Any DM's not allowing Spiked Chains?

[Slaved]

The only thing that really does bother me about the spiked chain is the close + reach hitting.

Do you ban reach normal reach weapons to anyone with armor spikes, imporved unarmed strike, natural weapons, or anything else that allows them to threaten up close while they are using the reach weapon?

Every tactic that an opponent uses can cause others to shift their tactics as well. That is how tactics work, right?

 

[hanniball]

I must say, I am astounded by the number of people that actually ban this weapon. Personally, I reserve the ban-hammer for things that shatter the game into a thousand incomprehensible pieces. I've been DMing for nearly a decade now and have always found a resonable, in-game means of dealing with everything that appears to be over-powered. There will always be options that are more powerful than other options, but that does not necessitate eliminating them from the game. It simply requires more imagination on the part of the DM.

There are only two things that are banned in my games: Manipulate Form and Ice Assassin. And I think the reasons are obvious. To each his own, of course.

Either way...just my 2 cp

 

[bestone]

We have a swordsage using one, and its sick. He can use his dex to hit AND damage. And has a nice variety of skills to use with it.

 

[Greg K]

I must say, I am astounded by the number of people that actually ban this weapon. Personally, I reserve the ban-hammer for things that shatter the game into a thousand incomprehensible pieces. I've been DMing for nearly a decade now and have always found a resonable, in-game means of dealing with everything that appears to be over-powered. There will always be options that are more powerful than other options, but that does not necessitate eliminating them from the game. It simply requires more imagination on the part of the DM.

There are only two things that are banned in my games: Manipulate Form and Ice Assassin. And I think the reasons are obvious. To each his own, of course.

Either way...just my 2 cp

Is it hard to understand that banning does not always have to do with power? Not everyone wants the same style of game that you do. Some people want settings with a specific flavor and, to achieve that end, will ban elements that don't fit that flavor.

 

[Legildur]

Do you ban reach normal reach weapons to anyone with armor spikes, imporved unarmed strike, natural weapons, or anything else that allows them to threaten up close while they are using the reach weapon?

Don't these other fighting styles require taking the Two-Weapon fighting penalties in order to threaten in both zones? I think that is where Lord Zardoz has a point - not that I personally think the weapon is a problem.

 

[Slaved]

Don't these other fighting styles require taking the Two-Weapon fighting penalties in order to threaten in both zones?

As far as I know you only take two weapon fighting penalties when you are actively attacking with both weapons for extra attacks. Simply having a weapon ready to be used qualifies for threatening and I do not see anything about needing to actively be attacking with a weapon in order to threaten with it. I think that I saw someone around here even say that you could use iterative attacks with different weapons and so long as you did not get actual extra attacks you did not incur the penalties either.

Anyone have something solid to say in this matter?

 

[Deset Gled]

Anyone have something solid to say in this matter?

I can say that it's one of the oldest most discussed ambiguities of the 3.5 ruleset, right up there with monks and INA, Polymoph and HP, sunder and AoOs, etc. There are many previous threads here on the subject.

My cut-and-paste answer from a previous thread:

There is a long term debate surrounding what penalties are associated with making an AoO with an off hand weapon. Some people maintain that if you take an AoO with your off-hand weapon, you must take the TWF penalties (I will refer to this as Side 1). Others claim you only take the penalties if you use the full attack action to get extra attacks using the off hand weapon (I will refer to this as Side A).

Once you get down into the debate far enough (i.e. looking only at the core info), the arguements hinge on the following text:

Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)

If you take "in this way" to mean whenever "you wield a weapon in your off hand", then you are on Side 1. If you take "in this way" to mean whenever you "get one extra attack", then you are on Side A.

If you are trying to be consistent, these two different interpretations have a pretty wide number of side effects. For example, with Side A's POV, a character can wield daggers in both hands and interchange attacks between the daggers as desired, as long as they only get the normal number of attacks. With Side 1's POV, this would require taking penalties, regardless of whether or not the character makes any extra attacks. This makes Side A seem better from a balance/options standpoint. OTOH, Side A's side allows a character to sit around 24/7 with a reach weapon just to take AoOs and never take any penalties. Side 1's view stops this. This makes Side 1 seem better from a balance perspective.

