Spiked Chains.

[crazedloon]

[LIST]
Everything made by human hand that is obviously useful, will be copied by others. This is how our entire civilization came to be.


that is the worst logic I have ever seen......

How is the David useful.... Or any piece of art? sure you can appreciate it but it aint useful. Also the art made by a 3 year old may be useful for his development but it sure as heck aint going to be copied.....

it seems you have wasted 3 years of college if that is the best you can come up with

[DragoonWraith]

I'll make you .... classical sylogism, if you like:

Everything made by human hand that is obviously useful, will be copied by others. This is how our entire civilization came to be.
Meteor hammers have not been extensively copied by anyone anywhere
Therefore we can conclude that meteor hammers are not obviously useful, and therefore not worth copying.


Logic. I spent three years in university doing this stuff. You can attack my premises, but the conclusion is logical based on them.
Right, except you have never responded to existing attacks on those premises - popularity does not equate quality, ever, by any stretch of the imagination. Flexible weapons obviously require a great deal more practice to use effectively at all, and are inappropriate for fighting in formation. It is therefore useless as a weapon for a soldier. It will therefore never be as popular as weapons that are.

However, D&D characters are not soldiers, and so have the ability to use weapons that are not appropriate for soldiers. Whether or not any of the flexible weapons would be good for a D&D character as they could conceivably exist in real life, I don't know; I have no experience with these things (but then, neither do you). However, I do know that you have only demonstrated the already uncontested fact that flexible weapons are useless to a soldier.

Your argument needs more in order to actually logically dictate your claim that flexible weapons are not good weapons for adventuring types as are usually found in games of D&D.

In other words, there's a giant logical hole in your argument, which you have not addressed, and it is therefore not a logical argument.


I do not ignore everyone else. I've answered maybe a dozen posts. And I do not change my mind, because my argument IS logical. Also - NO ONE!!! - has posted any proof of anything.
You answer them - with the same assertions that you have stated a dozen times previously. As above (and I'm not the first to point it out), the ball is in your court to prove that your claim (since you have an unanswered problem with your argument), and you have done nothing to address it in dozens of posts.

So yes, you are posting, but no, you are not responding to anyone. You have done nothing in this thread but offer your own opinion, vociferously and as-fact, repeatedly. You have not entertained anyone else's position even long enough to refute it. In other words... you have added nothing to this thread that wasn't in your first post, in all the posts you've made.

[Tiki Snakes]

I'll make you .... classical sylogism, if you like:

Everything made by human hand that is obviously useful, will be copied by others. This is how our entire civilization came to be.
Meteor hammers have not been extensively copied by anyone anywhere
Therefore we can conclude that meteor hammers are not obviously useful, and therefore not worth copying.


Logic. I spent three years in university doing this stuff. You can attack my premises, but the conclusion is logical based on them.


Firstly, though there is an argument to be made in favour of your first point, it is not, really a statement of fact, but an opinion. It's an assumption you are making.

The following two statements are slightly flawed even starting from your flawed premise. If someone invents a bizzare, but easily learnt weapon that would revolutionise the battlefield, but he lived in a cave and never showed anyone, the simple fact that it hasn't been extensively copied does nothing to change it's inherant 'usefullness'.

Now, baring in mind that the argument isn't that Meteor Hammers are in every way as usefull as, say, a mace (Historically much more common on the battlefield, I've often heard, than ever swords). This is because such a weapon is clearly simpler to use, and much simpler to train people to use.
It isn't 'Usefull' on any scale.

HOWEVER the argument very much is that in a 1 on 1 or low numbers skirmish scenario, that the Meteor Hammer can prove to be in it's own right a dangerous weapon that, with the concern of training time removed, (And well modelled by a feat), is a perfectly valid weapon.



Finally, just to note; A wound that will kill your opponant 24 hours later but that they flat out won't notice (and by extension, weapons that often do this), is very much useless in a fight, because in the meantime your opponant is still free to smash your skull in with his club, (or inflict similar wounds on yourself).

Hence the old addage; No one wins a knife fight. By the time one has dropped the other, they likely both have numerous mortal wounds, especially outside of first-world medical care.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Really? So you know of a historical exception, and therefore all wounds were exception. The number I've heard is that 70% of all injuries inflicted on the typical medieval battlefield were lethal due to infection or disease. Yes, and thanks to Modern Medicine, that number has plummeted. Or, in the world of D&D, the Cure spells, Cure Disease, Neutralize Poison, and Heal.


And pretty much all minor wounds stop people fighting. In fact - if you've been in any sort of fight, a bar brawl will easily do - you know that pretty much any solid hit stops people. Doesn't even have to wound you, just to hurt.. You've never been in a brawl, have you? Look, kid. I grew up in one of the worst places to grow up in the continental US. I've had the crap beat out of me since I was old enough to leave the house to play. One punch does NOT end a fight. Period. I've gone through encounters where I was being pummeled for a half hour straight by multiple opponents. I'm still here.

There were many fights in which I came home, limping, bleeding in several places... many of those times, they struck first and harder. But in the end, I simply refused to give up.


On the other hand there are wounds you don't even discover until the fight is over. But really - anything that cuts deeper than skin is likely to drop you right to the ground, and kill you, either immediately or over time.
I've been shot, stabbed, punched, cut, and beaten with many things. I'm still alive. You are wrong.

The human body is an odd duck. On the one hand, someone without knowledge of how to do it properly can go on for quite some time without inflicting lethal wounds. On the other hand, I know of several ways to deliver an instantly lethal blow unarmed.

I posit that it is not the weapon, but the skill of the wielder, which is the primary consideration.

Chain weapons have their use. They are heavy enough to be a bludgeoning weapon, they are able to trip and disarm, and they are difficult to parry or block due to their tendency to follow their primary vector. I think you are confusing Hollywood versions of the weapons, used with the Hollywood actors and Hollywood Physics with the REAL versions of those weapons which people can and did depend their lives on.

As someone earlier stated, the real original Nunchuku was a pair of 3' fire-hardened sticks with a 1' chain between them, used to thresh rice. A European would have called it a Flail. It is an exceedingly lethal weapon, moreso than a sword to be honest, because it carries so much more kinetic energy upon hit. It can, and did, cave in armor to kill the wearer, which a sword was unable to do.

You are also looking at exhibition demonstrations and trying to claim that is how they are used in combat, which is silly. For demonstrations, I use fancy jump kicks, spinning around, flipping about, and perform board and brick breaking. Do you honestly think I would do any of that in a real fight? Of course not.

In a real fight, I'd likely move high to bring your guard up, and slash out with a kick to shatter your kneecap, then when you are stunned by the pain for a mere instant, I simply rip out your throat. But that's not very flashy of fancy, and it won't impress judges. It does, however, keep me alive.

I reiterate: A sword is not an inherently superior weapon, only one army really fielded them with infantry, the Romans. Even so, it was a backup weapon, after they loosed their Plumbums (lead-tipped spears). It was a status symbol more than anything. It can be effective, yes, but it is not an inherently superior design.

[Zen Master]

:smallconfused: Yyyyeesss...kind of...you could move inside the swing when the wielder is making a wide sweep, allowing it to wrap around your own body. However...

1)You would be risking the head of the weapon swinging around you and impacting. If you weren't trained or at least familiar with the weapon, doing this would more likely result in you getting a hefty thump to the chest at best and braining or even strangling yourself at worst. If you were familiar with the weapon, it would require a degree of skill and timing to interrupt successfully...perhaps represented in D&D terms by Disarm.

2)If you did manage to let it wrap (so called) harmlessly around you, you suggest that the string (assuming it's not a relatively thick rope or even chain for the sake of argument) could be cut. Were you to attempt this, you would be taking your attention off of your opponent to do it. You'd probably also need a knife in hand to accomplish this feat as well...I'd like to see someone armed with a sword, spear or axe attempt to cut a string wrapped tightly around their own body. The hilarity of someone slicing their own leg open to disarm their opponent would be just too much. Even if you did have a razor sharp knife to hand that could cut the 'string' quickly, you still have your opponent standing there waiting for you to do it, right? Well, not really...he's probably kicking you in the face or looping the other end of the 'string' around your neck to throttle you whilst you're fumbling with your end. Alternatively, if you decide to ignore the string wrapped around you to deal with the aforementioned kick to the face/strangulation, you're also having to deal with a piece of string wrapped tightly around your body whilst you do so...

Parries and blocks aren't easy - however, they are part of melee. The thing about the meteor hammer is - due to it's enormous swing radius, you can see it coming a mile off. Avoiding the attack takes skill - but nothing you shouldn't expect from our experienced (6 months training) soldier.

Now, about severing the cord: Yes, it could be a thick rope or a chain. But you are taking an already somewhat cumbersome, heavy and slow weapon, and slowing it further.

Now - I'll try to make a small comparison here to back the above up. The head of the meteor hammer is a lump of metal, comparable to either the head of a flail or a thrown weapon like ... well, lets say a dart for now.

Like with all such things, the length of the orbit provides force to the blow. That's what makes a halberd deadly, and naturally it applies to the meteor hammer too. However, that same thing also makes it slow and predictable - and the heavier it is, the slower it is.

When I say slow, naturally that is a relative term. But a more robust chain or rope will just slow the weapon down, making the block or parry easier. So I think that evens out.

Now, there are a number of things a meteor hammer cannot do. It cannot make an underhand attack (is that the proper word - an upward swing is what I mean), it cannot be quickly readied again after a miss, it cannot deal effective with a close-quarters attack.

Certainly, if you catch the action part of the weapon at full swing square in the jaw, you're dead meat. I just think our soldier has a fair chance of avoiding that, and after that, it's time to slice up some monk.

[Zen Master]

You've never been in a brawl, have you?

I've been shot, stabbed, punched, cut, and beaten with many things. I'm still alive. You are wrong.

I am totally awed by what a tough, manly creature you are. Wow.

But I speak of statistics, not the fact that you are clearly Charles Bronson. Your personal experience has nothing to do with anything. Sorry.

[Tiki Snakes]

Parries and blocks aren't easy - however, they are part of melee. The thing about the meteor hammer is - due to it's enormous swing radius, you can see it coming a mile off. Avoiding the attack takes skill - but nothing you shouldn't expect from our experienced (6 months training) soldier.

Now, about severing the cord: Yes, it could be a thick rope or a chain. But you are taking an already somewhat cumbersome, heavy and slow weapon, and slowing it further.

Now - I'll try to make a small comparison here to back the above up. The head of the meteor hammer is a lump of metal, comparable to either the head of a flail or a thrown weapon like ... well, lets say a dart for now.

Like with all such things, the length of the orbit provides force to the blow. That's what makes a halberd deadly, and naturally it applies to the meteor hammer too. However, that same thing also makes it slow and predictable - and the heavier it is, the slower it is.

When I say slow, naturally that is a relative term. But a more robust chain or rope will just slow the weapon down, making the block or parry easier. So I think that evens out.

Now, there are a number of things a meteor hammer cannot do. It cannot make an underhand attack (is that the proper word - an upward swing is what I mean), it cannot be quickly readied again after a miss, it cannot deal effective with a close-quarters attack.

Certainly, if you catch the action part of the weapon at full swing square in the jaw, you're dead meat. I just think our soldier has a fair chance of avoiding that, and after that, it's time to slice up some monk.

Have you even watched the Youtube Videos? Cause, it doesn't really sound like you have.

[sonofzeal]

There are simple reasons why for instance the meteor hammer is a rediculous weapon. For one thing, it's swing is far too wide, giving you ample time to block it, move inside it's radius, or cut the damned string. For another, it really doesn't look like it would reliably hit whatever it's aimed at. Swinging it about in flashy fashion is all well and nice, but I'd truly like to see some targets too. And finally, and this really is my main point - anything a meteor hammer can do, other weapons can do better. Without years of training.
Speaking as someone who's actually learned at least the basics - you're wrong. I mean, what you say makes sense if you're just looking at the weapon, but the primary strikes are all "thrusting". You spin it in tight circles to build momentum and power, and then release it in sudden straight-line attacks that take it to its full extension (or as far as you want), pull back into a clever little turn, and then it's spinning in tight circles again. To my knowledge, there isn't another type of weapon that moves that way. And it is actually effective, because the striking surface is so much more dynamic than most other weapons. Anything else with that sort of reach is likely a polearm with a very long solid shaft, and those are things you always see coming, the eye is good at tracking those. Very different kettle of fish.


I'll make you .... classical sylogism, if you like:

Everything made by human hand that is obviously useful, will be copied by others. This is how our entire civilization came to be.
Meteor hammers have not been extensively copied by anyone anywhere
Therefore we can conclude that meteor hammers are not obviously useful, and therefore not worth copying.


Logic. I spent three years in university doing this stuff. You can attack my premises, but the conclusion is logical based on them.

Flawed.

- Many things that people design are useful but not "extensively copied". For example, 8-Track was a superior format (in terms of audio quality), Dvorak was a superior layout (though only marginally), and plumbing was invented in 2700 BC and not really widely adopted until the 1800's AD.

- Meteor Hammer survives as a martial art to this day. Surely the chinese abandoned some of their bizarre weapon attempts, but Meteor Hammer exists and is still copied today.

- Thence we can conclude that your final point rests on not one but two flawed premises.

[AstralFire]

http://www.grimeforum.com/forum/images/smilies/2009/popcorn.gif

[Zen Master]

HOWEVER the argument very much is that in a 1 on 1 or low numbers skirmish scenario, that the Meteor Hammer can prove to be in it's own right a dangerous weapon that, with the concern of training time removed, (And well modelled by a feat), is a perfectly valid weapon.

Yes. Like a shovel. In every way like a shovel. I never claimed a meteor hammer cannot function in a weapon-like manner. I simply claimed that for virtually most situations, other weapons are better - and that if you want to spend 16 years practicing with a weapon, other choices yield better results.

In short, it is a silly weapon, that anyone would only use if better choices were unavailable.

Also, if you want to attack my premis, you really need to present me with an alternative, a better argument, or some such. Referencing lone inventors in caves gives you no points in my book.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I am totally awed by what a tough, manly creature you are. Wow.

But I speak of statistics, not the fact that you are clearly Charles Bronson. Your personal experience has nothing to do with anything. Sorry.

Wow... there must be an awful lot of Charles Bronson's, since I am far from unique in that regard. In fact, I was on the short end of the stick as far as pain tolerance in my neighborhood.

Mmmkay, I'm going back to the old adage: Don't Feed The Trolls.

I'm removing myself from this thread any further.

"What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men, you just can't reach. So get what we had here last week. Which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it, anymore than you do..."
- Intro to "Civil War" by Guns n Roses,

[Zen Master]

Have you even watched the Youtube Videos? Cause, it doesn't really sound like you have.

I did. I don't impress quite so easily as the rest of you, it seems.

I mean - yes, it's a flashy looking weapon. But you can be similarly flashy with far more effective, simple weapons. Move just as fast - actually, propably faster. It's not that I'm not impressed with the skill those guys show. It just seems to me that all that skill could be put to far better use. Sorry.

[DragoonWraith]

Yes. Like a shovel. In every way like a shovel. I never claimed a meteor hammer cannot function in a weapon-like manner.
You kind of did:

I'm willing to bet that throughout history, whenever anyone anywhere brought nunchucks or a meteor hammer to a swordfight - he lost.
"Anyone anywhere" includes masters who have trained for decades - and apparently, in your opinion, even with such training they simply lose, every time, to anyone who happens to be holding a sword.

Do you see why people think you're being absurd?


Also, if you want to attack my premis, you really need to present me with an alternative, a better argument, or some such. Referencing lone inventors in caves gives you no points in my book.
Right, because nothing but agreeing with you will net anyone any points in your book. You've made this abundantly clear.

The argument is, "flexible weapons were not popular because they are difficult to use and cannot be used in formation, not because they are ineffective weapons" - you have not addressed this, you still claim that the lack of popularity extends to show that they were ineffective and always inferior to more traditional weapons. You need to address this to have any credibility whatsoever, but you won't, and so you won't.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

http://www.grimeforum.com/forum/images/smilies/2009/popcorn.gif

I believe you are far wiser than I. You, sir, win one Intarwebz.

[Zen Master]

Mmmkay, I'm going back to the old adage: Don't Feed The Trolls.

Tell me some more of your brawls, and how you have apparently survived every type of injury humankind has ever known, about your martial arts, crushing kneecaps and ripping out throats ..... then tell me some more about how I'm a troll here, and you're ... whatever it is.

I answer peoples rather numerous replies, and try to be as close to cordial as I can manage. Calling me a troll is just silly, sorry.

[AstralFire]

Acromos - the biggest problem with your argument is that you've been overstating your case a lot. I personally agree that the meteor hammer is not an especially effective weapon, given its specific conditions for usage and long training time. However, you can get deadly with almost any weapon, that style of attack does have certain benefits, and you've been making no-compromise declarations that essentially call the weapon useless.

I hesitate to call anyone here on either side a troll, but I can't say I am not finding this argument funny at this point.

[sonofzeal]

Parries and blocks aren't easy - however, they are part of melee. The thing about the meteor hammer is - due to it's enormous swing radius, you can see it coming a mile off. Avoiding the attack takes skill - but nothing you shouldn't expect from our experienced (6 months training) soldier.
Addressed in my previous post. The attacks are straight line things that come out of absolutely frigging nowhere, and there's no room to bat it aside or cut the chord. Your two options are to either try to twist out of its way, or have something between you and it that can stop something can crushes bone. I recommend using a shield or something two-handed, rather than trying to block it with a one handed weapon that could be driven back into your face.


Now, about severing the cord: Yes, it could be a thick rope or a chain. But you are taking an already somewhat cumbersome, heavy and slow weapon, and slowing it further.
Completely wrong again. It's far faster and more agile than most solid shaft weapons, depending on the weight you put on it. And the heavier the weight, the faster it goes. And believe me, even with a normal weight on it, the thing is fast.


Now - I'll try to make a small comparison here to back the above up. The head of the meteor hammer is a lump of metal, comparable to either the head of a flail or a thrown weapon like ... well, lets say a dart for now.

Like with all such things, the length of the orbit provides force to the blow. That's what makes a halberd deadly, and naturally it applies to the meteor hammer too. However, that same thing also makes it slow and predictable - and the heavier it is, the slower it is.
Again, wrong. Actually, the length of the orbit only applies for solid shaft weapons that use leverage. The Meteor Hammer doesn't use leverage, it uses speed.

You turn it in tight arcs around you, using your main hand to hold the rope halfway (or more) down, so that it's spinning on a smaller section. This produces very small circles with very high velocity. Picture a figure skater pulling in (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQLtcEAG9v0). Now picture all that speed and momentum suddenly being released and flying off straight at your face. That is the Meteor Hammer.


When I say slow, naturally that is a relative term. But a more robust chain or rope will just slow the weapon down, making the block or parry easier. So I think that evens out.

Now, there are a number of things a meteor hammer cannot do. It cannot make an underhand attack (is that the proper word - an upward swing is what I mean), it cannot be quickly readied again after a miss, it cannot deal effective with a close-quarters attack.
Actually, the primary basic newbie attack is a rising one that comes from about the level of your knee and impacts the opponent in the chest or head. You're right that it's a difficult weapon to link attacks with, but this is helped somewhat by the fact that, even when you aren't attacking, you got a heavy metal ball orbiting around you in strange ways and at high speeds.


Certainly, if you catch the action part of the weapon at full swing square in the jaw, you're dead meat. I just think our soldier has a fair chance of avoiding that, and after that, it's time to slice up some monk.
The soldier has excellent odds if he has a shield, or a long weapon that can partially counter the Hammer's reach advantage. The soldier also wins if he has a ranged attack (but this goes for most melee weapons). Otherwise, he could be in significant trouble.

