Spiked Chain: The Ultimate Defenders Wep or Sir Not Appearing in the Edition?

[Kaisoku]

That right there is why it's considered broken. Because it's *that* much better than a polearm with just a single feat.

The closest reach weapons that compete are the Guisarme (reach + trip) and Ranseur (reach + disarm).
Spiked Chain costs an Exotic Weapon proficiency feat.

So the question is... would you allow, for a feat, all the following things:

1. Allow to choke up on the reach weapon to threaten adjacent foes, at any time. (This means in between attacks, or even when not your turn like as part of an AoO or whatever). So not just giving the option of either/or, but rather.. both all the time.
2. Add the trip capability, or +2 disarm, depending on which reach weapon you picked.
3. Allow the weapon to work with Weapon Finesse.

At the cost of one step down on the crit multiplier.


#1 is bad enough by itself, and I've seen "choke up" feats that gave less than that, with NO other bonuses. The main reason being how it stacks with size and other tactics (such as tripping).
This, as a feat, would be rejected by most people I know... and yet, that's exactly what we have here.... spend one feat and voila, all those bonuses compared to the standard Martial weapon choices.

If the philophy of "come up with the result, then make rules to get that result and only that result" is followed... instead of 3e's apparent "toss some cool things together based on some arbitrary build rule we think is balanced", then we shouldn't see the same Proud Nail like Spiked Chain.

 

[mach1.9pants]

***polearm/spiked chain stuff***snipped

I think your points are all valid, it is a more powerful weapon than many but I personaly think the problem is a nerfing of polearms rather than a far too powerful chain. Yes the chain is better than a polearm for the price of a feat. But some weapons are just better. You can either go about weapon desgning 2 ways balanced within the rules or just some are better (like real life, there mustbe some reason most cultures used a sword). Now I think 4E will go te balanced way more- just cos it makes sense within its gamist/class balanced design philosophy IMO. But in 3E some weapons are better than others, so I have no probs with te spiked chain. IMC polearms are more powerul, do more damage, but are stll nly really useful if there are a few of you standing together with them. Polearms are just not an indvidual combatants weapon.
Still I can see where you are coming from but I just don't have a prob with it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Polearms are just not an indvidual combatants weapon.

That's a really odd argument. Polearms "aren't an individual combatant's weapon" because in real life they aren't (except all the ones which were, like Bec de Corbin), yet a weapon that, in real life, would be completely impossible to use in 90% of circumstances is just fine to be better than them?

The Spiked Chain is possibly the single stupidest, least-cool weapon ever produced by D&D (and that's with some seriously fierce competition), and whilst I'm fine with it being in 4E, it certainly should not be some kind of uber-weapon like it was in 4E. The idea that one Feat spent should give such a dominating actual advantage is fundamentally ludicrous. There were just too many things you were allowed to do with an idiotic weapon like the Spiked Chain but were not with more normal/sane weapons that it really shamed 3.5E, frankly. I mean, so despite the fact that I can whirl this ridiculous chain around even in a tiny space, and attack at reach and next to me, yet I can't smack someone in the face with the haft of my halberd? I mean jeez... It also seems like the Spiked Chain got maybe just too much bang for it's 1 Feat bucks, especially considering how wildly it leveraged other Feats.

Why, yes, I am full of nerd rage regarding Spiked Chains.

Hopefully the 4E Fighter system still has the weapon-orientation it did when first described (i.e. Fighters select powers with specific weapons, get modifiers based on specific weapons, etc.), and the Spiked Chain and other "damn silly" weapons will be roundly ignored, and not catergorized or given abilities initially. I'm sure they'll show up to annoy us in Martial Power, but no abilities for the Spiked Chain in the core books, I say! And lots for Polearms!

 

[pogre]

We just call 'em Cheese-Chains and mock players who use them. That has been mostly effective.

 

[hong]

One feat does not give you an uber advantage with a spiked chain. Simply being proficient with the weapon does not make you that much better at tripping, disarming or AoOs, compared to comparable weapons. To do all that requires MORE feats.

Further, being able to trip and disarm works best against other human/humanoid opponents. Quite often, the enemies you'll be fighting in D&D will be monsters of varying size and shape. You can't disarm a bite attack. Tripping is still kinda broken, and being able to exploit 10' reach to avoid AoOs against size L monsters is good, but let's not go overboard here.

 

[mach1.9pants]

That's a really odd argument. Polearms "aren't an individual combatant's weapon" because in real life they aren't (except all the ones which were, like Bec de Corbin), yet a weapon that, in real life, would be completely impossible to use in 90% of circumstances is just fine to be better than them?

You are entirely right, of course. Never really thought of it in that way, LOL- don't make me think too deep about these things, it hurts . I will divorce them both from real world in saying IMO I don't think Sp Ch is too overpowered so I have no problem with it. IMCampaign polearms/spears are the choice for phalanx style fighting, better (by far) that any other weapon.

Why, yes, I am full of nerd rage regarding Spiked Chains.

Good on you, like primal scream therapy, nerd rage on forums is good for your soul (or is that animus?)
I'll pass this one on...

We just call 'em Cheese-Chains and mock players who use them. That has been mostly effective.

 

[Vayden]

The greatsword is fine if you remove the greatness?

But even better if you remove the sword. Then you're just wielding a "Great".

 

[kennew142]

But some weapons are just better. You can either go about weapon desgning 2 ways balanced within the rules or just some are better (like real life, there mustbe some reason most cultures used a sword).

This is the point that I always try to make when discussing D&D weapons. Sure the spiked chain is powerful, but that's only to reflect the fact that it was the single most popular weapon throughout human history. It's why you never see paintings or other representations of swords in the historical record. I remember the tale of Arthur pulling the spiked chain out of the rock....

 

[fnwc]

I never had a problem with the spied chain balance wise, I thought it was ugly in most illustrations, but I didn't find it imbalanced at all.

You probably haven't run into this.

I wouldn't shed a single tear if I never saw a spiked chain again, in any edition.

 

[fnwc]

This is the point that I always try to make when discussing D&D weapons. Sure the spiked chain is powerful, but that's only to reflect the fact that it was the single most popular weapon throughout human history.

Hopefully tying weapon types (blade/hammer or slashing/bludgeoning) into powers in 4th edition will make the choice more interesting, at least.