Double Weapons, outdated and underpowered

[AlonelyBard]

Currently there are only three types of double weapons, Double axe, Dire mace and Two-bladed swords, each of which are, of course, Exotic weapons, all of which have been nerfed along with the problem child Quarter Staff.
Currently, it feels like there's no real reason to choose a non-qstaff Double weapon as a dual wielding class/build. Not only is the Qstaff part of the massively good and useful Polearm focus group but it also is only a simple weapon prof, meaning nearly every class can use it, and the few that can't might just have the proficiency anyways (Rogue, Monk, Druid and of course the dreaded Spellsword Wizard)
Compared to the other Double weapons, outside of of course, the 50 UMD'able Orcish double weapons that each type has one of, the Exotic Prof. requiring weapons have next to no bonuses compared to the massive boosts that Qstaff or proper Two Weapon Fighting might give. Including of course, having two separate weapons to buff and cover possible weaknesses, one fire, one cold for instance to help defeat the annoying mage who keeps using flame shield.
Though Ranger is a class that is heavily iconic in it's use of Double Weapons, unless you take the surprisingly hefty tax of the Exotic Prof. you'll be limited to strictly using the Qstaff currently. I feel that there should really be some work done to bring these weapons up to snuff, whether it's giving the double weapon Prof. for free to rangers, or adding special weapons similar to all the class specific weapons that exist in game and in the drop table.

[Ork]

I love my double weapons. The loss of the +2 AB to these set of weapons was a tragedy. The damage increase is nice, and the crit range for double-sword has expanded, but there are better weapons out there that allow more slots of enchantment.

DISCLAIMER: this message is completely self serving as I am currently playing a ranger with exotic proficiency.

[malcolm_mountainslayer]

With bqstaffs no longer ubab id be all for the return of plus 2 ab to all two sided weapons and keeping finesse only to qstaff again

[Tesla420]

I found it weird my orc was not already able to wield the double sided weapons much like dwarves get the waraxe feat.

[AstralUniverse]

Anything to do with dual-wielding is reserved only for ranger now. A ranger gets ac and ab feats for dual-wielding and it is absolutely trash for anyone else. if double weapons get their +2 ab back for being large weapons, Dual Wield Mastery would have to be removed for balance, just saying.

[Wethrinea]

The summer update did help quite a bit for the double weapons, bringing them up from an expensive and very suboptimal choice to one that is OK. My main gripe is that the craftable special weapons are the only racial ones with a 50 UMD requirement, and they are not even that good.

From a Ranger standpoint, that matters less as you will always be better off enchanting a bronze or Greensteel weapon to achieve desired attributes, but tweaking the blood weapons, at least the UMD req, would make them see more use.

Not sure if they need to get the +2 large weapon AB back, but I feel something should compensate for having less enchantment slots than the two weapons or sword'n board option, especially considering the feat tax.

[ltlukoziuz]

a) Exotic Weapon Proficiency is a miniscule tax on ranger with new feats being able to be taken as bonus feats. Heck, if you go like ork and dump INT, you have too many free/flex feats.

b) Yeah, on DWM being ranger only, I would wish it was available to more martial classes. However, there's a voice somewhere deep warning me of CoT/div shenanigans on why it shouldn't be so.

c) Otherwise, returning the +2 AB for twohanding would push it too far. You're already getting 2 extra APR at your highest AB, having equal AB to twohanded weapons would be hecking silly.

d) There's quite a few loot drop items which are not that off from best craftable, especially fake bloodaxe (but I had a chance to see a diremace which was very comparable while not having -1AB). Though in the end, yeah, as a ranger, you will be just getting a scrubby bronze weapon. ((I am still taking ESF:UMD for a blood weapon ))

e) All double weapons are part of both Polearm and Two-handed groups, so you never get one but not the other specific weapon.

f)

Code: Select all

the annoying mage who keeps using flame shield.

Why are you not breaching it?

IMO, they're in good spot now, outside of possibly getting another craftable option, so it isn't just 'the orcs'. There can be tweaks done (unrestrict DWM, namely), but I feel like that could actually push it the other way round with certain builds

[Good Character]

Only one lacking a decent option is the Two-Bladed Sword.

Dire Mace has the Terrorfiend (2 extra damage, bonus damage type, massive +6 Intimidate).

Double Axe has the Fake Orc Bloodaxe (1d10 extra damage, 1d10 massive critical).

I think they're in a good spot.

[a shrouded figure]

I’d go back back to dual wielding if the double weapons got their +2 ab back (non ranger). As it stands -4 ab for two attacks is not worth it for the feat tax.

[Baseili]

Its -2 for double sided weapons, one of the bonuses of the type is a medium offhand classed as light for the purpose of dual wielding. However now there are more 1d6 small weapons the 1d8 seems a minor perk at best, aside from the bonuses to disarm and single enchant/essence use.

[Archnon]

As someone who is running a strength ranger with a two-bladed sword right now, I think we need to be really careful not to buff that class some more. However, I agree that opening it up for other classes would be good. I was trying to think through a dual wielding hex blade the other day and the feat tax was just to high to make it viable.

you could:
- Give the +2 ab back but get rid of the ranger improved dual wield feat. or ...
-Get rid of exotic requirements all together .... i like this one.

However, both of those free up a feat for ranger which really doesn't need it. The question is would either of those encourage more people to use these weapons. I really don't know, to be honest.

[Good Character]

Slap the double-sided weapons (aside for the qstaff) into a single weapon focus. Make it to where if you take that weapon focus you also get access to the exotic proficiency or something along those lines.

[Skibbles]

Exotic isn't that hefty of a feat tax for Ranger, and we should tread carefully so it doesn't become an autopick.