[Zen Master]

The argument is, "flexible weapons were not popular because they are difficult to use and cannot be used in formation, not because they are ineffective weapons" - you have not addressed this, you still claim that the lack of popularity extends to show that they were ineffective and always inferior to more traditional weapons. You need to address this to have any credibility whatsoever, but you won't, and so you won't.

I believe I've made any number of arguments and examples why I don't think the meteor hammer is an effective weapon. The whole thing about it being usable in formation or not has nothing to do with me. Anything I've said applies to it's use - as a weapon. In or out of formation is entirely irrelevant to me.

But ... really, I don't care if you think me credible or not. Really, you and any number of others have gotten way too hot over this - I really don't care what you think either way, I just think you happen to be wrong. Like you happen to think I am. It goes both ways, right?

Now, the more levelheaded of the bunch have gotten fairly long, argumentative answers - you can leaf back and check - while everyone who spews insults, personal attacks and ... lets call it 'their opinons on my intellect' and 'claims of ignoring the facts' get answers that are as polite as I can manage.

I've not answered everyone. I'm not going to. I don't even think I need to explain to you why that is.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I'll make you .... classical sylogism, if you like:

Everything made by human hand that is obviously useful, will be copied by others. This is how our entire civilization came to be.
Meteor hammers have not been extensively copied by anyone anywhere
Therefore we can conclude that meteor hammers are not obviously useful, and therefore not worth copying.


Logic. I spent three years in university doing this stuff. You can attack my premises, but the conclusion is logical based on them. A logical response, then: People often don't waste time when their lives are on the line.
Combat very quickly reveals what is useful and what isn't in those particular circumstances.
Monks spent years training to be effective with the odd weapons.
This training continued for centuries.
Therefore we can conclude that the weapons were effective for them.

[sonofzeal]

I believe I've made any number of arguments and examples why I don't think the meteor hammer is an effective weapon.
And your arguments as to why are based on rampant misunderstandings of how the weapons works. I've used it. You haven't, and it's very obvious to me that you haven't.

Look, can you take my word for it, as someone who's used it and seen it used?

[Zen Master]

Acromos - the biggest problem with your argument is that you've been overstating your case a lot. I personally agree that the meteor hammer is not an especially effective weapon, given its specific conditions for usage and long training time. However, you can get deadly with almost any weapon, that style of attack does have certain benefits, and you've been making no-compromise declarations that essentially call the weapon useless.

I consider the weapon rediculous, so I've been rediculing it - yes. I truly do consider it completely useless - in most cases. Not useless as in 'it could never kill a guy', but useless as in 'anything else could equally well or better kill a guy - in most cases'.

Now, I have not been carefully wording this to avoid any chance of misunderstading. This is because I really don't care too much. But others here seem to care deeply, which gets them ... far too furious to take entirely serious.


I hesitate to call anyone here on either side a troll, but I can't say I am not finding this argument funny at this point.

Funny? I find it kinda sad. Without pointing any fingers, and taking my share of the blame, this has devolved into the realm of stupidity. Basically, we could just agree to disagree - all I'm really doing here is trying to explain my arguments to those who actually feel like discussin, while deflecting baseless attacks from a few others.

I should propably just leave it be. I guess I will, pretty soon.

[Zen Master]

A logical response, then: People often don't waste time when their lives are on the line.
Combat very quickly reveals what is useful and what isn't in those particular circumstances.
Monks spent years training to be effective with the odd weapons.
This training continued for centuries.
Therefore we can conclude that the weapons were effective for them.

Yes, under a certain set of rather specific circumstances - for instance not having access to better weapons, or training with a variety of different weapons (silly ones too) to highten spatial awareness and so on. I don't know why they insisted on training with this - but I'm sure they might as well have trained with shovels. I'm convinced after 15 years of shovelmanship training, you can pull of showy and impressive stunts with it, and also kill reasonably quickly and efficiently - but that doesn't change that what you are holding is a shovel, and there are better choices for a weapon.

To avoid unnecessary confusion, my main point here is that you could use 15 years of training better, if you trained with something else. If you get to be moderately dangerous with a meteor hammer, you could likely be nigh-invincible with something else.

[Zen Master]

And your arguments as to why are based on rampant misunderstandings of how the weapons works. I've used it. You haven't, and it's very obvious to me that you haven't.

Look, can you take my word for it, as someone who's used it and seen it used?

Take you word for what? I'll gladly take your word for it being difficult to use, and random. If your claim is that it's a super effective weapon, then no, sorry.

However I'll also gladly grant that anything even moderately heavy, with that much swing, will do nasty things on impact.

It's getting it to impact where you want against a moving target eager to avoid it I have serious doubts about.

[Teron]

Everything made by human hand that is obviously useful, will be copied by others. This is how our entire civilization came to be.

This premise is problematic. Most glaringly, it fails to address the many, many innovations that are not obviously useful. The first sharpened rock, the first bow, sure, those seem pretty obvious, at least in retrospect -- but then you get stuff like crossbows, and people had to decide whether it was "obviously" better than bows (not to mention other alternatives like thrown weapons). Do the penetrating power and ease of use make up for the reduced rate of fire? Different military groups made different choices, and had significant successes with both. And so it goes for many technologies.

In addition, the fact that something like the meteor hammer was most useful to extensively trained individuals in small engagements, and useless in formation-based fighting, would have limited its spread no matter its effectiveness in the right circumstances, since 1) governments had little reason to encourage its use among their subjects, and 2) a person needed to have a lot of free time, the willingness to invest it in specialised weapon training and a capable teacher before he could in turn act as a teacher to people who met the other criteria.

[Zen Master]

Now - enough of this. I will go and play World of Warcraft, which is a far passtime than this. If I'm lucky, there will be dark chokolate, whisky and coffee involved.

Have fun all :)

[Ozymandias9]

I'm willing to bet that throughout history, whenever anyone anywhere brought nunchucks or a meteor hammer to a swordfight - he lost.

If it was a swordfight with one other person starting at a significant range, probably not. Soft weapons were actually along the most preferred tools for chinese assassins for many centuries*. They are easily concealed and can make a significant area of ground deadly when slightly outnumbered.

In more conventional combat, however, they are less useful for several reasons:
They are exceptionally difficult to master. For a great deal of time even after the advent of the standing army, swords were reserved for officers because they required significant training and were dangerous to the wielder and allies if used poorly. Consider for a moment the fact Chinese soft weapons are significantly harder to use than a sword and significantly easier to injure yourself with.
They are less effective against armored opponents. A meteor hammer can shatter a skull, but cannot do so through most helmets designed past the warring states period. It will still do significant damage, and it still can kill, but it the introduction of armor hampers its lethality more than other weapons.**
On the flip side of the same issue, the reliance on joint motion in the use of most soft weapons means that they become harder to use in armor. And, as pointed out above, they're already dang hard to use. So again, they become less useful on the battlefield.
Finally, soft weapons require a fair amount of space. There are some weapons with a degree of range that do not inhibit formation. Soft weapons, however, do. This further limits their use in battlefield situations.***

Despite all of this, they did see use in battlefield situations, but primarily as sidearms: they are hard to disarm and easy to carry. And in situations where you are unable to use your more conventional weapon, formations tend to be less of an issue (formations tend to have ways of adapting and moving such fighters back in the ranks).


About that last bit. Look at the guy in the video. Look closely. You will see he lets that long string - what gives it it's reach - wrap around his body. All the time. Now - anyone can do that. Move *inside* it's reach, let it wrap around harmlessly, cut the damned string, proceed to slice the wielder to ribbons.

Many of the more martial versions of the Meteor Hammer had a light chain core wrapped in cord. As time progressed, the structure of the weapon changed to suit different needs, much as the long sword changed into the modern fencing foil.

More importantly, however, the rope works much like a lever: the force is multiplied over the length of the rope to determine the work done. Thus wrapping it a the wielder's end is a far safer and easier proposition than at the hammer end. You're familiar with fencing-- the same principle applies to a saber: if it took an edge, the portion right below the button would be most dangerous.


For another, it really doesn't look like it would reliably hit whatever it's aimed at. Swinging it about in flashy fashion is all well and nice, but I'd truly like to see some targets too.
Use of a soft weapon in the chinese fashion generally has two goals. The first is to make an area around you dangerous to enter. Most display drills of such weapons emphasize this because it looks flashier. It also has the benefit of bringing to bear the full force of the weapon on anyone who does enter the area.

Striking out with the weapon is a different matter: the forms used for the most precise strikes usually don't bring as long of a fulcrum and thus cause less injury. It's still enough to crack bone, but if you want to cave in someone's face rather than crack their skull, you'll need to gain some extra momentum first.


And finally, and this really is my main point - anything a meteor hammer can do, other weapons can do better. Without years of training.

This is flat out not true. Assassins chose these weapons for some time, and they did so for good reason. They have superb capacity to make a significant area dangerous-- their circular motion makes this even more the case than polearms. As such, they're a good way to deal with a slight numerical disadvantage (i.e. two or three to one).

They also have a significant capacity for misdirection, and were thus considered useful in dealing with warriors skilled in parrying or avoiding blows from common weapons like swords and spears.

And finally, they're easily concealed, which can be an important quality for a weapon to have. If you're comparing it to a longsword, you should be comparing it to a dagger instead.


is that "70% of all people who were injured, but not killed, in an actual battle, died shortly afterward from infection"?

Which implies at least 30% of people could expect to survive injuries that weren't lethal- if they got them bandaged, cauterized, etc.

They did get them bandaged and cauterized. They didn't die to the wound, they died to the infection that followed. Neither of those prevents infection very well: thus only 30%. But regardless, it was hyperbole in stating a valid point. Anything but a surface wound could bring lethal infection for most of humanities history with warfare. You didn't have to kill someone on a battlefield to expect them to die from a wound they got there.


*Beginning in Waring States period, IIRC. Though it might have Spring and Autumn Period, I'm not sure off the top of my head.

**This is true even when compared with other weapons that dealt blunt force trauma: the available arcs that can bring the full force of a meteor hammer to bear are far more limited options in avoiding armor than, say, a mace.

***This point isn't unique to Chinese soft weapons. The flail was generally limited to mounted officers in the west for similar reasons.

[hamishspence]

Really? So you know of a historical exception, and therefore all wounds were exception. The number I've heard is that 70% of all injuries inflicted on the typical medieval battlefield were lethal due to infection or disease.

is that "70% of all people who were injured, but not killed, in an actual battle, died shortly afterward from infection"?

Which implies at least 30% of people could expect to survive injuries that weren't lethal- if they got them bandaged, cauterized, etc.

[Person_Man]

From my Haberdash the Masked (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5266526) thread:

The Full List of Potentially Useful Exotic Weapons

Annulat: Planar Handbook pg 68. Thrown weapon that imposes a -2 penalty to AC against it's target. If you're going to throw something, why not make it easier to hit? It's also noteworthy that neraphim (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20040613a&page=2) treat it as a martial weapon, making a neraphim Master Thrower/Bloodstorm Blade a tempting option.

Boomerang: Eberron Campaign setting pg 119: This weapon actually sucks. It deals less damage then most other thrown weapons. When it misses, you can make an attack roll to catch it. However, proficiency with this weapon qualifies you for the uber Boomerang Daze feat (Races of Eberron pg 108) which forces anyone who takes damage from your boomerang to Save or be Dazed (one of the most powerful effects in the game) for 1 round, and Boomerang Ricochet (also RoE pg 108) which lets you hit a second adjacent target with your boomerang (potentially Dazing both) after you hit the first.

Braid Blade: Dungeon 120: 1d3, 18-20, x2. On a full attack, allows you to make an extra attack at -5, or -2 if you have 5 ranks of Tumble.

Collapsing Crescent Fan: Sandstorm, p. 96: +4 to attack any flat-footed foe. Great when combined with Iaijutsu Focus.

Composite Greatbow: Complete Warrior: Does 1d10 damage and has a 130 ft range increment. So this a good long ranged weapon for pure damage dealing.

Drow Scorpion Chain: Secrets of Xen'drik pg 137: Exactly the same as a normal Spiked Chain, except that if you happen to be a drow, you can take the Drow Skirmisher feat (which grants several proficiencies and minor bonuses) instead of Exotic Weapon Proficiency to get proficiency with it. Not useful for Haberdash, but worth including on this list for the sake of completeness.

Elven Courtblade: Races of the Wild: 1d10, 18-20 *2. Slightly less damage then the Jovar. But this two handed weapon can be used for both Power Attack and Weapon Finesse.

Flindbar: Monster Manual III: +2 to Disarm, and when you threaten a crit (19-20 or 17-20 with any Keen effect) you get a free Disarm attempt before you roll to confirm the crit.

Foot Spike: Races of the Wild: Yet another place to hide a weapon, just in case your DM decides to have your party taken prisoner.

Glot: Frostburn: Can be used to make ranged trip attacks, and deals better damage then bolas or barbed bolas.

Goad: Frostburn: Reach weapon that deals non-lethal damage, in case you ever want to capture someone without killing them. Also gives you +2 to Handle Animal checks against Huge or bigger animals.

Greathammer: Monster Manual 4 or Races of Stone: 1d12, 19-20/x4 or just 20/x4, depending on which version you use. Also gives you +2 to Sunder a weapon or shield, but sundering your future treasure is generally a bad idea.

Harpoon: Frostburn: A harpooned creature moves at half speed, cannot charge or run, and if you attach a rope to it you can limit their movement away from you. It can be removed with a full round action, which deals damage again. Occasionally helpful for battlefield control. Or you can enchant it with Returning, and have a double damage ranged attack.

Heavy weapons: Basically a special way of constructing a metal weapon. Increases the damage die of the weapon based on a set chart. Requires Exotic Weapon Proficiency to wield correctly. But this is no problem for Haberdash. So unless your DM is crazy enough to let you use Kaorti, then most of your weapons should be Heavy. Magic of Faerun, pg. 179.

Ice Axe: Frostburn: +4 to Climb checks.

Jovar: Planar Handbook: 2d6, 18-20, *2. With high damage and a high threat range, this is your is a respectable pure damage dealing weapon. Buy a Scabbard of Keen Edges.

Kaorti weapons: Fiend Folio web enhancement (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031014a): *ANY* weapon can be made out of kaorti, which gives it a crit multiplier of x4. You need an EWP for a kaorti version of a weapon (even if it is already exotic), but... hey, no problem for Haberdash! Combine with a Keen Elven Courtblade or something similar for a ridiculous crit. Of course, this is a ridiculously exotic weapon, as you need to convince an Evil Outsider to make it for you (or accept the +4 LA to be a Kaorti yourself). My suggestion is that you invest in Knowledge (Planes), and ask your DM for a side quest to get one.

Lance (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Lance): Not exotic, but everyone who is proficient should keep one on their mount. You never know when double damage from a charge might come in handy.

Lasso: Book of Exalted Deeds, p. 34: Using a lasso is a ranged touch attack that imposes a -2 to attack rolls and -4 on Dex (no Save).

Longstaff: Complete Adventurer: If you fight defensively or use Combat Expertise while using this weapon, you can’t be flanked. Screw you Rogues!

Mancatcher: Complete Warrior: Gives you a free Grapple attempt when you hit your enemy. Also, as long as your enemy can’t reach you, they can’t attack you or do anything other then attempt to move or escape from the grapple.

Net (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Net) (PHB): Using a net is a ranged touch attack (maximum range of 10 feet) that imposes a -2 to attack rolls and -4 to Dex, 1/2 movement, and you can’t charge or run (no Save).

Orc Shotput: Sword & Fist, p. 71: One of the best thrown weapons in the game: 2d6 damage, 19-20 crit, x3 multiplier. Add some Master Thrower for extra fun.

Pincer Staff: Underdark: Basically a mancatcher that deals more damage.

Razor Net: Dragon Compendium, p. 115: All the hassle of a regular net, and it does 1d6 damage.

Ritiik: Frostburn: If you successfully hit an enemy, the enemy must make a Reflex Save. If it fails, you get a free Trip Attempt. Basically a weaker version of Knock-Down for free.

Scorpion Claws: +4 to Grapple checks. The bonus is unnamed, so it stacks with Improved Grapple. They're also light weapons, so no Power Attack, but yes for TWF. Sandstorm.

Sharktooth Staff: Savage Species: Gives you a free Grapple attempt when you hit your enemy. Unlike the mancatcher or pincer staff, it has no reach. But it deals the best damage. It’s also worth mentioning that they each have size restrictions.

Spiked Chain: PHB: Useful if you have a ton of reach and a potent magic weapon with an AoO build. But most of the time you can just use a glaive and a 5 ft step. If you're really in a pinch, use armor spikes.

Spinning Sword: Secrets of Sarlona, pg 136. Basically a Spiked Chain that you can only use with one hand. Useful if you want to be a sword and board build, or a TWF build.

Sugliin: Frostburn: Does 2d8 damage, but it’s a full round action to make 1 attack. But hey, until you get to +6 BAB, this is your weapon of choice for pure damage dealing when you’re already standing next to your enemy.

Whip Dagger: Drow of the Underdark: 15 feet of reach, which might be helpful on occasion. You can also use it with the Whip Climber Skill Trick to do Indiana Jones-ish swinging.

Yuan-Ti Serpent Bow: Secrets of Xen'drik pg 137: A bow with curved blades at the edges. You can use it as a ranged weapon or as a melee weapon interchangeably, and it is a treated as a double weapon for magical enhancements (you enchant the bow part and the blade part separately). Not that useful for Haberdash specifically, but a nifty choice for bow builds that fight in dungeons and other closed in spaces a lot.


Assuming you don't want to take a level of Master of Masks, here is a much shorter list of Exotic Weapons that I might consider taking for a typical melee build (ie, not thrown weapons, ranged weapons, and things that are highly situational):

Braid Blade: Adds 1 extra attack.
Drow Scorpion Chain, Spiked Chain, or Spinning Sword: Useful if you want to get really big (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7081777) and not worry about where you are standing. In most other cases, you should be able to take a 5 ft step or have some form of free movement (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103358) to otherwise position yourself where you want to be.
Flindbar: Free Disarm check 20% of the time, assuming it's enchanted with Impact (Keen for blunt weapons).
Greathammer or Jovar: If you're playing a low level game, taking one of these and using a Impact/Keen effect is a great way to improve your damage output. Once you get above ECL 6ish though, Power Attack combos start to kick in, and the extra damage from your weapon is negligible.
Kaorti weapons: Can vastly increase the damage output of a high threat range weapon, but I highly doubt your DM will allow it.
Pincer Staff: Very useful at low levels to Grapple an enemy and keep them 5 ft away from you. But by mid-high levels, there are much better methods.
Ritiik: Who doesn't love free Trip attempts? Basically a weaker version of Knock-Down, but for just 1 feat.

[Vic_Sage]

http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af79/haketh3/Reaction%20Faces/Facepalmhomer.jpg

Wha....how...why......why IS REAL LIFE BEING BROUGHT UP IN THIS THREAD ABOUT WEAPONS IN A MAGICAL FAIRY LAND WITH GUMDROP FOREST AND HONEYDEW RIVERS?

[pres_man]

... A single person against 20 other people will always lose. Doesn't matter if he has full plate armor, Shield and a sword. He'll still lose. Even if he had a longspear himself he would still lose.

Which is exactly the point I was trying to make. The spiked chain isn't a game breaker. It isn't going to suddenly make that 1st level fighter invincible. It has some nice options and is pretty much the goto weapon for the trip and/or disarm monkey thanks to the reach, but those builds are very feat intensive, in other words require an extreme amount of training to really get the benefits out of it. Most other characters who don't focus on trips and/or disarms are going to laugh at the spiked chain wielder because the damage is dismal compared to other martial two-handed weapons. You'd be better off going with a glaive and spiked armor if you were worried just about the reach, because you could still use the armor spikes if you were grappled or swallowed, something the chain couldn't be used for.

