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

[Danceofmasks]

This thread is about double weapons.
'cos that's the whole reason tempest fighter is "better."

IMO, they should never have got their own category, but rather just be (for all purposes) 2 one-handed weapons you can't separate.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Hey Sessadore,

You're correct on all counts, I was aware of the feat investment in the double weapon, but since I added the double weapon comparison point as an edit after the fact, I didn't feel like running the numbers on a whole set of superior weapons. My main concern in the last analysis was to compare PHB weapon tempest fighters with other PHB weapon fighters, the urgosh comment was an afterthought. I ignored criticals out of laziness

I'm curious how you arrived at two feats for a tempest fighter to use defensive weapons to match the sword and board fighters AC? The only feat I see him needing is proficiency in the desired defensive weapon. Tempest fighters already get two weapon defense as a bonus feat.

I agree with your assertion that feats have to be taken into consideration and applied equally to both sides of a comparison when relevant, but my last post was more about PHB weapons in feat neutral builds.

Yeah, in my enthusiasm I sort of forgot that you threw in the double weapon as an edit. Sorry 'bout that

As for two feats to match AC, I also forgot that tempest fighters get TWD for free. D'oh!

Alright ... so yeah. My post shouldn't so much have been made as a rebuttal, but as a supplement. If you ignore your double weapon edit, everything you had was correct (except for the AC for sword-and-board - that still should've been 19 for scale + heavy shield) and fair. It was a good post, I just got a little overenthusiastic in my response

 

[Bryan Reese]

The double weapons originally had two different lines of text, like so:

Two-bladed sword    +3    d10    —    40 gp    15 lb.    Heavy blade
      (Off hand)    +3    d6                Light blade    Off-hand

It's best to think of them that way, with each end having different traits. They're certainly not supposed to let you use a heavy blade with sneak attack on a technicality or anything like that.

To be honest, this contradicts both the picture and the description of it. The picture obviously has two of the same blade, not one Heavy Blade and one Light Blade. Second, the description says

"This well-balanced weapon combines the deadliness of two longswords with increased defensive capabilities."

One side being a Heavy Blade and the other being a Light Blade just does not make sense given what the weapon looks like and is described as. To be honest, it would make a lot more sense if the Light Blade property were removed and be done with it.

 

[Hambot]

No, the double sword does make perfect sense that way because of how you fight with it. You will tend to slash with the hand that you write with, as this gives you the chance to turn a slash into a parry. When you bring the sword around your arms are in a different configuration, usually letting you jab with the other blade. The blades must be equal for balance, but that doesn't automatically make you able to fight symmetrically. Although it is possible to jab with your primary hand and slash with your off hand, that is more for suprise than effectiveness as your primary hand tends to give stronger weapon blows.

The weapon is very, very hard to use properly. Having it be a bastard combination of light and heavy blades in the rules and all sorts prereqs on DEX to get the most out of it makes a lot of sense. A quarterstaff is WAY easier to use, because your hands can grip it where you need them without cutting your own hands off.

I think the problem people have is that they think of Darth maul. They actually came up with an original style of fighting for that weapon, because the traditional methods of fighting with a two bladed weapon are based on it having a sword plane, whereby the blade always has to be oriented the right way to slash with the edge. A lightsaber would be way easier to use as you don't need a lot of force to slash with a blade that cuts through anything and you don't care about where the plane of the cutting edge is at every moment.


I really haven't done much weapon fighting, but my sensei really struggles when using a two bladed sword even just to demo it.

 

[Eldorian]

No, the double sword does make perfect sense that way because of how you fight with it.

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. Even Asians, well known for making bizarre weapons that don't often work on battlefields, have never made something like a double sword. The only double weapon that I'd allow in a homebrew is the Urgosh. And then it'd be a mainhand d12 axe and an offhand d8 spear.

Now, to balance the doublesword, rules wise, you'd need to do something like Logan said they used to do with it. I think d10 /d6 is better anyways.

 

[Bagpuss]

Have I missed something or is the combination of Tempest Technique and the Double weapons from AV, just mechanically superior to PHB fighters?

You are correct but I contend that it's the double weapons that are at fault rather than the Tempest Technique.

 

[Bagpuss]

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. Even Asians, well known for making bizarre weapons that don't often work on battlefields, have never made something like a double sword.

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.

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

The only double weapon that I'd allow in a homebrew is the Urgosh. And then it'd be a mainhand d12 axe and an offhand d8 spear.

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.

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.

 

[Danzauker]

You are correct but I contend that it's the double weapons that are at fault rather than the Tempest Technique.

I agree.

That's why I ruled (I already wrote this in another thread but I'm to lazy to search for it) that I'll have the off-weapon quality of double weapons apply only for rangers.

I think this should be enough to keep them more or less balanced for every class.

 

[Bagpuss]

That's why I ruled (I already wrote this in another thread but I'm to lazy to search for it) that I'll have the off-weapon quality of double weapons apply only for rangers.

What additional benefit do rangers get by it having the off-hand property?

Why not just remove the off-hand property from it altogether?

"Off-Hand: An off-hand weapon is light enough
that you can hold it and attack effectively with it
while holding a weapon in your main hand. You can’t
attack with both weapons in the same turn, unless
you have a power that lets you do so, but you can
attack with either weapon."

RAW Double weapons don't need the off-hand tag to be used, because they are held in both hands, but count as holding two one handed weapon to be used with powers that need two weapons.

Two Weapon Fighting and Two Weapon Defense Feats, don't require the weapons to have the off hand property.

Where does off-hand property actually need to be used? Other than the tempest bonus or for non-rangers that want to attack with their off-hand weapon.

 

[Danzauker]

What additional benefit do rangers get by it having the off-hand property?

Why not just remove the off-hand property from it altogether?

"Off-Hand: An off-hand weapon is light enough
that you can hold it and attack effectively with it
while holding a weapon in your main hand. You can’t
attack with both weapons in the same turn, unless
you have a power that lets you do so, but you can
attack with either weapon."

RAW Double weapons don't need the off-hand tag to be used, because they are held in both hands, but count as holding two one handed weapon to be used with powers that need two weapons.

Two Weapon Fighting and Two Weapon Defense Feats, don't require the weapons to have the off hand property.

Where does off-hand property actually need to be used? Other than the tempest bonus or for non-rangers that want to attack with their off-hand weapon.

Rangers can access all their powers even if they don't choose the two-blade combat feature (which allows them to wield one-handed weapons as if they were off-hand).

Archer style rangers would not be able to use their powers with requirement "you must be wielding a weapon in each hand" if double weapons had not the off-hand property, I think.

(yes, here I'm correcting my statement in the other thread where I wrote that I house ruled double weapons to carry the off-hand property ONLY for two-weapon style rangers; in this case, the off-hand quality does not affect them).

Plus, there *might* be powers or feat that specifically affect off-hand weapons. What I'm trying to do is barring the combo tempest/double weapons while leaving access to double weapons to rangers..

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.