+2 AB would bring it into critical mass again. I don't think anything that grants offhand attacks should ever be granting an additional +2 to all attacks - especially with the +2 nature-bonus and full BAB on top.

Ranger is in a really nice spot right now and I'd hate to see it tipped back into the red since a general buff to these weapons would most surely land on that class the most.

I've only played pre-strength Rangers though.

[AlonelyBard]

you could:
- Give the +2 ab back but get rid of the ranger improved dual wield feat. or ...
-Get rid of exotic requirements all together .... i like this one.

I disagree, because currently a Ranger can still get the improved dual wield feat with two weapons and have just the same bonuses as a ranger who took the double weapon, minus the exotic weapon proficiency of course, which in my mind isn't really worth it, considering the alternative weapons. Losing out on a feat, which could be used for epic weapon focus, or epic prowess means that you have a net loss of 1-2 AB anyways, let alone any additional build freedom that could come from that now freed feat. The double weapons currently just don't feel worth, unless you're playing a Half-orc or Orog.
I can agree with the idea above about getting rid of the exotic requirement but then it will just pose the problem of these weapons being completely and totally unique in this feature.

[-XXX-]

Is this really something that warrants a drastic sweeping mechanical adjustment?

IMO a nice craftable go-to weapon for this weapon type would alleviate any concerns here.

[Wethrinea]

If I were to change anything, it would be to give two-handed and double weapons an additional enchantement slot to compensate for what you lose in not having an off-hand weapon or shield. That is, being able to put one more ability before it becomes un-runeable compared to a one-handed weapon of similar quality.

[Archnon]

Is this really something that warrants a drastic sweeping mechanical adjustment?

IMO a nice craftable go-to weapon for this weapon type would alleviate any concerns here.

This is a good suggestion as it would likely solve some of the ranger problem given they often take advantage of bronze dweomercrafted weapons due to bladethirst. Though, I'm not sure if the few new weapons we have seen are a sign of the times and more are to come or if it was just a one-off.

And the strength ranger buffs have completely changed the ranger calculus, imho. The strength ranger buff combined with eliminating UBAB has honestly tipped the balance in favor of strength over dex, or at a minimum put them on par.

[a shrouded figure]

Its -2 for double sided weapons, one of the bonuses of the type is a medium offhand classed as light for the purpose of dual wielding. However now there are more 1d6 small weapons the 1d8 seems a minor perk at best, aside from the bonuses to disarm and single enchant/essence use.

Wielding a great axe = +2
Wielding a single short sword = 0
Wielding a short sword and a dagger = -2

+2 to - 2 = 4 ab lost

I don’t personally love the idea that only rangers can be considered when discussing dual wielding, although with the myriad of bonuses it almost feels like there’s no way to help other classes without ridiculous balance issues for ranger.

[AstralUniverse]

I reiterate,

If you touch dual-wielding in any way shape or form, you should start with removing dual wield mastery from ranger.

Ranger is the only class that gets +3 ac and +2 ab compared to other classes when using the same weapon and standard twf feats.

This means you cannot buff TWF without nerfing ranger first. it's just that simple.

That, or we just leave TWF to be a mostly Ranger thing as it is right now.

[Baseili]

Its -2 for double sided weapons, one of the bonuses of the type is a medium offhand classed as light for the purpose of dual wielding. However now there are more 1d6 small weapons the 1d8 seems a minor perk at best, aside from the bonuses to disarm and single enchant/essence use.

Wielding a great axe = +2
Wielding a single short sword = 0
Wielding a short sword and a dagger = -2

+2 to - 2 = 4 ab lost

I don’t personally love the idea that only rangers can be considered when discussing dual wielding, although with the myriad of bonuses it almost feels like there’s no way to help other classes without ridiculous balance issues for ranger.

The numbers should be
Wielding battle axe/war hammer/ longsword in both hands: -4
Wielding Double axe/mace/sword: -2

-4 to -2 = 2 ab gained.

[a shrouded figure]

The numbers should be
Wielding battle axe/war hammer/ longsword in both hands: -4
Wielding Double axe/mace/sword: -2

-4 to -2 = 2 ab gained.

Uhh?? I posted that the extra attacks weren’t worth the 4 ab loss and feat tax. You tried to correct me in saying that it’s only two ab lost… I’m telling you that going from Two Handed to Dual Wield, is 4 ab on a non ranger… this isn’t an argument- lol.

[Baseili]

You're trying to compare a 2 handed weapon to a double weapon, I'm comparing dual wielding medium weapons to a double weapon.

Your numbers are flawed since you using both bonus long since removed from double weapons, and a small lower damage weapon to try and make a point. I'm illustrating that flaw by showing what the penalty would be for dual wielding two medium weapons, given that double weapons are two mediums bolted to a quarterstaff I think my comparison is fitting.

As for dual wielding feats, well thats dependent on the class.

[AstralUniverse]

The comparison is, has been, and should be, 2h vs 2h. medium weapons allow shield then you're adding a boost of AC to the equation. And when you compare, say, greatsword to a double-sword, the difference is 4 ab.

[Baseili]

If you wish to reduce your argument to "Well they're both 2 handed" then fair enough.

[AstralUniverse]

It's not so much 'reducing' if what I'm avoiding is a comparison between bananas and apples. AC with shield is a whole other animal. If you want to balance dual-wielding, you need to take a look at the 4 ab difference you have /with the same ac/ between different weapons and ask yourself if 2 apr worth the ab drop (spoiler, it isnt if you're not a ranger).

Honestly, now that most double weapons (or at least some of them) are finessible I dont even think they should be buffed. You want another Dex meta? I dont.