Double bladed scimitar

[Kadesh]

You probably don't, if you're a vHu with Shield Master at level 1. If you're a regular human, then you probably want to carry around a DBS until you get level 4.

Of course, if the question you're asking is "why do I want to change the non-mechanics concept of my character?" then there's no good answer to that. You don't. But character concepts aren't about mechanics.

Neither is the game, and its about time that it's mentioned. If you're specifically wanting to build a character concept that's gimped, then sure, but a DBS doesn't exactly throw every other character archetype under the bus. Unless you're actively trying to push the preventative measures the game has (i.e no Heavy Weapon wielding small characters), then you're not exactly going to be dying everytime.

The DBS doesn't beat GWM. It doesn't beat a Hexblade even, who already has a lot of competition for their Bonus Actions. Paladins will enjoy another chance to make use of with their Bless Boosted Smites, but if they're wanting to multiclass, then that 13 strength is going to take away a lot. A Frenzy Barbarian already suffers, in that so much grants Bonus Action attacks that the only way to run it is without feats or multiclassing.

The DBS changes absolutely nothing about the "meta". It has broken nothing that wasn't already borked.

This chicken little act needs its neck winding it.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The DBS doesn't beat GWM.

Obviously. Before GWM, it's the best weapon for Str characters who don't have a way to use their bonus action every single turn.

It doesn't beat a Hexblade even, who already has a lot of competition for their Bonus Actions

If you use your bonus action to swing once every three turns, it's better for a Hexblade than any other weapon until they take GWM or PAM.

This chicken little act needs its neck winding it.

You're doing a very good job making the case that the -5/+10 feats are overpowered, which I think everyone knew already. I'm not sure you've demonstrated anything else.

[CBAnaesthesia]

The DBS doesn't beat GWM...It has broken nothing

No, but it does beat 2-handed weapons without GWM, and debatably beats PAM due to being able to focus on Dex instead of Str, an objectively better stat, and still get the best feature of PAM, the extra attack.
Same goes for pretty much any Dex build - it doesn't invalidate a rapier or short sword, but it's clearly a better option than either.
The main thing it's broken is the problem I also have with Hexblade - it makes Str, an underpowered stat, even less relevant than it already was.
I do agree that the game isn't about mechanics or optimisation and I don't like that mindset at a table. I really dislike hexsorcadins and such. But that's why I really hate power creep and I don't see how you could really classify the double scimitar as anything else.

[Kadesh]

You're doing a very good job making the case that the -5/+10 feats are overpowered, which I think everyone knew already. I'm not sure you've demonstrated anything else.

"This options broken, it's better than everything else."
"No it's not, here's options"
"But they're broken too"

If they're all broken, then none of them broken. Broken is when it's clearly better than anything else. It's clearly not better than anything else, because Str based characters still have access to GWM and Shield Master for Team Advantage and personal resistance.

And beyond that, the game still functions even if I'm running the non-optimal build.

If you don't like power creep, why are you even considering buying or including content? Just flat outright ban any mechanics not in the PHB. If everything's a side grade or downgrade, there is no point in the content existing.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

"This options broken, it's better than everything else."
"No it's not, here's options"
"But they're broken too"

If they're all broken, then none of them broken. Broken is when it's clearly better than anything else. It's clearly not better than anything else, because Str based characters still have access to GWM and Shield Master for Team Advantage and personal resistance.

And beyond that, the game still functions even if I'm running the non-optimal build.

It's clearly better than every weapon based on the text of the weapon. The feat that supports it would be an upgrade on Dual Wielding even if it didn't give +1 Str/Dex. Every bit of power that other weapons have is based on qualification for GWM or the AoO combo. If "options" comes down to GWM or PAM+Sentinel+Tunnel Fighter, that's really not that different from arguing that 3.X balance is fine because you can play a cleric or a wizard or an archivist.

The point of supplements is to provide new options, not to make old ones obsolete.

[Kadesh]

They are not obsolete. This weapon does not make those combinations objectively worse than they already are, only by comparison is it worse. A Dual Rapier wielder is as effective as they always have been when vsing the guys out of the monster manual. If the DM adjusts stats based on the parties abilities to create a levelling system like Skyrim, when each creature gets an average 5HP increase to accomodate for a single party members average DPR increasing by 1/round, then sure, maybe watch out for the DBS, but in that instance, I'd also watch out for the DM.

