Double Weapons: Popularity?

Sir Brennen said:
I'm currently playing a dwarven ranger wielding an urgrosh. Of course, I didn't have to spend any feats to use it as a double weapon - it was all based on racial and class features. Before I chose two-weapon fighting at 2nd lvl, I could also use just the axe end as a two handed weapon.

[pimp] You can read all about it in the Story Hour in my sig [/pimp] :p


I'll try to convince my DM to let me use a quaterstaff as a Ranger with TWF even though technically it's not allowed by the RAW (or is this changed in 3.5 ?)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

... Why wouldn't it be allowed by RAW? It's allowed in 3.5 and was allowed in 3.0.
 

Jdvn1 said:
... Why wouldn't it be allowed by RAW? It's allowed in 3.5 and was allowed in 3.0.
It is allowed in 3.5 but wasn't in 3.0. (The ranger class description used to have an explicit clause against double weapons.)
 

Weird. I'm forgetting everything about 3.0, seems like.

Those rules were strange.
 



Yeah, I'm not too fond of them either. Except, maybe, for the quarterstaff, double-bladed sword and orc doubleaxe. And I'm only listing the sword because of Darth Maul.
 


My first character use the Orc Double-Axe, but I also like the double weapons that have alternate abilities. The Dwarven Urgosh can be set against a charge, the Dire Flail gives a +2 to disarm or something, et cetera...
 

As a DM, I'd actually facilitate the use of double weapons by making sure magic versions are found when it comes to treasure. But this has never been an issue b/c no one has shown even the slightest interest in using them (even the guy with urgrosh doesn't use it; he just carries it around).

I think this is one of those things WotC needs to either revise (like they did with gnomes and dwarves) or drop altogether. It's a cool concept, but no one takes it. That tells you there's something wrong...
 

Remove ads

Top