Double weapon buffing

[mikebr99]

Thoughts?

This has lasted the whole weekend... And no one has given anything concrete to prove that MW & GMW enchants both ends with one casting.

Please people... Spells do the minimum of what is spelled out, nothing more...

And a double weapon is two weapons.

Mike

 

[Plane Sailing]

If I cast a buffing spell such as magic weapon or sonic weapon on a double weapon does it affect both ends?

My answer depends upon whether you are the player or the DM.

If you are the player, then I think that the rules for crafting weapons talking about both ends being separately enhanced, and the fact that shillelagh specifically calls the spell out as affecting both ends whereas other weapon-buffing spells don't, seem to be sufficient evidence for the cautious DM to clearly rule that a casting of the spell only affects one end.

On the other hand, if you are the DM you are in the position to consider how the standard rules affect your game, whether they seem clear to you, and make whatever tweaks you think are necessary (while suggesting that you understand the reasoning behind the existing rule first, and not just make changes willy-nilly). So if you are the DM, what do you think would be the worst impact of allowing a double weapon to have both ends affected? Would it be such an effective option that everyone would start running around with double weapons, or would it have neglible effect? Would the most extreme example be a 16+ level ftr with greater twf who would be getting an extra +5 hit and +5 damage on all his off-hand attacks with high level GMW? How would the numbers compare to someone with a 2H sword with GMW? Of course, that could open up the whole "twf vs 2HF debate once again, so you might not want to go there!

Cheers

 

[Infiniti2000]

And a double weapon is two weapons.

You keep saying that like it's true. It's not. A double weapon is a single weapon with two sides, as has been proven already. MW and GMW affect a weapon and therefore can be cast on a weapon, whether it has two sides or eight sides. No more, no less. For someone clamoring for concrete proof, we have provided it and you haven't.

 

[mikebr99]

You keep saying that like it's true. It's not. A double weapon is a single weapon with two sides, as has been proven already. MW and GMW affect a weapon and therefore can be cast on a weapon, whether it has two sides or eight sides. No more, no less. For someone clamoring for concrete proof, we have provided it and you haven't.

Each side is considered a "weapon" WRT two-weapon combat... where is it spelled out that MW & GMW do not also follow the thinking that each head is a weapon?

Each side is also considered a "weapon" WRT creating a magic weapon... where is it spelled out that MW & GMW do not also follow the thinking that each head is a weapon?

You can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it... I would suggest strongly, that you remember which was temporarily enchanted, while doing so.

Mike

 

[FireLance]

And a double weapon is two weapons.

So, do you need to take Weapon Focus twice to get the attack bonus with both ends of a double weapon?

The fact that shillelagh specifies that it affects both ends of a quarterstaff inclines me to rule that a magic weapon or greater magic weapon spell would similarly affect both ends of a double weapon, as would spells like align weapon, bless weapon, disrupting weapon, holy sword, and keen edge. And I'm sure no-one will argue that a double weapon should be treated as two weapons for the purposes of spells such as make whole, mending and shatter .

It seems that a double weapon is treated as a single weapon for feats (apart from Craft Magic Arms And Armor) and crafting adamantine and cold iron versions, and as two separate weapons for crafting masterwork versions, crafting alchemical silver versions, and adding permanent enhancements. I'd say there'e enough ambiguity for either interpretation.

 

[mikebr99]

The fact that shillelagh specifies that it affects both ends of a quarterstaff inclines me to rule that a magic weapon or greater magic weapon spell would similarly affect both ends of a double weapon, as would spells like align weapon, bless weapon, disrupting weapon, holy sword, and keen edge.

Really? The fact that Shillelagh specifies that both ends ARE effected, and the others don't specify.. leads me to believe that they DON'T work on both ends, with one casting.


Mike

 

[Nonlethal Force]

So, do you need to take Weapon Focus twice to get the attack bonus with both ends of a double weapon?

It seems that a double weapon is treated as a single weapon for feats (apart from Craft Magic Arms And Armor) and crafting adamantine and cold iron versions, and as two separate weapons for crafting masterwork versions, crafting alchemical silver versions, and adding permanent enhancements. I'd say there'e enough ambiguity for either interpretation.

