Board Thread:Suggestions forum/@comment-26149161-20170419212206/@comment-26553378-20170423124624

Lord Eldacar wrote: Double bladed weapons are pointless in a battlefield context. Maybe they have some use when you are fighting duels for martial arts practice, but not in actual warfighting. You can't attack with two blades at once, not practically. In the time that the motion of attacking with one blade, then twirling or rotating the weapon to use the other takes, you could've gotten in more than a few strikes with a spear or glaive. Not to mention the power of a spear thrust in a single direction far exceeds any fancy "moves" you could do with a double-bladed staff. A blade on both ends of a shaft simply creates a lot of dead weight, with the "payoff" of a few fancy moves which, in addition to looking frankly moronic to any trained eye, are not very effective.

And to touch on their "use" in a field battle, these weapons would be an active detriment to troops cohesively fighting together. Use a spear, and you can use a shield. Not an option with a battlestaff. Use a spear, and you can remain close to your allies, and fight as a unit. Not an option when a bunch of idiots are twirling battlestaves around, forcing their comrades to keep at a distance. Double bladed staves are just an unworkable idea, through-and-through. Twirling one around in a dojo, sure, why not. But in terms of actual fighting, there is a reason no real-world weapons of the sort were used. eh, you could completely ignore the seemingly obvious fancy attacks, and just use it as a spear in 2 directions (slam into orc in front of you, slam into orc behind) but once again ruins fighting in a cohesive unit, and would still be less mobile than a spear with pretty much a counter weight in the back every stroke.