Double Weapons: Scrap or keep?

[FungiMuncher]

If the designers can develop the rules to make them as effective as some other styles, I say keep them. Each DM can decide if they fit his/her campaign.

If not, don't waste the space in the PHB until they've had the time to think about it. Publish the rules in a later suppliment.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I like the idea of double weapons. I don't think they should work any different than standard two-weapon fighting (seperate weapons, one in each hand). In 3E, all the double weapons were exotic, meaning they cost you a feat expenditure to get (well, all except the quarterstaff of course). In terms of 3E, since they did cost you a feat with no more benefit than standard TWF gave, I would houserule that double weapons dealt 1x Str using each end, just to make it worth expending the feat. Otherwise, all you are expending the feat for is astetics (sp?).

 

[Klaus]

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.

The thing with two-bladed swords, axes and scimitars is that the handle has to be long enough that the wielder's arms can form an angle of *at least* 90º with the grip. That is one of the reasons why Darth Maul's double-saber isn't short-handled, like the double-saber of Exar Kun (its original inspiration). Ray Park (who played Maul) worked with the designers to make a weapon that could be wielded.

As for the dire flail, think of it like this heavy flail, except with a hinged head in each end:

 

[Nifft]

I never understood why they didn't have double-spears. Those almost make sense.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Exen Trik]

As for the dire flail, think of it like this heavy flail, except with a hinged head in each end:

That... actually looks reasonable. Normally, dire flails make you think of a crazy weapon that's mostly made chain, bludgeoning, and self inflicted wounds, but I could actually see using that kind of weapon. Most double weapons would be much more acceptable if presented reasonably, I think.

A change in terminology would be nice too. Since most double weapons are really only feasible when designed like staffs, and fighting with them works in a similar way, why not just call them that?

Two-bladed sword -> Sword-Staff
Dire flail -> Flail-Staff
Double-Axe -> Axe-Staff

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I never understood why they didn't have double-spears. Those almost make sense.

Cheers, -- N

Like javelins, only longer? Like the modern track & field javelin? I don't see why you couldn't -- it would be a double weapon that could also be thrown!

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

In terms of 3E, since they did cost you a feat with no more benefit than standard TWF gave, I would houserule that double weapons dealt 1x Str using each end, just to make it worth expending the feat. Otherwise, all you are expending the feat for is astetics (sp?).

There are benefits. One, all of these weapons count as two-handed for the purposes of disarming, and on rounds where you're not taking a full attack, you can deal two-handed damage without switching grip.

Second, they all deal damage as two one-handed weapons, but use the TWF penalties of fighting with two light weapons.

 

[Kannik]

I think you're confusing "fighting with a quaterstaff" and "poking with a stick"

Quite the contrary -- in many Kung Fu styles of martial arts (including Bei Shao Lin and Hung Gar) the grip on the staff is changed quite constantly such that there are long range attacks (including spear like thrusts as well as huge sweeping movements holding the staff at its end) as well as closer in strikes (usually holding the staff at one end and swinging the other end). At eyebrow height being the length of the staff, if anything the staff could be made both a reach and a double weapon (though not both in the same round). What's the minimum length a weapon needs to reach out to to be considered a reach weapon? }

Kannik

 

[dangerous jack]

Like javelins, only longer? Like the modern track & field javelin? I don't see why you couldn't -- it would be a double weapon that could also be thrown!

The Maasai lion spear is a real life double spear, with a heavier broad bladed end typically used for "melee", and a javelin/spike end that is the lead end when thrown.

 

[Gloombunny]

Quite the contrary -- in many Kung Fu styles of martial arts (including Bei Shao Lin and Hung Gar) the grip on the staff is changed quite constantly such that there are long range attacks (including spear like thrusts as well as huge sweeping movements holding the staff at its end) as well as closer in strikes (usually holding the staff at one end and swinging the other end). At eyebrow height being the length of the staff, if anything the staff could be made both a reach and a double weapon (though not both in the same round).

Eyebrow height? If that's a reach weapon then a greatsword is a reach weapon too.

What's the minimum length a weapon needs to reach out to to be considered a reach weapon? }

If it extends from the middle of your square, across an empty square, to hit a guy in the middle of the next square over... that's ten feet, isn't it? Subtract a foot or two since a person isn't always in the exact center of their square, but we're still talking about a weapon that's substantially taller (when held vertically) than the person wielding it.

Again: having enough reach to give you a big advantage in a real-life fight does not mean that the weapon has reach in D&D's rules. D&D's weapon rules are very abstract and do not model every significant property of a real-life weapon - not even close. The extra reach is only given to the very longest of weapons, which excludes even some polearms.