Double Weapons: Scrap or keep?

[CleverNickName]

There has been a "silent ban" on all double weapons (except the quarterstaff) in my campaign since 3rd Edition came out. Meaning I never officially said that the players couldn't use the double sword, the double axe, or even the rediculious spiked chain...but no player has ever choosen one for their character.

Every time someone rolls up a new character and takes the EWP feat, it is for the bastard sword or dwarven waraxe. Every time I place a double weapon in a treasure hoard, it either gets handed to the monk (if it is a quarterstaff) or sold in town at the first opportunity (if it is anything else).

Maybe my players are too picky, or uninformed, or even crazy. Maybe they know something I don't. Anyway, whether or not double weapons make it into the 4E game will probably not affect us.

 

[lukelightning]

I think the dire flail was only invented to make the double axe look reasonable.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I think double-weapons should stay. Certainly, get rid of some, redesign others to be a little more plausible, and maybe introduce a few more interesting ones, but as a whole, there is nothing wrong with the concept.

And maybe it is the anime/videogame fanboy in me, but I like double-swords, even if the name is bad. In concept, at least, it isn't half as implausible as some weapons I have seen, and can't be too much worse than using a farmer's scythe as an actual weapon.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Quarterstaves are fine, and the double-bladed sword covers a whole lot of vaguely ridiculous fantasy weapons that are fine fantasy fare. Double-sided axes, hammers, maces, and flails are just godawful obnoxious, and most of them are better represented by normal dual-wielding.

I've even played a Hobgoblin dual flail wielder.

The spiked chain fits right in there with the double-bladed sword, but I do allow characters to spend another feat on it to be able to use it as a double weapon.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

Keep em'

 

[Klaus]

The Urgosh, Quarterstaff, Double sword (even if it is a little cheesy...), and polearms (if you let players bash with the other end...) are fine by me... the rest? Ridiculous, get rid of them...

Yeah, the urgrosh should totally stay! If it's good for Buffy, it's good for me!

I don't mind double weapons, IF the design is thought out. Ask me sometime about my double weapon designs.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

No game is complete without a dire flail.

It keeps the flail snail company.

 

[Krellic]

Could easily be. Didn't he fight both of them? I have hazy memories that Robin beats Little John but gets his butt kicked by Friar Tuck.

As I recall from the original stories, Friar Tuck used a sword and was in fact the best swordsman in the so-called Merry Men, better even than Robin himself...

 

[Klaus]

No game is complete without a dire flail.

It keeps the flail snail company.

Of course, the dire flail snail is two-headed.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I don't mind double weapons, IF the design is thought out. Ask me sometime about my double weapon designs.

Like... your Valenar elf?
Pozas Valenar elf
That's a better design I can accept, though I prefer tetsubo's designs a bit:
Double sword
Or this as double scimitar

Yeah, keep double weapons... except the dire flail - that's just a bit too silly.

Cheers, LT.