Question about double weapons

[Vilous]

OK, so I've been reading a lot about how double weapons, as a rule are not 'worth it' when compared to using a single weapon with two hands.

(yes, I imagine this topic has been gone over in detail before, please bear with me)

However, in everything I've read I haven't seen anyone mention the fact that the primary attack with the double weapon would get the 1.5x str bonus modifier.

Please correct me here if I'm wrong, I've looked through all the errata and FAQ's for a clarification or something and haven't found anything.

Here is what I -have- found:
Lets take the example of a double-bladed sword. I will focus here exclusivly on the Damage aspect of the blade, and ignore all the to-hit issues with 2 handed fighting.

PH: pg 99: Sword Two-Bladed (double weapon) Dam: 1-8/1-8

PH: pg 103: Sword Two-Bladed: You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon (see pg 124).
Vilous Comment: Since page 124 deals EXCLUSIVLY with to Hit bonuses I read this as also dealing with two hit bonuses and not talking at all about damage. If this is also talking in some way about to damage bonuses, it really deserves a clarification. Except for the mention of the off-hand as a light weapon which is very explicit.

PH: pg 119: Strength Bonus: Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand you add only one-half of your Strength bonus.

PH: pg 119: Strength Bonus: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add one and one-half times your Strength Bonus. Light weapons DON'T get this higher strength bonus when used two-handed.


Vilous Comment: So.. as I read all of this, it seems to me that using a two-bladed sword would give you 1.5x Strength bonus on the primary attack with the weapon, since you are using the weapon with two hands. And then you would get .5x your str bonus for the off-hand attack, since it is considered light, thus over-ruling the two-handed weapon str bonus modifier.

So it seems you would effectivly, if you hit with both blades, get 2x your strength bonus.

I've looked all over for a clarification that says you do NOT get to count your primary attack with a double weapon as being a weapon wielded with 2 hands, and could not find anything.

Is there anything anywhere that states that this is the case?

 

[Caliban]

When you fight with both ends of a double weapon it is treated in all ways as if you are using a medium and light weapon. 1.0 strength bonus on the primary head, 0.5 strength bonus on the secondary head.

That is the obvious intent, and it has also been clarified by the Sage in Dragon magazine. I believe it is also mentioned in the D&D FAQ.

 

[James McMurray]

and obviously the Sage is never wrong.

 

[Vilous]

So I just re-checked the FAQ, as I was under the same kind of impression as you Calindar, however, there is no clarification on this topic in it. The one I checked was off the official wizards of the coast site at http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article1.asp?x=dnd/er/errata,3

The only topic that even comes close is where it asks about attacking with just one side of double weapon.

Do you happen to know what month of Dragon this was mentioned in by the Sage?

As unfortunatly, while I agree that the intent for the second blade is for use as an offhand weapon, the primary attack doesn't seem defined in the rules and errata that way. But I would love to see some kind of clarification as I know people have.. strong opinions about this topic.

 

[Gromm]

and obviously the Sage is never wrong.

Very rarely.

I always wonder at all these mistakes people account to the Sage, but all I get is Halfling Outrider, who actually was originally written (stupidly) as having no BAB.

People forget skip doesn't errata, he only clairfies, occassionally with an opinion about a possible errata.

 

[Vilous]

sorry, meant Caliban, not Calindar. My bad.

 

[Caliban]

So I just re-checked the FAQ, as I was under the same kind of impression as you Calindar, however, there is no clarification on this topic in it. The one I checked was off the official wizards of the coast site at http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article1.asp?x=dnd/er/errata,3

The only topic that even comes close is where it asks about attacking with just one side of double weapon.

Do you happen to know what month of Dragon this was mentioned in by the Sage?

As unfortunatly, while I agree that the intent for the second blade is for use as an offhand weapon, the primary attack doesn't seem defined in the rules and errata that way. But I would love to see some kind of clarification as I know people have.. strong opinions about this topic.

From page 22 of the current D&D FAQ

If you use only one end of a double weapon, but you use it
in two hands, do you get one and a half times your Strength
bonus to damage like you get for a normal weapon used in
two hands?

Yes. Note, however, that if you're in the habit of always
using a double weapon in this fashion you're better off just
using a two-handed weapon.

The rules say you can use a double weapon as if fighting
with two weapons. It does not clearly state whether or not
Two-Weapon Fighting and Ambidexterity bonuses apply to
these weapons. Could you please clarify this for me.

They do. Using both ends of a double weapon works exactly
like fighting with a one-handed weapon in your primary hand
and a light weapon in your off hand. (See Double Weapons on
page 125 in the Player's Handbook.)

If you use both hands to attack with a double weapon, you cannot make an attack with the other end. You don't have a hand free to use it. (Although I supposed an Athach could, since it has 3 hands.)

 

[Vilous]

The problem here is that that entire page, 125 and those rules (and even that question) see to be VERY explicitly talking about to-attack bonus and not to damage. In fact, there is nothing surrounding the text of p125, or even that question, that goes into the damage associated with using a double weapon.

But I can see your point about intent coming from that. However, it still seems pretty vague.

Especially in when you consider that it does state pretty explicitly at PH: 97 that whenever you deal damage with a weapon using two hands (unless it is light), you get the 1.5x modifier.

Maybe, I should try to get into one of those monthly chats on the web site and have the Sage explain to me how foolish I am.

 

[Caliban]

The problem here is that that entire page, 125 and those rules (and even that question) see to be VERY explicitly talking about to-attack bonus and not to damage. In fact, there is nothing surrounding the text of p125, or even that question, that goes into the damage associated with using a double weapon.

But I can see your point about intent coming from that. However, it still seems pretty vague.

Especially in when you consider that it does state pretty explicitly at PH: 97 that whenever you deal damage with a weapon using two hands (unless it is light), you get the 1.5x modifier.

Maybe, I should try to get into one of those monthly chats on the web site and have the Sage explain to me how foolish I am.

You have to be actually be wielding the end you are attacking with in two hands to do the x1.5 str damage, it's not enough to have one hand on each end of the weapon.

When you use two weapon fighting with a double weapon you are weilding each end with one hand. You only wield it with two hands when you make an attack with only one end.

 

[Vilous]

Yes, I can see how that kind of intent can be read from the rules. Believe me, if I didn't see at least something along those lines, I wouldn't be asking

However, since we seem to be touching on thinking through the phyics of the weapon as rationalization, it wouldn't be too hard to rationalize that your second hand would give extra leverage (and thus the extra str bonus) on the primary hand.

Even that said, I can see how it could be interpreted as you describe as well. But I can see it the other way too.

I guess I am just asking if there is something more 'official' that clarifies this (like the issue of Dragon where Chris addresses this?) As the existing rules, as presented, just seem vague to me.