Spiked Chain, Enlarge Person, and Whirlwind Attack

[frankthedm]

For the OP: yeah, enlarged spiked chain wielder = 50' wide circle o' death. It's a favorite for trip builds too, but Frank's cascade is a decent counter.

Not really 'mine' since this board pointed it out to me a while back. I just drew a diagram how to work it. A tad cheezy IMHO, but if you have to deal with the spiked chain, it might be a gouda idea.

 

[moritheil]

How do they rationally explain that?

Well, this is interesting. I would have thought that assuming no gaps is a less rational explanation, because it confers powers not explicitly outlined by the rules.

Basically you threaten whatever is your reach range, and you also get the spaces adjacent to you, as per RAW.

 

[frankthedm]

Well, this is interesting. I would have thought that assuming no gaps is a less rational explanation, because it confers powers not explicitly outlined by the rules.

Basically you threaten whatever is your reach range, and you also get the spaces adjacent to you, as per RAW.

Slaved said it well....

This is another one of those problems that crops up because the game rules seem to be mostly written from the perspective of being a medium sized human.

Which makes sense, given that it is likely a majority of the writers were medium sized humans, but it is not like it would have taken a lot more work to write it more generally.

And wotc has aproached the issue in the FAQ as well.

: The description of the spiked chain states that it is a
reach weapon that can be used against adjacent foes. What
if a Large creature wields a Large spiked chain? Can it
attack the squares that are 10 feet away? What are the
adjacent foes of a Large or larger creature?

A: As with the vast majority of examples in the Player’s
Handbook, the spiked chain description assumes that the
wielder is a Small or Medium creature wielding a spiked chain
appropriate to her size. What the description really means is
that a character wielding a spiked chain can attack creatures
that are within her natural reach (in addition to those at the
normal range of a reach weapon). For a Medium or Small
creature, that means creatures that are 5 feet away (i.e.,
“adjacent”).
A Large creature wielding a spiked chain (or similar reach
weapon that also allowed attacks against adjacent creatures)
could attack creatures within her natural reach (that is, who are
either 5 or 10 feet away), in addition to those at the normal
range of a Large reach weapon (15 or 20 feet away).
A Huge creature wielding a spiked chain could attack
creatures 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 feet away. A Gargantuan
creature wielding a spiked chain could attack creatures 5, 10,
15, 20, 25, 30, 35, or 40 feet away, and a Colossal creature
wielding a spiked chain could attack creatures anywhere from 5
to 60 feet away

But what it comes down to is makes very little sense [to me] that enlarging the user makes a doughnut of non threaten space around the user only after the user hits large or bigger.

I say letting the weapon ‘threaten’ past the user’s natural reach is the mistake. A flexible weapon like that should work more like the whip. Attack as reach, but threaten at normal reach.

 

[mvincent]

I would have thought that assuming no gaps is a less rational explanation

Taking that statement at face value: I can assure you that the literalism would (demonstrably) be viewed as odd by a "normal" person.

I understand that our hobby contains many unconventional thinkers (and that's ok), but often such thinkers won't recognize their own unconventionality. When this occurs (as it often does) in a discussion on logic, is there a suitable way to make such a thinker aware of this? Would they care?

This is why I like polls.

 

[MarkB]

For the OP: yeah, enlarged spiked chain wielder = 50' wide circle o' death. It's a favorite for trip builds too, but Frank's cascade is a decent counter.

I faced a nasty build in this vein as a DM once: a player built a Psychic Warrior with the Expansion power (basically Psionic self-only Enlarge Person, but quicker and more flexible), a crystal spiked chain, Combat Reflexes and Improved Trip. He was very difficult to even get close to in melee, and I certainly wish I'd known about the Cascade technique at the time.

 

[moritheil]

Taking that statement at face value: I can assure you that the literalism would (demonstrably) be viewed as odd by a "normal" person.

I understand that our hobby contains many unconventional thinkers (and that's ok), but often such thinkers won't recognize their own unconventionality. When this occurs (as it often does) in a discussion on logic, is there a suitable way to make such a thinker aware of this? Would they care?