As for the idea of cutting the rope while it is being swung. Go ahead and try to cut a rope that is whipping around and only fixed on one end. You aren't going to be able to do it, it is just going to bounce off the blade.

[Reinboom]

I picked nunchaku as an example of an ineffective weapon for a reason, BTW. Someone I know once got interested in some of the more exotic Asian weapons, and she had a few practice matches with nunchaku, kamas, and sais. Her verdict was that the ONLY one she'd even consider taking against a guy with a sword was the kamas - and only if she could get the sword-user by surprise from behind.

Flexible weapons are a bit more promising, because they actually give you something that a sword doesn't have, namely reach. However, they tend to be impractical to use, because of the number of things that can go wrong. If you're fighting for your life you generally want a weapon that works every time.

Sais, in watching demonstrations from my fiancée, also seem to be quite useful (albeit, require a great deal of training) as well as the Sai's cousin, the jitte, which was heavily used.
The weapon is mostly defensive. The thick metal shaft is strong enough to not falter under a blade strike, and the yoku (the prongs from the handle) are designed to hold a sword.

The basic idea of the weapon is simply to block with the shaft and grab with the yoku. However, the design also allows for more interesting utility which makes it stand out. It can be quickly flipped (though, I suck at it), where the shaft is being held down the arm of the bearer instead, and the heavy blunt base of the handle to be used as a blunt punching weapon. In this way, since the shaft is heading straight down your arm, your arm can be raised to block a weapon as well.
My fiancée was also taught to, when used defensively, to throw the weapon at the attacker's feet, intending to pierce and pin them down enough to escape or disable them.

On spiked chains or the other exotic weapons at hand, I have no account of these. Please continue, *is taking notes on those who actual present real information*.

[Stephen_E]

Basically, there are lots of maneuvers used to radically change the direction of motion of the hammer/dart/whatever. Simple leverage is somewhat problematic, because it's a chain and you start to deal with vector issues. You can see a few of these maneuvers in movies like Kill Bill, and on the videos on YouTube. They involve having the weapon wrap around an extremity to slow it down, and/or kicking/slapping the hammer/dart to deflect it's direction. One single example I can think of on top of my head was in Kill Bill with the rather over-sized hammer wrapping around the girls leg so that the ball was stopped at the sole of the girl's shoe, if I remember correctly.

With a weight sufficiently spiked to make a real difference, these maneuvers become... difficult. Unless of course you armour your extremeties (or have naturally hard/resilient skin).

Magic Spiked Chain/Meteor Hammer! Spikes retract when they approach wielders flesh. :-)

Stephen E

[Saph]

Yeah, I've played around with a jitte before. I've heard that the Japanese police occasionally use them for dealing with the odd unbalanced katana-wielder. :P

It has some pretty obvious problems, though - a jitte is about 1 foot long whereas a sword is about 3 feet long, meaning that if you try to use a jitte or sai to block a sword you'd better be REALLY REALLY confident in your blocking skills because the consequences if you miss will not be pretty. Honestly, if you've got time to pull a jitte and try for a disarm, you've probably got time to back off and use something with a longer range.

[sonofzeal]

Take you word for what? I'll gladly take your word for it being difficult to use, and random. If your claim is that it's a super effective weapon, then no, sorry.

However I'll also gladly grant that anything even moderately heavy, with that much swing, will do nasty things on impact.

It's getting it to impact where you want against a moving target eager to avoid it I have serious doubts about.
Take my word for what the weapon actually does, and how it's actually used, which is completely different from the descriptions you've given thus far. You're talking about something used more like a flail with a ridiculously long chain; I'm talking about something used more like a sling. One uses tremendously inefficient and slow circular attacks, one uses fast and devastating straight line attacks. See the difference?

[Stephen_E]

Don't confuse modern medicine with bodily resilience. Almost any wound above a minor scratch was lethal in the age in which these weapons were relevant.

You're mistaken. Go to the RL weapons ect thread and search. It's come up a few times.
In the age of dueling with rapiers people were stabbed through the heart and went on to not only win the fight but survive to fight again.
Humans can die very easily, but they can also suffer considerable injuries.


Also, yea - some. I box, I've done karate, I've served in the army, and I've done some judo. Further, I've practiced with foil and saber, and also done a few swings with heavier swords. Why - do you really think that makes any difference?

Well it gives us a basis to judge whether you have any personal experiance backing your views.

Stephen E

[Stephen_E]

Really? So you know of a historical exception, and therefore all wounds were exception. The number I've heard is that 70% of all injuries inflicted on the typical medieval battlefield were lethal due to infection or disease.

Well aside from the fact that we actually have very little hard info on medieval battles. Indeed it's only recently that it's come to be realised that medieval battles were quite rare and most of it was raids and seiges.



This would have been lower in asia, I expect.

You mean higher survival rate?


And pretty much all minor wounds stop people fighting. In fact - if you've been in any sort of fight, a bar brawl will easily do - you know that pretty much any solid hit stops people. Doesn't even have to wound you, just to hurt.

Another very dodgy statement. The mental "shock" factor of wounds does indeed exist, but it should be noted that there is plenty of solid evidence that this is much higher with firearms that it is with arrows and melee weapons. And when you toss in the effects of adrenalin of the fighter in a serious death fight and it becomes even less of an effect.

Again I recommend u to the RL weapons ect thread for some good cites from the days of dueling. People quite reguly took serious wounds and kept going (assuming it wasn't a 1st blood fight). Accounts of people taking multiple chest thrusts and not only continuing to fight, but to win and even survive aren't exactly rare.


On the other hand there are wounds you don't even discover until the fight is over. But really - anything that cuts deeper than skin is likely to drop you right to the ground, and kill you, either immediately or over time.

Those wounds that you don't discover until after the fight can be quite serious. One of the common posters on the RL thread is a Paramedic, ex-soldier, medieval weapons fighter. He's full of personal experiance of people taking serious wounds and continuing to function unimpeded until they go down from blood loss or they can be convinced that the medics really do need to deal with the blood flowing everywhere or the flopping limb ect.

Stephen E

[Coidzor]

Yeah, I've played around with a jitte before. I've heard that the Japanese police occasionally use them for dealing with the odd unbalanced katana-wielder. :P

It has some pretty obvious problems, though - a jitte is about 1 foot long whereas a sword is about 3 feet long, meaning that if you try to use a jitte or sai to block a sword you'd better be REALLY REALLY confident in your blocking skills because the consequences if you miss will not be pretty. Honestly, if you've got time to pull a jitte and try for a disarm, you've probably got time to back off and use something with a longer range.

Well, yes, ranged weapons are always best to take down someone who is a close-ranged fighter. The point remains, however, that the jitte and sai were designed for before/when that wasn't exactly an option and have survived to a certain extent to today.

They tried banning either an early firearm or a crossbow type that had achieved the ability to penetrate through the plates of plate armor at one point in Europe if I'm recalling correctly.

And y'know, the crossbowmen/arbalisterharquebusiers cream filling of Pike Squares and all that rot in the development of european warfare.

[Reinboom]

Yeah, I've played around with a jitte before. I've heard that the Japanese police occasionally use them for dealing with the odd unbalanced katana-wielder. :P

It has some pretty obvious problems, though - a jitte is about 1 foot long whereas a sword is about 3 feet long, meaning that if you try to use a jitte or sai to block a sword you'd better be REALLY REALLY confident in your blocking skills because the consequences if you miss will not be pretty. Honestly, if you've got time to pull a jitte and try for a disarm, you've probably got time to back off and use something with a longer range.

Not really. A short weapon (a jitte is about 1 ½ feet actually, as a side note), especially a non sharpened one, can be pulled faster as well as can be more reliably pulled in an awkward situation (backed to a wall). With the weapon itself, you shouldn't be trying for a disarm actively either. It just comes up occasionally. Instead, you should be closing in (note, these are eastern weapons and the katana wasn't very suitable for extremely tight combat, this is where a ko-dachi would be kept as backup) and intending to hurt something bluntly.
The sai, gets the extra benefit here of being also able to be used at a range, piercing feet and all, as well as the ability to stop the random ko-dachi attack once in where you want to be.

Now, that said, the sai and jitte aren't the end all be all anti longsword weapons. They are opportunistic and defensive weapons, and someone truly skilled and expecting them shouldn't find them that difficult to overcome. They are, however, weapons that work and do their expected jobs well.

:Edit section:
Oh yeah, the other big reason why sais are handy: their not bladed weaponry. So, you can take them in to establishments that ban such (such as a shogun's quarters :smallwink:).

In a gaming use and terms:
If, as a wizard, I was able to be trained in a weapon in a world of swords, I would probably opt for the sai. It would be unexpected for the attacker and let me disable them enough to let me do what I was intended to do. Disarming is a bonus if it occurs.
On mechanics:
The system I'm currently working on, given how unlikely disarming is between skilled users and standard weaponry, I put that in to 'rolling a 1' (which still can hit, however) that makes you open to disarm.
With a weapon with it built in (Sai), this extends to the attacker rolling a 1 or 2.
Weapons that are designed to outright disarm are still being pondered.

[Saph]

Not really. A short weapon (a jitte is about 1 ½ feet actually, as a side note), especially a non sharpened one, can be pulled faster as well as can be more reliably pulled in an awkward situation (backed to a wall). With the weapon itself, you shouldn't be trying for a disarm actively either. It just comes up occasionally. Instead, you should be closing in (note, these are eastern weapons and the katana wasn't very suitable for extremely tight combat, this is where a ko-dachi would be kept as backup) and intending to hurt something bluntly.
The sai, gets the extra benefit here of being also able to be used at a range, piercing feet and all, as well as the ability to stop the random ko-dachi attack once in where you want to be.

I'm . . . dubious. Closing is a risky move against a guy with a drawn sword, and if you can get that close, it's probably easier just to use a knife.

I think your latter point (that they're not bladed, and hence can be used when bladed weapons are illegal) would be a bigger factor in using them. I'm not saying that they can't work - they can - but I don't think they'd ever be a first choice.

[Reinboom]

I'm . . . dubious. Closing is a risky move against a guy with a drawn sword, and if you can get that close, it's probably easier just to use a knife.

I think your latter point (that they're not bladed, and hence can be used when bladed weapons are illegal) would be a bigger factor in using them. I'm not saying that they can't work - they can - but I don't think they'd ever be a first choice.

Fortunately Wiki has me covered on the dubious part. Though, still kind of lax on information... hrmm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikkaku-ryu_juttejutsu

[Saph]

Fortunately Wiki has me covered on the dubious part. Though, still kind of lax on information... hrmm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikkaku-ryu_juttejutsu

But note the reference again in that article to police. I think the point is that it's a weapon you use if for whatever reason you typically need to take people alive. If taking them alive isn't a consideration I still think either a dagger or a ranged weapon will do the job better.

[Jayabalard]

Wha....how...why......why IS REAL LIFE BEING BROUGHT UP IN THIS THREAD ABOUT WEAPONS IN A MAGICAL FAIRY LAND WITH GUMDROP FOREST AND HONEYDEW RIVERS?Obviously those people don't play in a magical fairy land with gumdrop forest and honeydew rivers.

[Starbuck_II]

Why do they fall into the molasses swamp instead?

That did always suck in candy land.

[Reinboom]

But note the reference again in that article to police. I think the point is that it's a weapon you use if for whatever reason you typically need to take people alive. If taking them alive isn't a consideration I still think either a dagger or a ranged weapon will do the job better.

Well... yes.

Ah, me quoting you when I entered this discussion was more to just point out the neatness of Sais as useful weapons. Not to argue with you directly.
I take it we both actually agree on:
Sais are useful weapons, with a valid reason to be applied in a setting.
Sais are not a preferred adventuring tool when compared against other weaponry, unless you set out for specific goals.
Sais can be laid to rest on the table at which we are both dining and having a merry time, as old friends, having never met each other.

So, spiked chains and meteor hammers.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Obviously those people don't play in a magical fairy land with gumdrop forest and honeydew rivers.Is it bad that I now want to work out a setting where the Evil Emperor uses magically-grown candy to lull the populace into apathy and hedonism so their souls go to the fiends who elevated him to power?

[Zen Master]

Take my word for what the weapon actually does, and how it's actually used, which is completely different from the descriptions you've given thus far. You're talking about something used more like a flail with a ridiculously long chain; I'm talking about something used more like a sling. One uses tremendously inefficient and slow circular attacks, one uses fast and devastating straight line attacks. See the difference?

Yes. I see the difference. The demonstration videos showed it very much being used as a flail with a rediculously long chain - with a few straght throws being tossed in for good measure.

Now, those swings will definitely pick up a lot of momentum, and hurt a very great deal on impact. The straight throws - even if aided by momentum you've already built - wouldn't concern me particularly in a fight, as least no more than other thrusting or thrown weapons. That doesn't do anything a spear thrust at your face doesn't also do - except crush rather than pierce.

But yes, sure. If you tell me the throws are the real way to use the weapon, I'll gladly take your word for it. And that it hits hard, when it hits. The problem, as far as I can see, is hitting with it. Not that it never hits - I'm just absolutely convinced you'd hit more often with most other weapons, with the same effect (killing or incapacitating your enemy).

[Zen Master]

This is flat out not true. Assassins chose these weapons for some time, and they did so for good reason. They have superb capacity to make a significant area dangerous-- their circular motion makes this even more the case than polearms. As such, they're a good way to deal with a slight numerical disadvantage (i.e. two or three to one).

Now ... I've never denied that they could work well defensively. In fact, no one until now has mentioned that at all, unless I missed it. But that is one of the few exception in which case I think it could perform rather well - especially in the hands of someone highly skilled, and more so if facing inexperienced opponents.

It still seems to me it would fail suddenly if the wielder ran into someone with a big shield and the skill to use it - or if someone simply held their distance until the guy wielding it got tired. At least it doesn't look to me like it gets up to speed real quick, so to make that area dangerous, he'd need to whirl it continuously.

Another thing I mentioned earlier - though in another context - is psychology. People will fear getting hit with something like that, even though they'll be just as dead if hit by a sword. The world is funny like that - when you grab the bat behind the bar, people calm right down, despite the fact that in the time it takes me to swing the bat, they could punch me in the nose, and move inside the weapons reach. In a barfight, I think I'd rather have knuckledusters than a baseball bat.

[Demons_eye]

But yes, sure. If you tell me the throws are the real way to use the weapon, I'll gladly take your word for it. And that it hits hard, when it hits. The problem, as far as I can see, is hitting with it. Not that it never hits - I'm just absolutely convinced you'd hit more often with most other weapons, with the same effect (killing or incapacitating your enemy).

What? I dont get what your saying? "I think the problem is hit but I am convinced you would hit more often then other weapons."

[Tetsubo 57]

http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af79/haketh3/Reaction%20Faces/Facepalmhomer.jpg

Wha....how...why......why IS REAL LIFE BEING BROUGHT UP IN THIS THREAD ABOUT WEAPONS IN A MAGICAL FAIRY LAND WITH GUMDROP FOREST AND HONEYDEW RIVERS?

Because almost every other weapon in the game is based on a real world item. Ones that I can go to a museum and lay my hands on. While the spiked chain is a bit of absurd munchkin fodder. It can not work as shown in every official illustration. It was designed to be the 'everything' weapon. Just the fact that it functions underwater because it is a piercing wepon is reason enough to ban it forever. As I have done and shall do again.

[Vic_Sage]

Because almost every other weapon in the game is based on a real world item. Ones that I can go to a museum and lay my hands on. While the spiked chain is a bit of absurd munchkin fodder. It can not work as shown in every official illustration. It was designed to be the 'everything' weapon. Just the fact that it functions underwater because it is a piercing wepon is reason enough to ban it forever. As I have done and shall do again.
But why care about something like this when WIzards and all the other CAsters are doing **** thats downright impossible. hell Dragons should'nt even be able to fly. But the second the Fighter gets something slightly unrealistic it needs to be gotten rid of. And it's easy as hell to say the Spiked Chain looks different from the one in the book if you want.

[Starbuck_II]

Another thing I mentioned earlier - though in another context - is psychology. People will fear getting hit with something like that, even though they'll be just as dead if hit by a sword. The world is funny like that - when you grab the bat behind the bar, people calm right down, despite the fact that in the time it takes me to swing the bat, they could punch me in the nose, and move inside the weapons reach. In a barfight, I think I'd rather have knuckledusters than a baseball bat.

Not always true. I bet if you tried it: the guy is really trying could hit you with the bat 7/10 times.

[Tetsubo 57]

But why care about something like this when WIzards and all the other CAsters are doing **** thats downright impossible. hell Dragons should'nt even be able to fly. But the second the Fighter gets something slightly unrealistic it needs to be gotten rid of. And it's easy as hell to say the Spiked Chain looks different from the one in the book if you want.

Because weapons are REAL. I want them to look and behave in a realistic manner. Just as dogs don't fly and horses don't climb trees. Even within the game. Fighters are the one class that should be rock solid founded on reality. WotC had dozens of chances to depict the spiked chain in a sensible manner. And they never chose too. They presented it as an absurd aberration which is how I treat it in kind. It is the single dumbest thing ever introduced into the game.

[Saph]

Just the fact that it functions underwater because it is a piercing wepon is reason enough to ban it forever.

I can top that. In one of my online challenge matches my enlarged fighter was hitting someone with a spiked chain, underwater, through 15 feet of web. And dealing full damage, too.

Just try to visualise how that would work. :P

[Coidzor]

Because almost every other weapon in the game is based on a real world item. Ones that I can go to a museum and lay my hands on. While the spiked chain is a bit of absurd munchkin fodder. It can not work as shown in every official illustration. It was designed to be the 'everything' weapon. Just the fact that it functions underwater because it is a piercing wepon is reason enough to ban it forever. As I have done and shall do again.

Um, if you have it banned forever you'd only need to do it once.

Granted, it shouldn't work underwater from my understanding of the principles, but it seems if that was your main beef with it, you would've just gone with the obvious piece of disallowing its use underwater, so, I doubt that "being able to by RAW use a spiked chain underwater," is not reason enough to ban it.

Anyway, it is not portrayed the same way in every official illustration. This has already been disproven with links earlier in the thread with a variety of sensible to senseless illustrations.

To argue that a weapon cannot work because you've seen it as a crazy-ass fantasy weapon illustration would mean that no weapons worked because there's always some fantasy illustrator who got let in who really shouldn't be drawing weapons.

The spiked chain is based on real weapons as has also been discussed. We'd have to figure out who added it in to DnD and when in order to figure out what they were thinking at the time and why it's not bludgeoning.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

But why care about something like this when WIzards and all the other CAsters are doing **** thats downright impossible. hell Dragons should'nt even be able to fly. But the second the Fighter gets something slightly unrealistic it needs to be gotten rid of. And it's easy as hell to say the Spiked Chain looks different from the one in the book if you want.Realism != Versmillitude. Magic can break the laws of physics because it's magic and must obey it's own rules. Weapons have no magic, retain all of their abilities when wielded by a Fighter in an AMF, and therefore should obey the rules of physics and function like IRL weapons, or at least pretend to.

[Vic_Sage]

Eh I've all ways gone for Rule of Cool so my verisimilitude has all ways been

1. Is it cool?

2. Can I do it by the rules?

So yeah I really don't give a **** about verisimilitude or realism and neither do my friends really so using that as a reason to ban something comes off as stupid and nonsensical to me.

[Fhaolan]

The problem, as far as I can see, is hitting with it. Not that it never hits - I'm just absolutely convinced you'd hit more often with most other weapons, with the same effect (killing or incapacitating your enemy).

Actually, he does have an interesting point, and one that I hadn't considered given my limited personal experience with the hammer/darts. Thinking of it as a sling that you can pull the ammo back afterwards is interesting. Far more limited range, given that you're dealing with.. what 10'-15' of rope/chain/whatever? But given the size of the 'shot', being able to recover it quickly is worth a good deal. It's not like you can palm a dozen of equivalent-sized bullets to load a sling fast. I can see it being effective in certain situations.

