations using that component that were previously viable become non-viable. You reduce the number of viable options, and the number of options overall. So trying to give yourself some false moral high ground by implying that you have desire for a superior game with more options is disingenuous at best.

I enjoy that you started that paragraph by pointing out an option you don't like, shows you have multiple dimensions, you're conflicted, an interesting character. Anyway I mostly agree with you here I just think there are more "good and viable" options for tempest fighters than double weapons.

Also I don't think that word means what you think it means. You might want to get that checked.

On churn: Posting "I don't like this rule and I think it should be like this." is one thing. It is honest, and generates debate. Posting "This rule I don't like actually says this." when it clearly doesn't, and twisting bits of text selectively to make a point generates confusion and churn. Most particularly, the irrational calls for aditional clarification when none is needed. There are things that need attention more than multiple FAQ entries and rules updates to confirm that they mean what they say. What's the update for Double Weapons going to say? "Wielding a double weapon is like wielding a weapon in each hand, really, we mean it, for sure."

Well I think it'd be cool if anyone but halflings had any reason to use the rapier. Also a solid statement of "while wielding a double weapon only the end held by your offhand has the offhand property" would probably help clear things up up the rule with skeptics.

What would I possibly accomplish by trying to confuse people about the rules. I'm giving people a reasonable interpretation that keeps double weapons from being the end all Tempest weapon that many seem to think it is. Also I don't see anyone on this forum churning . . . at least I don't think I do. What are the symptoms? Nausea? I hope it's not nausea. I have a tender stomach. Does anyone else need some Pepto Bismol? I'll make the run!

On the FAQ: Does someone have some "official" statement making the FAQ unofficial or that it is just a customer service answer. The only WotC information I've seen on the process is a customer service response to a question which said there wasn't an official answer, and the CS rep said he would send the question back to the developers of the game and that "hopefully" an FAQ or update would be forthcoming. I've never seen anything that said FAQ updates were made without the input of the developers,

But, really the 'FAQ isn't official' line is no different than what will happen if an update is released. The same people complaining that the existing rules are unclear because they clearly state something other than what they want them to will continue to claim that the updated rules are unclear if they don't like the updated rules.

Again, the FAQ response supports my interpretation. Other than that I'm not really sure.
Maybe if the rules are clear people will just be like "oh that's lame, lets do this instead," maybe they'll keep complaining until they pollute the ozone layer so badly the sun burns us all up in a supernova (yes, supernovas and ozone layer decay are related. What did they teach you in school?), or maybe they'll be so disingenuous they'll convince us all that they're right and dragons will erupt from the Earth then chaos will ensue . . . CHAOS!!!


( I don't like being called a liar for presenting my ideas. I'm genuinely sorry if you felt insulted by anything I said before or during this post. I tend to respond sarcastically when confronted by people who use the same argument repeatedly without giving evidence that my interpretation is wrong)

 

[eamon]

If the rules are clear, why do so many people ask for clarification? I've sited
my sources and my reasons for my interpretation, the FAQ quote you sited in no way diverges from my second interpretation. Treating double weapons as single weapons in no way makes both ends off hand. In fact it supports my interpretation because the double sword is treated as two single weapons, meaning that each weapon can have different properties.[/FAQ]
People are asking many questions because an argument about balance has boiled over into an argument about what the text says, and secondly because the rules are somewhat weird, and finally because the off-hand property is easily confused with a chararacter's off-hand.

The point was different sides can have different properties (the Urgrosh is only half / axe half spear) [but all man]

Just because the urgrosh has specific text mentioning two sides doesn't mean that all double weapons must

In the explanation of double weapons it specifically names one side as the off hand side, and the other as the main hand side. Therefore: only one side has the offhand property!

That doesn't follow in the least. Is a longsword held in your off-hand suddenly an off-hand weapon? Is a dagger held in your main hand no longer-off hand?

Some weapons have the off-hand property, which is distinct from merely holding a weapon in your off-hand. It's possible to hold an off-hand weapon in your main hand, and it's possible for a ranger to wield a non-off-hand weapon in his off-hand. Any combination of two weapons will have a main one (held in your main hand) and an off-hand one (held in your off-hand). That doesn't make the weapons themself suddenly appropriate (or not) to wield in your off-hand; in other words, just because you need to wield a double weapon with two hands (effectively main/off-hand) doesn't change the weapon itself. The property "off-hand" is a property of the weapon.

Well I think it'd be cool if anyone but halflings had any reason to use the rapier. Also a solid statement of "while wielding a double weapon only the end held by your offhand has the offhand property" would probably help clear things up up the rule with skeptics.

That would be cool. It doesn't change what the rules actually say, though.

Again, the FAQ response supports my interpretation. Other than that I'm not really sure.

