PDA

View Full Version : Spiked Chains.



Pages : [1] 2 3

Tavar
2009-11-03, 04:04 PM
Yes, a thread on the Dreaded Spiked Chain.

Now, I've seen alot of threads talk about banning it, but why? Yes, it's better than every martial and simple weapon, but, well, DUH. You're spending a feat on it. AS for being better than most of the exotic weapons, that's more the problem with exotic weapons by and large being about equal to martial weapons, maybe even worse in some cases. So why the spiked chain hate?

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-03, 04:07 PM
Yes, a thread on the Dreaded Spiked Chain.

Now, I've seen alot of threads talk about banning it, but why? Yes, it's better than every martial and simple weapon, but, well, DUH. You're spending a feat on it. AS for being better than most of the exotic weapons, that's more the problem with exotic weapons by and large being about equal to martial weapons, maybe even worse in some cases. So why the spiked chain hate?

Because fighters aren't allowed to have nice things. Wizards can remake reality in a swift action, but martial types? They're not even allowed to hit things really really hard.

jokey665
2009-11-03, 04:09 PM
Because fighters aren't allowed to have nice things. Wizards can remake reality in a swift action, but martial types? They're not even allowed to hit things really really hard.

Pretty much. I was floored when I told one of my previous DMs I wanted to play a straight fighter with a spiked chain and was denied it, while the rest of the party was a sorcerer and a druid.

UglyPanda
2009-11-03, 04:11 PM
I think it's an old knee-jerk reaction to when most people didn't realize how dangerous casters were. Or a current knee-jerk reaction if you still don't realize how dangerous casters are.

It's one of the better fighter options and people used to think fighter was balanced with the rest, so by their logic, anything better than a baseline fighter had to be unbalanced. Of course, it's quite hard to trip things several times bigger than you (quite a few dangerous monsters), things that fly (quite a few monsters and your caster allies), and things that don't have legs (damn you, beholders and oozes!).

Sinfire Titan
2009-11-03, 04:12 PM
Because melee can't have nice things.



In all seriousness, only a handful of Exotic weapons even come remotely close to the level of power a Spiked Chain has. One of those weapons is in Core (Kusari-Gama), and all of the rest are somewhat obscure (Spinning Sword, Yuan-Ti Serpent Bow, etc).

It outclasses Exotic weapons far more than it needs to, and the developers never realized why until late in 3.5's life (and even then, some never took action). It has so many abilities that can be boosted that it isn't funny (good damage die size, flexible reach, finesse+Power Attack synergy, tripping, disarming).

Some people feel that Exotic shouldn't be a step up from Martial in that much excess. What they don't realize is the opportunity cost of the feat is rather large. From a design standpoint, Martial weapons should have the same gap between them and Simple as Exotic does to Martial. The problem is that weapon proficiencies are so ****ed up that no one would lose out.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-11-03, 04:13 PM
I personally don't understand it. Are there any real-world analogues? Because it looks like a real unwieldly kind of weapon, even if it's exotic. I mean yeah, it hurts like the dickens when you're hit with a chain, but that's usually more of an improvised weapon.

Eldariel
2009-11-03, 04:15 PM
It's kinda silly weapon. I'm sure if other exotic weapons were any good, there would be no complaints though.

Keld Denar
2009-11-03, 04:22 PM
If you don't like the whole "chainy" aspect of it, just make it a hooked polearm with punching spikes halfway up the haft. Same mechanics, different style weapon.

And the Dwarven Longaxe is a pretty decent weapon. One of the few reach weapons that match a Greatsword in base damage, and can be used to trip. Isn't finessable, but what made by dwarves is? Also doesn't get the close + reach thing, which is arguably a Spiked Chain's biggest boon. Especially if you plan on getting enlarged, a 10' dead zone is kinda rough, since you can't 5' step that like you can while medium sized.

elonin
2009-11-03, 04:26 PM
Personally I love this weapon but the mechanics don't make sense. It's a whip like weapon with reach. Why not treat it as a ranged attack if using reach? Just meaning causes attack of opportunity and -4 if target is in combat. That balances it.

Boci
2009-11-03, 04:27 PM
Personally I love this weapon but the mechanics don't make sense. It's a whip like weapon with reach. Why not treat it as a ranged attack if using reach? Just meaning causes attack of opportunity and -4 if target is in combat. That balances it.

No it doesn't. It gimps it.

AstralFire
2009-11-03, 04:28 PM
Personally I love this weapon but the mechanics don't make sense. It's a whip like weapon with reach. Why not treat it as a ranged attack if using reach? Just meaning causes attack of opportunity and -4 if target is in combat. That balances it.

The Spiked Chain is already balanced.

It's just that none of the other melee weapons are.

Sinfire Titan
2009-11-03, 04:32 PM
I personally don't understand it. Are there any real-world analogues? Because it looks like a real unwieldly kind of weapon, even if it's exotic. I mean yeah, it hurts like the dickens when you're hit with a chain, but that's usually more of an improvised weapon.

It was designed around the Meteor Hammer, and then bastardized when they made the Two-Bladed Sword and Dire Flail.


The Spiked Chain is already balanced.

It's just that none of the other melee weapons are.

Agreed.

Fax Celestis
2009-11-03, 04:34 PM
I don't allow it in my games, if only because I can't see how you can feasibly wield one without bashing your own head in. I do, however, bump the other exotics.

Tavar
2009-11-03, 04:38 PM
Banning it for flavor reasons is okay: I too find it a ridiculous weapon from a concept standpoint, but alot of the stuff I've seen was bashing it's mechanics, which I don't find nearly as reprehensible. Yes, it's powerful, probably more that it should be, but not by the degree they seem to be implying.

KillianHawkeye
2009-11-03, 04:43 PM
I don't allow it in my games, if only because I can't see how you can feasibly wield one without bashing your own head in.

It's not too bad. It's not like we're talking swordchucks, here. Yo! :smallamused:

Tavar
2009-11-03, 04:45 PM
It's not too bad. It's not like we're talking swordchucks, here. Yo! :smallamused:

Actually, considering how the weapon looks in the PHB, we kinda are...

Boci
2009-11-03, 04:47 PM
Actually, considering how the weapon looks in the PHB, we kinda are...

It alweays struck me as a double weapon whenever I looked at it. 4E never changed that.

JonestheSpy
2009-11-03, 04:58 PM
Banning it for flavor reasons is okay: I too find it a ridiculous weapon from a concept standpoint, but alot of the stuff I've seen was bashing it's mechanics, which I don't find nearly as reprehensible.


Actually, considering how the weapon looks in the PHB, we kinda are...

I think a lot of the problems with the weapon come from the lame illustration. I've seen excellent versions of the same (or almost the same) weapon in Lone Wolf and Cub and some other non-anime manga, and it seems quite believable.

Anyway, the one thing that should probably be changed is that you shouldn't get the STR bonus of regular two-handed weapons - really, you don't powerswing it like you wolud a greatsword, which is why it qualifies for weapon finesse in the first place.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-03, 05:01 PM
Anyway, the one thing that should probably be changed is that you shouldn't get the STR bonus of regular two-handed weapons - really, you don't powerswing it like you wolud a greatsword, which is why it qualifies for weapon finesse in the first place.

Elven Courtblade is a 2 handed finessable exotic weapon that deals 1.5x STR bonus as damage.

DiscipleofBob
2009-11-03, 05:04 PM
As far as the "it's a silly-looking weapon with no real world analogue," the initial illustration I agree is pretty silly, but I picture a spiked chain working a lot like the chain-fighting style shaolin monks use, the heavy trip and disarming ability fits the flavor.

Tavar
2009-11-03, 05:05 PM
In a way, it also makes sense: damage is a transfer of energy, and faster weapons have more energy...

JonestheSpy
2009-11-03, 05:12 PM
In a way, it also makes sense: damage is a transfer of energy, and faster weapons have more energy...

Try spinning a big heavy chain some time - it really doesn't go all that faster with two hands vs one once you get a minimum amount of momentum.

As for Pharoah's point about the Elven courtblade, said weapon doesn't also have all the nice abilities of a chain, so, y'know, balance (or a reasonable attempt thereof).

Boci
2009-11-03, 05:13 PM
As for Pharoah's point about the Elven courtblade, said weapon doesn't also have all the nice abilities of a chain, so, y'know, balance (or a reasonable attempt thereof).

Slightly better damage and better criting though.

Fax Celestis
2009-11-03, 05:16 PM
Slightly better damage and better criting though.

Yeah, but it's not a reach, disarm, trip weapon.

Dusk Eclipse
2009-11-03, 05:22 PM
I don't think it is over powered, in fact it really helps balancing melee classes, for example in one campaing my rogue was almost completely useless before he got the proficiency.

I could rarely get my sneak attack damage ( I am the only melee character in that particular party so no flanking for me ) but when I got my proficiency with the spiked chain I became one of the best damage dealers in the party. It is trip then attack.

AstralFire
2009-11-03, 05:25 PM
The Spiked Chain is fine as it is; as my flippant comment earlier suggests, the issue is more that so little effort went into meaningfully differentiating most weapons overall. The Spiked Chain is one of a handful of exotic weapons that is both worth the feat and worth it for a reason besides "LOTS OF DAMAGE LOL" (see: Mercurial Fullblade.) It offers a variety of options to its wielder, and can be used effectively with different types of builds.

Saph
2009-11-03, 05:41 PM
Because fighters aren't allowed to have nice things.

Not even close. :P

I hate the Spiked Chain for a combination of two reasons:

1) It's probably the best melee weapon in all the core books.
2) It's probably the most mind-numbingly stupid melee weapon in all the core books. (Though the Dire Flail and one or two others are worthy challengers.)

It's the combination that annoys me. If it was a sensible weapon that was effective, like a halberd, I'd be fine with it. If it was a stupid weapon that was ineffective, like nunchaku, I'd be fine with it. It's the fact that it's stupid AND effective that annoys me so much.

In the real world, there's a reason that swords, polearms, bows, etc, were used on battlefields and spiked chains weren't. It's because spiked chains are utterly freaking useless. But you'd never know this from playing D&D.

elonin
2009-11-03, 05:44 PM
It's almost a superweapon when you put it's stats next to other weapons. I'm not opposed to them and as I said in my first post love them alot. The problem I see is how they don't catogorize easily compared to other weapons.

Sinfire Titan
2009-11-03, 05:47 PM
(see: Mercurial Fullblade.)

Side Note: Can't be done. Mercurial isn't a template or type of material, it's an actual set of weapons (Longsword and Greatsword) that have improved stats. Which makes no sense from a DM's standpoint, but there's no rules regarding turning a weapon into a Mercurial version.

DiscipleofBob
2009-11-03, 05:49 PM
In the real world, there's a reason that swords, polearms, bows, etc, were used on battlefields and spiked chains weren't. It's because spiked chains are utterly freaking useless. But you'd never know this from playing D&D.

Really? Because I thought the reason was that the chain fighting style was a martial art taught in Shaolin monasteries used to trip and disarm bandits who'd otherwise raid said monasteries.

Tavar
2009-11-03, 05:52 PM
Also, I don't think people fought giant, fire breathing lizards or flung flaming Bat poop either.

Not to say you don't have a point, but while the chain could stand to loose a bit of power, it is a better standard for exotic weapons than most.

JonestheSpy
2009-11-03, 06:00 PM
Really? Because I thought the reason was that the chain fighting style was a martial art taught in Shaolin monasteries used to trip and disarm bandits who'd otherwise raid said monasteries.

Yeah, actually if you read a bit about the history of warfare, you'll see that a lot of weapons were popular just because they were easy to use, like the spear and the crossbow (early guns, too). And weapons become common because they''re used in war, not by adventurers. Weapons that take a huge amount of training to be proficient with aren't economical for armies - nor are weapons that take a lot of space to use, which is something DnD rules don't reflect.

That's one of the reasons the sling never became widley used by militaries, even though it's actually a pretty powerful weapon - it took a lot a practice to use well, and slingers needed a lot of space between them, as opposed to bowmen or javelin throwers that you could back together in a big line of massed fire.

Fhaolan
2009-11-03, 06:06 PM
Really? Because I thought the reason was that the chain fighting style was a martial art taught in Shaolin monasteries used to trip and disarm bandits who'd otherwise raid said monasteries.

The Shaolin-style chains don't have spikes all down the lengths of them. The weapon depicted as a spiked chain never existed. Given the crazy weapons that *did* exist created by people experimenting with weapons over thousands of years, it does tell us something.

