Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 4967042" data-attributes="member: 82106">Maybe, although I would note that moderate length halbards are actually pretty effective weapons in individual combat, on a par with a great sword from what I've seen and very limited handling of one. I suspect they were generally not weapons carried by the upper class more for social reasons than anything else. Plus the fact that they were really awkward to carry around. Nobody carried around zweihanders all the time either. Long weapons, pikes and all their various permutations and longer hafted halbard/glaive/hammer type weapons really were pretty useless outside of an ordered infantry formation. As melee weapons for man-to-man combat, useless. I'm not even really convinced that reach weapons realistically would be all that viable. Anything long enough to be a significant threat to someone 10 feet away is going to be horribly unwieldy.Anyway, yeah, double weapons are strictly a "this looks cool" thing. Mechanically they were added to the game I suspect to address the problem two-weapon wielding characters have with needing 2 magic weapons. Its expensive and cuts into their effectiveness. So it was probably a matter of they had some mechanical reason and it sounded cool. Personally I don't think any realistic weapon exists which warrants as much of an advantage as double weapons have vs normal weapons. As DS pointed out, a halbard has a butt spike, so why isn't it a double weapon? ANY spear can be used with either end, so why isn't that a double weapon? Same for any polearm even if it lacked a butt spike. The whole notion simply isn't logical, but it makes players happy so what the heck, right?</blockquote>

Verification