Which FAQ response? (I can't find it).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I have a player with an Elf Tempest Fighter in the game I am currently running. He uses a Double Sword, and this is how I interpret it:

1. Defensive, Off-Hand, Heavy Blade, and Light Blade are properties of the weapon as a whole, and not one specific end.
2. Nimble Blade feat on a heroic level Fighter is sexy.
3. Tempest Fighter wants high Dex, and Double Weapons outdamage off-hand weapons and give +1 AC, so Tempest Fighters are basically looking at either the Double Sword or Double Flail, since sword and flail feats are based on Str/Dex. I prefer the +3 of the sword, but the Double Flail is a good choice for higher damage.
4. The Tempest Fighter in our game has 20 Dexterity, Bracers of the Perfect Shot, and the Quick Draw feat, as well as a +2 Longbow at level 8. This makes him the most versatile Fighter I've seen in play, since his basic ranged attack is solid. He laughs at the immobilized condition.

Overall, this Fighter deals pretty solid damage and has decent defenses, but there isn't anything broken about it. Our Dragonborn Paladin and our occasional Warforged Swordmage are on even terms with the Tempest.

 

[Danzauker]

I have a player with an Elf Tempest Fighter in the game I am currently running. He uses a Double Sword, and this is how I interpret it:

1. Defensive, Off-Hand, Heavy Blade, and Light Blade are properties of the weapon as a whole, and not one specific end.

That's what I would do to, if else, for semplicity sake.

The only problem I see with double swords is that they seem not to be designed with the tempest fighter on mind (or the othere way round, as you wish) but only for the ranger.

A ranger can wield 2 one-handed weapons without penalties. Wielding a double sword is more or less the same.

All other must wield an off-hand weapon in their (duh) off hand, which means usually a lower damage die.

The bonus a tempest fighter gets on his off-hand attacks is there to level that penalty, just as being able to wield a (higher die) one-handed weapon is there for rangers. Just two ways to get basically the same effect.

Having tempest fighters able to apply the bonus from the tempest technique feature to double weapons generate the "off-hand makes more damage than primary hand" sillyness.

I, personally, would house rule the thing by altering double weapons like this:

"If you have the Two Blade Fighting Style feature (like rangers) then double-weapons get the off-hand quality".

 

[thecasualoblivion]

That's what I would do to, if else, for semplicity sake.

The only problem I see with double swords is that they seem not to be designed with the tempest fighter on mind (or the othere way round, as you wish) but only for the ranger.

A ranger can wield 2 one-handed weapons without penalties. Wielding a double sword is more or less the same.

All other must wield an off-hand weapon in their (duh) off hand, which means usually a lower damage die.

The bonus a tempest fighter gets on his off-hand attacks is there to level that penalty, just as being able to wield a (higher die) one-handed weapon is there for rangers. Just two ways to get basically the same effect.

Having tempest fighters able to apply the bonus from the tempest technique feature to double weapons generate the "off-hand makes more damage than primary hand" sillyness.

I, personally, would house rule the thing by altering double weapons like this:

"If you have the Two Blade Fighting Style feature (like rangers) then double-weapons get the off-hand quality".

The only negative result of this in my opinion is that Double Weapons become the only quality weapon choices for Tempest Fighters. They still don't deal Ranger damage, and the combination of Defender responsibilities and the lack of Striker mobility really hampers their ability to function as a Striker in actual play. This player tried to be a Striker in his first two battles, and nearly got everyone killed because he wasn't keeping the most powerful enemies occupied and instead tried to kill the weak enemies. Those most powerful enemies tore the squishy party members to shreds.

 

[eamon]

I, personally, would house rule the thing by altering double weapons like this:

"If you have the Two Blade Fighting Style feature (like rangers) then double-weapons get the off-hand quality".

That would mean that the only class that doesn't need or benefit in any way from the off-hand property get's to use the double sword as an off-hand weapon. Double weapons are clearly intended to be used by non-rangers. Note that indeed a double-weapon has a lower die than two individual superior weapons.

They work the way they should, in general. If there's a balance issue, a minor tweak should suffice, the basics are fine. I'm not sold on the balance issue, but certainly the tempest+double-blade combo is attractive. However, attractive does not imply broken.

 

[Danzauker]

That would mean that the only class that doesn't need or benefit in any way from the off-hand property get's to use the double sword as an off-hand weapon. Double weapons are clearly intended to be used by non-rangers. Note that indeed a double-weapon has a lower die than two individual superior weapons.

They work the way they should, in general. If there's a balance issue, a minor tweak should suffice, the basics are fine. I'm not sold on the balance issue, but certainly the tempest+double-blade combo is attractive. However, attractive does not imply broken.

You're right, and I corrected myself about the off-hand removal tweak.

Yes, double weapons are intended to be used by non rangers (that's why the off-hand quality). Of course to be able to fully take advantage of double weapons (core material and AV only) the only option is multiclassing into ranger, since only rangers have powers that require and make use of two weapons.

That's where Martial Power comes in. I'm not sure if it's overpowered, but sure seems odd and "inelegant" that tempest fighters can deal more damage with the off-hand portion of a double sword.

That's actually a tempest fighter issue, because by multiclassing into ranger a tempest fighter can wield two one-handed weapons (at the expense of a feat, obviously), so it's not a double weapon issue.

I guess if the only tweak needed is to just change the requirements of the tempest feature for the +1/+2 to damage to bar double weapons...