Not for me, as I don't have the experience with the weapon to make it effective, but I can see it. And I still think a spiked version would be odd, given the other maneuvers common to that class of weapon. it woul sort of be like taking a normal sword and putting spikes all down the length of the blade. Interesting, but invalidating a lot of the standard ways of using the sword.

Slings are another one of those weapons that are considerably more effective than are portrayed in D&D. D&D seems to think that throwing missiles such as knives are as effective as leverage-amplified missiles like sling bullets and arrows. Odd.

[sonofzeal]

Yes. I see the difference. The demonstration videos showed it very much being used as a flail with a rediculously long chain - with a few straght throws being tossed in for good measure.

Now, those swings will definitely pick up a lot of momentum, and hurt a very great deal on impact. The straight throws - even if aided by momentum you've already built - wouldn't concern me particularly in a fight, as least no more than other thrusting or thrown weapons. That doesn't do anything a spear thrust at your face doesn't also do - except crush rather than pierce.

But yes, sure. If you tell me the throws are the real way to use the weapon, I'll gladly take your word for it. And that it hits hard, when it hits. The problem, as far as I can see, is hitting with it. Not that it never hits - I'm just absolutely convinced you'd hit more often with most other weapons, with the same effect (killing or incapacitating your enemy).
Throws are the main attacks, spins are generally to build momentum and provide a sort of proactive defense (enemies being unwilling to close because "omg POW"). This is perhaps a better illustration of it than the other vids. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hOL8juiy1w) As for hitting with it, it's actually not nearly as hard as it looks. I'd say it's no harder than hitting someone with underhand style sling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72cIgoZ7wNU&feature=related). I don't have any actual experience slinging, but I imaging there's still many people who can peg off moving targets at range with them.

As for hitting with other weapon, I have experience with two different polearms (spear in LARP, and formal naginata), and I can tell you that what's important is how the tip moves, and that both weapons are extremely easy to parry. Winning with the spear specifically requires keeping the point between you and them, and a series of fakes to open up their guard and score a hit. If they actually parry, you're in serious trouble because your effectiveness drops to near nil if they can move closer to you than the tip is. Overall it's a good weapon, but mostly for keeping enemies at bay and protecting yourself. You're in the most danger when you commit to an attack.

So, spears are all about the tip, which has a fairly narrow range of motion. The range of horizontal motion is about equal to the length of your arm no matter how long the shaft is, and that's how much slack you have to play with in faking and thrusting, and that's the size of the "threatened area" the enemy has to pass through to get to you. You also have the movement of your own core added to that, which helps, but that applies to all weapons.

Now, how does that translate to the Meteor Hammer? The range of horizontal motion is equal to twice the length of your rope. That's six to ten meters. Completely frigging ridiculous.

I'm not saying I'd switch out if I had the chance, I'm very good with the spear and enjoying the naginata and they work well for my purposes and team up well with allies. But if I see someone swinging a meteor hammer around and they look like they know what they're doing, no way I'm taking them lightly.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Because weapons are REAL. I want them to look and behave in a realistic manner.
Glaive Glaive Guisarme Glaive.


Just as dogs don't fly and horses don't climb trees. Even within the game. Fighters are the one class that should be rock solid founded on reality.
So melee just can't have good things?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

So melee just can't have good things?No, magic should just have a bit more difficulty when it tries to beat the laws of reality up for their pocket change.

[Starbuck_II]

Glaive Glaive Guisarme Glaive.


So melee just can't have good things?

Of course, magic is cheating. Melee plays by the rules. And the judges are bribed by magic.

[Zeful]

So melee just can't have good things?

The way I see that argument is: "Without magic a weapon should behave like it does in the real world." Which only limits the weapon. Which leads me into: "Without magic, the wielder should be the main source of a weapon's lethality."

Melee can have nice things, but Wielder skill should be the main contributing factor to a weapon's effectiveness. So bring on the Wuxia fighting and mountain cleaving, the princess needs saving!

[Vic_Sage]

Because weapons are REAL. I want them to look and behave in a realistic manner. Just as dogs don't fly and horses don't climb trees. Even within the game. Fighters are the one class that should be rock solid founded on reality.
How did I miss this? Hell no Fighters shouldn't be the one class stuck playing by "Reality". That's bull**** that if I wanna be a guy who just beats the crap out of everything in extroidanary ways. If I wanna beat the crap out of a zombie with a Spiked Chain I should, if I wanna bodyslam a dragon I should be able to. Fighters being constrained by reality is one of the reasons till ToB came out Melee was so bad compared to everything else. Hell I even hate that the Rogue is stuck not being able to SA Zombies and Constructs.

[Tetsubo 57]

Um, if you have it banned forever you'd only need to do it once.

Granted, it shouldn't work underwater from my understanding of the principles, but it seems if that was your main beef with it, you would've just gone with the obvious piece of disallowing its use underwater, so, I doubt that "being able to by RAW use a spiked chain underwater," is not reason enough to ban it.

Anyway, it is not portrayed the same way in every official illustration. This has already been disproven with links earlier in the thread with a variety of sensible to senseless illustrations.

To argue that a weapon cannot work because you've seen it as a crazy-ass fantasy weapon illustration would mean that no weapons worked because there's always some fantasy illustrator who got let in who really shouldn't be drawing weapons.

The spiked chain is based on real weapons as has also been discussed. We'd have to figure out who added it in to DnD and when in order to figure out what they were thinking at the time and why it's not bludgeoning.

Certainly it's based on real weapons, heck, I *own* one. But the weapon as depicted is useless. As it mechanically is executed it is equally absurd. It's a meta-weapon. Designed to out-do all others. The 'kitchen sink' of the armed set.

[Tetsubo 57]

Glaive Glaive Guisarme Glaive.


So melee just can't have good things?

Certainly they can. And you build those good things into the *class*, not their armament.

[Tetsubo 57]

How did I miss this? Hell no Fighters shouldn't be the one class stuck playing by "Reality". That's bull**** that if I wanna be a guy who just beats the crap out of everything in extroidanary ways. If I wanna beat the crap out of a zombie with a Spiked Chain I should, if I wanna bodyslam a dragon I should be able to. Fighters being constrained by reality is one of the reasons till ToB came out Melee was so bad compared to everything else. Hell I even hate that the Rogue is stuck not being able to SA Zombies and Constructs.

And there you and I part. I never liked ToB. I saw where it was leading. The PHB II (3.5 version) gave me everything a fighter ever needs.

Might I suggest Pathfinder?

[AstralFire]

And there you and I part. I never liked ToB. I saw where it was leading. The PHB II (3.5 version) gave me everything a fighter ever needs.

Might I suggest Pathfinder?

Allow me to sidestep the incoming, "HERE IS WHY YOU MUST LIKE ToB," and address the illness to which ToB is only one possible cure: The PHB II does not address the Fighter's shortcomings sufficiently; while it was certainly a step forward, its approach of working within a class with a poor framework essentially gives the Fighter 'more of the same', without significantly tactical developments for the most part; Sword and Board Fighters benefit the most from PHB II, while the others continue to have the same issues (and it's not much for S&B). It doesn't move beyond the class' issues - the Fighter is already good at what it does if it wants to be (hitting stuff really hard). Most of the problems with the class, both in interest and in balance, originate from a lack of variety in options.

Whether or not you like the Tome of Battle approach to solving the issue is a matter of taste, but the PHB II is neither necessary nor sufficient to solving the problems of the class.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Certainly they can. And you build those good things into the *class*, not their armament.

So, you mean feats?

Feats like, say, Exotic Weapon Proficiency?

[Zeful]

So, you mean feats?

Feats like, say, Exotic Weapon Proficiency?

No, more like actual class features that provide versatility and power.

[Tetsubo 57]

No, more like actual class features that provide versatility and power.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winna!

[Pharaoh's Fist]

So... fighters doing unrealistic things is ok as long as they use realistic weapons.

That's quite some standard.

[Tetsubo 57]

So, you mean feats?

Feats like, say, Exotic Weapon Proficiency?

Exactly. Just a proficiency in a weapon that isn't made of cheddar.

[Tetsubo 57]

Allow me to sidestep the incoming, "HERE IS WHY YOU MUST LIKE ToB," and address the illness to which ToB is only one possible cure: The PHB II does not address the Fighter's shortcomings sufficiently; while it was certainly a step forward, its approach of working within a class with a poor framework essentially gives the Fighter 'more of the same', without significantly tactical developments for the most part; Sword and Board Fighters benefit the most from PHB II, while the others continue to have the same issues (and it's not much for S&B). It doesn't move beyond the class' issues - the Fighter is already good at what it does if it wants to be (hitting stuff really hard). Most of the problems with the class, both in interest and in balance, originate from a lack of variety in options.

Whether or not you like the Tome of Battle approach to solving the issue is a matter of taste, but the PHB II is neither necessary nor sufficient to solving the problems of the class.

We differ in our opinion of the PHB II's success. It meets my needs. Mayhap I am just satisfied with less.

[Tetsubo 57]

So... fighters doing unrealistic things is ok as long as they use realistic weapons.

That's quite some standard.

Build the power into the class, not the equipment. The true warrior is the weapon. What he holds is far less relevant.

[Starbuck_II]

Exactly. Just a proficiency in a weapon that isn't made of cheddar.

How about the Kusar-gari?

[Tetsubo 57]

How about the Kusar-gari?

What book is that in? I would need to check the stats.

[Starbuck_II]

What book is that in? I would need to check the stats.

DMG. You've never noticed it?

[Zeful]

So... fighters doing unrealistic things is ok as long as they use realistic weapons.

That's quite some standard.

And why not, mythology has people doing amazing things without magic (though some are supernatural) but for the most part it's not the weapon "making the man" as it were, it's the man being awesome with his weapon and it rubbing off on him.

Though it'd probably be more accurate to say plausible weapons.

[Foryn Gilnith]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kusarigama

Mechanically, in the DMG, it's a one-handed spiked chain with less damage.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Build the power into the class, not the equipment. The true warrior is the weapon. What he holds is far less relevant.

Unless you're fighting ghosts. Then you need a magic weapon.


And why not, mythology has people doing amazing things without magic (though some are supernatural) but for the most part it's not the weapon "making the man" as it were, it's the man being awesome with his weapon and it rubbing off on him.


Mythology had tons of people wield unrealistic weapons. Ever read Journey to the West? Several of the Taoist gods, demigods, and priests fight with exotic weapons such as metal rings. That are on fire.

Zhu Bajie wields a rake, and Sha Seng uses a Shaolin Spade, which I believe Tetsubo would definately not approve of.

[Volkov]

My old DM would use a colossal+ monster with a spiked chain that was enhanced to do 12d12 damage per hit, not counting the magic bonuses. He tripped casters who dared to cast spells in his practically infinite reach (he had a made-up feat that made it impossible to cast defensively when in his threatened reach) and thus the casters were utterly useless. Not one epic spell could be pulled off.

So please, no mountain giants with spiked chains, they are bad for the soul.

[Starbuck_II]

My old DM would use a colossal+ monster with a spiked chain that was enhanced to do 12d12 damage per hit, not counting the magic bonuses. He tripped casters who dared to cast spells in his practically infinite reach (he had a made-up feat that made it impossible to cast defensively when in his threatened reach) and thus the casters were utterly useless. Not one epic spell could be pulled off.

So please, no mountain giants with spiked chains, they are bad for the soul.

Still could just Quicken spells (never provoke). Epic casters can easily quicken (they even have a auto quicken epic feat).

It sorta surprises me that this wasn't forgotten.

[Foryn Gilnith]

(he had a made-up feat that made it impossible to cast defensively when in his threatened reach

That's not made up; it's part of the Mage slayer line (CWar IIRC). The 12d12 is likely made up though.

[Tiki Snakes]

I've never seen such play, but from everything I've heard, the idea of epic level full-casters being whupped about on account of spiked chain abuse is...well, pretty hilarious.

[Volkov]

Still could just Quicken spells (never provoke). Epic casters can easily quicken (they even have a auto quicken epic feat).

It sorta surprises me that this wasn't forgotten.

We tried...But that sadist also made up a feat that makes it so that quicken spell provokes. We only stayed because it was a lot of fun, despite being so stupidly hard that words do not describe it.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Still could just Quicken spells (never provoke). Epic casters can easily quicken (they even have a auto quicken epic feat).

It sorta surprises me that this wasn't forgotten.Also:Tumble. Even without ranks, you should be able to make that check by Epic levels.

[Starbuck_II]

We tried...But that sadist also made up a feat that makes it so that quicken spell provokes. We only stayed because it was a lot of fun, despite being so stupidly hard that words do not describe it.

Wait, he made a feat that bypasses the rules for quicken spells? That seems a little too good/powerful.

He basically didn't like any of the standard rules so he makes "feats" that bypass these rules.
Did he make these feats available for everyone to take or did they only appear when the creature appeared?

[Volkov]

Wait, he made a feat that bypasses the rules for quicken spells? That seems a little too good/powerful.

He basically didn't like any of the standard rules so he makes "feats" that bypass these rules.
Did he make these feats available for everyone to take or did they only appear when the creature appeared?

We could get the feats once we beat the monster and we're at a feat gaining level. Which was a great reward. Words cannot describe how awesome it is to be a blackscale, half dragon lizard folk fighter that is the recipient of enlarge person with those spiked chain feats.

[Coidzor]

Build the power into the class, not the equipment. The true warrior is the weapon. What he holds is far less relevant.

You mean the thing that a fighter has to have several of in different flavors due to the damage reduction system?

[Dracomorph]

(he had a made-up feat that made it impossible to cast defensively when in his threatened reach)

There's Mage Slayer, from Complete Arcane, which is not made up, and does this and then some.

Well, I guess technically someone made it up, but they also got it published by WotC.

No idea about the quickened spells, though. Maybe he just misinterpreted (on purpose or otherwise)?

[Zeful]

Mythology had tons of people wield unrealistic weapons. Ever read Journey to the West? Several of the Taoist gods, demigods, and priests fight with exotic weapons such as metal rings. That are on fire.

Yes, but those would be magic weapons or artifacts, I have no problem with magic weapons or even fighters that screw physics. There just has to be certain limits. Mundane versions of weapons should be just that: Mundane. But in a Fighter's hands even a mundane weapon is so much more. A magic weapon would be preferable but not necessary. I'm talking about low-level stuff like boosts to damage, disarm and trip with his chosen weapon, miss-chance with a shield, scaling DR in heavy armors, mid-level things like enhanced reach, shielding allies from Area-of effect spells, and status effects, and high level stuff like cutting through walls of force and parrying spells back at their caster. Heck even flavorful things like no inproficientcy penalty period.

[Volkov]

There's Mage Slayer, from Complete Arcane, which is not made up, and does this and then some.

Well, I guess technically someone made it up, but they also got it published by WotC.

No idea about the quickened spells, though. Maybe he just misinterpreted (on purpose or otherwise)?

He would literally create his own feats from scratch.

[Lycanthromancer]

Yes, but those would be magic weapons or artifacts, I have no problem with magic weapons or even fighters that screw physics. There just has to be certain limits. Mundane versions of weapons should be just that: Mundane. But in a Fighter's hands even a mundane weapon is so much more. A magic weapon would be preferable but not necessary. I'm talking about low-level stuff like boosts to damage, disarm and trip with his chosen weapon, miss-chance with a shield, scaling DR in heavy armors, mid-level things like enhanced reach, shielding allies from Area-of effect spells, and status effects, and high level stuff like cutting through walls of force and parrying spells back at their caster. Heck even flavorful things like no inproficientcy penalty period.

Fighters have...difficulty...pulling that kind of stuff off. Heck, they have trouble fighting swarms.

If nothing else, it's definitely one thing ToB did right. Hello warblade fighter!

[Flickerdart]

Why didn't the caster come riding in on his trusty Phantom Steed, which goes 240ft? Nothing has a range of 240 feet, or 3x that on a run. I'm also pretty sure opponents that are flat-footed can't make AoOs, so just Contingency Celerity Time Stop that sucker, or just win initiative and go to town. And these are pre-epic tools...

[Vic_Sage]

And there you and I part. I never liked ToB. I saw where it was leading. The PHB II (3.5 version) gave me everything a fighter ever needs.

Might I suggest Pathfinder?
Why the hell would you reccomend PF? It's not secret on here I despise the system and does absolutely nothing to make melee badass and cool *A few +1 is not cool and gimping the Spiked Chain and other Exotic Weapons was retarded*.

[AstralFire]

Why the hell would you reccomend PF? It's not secret on here I despise the system.

...Probably because we don't all know everyone else here? I mean, I didn't know how you felt about PF, one way or the other.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Why the hell would you reccomend PF? It's not secret on here I despise the system.Add it to your sig. Half the time I don't notice who makes a post, let alone remember it. I suspect many on here are similar.

[Ozymandias9]

And that it hits hard, when it hits. The problem, as far as I can see, is hitting with it. Not that it never hits - I'm just absolutely convinced you'd hit more often with most other weapons, with the same effect (killing or incapacitating your enemy).

This is a fair criticism of the weapon. It is incredibly hard to aim. Moreover, a poorly executed attack (especially a swing, the primary attack used to trip and a figure 8 when used with a 2 headed version) stands a good chance to harm the wielder.

There are, however, people who can safely aim it without issue, but they've had years (if not decades) of practice. And they will be more effective with it that with, say, a sword given equal effort: the structure of the weapon leads to more avenues of use to master than most other kinds of weapons. This is what people have been referring to when they note that it's very hard to master.

Whether or not that is worth the effort is another question. These weapons are tools primarily of combat with lightly armored or unarmed opponents. As such, it saw use mostly by assassins and against assassins and bandits. If that's your typical need for a weapon, it can excel. On a more traditional battlefield, however, it was really only useful as a sidearm for people who had already mastered it.


Now ... I've never denied that they could work well defensively. In fact, no one until now has mentioned that at all, unless I missed it. But that is one of the few exception in which case I think it could perform rather well - especially in the hands of someone highly skilled, and more so if facing inexperienced opponents.

It still seems to me it would fail suddenly if the wielder ran into someone with a big shield and the skill to use it.

With most soft weapons, a shield merely alters aiming: most historical shields aren't particularly large. The list of historical armies that regularly used tower shields (or really anything close) in combat is very low (and focused highly around walled cities and flat land, where phalanx like structures worked well). However, as I pointed out above, aiming is easily the most difficult part of weapons like these.

There are however, similar related weapons that are significantly more hampered by a shield: a three-sectioned staff comes to mind.


Another thing I mentioned earlier - though in another context - is psychology.{... discussion of fear}
You've nailed a significant part of the weapon's use when you mentioned psychology. But fear, while certainly an element, isn't the primary one. These weapon focus heavily on misdirection.

Keep in mind that when you watch that movie it's being shot with an auto focus camera, and the demonstration is intended for display: they want you to follow it here. The auto focus on the camera also helps.

There were a couple of videos in the thread and I'm not sure we're looking at the same one, so try looking at this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhW67MBO8M8

You'll notice in the video that there's a sort of colored tuff on the chain: those are actually a fair bit above the hammer (or dart as the case may be). It creates an optical focus that makes it difficult to follow the actual head of the weapon, and thus harder to avoid: the strike comes before you expect it. To top it off, the transition from the circular defensive motion to the linear attack is generally abrupt, thus making it even harder to anticipate.

[SparkMandriller]

...Probably because we don't all know everyone else here?

Oh my god, it's AstralFire!

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Oh my god, it's AstralFire!Where did that meme start? I've seen it a lot recently, but no search is turning up any indication as to why.