The Shaolin-style chains are effective because of the skill of the weilders, not because of something inherent to the chains themselves. It's like saying a bastard sword is better than a katana when the bastard sword is weilded by a 15th level warblade, when the katana is weilded by a 5th level CW Samurai. The disparity in wielder's skill overwhelms any data you can derive from the weapon itself.

AstralFire
2009-11-03, 06:06 PM
Side Note: Can't be done. Mercurial isn't a template or type of material, it's an actual set of weapons (Longsword and Greatsword) that have improved stats. Which makes no sense from a DM's standpoint, but there's no rules regarding turning a weapon into a Mercurial version.

Then I meant Mercurial Greatsword. It's been a while.

Cieyrin
2009-11-03, 06:13 PM
That's one of the reasons the sling never became widley used by militaries, even though it's actually a pretty powerful weapon - it took a lot a practice to use well, and slingers needed a lot of space between them, as opposed to bowmen or javelin throwers that you could back together in a big line of massed fire.

Slings were pretty standard in armies for a long time, actually. They held their power well into bows coming in due to their range and power, with fatalities from slings being more common than death by arrows. The reason bows ultimately won, and firearms to follow, was simply the training time, as most accomplished slingers had been training since childhood to use the weapons. Most of these slingers were also rural and the rise of towns and cities, with the populations moving towards them, was just another nail in the sling's coffin, as the skills and training were not passed on.

Slings also don't need a lot of room to fire and there were techniques for firing slings in close order to get the same effect as groups of bowmen. As for javelins, they were a backup weapon of the infantry before they made contact with the opposing forces to soften them up. You wouldn't find close order javeliners, as they just don't have the range to make it a feasible option.

Also, slings are poorly represented in D&D.:smallyuk:

Them's my 2 coppers. Take as you will.

DiscipleofBob
2009-11-03, 06:15 PM
The Shaolin-style chains don't have spikes all down the lengths of them. The weapon depicted as a spiked chain never existed. Given the crazy weapons that *did* exist created by people experimenting with weapons over thousands of years, it does tell us something.

The Shaolin-style chains are effective because of the skill of the weilders, not because of something inherent to the chains themselves. It's like saying a bastard sword is better than a katana when the bastard sword is weilded by a 15th level warblade, when the katana is weilded by a 5th level CW Samurai. The disparity in wielder's skill overwhelms any data you can derive from the weapon itself.

I'll accept the argument that by Spiked Chain you mean that monstrosity they depicted in the PHB illustration. Yes, that is a very silly weapon. I always just used those stats for a Shaolin-style chain.

However, just because a much smaller percentage of people actually trained to be proficient in a weapon does not make it any less effective a weapon, especially when the Shaolin-style of tripping and disarming with the chain pretty much fits exactly the type of trip, grapple, and disarm boosts granted by the spiked chain. They call it an Exotic Weapon Proficiency for a reason.

AslanCross
2009-11-03, 06:20 PM
The Shaolin-style chains don't have spikes all down the lengths of them. The weapon depicted as a spiked chain never existed. Given the crazy weapons that *did* exist created by people experimenting with weapons over thousands of years, it does tell us something.



I again blame this on the PHB's retarded art. I mean, even the warhammer in the 3.5 PHB looks like a meat tenderizer and not a historical warhammer.

Let's not even get started on the falchion. :smallsigh:

Rhiannon87
2009-11-03, 06:32 PM
I find it entertaining that people are complaining about the unrealistic-ness of a martial weapon in a game where people shoot lightning bolts and fireballs out of their hands. D&D is an inherently unrealistic game. Would a pair of spiked chains connected to a metal ring be a practical weapon in reality? Probably not. But in reality you also can't turn your enemies into frogs or teleport hundreds of miles. The spiked chain is no more unrealistic than... oh, let's just say practically everything else in the bloody game.

Just sayin'.

MarvisSahad
2009-11-03, 06:37 PM
It alweays struck me as a double weapon whenever I looked at it. 4E never changed that.

I have to agree with you here. In real life, you need an extra hand to catch the chain to prevent it from smacking you back. Even nunchucks are double-weapons for the same reason, and they're much smaller; who here has ever seen Bruce Lee use one with only one hand? It would look stupid and be stupid.

As for the issue of momentum; all weapons deal with momentum. They just differ in how much control they allow for the user, in range, and how much damage they inflict. Thus I see nothing wrong with allowing strength to be applied to a spiked chain. In fact, such weapons tend to deal more damage due to their fantastic transfer of energy. Their one caveat is control, and thus I see it as a very real possibility for a natural 1 to result in the chain greatly hurting the wielder. The same can be said for whips and other rope-like weapons. How to implement this into the system is something I'd have to ponder over.

Tavar
2009-11-03, 06:39 PM
That's not a double weapon, that's a two-handed weapon. He's talking about making it work like the 2 bladed sword.

AstralFire
2009-11-03, 06:40 PM
I find it entertaining that people are complaining about the unrealistic-ness of a martial weapon in a game where people shoot lightning bolts and fireballs out of their hands. D&D is an inherently unrealistic game. Would a pair of spiked chains connected to a metal ring be a practical weapon in reality? Probably not. But in reality you also can't turn your enemies into frogs or teleport hundreds of miles. The spiked chain is no more unrealistic than... oh, let's just say practically everything else in the bloody game.

Just sayin'.

While I agree D&D need not have too much relation to reality, you are comparing an aspect that is supposed to be relatively grounded in reality to one that is intentionally breaking it.

MarvisSahad
2009-11-03, 06:40 PM
That's not a double weapon, that's a two-handed weapon. He's talking about making it work like the 2 bladed sword.

My mistake. I meant treating it as a two-handed weapon.

JonestheSpy
2009-11-03, 06:43 PM
Thus I see nothing wrong with allowing strength to be applied to a spiked chain. In fact, such weapons tend to deal more damage due to their fantastic transfer of energy.

Just to clarify: I meant spiked chains wouldn't get the 1.5 x STR mod for being a two handed weapon, noty that it wouldn't exist at all - for the very reason you describe, i.e the other hand is busy doing stuff that doesn't add extra power to the swing.

Lvl45DM!
2009-11-03, 06:46 PM
Woah woah...D and D isnt realistic?
WOAH!
*facepalm* its cool thats why youd wanna use it
in real life you cant have two people side by side swinging broadswords, thats why only knights had em but in D&D you can surround a broadsword wieliding opponent with up to 8 other broadsword wielding opponents! and the one in the middle can win if hes high enough level!!
If you take away the spiked chain for falvour all the other realistic stuff shold come crashing in as well

Saph
2009-11-03, 06:48 PM
The spiked chain is no more unrealistic than... oh, let's just say practically everything else in the bloody game.

I didn't say it was unrealistic. I said it was stupid.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-11-03, 06:50 PM
It was designed around the Meteor Hammer, and then bastardized when they made the Two-Bladed Sword and Dire Flail.
Is a meteor hammer like the kind of "hammers" they use in the hammer throw event for track and field tournaments?

arguskos
2009-11-03, 06:52 PM
Is a meteor hammer like the kind of "hammers" they use in the hammer throw event for track and field tournaments?
Meteor Hammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_hammer). You know, the internet can answer those questions for you most of the time. :smallwink:

hiryuu
2009-11-03, 06:53 PM
Is a meteor hammer like the kind of "hammers" they use in the hammer throw event for track and field tournaments?

http://www.shopwushu.com/images/det/d_162_01.jpg

Ninja'd.

Fhaolan
2009-11-03, 07:03 PM
I'll accept the argument that by Spiked Chain you mean that monstrosity they depicted in the PHB illustration. Yes, that is a very silly weapon. I always just used those stats for a Shaolin-style chain.


That's kinda the point. You kept the stats and changed the description so that it's more reasonable. I do something similar, but I went a different direction and put the 'spikes' being two spiked balls on either end of the long chain, rather than having spikes all down it's length. In both cases we're no longer dealing with a 'Spiked Chain' as other D&D players would recognize. As such, it's difficult to have conversations about the effectiveness of what such a weapon would be in RL. We're both dealing with different objects, neither of which is the one depicted in the only material we have in common. The PHB.



However, just because a much smaller percentage of people actually trained to be proficient in a weapon does not make it any less effective a weapon, especially when the Shaolin-style of tripping and disarming with the chain pretty much fits exactly the type of trip, grapple, and disarm boosts granted by the spiked chain. They call it an Exotic Weapon Proficiency for a reason.

Correct, it doesn't make it less effective as a weapon. However, it doesn't make it *more* effective as a weapon either. A pencil can be a deadly weapon when weilded by someone who has spent years specifically training in using a pencil as a weapon. However, that doesn't mean a pencil should be statted as a 1d4/(19-20)x2 weapon (exotic). The fact that someone spent all that time in training only tells you that he spent all that time in training. It doesn't tell you *anything* about the abilities of the object he trained with. I've trained in both European period sword combat, and some Oriental martial arts (including chain weapons), and my personal experience has given me the opinion that the weapon is less important than the training taken to use it.

Personally in most cases I beileve the original white-box edition of D&D had it right. Weapons did 1d6 damage. That's it. The specific configuration of the weapon was irrelevant. It was the skill of the weilder that made a difference, not whether one sword was 3" longer than the other.

The Dark Fiddler
2009-11-03, 07:04 PM
Also, slings are poorly represented in D&D.:smallyuk:

I'm sick of all this 'masterwork bastard sword' bu- *shot* :smalltongue:

huttj509
2009-11-03, 07:08 PM
http://www.shopwushu.com/images/det/d_162_01.jpg

Ninja'd.

Put a few spikes on the end there and you basically have what I view as the "real" spiked chain...well, maybe make it a chain or chain whip instead of the rope connecting them, but you get the point.

But yeah, spikes in the middle where you'll be wrapping it around limbs/body to build momentum and control angle of strike? Umm, no.

Zeta Kai
2009-11-03, 07:44 PM
I don't allow it in my games, if only because I can't see how you can feasibly wield one without bashing your own head in. I do, however, bump the other exotics.

Here's how it's done. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx27MZxzZkI) I would imagine that this guy not only has Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Spiked Chain), but also Weapon Focus (Spiked Chain) & Weapon Specialization (Spiked Chain). He could do a lot of harm with far less skill than he's displaying in this video.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-11-03, 08:00 PM
Meteor Hammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_hammer). You know, the internet can answer those questions for you most of the time. :smallwink:

So it's NOT like the item used in hammer throw competitions? I'm confused now.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-03, 08:03 PM
I didn't say it was unrealistic. I said it was stupid.

And flinging wax-coated bat-poo isn't?

Lvl45DM!
2009-11-03, 08:06 PM
Zousha...no thats called just a hammer not a meteor hammer
meteor hammer is the name of the weapon that the asian girl used in Kill Bill

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-11-03, 08:10 PM
I've never seen Kill Bill.

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-03, 08:11 PM
I've never seen Kill Bill.

Then go kill someone named Bill* and get back to us.



*Don't do this.

UglyPanda
2009-11-03, 08:18 PM
Zousha, link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hHburo9EMU) to the relevant scene in Kill Bill.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-11-03, 08:23 PM
...That was scary. :smalleek:

Zovc
2009-11-03, 08:40 PM
I usually imagine a character fighting with two kamas joined by a chain. (See Axl Low (http://www.fightersgeneration.com/characters/axl.html) from Guilty Gear, as much as I don't think his (weapon's) animations are fluid.)

ghashxx
2009-11-03, 09:01 PM
Are spiked chains brutal and generally more capable of leading to ridiculous combos than other weapons? Yes, absolutely yes. Other weapons are effective too, but a weapon with reach that can be used at point blank range without needing a feat, and can be finessed, is pretty crazy. Does that mean it's automatically the best weapon in the world of DnD and there's no way to fiddle with it? Definitely not. The thing about any flexible type weapon is this, since it wraps around things it can not only be used to disarm people, but also to be disarmed of. If you crit on a trip attempt, then you definitely tripped them but the pointy bits on the chain get it stuck for a little bit. Or maybe how about a person with improved disarm can grab the chain and disarm you from a distance, just like you can use a chain to disarm from a distance. This is all fighter on fighter type of balance issues, because no matter what the reach weapon is a spell caster doesn't want to get near. And the final thing is this, balancing is an issue between a DM and the players. If you want to make weapons more realistic or more representative to their actual abilities, then do it. I try to do this all the time, like the advantage of crossguards on a sword for both defense and disarming. But this leads to all kinds of custom homebrew rules, so be careful of the can of worms.