People in 3.5 didn't run with Pun Pun, God Wizard, CoDzilla, All spells Ardents, D2 Crusaders, Mailman Sorcerer or any other "broken" build all the time because they played what they wanted to. If you have a problem with the DBS outstripping your character, then have a word with the DM and say that you're not having as much fun because the DBS wielder in your party is better than you and stepping on his toes, what can he do? In which case, if he's decent, he'll try and come up with a way in which you can be relevant without stepping on his toes.

Easiest way is to give your Dual Rapier wielder the ability to cause Status effects on a hit; a Rapier made from a Purple worm stinger dealing minor poison damage on a hit with a chance to poison, or a Scimitar that flashes in the direct sunlight causing the opponent to take a DC13 Dex or Blind Save on a hit.

Just a couple of ideas about DM's "worrying" about how the DBS is going to affect them.

[CBAnaesthesia]

"This options broken, it's better than everything else."
"No it's not, here's options"
"But they're broken too"

If they're all broken, then none of them broken. Broken is when it's clearly better than anything else. It's clearly not better than anything else, because Str based characters still have access to GWM and Shield Master for Team Advantage and personal resistance.

The scimitar isn't as good as GWM, but it's better without taking a feat than any other 2-handed weapon is without taking a feat. Without the feat it is "clearly better than anything else," so it's broken by your own definition.
If you're taking the feat, then it's clearly better than anything else for a Dex build, so it's still broken by your definition. It's also overall probably better than a Str build with PAM because Dex is better than Str overall, so, still broken.
I like Shield Master, but its +2 to saves is not as good as being able to focus on Dex (since most of the relevant effects are Dex saves anyway), and a bonus action attack is better than a bonus action shove/prone unless you have a very melee-heavy team (especially since Sage Advice ruled that the shove/prone has to come after the attack).

And beyond that, the game still functions even if I'm running the non-optimal build.

Nobody's disputing that, but it's irrelevant to whether something is broken or not.

If you don't like power creep, why are you even considering buying or including content? Just flat outright ban any mechanics not in the PHB. If everything's a side grade or downgrade, there is no point in the content existing.

That's not true at all. I think that things like the SCAG cantrips were a strict upgrade to something that was a bit underpowered, or at least under-developed, specifically EK War Magic. It was a core feature of the class that wasn't all that useful until SCAG, but it wasn't "power creep" because it didn't automatically make EKs the best fighter like the double scimitar is the best weapon (or like how Hexadin is the best Paladin and the best Warlock, etc).
"Sidegrades" can also be very interesting character options - I found playing Ancestral Guardian barbarian a lot of fun, for example, even if it's not strictly as good as Bear Totem or strictly better than Zealot. Like you say, the game's about what's fun, and you can keep things fun without dropping in new options that straight-up outperform existing options in the same niche.

a single party members average DPR increasing by 1/round, then sure, maybe watch out for the DBS

Without the feat or fighting style (which a Rogue won't get), it's significantly more than 1 damage/round

People in 3.5 didn't run with Pun Pun, God Wizard, CoDzilla, All spells Ardents, D2 Crusaders, Mailman Sorcerer or any other "broken" build all the time because they played what they wanted to. If you have a problem with the DBS outstripping your character, then have a word with the DM and say that you're not having as much fun because the DBS wielder in your party is better than you and stepping on his toes, what can he do? In which case, if he's decent, he'll try and come up with a way in which you can be relevant without stepping on his toes.

"Talk to your DM" is always an answer, sure, but it's not really relevant when discussing RAW. I mean, your DM could give you a +6 greatsword that gives you GWM without having to take the feat, he could give you heavy armor that gives you advantage to all your saves, whatever. It's what you should do if it becomes an issue, but the issues with the DBS shouldn't exist in the first place if the game is meant to be well-balanced. "Talk to your DM" also doesn't make 3.5e's brokenness inherently OK, incidentally.

[Kadesh]

Well, it seems like you guys have your narrative, so I'm going to let you enjoy whatever it is you're getting out of this :) Have fun.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

You do realize you've just defeated your argument, as 3.5 treated double weapon the same as normal TWF, while 5e's version of DBS doesn't, and negates all disadvantages of TWF, right?

