Do you think there will be double weapons?

[Aristotle]

I agree that if two weapon fighting is in, it won't be hard to allow a two handed weapon that should reasonablly be useable as if it were two weapons as such.

I'd rather not see an emphasis on all manner of double weapons but I liked the idea for the staff, and I was fond of the spiked chain (if not it's clear superiority over other weapons).

I so dig the quarterstaff, but it suffers from just not being very optimal. I was sort of hoping the fighter would feature the quarterstaff as one of the weapon choices that offer additional functionality to the weapon in their hands. Otherwise I'm holding out hope that the monk class will get rid of the laundry list of ninja weapons and emphasize some cool maneuvers with it and other basic weapons.

 

[Cadfan]

I hope double weapons are dead, dead, dead.

But.

I hope that when the Monk comes out, the quarterstaff makes a comeback, with quarterstaff specific powers (and utility powers) to make it a viable choice.

And I hope that weapons that aren't precisely double weapons, but where you can hit an opponent with multiple parts of the weapon, get feats or powers that exploit that. Such as hitting one opponent with your halberd's blade, and another with the shaft.

 

[Andor]

The double weapon concept had some real merit, especially when applied to that iconic double weapon the quarterstaff. (Although I note with some amusment that the double weapon style of staff fighting is pretty much an eastern thing and most europeans tended to use the staff like they would a spear.)

However in reality the staff was about it as far as double weapons went, with the exception of some really oddball martial arts weapons like the lajatang, and the humble buttspike on more common place polearms.

And the D&D weapons they concocted to fill the real world gap were awkward at best and suicidal at worst (Dire flail, I'm looking at you.) So I think that there are probably sound mechanical reasons for retaining the double weapon category, but I hope they don't try to stuff it full of imaginary nonsense again like a double bohemian ear-spoon or gnomish automatic war-blender.

 

[Shado]

Double weapons are in a lot of the concept art, so I expect them to be included.

There's a chance we won't see them in the PHB, but by the Adventure's Vault most certainly.

Quarterstaves have at least improved in damage. d8 now over the old d6. what other changes may or may not come have yet to be seen.

And I completely disagree with the double weapon detractors. While not all of the double weapons should have been made, several were very cool, and there's more than enough room in fantasy for them.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The double weapon concept had some real merit, especially when applied to that iconic double weapon the quarterstaff. (Although I note with some amusment that the double weapon style of staff fighting is pretty much an eastern thing and most europeans tended to use the staff like they would a spear.)

However in reality the staff was about it as far as double weapons went, with the exception of some really oddball martial arts weapons like the lajatang, and the humble buttspike on more common place polearms.

And the D&D weapons they concocted to fill the real world gap were awkward at best and suicidal at worst (Dire flail, I'm looking at you.) So I think that there are probably sound mechanical reasons for retaining the double weapon category, but I hope they don't try to stuff it full of imaginary nonsense again like a double bohemian ear-spoon or gnomish automatic war-blender.

That's what I was thinking. Quarterstaff as a double weapon didn't make much sense. It's probably one of the more ineffective ways of using the weapon.

That said, I personally hope it stays in 4e and isn't just a finger waggler weapon. Those twiggies can have their pixie wands, keep quarterstaves awesome.

 

[Destil]

The Valenar blade dancers will have double-scimitars!

One way or another.

Yes. Vote Double Weapons in '09!

As long as they look like the Claudio Pozas versions: nice long hafts, dire flail with a single chain link et cetera, most of the silliness is gone.

(the quarterstaff and the spiked chain needed to switch mechanics in 3E, though, and the closer the two get to that the better)

 

[Wormwood]

Furthermore, double weapons have very little basis in reality.

Don't care.

They look badass, and I don't give a **** how they did it in 14th century Europe.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

I don't mind fancy weapon like Edged quarterstaff and whatnot.

And I'm not a rabid simulationist.

But the idea that quarterstaff-like weapon could be used as for 'Two-weapon' fighting always struck as ludicrous. Yes, you can potentially hit someone with the upper and lower part of a quarterstaff if you used it uncoventionnally*. But a trained swordman can make a swing followed by a backhand in less time than a guy with a quarterstaff can hit with both end of his weapon.

A quarterstaff is a two-handed weapon. Sure, you can describe your actions as attacks coming from all direction. But if the staff is gonna get an advantage, it's in term of striking power. You have good leverage on this weapon. But speed (Two attacks)? Gimme a break.

As I said, I'm not a big simulationist but this two-weapon fighting with a quarterstaff strikes me as being just as absurd as doing so with a greatsword, for example.**

*For the record, quartersatff were primarily used to thrust, anyway. If someone got past your thrusting range you were in trouble. You used it mostly like a polearm. In fact, the normal way to use the quarterstaff was with one hand in the center and the other halfway before the end (the quarter). It is one of the potential source for the name quarterstaff. That made using the lower part of the weapon on a routine basis rather unlikely.

**Also for the record, a Greatsword was commonly used with 'Half sword' techniques where you would put a hand halfway on the blade and use the sword much like a quarterstaff. Still, treating a greatsword as two weapons would be absurd, as it is for a quarterstaff.

Bottom line, bring on the fancy fantasy quarterstaff-like double-sword. Just don't pretend it's an alternative to two-weapon fighting. Treat them like two-handed weapons.

 

[Ipissimus]

I like some double weapons. Double ended sword/scimitar ok. The double ended scythe is a guilty pleasure of mine, basically because it looks cool. Yes, I know it's silly.

But then we have the dire flail... twice as stupid as a morning star. I'm not sure which is more comical: the Dire Flail or Swordchucks. Double axes, etc. I can live without. I think they went a bit overboard with the double weapons probably due to the off-hand penalty bonus which was rather dumb in the first place.

 

[cferejohn]

Don't care.

They look badass, and I don't give a **** how they did it in 14th century Europe.

This