Chrono22
2009-11-03, 09:16 PM
Spiked chains, and spiked chain builds, are small cheese compared to what any given cleric/druid/wizard can accomplish with a single spell.
Spiked chains require a heavy feat investment, and very specific builds to function well. Present a chainer with circumstances where a spiked chain won't help, and he won't be able to cope because of how inflexible his build is. A caster on the other hand- his spells improve with his level, he can swap them out, and metamagics allow him to use his spells in new ways to cope with the circumstances.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2009-11-03, 09:23 PM
It's just that none of the other melee weapons are.

Eh? Confused I have become. :smallconfused::smallconfused:

Tavar
2009-11-03, 09:26 PM
Eh? Confused I have become. :smallconfused::smallconfused:

He's saying it's not that the spiked chain is too good, it's that the other weapons aren't good enough.

Just like the debate about fighters(some say he's the right level of balance, others say he's too weak).

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-03, 09:37 PM
He's saying it's not that the spiked chain is too good, it's that the other weapons aren't good enough.

Just like the debate about fighters(some say he's the right level of balance, others say he's too weak).

Or "she," as the case might be.

And on that note...

EEEEE! IT'S ASTRALFIRE!!!!!

AstralFire
2009-11-03, 09:44 PM
Eh? Confused I have become. :smallconfused::smallconfused:

With most martial weapons, you're spending a feat (starting from Simple) to get 1 point of damage. With exotics, you're often spending a feat to get another 1 point of damage, 2 if you're going from Simple.

Weapon Specialization is consistently +2 damage and it's considered a terrible feat.

Spiked Chain is a rare example of an exotic weapon worth taking the feat for, and to boot it makes a variety of different fighting styles more possible. More weapons should have been designed in its vein.


Or "she," as the case might be.

And on that note...

EEEEE! IT'S ASTRALFIRE!!!!!

-waves- :smallbiggrin:

Rhiannon87
2009-11-03, 10:24 PM
I didn't say it was unrealistic. I said it was stupid.

Well, not much to be done about that, I suppose. Your original post seemed to imply you thought it was stupid because it was unrealistic compared to bows and swords and things:


In the real world, there's a reason that swords, polearms, bows, etc, were used on battlefields and spiked chains weren't. It's because spiked chains are utterly freaking useless. But you'd never know this from playing D&D.

And in response to one other point:


While I agree D&D need not have too much relation to reality, you are comparing an aspect that is supposed to be relatively grounded in reality to one that is intentionally breaking it.

This seems to fall again into the "melee fighters get shafted" category. Casters are allowed to tell reality to go **** itself, but if you're just using weapons, well, you'd better be at least in the realm of realistic. It just seems unfair to be yet again punishing weapon users for, you know, using weapons. Embrace the lack of connection to reality, I say!

Also, this thread has inspired me to rebuild an enemy NPC in my campaign to wield a spiked chain. :smallbiggrin:

Ostien
2009-11-03, 10:46 PM
Melee fighters seem to always be held to a different standard. A 11th level fighter can make three attacks in seemingly under six seconds and this is without two weapon fighting. So a 11th level fighter can wield a great sword and attack proficiently with three attacks? Now this is unrealistic but not as unrealistic as shooting an exploding fireball out of your hand, and having that fireball have no concussive effect... aside from the fact you are still shooting fire! :smallbiggrin:

Let fighters get away with a lot more because by RAW wizards will always trump in absurdity

Also a spiked chain is not that unrealistic on its own rules wise. It is inefficient and unwieldy but thats why you burn a feat. Remember some feats allow you to run up walls with the power of your mind so... yeah. :smalltongue:

Lvl45DM!
2009-11-03, 11:54 PM
What does RAW mean :smallconfused:

Coidzor
2009-11-03, 11:57 PM
Rules As Written.

There's a common terms and terminology thread that used to be stickied floating around somewhere...

AstralFire
2009-11-04, 12:16 AM
This seems to fall again into the "melee fighters get shafted" category. Casters are allowed to tell reality to go **** itself, but if you're just using weapons, well, you'd better be at least in the realm of realistic. It just seems unfair to be yet again punishing weapon users for, you know, using weapons. Embrace the lack of connection to reality, I say!

Also, this thread has inspired me to rebuild an enemy NPC in my campaign to wield a spiked chain. :smallbiggrin:

Well, I clearly do not have an issue with the spiked chain from a balance perspective. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting more practical weapons to be just as good.

Coidzor
2009-11-04, 12:49 AM
I was always sort of annoyed at how bad halberds seem to be.

Gralamin
2009-11-04, 12:51 AM
I was always sort of annoyed at how bad halberds seem to be.

WoTC seems to be bad at balancing weapons, anyway. There are, however some actual other good exotic weapons. I think 90% of them are in Eberron.

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-04, 12:52 AM
WoTC seems to be bad at balancing weapons, anyway. There are, however some actual other good exotic weapons. I think 90% of them are in Eberron.

I like to wield halfling barbarians, myself.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-04, 01:01 AM
The Greathorn Minotaur Greathammer is decent, though often not worth it.

I do think the Spiked Chain is both unrealistic and too good. The inclusive reach is worth taking a EWP for, the rest of the weapon is just too much.

And for making it realistic, take off the spikes. So you basically smack people over the head with a length of chain whenever they annoy you. Seems like a reasonable weapon now.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-04, 01:02 AM
What's wrong with the chain having spikes on it?

Gralamin
2009-11-04, 01:06 AM
I like to wield halfling barbarians, myself.

A valid choice, however, I see your Halfling barbarians and raise you their dinosaur mounts as well :smallbiggrin:

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-04, 01:06 AM
What's wrong with the chain having spikes on it?

Yes. What's wrong with spikes? Spikes make everything better.

Except for suppositories.

But everything else, yes! Spikes make them better!

AstralFire
2009-11-04, 01:08 AM
Spikes don't make cakes better.

Tavar
2009-11-04, 01:08 AM
Depends on who you're giving it to....

AstralFire
2009-11-04, 01:10 AM
But the same can be said for suppositories.

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-04, 01:18 AM
The Cake Is A Lie!

AstralFire
2009-11-04, 01:19 AM
...Amerigo Vespucci disapproves of your memetic adherence.
http://www.abc-latina.com/personnalites/images/amerigo-vespucci/amerigo-vespucci-4.jpg

Coidzor
2009-11-04, 01:21 AM
Depends on who you're giving it to....

Can this not be said of a great many things in life? :smallamused:

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-04, 01:22 AM
...Amerigo Vespucci disapproves of your memetic adherence.

In America!

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/keith.gif

Aldrakan
2009-11-04, 01:49 AM
What's wrong with the chain having spikes on it?

Is think the point is that spikes mean if you grab it in the wrong spot you stab yourself in the hand. You can't hold it against yourself, and the bits you'd want to hit people with are often places you'd also want to hold it at. It's like the difference between a three-section-staff (ungodly difficult to use) and the dire flail (flat-out ridiculous).

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-04, 01:55 AM
Surely it is possible to position the spikes in places won't hurt your hands?

daggaz
2009-11-04, 01:57 AM
I don't allow it in my games, if only because I can't see how you can feasibly wield one without bashing your own head in. I do, however, bump the other exotics.

Misconceived mechanics issues I can understand, but calling the weapon out for fluff reasons, especially this kind of fluff reasons, in a game full of freaking magic dinosaurs with x-ray laser vision etc... Whaaa??? :smallconfused:

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-04, 02:01 AM
Surely it is possible to position the spikes in places won't hurt your hands?Not without throwing off the balance or putting them in places you'll never actually use to hit people.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-04, 02:04 AM
Not without throwing off the balance or putting them in places you'll never actually use to hit people.

I'm thinking of the end of the chains myself.

Aldrakan
2009-11-04, 02:07 AM
Well I'm not exactly an expert on chain weapons, but I think that overall sticking spikes on pretty much anywhere restricts your ability to use it more than it helps you kill people. It would make the weight unevenly spaced, so you'd constantly be having to account for that.
You could probably get away with a small one at each end. I mean frankly the fact that it's a heavy metal chain is what should be causing the damage. You don't stab people with it.

Edit: Ah, that is what you meant. Yeah that could probably be done, though I still don't think it would be all that functional. You'd have to throw the chain full out for it to have any stabbing power, which would be slow, telegraphed, and easy to dodge or tangle. It's not like Scorpion's spear, the thing isn't spring-loaded.

Rainbownaga
2009-11-04, 02:13 AM
Spiked chains 'pierce' in the same way as a pick-axe or a morning star. What exactly is the problem of adding extra spikes around the business end of the chain? It's not as if you're going to be holding the end sections anyway or doing fancy acrobatic tricks with it.

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-04, 02:19 AM
I'd imagine the spikyballs would be pretty much the same place as the blades on the meteor hammer in that Kill Bill video shown earlier. The Japanese schoolgirl didn't seem to have much in the way of issues.

...with the weapon, I mean.

blueblade
2009-11-04, 02:23 AM
I agree that the Spiked Chain is just about the only exotic weapon right now that's worth a feat, because it actually does something mechanically superior to martial weapons. Some of the 'better' Exotic Weapons:

{table]Weapon|Compared To|Bonus
Spiked Chain|Martial Reach Weapons?|5 and 10 foot reach
Two-Bladed Sword|2 longswords|off-hand treated as light
Dire Flail|2 flails|off-hand treated as light
Orc Double Axe|2 Battleaxes|off-hand treated as light
Rep Hvy XBow|Hvy Xbow|Free action reload (kind of)[/table]

I was gonna list out the gnome/dwarf weapons, but I realise part of their benefity is the need not to take a feat, which is the only thing that makes them worthwhile. So for a human fighter with a feat to spend, they are by definition worse than other EWs. Ditto the monk weapons.

From the above, I can see the others have some advantage. But aside from the Repeating crossbow, which I can see having use with heavy investment, are the heavy double weapons worth the investment (which probably comes out of your investment down the two weapon fighting feat chain).
So what would you do to make the other exotics up to par with the spike chain? Increased damage/crit threat, or does it need to be more dramatic?

DragoonWraith
2009-11-04, 02:29 AM
How bout a weapon with the stats of a Rapier that not only can be Finessed, but if you do, it replaces Str with Dex for damage, too? I can think of a lot of characters of mine that would take that EWP.

The difficulty of getting Dex to damage in this game is obscene.

Temotei
2009-11-04, 02:34 AM
The difficulty of getting Dex to damage in this game is obscene.

This calls for a homebrew! :smallbiggrin:

Tavar
2009-11-04, 02:35 AM
That's a good one. I'd take it too. Thought that just might make Shadow Blade obsolete. Not that I'm complaining: why do Dex based characters have to jump through 15 different hoops to be effective?

DragoonWraith
2009-11-04, 02:44 AM
The thing is that Shadow Blade covers several different weapon types - including Light weapons. Since it's a finesse weapon, you're not getting 1.5x Str for two-handing it, so you probably want to dual-wield. But it's not a Light weapon, even though it's finesse'able, so there's big penalties for that. You can add a second, Light weapon that works for TWF'ing, but then you either need two feats or you have to dual-wield the lower damage Light weapons, or you need Oversized TWF, so you're again looking at two feats. With Shadow Blade, assuming you have the Maneuvers/Stances anyway, you can get away with just one feat.

Aldrakan
2009-11-04, 02:55 AM
Spiked chains 'pierce' in the same way as a pick-axe or a morning star. What exactly is the problem of adding extra spikes around the business end of the chain? It's not as if you're going to be holding the end sections anyway or doing fancy acrobatic tricks with it.

The problem is with momentum and the handle. A pick-axe or a morningstar has a solid handle, which means you can just swing the thing. If you try to swing something on a chain the same way you do something that's one piece it'll bounce off.
Also, if you look at the weapon which is actually most similar to the spiked chain (which is not, as far as I can tell, a real weapon, though it does resemble some) is the three section staff. Look at someone using that thing. You don't just hold it at one end and strike with it, and that isn't how you'd use a spiked chain either, if you actually want to be able to block attacks. (Okay, so in Dungeons and Dragons most people don't actually block with their weapons, which is why an unarmored 20th level fighter is just as easy to hit as a 1st level one. But we're attempting realistic use here).

