[rant] Spiked Chains are for Power Gamer

[the Jester]

There was a fighter/wizard orc in my game for a while who was all about the spiked chain. It was a great weapon for him, but he optimized his feats for it (including a custom feat that let you trade AoOs for 5' steps).

In retrospect, that feat needs revision when I convert to 3.5; that character's dead now, but he taught me a lesson.

 

[sithramir]

I don't get why this thread went into the "its doing less damage than a greatsword or its crit range is lower".

The whole point is its doing damage has reach over all those other weapons described AND can still trip while doing this. Then with improved trip you gain additional attacks. Add a cleave in there too! Its not that its over powerful in one specifica category, its that its dealing damage, making them prone, gaining additions attacks for damage, having reach, getting AoO for people moving because of the reach, etc. Put things like whirlwind in there and any mutliple opponents are in trouble.

Now its their turn. Stand up, oh wait I attack of Opportunity trip you again, etc. The whole trip problem comes up with it also.

Remember to have combat reflexes and hold the charge is a good idea too!

 

[Shard O'Glase]

because um damage is a factor of weapon balance. Yes spiked chains are the most versatile weapons, but there damage is so cheesy in comparison with other two handed weapons that they are balanced.

And quite frankly HP damage is the most important deteminer of whether aweapon is good or not. Enough side benefits can counteract weak damage, but damage is king.

 

[Grog]

I don't get why this thread went into the "its doing less damage than a greatsword or its crit range is lower".

The whole point is its doing damage has reach over all those other weapons described AND can still trip while doing this. Then with improved trip you gain additional attacks. Add a cleave in there too! Its not that its over powerful in one specifica category, its that its dealing damage, making them prone, gaining additions attacks for damage, having reach, getting AoO for people moving because of the reach, etc. Put things like whirlwind in there and any mutliple opponents are in trouble.

Now its their turn. Stand up, oh wait I attack of Opportunity trip you again, etc. The whole trip problem comes up with it also.

Remember to have combat reflexes and hold the charge is a good idea too!

1. Everyone seems to be forgetting the downside to trip: If you fail your trip attempt, your enemy gets a chance to trip you back. Sure, the spiked chain wielder could prevent this by dropping his weapon, but then his weapon's on the ground and he has to take a MEA and an AoO to pick it up again.

2. Trip will not be an effective tactic against every enemy the character faces. Not even close. Try to trip a dragon sometime and you'll see what I mean. Sometimes it's better to have a weapon that does more damage.

"No problem, I'll just trip this gelatinous cube before it reaches me! Whoops..."

 

[Pielorinho]

The whole point is its doing damage has reach over all those other weapons described AND can still trip while doing this.

Seems to me the whole point is that you haven't played in a long-term game with one, and you think it's unbalanced; others of us HAVE played in a long-term game with one, and don't think it's unbalanced.

Everything else is just icing.

Daniel

 

[the Jester]

"No problem, I'll just trip this gelatinous cube before it reaches me! Whoops..."

Now that needs to go in someone's sig!

 

[sithramir]

Who cares if they get to trip attack you back? You aren't in a threatened square so they can't reach you. If your 10' chain fails its trip they don't still get to trip you because they can't reach you.

I am playing this in a campaign and its insane except in a tiny dungeon area. The other characters know to not stand too near me and it all works out well.

 

[Grog]

Who cares if they get to trip attack you back? You aren't in a threatened square so they can't reach you. If your 10' chain fails its trip they don't still get to trip you because they can't reach you.

The rules don't say anything about having to be within reach in order to counter-trip after a failed trip attempt.

 

[Al]

Lotus- your statistics are incorrect. The average of 2d6 is 7, not 9, as you infer (9+11=20). This gives the greatsword a modified total of 24.6 (including the magic bonus) to the spiked chain 20.6- a % difference of roughly 17%. The question is thus- is 17% extra damage for a greatsword worth the tactical usages of a spiked chain? If you need a 6 to hit and have three attacks per round, then this difference is made up if the spiked chain can gain an extra attack of opportunity every 2.94 rounds (call it 3). In my experience, the spiked chain gains the extra AoO (over a 5' reach weapon) far more often than one round in three, and this does not even begin to account for its other tactical opportunity (tripping, disarming, the unique reach).

At high level the crit range and multiplier become extreamly important in determining damage output

Accounted for in the above analysis.

A 13 con is rather low for a 10th level wizard--IME, con is more often 14 or 16. (And, for wizards, maxed out concentration is more of a given than an assumption). However, more significantly, the 25% figure is only for spells of their highest castable level. Your 13 con wizard, for instance would only have a 5% chance of failing to cast a 1st level spell defensively and a 10% chance for a 2nd level spell, etc.

Fair enough, though wizardly Cons will be lower due to the nerfing of Endurance. I'm happy to concede this though, particularly at high levels (12+).

