Double weapons and Feats.

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
If a double weapon has 2 Weapon groups on it(like the Dragon Paw or the Urgrosh), both sided get the benefits of a weapon feat?


Like...a Dragon Paw with light blade expertise...does it gain the attack bonus on both sides?


 
You gain whichever bonuses are appropriate for the end that you're attacking with.

For example, if you have Weapon Focus (axes) but not Weapon Focus (spears), you will get the damage bonus only when attacking with the axe end of the urgrosh.
also...Does a double weapon counts as two 1 handed weapons?

can a executioner use Attack finnese with a double weapon? 
A double weapon is not in the One-Handed Weapon category, it's in the Double Weapon category.

The Stout property allows you to treat it as a Two-Handed Weapon, but there's no analagous property to treat it as a pair of One-Handed Weapons.

Returned from hiatus; getting up to speed on 5e rules lawyering.

Ummm actually yes, a double weapon DOES count as 2 one-handed weapons. If it didn't it would be useless as all the powers that would require them wouldn't work.

And hell if you even look up "superior one-handed weapons" in the CB marketplace for example while having dwarven weapon training, you'll see Urgrosh. Oddly enough, it doesn't appear in the 2-handed weapon section haha. But that's more of a statement about CB bugs than anything (it still won't lemme pick Gouges with DWT...)
Currently Playing: lvl 6 Pixie Skald in Home Campaign lvl 2 Human Bard in Forgotten Realms ---
Ummm actually yes, a double weapon DOES count as 2 one-handed weapons. If it didn't it would be useless as all the powers that would require them wouldn't work.

What powers are those? I am not aware of any powers that explicitly state that you must wield a one-handed weapon in each hand. Weapons in the "double weapon" category work just fine with powers like twin strike.

Tichrimo is correct. Wielding a double weapon is like wielding a weapon in each hand (AV 10), but the weapon is still in the "double weapon" category by default (AV 9). Many double weapons also have the "stout" property, while allows you to treat one end as a two-handed weapon.

can a executioner use Attack finnese with a double weapon? 

No. The executioner's Attack Finesse only works with one-handed weapons.
That's not completely true. That attack finesse works not only with one handed weapons but also, with the weapons that are specifically required for some of the guild attacks. Such as the garrote for the garrote strangle at-will attack power and the shortbow.  Wich is why I wonder if the attack finesse can be considered when using a Kusari gama, since the new guild, the ninjas guild uses that weapon as a requirement for one of the at-will attacks.( Just like the Garrote wich is also a two-handed weapon)

Given that attack finesse was written before the new guild was created, should we include this weapon in the attack-finesse class features?

There are two different elements being referenced.  There is a weapon type, and there is what you are considered to be wielding.  They're not the same thing.  A double axe can be treated as a two-handed weapon.  You are considered to be wielding two one-handed weapons when you wield it.  Something that gives you +1 to damage when wielding two weapons would work, but not something that gives +1 to damage rolls with one-handed weapons.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Typically when one of my players decides they want to start using a double weapon, their character is inexplicably crushed by rocks before we ever get around to actually having to look into the mechanics of the situation. Strangest thing. Sometimes someone will just say something along the lines of "Yeah, a sword is cool, but if you had a sword that was like, a blade at both ends, then you could totally-" and a few stray pebbles will be blown across his path by the wind, and the talk miraculously ceases.
For serious though, logopolis quite effectively answered your first question. As to your second, if you crack open the ol' Adventurer's Vault to page 10, in the little box titled "Double Weapons" the very first sentance reads: Wielding a double weapon is like wielding a weapon in each hand.

Is that as clear as it could be? Heck no. Is it the best answer you're going to get? Quite likely. Really most of this is going to come down to the discretion of your individual DM. (Watch out for rocks) 
The most up to date text on double weapons can be found on the second page of the most recently compiled updates (though they've been around a while).

Yes, wielding a double weapon counts as wielding two one-handed weapons.