Now the meteor hammer is real, but not the same weapon as a spiked chain, and as even that fight scene demonstrated, a rather cumbersome and difficult to control one. Pharaoh's Fist's version is actually fairly reasonable, though people don't put spikes on them because it impairs your ability to hold it, and because at close range the damage comes from the weight anyway.

The issue is not so much with chain weapons in general. They're hard to use, and you have to be very careful not to injure yourself, but that's why it's an exotic weapon proficiency. The problem is that Dungeons and Dragons ones look like this: http://www.dragonquestfrontiers.com/images/chain.JPG\

Tetsubo 57
2009-11-04, 08:48 AM
I dislike it so much I made a video about it:

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

Stupidest item ever conceived of in the entire history of the game.

Fhaolan
2009-11-04, 09:02 AM
As has been mentioned before, the problem isn't really with spiked chains as a weapon. It's just that spiked chains make the problem more visible.

The first problem is that the 'rule of cool' has taken over the design of these deadly tools to the point of ridiculousness. I'm still surprised that a Cloudbuster sword clone hasn't shown up officially yet, because the illustrations of most of the weapons are equally silly. The warhammer, the spiked chain... then getting into splatbooks: the gyrspike, etc. While some of these are based on actual weapons, and others are possible to envision with a bit of effort, the illustrations are insane and have to be ignored.

The second, and really more important problem is that the weapons stats in D&D don't make a heck of a lot of sense relative to the rest of the system. They did when they were originally statted out in the original editions of D&D, when damage from the weapon itself was actually considered significant and a single blow of a nonmagic weapon could kill a great many things.

However, things have changed since then, and now the actual stats of most of the weapons are so weak relative to hp/HD levels that magic or additional sources of damage (sneak attack, power attack, etc.) are needed just to make the weapon somehow effective against the average creature. If you take away magic and special damage, what happens when a commoner decides to go hunting and tries to take down a deer with a longbow? You end up with an annoyed deer running away with a small percentage of lost hp. When bandits attack a caravan, they could spend several minutes hacking away at the teamsters with swords before anyone bothers to retaliate.

D&D has trivialized the actual weapon in combat.

Flying Dutchman
2009-11-04, 09:58 AM
The second, and really more important problem is that the weapons stats in D&D don't make a heck of a lot of sense relative to the rest of the system. They did when they were originally statted out in the original editions of D&D, when damage from the weapon itself was actually considered significant and a single blow of a nonmagic weapon could kill a great many things.

However, things have changed since then, and now the actual stats of most of the weapons are so weak relative to hp/HD levels that magic or additional sources of damage (sneak attack, power attack, etc.) are needed just to make the weapon somehow effective against the average creature. If you take away magic and special damage, what happens when a commoner decides to go hunting and tries to take down a deer with a longbow? You end up with an annoyed deer running away with a small percentage of lost hp. When bandits attack a caravan, they could spend several minutes hacking away at the teamsters with swords before anyone bothers to retaliate.

D&D has trivialized the actual weapon in combat.

qft

Sure my Ubercharging fighter can do 120+ dmg on 1 attack. But any caster could make me litterly devour my own testies with much less effort in feats, and optimization.

Eldariel
2009-11-04, 10:23 AM
As has been mentioned before, the problem isn't really with spiked chains as a weapon. It's just that spiked chains make the problem more visible.

The first problem is that the 'rule of cool' has taken over the design of these deadly tools to the point of ridiculousness. I'm still surprised that a Cloudbuster sword clone hasn't shown up officially yet, because the illustrations of most of the weapons are equally silly. The warhammer, the spiked chain... then getting into splatbooks: the gyrspike, etc. While some of these are based on actual weapons, and others are possible to envision with a bit of effort, the illustrations are insane and have to be ignored.

The second, and really more important problem is that the weapons stats in D&D don't make a heck of a lot of sense relative to the rest of the system. They did when they were originally statted out in the original editions of D&D, when damage from the weapon itself was actually considered significant and a single blow of a nonmagic weapon could kill a great many things.

However, things have changed since then, and now the actual stats of most of the weapons are so weak relative to hp/HD levels that magic or additional sources of damage (sneak attack, power attack, etc.) are needed just to make the weapon somehow effective against the average creature. If you take away magic and special damage, what happens when a commoner decides to go hunting and tries to take down a deer with a longbow? You end up with an annoyed deer running away with a small percentage of lost hp. When bandits attack a caravan, they could spend several minutes hacking away at the teamsters with swords before anyone bothers to retaliate.

D&D has trivialized the actual weapon in combat.

This is why I at some point suggested giving warrior-types (or everyone) effective size increases to their base weapon damage as they advance in levels.

On level 1, there's a relevant difference between the 2d6 from a Greatsword and the 1d8 from a Longsword. Even an Str 18 guy adds mere +6 to the total damage when two-handing, so the Greatsword's average 7 vs. Longsword's average 4.5 can very well be the difference between one-shotting and two-hit-killing the opponent. The Greatsword is also less suspectible to low rolls thanks to two dice.

Fast-forward a couple of levels and the damage involves magical bonus, Power Attack bonus, possible feat/class-derived bonuses and so on. Suddenly the 2.5 damage that was often the decider on level 1 is reduced to a minor difference that only matters in fringe cases where the damage ends up JUST at the ~50-60 total.

And near level 20, when you deal ~100+ damage per attack, you won't even remember to roll the die 'cause it frankly just doesn't matter outside very rare cases where your hits bring the opponent exactly at 0 instead of 50 or 100 points into the negatives.


Making weapon damage dice scale would help this a lot. Looking at Psy War, it is possible to make the base damage relevant. The King of Smack gets over half of its base damage from its Claws and it's perfectly competitive with a Frenzied Berserker. Unarmed combatants also derive most of their damage off base damage dice 'cause unarmed dice improve as you level-up.

Difference between 1d8 and 2d6 may be trivial on level 20, but there's notable difference between 16d6 and 24d6, particularly if the base damage is multiplied by some Charge-related bonus or similar.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-04, 10:43 AM
Edit: Ah, that is what you meant. Yeah that could probably be done, though I still don't think it would be all that functional. You'd have to throw the chain full out for it to have any stabbing power, which would be slow, telegraphed, and easy to dodge or tangle. It's not like Scorpion's spear, the thing isn't spring-loaded.

For the record, there is a Chinese weapon like that. It's called a rope dart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope_dart).

Fhaolan
2009-11-04, 11:06 AM
This is why I at some point suggested giving warrior-types (or everyone) effective size increases to their base weapon damage as they advance in levels.

Another thought that occured to me was to increase the crit range as you go up levels. The concept would be that the weapon itself isn't getting more 'stabby' or whatever, it's that you're getting better at using it more effectively and hitting those small, critical targets more often. I know there are feats for this, but the feat system is another odd duck.

Every once in a while I get the urge to rebuild the D&D weapon system from first principles; using mass, penetration, etc. as statistics, and create a consistant system that you can create new weapons and whatnot that all fall into a unified whole.

And I get about three steps in and realize what a blasted mess it is in there, and how much a slippery slope it is. You quickly realize you need to rejigger the entire combat system to accomodate. What's the real conceptial difference between crits and precision damage? What should be covered by feats versus experience level? So on and so forth. It's just not worth it.

It's easier to just accept that the whole thing's a mess and go play a druid.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-04, 12:21 PM
I just rename it "Chain Whip" or "Meteor Hammer", change how it looks, and use the same mechanical stats.

I've seen a chain whip used, I've actually played a bit with one myself. It can trip quite easily. It can disarm easily. It can hit up close or at range, depending on how you want to hold it at that instant. It does everything it's stats say it can.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-04, 12:24 PM
I'd agree with that, with the caveat that such weapons, like the three piece staff, can be as dangerous to a newbie as they are to the other guy.

Of course, picking up exotic weapon proficiency represents that pretty well.

Zaq
2009-11-04, 12:25 PM
I'm repeating what has been said already, but the problem with the spiked chain is that nine times out of ten, if you take EWP, it will be for the spiked chain. It's seriously better than EVERY OTHER MELEE WEAPON, if for no other reason than that it can hit both adjacent and reach (the other factors don't hurt either). What does this mean? It means that every decent melee type in the world will be using a spiked chain. There's zero variety, because the spiked chain is SO MUCH better than everything else.

Melee should get nice things. But they should get more than one nice thing in the weapon department, and the fact that the spiked chain looks so mind-bogglingly stupid (not as bad as the gyrspike, but...) just accentuates the problem.

Sinfire Titan
2009-11-04, 12:33 PM
I'm repeating what has been said already, but the problem with the spiked chain is that nine times out of ten, if you take EWP, it will be for the spiked chain. It's seriously better than EVERY OTHER MELEE WEAPON, if for no other reason than that it can hit both adjacent and reach (the other factors don't hurt either). What does this mean? It means that every decent melee type in the world will be using a spiked chain. There's zero variety, because the spiked chain is SO MUCH better than everything else.

Melee should get nice things. But they should get more than one nice thing in the weapon department, and the fact that the spiked chain looks so mind-bogglingly stupid (not as bad as the gyrspike, but...) just accentuates the problem.

Its as Astral Fire said; that weapon was designed properly, the others were gimped into oblivion.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-04, 12:35 PM
I'm repeating what has been said already, but the problem with the spiked chain is that nine times out of ten, if you take EWP, it will be for the spiked chain. It's seriously better than EVERY OTHER MELEE WEAPON, if for no other reason than that it can hit both adjacent and reach (the other factors don't hurt either). What does this mean? It means that every decent melee type in the world will be using a spiked chain. There's zero variety, because the spiked chain is SO MUCH better than everything else.

Melee should get nice things. But they should get more than one nice thing in the weapon department, and the fact that the spiked chain looks so mind-bogglingly stupid (not as bad as the gyrspike, but...) just accentuates the problem.

I would not go so far as to say this. It is a pretty spiffy weapon, sure, but not to the degree you posit.

If I were wanting to do damage output, for example, a spiked chain would be sub-par. I would be using a Goliath Hammer or something. If I want to use a crit-build, I'd go with something else. Heck, even with a tripping build, you can use a Glaive + Spiked Armor to duplicate the effects nicely.

Let us take a look at it versus a Greatsword.

Greatsword does, on average, an extra 2 damage (d4's to d6's). It has a bigger crit range (19-20 vs nat 20). However a Spiked Chain has Reach, which is big.

So, for blowing a feat, you cut your crit range in half, and reduce your damage, for extra range that can also hit in melee.

Yea... I can see that.

Tripping and Disarming... how often does it actually come up as being valuable?

AstralFire
2009-11-04, 12:35 PM
...and top of that, there are quite a few melee builds that really don't benefit too much from spiked chains - chargers, and most Tome of Battle builds can eschew it. It is certainly one of the best EWPs, but it is not a must-have feat for every melee character.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

Tavar
2009-11-04, 12:35 PM
If there wasn't the spiked chain, how many times would you have taken EWP? I can count the number using just my third hand.

And I only have 2.

AstralFire
2009-11-04, 12:39 PM
If there wasn't the spiked chain, how many times would you have taken EWP? I can count the number using just my third hand.

And I only have 2.

EWP: Greatspear
EWP: Bastard Sword (I had a homebrew style feat. This was before ToB.)
EWP: Scorpion Chain (Weapon Prof. equiv of Spiked Chain)
EWP: Elven Courtblade
EWP: Elven Lightblade or Thinblade or w/e.
EWP: Boomerang
EWP: Bolos
EWP: Those trick blades where the gnome throws out his hand and cuts someone and the blade autoretracts.
EWP: Turtle Blade or w/e it's called.
EWP: Whip-Daggers (Weapon Prof. equiv of Whips.)

All that said, of course, most of those were non-optimal choices taken for flavor (Greatspear, Bastard Sword, Scorpion Chain - it was for a melee bard, Boomerang, Bolo, Trick Blade, Turtle Blade), though I remain proud of finding a good use for Whip Daggers.

Eldariel
2009-11-04, 12:41 PM
Harpoon is pretty good. Also, Greatbow isn't entirely useless since Archers need every source of extra damage they can get and after few size increases, Greatbow actually has a couple of extra points over Longbow. Also, extra range.

Great Crossbow is truly a good option in that regard; 2d8 >>>> 1d10 for a medium weapon and there aren't too many ways to get extra damage off Crossbows. 1d10 = 5.5, 2d8 = 9. Just three size increases for 6d8 base damage, and then it gets good.


