Do you think there will be double weapons?

[Mort_Q]

The Valenar blade dancers will have double-scimitars!

One way or another.

 

[CleverNickName]

I hope so, I like them. But shields are supposed to be more useful now, so who knows? Maybe a lot of the powers that require shields could be tweaked to allow double weapons. Tide of Iron, indeed.

My favorite double weapon: muzzleloader with a bayonet. One good ranged attack at the start of the encounter, then piercing/bludgeoning for the rest of the fight.

 

[Wolfwood2]

What always turned me off double weapons was the requirement that you had to enchant each end separately. I understand the balance reasons behind it perfectly, but it was maybe the most obviously artificial restriction for mechanical game balance in the entire game. If a wizard is enchanting a quarterstaff then it's a magic quarterstaff. You shouldn't need to do both ends!

I'm hoping that 4E double weapons will work just like regular weapons in terms of making attacks. You get one attack roll and one damage roll, and the flavor text is that you're using both ends to achieve the end result. Obviously they should get some sort of special ability to make each one unique, but that doesn't mean getting in two attacks with two separate ends that you have to track individually.

 

[drjones]

Yes It was replied previously that they are not in the PHB which probably infers that they will show up later in PHB2 or the equipment guide thing.

Personally I find them lame as heck, I know it is a fantasy game but I can not imagine a world where two heavy axes on either end of a pole would be even slightly better than a halberd or just one axe.

I do hope that there are quarterstaff type feats/powers especially for monks as watching The Brotherhood of the Wolf (or robin hood for that matter) staves kick ass, especially with martial arts mixed in.

 

[Rechan]

I just hope they give some different names to stuff.

I always mixed up two-weapon fighting, double weapons and two-handed weapons.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What always turned me off double weapons was the requirement that you had to enchant each end separately. I understand the balance reasons behind it perfectly, but it was maybe the most obviously artificial restriction for mechanical game balance in the entire game. If a wizard is enchanting a quarterstaff then it's a magic quarterstaff. You shouldn't need to do both ends!

Indeed. I am not really convinced that it was that important for balance, either. I think with little tweaks (and maybe even without any) it would have been fair to make it a single enhancement.


Oh, and count me in on the Quarterstaff loving!

 

[Rechan]

What always turned me off double weapons was the requirement that you had to enchant each end separately. I understand the balance reasons behind it perfectly, but it was maybe the most obviously artificial restriction for mechanical game balance in the entire game. If a wizard is enchanting a quarterstaff then it's a magic quarterstaff. You shouldn't need to do both ends!

Aye, that was the number one stupidest rule of 3.x for me.

Among other things, aside from the quarterstaff, you had to spend a feat just to use the dang things. I think it's worth it.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

The Ascendant Hellsword mini from Dungeons of Dread has a two-bladed sword. (RPG stats in a zipped pdf)

The blade only seems to allow him to chose fire OR cold for his attack.

 

[Chimera]

Ugh. I hate double-weapons. Easily one of the worst things in 3.x.

Whereas I for one would like to carry a triple sword!

If things get hairy I just use is as a propellor and fly away!

(snerk)

 

[MindWanderer]

Ugh. I hate double-weapons. Easily one of the worst things in 3.x

Agreed. If only 3e had come out a year earlier, or Phantom Menace a year later, we wouldn't have these idiotic Darth Maul wannabes.

If TWF exists, I can't think of a reason why double-weapons shouldn't.

TWF was around in 2e at least (I don't recall it in 1e, but I didn't own many 1e supplements), while double weapons are new as of 3e. Furthermore, double weapons have very little basis in reality. Since 4e is even less simulationist than earlier editions, neither of those may mean anything, but they're at least reasons.