This is why I like polls.

Maybe I should explain the basic premise of the approach first. The fantasy world is not one where the normal laws of physics or geometry apply. As such, one cannot rely on what is or is not possible in real life. What "makes sense" and what does not is entirely determined by the rules.

This is the approach of a lot of DMs that I have dealt with in the past. Its main virtue is that "that makes no sense to me" arguments are utterly null and void. It doesn't matter if you can picture it in your head or not. It is indeed ideal if everyone agrees, but to take the contrary position (appeal to what everyone thinks) is to spend hours arguing with someone who doesn't accept your reading of a rule just because his idea of it is different and he refuses to see it your way. (I have seen games tied up in arguments for hours because a couple of players kept refusing to accept something because it made no sense to them. So in that light, I can't blame those DMs.)

Before you dismiss that as out of touch with reality, consider that if you can't accept things that violate your own "common sense," then it's not only fantasy that you'll have trouble understanding, but real life; many of the principles behind quantum mechanics are counterintuitive and are not something you can relate to by experience.

And wotc has aproached the issue in the FAQ as well.

Frank, I probably don't need to say this to you as you are a regular, but I should add for the sake of anyone reading this that the FAQ is also rejected by many DMs because it is a self-contradictory document. Use it if you like, but understand that there is a reason for objections to it.

 

[mvincent]

Maybe I should explain the basic premise of the approach first.

My point is not how one rationalizes something to themselves, but in recognizing how regular people (and/or the majority of players) might look at one with a "WTF" expression. I personally feel this is a concern (and sometimes feel an obligation to try to make someone aware of such situations), but I have no vested interest in convincing you to share this concern.

 

[Legildur]

Also when makng Melee attacks against those who are not adjacent to you, you determine cover as a ranged weapon. So good placement can bone you out of a few AoOs.

There is an Exotic Weapon Stunt special ability available to the Exotic Weapon Master PrC (Complete Warrior) that overcomes the restriction on AOOs from cover. My half-orc Bbr1/Clr3/Ftr4/EWM1 is aiming for that ability right now!

 

[eamon]

Maybe I should explain the basic premise of the approach first. The fantasy world is not one where the normal laws of physics or geometry apply. As such, one cannot rely on what is or is not possible in real life. What "makes sense" and what does not is entirely determined by the rules.

And those rules do include many fallbacks and motivating statements which indicate that they're attempting to model a consistent fantasy world, and not an abstract topology. Common sense and plain reason still apply. The rules are an abstraction and a simplification to help you be consistent within your fantasy world, not the ground truth, if you will ;-).

Of course, this isn't D&D, but the rules forum, and we're not playing the game but discussing it. However, in a real game, speed and consistency easily trump any and all rules all the time, whenever a DM makes an ad-hoc ruling based on instinct, or a player takes an action based on more than merely the rules (such as his imagined role).

 

[moritheil]

My point is not how one rationalizes something to themselves, but in recognizing how regular people (and/or the majority of players) might look at one with a "WTF" expression. I personally feel this is a concern (and sometimes feel an obligation to try to make someone aware of such situations), but I have no vested interest in convincing you to share this concern.

Well, I don't think it's a particularly pressing concern.

Either one is interested in DnD and how imaginary worlds work, or one is not. Generally only DMs/players enter rules discussions anyhow.

And those rules do include many fallbacks and motivating statements which indicate that they're attempting to model a consistent fantasy world, and not an abstract topology. Common sense and plain reason still apply. The rules are an abstraction and a simplification to help you be consistent within your fantasy world, not the ground truth, if you will ;-).

I take issue with this because it implies that common sense and plain reason ARE "ground truth." Is it ever the case in reality that if your common sense tells you something, it must be true? Or is reality better described by a set of rules that describe physical laws?

The idea that you need to have a say in something for it to be true is quite dangerous IMO and has ruined more than just games.

But this discussion is veering off into something other than rules. Let's just say that the basic premise of the two approaches is very different - and unsurprisingly, the results can be different.