EDIT: Eh, I guess I can see where that leaves room for interpretation, but I see no real reason to interpret it any other way.
If a double weapon (with proficiency) counts as wielding two one-handed weapons, can a Small PC wield a double weapon that doesn't have the Small keyword?

(I think it ought to work - except for the Stout property, maybe.) 
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
If a double weapon (with proficiency) counts as wielding two one-handed weapons, can a Small PC wield a double weapon that doesn't have the Small keyword?

(I think it ought to work - except for the Stout property, maybe.) 


It actually explicitly states in the rules text for how double weapons work, "A Small character cannot wield a double weapon unless the weapon has the small property."
If a double weapon (with proficiency) counts as wielding two one-handed weapons, can a Small PC wield a double weapon that doesn't have the Small keyword?

(I think it ought to work - except for the Stout property, maybe.) 


AV pg. 10: "Like two-handed weapons, double weapons cannot normally be wielded by Small creatures unless the weapon has the small property."

Returned from hiatus; getting up to speed on 5e rules lawyering.

If a double weapon (with proficiency) counts as wielding two one-handed weapons, can a Small PC wield a double weapon that doesn't have the Small keyword?

(I think it ought to work - except for the Stout property, maybe.) 


It actually explicitly states in the rules text for how double weapons work, "A Small character cannot wield a double weapon unless the weapon has the small property."

Ah, thanks. Somehow I had overlooked that.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
The most up to date text on double weapons can be found on the second page of the most recently compiled updates (though they've been around a while).

Yes, wielding a double weapon counts as wielding two one-handed weapons.

EDIT: Eh, I guess I can see where that leaves room for interpretation, but I see no real reason to interpret it any other way.



Counting as wielding a weapon in heach hands and counting as a One-handed weapon, a specific Weapon Classification, is two different things Rule wise. 

One good reasons to interpret it how its written is that it means it doesn't receive benefits normally applying to One-handed weapons. 

A Weaponmaster Fighter that gets a +1 with One handed-weapon due to One-handed Weapon Talent doesn't get it when wielding a Double Weapon for exemple. 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

The most up to date text on double weapons can be found on the second page of the most recently compiled updates (though they've been around a while).

Yes, wielding a double weapon counts as wielding two one-handed weapons.

EDIT: Eh, I guess I can see where that leaves room for interpretation, but I see no real reason to interpret it any other way.



Counting as wielding a weapon in heach hands and counting as a One-handed weapon, a specific Weapon Classification, is two different things Rule wise. 

One good reasons to interpret it how its written is that it means it doesn't receive benefits normally applying to One-handed weapons. 

A Weaponmaster Fighter that gets a +1 with One handed-weapon due to One-handed Weapon Talent doesn't get it when wielding a Double Weapon for exemple. 


I'm going to get into a bit of semantics here, but I think it's important.

The wielding a weapon in each hand not being the same as wielding two one-handed weapons is a fair point, and that makes the interpretation much more clear cut, I think, so I'll give you that. You win on that, I think.

But, for the sake of argument, assuming I weren't conceding that, I disagree that your "good reason" for not taking the one-handed weapon interpretation is indeed necessarily a good reason without further elaboration. It's a viable result of the manner of interpretation, and I had considered it as such, but it's only going to be a good reason to follow that interpretation if you can demonstrate that allowing such bonuses would be bad. The only way I can find that it may be inherently bad is if you could stack bonuses that apply to two-handed weapons and bonuses that apply to one-handed weapons to the same weapon, and even then, is that inherently worse that applying bonuses that apply to multiple weapon groups to a single weapon? Even then, I'm not sure double weapons are classified as two-handed weapons any more than they are one-handed weapons, so would that even happen?
Rocks. Falling.
Oh but the question is not wether its bad, game breaking or whatsnot. 

The question is wether RAW a weapon in each hand count as one One-handed Weapons for purposes of meeting such Prerequisits, regardless of any implications. Obviously it doesn't.