Note that the ruling from the 3.0 FAQ answers a question about Defending weapons that supports Side 1. There is an RotG article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a) that explicitly supports Side A. I personally am on Side 1.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

And hey, don't forget that vamp dual-wielding spiked chains in Underworld.

Hrm, I could've sworn those were whips.

Of course, even dual-wielding kusari-gamas still probably wouldn't've helped him. "Okay, take d6+Str and d6+0.5Str!" "Ow. That got past my DR. [frenzy] EAT 750 POINTS OF CLAW/CLAW/BITE!"

I played a spiked-chain-wielding rogue/fighter/swashbuckler in a game, and it just wasn't nearly as broken as people make it out to be. It's amazing how non-schlub NPCs can roll decently well on Trip and Disarm checks, especially if they're Large and/or quadrepedal and using natural weapons.

Brad

 

[Korak]

More than a few people have made reference in this thread to the horrible crit range and multiplier of the spiked chain (20/x2), but it remains my impression that this is a factor that many people who feel spike chains are overpowered don't give enough weight to. There is a substantial damage trade-off that is made by a two-handed weapon wielder who takes the spiked chain over a falchion or a greataxe (Exotic Weapon Masters' "flurry of strikes" ability not-withstanding). That is a large cost to pay along with the feat for EWP. I have played many melee damage dealing type characters in 3.0 and 3.5 some with spiked chains, some without. The spiked chain guys had more options for certain. They were good at battlefield control (which is one of the things reach weapons are supposed to be for). However, the spiked chain guys did a good bit less damage. A falchion crits 3 times more often than a spiked chain. A greataxe crits at the same rate, but at least it triples the two handed strength and power attack mods... and it goes to 3d6 when enlarged vs 2d6 for the chain. Then, of course, there is the lovely bastard sword, which, combined with the Exotic Weapon Master prestige class "Uncanny Blow" ability, crits twice as often, gets more out of your strength, and does a good bit more base damage.

Yes, the spiked chain can do what nearly any other weapon on the charts can do all at the same time. However, the price for this ability is crappy base damage (that stays crappy with a size increase) and an absolute minimum crit profile. Just remember how much damage crits can represent when you are playing with two handed power attack and strength bonus. Anything you can do with a spiked chain, you can do better with a different weapon.

FWIW, I think the choice is roughly balanced.

 

[Gooba42]

Hi,

Sorry if there is some well-known thread on this issue here but I looked and could not find out (nor could a find a "Search" function...) and it's my first post so please bear with me.

Does anyone here actually ban Spiked Chain as a weapon in their games, v3.5?

The discussion came up at our last game and the gyst of the conversation seemed to be that the Spiked Chain was game-imbalancing because it offered too much for too little cost. I did not say much because I have always thought the Spiked Chain cost too much and offered too little. It's a 2-handed exotic weapon that does 2d4, CR 20x2, and has a couple of interesting bonus options to it. But as a player, even a high-dex fighter, I think I would rather get more bang-for-my-buck than a spiked chain costs.

So am I completely off-base here? Is there a game-imbalancing advantage to a Spiked Chain that I am missing?

Has this already been kicked around to the point I am annoying over 1,000 people by bringing it up again?

Thanks for anything you can add

Wes

I wouldn't ban the weapon but I might ban the player with the cheesy build. Seriously, if all your feats and stats are built for a single weapon build, how shallow is your character concept?

In fact, before it got to that point, I might start docking intelligence points or something. If they really intend to only be good at one thing and one thing only, I might enforce that concept.

"I Todd!"
"What're you good at Todd?"
"I spike chain tings!"
"Like what?"
"<knocks a fly off the wall with his spiked chain, then trips over his own feet and knocks himself unconscious on a piece of furniture>"