Overall, there's a bunch of decent ranged exotic weapons. Melee, less so.

Tavar
2009-11-04, 12:43 PM
Yeah, I was exaggerating a bit. Generally my melee builds have always been a bit feat starved, and none of the exotic weapons gave me flavor that the normal weapons didn't. Still, if a feet is primarily good only for flavor, it just might not be a good feat.

DragoonWraith
2009-11-04, 12:44 PM
I've taken EWP for Elven Thinblades (a 1d8 Rapier), a Braid Blade (1d3, extra attack on full-attack), and a Whip (gained sizable energy damage on every attack, so the low damage and non-lethal aspects weren't as significant).

AstralFire
2009-11-04, 12:49 PM
On a related note, there is one situation where I would consider maybe toning back the Spiked Chain slightly - Weapon Groups. One of my favorite variants from UA, it lets most of the +1 BAB classes start out with a focus in exotic weapons rather than being stuck with merely martial. As there are quite a few exotic weapons that look just like (or very similar to) a normal weapon, only 'betterer' (Bastard Sword, Mercurial Weapons, Longstaff, and a few others come to mind), this doesn't provide major disincentive for players to stick with a more rational weapon over a crazy one.

DragoonWraith
2009-11-04, 12:50 PM
Yeah, I think that's kind of obvious; a Spiked Chain's power is only appropriate because it costs a feat.

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-04, 12:52 PM
Yeah, I was exaggerating a bit. Generally my melee builds have always been a bit feat starved, and none of the exotic weapons gave me flavor that the normal weapons didn't. Still, if a feet is primarily good only for flavor, it just might not be a good feat.

Eww. I don't think I'd want that flavor...

AstralFire
2009-11-04, 12:54 PM
Yeah, I think that's kind of obvious; a Spiked Chain's power is only appropriate because it costs a feat.

The real question is, why doesn't everyone use Weapon Groups? They're so much better than proficiencies and deal with the issue of "why the hell does my urban monk know how to use a three-section-staff" nicely.

Kaiyanwang
2009-11-04, 01:06 PM
The real question is, why doesn't everyone use Weapon Groups? They're so much better than proficiencies and deal with the issue of "why the hell does my urban monk know how to use a three-section-staff" nicely.

QFT. Weapon Groups can improve your game a lot, exspecially for the classes with a +1 BAB at level 1.

It means, (silly example just for swords), take Exotic + Sword and be proficent at level one for:

- Mercurial Longsword ( 1 H High Multipl)
- Great Scimitar (1H high crit)
- Mercurial Greatsword (2H high Multipl)
- Great Falchion (2H high crit)
- Kopesh (trip sword, high crit)
- Broadblade (sundering sword)
- Fullblade (high dice damage sword - make it gold + strongarms b)
- Bastard Sword (not optimal maybe but versatile)

Killer Angel
2009-11-04, 01:22 PM
How bout a weapon with the stats of a Rapier that not only can be Finessed, but if you do, it replaces Str with Dex for damage, too? I can think of a lot of characters of mine that would take that EWP.

The difficulty of getting Dex to damage in this game is obscene.

If I'm not wrong, you can do it with Champion of Corellion (Races of the Wild?).
Also, with Shadow Blade you can add your dex to your str for damage.

DragoonWraith
2009-11-04, 01:30 PM
Yes and yes. Both of those are horrifically limited though: Champion of Corethan Lorellian requires four craptastic feats, you must be an Elf or Half-Elf, and you must worship Corethan Lorellian. Irritating and difficult. Shadow Blade requires a Shadow Hand maneuver and stance, which means two feats or a level of Swordsage - both of which may be onerous in certain builds - plus only works with a limited list of weapons.

Considering how unbelievably many options there are for Int to damage, and that Cha and Wis to damage aren't that far behind, you'd think something that actually makes sense like Dex to damage wouldn't be hard, but it really, really is. Only Con is harder.

Tavar
2009-11-04, 01:31 PM
If I'm not wrong, you can do it with Champion of Corellion (Races of the Wild?).
Also, with Shadow Blade you can add your dex to your str for damage.

Shadow Blade works, but only if you're in certain stances, and only if you're wielding certain weapons. Also, requires a feat if you're a swordsage, 3 if you aren't, and that's not even counting weapon finesse.

As for the champions: It requires at least 4 feats, 2 of which are just bad, and the other two may or may not be bad depending on the build. Oh, and the earliest it's available is level 7. And it requires you to be an elf.

Meanwhile, Str based is viable from Level 1, and all you need is a big weapon. So very unintuitive....

DragoonWraith
2009-11-04, 01:34 PM
Heh, I was anti-ninja'd - I posted first, but he said it better.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-04, 02:21 PM
Exotic Weapons that are Really Worth it (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19871798/Exotic_Weapons_That_Are_Worth_It).

Bayar
2009-11-04, 02:50 PM
Exotic Weapons that are Really Worth it (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19871798/Exotic_Weapons_That_Are_Worth_It).

Cant belive that it took 4 pages to get this linked here.

Jayabalard
2009-11-04, 02:54 PM
It's not too bad. It's not like we're talking swordchucks, here. Yo! :smallamused:it's about the same

DragoonWraith
2009-11-04, 02:58 PM
Wow, Kusari-Gama are really cool. Should've taken that EWP on my Firedancer (a sort of scout/swordsage/dervish homebrew class), heh.

Rhiannon87
2009-11-04, 03:19 PM
Exotic Weapons that are Really Worth it (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19871798/Exotic_Weapons_That_Are_Worth_It).

I like flind bars. A player in my group once put together a build for a guy dual-wielding them. He hasn't thrown it against the party in the game he's running... yet.

I did build a spiked chain fighter the other day. Ended up with a +26 to disarm (against one-handed weapons) at level nine with average stats. Problem is, all three of the main melee fighters fight unarmed. ::facepalm::

deuxhero
2009-11-04, 03:45 PM
QFT. Weapon Groups can improve your game a lot

Unless your DM is mean and decides to bar entry into PRCs that require "all martial weapons".

Bayar
2009-11-04, 03:49 PM
Unless your DM is mean and decides to bar entry into PRCs that require "all martial weapons".

That is not a mean DM. That is an asshat.

Zovc
2009-11-04, 04:12 PM
On a related note, there is one situation where I would consider maybe toning back the Spiked Chain slightly - Weapon Groups. One of my favorite variants from UA, it lets most of the +1 BAB classes start out with a focus in exotic weapons rather than being stuck with merely martial. As there are quite a few exotic weapons that look just like (or very similar to) a normal weapon, only 'betterer' (Bastard Sword, Mercurial Weapons, Longstaff, and a few others come to mind), this doesn't provide major disincentive for players to stick with a more rational weapon over a crazy one.

I like to make my own weapon groups, leaving most exotic weapons (particularly the spiked chain) as 'Exotic Weapons,' requiring a feat, so you can spend a feat to learn how to use swords, or you can spend a feat to learn how to use a specialised weapon.

ziegspade
2009-11-04, 04:37 PM
This is why i miss 2nd edition...weapon proficiencies were very simple...you didnt start with "simple," "martial," or all of this other bs...if you had the slots and had someone to train you, you learned A weapon...

Lets put this in perspective...a 1st level 2nd ed fighter could know at most without using skills and powers would be 11 weapons, without going weapon spec. and having an 18 in int with a dm playing with the rule that bonus proficiencies can count towards weapons for fighters...

A 1st level 3rd ed fighter, knows every single simple, and martial weapon...period...and of sentence...in 2nd ed, the closest thing to that would be the Gladiator from Darksun, and they only had that because the were replacing paladins...and it was Darksun for crying out loud...

endoperez
2009-11-04, 04:43 PM
Last week I came across a series of weird kung fu weapons, I just have to share the awesomeness of the weirdest collection of weapons and weapon styles I've ever seen. I humbly request that some of these would be translated into D&D format, perhaps as exotic weapons on the Spiked Chain level.

All these rest are from a single guy's Youtube account.

To start with, an actual two-bladed sword:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-UVcI_uaxI

Double-weapon dagger. It's two daggers joined together - by a chain. Perhaps used as either two weapons, or a single weapon with reach, dagger damage?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJKIHyiqSPw

Double-weapon spear, i.e. a spear-point at both ends. Instead of extra attacks, perhaps extra AC or some other bonus when flanked?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0acbdyIyn9s

A sword with a Y-shaped thrusting end. Extra critical range? Yeah, it's weird, and furthermore, he's dual-wielding. Speaking of dual-wielding...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl5xteB_Mfg

Dual-wielding double-spears. I'm out of words, but he's not out of weapons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0f9lrY1a-c

A metal ring worn around the neck, that can be taken out and put back mid-fight. EWP would give at least Quick Draw-equivalent for this weapon only, but clearly that alone wouldn't make this worthwhile. Perhaps it could be used to disarm, and then you could instantly un-wield the Ring and start using your enemy's weapon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zYGyIzN1rI

And here's a dwarven urgosh. Or at least a polearm with a double-headed axe in one end, and a spear in the other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5l_O3G4gNA

So, yeah. Is he awesome or what?

Fax Celestis
2009-11-04, 04:52 PM
This is why i miss 2nd edition...weapon proficiencies were very simple...you didnt start with "simple," "martial," or all of this other bs...if you had the slots and had someone to train you, you learned A weapon...

Lets put this in perspective...a 1st level 2nd ed fighter could know at most without using skills and powers would be 11 weapons, without going weapon spec. and having an 18 in int with a dm playing with the rule that bonus proficiencies can count towards weapons for fighters...

So...hooray for needless complexity?

Killer Angel
2009-11-04, 05:27 PM
Shadow Blade works, but only if you're in certain stances, and only if you're wielding certain weapons. Also, requires a feat if you're a swordsage, 3 if you aren't, and that's not even counting weapon finesse.
As for the champions: It requires at least 4 feats, 2 of which are just bad, and the other two may or may not be bad depending on the build. Oh, and the earliest it's available is level 7.


Indeed, i didn't remember the backlash of SB and Champion.
Yes, options to do dex damage exist, but they're horrible.

DragoonWraith
2009-11-04, 05:49 PM
OK, here's a question: are there any Exotic Weapons that actually are too good? Seeing as Spiked Chain and Kusari-Gama seem to be about the cream of the crop, I'm thinking not really, but I'm curious.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-04, 05:51 PM
OK, here's a question: are there any Exotic Weapons that actually are too good? Seeing as Spiked Chain and Kusari-Gama seem to be about the cream of the crop, I'm thinking not really, but I'm curious.
Exotic Weapons that are Really Worth it (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19871798/Exotic_Weapons_That_Are_Worth_It).Here you go.

Tavar
2009-11-04, 06:03 PM
Indeed, i didn't remember the backlash of SB and Champion.
Yes, options to do dex damage exist, but they're horrible.

Well, they aren't horrible, not really. They're just really inefficient, which is odd considering how it generally pretty easy to get one stat to something.

DragoonWraith
2009-11-04, 06:30 PM
What definition of "horrible" are you using, if not that it is inefficient? Inefficiency means waste, and waste means you are spending resources (feats and/or class levels in this case) on things you either don't want to get what you do, or are spending too much to get something that should be trivial. Both are true here.

And Sstoopidtallkid, that doesn't really answer my question, at all. That's just a list of various good exotic weapons, but does not offer much in the way of discussion or opinion of those weapons that are OP. I've read the thread, and didn't notice any that I personally felt were overpowered, but I could easily have missed something, since I'm relatively new to D&D and because I don't play a lot of melee characters. So what I was asking for was people's opinions on whether or not any exotic weapons were too good for the feat.

ghashxx
2009-11-04, 07:01 PM
Last week I came across a series of weird kung fu weapons, I just have to share the awesomeness of the weirdest collection of weapons and weapon styles I've ever seen.

To start with, an actual two-bladed sword:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-UVcI_uaxI

A sword with a Y-shaped thrusting end. Extra critical range? Yeah, it's weird, and furthermore, he's dual-wielding. Speaking of dual-wielding...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl5xteB_Mfg

Dual-wielding double-spears. I'm out of words, but he's not out of weapons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0f9lrY1a-c


And here's a dwarven urgosh. Or at least a polearm with a double-headed axe in one end, and a spear in the other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5l_O3G4gNA

So, yeah. Is he awesome or what?