[CBAnaesthesia]

Well, it seems like you guys have your narrative, so I'm going to let you enjoy whatever it is you're getting out of this :) Have fun.

Hey man, I'm willing to be convinced, I just haven't been.

[Tetrasodium]

You do realize you've just defeated your argument, as 3.5 treated double weapon the same as normal TWF, while 5e's version of DBS doesn't, and negates all disadvantages of TWF, right?

That is not my argument at all. Some people are trying to have a discussion over the 2d4/2d4. Others keep bringing up what is probably an unintended wording given how 3.5 was rather than discussing if the very reasonable 2d4/2d4 because it's easier to yell about the sky falling than to have another competitive option

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

That is not my argument at all. Some people are trying to have a discussion over the 2d4/2d4.

Who? The fact that the second attack goes up to 2d4 isn't really a big deal. It's that it gets the +ability mod that matters.

Others keep bringing up what is probably an unintended wording given how 3.5 was rather than discussing if the very reasonable 2d4/2d4 because it's easier to yell about the sky falling than to have another competitive option

It's not an unintended wording, because it's the same wording PAM uses. If the 3.5 double scimitar were ported over, it would be Finesse, 1d6 + ability mod with a bonus action option to attack for 1d6. The feat would give +1 Dex, +1 AC and increase the base damage to 1d8. And it would be balanced with all the other two-weapon fighting options and not obviously better than a greatsword for a guy intending to go into GWM at level 4. The double scimitar would, in short, be like using double scimitars.

[Arkhios]

It's not an unintended wording, because it's the same wording PAM uses. If the 3.5 double scimitar were ported over, it would be Finesse, 1d6 + ability mod with a bonus action option to attack for 1d6. The feat would give +1 Dex, +1 AC and increase the base damage to 1d8. And it would be balanced with all the other two-weapon fighting options and not obviously better than a greatsword for a guy intending to go into GWM at level 4. The double scimitar would, in short, be like using double scimitars.

Honestly, I rather enjoy that all weapons don't follow same damage die pattern. As it is, no other existing weapon does damage with 2d4. Again, it's still only worth max 8 points of damage for one hit (yes, it's more than a scimitar would do, but it's still a single weapon that must be held in two hands, thus a two-handed weapon category makes sense and because a one-handed scimitar does 1d6, making it a two-handed is logical to increase the damage by one step to 1d8 or an equivalent). For a two-handed weapon, a maximum of 8 damage is same as with a Greatclub which is a simple weapon. Yes, you get a bonus action to attack with the opposite end, but as always, it's a separate chance to hit ... or miss.

I do agree, though, that the bonus action attack shouldn't get +ability mod by default. But with the feat? I mean, why not?

DBS+bonus action attack:
2d4+1d4 = 3-12
Greatsword:
2d6 = 2-12

DBS+Reventant Blade+bonus action attack:
2d4+2d4 = 4-16
Greatsword+GWM+bonus action "cleave":
2d6+10+2d6+10 = 24-32

Compared to greatsword or maul, DBS deals at minimum 1 point more damage, but at maximum they would be equal if the bonus action attack didn't add ability mod.

If the Greatsword or Maul user had GWM, DBS user with Revenant Blade (that would add ability on bonus action attack) would, however, still fall ridiculously behind GWM user, even considering that it has better chance to hit due to GWM's -5 to hit, and that's all before ability modifier gets into play.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

2d4 isn't an equivalent of 1d8. Max value isn't all there is: 2d4 has better minimum, slightly higher average, and better value distribution. It's the same reason why greatsword or maul is better than greataxe.

Same with your comparison to greatsword: 2 attacks are better than one, because the damage is more reliable. If you miss with a greatsword, you do no damage, if you miss with DBS, you'll get another chance. And anything that adds extra damage, like (Improved) Divine Smite, Sneak Attack, Rage or plain old ability bonus either gets more chances to apply, or gets applied multiple times.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Honestly, I rather enjoy that all weapons don't follow same damage die pattern. ... I do agree, though, that the bonus action attack shouldn't get +ability mod by default. But with the feat? I mean, why not?

