Double sword, not as good as everyone thinks

[FrozenChrono]

Forked from: Tempests destroying two-hander style?


Everyone seems to believe the double weapons are the best tempest fighter weapons hands down. I think we're reading the rules wrong.

You only get the +1 to hit, and +1 or +2 to damage when wielding two weapons. The book states that a double weapon is "like wielding a weapon in each hand" but it never specifies the context in which they should be treated that way other than the main hand and off hand being used in powers. It also specifies that only one end of the blade is counted as off hand.

Here's the relevant book text.

Wielding a double weapon is like wielding a weapon
in each hand. The first die given in the damage column
of the table for a double weapon is for the primary (or
main) end of the weapon; the second damage die is for
the secondary (or off-hand) end. You can use either end
of a double weapon to deliver an attack unless a power
specifies a main or off-hand weapon attack.

It says nothing about abilities, or feats that require having two weapons.

When you wield two melee weapons, you gain a +1
bonus to attack rolls with weapons that have the offhand
property.
you gain
a +1 bonus to damage rolls with melee and close
weapon attacks when you are wielding two weapons.
This bonus increases to +2 with weapons that have
the off-hand property.

I could see people reading the rules differently than me, but even then RAW only the second damage die side has the off hand property.

Martial Power specifically states "when you wield two melee weapons" it's not stated to treat double weapons as two weapons anywhere but in reference to powers.


Now think about the implications for tempest fighters. Lets use the short sword as the base line.

+4 to hit
+2 damage
d6


Spend a feat on the double sword and you get by one of my interpretations
+3 to hit
d8
Defensive, but no bonus from Two weapon defense -1 to Ref Def
(this would make the double sword less effective than regular weapons for the tempest but keep it effective for anyone other than Tempest Fighters)


By the most I see allowable by RAW
+3 to hit main hand
+1 damage main hand
+4 to hit off hand
+2 damage off hand
d8
+1 to AC


Now let's spend a feat on another superior weapon, the Katar and you get
+4 to hit
+2 damage
d6
High Crit

Hmm, that second one almost seems . . . . balanced? reasonable? RAI?

the +3 to hit and +1 damage on the main hand of the double sword are made up for by it's d8 which is just better than the katar. The def property is matched against high crit.

Mwa ha! Now other weapon tempest fighters can have their day!

 

[cjais]

But isn't that basically how most people interpret it?

The way I see it, you're saying that double sword-using tempest fighters can get the defensive property of their weapon, but not the benefit of the two-weapon defense feat. I can see this being open to some debate.

As they can attack with the off-hand side of the weapon whenever they please, excepting powers that explicitly spell out main/off-hand atks, they pretty much always get the bigger bonus from their class feature.

But to sum up, it wouldn't be such a hot weapon if it didn't have the off-hand property, right?

 

[Thundershield]

Indeed, as cjais points out, there's some speculation here.

As double weapons all have the defensive property, and this property requires you to wield two weapons, wielding a double weapon must obviously be considered "wielding two weapons" or them having the defensive property would be pointless.

Also, the Tempest Technique feature states that you get a +1 bonus to attacks with weapons with the off-hand property (as opposed to weapons simply held in your off-hand) and since the double sword has this property, regardless of what end you're using, it must apply to both ends, just like dual-wielding katars or short swords would give you the attack and damage bonus on both hands.

While it is true that the description of double weapons states that one end is to be considered the "off-hand" end, it only states this in reference to powers that require you to make an off-hand attack, not in reference to feats or class features.

In other words, going by the book a double sword would give you all the benefits of the Tempest Technique class feature. Not sure this is balanced or not, however.

EDIT: I suppose the balancing factor is that your double weapon will only have an enhancement bonus and nothing else on one end. If you wield 2 katars, for instance, each can have its own special ability.

EDIT 2: While I hear that a popular solution (the one shown here by FrozenChrono) is to treat one end as being the Heavy Blade and the other end as being the Light Blade/Defensive/Off-Hand, that raises more puzzling issues. First off it makes the Tempest want to attack with the off-hand end rather than the main hand end when making a single attack (or opportunity attack), but it also raises questions about whether a double sword can be used for Rogue powers if one end is solely a Heavy Blade.

 

[eamon]

If a double weapon is not counted as wielding two weapons, what's the point? Clearly, it must be counted as wielding two weapons, otherwise it serves no purpose whatsoever.

As is, the text describes an off-hand end, but whether or not a weapon is in your off-hand is distinct from the off-hand property. There's much discussion about the properties of a double blade, but they're written to be "heavy blade, light blade, off-hand", and these properties apply to both ends. Perhaps this isn't balanced, but it's certainly a reasonable RAW interpretation. As to balance, even with this interpretation and marked scourge, a tempest still deals less damage than an optimized ranger; so even if the balance isn't ideal, it's certainly not game-breaking.

I hope a reasonable and clear update arrives sometime, but as-is, let's not make a mountain of a molehill.

 

[MwaO]

You only get the +1 to hit, and +1 or +2 to damage when wielding two weapons. The book states that a double weapon is "like wielding a weapon in each hand" but it never specifies the context in which they should be treated that way other than the main hand and off hand being used in powers. It also specifies that only one end of the blade is counted as off hand.

Ask Wizards: 10/31/2008

Q: For effects like that from Power Attack, do double weapons count as a two-handed weapon or as two single weapons?

A: Double weapons are treated as two single weapons for Power Attack and other similar effects.

