Double Weapons: Scrap or keep?

[Arkhandus]

Not all double weapons are impractical though. Like quarterstaves. Or double maces from Arms & Equipment Guide. Even the two-bladed sword or double scimitar may be alright, if illustrated more realistically (with appropriate-length handles/shafts).

Even the orc double-axe has some limited historical context, though not all that practical nonetheless. Me, I'm fine with stuff in D&D being less than historically accurate/practical, considering that D&D is not a Medieval Warfare Re-Creation Exercise. Chainmail or the like may have been, but D&D, certainly not, especially with its inclusion of magic and alchemy and whatnot. Not to mention hit points and such.

 

[Gloombunny]

I think a quarterstaff can be used as a two handed weapon and a polearm.
Of course, the distance they are from each other may be argued, but it looks like a 10ft attack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS0Mm56GLXA

Comparing to the guys fighting with poleaxes
http://www.aemma.org/training/pollaxe/pollaxe_brianMurph.wmv

That looks dangerous!!

Neither of those were anywhere close to ten feet...

A poleaxe would probably be a greataxe in D&D terms - it's big and two-handed, but it's not super-long.

Generally speaking I wouldn't consider any weapon that isn't substantially longer than its wielder is tall to be a reach weapon in D&D terms.

 

[Gloombunny]

Even the two-bladed sword or double scimitar may be alright, if illustrated more realistically (with appropriate-length handles/shafts).

Yeah, if the "two-bladed sword" were more like a two-bladed spear (i.e., a long stick with a short blade at each end) it'd be totally fine. Historically polearms were sometimes made with butt-spikes for a very similar effect.

 

[blargney the second]

Yeah, not a big fan of double weapons. We hardly ever use them, so I probably wouldn't notice if they went the way of the dodo. That being said, I wouldn't begrudge them to their fans.

 

[Stalker0]

Its a fantasy game, let's keep the fantasy weapons. I don't care how ridiculous they are to some people, others want to use them, so why take them out?

That said, they could be spruced up a bit. Other than the spiked chain, exotic weapons in core dnd is just crappy mechanics wise.

 

[Plane Sailing]

That's a very strong indicator you've never used one. Watch some pugil stick drills sometime - you cannot use a quarterstaff effectively by holding on to one end.

On the other hand, watch Bo staff fighting - which has a lot of 'using it effectively by holding on to one end' and isn't much different physically from a quarterstaff. A Japanese sword master duelling with sword against a student with a Bo said that the extra reach that the Bo had made it very difficult to fight against with a sword.

 

[Andor]

That's a very strong indicator you've never used one. Watch some pugil stick drills sometime - you cannot use a quarterstaff effectively by holding on to one end.

Sorry, but you're wrong. European quarterstaff technique was basically to use it like a spear. I.E. You hold on to one end and try to poke/bash with the other end. Holding on to the middle and bashing with both ends is pretty much an eastern technique. And yes. That means that every single Robin Hood movie ever got the Robin vs Friar Tuck fight wrong.*

That aside, I agree with the majority. Ditch the stupid ones like the double axe and dire flail. Keep the quarterstaff and make a simple rule akin to armour spikes (Which also ought to go, since they are stupid) to allow a butt spike to be attached to any spear/pole arm to let it be used as a double weapon.

*Note: I'm not claiming no one in europe ever used both ends of a quarterstaff. Since they were perfectly adept at using both ends of pole weapons like the halbard, we can assume experts would use both ends, but the generic european technique, from my reading, was to keep the length of the staff between you and the guy trying to hurt you.

 

[Li Shenron]

I am getting more and more irritated by these "remove, remove" reactions... If everything that has a problem should be removed from the game, what really remains? :/

If something doesn't work, kick your ass and make it work!

It convinces more and more that the problem of this game is the spread lazyness of the players.

 

[Wormwood]

It convinces more and more that the problem of this game is the spread lazyness of the players.

And narrow-minded DMs.

As for double weapons? A small mechanical advantage is an appropriate return on feat investment. Keep them.

I don't really care about historical accuracy or whether they would function in the 'real world'---so long as they are balanced within the game system.

 

[Plane Sailing]

As for double weapons? A small mechanical advantage is appropriate return on feat investment. Keep them.

Arguably the mechanical advantage, such as it is, is so small that it isn't really worth the feat to use them though.

If proficiency with a double weapon *automatically included* TWF just with that weapon, then it might be worth it, but as it is... hardly seems so.

Cheers