[Coidzor]

I honestly have no idea, but apparently as far as I've found the oldest mention was someone randomly telling him that they loved him as an aside in a thread here about some basic rules question and then later a thread in Friendly Banter about where we mostly hang out on the site and how recognizable we thought ourselves to be (possibly this occurred inside of the Random Banter social thread) and someone reacted to Astralfire's post and said something along the lines of, "naw man, I've seen you around a heck of a lot and you eat chips and don't afraid of anything"

[SparkMandriller]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6714811&postcount=19

Some day I will be just as famous.


Unfortunately I will be famous for the terrible quality of my posts.

[Dracomorph]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6714811&postcount=19

Some day I will be just as famous.


Unfortunately I will be famous for the terrible quality of my posts.

Or maybe the fantastic quality of your Mega Man references.

[Stephen_E]

Realism != Versmillitude. Magic can break the laws of physics because it's magic and must obey it's own rules. Weapons have no magic, retain all of their abilities when wielded by a Fighter in an AMF, and therefore should obey the rules of physics and function like IRL weapons, or at least pretend to.

I take it you haven't realised that DnD physics is only vaguely related to RL physics. And I'm not talking about magic here. I'm talking about stock standard AMF DnD physics.

Once you pay attention to that little fact your argument fall apart.

Stephen E

[Lycanthromancer]

Where did that meme start? I've seen it a lot recently, but no search is turning up any indication as to why.

I thought about doing that...again...but I've done it like 6 times over the last few days. I figured I'd give her eardrums a rest for a couple more days. :smallbiggrin:

Oh what the hell.

EEEEEE! IT'S ASTRALFIRE!

[WhiteHarness]

I like how the people demanding proof from Acromos offer none of their own in support of their claims.

I don't think it's been proven that those east Asian warrior monks to whom the invention of all those weird martial arts weapons is attributed ever used those weapons in any of their large-scale conflicts. I strongly suspect that, when the Shaolin temple came under attack any of the various times it was destroyed by real armies, the monks were issued staves, spears, polearms and other common arms like those carried by warrior monks everywhere else in the world, including Japan's sohei.

I'd like to see primary source documentation for the claim that east Asian warrior monks actually chose "meteor hammers," rope darts, etc. over standard weapons when called upon to engage in combat. I dug around a bit and what little the surviving historical records seem to say in most cases is simply that the monks participated in combat without really going into any narrative about what weapons they carried.

I think the burden of proof is on the "weird weapons are effective!" fanboi crowd to prove that these things were ever put to use in mass combat circumstances. I see little evidence that "meteor hammers," etc. ever saw use outside of situations like monks showing off in front of credulous proles in order to perpetuate the exotic allure of the mystic Orient.

The argument that more familiar and mundane weapons are used in real combat everywhere in the world instead of the more exotic "Asian monk" weapons holds a lot of merit. In spite of any expertise they may have had with their more esoteric "show-off" weapons and techniques, I still think those monks would have picked up a simple spear in preference to a rope dart when their monasteries were under attack. I call on those of you who are asking us to accept that they'd have chosen any of the assortment of weird kung-fu weapons over a spear to prove it.

It doesn't even seem like the Shaolin monks themselves regarded any of the crazier weapons in their arsenal as superior to the spear. I can't vouch for how "official" it is, but website after website in the quickie search I did refers to the spear as "The King of Weapons." If rope darts, "meteor hammers," three-section staves, etc. are mentioned at all, it is only after the spear, broadsword, jian, etc. as an afterthought.

Even the people who came up with these crazy weapons didn't appear to think they were to be preferred over a spear. I think that stands as strong testament to their ineffectiveness.

[sonofzeal]

I take it you haven't realised that DnD physics is only vaguely related to RL physics. And I'm not talking about magic here. I'm talking about stock standard AMF DnD physics.

Once you pay attention to that little fact your argument fall apart.

Stephen E
I especially love how physics changes when you pick an object up, how the human body can apparently survive attacks that can pierce sheet iron, and how light creates concentric rings rather than a smooth gradient.

[Lycanthromancer]

I especially love how physics changes when you pick an object up, how the human body can apparently survive attacks that can pierce sheet iron, and how light creates concentric rings rather than a smooth gradient.

Oh, but it does.

They're called rainbows. :smalltongue:

[sonofzeal]

I like how the people demanding proof from Acromos offer none of their own in support of their claims.

I don't think it's been proven that those east Asian warrior monks to whom the invention of all those weird martial arts weapons is attributed ever used those weapons in any of their large-scale conflicts. I strongly suspect that, when the Shaolin temple came under attack any of the various times it was destroyed by real armies, the monks were issued staves, spears, polearms and other common arms like those carried by warrior monks everywhere else in the world, including Japan's sohei.

I'd like to see primary source documentation for the claim that east Asian warrior monks actually chose "meteor hammers," rope darts, etc. over standard weapons when called upon to engage in combat. I dug around a bit and what little the surviving historical records seem to say in most cases is simply that the monks participated in combat without really going into any narrative about what weapons they carried.

I think the burden of proof is on the "weird weapons are effective!" fanboi crowd to prove that these things were ever put to use in mass combat circumstances. I see little evidence that "meteor hammers," etc. ever saw use outside of situations like monks showing off in front of credulous proles in order to perpetuate the exotic allure of the mystic Orient.

The argument that more familiar and mundane weapons are used in real combat everywhere in the world instead of the more exotic "Asian monk" weapons holds a lot of merit. In spite of any expertise they may have had with their more esoteric "show-off" weapons and techniques, I still think those monks would have picked up a simple spear in preference to a rope dart when their monasteries were under attack. I call on those of you who are asking us to accept that they'd have chosen any of the assortment of weird kung-fu weapons over a spear to prove it.
Meteor Hammer aren't suitable for large-scale confrontations, because they require too much space to use. They work very well as concealable innocent-looking items that can be highly effective against certain types of targets, bandits being one.


As to evidence, I've actually used one of the darn things. I'm not good, and I've mostly just piddled around and mimicked a couple things my friends know, but I have several friends who know several of the more advanced turns and could easily use it effectively in combat.

So, no, I can't hand you historical accounts of shaolin monks fights people with them. I can, however, give you actual modern day combat reports of people sparring with them. The result: a meteor hammer is almost guaranteed to get one really good attack off before the opponent has any hope of counterattacking, and that one attack comes in fast at odd angles and is very hard to block (although it can be dodged). The best odds for the opponent are to break range as fast as possible, and hope that first attack doesn't land. The best odds for the hammerer are to make sure that first attack hits, or use it to force the person to break their charge and catch him on the recovery. It flat out loses against a shield or pike (unless it can trap the pike), but can have pretty decent odds against many other sorts of weapons. The primary advantage is getting that first attack, and how crazy-hard it is to block.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I like how the people demanding proof from Acromos offer none of their own in support of their claims.

I don't think it's been proven that those east Asian warrior monks to whom the invention of all those weird martial arts weapons is attributed ever used those weapons in any of their large-scale conflicts. I strongly suspect that, when the Shaolin temple came under attack any of the various times it was destroyed by real armies, the monks were issued staves, spears, polearms and other common arms like those carried by warrior monks everywhere else in the world, including Japan's sohei.

I'd like to see primary source documentation for the claim that east Asian warrior monks actually chose "meteor hammers," rope darts, etc. over standard weapons when called upon to engage in combat. I dug around a bit and what little the surviving historical records seem to say in most cases is simply that the monks participated in combat without really going into any narrative about what weapons they carried.

I think the burden of proof is on the "weird weapons are effective!" fanboi crowd to prove that these things were ever put to use in mass combat circumstances. I see little evidence that "meteor hammers," etc. ever saw use outside of situations like monks showing off in front of credulous proles in order to perpetuate the exotic allure of the mystic Orient.

The argument that more familiar and mundane weapons are used in real combat everywhere in the world instead of the more exotic "Asian monk" weapons holds a lot of merit. In spite of any expertise they may have had with their more esoteric "show-off" weapons and techniques, I still think those monks would have picked up a simple spear in preference to a rope dart when their monasteries were under attack. I call on those of you who are asking us to accept that they'd have chosen any of the assortment of weird kung-fu weapons over a spear to prove it.Burden of Proof needs to be it's own fallacy. In some cases it is reasonable, but in others it's tossed out with no understanding of the criteria.

People do make stupid decisions, yes. However, I think that if someone was going to train to defend themselves, they'd pick a weapon to train with that was actually, you know, good. If they don't they're held up as an example the next time someone walking into a dojo wants to learn to fight with a dire flail.
The Monks existed for hundreds of years, during which time they continuously trained with 'weird kung-fu' weapons. They successfully defended themselves some of the time, and they were sacked some of the time. If the weapons were ineffective, or if they used spears and similar and still lost, don't you think that at some point, a Monk would have said, "hey, maybe those bandits are onto something"? No widespread adaptation only proves that the weapons weren't good for armies(the main ones to build and train with weapons), not that the weapons were useless for everyone.

[PhoenixRivers]

Weapons fly in a perfect straight line (unless they're launched as Indirect Fire, per Heroes of battle).

Explosions of fire don't have the physical power to knock over chess pieces in their blast.

[Dracomorph]

I like how the people demanding proof from Acromos offer none of their own in support of their claims.

This is a legitimate criticism, and should probably be addressed. At least, insofar as citations haven't been provided. Not a big deal to me, but could give some further support.


The argument that more familiar and mundane weapons are used in real combat everywhere in the world instead of the more exotic "Asian monk" weapons holds a lot of merit. In spite of any expertise they may have had with their more esoteric "show-off" weapons and techniques, I still think those monks would have picked up a simple spear in preference to a rope dart when their monasteries were under attack. I call on those of you who are asking us to accept that they'd have chosen any of the assortment of weird kung-fu weapons over a spear to prove it.

This is not a legitimate criticism. Because it is addressing a different issue, namely "Whether meteor hammers and other flexible weapons are good mass combat weapons."

Nobody is claiming that rope darts and meteor hammers have any use at all to an army, but many are claiming that they are useful weapons in other circumstances.

The reasoning behind those assertions has been largely avoided rather than addressed, which is what you are doing.

EDIT: Frakkin' ninjas and their crazy nunchaku.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I like how the people demanding proof from Acromos offer none of their own in support of their claims.


So far, I have claimed nothing other than Acromos' logic is flawed.

[DragoonWraith]

Precisely; I have no claim. I would not be surprised in the slightest if Acromos was right; lord knows I don't see how you'd use one effectively. But then, I wouldn't know - and as he has made very clear - neither would Acromos. And that has been my only point.

Hell, I'd still like my own question answered (as to whether or not there actually exist any exotic weapons that are too good for the feat).

I may have found one: Kaorti Resin. That stuff... is stupid.

[sonofzeal]

This is a legitimate criticism, and should probably be addressed. At least, insofar as citations haven't been provided. Not a big deal to me, but could give some further support.


...

The reasoning behind those assertions has been largely avoided rather than addressed, which is what you are doing.
The reasoning behind those assertations has been spelled out about half a dozen times already - I've actually used one, seen it used, and have friends who've sparred against conventional weapons with them. I've explained that they work, how they work, and why they work. I'm really not sure what sort of extra proof you're looking for.

[Lycanthromancer]

The reasoning behind those assertations has been spelled out about half a dozen times already - I've actually used one, seen it used, and have friends who've sparred against conventional weapons with them. I've explained that they work, how they work, and why they work. I'm really not sure what sort of extra proof you're looking for.

Maybe he wants some proverbial pudding?

That's where the proof is, after all.

[Fhaolan]

Oooo! Pudding. I could go for some pudding.

[sonofzeal]

Oooo! Pudding. I could go for some pudding.
Oh, bring us a figgy pudding! Oh, bring us a figgy pudding! Oh, bring us a figgy pudding! And a cup of good cheer!!!

[Dracomorph]

The reasoning behind those assertations has been spelled out about half a dozen times already - I've actually used one, seen it used, and have friends who've sparred against conventional weapons with them. I've explained that they work, how they work, and why they work. I'm really not sure what sort of extra proof you're looking for.

Maybe I was unclear: the reasons they are useful weapons have been explained, and no real attempt has been made to counter those assertions.

That's what I was trying to say.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Oh, bring us a figgy pudding! Oh, bring us a figgy pudding! Oh, bring us a figgy pudding! And a cup of good cheer!!!

We won't stop until we get some, we won't stop until we get some, we won't stop until we get some, so give it right now!!!

[Lycanthromancer]

*Slaps you all with some tapioca.*

Aka, trout eggs.

[Coidzor]

Actually tapioca is made from some type of root. I think manioc or something along those lines was the name.

[Lycanthromancer]

Actually tapioca is made from some type of root. I think manioc or something along those lines was the name.

Looks like fish eggs, and I wanted to slap someone with a fish.

So tapioca eggs it was.

[Coidzor]

Fair enough. Carry on, good sir, carry on.

[Tetsubo 57]

DMG. You've never noticed it?

I know I've seen it, I just didn't memorize it. And at the moment, my DMG is not easily accessible.

[Serenity]

My basic approach to the game as a whole: If it's good enough for an action movie, it's good enough for me. I want thinks to look and feel cool. I want my PCs to be badass. And I don't give much of a damn what real life has to do with any of it.

[Tetsubo 57]

Why the hell would you reccomend PF? It's not secret on here I despise the system and does absolutely nothing to make melee badass and cool *A few +1 is not cool and gimping the Spiked Chain and other Exotic Weapons was retarded*.

I apologize, your legend had not been made known to me.

Again, PF meets my needs handily. And 'gimping' an absurd weapon is a feature, not a bug.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Again, PF meets my needs handily. And 'gimping' an absurd weapon is a feature, not a bug.

Like Microsoft operating systems; if something doesn't work right, you either spend time and effort to patch it, or declare it a feature and move on.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Like Microsoft operating systems; if something doesn't work right, you either spend time and effort to patch it, or declare it a feature and move on.

But PF isn't at all like Microsoft. It actually DOES run with fewer glitches than 3.5... it doesn't have a 20% chance after every player's turn that the books will spontaneously combust. Nor does it have a random chance of the contents of the book turning into a big red ring or solid blue with white block lettering... or a chance of randomizing your character sheets...

[SparkMandriller]

I can't even tell what point you're trying to make, Shneekey. :/

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I can't even tell what point you're trying to make, Shneekey. :/

Half in seriousness and all in jest...

I was poking fun at Microsoft's inherent instability in every operating system they have ever made after they gave up DOS. Both PC and Console.

That the game system compared is not, infact, that unstable, is my point.

Not that it IS stable, so much as comparing it to microsoft is like comparing a puddle to an ocean...

[SparkMandriller]

That's a shame. Books burning themselves would be so convenient. It'd be like a built in "protect the children" feature.

[Tetsubo 57]

That's a shame. Books burning themselves would be so convenient. It'd be like a built in "protect the children" feature.

I could never bring myself to burn a book. Not even 4E. :)

[Tetsubo 57]

Like Microsoft operating systems; if something doesn't work right, you either spend time and effort to patch it, or declare it a feature and move on.

Well, in the case of the spiked chain, the best 'patch' is to toss it into the dust bin. Problem solved in one easy step!

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Well, in the case of the spiked chain, the best 'patch' is to toss it into the dust bin. Problem solved in one easy step!

What was the original problem, then? So far, there have been no reasonable objections other than "I just don't like it", which isn't a great reason for chucking the entire weapon away.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

What was the original problem, then? So far, there have been no reasonable objections other than "I just don't like it", which isn't a great reason for chucking the entire weapon away.It's OP(though not by a lot) and it doesn't make sense as depicted most of the time. At the least, only one end should be spiked. Making it basically a double weapon is ridiculous.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

It's OP(though not by a lot) and it doesn't make sense as depicted most of the time. At the least, only one end should be spiked. Making it basically a double weapon is ridiculous.

Artists not drawing it properly is no reason to ditch it. It being OP is the best argument, but since it's not OP by much, that's no cause for getting rid of it either.

[Stephen_E]

I like how the people demanding proof from Acromos offer none of their own in support of their claims.

I don't think it's been proven that those east Asian warrior monks to whom the invention of all those weird martial arts weapons is attributed ever used those weapons in any of their large-scale conflicts. I strongly suspect that, when the Shaolin temple came under attack any of the various times it was destroyed by real armies, the monks were issued staves, spears, polearms and other common arms like those carried by warrior monks everywhere else in the world, including Japan's sohei.

I'd like to see primary source documentation for the claim that east Asian warrior monks actually chose "meteor hammers," rope darts, etc. over standard weapons when called upon to engage in combat. I dug around a bit and what little the surviving historical records seem to say in most cases is simply that the monks participated in combat without really going into any narrative about what weapons they carried.

I think the burden of proof is on the "weird weapons are effective!" fanboi crowd to prove that these things were ever put to use in mass combat circumstances. I see little evidence that "meteor hammers," etc. ever saw use outside of situations like monks showing off in front of credulous proles in order to perpetuate the exotic allure of the mystic Orient.

The argument that more familiar and mundane weapons are used in real combat everywhere in the world instead of the more exotic "Asian monk" weapons holds a lot of merit. In spite of any expertise they may have had with their more esoteric "show-off" weapons and techniques, I still think those monks would have picked up a simple spear in preference to a rope dart when their monasteries were under attack. I call on those of you who are asking us to accept that they'd have chosen any of the assortment of weird kung-fu weapons over a spear to prove it.

It doesn't even seem like the Shaolin monks themselves regarded any of the crazier weapons in their arsenal as superior to the spear. I can't vouch for how "official" it is, but website after website in the quickie search I did refers to the spear as "The King of Weapons." If rope darts, "meteor hammers," three-section staves, etc. are mentioned at all, it is only after the spear, broadsword, jian, etc. as an afterthought.

Even the people who came up with these crazy weapons didn't appear to think they were to be preferred over a spear. I think that stands as strong testament to their ineffectiveness.

Umm, very few people have claimed most of what you've claimed.
Evidence/cites/persoanl experiance has been offered up. Acromos ignored or dismissed them and then proceeded to say none had been offered.

As for saying we have to prove that they used those weapons in any serious combat.
Nooo. They trained in them. Therefore it is a reasonable assumption that they used said weapons in serious combat that they were suitable for (note few if any have claimed they would be suitable in all situations).
If you which to claim that they went to considerable effort to learn a weapon that they'd never use in real combat you are naking a non-logical claim, and thus the balance is on you to substantiate the claim. If that is the claim you wish to make (as Acromas did indeed make, and you seem to support).

Stephen E

[Tetsubo 57]

What was the original problem, then? So far, there have been no reasonable objections other than "I just don't like it", which isn't a great reason for chucking the entire weapon away.

As originally presented, it was visually absurd. Just flat out impossible to use by anyone that didn't want to ruin their own hands. I call it a 'handburger' design.

Mechanically absurd, see the whole underwater use issue.

When I originally read the spiked chain entry I laughed out loud. My wife was confused why I was laughing at a gaming book. It showed me in no uncertain terms that no one at WotC had ever actually held a weapon. Nor did they apparently have access to any weapon reference books. I was tempted to drop a $100 and send them a few.

If you want more details, go watch the video I did on my favorite thing in the D&D system to hate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwmLJh5bamQ

There are many real world examples of chain weapons. Why did they feel the need to create a worse, sillier version of them?

My preference is to use the mechanics of the dire flail but change the fluff text to describe it as a heavy length of chain with weights at the end. Or just use a heavy flail.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

As originally presented, it was visually absurd. Just flat out impossible to use by anyone that didn't want to ruin their own hands. I call it a 'handburger' design.
...
There are many real world examples of chain weapons. Why did they feel the need to create a worse, sillier version of them?


Americans with no training in the martial arts who work at desk jobs at a company designing high-fantasy gaming products made an unrealistic weapon with an improper illustration?

EGADS! 'SWOUNDS! HABERDASHERY!

