Am I reading something wrong or is Tempest fighter just better?

[Bagpuss]

And by RAW, I don't think is correct for double weapons to "count as holding two one handed weapons". Double weapons belong to the double weapon category. Not to the one-handed or the two-handed. They are a separated category. Off-hand is a quality per se.

Okay but "Wielding a double weapon is like wielding a weapon in each hand." which is what most of the Ranger and Fighter powers require that you have a weapon in each hand. They do not require that one weapon be off-hand. I agree that saying one handed in my earlier post was a mistake.

As written there is nothing to say Double Weapons require two hands to use. In fact as written it seems more likely they are one handed weapons because otherwise you could not make use of the Defensive property they have. Maybe they need a new Editor at WotC.

 

[Danzauker]

Okay but "Wielding a double weapon is like wielding a weapon in each hand." which is what most of the Ranger and Fighter powers require that you have a weapon in each hand. They do not require that one weapon be off-hand. I agree that saying one handed in my earlier post was a mistake.

True. Fighter and ranger powers don't require that one of your weapons be off-hand, but the general rules DO.

You can wield a secondary weapon ONLY if it's an off-hand weapon (exception: rangers with two-weapon style). It's in the equipment chapter, where it defines what an off-hand weapon is.

So, if you remove the off-hand quality of double weapons you create a sort of Catch 22. Wielding a double weapon is like using a weapon in each hand, EXCEPT that you CAN'T.

 

[Bagpuss]

It's in the equipment chapter, where it defines what an off-hand weapon is.

Technically since 4th Ed is meant to be an exclusion based rules system off-hand only defines what off-hand weapons can do. No general rule saying you cannot attack with any weapon in your off hand* actually exists you have to assume it, remember what I said about WotC needing a new editor .

So equally you could assume that with double weapons you can attack with either end, or both if a power allows.

Not entirely satisfactory.

___________________________________________
*Actually 4th Ed doesn't even really have handedness. I could swap my longsword from my right to my left hand and suffer no penalty to attacks.

 

[eamon]

And by RAW, I don't think is correct for double weapons to "count as holding two one handed weapons". Double weapons belong to the double weapon category. Not to the one-handed or the two-handed. They are a separated category. Off-hand is a quality per se.

Thus I won't allow any power or feat that specifically affects one-handed weapons or two-handed weapons to be applicable to double weapons.

It's only possible to wield a weapon in each hand if the weapon's are one-handed. The description is overly short, but if it's like wielding a weapon in each hand, I'd say it's like wielding a weapon in each hand - in all respects except those specifically mentioned to be different.

This, incidentally is also the interpretation espoused by CS in previous questioning (for which you'll either need to ask them again, or do some searching, I don't remember where this was posted).

 

[Eldorian]

It may be practical as a double spear, with a blade no longer than a dagger or short sword, and a long haft, weapons such as that did exist in Asia.

That wouldn't be a double sword, though it's not an impossible weapon to have rules for.

The double fail should also be illustrated more like a three sectioned staff, than the bash yourself on the head weapon it currently is.

Also not a double flail, but again it's not an impossible weapon to have rules for.

I'm not sure there is a historical equivalent to the Urgrosh, perhaps the closest would be a Halberd. Not the extreme length of a polearm but more shorter and with a spike on the end.

The Urgrosh is Dwarven origin weapon, so I don't expect to have a human historic equivalent. However, there have been weapons in human history which are a medium length pole with a cutting edge on one end, and a stabbing point on the other, so I can conceive of how an Urgrosh would be wielded.

I've seen Lucerne Hammers like that, where the weapon combined spear point, hammer head and pick at one end and the opposite end had a larger spike that you could use to drive down into a prone opponent, but not a Halberd. The only Halberds I've seen had just an iron shod opposite end.

A search for "martial arts weapons" in google images yields several medium length pole arms with a spike on the other end.

 

[Danzauker]

It's only possible to wield a weapon in each hand if the weapon's are one-handed. The description is overly short, but if it's like wielding a weapon in each hand, I'd say it's like wielding a weapon in each hand - in all respects except those specifically mentioned to be different.

This, incidentally is also the interpretation espoused by CS in previous questioning (for which you'll either need to ask them again, or do some searching, I don't remember where this was posted).

I'd say that it's possible to wield a weapon in each hand if they are both one-handed AND the weapon in your off hand is an off-hand weapon (sword + dagger, for example).

The feature that lets rangers wield a one-handed weapon as an off-hand weapon would not have sense, if everyone could already do this.

I think one should use some common sense in interpreting the rules, anyway. Double swords are off-hand weapons. I don't think it means that the RAI is to have characters go around with a bastard sword in their primary hand and a double sword in their off hand!

 

[Herschel]

If it is actually heavy on one end and light on the other, it's a terrible weapon. Rogues can only use half of it, and everyone else will generally want a matched pair of weapons for use with whatever weapon feats they have.

Or takes in to account hand dominance/strength. If a character were truly ambidextrous (or close), two separate weapons are simply a better choice in "reality". I could use a double sword easily enough, but the part swinging from the right is going to be coming harder and faster.

 

[Hambot]

The double sword is an impossible weapon to fight with, since in the picture it's hilt is tiny. Overall, the weapon is simply impossible...

Sheesh, don't get me started on the picture. I laughed so hard when I saw it.

 

[Crazy_Dragon]

Khopesh is moderately broken, axe+heavy blade,
And I have a bone to pick on Kukri, It's grouped as a Light blade however the text says "Kukri: The blade of this heavy knife curves forward for greater potency. A rogue proficient with the kukri can treat it as a dagger for the purpose of the Rogue Weapon Talent class feature.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Khopesh is moderately broken, axe+heavy blade,
And I have a bone to pick on Kukri, It's grouped as a Light blade however the text says "Kukri: The blade of this heavy knife curves forward for greater potency. A rogue proficient with the kukri can treat it as a dagger for the purpose of the Rogue Weapon Talent class feature.

an artifact of using common language to mean something in the rules. It might be a heavy knife and still be a light blade where blades are a larger category that even include great swords. Is it heaver then say a short sword? if not its really not a problem.

Unless their is something less obvious at work here i don't really get it.