Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nonlethal Force" data-source="post: 2569241" data-attributes="member: 35788">I wouldn't.&nbsp; See, the comment above about taking Weapon Focus above - while admittedly flippant - is clearly wrong.&nbsp; This is why many melee rocused rangers fight with two light weapons instead of a one-hander and a light.&nbsp; Because, even though the damage done is less, the same weapons focus feat applies to both weapons when used.&nbsp; So, if I fight using the same light weapon in each hand and take weapons focus - it counts on both weapons.&nbsp; So, taking Weapons Focus (pick a double weapon) it would count for both ends because each end is the same type of a weapon.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Suppose I make a character who has all the TWF feat chains and am looking to equip this guy.&nbsp; First, I look at the quarterstaff.&nbsp; 1d6/1d6.&nbsp; Then, I look at fighting with two handaxes.&nbsp; 1d6/1d6.&nbsp; The first guy takes WF:Quarterstaff and the second guy takes WF:handaxe.&nbsp; So, everything is still equal as far as regular and off-hand attacks.&nbsp; The only significant difference in game mechanics terms is that one guy is doing bludgeoning damage while the other guy is doing slashing damage.&nbsp;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; DM obviously asks, &quot;which one?&quot; and assumes the one in his regular attack and not the off-hand, although it is player's choice.&nbsp; Same caster comes along and casts magic weapon on the first guy.&nbsp; Common sense tells me that if the rules are designed to keep balance that the DM needs to ask &quot;which end?&quot; here too.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I see people trying to make a loophole in words because it isn't specifically stated.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; It's your game.&nbsp; We can argue all week long and we all eventually just log off and play it how we want anyway, right?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nonlethal Force, post: 2569241, member: 35788"] 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? [/QUOTE]

Verification