[blaine]

I have a player who has rolled up a dwarven barbarian. He wants to be able to dual wield Dwarven Waraxes, the D20SRD says this about them

"Waraxe, Dwarven
A dwarven waraxe is too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A Medium character can use a dwarven waraxe two-handed as a martial weapon, or a Large creature can use it one-handed in the same way. A dwarf treats a dwarven waraxe as a martial weapon even when using it in one hand. "

So...would you let him dual wield them? If so, what limitations would you apply?

[Oneiros]

Well, with the special training (which dwarves have), it's a one-handed weapon. So the normal dual-wielding attack penalties apply:

Primary Hand: -6
Off-Hand: -10

Even with the Two Weapon Fighting Feat, the best he can do is -4/-4 for his attacks. He wants that big of a penalty, I say let him. Remember the off-hand only gets 1/2 Str mod, even when raging. You might point out that wielding one axe two-handed lets him apply 1 and a half times his Str bonus, at no penalty to attack. He might end up doing more damage this way (especially at low levels, where those attack penalties hurt more.)

[Dthclaw]

Yes. He is well within his rights to dual-wield the weapons.

Being a Dwarf renders the weapon a one-handed martial weapon for his character.

Any one handed weapon can be dual-wielded. Thus, for a Dwarf with martial weapon proficiency, he may dual-wield per the rules and with all the penalties that Oneiros listed.

[Keth Durgan]

You might have him take a look at the Monkey Grip feat. It would allow him to use medium Dwarven Waraxes as though they were light weapons, or large Waraxes with the same penalty as he currently has. It's either hit mor often or do more damage... both good things.

[Dthclaw]

Actually, no, that's not what Monkey Grip does. Monkey Grip allows the following:

"You may use weapons one category larger than normal by accepting a -2 penalty on attack rolls. Thus, a Medium-sized character could use a Large-size longsword as a one handed weapon.

This feat does not allow you to use an oversized double weapon or to wield an oversized light weapon in your off-hand."

In effect, it lets you use weapons one size category larger by taking an attack penalty. It does not in any way change that weapon's status as light/one-handed/two-handed. Thus, the Dwarf in question with Monkey Grip could dual wield Large Dwarven waraxes (-2 attack each) or Medium Dwarven waraxes, but they are both still one-handed weapons.

[Keth Durgan]

But then doesn't Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting (which I was going to mention, but then somehow got sidetracked and completely left it out) require Monkey Grip? I'd say between the two, his Barb could be a formidable opponent.

Correction, Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting (pg. 111 in Complete Adventurer) doesn't require Monkey Grip. However, if you took both feats, you could take a -2 to attack, then treat the large waraxe as a light weapon in your off hand. If you've got the feats to do it, I'd recommend going this route.

[Oneiros]

Keth Durgan, on Jul 21 2006, 09:45 AM, said:

Correction, Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting (pg. 111 in Complete Adventurer) doesn't require Monkey Grip. However, if you took both feats, you could take a -2 to attack, then treat the large waraxe as a light weapon in your off hand. If you've got the feats to do it, I'd recommend going this route.

What does Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting do, exactly? Let you treat a one-handed weapon as light in the off hand?

Throwing MonkeyGrip into that mix still ends up with a -4\-4 for TWF attacks.

But when our dwarf barbarian does hit...

[Keth Durgan]

Exactly. You take a -4/-4 penalty, but that can be offset by things like Bull's Strength and whatnot. Above level 5 or 6, a -4 isn't really that much of a penalty for a barb. I'm playing one in my current game (level 6 right now), and my attack bonus when raging is +16/+11. The things you'll be fighting at that level should still be hittable with a +12/+12/+7... not a bad deal for some heavy damage.

[Dthclaw]

But given that we're presumably talking about a 1st level Dwarf (blaine doesn't seem interested in responding), -4 is a very substantial penalty. Especially when you don't have access to things that offset the penalty.

