Double Scimitar - why so poor?

[hvg3akaek]

For background:

Longsword: +3, d8, versatile
Double Sword: +3, d8/d8 (looses versatile)

Flail: +2, d10
Double Flail: +2, d10/d10 (doesn't loose anything)

Battleaxe: +2, d10, versatile
Double Axe: +2, d10/d10 (looses versatile)


And now we have:

Scimitar: +2, d8, high crit
Double Scimitar: +2, d6/d6, high crit


So, why the drop in damage dice?

It's not like it became smaller - all the other double weapons are ~ 2x the weight of their single counterparts, +1lb. The Double Scimitar is almost four times the weight of a scimitar!
It's not cheaper - all the double weapons are twice the cost of their single counterparts, +10gp.
And, it's not like loosing versatile really mattered, as we are talking two weapon fighting here, so no "use weapon in two hands".

So, again, why the drop in damage dice?

 

[Nytmare]

I'd assume it was because they found that d8/d8 high crit was too good and they didn't want to throw away the high-critiness.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think what you have to realise is this:

Double weapons as written are an abomination birthed of last minute editing and bad rule concepts.

And that pretty much covers it.

 

[hvg3akaek]

I think what you have to realise is this:

Double weapons as written are an abomination birthed of last minute editing and bad rule concepts.

And that pretty much covers it.

Yeah, they are bad, but then why isn't the double scimitar equally as bad?

 

[hvg3akaek]

I'd assume it was because they found that d8/d8 high crit was too good and they didn't want to throw away the high-critiness.

Hrmm...but why would they need to throw it away? As mentioned, going from one character wielding two of the other weapons to one character wielding the double weapon, none of the other cases loose anything. Only the double scimitar has the loss.

 

[tmatk]

Yeah, they are bad, but then why isn't the double scimitar equally as bad?

The AV double weapons are the root of many problems; they're trying to do better with new ones I assume.

Hopefully we'll see the ones in AV addressed in errata eventually... they could even print it in AV2 !

 

[Nytmare]

Hmmm... Now that I'm actually looking at them, the double sword GAINS light blade, which throws the average power level even higher.

I was thinking that their math might have somehow considered versatile to be roughly equal to a die size plus high crit, but tacking that additional group onto the double sword makes the math even wonkier.

So, my guess now is that it's either a typo or that it's where they want the power level to actually be. Though if that were the case I'd imagine the other weapons would have been errata'd by now.

 

[BobTheNob]

I think what you have to realise is this:

Double weapons as written are an abomination birthed of last minute editing and bad rule concepts.

And that pretty much covers it.

Seconded. We just cut double weapons from our game. Poor design, wacky concept (how many historical double weapons have arceoligists dug up?), and at the end of the day our game is in no way worse off for their absence.

Good bye to bad rubbish.

 

[Nytmare]

(how many historical double weapons have arceoligists dug up?)

My guess would be that archaeologists have dug up about as many, if not more double weapons, than they have warforged or astral diamonds.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Hah! indeed. I was going to suggest "how many magical items of any sort", personally

At the moment, I guess I will just go with teo scimitars, and ask the DM to tool it as a double weapon. No mechanical benefit, just a great feel for the character!