Double Weapons has its own Classification which most Doubles Weapons fall in. An exception exist in the Dark Sun Campaign Setting for the Cahulaks, Dragon Paw, Gythka and Lotulis which appear under the Two-Handed Weapon Classification with a footnote telling they are also Double Weapons.

Other Double Weapons (most except Double Sword i think) have one end  having the Stout Property, which can be treated as a Two-Handed Weapon.

No Property allow Double Weapons to be treated as One-handed Weapon to this date. 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I guess they do count as 1 H weapon, because if they  don't...what's the point on the new "Guild" for executioners? "Ok, use a kusari gama...but isn't a one handed weapon so your attack finnese doesn't work"?
It helps to read the whole feature:

Way of the Ninja
You gain the powers ninja-to rush, poisonous shuriken, and whirling kusari-gama. In addition, you have proficiency with shuriken and the kusari-gama, your Attack Finesse class feature also applies to kusari-gama and shuriken, and your assassin poisons that can be applied to ammunition can also be applied to your shuriken.

Bolded for emphasis.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
It helps to read the whole feature:

Way of the Ninja
You gain the powers ninja-to rush, poisonous shuriken, and whirling kusari-gama. In addition, you have proficiency with shuriken and the kusari-gama, your Attack Finesse class feature also applies to kusari-gama and shuriken, and your assassin poisons that can be applied to ammunition can also be applied to your shuriken.

Bolded for emphasis.

Which indicates that normal doubleweapons do not count

The shuriken half of that clause is also necessary, since shuriken aren't melee weapons and so normally aren't affected either.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
The shuriken half of that clause is also necessary, since shuriken aren't melee weapons and so normally aren't affected either.

How so? Attack finnese says 'weapon attack using a one handed weapon' then lists the two handed weapons it also works with. Nothing in the wording says melee only or states it doesn't work with ranged 1 handed weapons. Since this means that the shuriken half was unneeded, the kusari gama being included indicates nothing.


IMO, double weapons count as 2, 1 handed weapons.  My reason is this; if I have a weapon in each hand that I can attack with, that means that I have to be able to use it in one hand right? The stout trait seems to back this up by treating the one handed weapon as a two handed one.


  

IMO, double weapons count as 2, 1 handed weapons.  My reason is this; if I have a weapon in each hand that I can attack with, that means that I have to be able to use it in one hand right? The stout trait seems to back this up by treating the one handed weapon as a two handed one.


Opinion is irrelevant.  You are considered to be wielding two one-handed weapons, but the weapon itself is two-handed.  There's a difference.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
IMO, double weapons count as 2, 1 handed weapons.  My reason is this; if I have a weapon in each hand that I can attack with, that means that I have to be able to use it in one hand right? The stout trait seems to back this up by treating the one handed weapon as a two handed one.


Opinion is irrelevant.  You are considered to be wielding two one-handed weapons, but the weapon itself is two-handed.  There's a difference.

LOL Wrong again. It's not two-handed it's a double weapon. Check out dragon 404 and check the weapon type for the Kusari-gama. It says double weapon. And as you bolded, you are considered to be wielding two one-handed weapons and no place in the rules is a double weapon called a two handed weapon.

Here is a quote from the dark sun book, the last entry for double weapons as far as I know. "In the table, the first line of the double weapon’s entry describes the main end of the weapon, wielded in your main hand. The second line describes the weapon’s off-hand end, wielded in your off-hand." It clearly states that main end is wielded in the main hand and the second line is wielded in the off hand. Just like you're weilding two weapons...  Now the darksun book does say 'You must wield a double weapon in two hands' but that just proves that you hold it in two hands. I can hold a longsword in two hands too and that doesn't make it a two handed weapon does it? The reverse isn't true though. If I wield something in one hand it pretty much HAS to be one handed.