Well, because ability mod to damage is tied to the Fighter and Ranger fighting style options, not to feats. As to the damage die, I was taking my cue from the special monk weapons entry - a monk might use a sai or a katar or a chakram or nunchuks, but they're all just reshadings of things that are already on the table. What better weapon to use to represent a double scimitar than double scimitars? I mean, surely they ought to be at least somewhat equivalent.

[Arkhios]

Well, because ability mod to damage is tied to the Fighter and Ranger fighting style options, not to feats. As to the damage die, I was taking my cue from the special monk weapons entry - a monk might use a sai or a katar or a chakram or nunchuks, but they're all just reshadings of things that are already on the table. What better weapon to use to represent a double scimitar than double scimitars? I mean, surely they ought to be at least somewhat equivalent.

if by double scimitars representing double scimitars you mean two scimitars being equivalent to double scimitars, consider this:

a standard scimitar isn't versatile and thus doesn't bestow any benefit if used with two hands. One of the logical reasons (imho) is that the scimitar's handle lacks length to be held in two hands. But, if a double scimitar is essentially two scimitars with their handles joined together, regardless of which end you use when you attack, you are holding a longer handle and thus essentially enabling the scimitars to be versatile because now you have long enough handle to use two hands instead of just one.

In other words, technically you have two scimitars which share one longer handle.
It makes sense for them to be treated like they were individual versatile scimitars (1d6 becoming 1d8/2d4) but both end used two-handedly.

I won't argue with gaining a class feature with a feat being bad design. I was barely awake when I wrote that.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

if by double scimitars representing double scimitars you mean two scimitars being equivalent to double scimitars, consider this:

Fair enough. I wouldn't care if it were 2d4+1d4 instead of 1d6+1d6, as long as that second hit isn't carrying bonus damage. It's better min and average values, but also twice as expensive, so it balances out in the first few levels when that matters most. (Although I wonder how you really make use of the longer handle - it's got a blade on both ends of it, so it's not like you can grip the bottom of the handle and swing away; you'd stab yourself.)

[Malifice]

Fair enough. I wouldn't care if it were 2d4+1d4 instead of 1d6+1d6, as long as that second hit isn't carrying bonus damage. It's better min and average values, but also twice as expensive, so it balances out in the first few levels when that matters most. (Although I wonder how you really make use of the longer handle - it's got a blade on both ends of it, so it's not like you can grip the bottom of the handle and swing away; you'd stab yourself.)

It looks like it also benefits from the GWF style (re-roll 1's and 2's on your d4s). It qualifies for the GWF style because it's two handed.

That isnt going to get annoying fast.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

It looks like it also benefits from the GWF style (re-roll 1's and 2's on your d4s). It qualifies for the GWF style because it's two handed.

That isnt going to get annoying fast.

It does, yeah. Unless I am bad at math (I am bad at math), that raises the average damage per main-hand swing to 6. A greatsword swing with GWF is 8.3. Assuming double rapiers, the Two Weapon Fighting style and the Dual Wielder feat, average damage on two hits will be 9 + double ability mod; DBS with GWF and Revenant Blade comes out to 12 + double ability mod.

And yeah, I think it would slow combat down to have a 50% chance of reroll per die on a 4d4.

[Arkhios]

It looks like it also benefits from the GWF style (re-roll 1's and 2's on your d4s). It qualifies for the GWF style because it's two handed.

It certainly does. It's good that this is just the first draft and many things are likely to change.

That's one thing, no doubt.

I think that introducing double weapons warrant the addition of a whole new weapon trait: double weapon, which would be separate from both two-handed and versatile.

They all could have this option to use two-weapon fighting rules for the attack made with the opposite end.
Maybe a double weapon wouldn't count as a two-handed weapon at all, but instead as two separate weapons, even though they aren't.
In addition, they probably could (?be used to?) add a +1 bonus to AC (?as a reaction?), so that they would be different enough from just wielding two weapons and simply fluffing them as a double weapon.

In other words, they wouldn't count as two-handed weapons, nor versatile, and thus wouldn't qualify for GWFS. But, they would qualify for TWFS instead.

