| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Ionik Knight |
Posted - 16 Dec 2008 : 13:20:16
Do you use Double Weapons other than staves? (ie Double-Axe, Two-Bladed Sword) |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Nerfed2Hell |
Posted - 04 Jan 2009 : 23:30:40
They can definitely help fill in story gaps... and if you use them that way, then you make characters like I do. I've dealt with the min/max type players though that discount feats altogether as useless waste because there are better feats availble. They usually ended up just making different variations of the same character whether they thought so or not. |
| Razz |
Posted - 04 Jan 2009 : 23:12:45
quote:
Originally posted by dwarvenranger
quote:
Originally posted by Nerfed2Hell
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-Unless you are a Fighter, or have some other way of gaining the abilities of the Two-Weapon Fighting feats, there's plenty of other feats that are probably more important than T-W F.
Probably... but when making characters, I rarely think about what's important and focus on what I think would make the characters interesting.
I would say that you are then focusing on what's important  . After all, it's not the feats that make a character, it's their story.
But the feats do help fill in story gaps or help flesh out a character's story. There was an article in Dragon Magazine some years back that actually presented that idea in full detail, it was really well written and developed article. |
| Ghost King |
Posted - 02 Jan 2009 : 23:07:52
quote:
Originally posted by dwarvenranger
quote:
Originally posted by Nerfed2Hell
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-Unless you are a Fighter, or have some other way of gaining the abilities of the Two-Weapon Fighting feats, there's plenty of other feats that are probably more important than T-W F.
Probably... but when making characters, I rarely think about what's important and focus on what I think would make the characters interesting.
I would say that you are then focusing on what's important . After all, it's not the feats that make a character, it's their story.
Completely agree.
~Ghost King~ |
| dwarvenranger |
Posted - 31 Dec 2008 : 19:42:45
quote:
Originally posted by Nerfed2Hell
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-Unless you are a Fighter, or have some other way of gaining the abilities of the Two-Weapon Fighting feats, there's plenty of other feats that are probably more important than T-W F.
Probably... but when making characters, I rarely think about what's important and focus on what I think would make the characters interesting.
I would say that you are then focusing on what's important . After all, it's not the feats that make a character, it's their story. |
| BARDOBARBAROS |
Posted - 31 Dec 2008 : 18:21:13
Yes
|
| Nerfed2Hell |
Posted - 27 Dec 2008 : 19:03:19
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-Unless you are a Fighter, or have some other way of gaining the abilities of the Two-Weapon Fighting feats, there's plenty of other feats that are probably more important than T-W F.
Probably... but when making characters, I rarely think about what's important and focus on what I think would make the characters interesting. |
| Razz |
Posted - 27 Dec 2008 : 18:10:55
Of course I use them, I try to make my FR game as close to anime-style as possible considering me and my friends are huge anime dorks. Huge weapons, exotic weapons, description of acrobatic stunts and maneuvers made by 5th-level characters normally impossible by anyone IRL...where's the fun without all of that?
Though, I think double weapons are pointless if you don't house rule that both ends deal x1 1/2 Strength bonus. I've always thought it was dumb that if you used both ends, you only receive normal Strength and half Strength for each side, respectively. I changed it to x 1 1/2 Strength bonus for both sides to make it worth doing over TWF. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 22 Dec 2008 : 20:59:38
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-I've always felt that the rules for Two-Weapon Fighting (especially at lower levels) were annoying to the point that it is just easier to stick with more traditional weapons, wielded in a more traditional manner.
I agree with you there... I personally think that the penalties for two-weapon fighting are excessive, after having discussed the issue with several members of the SCA who practice the style. I also think that weapon weights for many of the heavier weapons, especially the heavier bludgeoning weapons and many of the two-handed weapons, are unrealistically heavy. If anyone else out there has wielded a period-accurate greatsword or heavy mace, I suspect they will agree with me. They're heavy, but it's mostly size and balance that makes them unwieldy in one hand rather than weight... but I digress.
In our group, the basic penalties for two-weapon fighting are -4/-6, not -6/-10. Ambidexterity (which still exists) accomplishes the same thing as having a light off-hand weapon; in short, it allows you to treat a one-handed off-hand weapon as a light weapon. Two-Weapon Fighting alone reduces the penalties to -2/-4. Ambidexterity or a light off-hand weapon reduces the off-hand penalty by 2, to -2/-2 when combined with Two-Weapon Fighting. Greater Two-Weapon Fighting reduces the penalties to 0/-2, or 0/0 with Ambidexterity or a light off-hand weapon. Ambidexterity also allows you to apply your full Strength modifier to attack and damage rolls with your "off" hand, and using a two-handed weapon allows you to apply double your Strength modifier to damage rolls as long as you are proficient with the weapon. Using a one-handed weapon with two hands only allows 1.5 Strength modifier for damage, because the weapon is not designed to be used two-handed... unless you are a size smaller than the weapon is designed for, as in the case of a halfling or gnome wielding a longsword.