So they're treated as being two single weapons for the purposes of Tempest...

 

[FrozenChrono]

After looking over the defensive property I do agree one of my interpretations isn't valid. The second interpretation is the one I'm sticking with


This is what I believe the RAW states you get with the double sword as a Tempest.

+3 to hit main hand
+1 damage main hand
+4 to hit off hand
+2 damage off hand
d8
+1 to AC

Further evidence

Urgrosh +2 d12/d8 — 30 gp 12 lb. Axe, spear Defensive, off-hand

this
weapon has a heavy axe head at one end (dealing d12
damage) and a sharp spear point at the base of the
haft (dealing d8 damage).

This sets us up to interpret Heavy Blade, Light Blade as being specific to Main hand and off hand.

This also tells us that a property doesn't have to apply to the whole weapon as eamon stated.

Now that we know that a weapon property doesn't necessarily apply to the whole weapon, we can look at the description of double weapons which specifically states that one end is off hand and take that as the current way to run double weapons until appropriate errata is released.

As is, the text describes an off-hand end, but whether or not a weapon is in your off-hand is distinct from the off-hand property. There's much discussion about the properties of a double blade, but they're written to be "heavy blade, light blade, off-hand", and these properties apply to both ends. Perhaps this isn't balanced, but it's certainly a reasonable RAW interpretation. As to balance, even with this interpretation and marked scourge, a tempest still deals less damage than an optimized ranger; so even if the balance isn't ideal, it's certainly not game-breaking.

Dealing less damage that an optimize ranger is irrelevant. The point is as many people are interpreting it double weapons are mathematically better in every way than all other superior weapon selections a tempest fighter can take. That is not balance, and because 4E is all about balance I don't belive it is the rules as intended.

 

[Bond James Bond]

I think it is safe to argue that the rules are (yet again) unclear as to when a double weapon counts as two seperate weapons.

While AV says it is like wielding "a weapon in each hand" afterwards says that it actually isn`t, at least when it comes to magical enchantments, when it does count as one weapon as far as the enhancement bonus goes. The wording also suggests, that just the off-hand part does count as "off-hand", which would mean that a tempest would be better off attacking with the "off-hand" part rather thean with the "primary" as FrozenChrono pointed out. Bizarre.

Since the wording isn`t really clear, I`d ask: What would be more balanced?

Seeing that double weapons deal more damage already than "normal" off-hand wepons, I really have problems with giving a double weapon wielding Tempest his full bonus with both ends.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

If a double weapon is not counted as wielding two weapons, what's the point? Clearly, it must be counted as wielding two weapons, otherwise it serves no purpose whatsoever.

As is, the text describes an off-hand end, but whether or not a weapon is in your off-hand is distinct from the off-hand property. There's much discussion about the properties of a double blade, but they're written to be "heavy blade, light blade, off-hand", and these properties apply to both ends. Perhaps this isn't balanced, but it's certainly a reasonable RAW interpretation. As to balance, even with this interpretation and marked scourge, a tempest still deals less damage than an optimized ranger; so even if the balance isn't ideal, it's certainly not game-breaking.

I hope a reasonable and clear update arrives sometime, but as-is, let's not make a mountain of a molehill.

There is no need for an update beyond the FAQ answer quoted later in this thread. How it works with the rules and FAQ as it stands is clear and reasonable. This is just some people not liking how it works and creating churn by trying to make the rules say something other than what they do.

 

[Bond James Bond]

There is no need for an update beyond the FAQ answer quoted later in this thread. How it works with the rules and FAQ as it stands is clear and reasonable. This is just some people not liking how it works and creating churn by trying to make the rules say something other than what they do.

I disagree. To me, rules are quite obviously unclear, when so many people read it differently as it is the case with tempest vs. double wepons.

The Answer you mentioed from wizards only applies how to power attack works with double weapons and says nothing about the tempest at all.

Even if, all answers from wizards CustServ are not "official" rulings anyway.

 

[eamon]

There is no need for an update beyond the FAQ answer quoted later in this thread. How it works with the rules and FAQ as it stands is clear and reasonable. This is just some people not liking how it works and creating churn by trying to make the rules say something other than what they do.

I've got to agree. Most "rules" discussions seem to stem from the fact that they somehow want to "fix" the tempest. I've not seen much true confusion at all. A double-bladed sword, as described in the AV, is simultaneously and on both ends a heavy blade, a light blade, and off-hand.

Given the amount of discussion, a clarification would be nice nevertheless - but unless they actually want to change the mechanics, an update/errata is unnecessary.

(And on the matter of a rules-change, I'm ambivalent. The current rules are not game breaking, and I'm not such imperfect balance is a good enough reason for yet another rules change, if imperfect balance is really an issue. Certainly if they "fix" this problem it'll simply make other builds that much more attractive, but whether that's really that much better a situation...). In the interest of honesty, I'm currenly playing a non-tempest non-battle rager shield fighter, and have no intent to convert him to either rager or tempest. If I had to choose, however, I'd pick the rager over tempest in a heartbeat - I just don't think that a cross between a defender/striker is all that special. Tempest damage output is great for a defender, but mediocre for a striker, and he's outright poor in terms of status effects and mobility, so it's still just a secondary striker. I think a tempest with a double-blade is an attractive compromise between a striker and a defender - if that's what you're looking for - but that that compromise isn't somehow problematic, au contrair, it's a nice alternative build to flesh out player options.