[Neknoh]

I've been fiddling with a class or subclass that focuses on using historically short polearms as well as halfswording longswords and greatswords, one of the class features would probable be very applicable to something to make shoulder-head height weapons feel unique to others:

Leverage:
- The weapon's length allows you to to trip, hook and wrestle enemies more effectively. When wielding a weapon with two hands, you gain Advantage on all Contest Rolls in combat, including actions like Shove.

[Waterdeep Merch]

It certainly does. It's good that this is just the first draft and many things are likely to change.

That's one thing, no doubt.

I think that introducing double weapons warrant the addition of a whole new weapon trait: double weapon, which would be separate from both two-handed and versatile.

They all could have this option to use two-weapon fighting rules for the attack made with the opposite end.
Maybe a double weapon wouldn't count as a two-handed weapon at all, but instead as two separate weapons, even though they aren't.
In addition, they probably could (?be used to?) add a +1 bonus to AC (?as a reaction?), so that they would be different enough from just wielding two weapons and simply fluffing them as a double weapon.

In other words, they wouldn't count as two-handed weapons, nor versatile, and thus wouldn't qualify for GWFS. But, they would qualify for TWFS instead.

Personally, I dislike the way TWF is handled in 5e. This is coming from someone that is currently playing my third character with it (I'll always pick style over stats). It's unsatisfying and poorly developed.

But I think a lot of people would forgive the DBS easier if it counted as TWF, and you needed the accompanying fighting style to add the ability mod to the offhand. Just that little bit of extra work, since it seems everyone's most alarmed by what a rogue can do with it. And stopping those GWF rerolls, because oh man.

[GlenSmash!]

Personally, I dislike the way TWF is handled in 5e. This is coming from someone that is currently playing my third character with it (I'll always pick style over stats). It's unsatisfying and poorly developed.

But I think a lot of people would forgive the DBS easier if it counted as TWF, and you needed the accompanying fighting style to add the ability mod to the offhand. Just that little bit of extra work, since it seems everyone's most alarmed by what a rogue can do with it. And stopping those GWF rerolls, because oh man.

I'm definitely more concerned (I wouldn't says alarmed) by what the Fighter is doing with it since they can now freely skip the TWF Fighting style.

Rogue is just a slight bump to damage due to the nature of having very few attacks in a round.

The more attacks you have the more that small bump in damage starts to add up, even before taking re-rolls into account.

[MaxWilson]

No, but it does beat 2-handed weapons without GWM, and debatably beats PAM due to being able to focus on Dex instead of Str, an objectively better stat, and still get the best feature of PAM, the extra attack.

The best part of PAM, besides the reaction attack, is when you combine it with GWM to effectively get a bonus action Shove (prone) which then lets you make your other attacks at advantage (offsetting the GWM penalty) and then move off after your attack sequence is complete so the enemy can't reach you to attack back on its next turn. (Standing up costs half its movement, and you're a full move away.) So at 5th level you wind up getting a Shove attempt and two attacks at advantage (d10 +13 and d4 + 13) and taking only one opportunity attack at disadvantage in exchange.

And if they do try to close with you, they take ANOTHER attack from your Polearm Master reaction clause.

Spending a feat to use Double Bladed Scimitars with Dex, by comparison, is relatively unexciting.

[Kane0]

For anyone who doesn’t know how it works could you explain it?

Asking for a friend

Ditto. Might have been in the last few pages but I didn't see it sorry.

[CBAnaesthesia]

The best part of PAM, besides the reaction attack, is when you combine it with GWM to effectively get a bonus action Shove (prone) which then lets you make your other attacks at advantage (offsetting the GWM penalty) and then move off after your attack sequence is complete so the enemy can't reach you to attack back on its next turn. (Standing up costs half its movement, and you're a full move away.) So at 5th level you wind up getting a Shove attempt and two attacks at advantage (d10 +13 and d4 + 13) and taking only one opportunity attack at disadvantage in exchange.

And if they do try to close with you, they take ANOTHER attack from your Polearm Master reaction clause.

Spending a feat to use Double Bladed Scimitars with Dex, by comparison, is relatively unexciting.

The reason you get to do the shove-GWM thing is because of the bonus attack, which is what I said is the best thing about PAM.
The point isn't just that you can finesse the DBS, but also that you can get the bonus attack aspect of PAM without taking a feat.