-Unless you are a Fighter, or have some other way of gaining the abilities of the Two-Weapon Fighting feats, there's plenty of other feats that are probably more important than T-W F. |
| GoCeraf |
Posted - 22 Dec 2008 : 20:44:40
1 2
1 2
3 3
Where each pair of numbers denotes one weapon. The marilith used one weapon in the middle and upper right arms, one in the middle and upper left arms, and one in the lower right and left arms.
I raised the same question. To be honest, I'd my six arms being tangled if I used a weapon in each (and got my tail in there from time to time).
In fact, the marilith was a modified version of the one in the Silver Skeleton adventure by Wizards. We took her out by dropping a tower on her. |
| ranger_of_the_unicorn_run |
Posted - 22 Dec 2008 : 20:35:04
quote:
Originally posted by GoCeraf
Had a DM who threw a marilith with three two-bladed swords at us.
That... ah... that was intense.
I just can't picture how it is physically possible for her to use all of the swords at once without getting her weapons all in a tangle... |
| GoCeraf |
Posted - 22 Dec 2008 : 06:42:31
Had a DM who threw a marilith with three two-bladed swords at us.
That... ah... that was intense. |
| yargarth |
Posted - 22 Dec 2008 : 05:51:44
quote:
Originally posted by dwarvenranger
quote:
Originally posted by yargarth
its all about unarmed. easy to make and use :p
Until the first time you run into something you really don't want to touch  .
thats why gloves were invented. |
| Brynweir |
Posted - 22 Dec 2008 : 01:49:15
quote:
Originally posted by yargarth
its all about unarmed. easy to make and use :p
How about take and use? Cause I was playing opposite a character who could have taken my arms off and beaten me to death with them - as I teased about on more than one occasion  . Not the smartest thing to do, but .
And not to stray too far from the topic, I would like to try that crazy orcish double-headed waraxe-thing just once, even if it's not sensible.
Okay - what I'd really like to try is a Ronin double bladed throwing knife, but that's neither here nor there . |
| dwarvenranger |
Posted - 22 Dec 2008 : 01:42:25
quote:
Originally posted by yargarth
its all about unarmed. easy to make and use :p
Until the first time you run into something you really don't want to touch . |
| Ionik Knight |
Posted - 22 Dec 2008 : 01:32:00
quote:
Originally posted by yargarth
its all about unarmed. easy to make and use :p
 |
| yargarth |
Posted - 21 Dec 2008 : 06:50:43
its all about unarmed. easy to make and use :p |
| Darkhund |
Posted - 19 Dec 2008 : 19:17:30
Its also easier to make a sword, than most other weapons, so thats another reason for common use. |
| Ionik Knight |
Posted - 19 Dec 2008 : 15:29:30
quote:
The spear has pretty weak combat statistics IMO, because it should be pretty easy to use compared to other weapons. Swinging a sword is probably a lot more tiresome than just thrusting your spear forward and back - like a billiard queue. The game statistics have been like that for many editions and no one really dared to adjust them much.
The spear is not really used that way. In formation it's the mass of the unit marching forward (and holding it up in the proper position is a real muscle builder) that does the trick.
In solo combat it is used much more dynamically: to parry, to trip, to feint. Any one using it with as a billiard queue will be dead meat.
I think the sword is one of the easiest to use weapons (that and the club); I believe that's why it has been so popular through the ages. |
| Pandora |
Posted - 19 Dec 2008 : 13:32:36
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
BTW, I never got my head around the line of (designer) thought that drow need to wield twinblades and spiked-chains. While these weapons are clearly as exotic as the drow, why would a race that is used to fight in limited spaces (Underdark tunnels and caverns, even inter House wars) use such large, ungainly and heavy weaponry? They would be - by default - masters of weapon finesse, expert rogues, swashbucklers and duelist ... perhaps with a touch of the mysterious hexblade and/or the evermoving and silent scout.
There isnt only the problem of weapon chain being "large" (although you can hit around the corner with it), but it is also a pretty loud weapon and doesnt fit the "silent drow image". It would work for shock troopers who dont care about noise though, because it can also be used as a climbing aid if you are really skilled.
The spear has pretty weak combat statistics IMO, because it should be pretty easy to use compared to other weapons. Swinging a sword is probably a lot more tiresome than just thrusting your spear forward and back - like a billiard queue. The game statistics have been like that for many editions and no one really dared to adjust them much. |
| Jakk |
Posted - 19 Dec 2008 : 08:00:26
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnirion
-I've always felt that the rules for Two-Weapon Fighting (especially at lower levels) were annoying to the point that it is just easier to stick with more traditional weapons, wielded in a more traditional manner.
I agree with you there... I personally think that the penalties for two-weapon fighting are excessive, after having discussed the issue with several members of the SCA who practice the style. I also think that weapon weights for many of the heavier weapons, especially the heavier bludgeoning weapons and many of the two-handed weapons, are unrealistically heavy. If anyone else out there has wielded a period-accurate greatsword or heavy mace, I suspect they will agree with me. They're heavy, but it's mostly size and balance that makes them unwieldy in one hand rather than weight... but I digress.
