Double Weapons

[AGGEMAM]

Oh .. I forgot another advantage; you can also use it in one hand using only one of the ends to hit with.

 

[paulewaug]

Aside from the advantages already listed:
* It's a single weapon, so you only need to take the weapon feats once (weapon focus, specialization, improved crit, etc.). You do get the same benefit from using paired weapons, though, like 2 short swords.
* The off-hand does more damage! This is really the biggest reason IMO to use the exotic double weapons. A double axe does 1d8 (20/x3) on both hands, using the light off-hand weapon penalties. If you were to actually wield two battle axes, you'd get the same damage but be at -4 to hit on both hands, instead of -2.

The downside is that you have little chance of finding your chosen weapon as loot, and may have to have your weapon custom made and enchanted.

that's pretty much what I was going to say, so I'll just go with..
"What he said."

 

[Hypersmurf]

Oh .. I forgot another advantage; you can also use it in one hand using only one of the ends to hit with.

Not usually - most double weapons are Large (in 3.0) or two-handed (in 3.5), and can't be wielded in only one hand by a creature of the appropriate size.

-Hyp.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Not usually - most double weapons are Large (in 3.0) or two-handed (in 3.5), and can't be wielded in only one hand by a creature of the appropriate size.

Actually I think you are wrong there, otherwise this rule would be meaningless:

A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon-only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

EDIT: Also all double weapon description say that you can use it in one hand, so you are wrong.

 

[Bauglir]

Or perhaps those points refer to people using double weapons designed for creatures one size category lower, and he is right?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Actually I think you are wrong there, otherwise this rule would be meaningless...

It's not meaningless... but it's meaningless for creatures of the appropriate size.

Check the table... every double weapon falls under the categroy of "two-handed weapons".

Now, an ogre (size L) can use a Medium Double Sword as a one-handed weapon, with a -2 penalty for inappropriately-sized weapons. That's when the rule applies.

But nobody in their right mind will use an inappropriately-sized double-weapon by choice. There's not much advantage in it - the "off-end" of a double weapon of appropriate size is already treated as a light weapon, so your TWF penalties can't get any smaller. And the damage of the off-end of a too-small double weapon is no better than a normal light weapon, so you may as well just use two swords if you want that sort of versatility.

Bob the Fighter with a double sword can use it as a two-handed weapon, or as a double-weapon, but he can't swing it in one hand.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Or perhaps those points refer to people using double weapons designed for creatures one size category lower, and he is right?

Yup.

-Hyp.

 

[Camarath]

Not usually - most double weapons are Large (in 3.0) or two-handed (in 3.5), and can't be wielded in only one hand by a creature of the appropriate size.

-Hyp.

Unless they use Monkey Grip.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Unless they use Monkey Grip.

Yup. But again - good grief, talk about wasting feats.

Exotic Weapon Proficiency and Monkey Grip so you can use a 1d8 weapon in one hand with a -2 penalty?

Yikes.

-Hyp.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Actually I think you are still wrong.

I believe double weapons are special exceptions to the two-handed weapons rule. Otherwise the rule I pointed to is still pointless.