[MaxWilson]

The reason you get to do the shove-GWM thing is because of the bonus attack, which is what I said is the best thing about PAM.
The point isn't just that you can finesse the DBS, but also that you can get the bonus attack aspect of PAM without taking a feat.

Forgive me if I misunderstood, but when you wrote,

debatably beats PAM due to being able to focus on Dex instead of Str, an objectively better stat, and still get the best feature of PAM, the extra attack

I understood you to be talking about taking the Revenant Blade feat. Otherwise you're stuck using Str instead of Dex after all.

I agree that the featless usage of Double Bladed Scimitar constitutes power creep--any Str-based dual wielders might as well just use DBS (no TWF fighting style necessary!). But I didn't think you were talking about that scenario. Can you clarify?

[kenGarff]

Quick question, is this weapon and the feat for dex builds or str oriented ones as well?

[CBAnaesthesia]

Forgive me if I misunderstood, but when you wrote,



I understood you to be talking about taking the Revenant Blade feat. Otherwise you're stuck using Str instead of Dex after all.

I agree that the featless usage of Double Bladed Scimitar constitutes power creep--any Str-based dual wielders might as well just use DBS (no TWF fighting style necessary!). But I didn't think you were talking about that scenario. Can you clarify?

Oh, fair enough. I think it's power creep either way, to clarify - featless, it's power creep like you say, and with the feat, it's power creep for any Dex build. I'd even say it devalues S&B for Dex builds since you only miss out on 1 AC with the feat, but particularly for Rogues.

[MaxWilson]

Quick question, is this weapon and the feat for dex builds or str oriented ones as well?

By default it's for Str, but you can take a feat to make it a finesse weapon and slightly increase the damage on the bonus attack (IIRC from 1d4 to 2d4).

The double-bladed scimitar's base damage is 2d4, plus your strength modifier. A player can also use their bonus action to use the blade on the other end, which does an additional 1d4 of damage (plus your strength modifier). In addition, elves can pick up the revenant blade feat, which increases a player's dexterity or strength score by 1, and turns the double-bladed scimitar into a finesse weapon, which means that a player can add their dexterity modifier to their attack and damage rolls instead of their strength modifier. Plus, the base damage for the scimitar's bonus action attack increases from 1d4 to 2d4, making the weapon even more deadly in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. Turning this weapon into a finesse weapon makes it an excellent choice for rogues or any build that's built around dexterity.

Str-based builds have better feats to take, and usually so do Dex builds, but I guess it's a minor buff to Hexblades who want to dual-wield without investing in Two Weapon Fighting style, and it's also a minor buff to Str-based builds that specialize in things other than doing damage. I.e. if you're taking no feats at all (e.g. a Paladin who is busy boosting Cha to 20 for +saves), then doing 2d4 + Str three times per round at the cost of your action + bonus action is arguably better than doing 2d6 + Str twice per round with a greatsword with just your action.

The really ironic thing though is that this feature is almost exactly equivalent to the Battlerager ability to attack with 1d4 + Str as a bonus action using their spikes, and Battleragers are usually considered a bit on the weak and/or uninteresting side. That's should clue people in to the fact that this weapon isn't really that big of a deal. It is power creep in a sense, in that it is strictly better than a bad fighting technique (dual-wielding without TWF/Dual Wielder) and somewhat competitive with good fighting techniques (two-handed fighting with GWM or archery with Sharpshooter and/or Crossbow Expert).

But honestly, nothing in the game would break if you simply let two-weapon fighting always work like this (everybody gets their stat bonus to damage on off-hand attacks) and found some other perk for the Two-Weapon Fighting Style, such as removing the bonus action cost and just folding the offhand attack into the Attack action. There are plenty of people who have already houseruled TWF for this very reason: it was weak.

HOWEVER, speaking as a DM, for aesthetic reasons I would impose a limitation on the Double-bladed Scimitar similar to the limitation on certain animal attacks like the Giant Crocodile: you can only use the bonus action attack on a creature you did not attack with any of your main attacks. It's a good weapon for horde-fighting, but there's nothing about putting a sword on the other end of your sword that ought to make you better at fighting one big creature like a dragon. Honestly it ought to just get in the way.

The whole idea of DBS is stupid but I'm willing to accommodate it at least to the extent of letting you attack a second creature with the other end, as a bonus action.