[sonofzeal]

It's OP(though not by a lot) and it doesn't make sense as depicted most of the time. At the least, only one end should be spiked. Making it basically a double weapon is ridiculous.
It's not really OP. I mean, it's better than most martial weapon, but for a feat it should be.

Compare to, say, the Heavy Flail. Heavy Flail also trips, and does slightly more damage. I'm going to ignore the disarming here, as almost nobody really uses that much as I've seen. So the question is, is a feat worth an extended reach?

Yes. It's called "Inhuman Reach". It's got another required feat and comes with a certain social stigma, but in return it works for all weapons, not just a slightly-weaker Heavy Flail.

So, there you go. It's well in line with what you could get from a feat elsewhere, at least outside of core. It's classy, and it's core, but that doesn't mean it's OP.

----

As to the art, well, pretty much every illustrator did it differently, and at very least it's not statted out as a double weapon so I'm willing to blame it on a bad illustrator. Wouldn't be the first time something's been borked up that way, I'm not going to get too worried about it.

[Tetsubo 57]

Artists not drawing it properly is no reason to ditch it. It being OP is the best argument, but since it's not OP by much, that's no cause for getting rid of it either.

Editors. Even WotC uses them. I know that may be hard to believe. Someone, who got paid, drew that monstrosity. *Then* someone else, who also got paid, looked at it and said to themselves, "Yeah, that's what I want to go with".

A picture is worth a thousand words as they say. In this case however, it's more like, "How high can they pile it?"

[Stephen_E]

Again, PF meets my needs handily. And 'gimping' an absurd weapon is a feature, not a bug.

The reason given for gimping it IS a bug.

"Just because it needs a feat to use it is no reason for it to be better than a martial weapon."

And I like and play PF, but that's still a stupid reason to give.

Stephen E

[Tetsubo 57]

The reason given for gimping it IS a bug.

"Just because it needs a feat to use it is no reason for it to be better than a martial weapon."

And I like and play PF, but that's still a stupid reason to give.

Stephen E

I don't have a problem with exotic weapons as a class. They should be mechanically superior if they cost a feat. To do otherwise is insulting. Even fighters don't have feats to burn. But the weapon shouldn't be dumb. The spiked chain is DUMB.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Editors. Even WotC uses them. I know that may be hard to believe. Someone, who got paid, drew that monstrosity. *Then* someone else, who also got paid, looked at it and said to themselves, "Yeah, that's what I want to go with".

A picture is worth a thousand words as they say. In this case however, it's more like, "How high can they pile it?"

I take it these editors were masters of the art of melee combat, who climbed to their position in the company over the broken bodies of their competitors, whom they slew in acts of courage and martial valor on the field of honor?


I don't have a problem with exotic weapons as a class. They should be mechanically superior if they cost a feat. To do otherwise is insulting. Even fighters don't have feats to burn. But the weapon shouldn't be dumb. The spiked chain is DUMB.

How is it dumb?

Because it looks funny? Chalk it up to an artist who doesn't know better.

Because it can attack people who are under water? So can every other weapon. Big deal.

So tell me, how is the concept of a chain with spikes on it dumb?

[Tetsubo 57]

I take it these editors were masters of the art of melee combat?

You don't need to be a master of combat. You need to open a freaking weapon reference book. You need to do, maybe, five minutes of research. Even a bloody Google image search would have been enough. I've crapped things out that took more effort. It's shoddy work. Poor art and even poorer editing. It shows a lack of care. Craftsmanship is more than just a word.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

So, you hate it passionately because the artist did not go through the internets/a library for example chain weapons in a fantasy game that has a tenuous enough relation to the real world as is, and the editor - who was likely a busy man and did not have time to personally research the weapon - let it through.

Right. I now understand why you wish for the weapon to be struck from existence. Not due to any mechanical issues, but because the artwork is bad and stains the concept weapon forever, and cannot be ignored whenever the spiked chain comes up. Much like how the PHB's presentation of Mialee absolutely ruined Elves for me.

Incidentally, how do we know the spiked chain wouldn't be usable in real life? I take it that the concept has been tested and found to perform poorly?

[Tetsubo 57]

So, you hate it passionately because the artwork is unrealistic, the artist did not go through the internets/a library for example chain weapons in a game that has a tenuous enough relation to the real world as is, and the editor - who was likely a busy man and did not have time to personally research the weapon - let it through.

Right. That's a totally reasonable reaction. I now understand why you wish for the weapon to be struck from existence. Because the artwork is bad and stains the concept weapon forever, and cannot be ignored whenever the spiked chain comes up.

Incidentally, how do we know the spiked chain wouldn't be usable in real life? I take it that the concept has been tested and found to perform poorly?

Listen. You and I appear to have our 'filters' set at very different levels. You are apparently willing to freely accept the spiked chain as a reasonable addition to the game. While I hate it with every cockle of my heart. It might just be the one thing left in all the world that I actual hate. Honestly.

So why don't we just agree to disagree?

[Aldrakan]

Couldn't we just rename it a meteor hammer and make it do bludgeoning damage? Then at least artists could just google a real weapon for reference and make that look absurd instead of having to imagine what a spiked chain would look like as a weapon.

[Tetsubo 57]

Couldn't we just rename it a meteor hammer and make it do bludgeoning damage? Then at least artists could just google a real weapon for reference and make that look absurd instead of having to imagine what a spiked chain would look like as a weapon.

I have no problem with that.

Look, there are, as you point out, real world chain weapons. Manriki-gusari, kusari-gama, rante, meteor hammer, any number of flail types and of course the classic motorcycle chain. Any of them would be welcomed at my gaming table. So why didn't they get used when 3E was released? Why did they make up this silly, unusable fantasy weapon?

[JellyPooga]

Couldn't we just rename it a meteor hammer and make it do bludgeoning damage? Then at least artists could just google a real weapon for reference and make that look absurd instead of having to imagine what a spiked chain would look like as a weapon.

Considering what the artists did to the poor defenceless warhammer, the meteor hammer would probably end up looking like a cratered football (that's what meteors look like, right?) attached to a chain with links the size of my head...:smallannoyed:

[Tetsubo 57]

Considering what the artists did to the poor defenceless warhammer, the meteor hammer would probably end up looking like a cratered football (that's what meteors look like, right?) attached to a chain with links the size of my head...:smallannoyed:

Well, OK, this premise might require a *new* artist. :)

I'd volunteer but sketching chains sucks.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Why did they make up this silly, unusable fantasy weapon?
Yeah, why is there a silly fantasy weapon in my silly fantasy game?

[sonofzeal]

I have no problem with that.

Look, there are, as you point out, real world chain weapons. Manriki-gusari, kusari-gama, rante, meteor hammer, any number of flail types and of course the classic motorcycle chain. Any of them would be welcomed at my gaming table. So why didn't they get used when 3E was released? Why did they make up this silly, unusable fantasy weapon?
I do still think it's the work of a particularly whimsical artist and not a major design decision. It's not statted as a double weapon (unlike the dire flail, which is just ridiculous), so all that needed to happen was the artist to draw it as part of a panel with a dozen other weapons, and for nobody else to care enough to say anything.

But yeah, picture sucks, I'm with you there. I'd reflavour it rather than ban it or nerf it, though.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Listen. You and I appear to have our 'filters' set at very different levels. You are apparently willing to freely accept the spiked chain as a reasonable addition to the game. While I hate it with every cockle of my heart. It might just be the one thing left in all the world that I actual hate. Honestly.

So why don't we just agree to disagree?

I find it more than mildly amusing that one can quietly accept some random geek pulling out a piece of paper and reading it, the action of reading it causing the fabric of reality warp to the reader's will... that your suspension of disbelief extends to a person pulling out a stick, pointing it at a target, which then falls over dead as perfectly believable... and yet find it completely inconceivable that an individual trained for years in the art of war cannot find a way to make the Spiked Chain a viable weapon.

It tickles my funny bone that one can take for granted that some guy in robes and make a few gestures, utter a few words, and time itself pauses for his benefit... and yet the mere thought of the Spiked Chain being able to be used properly is just inconceivable.

Throwing aside the whole RL debate, ignoring the many pages of back and forth on the topic of meteor hammers and all that... you are arguing that a picture which some random artist drew somehow makes the in-game weapon somehow less viable and inherently impossible to wield?

COOL! I'm gonna go draw my character now! He's gonna have the most badass of all badass weapons I can create! That must mean that it's a +5 Vorpal Keen Brilliant Energy Greatsword that I can wield in one hand because THE ART SAYS SO!!!

What is next... elves are unplayable because they have pointy ears which means they would have gone deaf generations ago?

First, there was RAW (Rules As Written), then there was RAI (Rules As Intended/Interpreted)... but now we have RAD (Rules As Drawn)!

Guys... seriously... take a step deep, cleansing breath and let it out slowly.

[Tetsubo 57]

Yeah, why is there a silly fantasy weapon in my silly fantasy game?

Not going to give up are you?

OK, here are the Simple weapons:

Gauntlet
Dagger
Dagger, punching
Gauntlet, spiked
Mace, light
Sickle
Club
Mace, heavy
Morningstar
Shortspear
Longspear
Quarterstaff
Spear
Crossbow, heavy
Crossbow, light
Dart
Javelin
Sling

I can see how obviously absurd every single one of them is...

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Not going to give up are you?
Ironic, considering...



OK, here are the Simple weapons:

Gauntlet
Dagger
Dagger, punching
Gauntlet, spiked
Mace, light
Sickle
Club
Mace, heavy
Morningstar
Shortspear
Longspear
Quarterstaff
Spear
Crossbow, heavy
Crossbow, light
Dart
Javelin
Sling

I can see how obviously absurd every single one of them is...

Actually, you need to compare what we call apples to apples. Namely, exotic weapons, which includes such things as:

Singham (does not exist in the real world - name is made up, weapon is assumed to be made up as well)


Nunchucku

Gnome Hooked Hammer (linked with chain)

Urgrosh (how do you avoid stabbing yourself in the foot?)

War Scythe (no real world equivalent)

I can see how obviously realistic every single one of them is.

[Tetsubo 57]

I find it more than mildly amusing that one can quietly accept some random geek pulling out a piece of paper and reading it, the action of reading it causing the fabric of reality warp to the reader's will... that your suspension of disbelief extends to a person pulling out a stick, pointing it at a target, which then falls over dead as perfectly believable... and yet find it completely inconceivable that an individual trained for years in the art of war cannot find a way to make the Spiked Chain a viable weapon.

It tickles my funny bone that one can take for granted that some guy in robes and make a few gestures, utter a few words, and time itself pauses for his benefit... and yet the mere thought of the Spiked Chain being able to be used properly is just inconceivable.

Throwing aside the whole RL debate, ignoring the many pages of back and forth on the topic of meteor hammers and all that... you are arguing that a picture which some random artist drew somehow makes the in-game weapon somehow less viable and inherently impossible to wield?

COOL! I'm gonna go draw my character now! He's gonna have the most badass of all badass weapons I can create! That must mean that it's a +5 Vorpal Keen Brilliant Energy Greatsword that I can wield in one hand because THE ART SAYS SO!!!

What is next... elves are unplayable because they have pointy ears which means they would have gone deaf generations ago?

Guys... seriously... take a step deep, cleansing breath and let it out slowly.

As I have pointed out, time and time again, weapons are real things. Physical objects that I can place my hands on, right now if I choose. In the room I am sitting in. I expect real world items to behave and look like real world items. I know, that makes me 'crazy'.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

As I have pointed out, time and time again, weapons are real things. Physical objects that I can place my hands on, right now if I choose. In the room I am sitting in.
How do you know magic isn't?


I expect real world items to behave and look like real world items. I know, that makes me 'crazy'.
In DnD physics does not exist. Objects do not behave as if in the real world. The total lack of momentum and intertia for example, comes up quite frequently. Falling velocities are not consistent with real world data. You can drop fighters from orbit and if they have enough HP, they can get up and do somersaults, with their armor perfectly intact. A character can drop 5000 feet at terminal velocity, then activate a Immovable Rod and hang in the air without breaking his arms or anything. You can cut through enemies and objects with a sword all day and never have to sharpen it, or remove rust.

I could go on.

[Tetsubo 57]

How do you know magic isn't?

It doesn't work the way it does in D&D.

[hamishspence]

Singham (does not exist in the real world - name is made up, weapon is assumed to be made up as well).

It's spelled Siangham- and what's this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siangham

[ShneekeyTheLost]

As I have pointed out, time and time again, weapons are real things. Physical objects that I can place my hands on, right now if I choose. In the room I am sitting in. I expect real world items to behave and look like real world items. I know, that makes me 'crazy'.

When you are in a non-euclidean plane of existence, expecting things to conform to a euclidean norm is insanity.

No, the Spiked Chain is NOT a 'real thing'. It is a couple of paragraphs in a book, or on a webpage, followed by a picture. That's it. I cannot reach into my D&D 3.5 PhB and pull the thing out to swing at my friend for making a bad pun.

I cannot reach into my computer monitor and pull it out of the SRD website. It does not exist, except in the avid imaginations of the gamers who play D&D 3.5. It is purely fictitious. It is as real as Schrodinger's Cat and the Jabberwoky.

It is a stat block and a picture. Don't like the picture? Fine, get rid of it. Make up your own description of it. Problem solved.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

It's spelled Siangham- and what's this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siangham

My mistake. Must have been thinking of something else at the time.

[sonofzeal]

As I have pointed out, time and time again, weapons are real things. Physical objects that I can place my hands on, right now if I choose. In the room I am sitting in. I expect real world items to behave and look like real world items. I know, that makes me 'crazy'.
So change how it looks in your world. Honestly, pretty much every artist who's drawn it has. Personally, I like the Shadar-Kai picture (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ff_gallery/50110.jpg)as one I might actually consider using. It's basically just a meteor hammer with a spikey-bladed thing on the end instead of a ball, and a chain instead of a rope. The chain part would cause some awkwardness with the link size shown, but the spikey things on the end should be fine.

[Zen Master]

This is a fair criticism of the weapon. It is incredibly hard to aim. Moreover, a poorly executed attack (especially a swing, the primary attack used to trip and a figure 8 when used with a 2 headed version) stands a good chance to harm the wielder.

Thanks :)


There are, however, people who can safely aim it without issue, but they've had years (if not decades) of practice. And they will be more effective with it that with, say, a sword given equal effort: the structure of the weapon leads to more avenues of use to master than most other kinds of weapons. This is what people have been referring to when they note that it's very hard to master.

See, here I'm not sure I agree with you. For a specific type of fight, the meteor hammer could certainly be better than a sword (or similar melee weapon, I'm by no means a sword fanboy) - but a sword will serve in almost any fight there is (except the proverbial gunfight).

Of course, both weapon lose a lot of their charm against an armored opponent.


With most soft weapons, a shield merely alters aiming: most historical shields aren't particularly large. The list of historical armies that regularly used tower shields (or really anything close) in combat is very low (and focused highly around walled cities and flat land, where phalanx like structures worked well). However, as I pointed out above, aiming is easily the most difficult part of weapons like these.

Now, you seem to indicate the weapon is used the way I assume - with swings - while Sonofzeal maintains it's used with throws.

I'm going to take it that you actually do both - maybe for different situations.

At any rate, to block such a weapon, clearly you need to either deflect the head, or get enough inside its reach that it will swing around to hit the wielder.

Not an easy trick, I'm sure - but certainly doable with practice.

[Tetsubo 57]

It's spelled Siangham- and what's this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siangham

My version:

http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/art/Siangham-118950301

[hamishspence]

Probably the worst-looking spiked chain of all time is the one wielded by the Serpent Sibyl in Serpent Kingdoms - enormous hooks on either end, morningstar ends, and studded with mini-morningstar balls all down its length.

PHB2 has some much more "feasible-looking" ones.

Page 179- one of the half-elves is twirling one a bit like you would twirl a lasso- only the ends are weighted and spiked.

Page 195- Regdar is wielding one more like the PHB one, with hoops. Again, only the ends are spiky.

[Tetsubo 57]

So change how it looks in your world. Honestly, pretty much every artist who's drawn it has. Personally, I like the Shadar-Kai picture (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ff_gallery/50110.jpg)as one I might actually consider using. It's basically just a meteor hammer with a spikey-bladed thing on the end instead of a ball, and a chain instead of a rope. The chain part would cause some awkwardness with the link size shown, but the spikey things on the end should be fine.

The weapon in that image is more of a rante than a 'spiked' weapon.

My dislike of the spiked chain isn't just in it's appearance. I also don't like it's mechanics. Which is why I use the dire flail stats with new fluff (chain with weights). The spiked chain just fails on every level for me.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

The weapon in that image is more of a rante than a 'spiked' weapon.

My dislike of the spiked chain isn't just in it's appearance. I also don't like it's mechanics. Which is why I use the dire flail stats with new fluff (chain with weights). The spiked chain just fails on every level for me.

Okay, now THIS is the first valid argument I've heard in ten pages.

You have a problem with the mechanics. Great. You have a solution. Wonderful.

Congratulations, you have solved the conundrum that has been debated for 14 pages now.

Personally, I happen to like the mechanics, although I do tend to beef up other 'exotic' weapons, to the point where they are worth a feat, and on part with the spiked chain. I guess I prefer to run more of a Wuxai-style game.

However, previous comments depicting the uselessness of the weapon based on the artist's rendition of a statblock is... silly.

[Tetsubo 57]

Okay, now THIS is the first valid argument I've heard in ten pages.

You have a problem with the mechanics. Great. You have a solution. Wonderful.

Congratulations, you have solved the conundrum that has been debated for 14 pages now.

Personally, I happen to like the mechanics, although I do tend to beef up other 'exotic' weapons, to the point where they are worth a feat, and on part with the spiked chain. I guess I prefer to run more of a Wuxai-style game.

However, previous comments depicting the uselessness of the weapon based on the artist's rendition of a statblock is... silly.

I don't think we are actually debating the spiked chain at all. I think we are debating different approaches to the game of D&D. Different gaming philosophies if you will. Which is why the debate can never actually be 'won'.

But I stand by my argument that the illustrations are absurd.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I don't think we are actually debating the spiked chain at all. I think we are debating different approaches to the game of D&D. Different gaming philosophies if you will. Which is why the debate can never actually be 'won'.

But I stand by my argument that the illustrations are absurd.

I have never denied that the illustrations are absurd. In fact, I think I mentioned in my first post in the thread how I re-skinned it.

[Saph]

However, previous comments depicting the uselessness of the weapon based on the artist's rendition of a statblock is... silly.

I don't think there's anything silly about finding a silly-looking weapon silly.

My problem with the 3.5 spiked chain is that a player who chooses an iconic and sensible weapon combination like sword and shield is at a mechanical disadvantage to a player who chooses a bizarre and stupid weapon like the spiked chain. If there's any disparity, it should be the other way around.

(On the subject, I've always thought that shields should be heavily buffed up, too.)

[Stephen_E]

By picture. Stupid weapons

Light Lance
Heavy Lance
Great Club
Spiked Gauntlet
Orc Double Axe
Spiked Chain
Dwarven War Axe
Great Axe
Dwarven Urgosh (borderline)
DireFlail
Gnome Hooked Hammer
WarHammer
Two Bladed Sword
Falchion
The lefthand side of Full Plate

And lets not get into weapons weights, or we can throw half of what's left out for utter silliness.

Stephen E

[Saph]

Orc Double Axe

I remember one hilarious picture where someone photoshopped an orc double axe into an orc quadruple axe.

The caption, by an orc commentator, read as follows: "This was a bad idea even by the standards of orcish bad ideas." Wish I could find that picture. :)

[Tetsubo 57]

I remember one hilarious picture where someone photoshopped an orc double axe into an orc quadruple axe.

The caption, by an orc commentator, read as follows: "This was a bad idea even by the standards of orcish bad ideas." Wish I could find that picture. :)

I've seen an entire string of such images. Including the chainsaw-chucks.

