Why is it "Chain, spiked?"

[Pbartender]

Hrm... How about Chain, Daisy?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

So the magical version can be chain, spiked, adamantine, flaming, +1 of course.

- Olgar, one each, shelf-stable.

 

[Galethorn]

In all seriousness, I think it was an 'error of style,' where somebody wanted to go with the style of listing the descriptor after the 'class' of item, which one finds in 'technical' jargon, like military designations ("Rifle, .30cal" for the M1 Garand, for example), and old hardware catalogs ("Camp-axe, 24-inch").

 

[avr]

Doesn't Oriental Adventures have some chain-based weapons? I know there was a chain in 2nd ed. which didn't have spikes(which was called simply 'Chain'), and I think I saw one in the 3rd ed book.

 

[Klaus]

Doesn't Oriental Adventures have some chain-based weapons? I know there was a chain in 2nd ed. which didn't have spikes(which was called simply 'Chain'), and I think I saw one in the 3rd ed book.

Several, including the kusari-gama (a kama at the end of a length of chain).

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Don't overlook

Chain, Reaction
Chain, Ball-and
Chain, Anchor
Chain, Hoist

 

[Pbartender]

In all seriousness, I think it was an 'error of style,' where somebody wanted to go with the style of listing the descriptor after the 'class' of item, which one finds in 'technical' jargon, like military designations ("Rifle, .30cal" for the M1 Garand, for example), and old hardware catalogs ("Camp-axe, 24-inch").

From an organizational perspective, it makes sense in even in this context. If you are organizing alphabetically, and you have multiple types of items, then putting the descriptor after the class groups the items by class. For example:

Crossbow, Hand
Crossbow, Heavy
Crossbow, Light
Crossbow, Repeating
Javelin
Kama
Lance
Longbow
Longbow, Composite
Shortbow
Shortbow, Composite
Sling

As opposed to:

Composite Longbow
Composite Shortbow
Hand Crossbow
Heavy Crossbow
Javelin
Kama
Light Crossbow
Longbow
Repeating Crossbow
Shortbow
Sling

The trouble they ran into is when they had two-word weapons that were one of a kind... like the "Dwarven Urgrosh". Do you not use comma, and be inconsistant? Or do you use it inappropriately ("Urgrosh, Dwarven"... as if someone other than dwarves makes them or uses them)?

Looks like they went for consistancy.


EDIT: Note that this method is not used in the red-cover Moldvay Basic rules, but it is used in the 1st ed. AD&D PHB. For example:

Axe, battle
Axe, hand
Bow, composite, long
Bow, composite, short
Bow, long
Bow, short
Pike, Awl
Staff, quarter
Sword, bastard
Sword, broad
Sword, long
Sword, short
Sword, two-handed

 

[coyote6]

EDIT: Note that this method is not used in the red-cover Moldvay Basic rules, but it is used in the 1st ed. AD&D PHB. For example: [snip]

AD&D 1e applied that to everything; remember "boots, high, hard" and its assorted kin?

 

[Jack of Shadows]

Hmmm,

I just think the original poster has an Axe, To Grind.

JoS

P.S. Yes, even I groaned at that one but if I didn't say it, it would rattle around in my head for days.

 

[demiurge1138]

Yeah, other kinds of chain weaponry are certainly possible, and have cropped up in other products (like, say, OA). Unfortunately, the only OA weapon with chain in its name is just "chain", so there's no way of seeing if they were consistent between books...

Demiurge out.