More significantly, the various DR/Cold Iron, DR/Adamantium, DR/silver, DR/Good, and DR/Lawful or Chaotic seem to demand a minimum of an adamantium weapon, a cold iron weapon, a scroll of align weapon, and a vial of silversheen. It will probably be more common for weapon dependent characters to have three weapons--cold iron, silver, and adamantium

This is certainly an interesting line of argument, but it's very campaign-dependent. I favour humanoid classed opponents, so the new DR is less of an issue. Nevertheless, the point is solid. In most cases, I would argue that fighters are better off having a single 'primary' weapon and a few backups. However, in this case, the greatsword/ranseur example is likely to be faulty if they are of different types in the light of a DR argument, since their utility is derived from the fact that both were assumed to be of equal utility against any given opponent. Against an opponent with DR/adamantium, you character will wield *only* his adamantium weapon; whilst against a DR/cold iron, he will wield *only* his cold iron weapon. The greatsword/ranseur example assumes that both are used and both are equally effective, which is moot in light of your reasoning. Whilst your logic is solid (i.e. multiple weapons are encouraged) its pertinency to the specific example is not.

Incidentally, of course, trip becomes much much more useful with the Knockdown feat (S&F) which enables a free trip attack with a weapon that deals more than 10 points of damage. It's a huge boon to tripping weapon, particularly two-handed tripper (since 10 points of damage is almost a dead cert past about levels 1-3).

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

This is certainly an interesting line of argument, but it's very campaign-dependent. I favour humanoid classed opponents, so the new DR is less of an issue.

I'd argue that the assumed campaign setting probably has a significant number of monster-combats though. It's important to note, however, that even in a humanoid dependent setting, spells like Righteous Might (grants alignment DR), Protection from Arrows (DR/Magic), Summon Monster (Fiendish/Celestial templates grant DR/Magic), Stoneskin and Iron Body (DR/Adamantium) mean that the new DR system will have a significant effect.

Nevertheless, the point is solid. In most cases, I would argue that fighters are better off having a single 'primary' weapon and a few backups. However, in this case, the greatsword/ranseur example is likely to be faulty if they are of different types in the light of a DR argument, since their utility is derived from the fact that both were assumed to be of equal utility against any given opponent.

Actually, the setup need not assume that they're of equal utility against any given opponent.

Against humanoids, the character could use the Guisarm for the AoO/trip/improved trip routine and the greatsword when they finally close. In that situation, the greatsword is acknowledged to be of greater utility for damaging opponents up close while the guisarme is of greater utility for tripping them or damaging them at range.

Against creatures with reach, the guisarm has greater utility in round 1 (and in further rounds if you want to remain on the edge of their reach (for the ability to be more easily healed and to withdraw) but the greatsword has greater utility for simply damaging them.

Against creatures with DR, however, he could exclusively use one or the the other--(taking the AoO before dropping the guisarm if appropriate).

Against an opponent with DR/adamantium, you character will wield *only* his adamantium weapon; whilst against a DR/cold iron, he will wield *only* his cold iron weapon.

That is probably true. However, the argument is not that the greatsword/ranseur combo doesn't suffer from disadvantages in such situations. Instead, the argument is that such a combo suffers from LESS of a disadvantage in such situations than a character with a spiked chain.

First, the character has quickdraw which enables him to switch weapons without disadvantage. The spiked chain guy also has to switch weapons but loses at least an MeA (and therefore the possibility of a single full attack action) to do so.

Second, because the Greatsword/Guisarme character regularly uses both weapons, it's likely that whichever one he ends up using is significantly better than the spiked chain guy's backup. He can have 2 +4 weapons for only a little bit more than Spiked Chain Guy's single +5 weapon. There's not too much of a difference between the +4 and +5 against foes who don't care which weapons are used. There's a bigger difference between +4 special material and +2 special material.

The greatsword/ranseur example assumes that both are used and both are equally effective, which is moot in light of your reasoning. Whilst your logic is solid (i.e. multiple weapons are encouraged) its pertinency to the specific example is not.

True to some extent. Buth the need for multiple weapons was listed as Greatsword/Ranseur guy's weakness. If everyone needs multiple weapons anyway, it's not a weakness. And having Quickdraw is a strength.

Incidentally, of course, trip becomes much much more useful with the Knockdown feat (S&F) which enables a free trip attack with a weapon that deals more than 10 points of damage. It's a huge boon to tripping weapon, particularly two-handed tripper (since 10 points of damage is almost a dead cert past about levels 1-3).

I really don't see Knockdown as a very impressive feat--except for characters who could not ordinarily use their weapons to trip. (Knockdown enables a character to trip with a glaive for instance). For a character with improved trip, it would usually make sense to take the attack as a trip attack and then take the improved trip free attack instead. (That way, the damaging attack gets +4 to hit). And if the opponent is one you wouldn't usually try to trip, you probably won't take the Knockdown trip attack either--since it doesn't eliminate the possibility of being counter-tripped.