[Ssri-Tel-Quessir Hitokiri]

Well... with the way that the dwarven waraxe is described, it seems very similar to a bastard sword. If the character wanted to use the weapon one handed, the character must first be proficient with the weapon and then take Exotic Weapon Proficiency (dwarven waraxe) to use it one-handed. Isn't that what is basically done with bastard swrods?

There is a feat in Forgotten Realms called Twin Weapon Fighting or something along those lines that would allow you to fight with two weapons that are the same classification (in this case, dwarven waraxe) and treat one as a light weapon for the purposes of 2 weapon fighting. Technically, it is restricted to drow but since I doubt you are playing in FR, that doesn't matter much. There is no real reason why dwarves have not developed something similar to deal with fighting with a weapon that bears its name.

[Dthclaw]

Quote

Well... with the way that the dwarven waraxe is described, it seems very similar to a bastard sword. If the character wanted to use the weapon one handed, the character must first be proficient with the weapon and then take Exotic Weapon Proficiency (dwarven waraxe) to use it one-handed. Isn't that what is basically done with bastard swrods?

That's how its done with bastard swords, but the wording for Dwarven waraxes is different - bastard swords specifically state that you need the Exotic Weapon Prf feat to wield it one handed, while Dwarven waraxe says you can either have the feat or be a dwarf.

[blaine]

Ssri-Tel-Quessir Hitokiri, on Jul 21 2006, 08:53 PM, said:

but since I doubt you are playing in FR, that doesn't matter much. There is no real reason why dwarves have not developed something similar to deal with fighting with a weapon that bears its name.

Actually I am running FR, I have yet to see the Barbarians stats so I do not know his strength bonus, he is first level so his base attack bonus will be +1, so if he takes TWF then he will be -3/-3, I am guessing that he will have a high strength, maybe 16 or 17, so his attacks will be +0/-1 not brilliant for a 1st level barbarian, however if he does hit with both weapons he do 6-24 Points of damage (1D10+3)+(1D10+1).

If he used a handaxe in his offhand he would be +2/+1 and hit for 6-20 points of damage (1D10+3)+(1d6+1).

I do not think the chance of 4 points of extra damage is worth the penalties.

[Dthclaw]

Well, hold on a second, that's not necessarily true. Some players might prefer a little more 'chance' to their fighting - a little risk in exchange for a more entertaining pay off. Even as a DM, I sometimes like to have NPCs with low attack bonuses, but a whole lot of pain if they hit.

However, the basic question (can one dual-wield DWaraxes?) appears to be a resounding yes.

[Keth Durgan]

Honestly, I think this whole thread has made me decide on my next character. I had been thinking of playing a Warmage/(Dragon Disciple or Elemental Savant) just for the sheer fun of it, but a Dwarf Barbarian who runs up the TWF tree as fast as his stubby legs can carry him is really a tempting thought.

[blaine]

In order to get greater two weapon fighting we need dex of 19 and +11 base attack bonus.
By level 12 we will have had 4 extra feats and 3 extra stats points.
We need to have 19 dex by the time we hit level 12, which means we need a minumum of 16 at first level.(so we need to allocate a 17).
Lets say we get 18 str and 16 dex.
The progression would work like this.

normal ---- rage

1. +1 -1 ---- +3 +0
2. +2 +0 ---- +4 +1
3. +3 +1 ---- +5 +2
4. +4 +2 ---- +6 +3
5. +5 +3 ---- +7 +4
6. +6/+5 +4/-1 ---- +8/+7 +5/+2
7. +7/+6 +5/+0 ---- +9/+8 +6/+3
8. +8/+7 +6/+1 ---- +10/+9 +7/+4
9. +9/+8 +7/+2 ---- +11/+10 +8/+5
10. +10/+9 +8/+3 ---- +12/+11 +9/+6
11. +11/+10/+5 +9/+4 ---- +14/+13/+8 +10/+7
12. +12/+11/+6 +10/+5/+0 ---- +15/+14/+9 +11/+8/+2

Not a bad attack line.