[Saph]

Here it is. (Rebuilt from the lost WotC Archives)

The Orc Quadruple Axe
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/1893/axeofretardkk1.png

"This was a bad idea, even on the scale of Orcish bad ideas."
―Orc weaponsmith

The Spiked Double Spiked Chain
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/6123/chainofretardox0.png

"Well, if I take Monkey Grip and have Powerful Build and grab oversized Two Weapon Fighting I could―"
"Your character is now a level one commoner until you can figure out what you have done wrong."
―Munchkin with no understanding of said feats and the munchkin's DM.


The Heavy Light Flail Crossbow
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/4052/crossbowofretardlj3.png

[Stephen_E]

I remember in 3.0 Oversized weapon allowed you to weild a 2HW in one hand.
My GM pointed this out to me for my Spike Chain Weilder.

So..., yes I ended up weilding a Spiked Chain in each hand with 2WFing.:smallredface:

Every time I played him doing it I had a mental picture of my opponents stepping back while they waited for me to kill myself. Not wanting to get involved in the inevitable carnage. :smalleek:

Now THAT was silly! :smallbiggrin:

Stephen E

[AgentPaper]

The Spiked Double Spiked Chain
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/6123/chainofretardox0.png

"Well, if I take Monkey Grip and have Powerful Build and grab oversized Two Weapon Fighting I could―"
"Your character is now a level one commoner until you can figure out what you have done wrong."
―Munchkin with no understanding of said feats and the munchkin's DM.


I could see a level 20 fighter using that. Not to fight, heavens no, just to show off that he can actually swing it around without chopping his own head off.

Alternately, you could use it like some kind of dire cat-o-nine-tails. :smalltongue:

[ranagrande]

For everyone else who thinks that the Spiked Chain actually isn't crazy enough the way it is, allow me to present you with a much more entertaining way to view the PHB illustration:

The center ring goes around your waist.

[Ozymandias9]

Americans with no training in the martial arts who work at desk jobs at a company designing high-fantasy gaming products made an unrealistic weapon with an improper illustration?

EGADS! 'SWOUNDS! HABERDASHERY!

I don't think that they'd make very good hats either. Though the result might be fun to look at.

[Fluffles]

By picture. Stupid weapons

Light Lance
Heavy Lance
Great Club
Spiked Gauntlet
Orc Double Axe
Spiked Chain
Dwarven War Axe
Great Axe
Dwarven Urgosh (borderline)
DireFlail
Gnome Hooked Hammer
WarHammer
Two Bladed Sword
Falchion
The lefthand side of Full Plate

And lets not get into weapons weights, or we can throw half of what's left out for utter silliness.

Stephen E

Great Axes were used by the Saxons, and they kicked major ass until they got paintrained by the Romans.

Great Clubs make perfect sense for Ogres and trolls and stuff.
1. Break of a tree Limb
2. Rip tiny branches off
3. ???
4. Profit!

Spiked Gauntlets are just pointy brass knuckles.

Your not playing a fantasy game if you don't have a two-bladed sword. :smallbiggrin:

War Hammers were used in medieval times to smash in helmets. They were insanesly deadly.

The hooked hammer is a just a hammer with a hook that can be used to pull people off of horses and such. But there are no rules for that in D&D so... :smalltongue:

Orc Double Axe is just a two-bladed sword. But with axes. Make sense if you like axes. And killing yourself.

Oh. By picture. DOH!

[Ozymandias9]

See, here I'm not sure I agree with you. For a specific type of fight, the meteor hammer could certainly be better than a sword (or similar melee weapon, I'm by no means a sword fanboy) - but a sword will serve in almost any fight there is (except the proverbial gunfight).

I should have been clearer. There are certainly a lot of weapons with greater range of use. What I meant to get across is that soft weapons have greater range of combat applications to master: the people who study them for a decade are learning to get them to do things that, while narrow in application, are more or less unique to that set of related weapons. You have, for example, many more avenues for controlling where your enemy can move than with most weapons.


Now, you seem to indicate the weapon is used the way I assume - with swings - while Sonofzeal maintains it's used with throws.

I'm going to take it that you actually do both - maybe for different situations.

Again, correct. The primary attack motions are linear: whips, throws, modified and bounced throws, and grabs. Circular motion is used between those, both as a defensive motion and to gain momentum. There are however, certain notable attack motions that are circular: a swing is the basis of most forms of tripping, and a slam is seen often (mostly because the fact that it's dangerous to deflect, easy to avoid, and easy to quickly repeat allows one to use to affect enemy position).


At any rate, to block such a weapon, clearly you need to either deflect the head, or get enough inside its reach that it will swing around to hit the wielder.

Deflecting the head is the preferred option for most linear strikes. For circular strikes, it would destroy most historical wooden shields: momentum and such. Luckily, those are easier to avoid.

As for using the weapon against the wielder, that would require a degree of prediction. You'd have not only to be very fast, but have a good understanding of the motion forms of the weapon in question: essentially you'd have to be fairly familiar its use yourself.

[pres_man]

@"the physics don't work": According to physics dragons couldn't fly and ants, spiders, centipedes couldn't be huge and ... Now I know, "its magic" right? Ok, so in an antimagic field a dragon can't fly and monstrous vermin collapse under their own weight? No, then give it a break no the "physics don't work" argument because you are being hypocritical.

@"underwater is silly just for being a piercing weapon": So morningstars are banned? picks? spiked shields? scythes? gnomed hooed hammers? Nope? Then again you are being hypocritical.

@"PF fixed stuff": Oh really? How did PF's change to the spiked chain improve the situation? Did it make people that had refused to use it in the past suddenly think, "Now it all makes sense, I can't wait to use it?" Nope. Did it make people that did favor it before suddenly think, "Why even bother with it now, it is worse than the heavy flail." Yes. So the people that did use it now don't bother and the people that wouldn't use it before still won't, how did that improve it?

@"The picture is silly.": That is about the most weak argument I've ever heard. Of course coming from people who say PF is good, when most reviews of it are basically, "It looks pretty", I guess I shouldn't be surprised. There have been numerous poor drawings and good drawings (some showing it being used in a fashion similar to real world weapons like the rope dart).

Now I know, I'm going to be labeled a "spiked chain fanboi", of course that is going to seem humorous given that I've never had a character use a spiked chain, nor been a game where one has been used. I've just actually compared the stats of the spiked chain to other weapons and come to the objective conclusion that for the cost of an extra feat it is not overpowered. Of course, I come from the belief that feats should give some benefit and shouldn't just be for getting underpowered choices for flavor reasons. But hey, I'm crazy like that.

[Starbuck_II]

Agreed, no one at the Paizo boards said they were moree likely to use it now that it was nerfed.
They either were happy that others were nerfed. Thought maybe no one would use it now. Still banned it due to the picture.
Or those who would have used the spiked chain now use Heavy Flail and that Extend reach feat. That way they can emulate the spiked chain.

[shadow_archmagi]

I want to dual wield Orc Quadruple Axes. My warforged will swing them by rotating his wrists; it'll be like a circular saw

[AstralFire]

For the sake of argument, I would actually have used a Spiked Chain even if it was nerfed; but the one time I actually chose a Spiked Chain as my weapon, it was done on a flavor basis and was actually a sub-optimal match for the character to begin with. It doesn't really change that balance wise, the problem with the Spiked Chain is more that few EWPs are actually worth a feat than that it's too good compared to most EWPs.

[Tetsubo 57]

@"the physics don't work": According to physics dragons couldn't fly and ants, spiders, centipedes couldn't be huge and ... Now I know, "its magic" right? Ok, so in an antimagic field a dragon can't fly and monstrous vermin collapse under their own weight? No, then give it a break no the "physics don't work" argument because you are being hypocritical.

@"underwater is silly just for being a piercing weapon": So morningstars are banned? picks? spiked shields? scythes? gnomed hooed hammers? Nope? Then again you are being hypocritical.

@"PF fixed stuff": Oh really? How did PF's change to the spiked chain improve the situation? Did it make people that had refused to use it in the past suddenly think, "Now it all makes sense, I can't wait to use it?" Nope. Did it make people that did favor it before suddenly think, "Why even bother with it now, it is worse than the heavy flail." Yes. So the people that did use it now don't bother and the people that wouldn't use it before still won't, how did that improve it?

@"The picture is silly.": That is about the most weak argument I've ever heard. Of course coming from people who say PF is good, when most reviews of it are basically, "It looks pretty", I guess I shouldn't be surprised. There have been numerous poor drawings and good drawings (some showing it being used in a fashion similar to real world weapons like the rope dart).

Now I know, I'm going to be labeled a "spiked chain fanboi", of course that is going to seem humorous given that I've never had a character use a spiked chain, nor been a game where one has been used. I've just actually compared the stats of the spiked chain to other weapons and come to the objective conclusion that for the cost of an extra feat it is not overpowered. Of course, I come from the belief that feats should give some benefit and shouldn't just be for getting underpowered choices for flavor reasons. But hey, I'm crazy like that.

You can't swing *any* type of weapon underwater effectively. The only types that work properly are thrusting weapons. Such as spear, tridents and spear guns (crossbows). Which is why the spiked chain is absurd.

I play D&D like reality with an overlay of magic. Everything that works here in our world, works in the D&D world. Magic can go beyond that. A spiked chain is a 'mundane' item, not magical. It must perform like a weapon from our world. No such weapon was ever invented. For good reason, it's stupid and unworkable. Make the spiked chain magical and I will never complain again. Not a magic weapon mind you, a non-plussed, no powers of any kind but still magical to overcome it's inherent absurdity.

[Dracomorph]

I play D&D like reality with an overlay of magic. Everything that works here in our world, works in the D&D world. Magic can go beyond that. A spiked chain is a 'mundane' item, not magical. It must perform like a weapon from our world. No such weapon was ever invented. For good reason, it's stupid and unworkable. Make the spiked chain magical and I will never complain again. Not a magic weapon mind you, a non-plussed, no powers of any kind but still magical to overcome it's inherent absurdity.

Why couldn't it be a non-magical weapon with a magical wielder?

Maybe the Exotic Weapon Prof. for the spiked chain requires you to learn some basic non-spell magic to make it work.

[DragoonWraith]

I play D&D like reality with an overlay of magic. Everything that works here in our world, works in the D&D world.
If that's how it works, why does anyone play anything but casters? If you can't be superhuman without magic, then you need magic to compete. That's... not a great system, IMO.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

You can't swing *any* type of weapon underwater effectively. The only types that work properly are thrusting weapons. Such as spear, tridents and spear guns (crossbows). Which is why the spiked chain is absurd.
That would make more than just the spiked chain absurd. Glaive, guisarmes, glaive guisarme glaives, glaive glaive guisarme glaive guisarmes...


I play D&D like reality with an overlay of magic. Everything that works here in our world, works in the D&D world. Magic can go beyond that. A spiked chain is a 'mundane' item, not magical.
Wait, don't magical weapons exist in DnD?

[Coidzor]

Why couldn't it be a non-magical weapon with a magical wielder?

Maybe the Exotic Weapon Prof. for the spiked chain requires you to learn some basic non-spell magic to make it work.

Eh, I just dismiss the PHB illustration as crappy and go with the ones that make it look more like a chained hybrid of a rope dart and a meteor hammer.

Hell, it should really be a B/P weapon anyway, even the wonky PHB version.

The only way to use it so that the spikes hit someone without the chain bashing 'em as well would be to have the spikes acting as a saw by just barely grazing someone's flesh which would be more S damage...


If that's how it works, why does anyone play anything but casters? If you can't be superhuman without magic, then you need magic to compete. That's... not a great system, IMO.

I think that's why they came up with all of those partial or focused gish or spontaneous caster classes which also could survive as skillmonkeys or fighting types at low levels.

[Tetsubo 57]

That would make more than just the spiked chain absurd. Glaive, guisarmes, glaive guisarme glaives, glaive glaive guisarme glaive guisarmes...


Wait, don't magical weapons exist in DnD?

Unless it's Piercing, it should have massive penalties to use underwater. And I mean MASSIVE penalties. There are no great axe weilders underwater.

Every spiked chain in existence would have to be magic. No pluses, no magic powers of any kind. Just magic to be able to function as it is described and depicted in the rules. Because it just about defies reality as it is.

[Starbuck_II]

You can't swing *any* type of weapon underwater effectively. The only types that work properly are thrusting weapons. Such as spear, tridents and spear guns (crossbows). Which is why the spiked chain is absurd.

I play D&D like reality with an overlay of magic. Everything that works here in our world, works in the D&D world. Magic can go beyond that. A spiked chain is a 'mundane' item, not magical. It must perform like a weapon from our world. No such weapon was ever invented. For good reason, it's stupid and unworkable. Make the spiked chain magical and I will never complain again. Not a magic weapon mind you, a non-plussed, no powers of any kind but still magical to overcome it's inherent absurdity.

No, the Spiked Chain is an extraodrinary weapon so it functions in antimagic fields.

[Tetsubo 57]

Why couldn't it be a non-magical weapon with a magical wielder?

Maybe the Exotic Weapon Prof. for the spiked chain requires you to learn some basic non-spell magic to make it work.

That idea hurts my brain. It means reworking the entire exotic weapon system. Or I just ban the spiked chain.

[Dracomorph]

Eh, I just dismiss the PHB illustration as crappy and go with the ones that make it look more like a chained hybrid of a rope dart and a meteor hammer.

I do about the same thing, I'm just suggesting another way of looking at it.

Honestly, there's not many weapon designs the PHB got right.

EDIT:

That idea hurts my brain. It means reworking the entire exotic weapon system. Or I just ban the spiked chain.

I don't see why. In a world saturated with magic, why wouldn't a melee specialist pick up a little bit here and there? And it's not like anything changes mechanically.

Do you also ban the Dire Flail, and the Orc Double-Axe, and the Dwarven Urgrosh, Gnome Hooked Hammer, etc.? They're also seriously crazy.

Really, compared to those, the spiked chain is a minor offender.

[Tetsubo 57]

No, the Spiked Chain is an extraodrinary weapon so it functions in antimagic fields.

Extraordinarily stupid.

Maybe it was designed by dragons so that fighters that use them injure themselves and don't bug the dragons. Because you can't use it as originally depicted without hurting yourself.

[Starbuck_II]

Extraordinarily stupid.

Maybe it was designed by dragons so that fighters that use them injure themselves and don't bug the dragons. Because you can't use it as originally depicted without hurting yourself.

Nope, Extrodinary means it can ignore laws of physics and still function.

[DragoonWraith]

That idea hurts my brain. It means reworking the entire exotic weapon system. Or I just ban the spiked chain.
No it doesn't, it's entirely fluff. When you take the EWP feat, you train in the use of the weapon. In the case of Dracomorph's Spiked Chain, that training includes using a bit of magic to make the thing work. Special, martial, simple magic, that doesn't require any real spellcasting ability and still works in AMFs/DMZs.

[Tetsubo 57]

If that's how it works, why does anyone play anything but casters? If you can't be superhuman without magic, then you need magic to compete. That's... not a great system, IMO.

How do you play it? If reality isn't involved, I don't have a point of reference. Either as a player or GM. It must be based on reality. Magic just does things that go beyond reality.

It's why Grimjack always carried a sword. Magic doesn't work in some places, guns don't work in some places, but a sword? That always works.

[pres_man]

You can't swing *any* type of weapon underwater effectively. The only types that work properly are thrusting weapons. Such as spear, tridents and spear guns (crossbows). Which is why the spiked chain is absurd.

And you ignore all of the other piercing weapons that I listed, that according to the RAW would be effective underwater, but are all just as absurd as the spiked chain to be used underwater. Here, I will post them again, since you seemed to ignore them. These weapons are: morningstars, picks, spiked shields, scythes, and gnomed hooked hammers. Now if you haven't banned those weapons because of how absurd it is that they can be used underwater but you are banning the spiked chain for that, then you are acting hypocritical. End of story.


I play D&D like reality with an overlay of magic. Everything that works here in our world, works in the D&D world. Magic can go beyond that. A spiked chain is a 'mundane' item, not magical. It must perform like a weapon from our world. No such weapon was ever invented. For good reason, it's stupid and unworkable. Make the spiked chain magical and I will never complain again. Not a magic weapon mind you, a non-plussed, no powers of any kind but still magical to overcome it's inherent absurdity.

So again, if a dragon or a monstrous vermin enters a antimagic field do you make it impossible for the dragon to fly? Do you have the monstrous vermin collapse under its own weight? No, then again you are being hypocritical. You are picking which bits of "reality" you must have and which bits you don't care about.

[Tetsubo 57]

No it doesn't, it's entirely fluff. When you take the EWP feat, you train in the use of the weapon. In the case of Dracomorph's Spiked Chain, that training includes using a bit of magic to make the thing work. Special, martial, simple magic, that doesn't require any real spellcasting ability and still works in AMFs/DMZs.

So, it has no magical effect other than allowing you to wield a silly weapon? Ummm, I'll pass. I'll just have fighters use weapons based on real world examples. There are plenty of real chain weapons to choose from.

[Dracomorph]

So, it has no magical effect other than allowing you to wield a silly weapon? Ummm, I'll pass. I'll just have fighters use weapons based on real world examples. There are plenty of real chain weapons to choose from.

I always thought of it like this:
When the laws of reality are so mutable that belief and/or throwing bat poo and screaming can bend them, it is perfectly sensible to assume that a warrior's confidence in his own expertise and equipment can do the same. Perhaps to a much lesser extent, but it doesn't really take much.

[Tetsubo 57]

I always thought of it like this:
When the laws of reality are so mutable that belief and/or throwing bat poo and screaming can bend them, it is perfectly sensible to assume that a warrior's confidence in his own expertise and equipment can do the same. Perhaps to a much lesser extent, but it doesn't really take much.

I can understand that line of thinking. I might well even agree on some level. But I can't expand that far enough to encompass the stupid that is a spiked chain. Just not going to happen. Rope darts, meteor hammers, rantes, biker chains? Not a problem. But spiked chains? Nope.

[Gametime]

And you ignore all of the other piercing weapons that I listed, that according to the RAW would be effective underwater, but are all just as absurd as the spiked chain to be used underwater. Here, I will post them again, since you seemed to ignore them. These weapons are: morningstars, picks, spiked shields, scythes, and gnomed hooked hammers. Now if you haven't banned those weapons because of how absurd it is that they can be used underwater but you are banning the spiked chain for that, then you are acting hypocritical. End of story.

So again, if a dragon or a monstrous vermin enters a antimagic field do you make it impossible for the dragon to fly? Do you have the monstrous vermin collapse under its own weight? No, then again you are being hypocritical. You are picking which bits of "reality" you must have and which bits you don't care about.

If the reasoning is "The Spiked Chain is absurd for reasons A, B, and C, so I ban it," you can't respond with "Aha! But these others weapons are also absurd for reason A, which is clearly the entire basis of your argument, so they should be banned too!"

It isn't unreasonable to have an absurdity threshold - a certain level of the absurd that you're willing to tolerate. The Spiked Chain offends just about every reasonable criteria for a weapon, since using it under ANY circumstances - in water, on land, in space, whatever - defies the imagination. The other weapons you listed are silly underwater, but perfectly acceptable elsewhere. Maybe his standard for banning things isn't JUST based on how they work underwater. Maybe it's one of many considerations.

Either way, you might want to be a little less trigger-happy with the word "hypocritical."

[Dracomorph]

I can understand that line of thinking. I might well even agree on some level. But I can't expand that far enough to encompass the stupid that is a spiked chain. Just not going to happen. Rope darts, meteor hammers, rantes, biker chains? Not a problem. But spiked chains? Nope.

How about a spiked meteor hammer?

Because that's more like what the rules text actually describes than the horrible, horrible illustrations.

[Tetsubo 57]

How about a spiked meteor hammer?

