You basically use one feat to get +2 to hit.
Seems like a pretty good deal to me.
Sure 2 battle axes would do the same thing, but you lose lots of advantages (as noted above), and its harder to hit.
I suppose you're more vulnerable to sunders, but thats true of a two handed weapon, so theres no real difference.
The point of double weapons is that it allows you to efectively use 2 medium weapons at the same time with no penalty for not having a light weapon in your off hand.
You can save a feat by say, going with 2 short swords, but you're losing out on damage by doing so (1d6 vs 1d8 of a twobladed sword).
I never had a problem with it myself, in fact my old halforc doubleaxe fighter could deal out massive damage in a round, and attack 6 times in a round (when hasted). Think of it this way; you could just take the extra -2 to hit and use two battle axes, or you could take the -2 to hit with a doulbe axe and do 2 extra damage (with power attack), or get +2 AC (with expertise).
Seems like a pretty good deal to me.
Sure 2 battle axes would do the same thing, but you lose lots of advantages (as noted above), and its harder to hit.
I suppose you're more vulnerable to sunders, but thats true of a two handed weapon, so theres no real difference.
The point of double weapons is that it allows you to efectively use 2 medium weapons at the same time with no penalty for not having a light weapon in your off hand.
You can save a feat by say, going with 2 short swords, but you're losing out on damage by doing so (1d6 vs 1d8 of a twobladed sword).
I never had a problem with it myself, in fact my old halforc doubleaxe fighter could deal out massive damage in a round, and attack 6 times in a round (when hasted). Think of it this way; you could just take the extra -2 to hit and use two battle axes, or you could take the -2 to hit with a doulbe axe and do 2 extra damage (with power attack), or get +2 AC (with expertise).