My negativity in this post is coming from the standpoint of a person who does real combat, so I find some a couple of these weapons pretty silly. Then again there's been at least an entire page on this thread about DnD being silly with their weapons so don't take my negativity too harshly

The double sword would be...a two-bladed sword like the one out of the PHB, while of course the urgosh would be the same, though it was cool how I got to see one in "action. The double spears I just don't think works. Even this guy with practice could only use shortened spears, and then he had to move wicked slow. The double ended spear was cool, and it would just be a double ended spear. As for the Y-branched tip swords... I don't even know what to say. From the style of use they look like something for piercing, but the Y tip would spread damage out thereby dealing less damage, and lowering the potential for getting into vital organs/getting through armor cracks, ie dealing crit damage.


This is why i miss 2nd edition...weapon proficiencies were very simple...you didnt start with "simple," "martial," or all of this other bs...if you had the slots and had someone to train you, you learned A weapon...

The nice thing about picking out weapons is a player could ignore all the pointless weapons he didn't care about and just pick out the few he wanted as part of their build. I've tried incorporating this into 3.5 with extra weapon proficiencies getting doled out according to BAB rates so a player could start out with an exotic weapon and not bother with the feat for it, great with feat starved classes.

Schylerwalker
2009-11-04, 07:16 PM
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG251.jpg

I always thought this was a half-way decent picture of someone wielding a spiked-chain. Then again, vampires have damage reduction and fast healing, so they don't need to really worry about hitting themselves, so...

Oh, and I seem to recall seeing a picture in Heroes of Horror where some template or other was wielding a spiked chain, and he was actually using those two secondary rings on the chain...let me see if I can find it on teh intwebs...

Okay, I can't find it cuz I can't remember what it's called! But you all know what I'm talking about!

However, in both cases, the spiked chain would function as a two-handed weapon, not a reach weapon. Which makes sense, because, as Tetsubo pointed out in his video, to have it strike opponents at reach, you'd have to let it slide along your hands...

Which would turn them into "handburger."

Edit: Haha! http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/hoh_gallery/92000.jpg However, note that his hand is actually bleeding! Then again, note, he is a crazy mother$%&*er.

Stephen_E
2009-11-04, 08:10 PM
In the real world, there's a reason that swords, polearms, bows, etc, were used on battlefields and spiked chains weren't. It's because spiked chains are utterly freaking useless. But you'd never know this from playing D&D.

Just a note. Chain weapons were not used on battlefields because they can't be used in formation.
DnD is very rarely (never for many campaigns) a battlefield situation except as skirmishers.
Therefore this point is irrelevant.
The 2 handed sword was only a battlefield weapon is certain specalist situations.
And we have the Pike which is a great battlefield weapon but a sh*t individual weapon and u don't see anyone complaining about that. Way to good in DnD.

Stephen E

ghashxx
2009-11-04, 09:57 PM
I hate to bring this show up, but Spike's Deadliest Warrior (insert facepalm) had the Shaolin Monks on one show with the chain being one of the showcased weapons. It seemed like something which could be incredibly effective at range and up close, but due to the need to swing it's something I wouldn't want to ever use in a tight spot. With this in mind, a chain like that with spiky bits on the end seems like a decent idea since you're striking with probably only the last foot of the weapon, and you're not grabbing there in the first place. But if you're looking for a good picture example of the "official" spiked chain, then heroes of horror page 155 has a great picture. I couldn't get Schylerwalker's link to work.

Aldrakan
2009-11-04, 10:01 PM
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG251.jpg

However, in both cases, the spiked chain would function as a two-handed weapon, not a reach weapon. Which makes sense, because, as Tetsubo pointed out in his video, to have it strike opponents at reach, you'd have to let it slide along your hands...

Edit: Haha! http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/hoh_gallery/92000.jpg However, note that his hand is actually bleeding! Then again, note, he is a crazy mother$%&*er.

Well alright, if you're undead and aren't bothered by the spikes I guess... wait... not two-handed? They're supposed to be used in one hand? Seriously? But... glrbflg oaghgg norgggggg. Oh no, please tell me that's wrong. I take back anything I might have said about the fundamental validity of chain weapons in D&D.
No surprise the artists always draw them two-handed. Imagine dual-wielding the things, you'd probably take your head off. Yes, I know that makes as little physical sense as using them in the first place.

pres_man
2009-11-04, 10:13 PM
Ah, spiked chains, what fun. Let's start with the images, which seems to get so many people upset.
Bad Images:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph2_gallery/97175.jpg

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/hoh_gallery/92000.jpg

Better images:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG251.jpg

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

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph2_gallery/97166.jpg

Next, let's get rid of the myth that the spiked chain is unreasonably powerful. Let's compare it to the heavy flail.

Cost: SC = 25 gp, HF = 15 gp, Winner = HF
Damage: SC = 2d4, HF = 1d10, Winner = HF
Crit: SC = 20/x2, HF = 19-20/x2, Winner = HF
Weight: SC = 10 lbs, HF = 10 lbs, Winner = draw
Damage Type: SC = P, HF = B, Winner = HF (IMO)
Disarm: SC = +2 bonus, HF = +2 bonus, Winner = draw
Trip: SC = can be dropped on fail, HF= can be dropped on fail, Winner = draw
Reach: SC = 5 and 10 ft, HF = 5 ft, Winner = SC

So the Spiked chain only has the reach as its single factor that is better than the heavy flail. Now that is a big deal, but that is why you spend an extra feat for it.

What about Finesse? Two comments on finesse. First, finesse does not effect whether a weapon is better or not, just compare the scimitar and the rapier, notice both are martial weapons, finesse didn't bump the rapier into the exotic range. Secondly, the things where the spiked chain would be much better than most other weapons, things like tripping are ... Str based, which means if you are finessing, you are doing it wrong. Also due to the craptastic damage the spiked chain does, you need that damage as well. So finesse is a red herring.

EDIT: Also the whole 5-10 ft reach can be replicated with any reach weapon and armor spikes, and at no additional feat cost. Make it a guisarme, and you can make trip attacks at reach as well. You can also disarm with any weapon, you just don't get the +2 bonus on most.

Stompy
2009-11-05, 12:46 AM
EDIT: Also the whole 5-10 ft reach can be replicated with any reach weapon and armor spikes, and at no additional feat cost. Make it a guisarme, and you can make trip attacks at reach as well. You can also disarm with any weapon, you just don't get the +2 bonus on most.

True, but your armor spikes will not be of the same enhancement nor quality of your main weapon. This usually only means a reduction of say 1-3 to hit and damage, unless you are going up against something with say, DR 10/silver or something.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but some fun facts with a spiked chain:
-basically necessary if you are taking the Mage Slayer feat. (I am not a fan of the 5-foot step.)
-a small creature with one still has a 10' reach.
-Swordsages can spend a feat to get DEX to damage with it. (with a stipulation) (EDIT: This has been said, but taking a level of swordsage at level 9 for this feat, assassin's stance, and for fun swift/immediate manuevers is pretty good for certain builds.)

AstralFire
2009-11-05, 12:56 AM
My negativity in this post is coming from the standpoint of a person who does real combat, so I find some a couple of these weapons pretty silly. Then again there's been at least an entire page on this thread about DnD being silly with their weapons so don't take my negativity too harshly

The double sword would be...a two-bladed sword like the one out of the PHB, while of course the urgosh would be the same, though it was cool how I got to see one in "action. The double spears I just don't think works. Even this guy with practice could only use shortened spears, and then he had to move wicked slow. The double ended spear was cool, and it would just be a double ended spear. As for the Y-branched tip swords... I don't even know what to say. From the style of use they look like something for piercing, but the Y tip would spread damage out thereby dealing less damage, and lowering the potential for getting into vital organs/getting through armor cracks, ie dealing crit damage.



The nice thing about picking out weapons is a player could ignore all the pointless weapons he didn't care about and just pick out the few he wanted as part of their build. I've tried incorporating this into 3.5 with extra weapon proficiencies getting doled out according to BAB rates so a player could start out with an exotic weapon and not bother with the feat for it, great with feat starved classes.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm

tyckspoon
2009-11-05, 01:10 AM
-a small creature with one still has a 10' reach.


Not sure why you felt this was noteworthy; Small creatures have the same reach as Medium creatures with all varieties of weapon.

Coidzor
2009-11-05, 01:32 AM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I think I'm-a use this in my next campaign now. :smallbiggrin:

ziegspade
2009-11-05, 03:35 AM
So...hooray for needless complexity?

No...Hooray for the fact that not every fighter will know how to use every weapon as long as it is considered "simple" or "martial."

Killer Angel
2009-11-05, 04:34 AM
OK, here's a question: are there any Exotic Weapons that actually are too good? Seeing as Spiked Chain and Kusari-Gama seem to be about the cream of the crop, I'm thinking not really, but I'm curious.

mmm... the Greathorn Minotaur's greathammer? It described in one MM (maybe IV, didn't remember). It's 1d12 (crit 19-20 x4).
Not too good, but at least is worth the feat.

Zen Master
2009-11-05, 04:34 AM
Ok - I really have to say:

An spiked chain is not a weapon - it's a ritual form of self-mutilation. Meet an enemy with one, just stand back and wait for him to put his eyes out, then bleed to death from numerous minor wounds.

Just look at the movie of the guy with the chain-daggers. He's very slow, and even then, you can tell it takes all his focus just to keep from injuring himself.

That said - I really don't mind the spiked chain in DnD, it's not meant to be realistic. But for a real-world weapon I can hardly think of anything more useless than a chain. Want chains? Get a flail. Otherwise, clever weapons are dull, practical things like swords, pikes and crossbows.

Also, as a GM I always allow large creatures to reverse grip on reach weapon and stab downwards with them against medium sized opponents.

pres_man
2009-11-05, 06:26 AM
Just look at the movie of the guy with the chain-daggers. He's very slow, and even then, you can tell it takes all his focus just to keep from injuring himself.

You mean the video labeled "double daggers with chain in slow motion"? Yes it is going very slow, who would have figured? :smallwink:

Here is a video of the rope dart being used, to give you an idea how fast someone might go without putting out their own eyes.
The Rope Dart & The Meteor Hammer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhW67MBO8M8)


I have to agree with you here. In real life, you need an extra hand to catch the chain to prevent it from smacking you back. Even nunchucks are double-weapons for the same reason, and they're much smaller; who here has ever seen Bruce Lee use one with only one hand? It would look stupid and be stupid.

Yup, that would look stupid and be stupid.
Bruce Lee fighting with two nunchaku (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRyDcB7qQFo)

Otodetu
2009-11-05, 08:11 AM
The spiked chain is fine; anything that buffs martial men is fine.
Casters are fine too.

Zen Master
2009-11-05, 08:57 AM
You mean the video labeled "double daggers with chain in slow motion"? Yes it is going very slow, who would have figured? :smallwink:

Here is a video of the rope dart being used, to give you an idea how fast someone might go without putting out their own eyes.
The Rope Dart & The Meteor Hammer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhW67MBO8M8)



Yup, that would look stupid and be stupid.
Bruce Lee fighting with two nunchaku (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRyDcB7qQFo)

The 'rope dart' and 'meteor hammer' toys fail to impress me. Admittedly they are slightly faster than the old chubby guy with the dagger-on-a-string toy. Too slow, and entirely ineffective as a weapon.

There is such a thing as evolution - among weapons as among all other things humans touch. If the damn thing works, it's going to go around, it will come into prominence.

There's a reason why shaolin monks wielding hook swords, nunchucks and other silly crap never conquered the world - movies paint a picture of them the real world could never provide.

Now, Bruce Lee is another matter. For instance, he has the power of plot as well as cutting and editing working for him.

He does make for impressive use of otherwise silly weapons.

Dusk Eclipse
2009-11-05, 09:08 AM
There's a reason why shaolin monks wielding hook swords, nunchucks and other silly crap never conquered the world - movies paint a picture of them the real world could never provide.


The reason Shaolin monk never conquered the world with those "silly" weapons is because they didn't want to. They developed martial arts as a way of PROTECTING their monasteries from bandits and as a mean to archieve physical perfection.

Kaiyanwang
2009-11-05, 09:40 AM
Moreover, I consider the reasoning

I have the biggest stick ----> I MUST conquer other people

Quite frightening. It's maybe the more common but... :smalleek:

Stephen_E
2009-11-05, 09:52 AM
Moreover, I consider the reasoning

I have the biggest stick ----> I MUST conquer other people

Quite frightening. It's maybe the more common but... :smalleek:

I've come across worse/scarier reaoning.
Don't warn anyone against doing something that will cause a hostile reaction from you. To do so is to warn them of your intentions which would be stupid. You should stay silent until they push you past your limit and THEN strike without warning.
This us the smart way to behave.