Let me ask you this. If it said 'you are concidered to be wielding two light blades' but the weapon itself is a flail (just like spiked chain training), would you be saying I couldn't sneak attack with it? To me when something says concidered as, treated as, counts as or something along those lines, it's works as one.

Most double weapons are Stout. Stout property says it is a 2her.

IMO, double weapons count as 2, 1 handed weapons.  My reason is this; if I have a weapon in each hand that I can attack with, that means that I have to be able to use it in one hand right?

No, the category is independ of how the weapon is actually wielded. If you wield a longsword in 2 hands, it stays a one-handed weapon because that's how it's classified.

If you were allowed to wield a greatsword in one hand, it would stay a two-handed weapon because that's how it's classified unless the feature explictly also changes it's type when wielded one-handed. Just allowing it to be used one-handed would do nothing for the type.

 

And as you bolded, you are considered to be wielding two one-handed weapons

However he quoted wrong. It's says 'wielding a weapon in each hand'' and not 'wielding  two one-handed weapons'.

 

Here is a quote from the dark sun book, the last entry for double weapons as far as I know. "In the table, the first line of the double weapon’s entry describes the main end of the weapon, wielded in your main hand. The second line describes the weapon’s off-hand end, wielded in your off-hand." It clearly states that main end is wielded in the main hand and the second line is wielded in the off hand. Just like you're weilding two weapons...

Correct, however nowhere is the type of the weapon changes, thus it does no count as two one-handed weapons, just as a weapon in each hand. Usage != weapon type

 

Now the darksun book does say 'You must wield a double weapon in two hands' but that just proves that you hold it in two hands. I can hold a longsword in two hands too and that doesn't make it a two handed weapon does it?

Correct.

 

The reverse isn't true though. If I wield something in one hand it pretty much HAS to be one handed.

No. The reverse is exactly the same as the original case. It's whatever type it's classified as in the table where it's from unless the feature that allows a different usage also changes the type along with the usage.

 

Let me ask you this. If it said 'you are concidered to be wielding two light blades' but the weapon itself is a flail (just like spiked chain training), would you be saying I couldn't sneak attack with it? To me when something says concidered as, treated as, counts as or something along those lines, it's works as one.

Then you could sneak with it. However the rules about double weapons never say something along those lines. Only that you are wielding a weapon in each hand, which does nothing to change the type of the weapon.
No. The reverse is exactly the same as the original case. It's whatever type it's classified as in the table where it's from unless the feature that allows a different usage also changes the type along with the usage.


Correct; for instance, if you are wielding a one-handed versatile weapon in two hands, the weapon is still a one-handed weapon, not a two-handed weapon.  This means, as an example, that the Fighter's One-handed Weapon talent would apply, and Two-handed Weapon Talent would not.

This illustrates that "one-handed" and "two-handed" are defined categories, and not intended to be strictly tied to how they're currently being used by a character.  Double weapons are a separate category, and the rules state that using them is like "wielding a weapon in each hand", with no mention of another category, and thus don't count as anything other than a double weapon, by default.

Of course, if you REALLY want to start an argument, bring up the AV1 FAQ entry that states that double weapons are treated as two-handed weapons for the purposes of feats and whether or not Small characters can use them.  This obviously predates the update that introduced the Stout property, since Stout wouldn't actually DO anything if ALL double weapons were treated as two-handed by default.

IMO, double weapons count as 2, 1 handed weapons.  My reason is this; if I have a weapon in each hand that I can attack with, that means that I have to be able to use it in one hand right?

No, the category is independ of how the weapon is actually wielded. If you wield a longsword in 2 hands, it stays a one-handed weapon because that's how it's classified.

If you were allowed to wield a greatsword in one hand, it would stay a two-handed weapon because that's how it's classified unless the feature explictly also changes it's type when wielded one-handed. Just allowing it to be used one-handed would do nothing for the type.