I wouldn't. See, the comment above about taking Weapon Focus above - while admittedly flippant - is clearly wrong. This is why many melee rocused rangers fight with two light weapons instead of a one-hander and a light. Because, even though the damage done is less, the same weapons focus feat applies to both weapons when used. So, if I fight using the same light weapon in each hand and take weapons focus - it counts on both weapons. So, taking Weapons Focus (pick a double weapon) it would count for both ends because each end is the same type of a weapon. So fighting with a staff in game mechanics terms is really no different than fighting with two weapons.

Actually, there is an interesting scenario to consider. Suppose I make a character who has all the TWF feat chains and am looking to equip this guy. First, I look at the quarterstaff. 1d6/1d6. Then, I look at fighting with two handaxes. 1d6/1d6. The first guy takes WF:Quarterstaff and the second guy takes WF:handaxe. So, everything is still equal as far as regular and off-hand attacks. The only significant difference in game mechanics terms is that one guy is doing bludgeoning damage while the other guy is doing slashing damage. Well, that and the crit for a hand-axe is better than a quarterstaff ... but the handaxe is a martial weapon and not a simple weapon, so that washes out in game mechanics terms.

Now, someone casts magic weapon on the second guy. DM obviously asks, "which one?" and assumes the one in his regular attack and not the off-hand, although it is player's choice. Same caster comes along and casts magic weapon on the first guy. Common sense tells me that if the rules are designed to keep balance that the DM needs to ask "which end?" here too. Otherwise, you are all of a sudden granting a HUGE (and free) benefit to double weapon weilders - a benefit that cannot be gotten by two-weapon weilders.

As a DM, I strive to allow the rules to maintain game balance. Looking at this scenario - where everything is equal in the beginning and the same spell is applied so everything should be equal at the end - I have to say that there is amble reason to rule that casting a spell on a double weapon only affects one end. And, adding to it that the DMG makes a big deal out of making sure everyone sees double weapons as two individual weapons for the purposes of crafting arms - I have to continue to agree.

I don't see ambiguity here. I see people trying to make a loophole in words because it isn't specifically stated. Game Mechanics - and all common sense derived from a game mechanics point of view - point to double weapons being treated as having seperate ends.

But, as was said before. It's your game. We can argue all week long and we all eventually just log off and play it how we want anyway, right?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Now, someone casts magic weapon on the second guy. DM obviously asks, "which one?" and assumes the one in his regular attack and not the off-hand, although it is player's choice. Same caster comes along and casts magic weapon on the first guy. Common sense tells me that if the rules are designed to keep balance that the DM needs to ask "which end?" here too. Otherwise, you are all of a sudden granting a HUGE (and free) benefit to double weapon weilders - a benefit that cannot be gotten by two-weapon weilders.

So now someone comes along and disarms/sunders the first guy (with the quarterstaff). Does the DM (i.e. you) now ask "Which one?"

Oh, wait, do you mean it's not actually two weapons? Or, did you just forget this HUGE benefit of two-weapon wielders?

 

[Philip]

A double weapon is one weapon.

When considering Crafting, a double weapon is treated as two weapons.

When using two weapons style fighting with a double weapon, it is treated as two weapons, with the off hand considered a light weapon.

Does MW and GMW treat double weapons as two weapons? We don't know. But we do know that the book mentions two exceptions (the default being that a double weapon is one weapon), and no exception is mentioned in the spell. So we have to go by the default assumption that is one weapon with regard to these spells (and shatter, and gloves of storing, and disarming, and weapon focus, etc. etc.)

 

[kyloss]

off topic : (slightly) How far down does the enchantment stop on a staff? Personaly I am against the two ends being seperate as mandatory- I prefer optional- sometimes a very good option- one holy, one shocking burst etc but if it is the same across both why bother- I understand why they did it but if I make a disrupting staff which part of the staff can I hit the undead with if wielding it as a 2 handed weapon, and does that change if I shift my grip to two weapon style?