In our group, the basic penalties for two-weapon fighting are -4/-6, not -6/-10. Ambidexterity (which still exists) accomplishes the same thing as having a light off-hand weapon; in short, it allows you to treat a one-handed off-hand weapon as a light weapon. Two-Weapon Fighting alone reduces the penalties to -2/-4. Ambidexterity or a light off-hand weapon reduces the off-hand penalty by 2, to -2/-2 when combined with Two-Weapon Fighting. Greater Two-Weapon Fighting reduces the penalties to 0/-2, or 0/0 with Ambidexterity or a light off-hand weapon. Ambidexterity also allows you to apply your full Strength modifier to attack and damage rolls with your "off" hand, and using a two-handed weapon allows you to apply double your Strength modifier to damage rolls as long as you are proficient with the weapon. Using a one-handed weapon with two hands only allows 1.5 Strength modifier for damage, because the weapon is not designed to be used two-handed... unless you are a size smaller than the weapon is designed for, as in the case of a halfling or gnome wielding a longsword. |
| Ghost King |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 23:41:30
quote:
Originally posted by Nerfed2Hell
A two-bladed sword just seems really inconvenient/awkward to carry around.
So true, Nerfed. The only character that I made that wielded a double weapon had it crafted so he could split both the swords on each end into two longswords and carry them either on his back or on his belt. Then he could combine them to make it a double weapon or just use both blades in each hand with the usual two-weapon fighting style. Just depended on the occasion, of course, that character used all kinds of weapons for a variety of reasons or certain situations.
*Shrug* But I would say sword (or axe/hammer/mace) and sheild are the most reliable fighting styles. However, two-handed weapons can be most devestating offensively but if someone is ever put on the defensive wielding such a weapon it usually means their end.
~Ghost King~ |
| Nerfed2Hell |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 21:39:28
A two-bladed sword just seems really inconvenient/awkward to carry around. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 21:27:18
quote:
Originally posted by dwarvenranger
Even if I play a sword and board fighter, I'm still gonna use the shield as a second weapon. I see no reason not to. It's just sitting on my arm, I might as well use it to bash as often as practical. If any of you get the chance to go to a Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) event, I'd recommend it. It really gives you a feel of how the the fighting went as well as uses and limitations of various type of weapons and shields.
AYE! I was in the SCA for a good while...and my shield was one of my best weapons! |
| dwarvenranger |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 21:26:13
Even if I play a sword and board fighter, I'm still gonna use the shield as a second weapon. I see no reason not to. It's just sitting on my arm, I might as well use it to bash as often as practical. If any of you get the chance to go to a Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) event, I'd recommend it. It really gives you a feel of how the the fighting went as well as uses and limitations of various type of weapons and shields. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 18 Dec 2008 : 20:13:35
On occasion.
Too bad there's no option for that. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 17 Dec 2008 : 18:04:34
I had a fella that wanted to play a "Samurai" turned Bushi/Ranger in my campaign once. His use of Katana and Wakizashi was an exotic twist in our Forgotten Realms. A ranger with a Daikyu (sp?) was pretty cool too.
Essentially, the character's background was he was the last of his family...not doomed to death by his own hand simply because he was a child when his family was defeated in battle; something like that. He had served as a mercenary in Shou Lung after leaving Kozakura and eventually made his way to Rashemen in a Caravan...and there began to learn about being a Ranger.
He was a nice character...but the game fell apart rather quickly so it never got to be fleshed out very much.
I may play that character idea myself sometime...
Sorry for the thread hijack...I seem to be doing that alot lately. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 17 Dec 2008 : 17:38:56
-Certain Exotic Weapons are a different story, considering whether or not I'd use them, as opposed to Double Weapons. With those, it depends on the weapon itself. Because of it's ability to be able to be used single- or double-handed, the Bastard Sword is a favorite of mine (only if I have a Human or Fighter, however, to buy the feat). For Elven characters, now that I have Races of the Wild, I like the Elven weapons presented there within. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Dec 2008 : 17:25:19
quote:
Originally posted by ranger_of_the_unicorn_run
I just don't find them that appealing. I'm a much bigger fan of playing a ranger who fights with two weapons, usually two swords but sometimes a sword and an axe or some other combination.
Ditto that. Other than a brief "Oh, hey, that looks cool!", I've never considered using any exotic weapons for my characters. I've had a lot of characters favor the rapier over the standard longsword, but that's about it. One character used a katana, but he was a kensai, so it was appropriate. Another used a bastard sword, but he was a minotaur -- I figured someone heavily muscled and standing over seven feet tall would want a bigger blade.
I've always favored two weapons for one reason: not being a fencer or anything, I wonder what the off-hand is doing. So if it's not a two-handed weapon, then the off-hand has either a shield (only occasionally) or a smaller blade. |
| ranger_of_the_unicorn_run |
Posted - 17 Dec 2008 : 17:06:34
I just don't find them that appealing. I'm a much bigger fan of playing a ranger who fights with two weapons, usually two swords but sometimes a sword and an axe or some other combination. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 17 Dec 2008 : 16:41:33
-Nothing is particularly realist when you have magical weapons. Snake-headed whips, for example. |