 

And as you bolded, you are considered to be wielding two one-handed weapons

However he quoted wrong. It's says 'wielding a weapon in each hand'' and not 'wielding  two one-handed weapons'.

Looking at the RC,ALL weapons fall into two categories, melee and ranged. They are then divided into two more categories, 1 or 2 handed. It stated that 1 handed weapons are light/balanced enough to use in one hand and two handed weapons are too heavy/unbalanced to use without two hands. Since you 'wielding a weapon in each hand'' they HAVE to be one handed since all weapons MUST be 1 or two handed and you can't wield a 2 handed weapon in one hand. (the double weapon rules doesn't say it changes this) Hence the statement Mand12 made was correct.


See rules compendium page 268 under weapon categories.
This obviously predates the update that introduced the Stout property, since Stout wouldn't actually DO anything if ALL double weapons were treated as two-handed by default.

This is one of the sticking points for me. Why have a property that lets you treat an end of a double weapon as a two handed weapon if it isn't normally treated as a 1 handed weapon?
Double weapons are a separate category, and the rules state that using them is like "wielding a weapon in each hand", with no mention of another category, and thus don't count as anything other than a double weapon, by default.

However double weapon isn't a 'real' category. By that I mean that there isn't any feats, features or anything else related to it. It's just a rule for 'taping' two 1 handed weapons (or a 1 handed and a 2 handed when it has Stout) together, then you use the normal rules for those two weapons.


This is one of the sticking points for me. Why have a property that lets you treat an end of a double weapon as a two handed weapon if it isn't normally treated as a 1 handed weapon?

Normally it is a double weapon, neither a one handed nor a two handed weapon. Sounds strange, but that's how it is.

However double weapon isn't a 'real' category. By that I mean that there isn't any feats, features or anything else related to it.

That makes it an undersupported category, but it's still a category.


One of the problem of 4e is that it took commonly used words and as the name for specific game terms which have a meaning differing from the colloquial meaning of these words (e.g. just like you are using the walk action, even if you are flying, swimming, climbing or burrowing and not walking. The technical game term is called walk action, yet it has nothing to do with the colloquial understanding of the word "walk")

Nothing in the double weapon entry allows you to ignore the rules compendium, where it states that all weapons are 1 or 2 handed.

 
 Normally it is a double weapon, neither a one handed nor a two handed weapon. Sounds strange, but that's how it is.

However, the rules compendium states that all weapons are either one or two handed weapons giving no option for anything else and the double weapon entry doesn't change that. Given that, the only logical way to treat double weapons as 2 one handed weapons, one in each hand. You can't count it as 2 handed since stout would be a useless ability.

That makes it an undersupported category, but it's still a category.

They may be a category, but not the same way one and two handed weapons are. It's just rules for weapons that have two damaging ends. It rules that you 'wield' an end in each hand and treat them as separate weapons except for enchantment. These 'separate weapons' still fall under the rule that all weapons have to be one handed or two handed weapons. Given that you can't weild an end in two hands, it must be a one handed weapon, with stout giving an exception for treating an end as two handed.

One of the problem of 4e is that it took commonly used words and as the name for specific game terms which have a meaning differing from the colloquial meaning of these words (e.g. just like you are using the walk action, even if you are flying, swimming, climbing or burrowing and not walking. The technical game term is called walk action, yet it has nothing to do with the colloquial understanding of the word "walk")

Got to agree with you there. When they give a bonus on slings, do they mean the weapon or the group? It happens all the time in the rules. However this really isn't the issue here. If I just take the colloquial meanings of these game terms, any double weapon would be a two handed weapon since you have to use both hands to use them.
Nothing in the double weapon entry allows you to ignore the rules compendium, where it states that all weapons are 1 or 2 handed.

The table where they are introduced gives this new rule by labeling them as double weapons in the header instead of 1h or 2h weapons. The new category is created right there.

Otherwise there would be no need for a new header, just list them under two-handed weapons and make 'double weapon' a trait like high crit or brutal