Because that's more like what the rules text actually describes than the horrible, horrible illustrations.

A morningstar head on a really long chain so to speak? I can deal with that. It would do B/P damage. We'll call it a Star Hammer.

Star Hammer (Exotic, two handed)

25 gp, 1d6 (Small), 2d4 (Medium) ×2, 5 lb., Bludgeoning and Piercing.

A star hammer has reach, so you can strike opponents 10 feet away with it. In addition, unlike most other weapons with reach, it can be used against an adjacent foe.

You can make trip attacks with the chain. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the chain to avoid being tripped.

When using a star hammer, you get a +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an opponent (including the roll to avoid being disarmed if such an attempt fails).

There you go, a weapon that makes some sort of sense. No weapon finesse however.

[pres_man]

If the reasoning is "The Spiked Chain is absurd for reasons A, B, and C, so I ban it," you can't respond with "Aha! But these others weapons are also absurd for reason A, which is clearly the entire basis of your argument, so they should be banned too!"

It isn't unreasonable to have an absurdity threshold - a certain level of the absurd that you're willing to tolerate. The Spiked Chain offends just about every reasonable criteria for a weapon, since using it under ANY circumstances - in water, on land, in space, whatever - defies the imagination. The other weapons you listed are silly underwater, but perfectly acceptable elsewhere. Maybe his standard for banning things isn't JUST based on how they work underwater. Maybe it's one of many considerations.

Either way, you might want to be a little less trigger-happy with the word "hypocritical."

Thanks Dad, but you might want to go back and read some of the other posts that lead to this. I gave a response to several points, the response I got ignored at least half of them and again focused on the silliness of the spiked chain being used in water and totally failed to address all of the other silly weapons in the same vien. So it is the person who I responded to that focused on the water issue, I just responded in kind.

EDIT: I might also point out this statement

Just the fact that it functions underwater because it is a piercing wepon is reason enough to ban it forever.

So taking that statement at face-value, picks should also be banned from that game forever. If they are not, then either the person stating this is being hypocritical or blowing smoke out of their rear.

The spiked chain doesn't defy the imagination of many, especially when ignoring the poor drawings and looking at the better drawings where it is shown to be used in a fashion similar to the rope dart or meteror hammer. If you or someone else can't do that, then that says more about your imagination (or lack of) then the spiked chain.

[HamHam]

This picture in the PhB is terrible. There are much better spiked-chain designs you can look at, such as the one in CW:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/cw_ag/75468.jpg

The spikes are no a probably for the wielder for the same reason you can hold a knife blade without it cutting you, it takes both sharpness and kinetic energy to pierce flesh, gloves, etc.

[Yukitsu]

A morningstar head on a really long chain so to speak? I can deal with that. It would do B/P damage. We'll call it a Star Hammer.

Star Hammer (Exotic, two handed)

25 gp, 1d6 (Small), 2d4 (Medium) ×2, 5 lb., Bludgeoning and Piercing.

A star hammer has reach, so you can strike opponents 10 feet away with it. In addition, unlike most other weapons with reach, it can be used against an adjacent foe.

You can make trip attacks with the chain. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the chain to avoid being tripped.

When using a star hammer, you get a +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an opponent (including the roll to avoid being disarmed if such an attempt fails).

There you go, a weapon that makes some sort of sense. No weapon finesse however.

I'd have to say, once a DM starts making home rules for things that they don't believe make sense and replace them with mechanically identical or similar things, I'd not play, because irrelevant nitpicking never stops at just one thing. The normal spiked chain rules are fine, as are those, if you assume a weapon of a slightly different shape.

[DragoonWraith]

No weapon finesse however.
Why? Seriously, few weapons make more sense as a finesse weapon - you don't really apply your own strength, it's all about moving the thing properly to create the momentum you need to hurt things.

Further, finessing a weapon is inherently inferior to not doing so - it costs an extra feat, and it increases MAD (Str and Dex are now necessary for melee attacks, instead of just Str). It does, however, allow a different kind of melee character to be played - say, more monk than viking, which, ya know, makes sense with a weapon based on a real world counterpart used almost exclusively by Shaolin monks.

The reality is that almost every weapon should be finnessable - or rather, finesse should come into play with all weapons, whether it is a "finesse" weapon or not. Both strength and dexterity should be involved in all melee attack rolls.

[Tetsubo 57]

This picture in the PhB is terrible. There are much better spiked-chain designs you can look at, such as the one in CW:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/cw_ag/75468.jpg

The spikes are no a probably for the wielder for the same reason you can hold a knife blade without it cutting you, it takes both sharpness and kinetic energy to pierce flesh, gloves, etc.

Each of those links has four points on it. You would turn your hands into ground beef in about two minutes. If the are dull enough to not harm the user, than hey aren't sharp enough to hurt the target either. You can't have it both ways. I consider this picture a shining example of why the spiked chain is dumb.

And you can hold a knife blade by gripping the *flats*, not the edge. Grab the edge and you are now left handed. :)

[Yukitsu]

I've done that actually. A knife can't instantly slice anything it comes in contact to unless you run your hand along the edge. If you hold onto one part and don't let it slide, it can't cut you.

[Tetsubo 57]

Why? Seriously, few weapons make more sense as a finesse weapon - you don't really apply your own strength, it's all about moving the thing properly to create the momentum you need to hurt things.

Further, finessing a weapon is inherently inferior to not doing so - it costs an extra feat, and it increases MAD (Str and Dex are now necessary for melee attacks, instead of just Str). It does, however, allow a different kind of melee character to be played - say, more monk than viking, which, ya know, makes sense with a weapon based on a real world counterpart used almost exclusively by Shaolin monks.

The reality is that almost every weapon should be finnessable - or rather, finesse should come into play with all weapons, whether it is a "finesse" weapon or not. Both strength and dexterity should be involved in all melee attack rolls.

I made this weapon five pounds. Swinging a five pound weight on a length of chain takes huge amounts of strength. To wield it in a combat situation takes even more. Nothing 'finessed' about that.

Though I agree that finesse should play a far greater role in D&D. In my last AD&D campaign I had Dex add an attack bonus, not Str.

[Spiryt]

And you can hold a knife blade by gripping the *flats*, not the edge. Grab the edge and you are now left handed. :)

No. Very much no. You can squeeze knife or sword blade really hard and don't cut yourself.

That's in fact what halfswording was all about.

Just 2cp.

[Dracomorph]

I've done that actually. A knife can't instantly slice anything it comes in contact to unless you run your hand along the edge. If you hold onto one part and don't let it slide, it can't cut you.

This is especially true with weapons, which aren't as sharp as kitchen/folding knives for reasons of durability.

[Tetsubo 57]

I've done that actually. A knife can't instantly slice anything it comes in contact to unless you run your hand along the edge. If you hold onto one part and don't let it slide, it can't cut you.

Please don't ever try that with a knife that has been properly sharpened. You will bleed a lot and sever things you really want to keep.

[Tetsubo 57]

No. Very much no. You can squeeze knife or sword blade really hard and don't cut yourself.

That's in fact what halfswording was all about.

Just 2cp.

The lower part of a sword blade, especially one used two-handed, isn't sharpened. It's not much more than a narrow bar of steel. Please don't do this with a sharp blade.

[Yukitsu]

Please don't ever try that with a knife that has been properly sharpened. You will bleed a lot and sever things you really want to keep.

No, I won't. And I do have sharp knives as I've worked in a kitchen. You can't cook safely with dull knives, because that's what cuts you. But sure, go about with your belief and simply deny that which people who've tried it know.

[Tetsubo 57]

You folks are freaking me out here.

[Spiryt]

The lower part of a sword blade, especially one used two-handed, isn't sharpened. It's not much more than a narrow bar of steel. Please don't do this with a sharp blade.

But people did it with sword blades and half swording was actually usually performed with grabbing upper part of the blade.

Pressure of grip simply wont cut anything more resistant than butter, unless blade is somehow silly and unnecesarilly sharp.

You need to a drawing motion to initiate cutting.

[Tetsubo 57]

No, I won't. And I do have sharp knives as I've worked in a kitchen. You can't cook safely with dull knives, because that's what cuts you. But sure, go about with your belief and simply deny that which people who've tried it know.

I do first aid at my company. I patch people up all the time who do things like this. Continue to do so at your own peril. I'll pass.

[Yukitsu]

Hence why bladed weapons deal slashing damage, not piercing.

I can guarantee, the blade was drawn along to get the effect or had momentum. And even with a bit of that, they probably weren't wearing hardened leather gloves like you would when going to war.

[Tetsubo 57]

Hence why bladed weapons deal slashing damage, not piercing.

Except for the short sword of course. :)

I get your point. But I disagree and will never put myself or anyone else I know into what I consider to be a dangerous situation.

Pun intended.

[Yukitsu]

Watch a documentary on how to wield a short sword. That will explain why.

[Tetsubo 57]

Watch a documentary on how to wield a short sword. That will explain why.

I have, I was cracking wise.

[Dracomorph]

The point is, weapons of war are nowhere near as sharp as scalpels. Or, for that matter, well-sharpened kitchen knives.

Keeping a sword that sharp would have made the edge too brittle to use more than once or twice, and it simply wouldn't have been practical to assume that a soldier could keep an edge like that maintained during a campaign.

[HamHam]

Each of those links has four points on it. You would turn your hands into ground beef in about two minutes. If the are dull enough to not harm the user, than hey aren't sharp enough to hurt the target either. You can't have it both ways. I consider this picture a shining example of why the spiked chain is dumb.

And you can hold a knife blade by gripping the *flats*, not the edge. Grab the edge and you are now left handed. :)

Do you seriously not understand that a metal point going at a couple meters per seconds will go right through flesh and bone but will not even piece the skin (and certainly not hard leather gloves) when you just press your hand against it?

Kinetic energy. It's important.

[Tetsubo 57]

Do you seriously not understand that a metal point going at a couple meters per seconds will go right through flesh and bone but will not even piece the skin (and certainly not hard leather gloves) when you just press your hand against it?

Kinetic energy. It's important.

OK. I guess I'm out.

[Lycanthromancer]

"I have had it with these m'th'r'f'n spikes on this m'th'r'f'n chain!" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_on_a_Plane)

[pres_man]

Each of those links has four points on it. You would turn your hands into ground beef in about two minutes. If the are dull enough to not harm the user, than hey aren't sharp enough to hurt the target either. You can't have it both ways. I consider this picture a shining example of why the spiked chain is dumb.

And you can hold a knife blade by gripping the *flats*, not the edge. Grab the edge and you are now left handed. :)

Jeez man. If that is what is hanging you up so much just imagine this picture
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/cw_ag/75468.jpg

With links like those in this picture
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph2_gallery/97166.jpg

The links aren't what is hurting the hag, it is the weight at the end. There is such a thing as artistic license and all.

[Serenity]

A morningstar head on a really long chain so to speak? I can deal with that. It would do B/P damage. We'll call it a Star Hammer.

Star Hammer (Exotic, two handed)

25 gp, 1d6 (Small), 2d4 (Medium) ×2, 5 lb., Bludgeoning and Piercing.

A star hammer has reach, so you can strike opponents 10 feet away with it. In addition, unlike most other weapons with reach, it can be used against an adjacent foe.

You can make trip attacks with the chain. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the chain to avoid being tripped.

When using a star hammer, you get a +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an opponent (including the roll to avoid being disarmed if such an attempt fails).

There you go, a weapon that makes some sort of sense. No weapon finesse however.

So...it's exactly the same as a spiked chain in almost every respect, just ever so slightly refluffed? Well, that's great, of course--it's also exactly what people have been saying--'if the dumb illustration is such an issue, don't ban the weapon, just hold a different image in your head.' (Incidentally, I note you don't bother to specify that it can't be used underwater, which supposedly is your huge mechanical beef with the thing in the first place.)

[sofawall]

OK. I guess I'm out.

I advise going here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124683&page=13).

[hamishspence]

Page 179- one of the half-elves is twirling one a bit like you would twirl a lasso- only the ends are weighted and spiked.

Page 195- Regdar is wielding one more like the PHB one, with hoops. Again, only the ends are spiky.


The links aren't what is hurting the hag, it is the weight at the end. There is such a thing as artistic license and all.

The second picture you have posted (two one with the two half-elves)- is indeed the picture I mentioned earlier- and it does look a bit more plausible to me than many of the other chains.

[Zen Master]

No. Very much no. You can squeeze knife or sword blade really hard and don't cut yourself.

That's in fact what halfswording was all about.

Just 2cp.

Halfswording is highly contested. The sources I've read detail that the wielders used butchers gloves, gauntlets, only gripped the non-sharpened part of the blade - except for the ones that say recent historical research shows that it never existed, and that painters copied originals where the knights depicted wielded spears, but replaced the spears with swords because they were more knightly.

Two seconds worth of googling will get you any number of hits to this effect. Which spares me the trouble of referencing book titles and stuff. Have fun.

[Fhaolan]

Halfswording is highly contested. The sources I've read detail that the wielders used butchers gloves, gauntlets, only gripped the non-sharpened part of the blade - except for the ones that say recent historical research shows that it never existed, and that painters copied originals where the knights depicted wielded spears, but replaced the spears with swords because they were more knightly.

Two seconds worth of googling will get you any number of hits to this effect. Which spares me the trouble of referencing book titles and stuff. Have fun.

Buh?

I'm sorry. I was willing just make little jokes and whatnot for awhile in this thread, since I finished my part of this discussion ages ago. But I do have to object to this one.

Most evidence of halfswording is *not* in random illustrations scattered hither and yon, it is in longsword fight manuals from the 15-16th century with accompanying text that goes into detail about how to do these maneuvers.

I will cite:

Albrecht Duerer's Fechtbuch, 1520
Liber de Arte Gladitoria Dimicandi, 1487
Talhoffers Fechtbuch aus dem Jahre, 1467
Gladiatoria, 15th century
Fechtlehre mit dem Kurzen Schwert, 1491 (this one's the important one. It's an entire fight manual *devoted* to the half-sword technique. The title literally means 'fight lesson with the shortened sword')

And there are many more. Unless you are asserting that these particular manuals are faked, or that the authors were deliberately attempting to deceive the readers with fiction?

[Yukitsu]

Halfswording is highly contested. The sources I've read detail that the wielders used butchers gloves, gauntlets, only gripped the non-sharpened part of the blade - except for the ones that say recent historical research shows that it never existed, and that painters copied originals where the knights depicted wielded spears, but replaced the spears with swords because they were more knightly.

Two seconds worth of googling will get you any number of hits to this effect. Which spares me the trouble of referencing book titles and stuff. Have fun.

Since when was google equivalent to an actual book? :smallconfused:

[Starbuck_II]

Since when was google equivalent to an actual book? :smallconfused:

My teachers keep telling me never trust them for actual information. If they have sources then they likely to more trustworthy.

[Zen Master]

Since when was google equivalent to an actual book? :smallconfused:

Did I say they were? I'm fairly convinced that if you go back and look again, that's not what I said.

What I said was, that since the information I found with 2 seconds of googling matches what I've read, it's good enough for me.

[SparkMandriller]

Why should someone else have to do the work to prove your point?

[Fhaolan]

Did I say they were? I'm fairly convinced that if you go back and look again, that's not what I said.

What I said was, that since the information I found with 2 seconds of googling matches what I've read, it's good enough for me.

What search terms are you using? I've tried Google on halfsword, and I'm not coming up with any such information at all. There's a lot of 'learn how to halfsword' seminars, and references to fight manuals like the ones I cited, but I'm not finding any reference to any contravening views.

[Gralamin]

What search terms are you using? I've tried Google on halfsword, and I'm not coming up with any such information at all. There's a lot of 'learn how to halfsword' seminars, and references to fight manuals like the ones I cited, but I'm not finding any reference to any contravening views.

It probably doesn't help that google tries to adjust to your search history to give you what is probably appropriate information first.

[Zen Master]

What search terms are you using? I've tried Google on halfsword, and I'm not coming up with any such information at all. There's a lot of 'learn how to halfsword' seminars, and references to fight manuals like the ones I cited, but I'm not finding any reference to any contravening views.

'Halfswording'. Now mind you - I'm not saying it never existed. I am saying that the most recent reseach I've read indicates it was never widespread, and that when people did it, they did not grab the sharpened blade of their weapon with their bare hands.

At any rate I don't care. I found the concept hilarius, looked it up, found that as far as I can tell the self-mutilators have it wrong, and decided to mention it. I'm really not going to try to convince anyone - it's just something I read, I never really heard about it before, and I have little interest in investing time in it.

A pleasant sunday to all :)

[pres_man]

Why am I suddenly reminded of this comic?

http://knowledge.typepad.com/ikms_newsletter/calvin.gif

[Demons_eye]

Good thing I never think

[Yukitsu]

'Halfswording'. Now mind you - I'm not saying it never existed. I am saying that the most recent reseach I've read indicates it was never widespread, and that when people did it, they did not grab the sharpened blade of their weapon with their bare hands.

At any rate I don't care. I found the concept hilarius, looked it up, found that as far as I can tell the self-mutilators have it wrong, and decided to mention it. I'm really not going to try to convince anyone - it's just something I read, I never really heard about it before, and I have little interest in investing time in it.

A pleasant sunday to all :)

It's been pointed out and repeated by all the pictures that people who do this sort of thing wear gloves, not do it bare handed. Nor would it be common for a person to go into a battle without protection for their hands.

[Fhaolan]

'Halfswording'. Now mind you - I'm not saying it never existed. I am saying that the most recent reseach I've read indicates it was never widespread, and that when people did it, they did not grab the sharpened blade of their weapon with their bare hands.

Okay, I found one reference in that search, it's a forum rather than published, cited work, but that's okay. As you say, it's not saying the technique wasn't done, but that when used the person likely has hand protection. I can't find any evidence of your prior claim that the illustrations are really of spearfighters with the swords 'painted in', and that's the one I really objected to.


At any rate I don't care. I found the concept hilarius, looked it up, found that as far as I can tell the self-mutilators have it wrong, and decided to mention it. I'm really not going to try to convince anyone - it's just something I read, I never really heard about it before, and I have little interest in investing time in it.

A pleasant sunday to all :)


Unfortunately, I can't be quite so cavalier with this. One of the many things I do on the side is teach the difference between RL historical combat and the movies/fiction at libraries and school in my area. I read all the current literature, and archeological publications, and whatnot to keep up-to-date on the state of knowledge on these subjects. Your assertions are far enough away from my understanding to concern me. I don't want to be teaching the wrong thing to these kids, so if you've got sources indicating that all those fight manuals *written* in the 15-16th century are incorrect or fabricated, I want to know about it.

[Yukitsu]

Please don't even consider teaching anyone what you've learned as "fact" from some dude on a random forum. :smallfrown: The last thing we want to see is google info leaking into academia.

[Thane of Fife]

I can't find any evidence of your prior claim that the illustrations are really of spearfighters with the swords 'painted in', and that's the one I really objected to.

This (http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2007/02/early-illustration-of-halfswording-in.html) is the only reference to this claim that I found with a cursory Google search, and it's not exactly a trustworthy source (read the comment, not the post).

[Volkov]

We could get the feats once we beat the monster and we're at a feat gaining level. Which was a great reward. Words cannot describe how awesome it is to be a blackscale, half dragon lizard folk fighter that is the recipient of enlarge person with those spiked chain feats.

However not even this, a level 75 lich cleric, a level 62 Ultalithid psion, a level 78 poison dusk lizard folk rogue, and a level 80 kobold ranger, could save us from the unspeakable horror that was.....The Killer Penguin. From that moment on, the entire party had an deathly fear of aquatic birds. The horror....oh dear gods the horror......So.....very.....very scary.

[nyjastul69]

I didn't say it was unrealistic. I said it was stupid.


Of course it is, it's a object. Why would it be intelligent?