Seriously I had this explained to me from someone who had gotten the alliance of players that she headed to disentigrate without achiveing any of her objectives. And she still thought it was everyone elses fault.

Can you imagine if Kennedy had used that line of reasoning during the Cubam Missile Crisis. - Don't tell them we'll nuke them if they keep installing nuclear missiles in Cuba. Warning them would be stupid. It's smarter if we watch to see if they go beyond our limit, and them nuke them without warning.:smalleek:

The narrowness of vision can be quite scary.

Stephen E

WhiteHarness
2009-11-05, 09:58 AM
There's a reason why shaolin monks wielding hook swords, nunchucks and other silly crap never conquered the world - movies paint a picture of them the real world could never provide.
This is so right that it bears repeating. Those monks were compelled to go to war a few times over the centuries. And they lost a fair number of those times. Remember that the Shaolin temple was destroyed not once, but several times. Sorry, but those guys were nowhere near the effective fighters that pop culture naively believes them to be. They have some good PR, but history amply demonstrates that they don't live up to the hype.

There's a reason that armed states never fielded units of men armed with hook-swords, "meteor hammers," nunchaku, etc. They simply don't work in reality as well as good old, tried-and-true spears, axes, swords, and variations thereof. The Rule of Cool (which has existed since early in human history, and is ultimately responsible for the invention of all those weird weapons, despite what their fanboys might claim) loses out to the Rule of Practical in the real world. This is why educated people roll their eyes when some shallow kid excitedly squeals, "D00d! I wanna b3 a m0nk!"

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-05, 10:16 AM
This is so right that it bears repeating. Those monks were compelled to go to war a few times over the centuries. And they lost a fair number of those times. Remember that the Shaolin temple was destroyed not once, but several times.
They also won many times. They allied with Li Shimin to take back their monastery Wang Shichong during the period of time between the Sui and Tang dynasties, and took part in pirate suppression campaigns in the 1540's to 1550's.

A ratio of wins to losses would be useful to prove the validity of your argument, but I have a feeling that one will not be provided.

In addition, I'm fairly sure that one of the instances where the Shaolin Monastery was sacked was by troops of the Imperial Japanese Army (which had guns, I believe), and another was during the Cultural Revolution. I'm pretty sure those two instances shouldn't count in the win/loss ratio.


There's a reason that armed states never fielded units of men armed with hook-swords, "meteor hammers," nunchaku, etc. They simply don't work in reality as well as good old, tried-and-true spears, axes, swords, and variations thereof.
Inferior in formations, and among men with little military training who were given a weapon and told to stab the other person with it, which I believe describes the majority of Chinese soldiers in Imperial China.

Not saying that they are good weapons, but your reasoning is flawed.

Killer Angel
2009-11-05, 10:18 AM
This is so right that it bears repeating. Those monks were compelled to go to war a few times over the centuries. And they lost a fair number of those times. Remember that the Shaolin temple was destroyed not once, but several times. Sorry, but those guys were nowhere near the effective fighters that pop culture naively believes them to be.

Really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dhei)? These guys dominated for 4 centuries the japan.
I know that weapons like the meteor hammer are "weak"... but most of all because they require a special training, is not exactly the same as equipping some hundreds people with spears

Kaiyanwang
2009-11-05, 10:21 AM
In my opinion military victories are not such an argument to compare martial techniques.

One thing is an army, another a warrior. Terrain, resources, number, motivation, quality of officers and equipment. All of this influences the battle.

Stephen_E
2009-11-05, 10:33 AM
There's a reason that armed states never fielded units of men armed with hook-swords, "meteor hammers," nunchaku, etc. They simply don't work in reality as well as good old, tried-and-true spears, axes, swords, and variations thereof. The Rule of Cool (which has existed since early in human history, and is ultimately responsible for the invention of all those weird weapons, despite what their fanboys might claim) loses out to the Rule of Practical in the real world. This is why educated people roll their eyes when some shallow kid excitedly squeals, "D00d! I wanna b3 a m0nk!"

This is such a stupid claim.
It's like saying a formula 1 car is superior to a rally car because it can beat the rally car on a racing track.

The various weapons mentioned weren't designed for mass formation battles or for semi-trained levies.
It's as silly as claiming that Pikes are stupid weapons because in RL if you tried to use a 18' pike in a 1-on-1 fight against virtually any melee weapon out there, including all those monk weapons, you'd get your arse caned.

Weapons, like everything else, has to be taken into context. And the context of most DnD combat is the skirmish small number combats that those various "whacky" weapons were designed for. Now some of those combats are also enclosed spaces, which many of those weapons aren't designed for, but then neither are many of the battlefield weapons either. Not many weapons were designed for fighting in dungeons oddly enough.

Stephen E

pres_man
2009-11-05, 10:37 AM
There's a reason that armed states never fielded units of men armed with hook-swords, "meteor hammers," nunchaku, etc. They simply don't work in reality as well as good old, tried-and-true spears, axes, swords, and variations thereof. The Rule of Cool (which has existed since early in human history, and is ultimately responsible for the invention of all those weird weapons, despite what their fanboys might claim) loses out to the Rule of Practical in the real world. This is why educated people roll their eyes when some shallow kid excitedly squeals, "D00d! I wanna b3 a m0nk!"

They don't have to be supreme weapons in the real world, they only have to be within the real of "believability" to have a place in a ... wait for it ... it is coming ... fantasy game. The comment about Bruce Lee getting good editing and such is an example of a reasonable "suspension of disbelief". That is all that some players want in a D&D game.

Zen Master
2009-11-05, 11:15 AM
They developed martial arts as a way of PROTECTING their monasteries from bandits and as a mean to archieve physical perfection.

The question you need to ask yourself is this:

Did they secretly succed at this quest and no one else ever caught on, despite repeated proof of Shaolin super powers in films and other media?

Or did they completely and miserably fail, and this is why no one sane copies them?

I'm sorry if I sound overly sarcastic - I really do belive it's a valid point :)

AstralFire
2009-11-05, 11:20 AM
Everyone's kinda half-right.

Spiked Chains are bad weapons IRL, end of story.
Bad weapons are still weapons, and if the person wielding them is a lot more experienced or physically adept (or both) than you, it's not gonna be pretty. No one goes to war with a broken glass bottle, but you'd still better respect its use if you're not wearing plate.

Zen Master
2009-11-05, 11:21 AM
In my opinion military victories are not such an argument to compare martial techniques.

One thing is an army, another a warrior. Terrain, resources, number, motivation, quality of officers and equipment. All of this influences the battle.

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

I'm not saying the Shaolin monks were poor fighters. As such. I'm saying that when they did win, they didn't show up at the battlefield with 'inventive' weapons, but with bows and pikes and swords - stuff, that works!

I mean, seriously - copying stuff that works is as old as man. So is not copying stuff that doesn't. Nunchucks look awesome on film, on Bruce Lee - and they certainly beat having nothing. But the only reason to use them is if you cannot find something better. Or the Emperor has issued an instant death sentence on anyone using swords.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-05, 11:23 AM
This is so right that it bears repeating. Those monks were compelled to go to war a few times over the centuries. And they lost a fair number of those times. Remember that the Shaolin temple was destroyed not once, but several times. Sorry, but those guys were nowhere near the effective fighters that pop culture naively believes them to be. They have some good PR, but history amply demonstrates that they don't live up to the hype. When facing a 1,000:1 numerical disadvantage, particularly when your opponents have siege weapons, all the training in the world isn't going to help much...


There's a reason that armed states never fielded units of men armed with hook-swords, "meteor hammers," nunchaku, etc. They simply don't work in reality as well as good old, tried-and-true spears, axes, swords, and variations thereof. The Rule of Cool (which has existed since early in human history, and is ultimately responsible for the invention of all those weird weapons, despite what their fanboys might claim) loses out to the Rule of Practical in the real world. This is why educated people roll their eyes when some shallow kid excitedly squeals, "D00d! I wanna b3 a m0nk!"

The reason they were never fielded was:

1) Too difficult to train. Give a guy a pike. Spend a month teaching him to march in formation and point the sharp end. Send him out to die. Give a guy a rope-dart... it'll take at least five years until he won't kill himself with it. Too long.

2) Unable to be massed. Flexable weapons require a lot of space to move around with. Putting too many too close together gives you a bunch of tangled yarn.

3) The sheer cost involved with teaching people how to become proficent with them to the degree of combat usefullness is... staggering. It is, point blank, not cost effective.


Speaking as a martial artist who has been studying for nearly twenty years now, a minor in military history, and an avid SCA member... quantity takes a quality all it's own. Armies are not equipped with the 'best equipment evar', they are equipped with 'what is the fastest to learn on a budget and can be mass-produced quickly'. The best weapons takes far longer to become proficient in, and costs significantly more than, what armies are equipped with.

With but two exceptions I can recall offhand, no army was ever equipped with swords,either. The primary exception being the Romans, who used their shortswords and shields once they ran out of spears. Only the Elite bore swords. They also had training which far surpassed common infantry, being literally trained from youth in some cases.

A sword is not an inherently superior weapon. Depending on your opponent's equipment, it may well be worse than a spear. Against a guy in full plate? Give me something with some weight to it... a morningstar, for example, or a military pick to use as a can opener. Spears are perfectly viable.

Honestly, if I were going to go out adventuring today? I wouldn't take a sword at all. They have almost zero use outside of combat, and are too difficult to take care of. I'd probably take a bowie knife, an axe, and a quarterstaff as my primary weapons. If I knew I was getting into combat frequently, so frequently that it was going to be cost-effective, I'd put a point on both ends of my quarterstaff and coat the tips in some kind of metal, to make a double-sided spear. I'd also bring a crossbow, because I can make bolts, but not bullets anymore. At least not unless I can get a good civil-war era gun, with the certain knowledge I can gain access to good quality powder and a good bullet mold. Then I'd be tempted to use it.

You can have your Katana. I'll pluck your eyeball out from outside your reach before you realize I've thrusted. Or I'd put a bolt into his eyeball. Outside of his reach. Bunch of guys? Run. Take them one on one on one on one rather than let them gang up on me.

And before the katana fanbois go "I'll cut your stupid stick in half"... you just try that in a match with someone and see where it gets you.

AstralFire
2009-11-05, 11:24 AM
I'm willing to bet that throughout history, whenever anyone anywhere brought nunchucks or a meteor hammer to a swordfight - he lost.

You can bring a knife to a rifle fight and win. I certainly do not suggest it, and it won't turn out well most of the time, but it is possible. (And I specifically chose rifles since many people who use rifles to fight are trained in how to use it as an up-close defensive club as well, so it doesn't have quite the disadvantages of a pistol at close quarters.)

@Shneeky's post: It's a good one. And a good point. The sword was just about never the best weapon for anything; it was, however:

Passable at many things, making it a great sidearm.
Fairly easy to carry, as some weapons go.
Difficult to conceal, meaning that it got more 'honor' associated with it.

Kaiyanwang
2009-11-05, 11:27 AM
Nunchucks look awesome on film, on Bruce Lee - and they certainly beat having nothing. But the only reason to use them is if you cannot find something better. Or the Emperor has issued an instant death sentence on anyone using swords.

I cannot speak for other things, but this is true - as far as I know, kama and other weapons were born in japan from farmer weapons - because carry a katana was forbidden if you were not a samurai.

Nevertheless, IIRC, Yamada Shinryukan killed a lot of samurai with his Kusari gama. And again, he was killed by a samurai that lured him in a bamboo wood or something similar. terrain wins, not weapon, see my post above about an impossible direct comparison.

After all, even a lot of medieval and later european polearms remember farmer items reworked. They were just good to trip an horseman and then beat beat beat beat beat beat beat beat him to death.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-05, 11:29 AM
You can bring a knife to a rifle fight and win. I certainly do not suggest it, and it won't turn out well most of the time, but it is possible. (And I specifically chose rifles since many people who use rifles to fight are trained in how to use it as an up-close defensive club as well, so it doesn't have quite the disadvantages of a pistol at close quarters.)

As any gun safety class, including the mandatory one for Conceal and Carry licsense in most states that allow it, will say: Inside ten feet (some say as much as fifteen feet), a gun is more dangerous to yourself than to your opponent.

In an area with poor line of sight, lots of cover, and blind corners? I will absolutely bring a knife to a gun fight.

AstralFire
2009-11-05, 11:32 AM
As any gun safety class, including the mandatory one for Conceal and Carry licsense in most states that allow it, will say: Inside ten feet (some say as much as fifteen feet), a gun is more dangerous to yourself than to your opponent.

I was assuming not starting out in close quarters, so the rifle would have some usage as a gun before it had to be used as a club. But yeah. I always kind of laugh when people talk about 'not bringing a knife to a pistol fight' and it's something starting within a handful of meters of each other. Start about 9 meters apart and the knife user's got a good chance. 3 and the pistol user's probably screwed if he tries to use it. Cover just makes it even worse.

endoperez
2009-11-05, 11:40 AM
The 'rope dart' and 'meteor hammer' toys fail to impress me. Admittedly they are slightly faster than the old chubby guy with the dagger-on-a-string toy. Too slow, and entirely ineffective as a weapon.

You call them silly weapons or toys, I call them weapons straight out of fantasy literature or games. That's why I like these videos. There's no way they could be used in formation, I agree, and it would be silly to even try. But for self-defence, the fact that most people couldn't imagine a rope as a weapon helps, and the fact that you can carry and get a length of rope anywhere and everywhere is also good. Would you want to fight with this if you could get two or more of the following: sword, spear, bow, armor and a horse? No way. Would a highway robber want to fight someone doing this? Most probably, no.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hOL8juiy1w


That said, these weapons are Chinese, the same way a rapier is European. Claiming like they were only used by monks in a temple in Henan is like saying rapiers were only used in Paris and only by a group known as musketeers.


Any way, to get back on track:
Shouldn't specializing in a single weapon (i.e. using a feat) make you better at using the said weapon? Say, instead of spending feats on Short Haft (may use polearm at enemies next to you) and Improved Trip, you could use a feat to master Ranseurs, giving you ability to use it and only it at 5 feet, and to use it's special abilities as if you had the feat.

On one hand, it'd be nice to reward specialization... But on the other hand, Fighters don't need to get stuck only using a single weapon, especially if loot is random. Magic users may spend a feat to get better at all spells of a certain school, or a Spell Mastery to always have a specific spell available, but fighters are stuck at taking Focus or Specialization for one weapon at a time. :smallconfused:

edit: Gah! Ninjas!

Kaiyanwang
2009-11-05, 11:52 AM
On one hand, it'd be nice to reward specialization... But on the other hand, Fighters don't need to get stuck only using a single weapon, especially if loot is random. Magic users may spend a feat to get better at all spells of a certain school, or a Spell Mastery to always have a specific spell available, but fighters are stuck at taking Focus or Specialization for one weapon at a time. :smallconfused:


Again, see what said above about Weapon Categories.

Please note that the DM could invent special weapon categories related to the campaign, or even to the power level of the setting, if you need a "Ninja-Pimping" a là Zentharim Soldier.

Say, Heavy and Light Shield, Lances, and short Sword could all be of the "Phalanx" weapon Group (flavor example a là 300)

see SRD:



As you design a campaign or character, you might want to create new weapon groups based on different themes. Possible themes include cultural, racial, or other campaign-world specific ideas. For example, you might create a new weapon group proficiency feat called Weapon Group (hill dwarves) that is available only to dwarves from a specific geographical area of the campaign. Because these dwarves are known for their use of two light weapons at once, this feat grants proficiency in the handaxe, short sword, light hammer, and club, making it easier for these dwarves to learn their race's preferred fighting techniques.

When creating a new weapon group, you should limit each group to three or fewer simple weapons and one to three martial weapons. The Weapon Group proficiency feats described below provide examples of how much versatility each weapon group should provide a character.


Of course, SRD suggest limits, but if every player agree and you simply make the life of your fighter better, you could create a group of "uber gladiator XXX weapons" with the most powerful exotic in game. It's up to you, up to your gaming group.

BTW, with enough splat, Swords, Flails and Chains and a well planned Polearms could be versatile and satisfying as-is.

Fhaolan
2009-11-05, 12:47 PM
Honestly, if I were going to go out adventuring today? I wouldn't take a sword at all.

If I knew I was going to be in combat a lot, I'd take a dagger, a small falchion/machete-like object, a heavy-shafted short spear (basically a thick jo staff or short quarterstaff with a spearhead), and a shortbow. I've trained with each of these weapons for real use (not SCA, stage combat, or katas, but for RL military or survival purposes), I'm fairly confident in their foibles as well as being able to make all of them given access to the correct raw materials and a reasonable number of tools. I find crossbows a bit fiddly in practice, and the blackpowder I've made from raw materials was poor enough to be effectively useless except for clay grenades. If the scenario includes being able to find/scavange ammunition that I *don't* have to make myself, then a cap-lock blunderbus/carriage gun or a modern shotgun. I'm an awful shot with guns, so I compensate with grapeshot. :smallbiggrin:

JellyPooga
2009-11-05, 01:40 PM
I'm of the thought that weapons shouldn't be differentiated as much as they are. I like the Warhammer take of having "Hand Weapons", "Two-Handed Weapons", etc. Functionally, about the only difference between most weapons when you're talking about as vague a system of combat and wounds as D&D uses is the difference between a weapon being small (like a dagger), medium (sword) or large (greatsword) and whether it does piercing, slashing or bludgeoning damage (and that only because of the way DR works in D&D). The actual skill required to use that weapon makes it effective, not the weapon itself. A skilled warrior can trip, disarm, sunder and kill with any weapon he trains to do so with, more or less regardless of the weapon he's actually using. Even the type of damage can change if you're good enough; taking the example of a rapier again, it's typically a thrusting weapon and thus it does piercing damage. However, the tip can also be used to slash and the hilt and hand-guard used to smash, albeit at reduced efficacy.

I would see D&Ds weapon system simplified (to a greater degree, even, than Weapon Groups). Weapons would be catagorised, as I describe above, by their size and damage type. A dagger, for example, would be a Small Piercing weapon, whilst a Big 'Ol Club would be Large Bludgeoning. Small, Medium and Large weapons would have a base damage of 1d4, 1d8 and 1d10 respectively and all would have a base Critical threat on a 20 with a x2 Crit Multiplier. These figures would be improved as BAB increases, possibly using a "Weapon Specialisation" system where you can choose which aspect to improve for the weapons you are proficient with....hmmm, I'm only really creating this off the top of my head as I type, so I apologise if I contradict myself anywhere. Perhaps something like the following;

Weapons
Weapons are designated by size (damage in brackets); Small (1d4), Medium (1d8) or Large (1d12) and type; Bludgeoning, Piercing or Slashing. A weapon is of one size and one type. If the type of a weapon is in doubt (like for a halberd, which could be piercing or slashing), then you may choose which type (once you have made this choice, you may not later change your mind as it represents the rudimentary training you have had with that weapon only). All weapons threaten a critical hit only on a 20 and have a x2 critical multiplier. Ranged weapons are designated as either Thrown or Projectile. Thrown weapons have a Range Increment of 10ft, whilst Projectile weapons have a Range Increment of 60ft.

Here are some sample weapons of each size and type:

Dagger - Small Piercing
Kukri - Small Slashing
Light Mace - Small Bludgeoning

Rapier - Medium Piercing
Battleaxe - Medium Slashing
Morningstar - Medium Bludgeoning

Spear - Large Piercing
Greatsword - Large Slashing
Heavy Flail - Large Bludgeoning

[Note: if you wished to preserve the difference between Simple, Martial and Exotic weapons, this would be a simple process of making Simple weapons have damages of 1d3, 1d6 and 1d8, Martial weapons 1d4, 1d8 and 1d12 and Exotic weapons 1d6, 1d10 and 2d6. Ranged weapons would increase by 50% (round up to nearest 5ft) for each of Martial or Exotic]

Weapon Proficiencies
Starting Characters begin with proficiency in a number of weapons based on their Base Attack Bonus. Characters may choose weapons from the list they would normally have proficiency with (i.e. Fighters could choose any martial or simple weapon, whilst Rogues and Monks could only choose from the list given in their class description).

Full BAB (Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger): 4 Weapon Proficiencies
3/4 BAB (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Rogue): 3 Weapon Proficiencies
1/2 BAB (Sorcerer, Wizard) : 2 Weapon Proficiencies

Weapon Proficiencies must be in a specific weapon (e.g. dagger, battleaxe or quarterstaff). A character may sacrifice 2 Weapon Proficieny points for 1 Weapon Specialisation point at character creation.

Weapon Specialisation
Every time you gain a point of BAB, you also gain 2 Weapon Speciality points. Weapon Specialty points may be saved or spent as follows:

Basic Specialties
Increase Damage Die type by one step (1 point) [Max: 5]
Increase Range Increment by 50% (round up to nearest 5ft) (1 point) [Max: 4]
Add one Type of damage (Bludgeoning, Piercing or Slashing) (2 points)

Advanced Specialties (minimum BAB: +6)
Add +2 to one of: Trip, Disarm or Sunder checks with that weapon (2 points) [Max: 5]
Increase Critical Multiplier by one (3 points) [Max: 3]
Increase Critical Threat Range by one (4 points) [Max: 3]

You may only spend Weapon Speciality points on weapons with which you have proficiency and you may not use them on the same option and weapon more than once per level (e.g. you may not increase daggers damage die by two steps at once, but you could increase the damage dice of daggers and swords once each). Alternatively, you may spend one Weapon Speciality point of a new Weapon Proficiency.

Using this system, a very focused character with Full BAB could use a weapon that looks like this: 2-Handed, 12d6 Piercing, Bludgeoning or Slashing (17-20)x4 Crit, with a +10 bonus split across Trip, Disarm and Sunder. That would, however, mean spending all Weapon Speciality on a single weapon...so he'd be very good with, say, Greatswords, but pretty useless with anything else. It's not the most well-thought out system, but it makes a certain sort of sense to me.

Anyway, sorry for the slight tangent...

Otodetu
2009-11-05, 01:54 PM
I am not sure what to say...

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-05, 03:26 PM
I'm not saying the Shaolin monks were poor fighters. As such. I'm saying that when they did win, they didn't show up at the battlefield with 'inventive' weapons, but with bows and pikes and swords - stuff, that works!

Factual evidence to support your argument: nil.

I have no idea what they actually used when fighting, and am open to the idea they used conventional weaponry, but poorly constructed arguments are not going to convince me you're right.


The question you need to ask yourself is this:

Did they secretly succed at this quest and no one else ever caught on, despite repeated proof of Shaolin super powers in films and other media?

Or did they completely and miserably fail, and this is why no one sane copies them?

I'm sorry if I sound overly sarcastic - I really do belive it's a valid point :)

Their monasteries were sacked by armies, not bandits, so I'd say they did succeed at the goal of defending themselves from criminals.

Muad'dib
2009-11-05, 03:27 PM
...Interesting suggestion...

I like the cut of your jib.

Ormagoden
2009-11-05, 04:22 PM
I think it's an old knee-jerk reaction to when most people didn't realize how dangerous casters were. Or a current knee-jerk reaction if you still don't realize how dangerous casters are.


Nah. I think its just a jerk reaction.

As a DM I try not to limit my players. I mean I can use a spike chain too. It's nothing to be afraid of.

I only really get queasy with SC spells, but even then I just review it and generally I'm ok with it.

DragoonWraith
2009-11-05, 04:30 PM
I'm sort of confused by your reaction to SC; most of the spells in there are squarely in the "sort of nifty" power range, which is pretty much where you want it. There are some stand-outs that are especially powerful, but none (that I can think of) are game breaking.

Nothing like Core, anyway. Yay for Polymorphing et al! Yay for Time Stop! In fact, just about the only really overpowered non-Core Sor/Wiz spells (that I can think of) are (Lesser) Shivering Touch (Frostburn, pretty sure they're in the SC, too, though), and the Celerity line (Player's Handbook II, pretty sure they're not in the SC).

pres_man
2009-11-05, 04:31 PM
And let's not even get into the DMs that don't even know how the rules work. Such as complaints about how trip builds can trip people when they are already prone.

ghashxx
2009-11-05, 04:31 PM
Something to note about the effectiveness of any flexible weapon, how exactly do you block one? Unless you have a shield for it to bounce off of then the only option left is to get the heck out of the way. You can't "block" a weapon like this with a sword, or really much of anything. If it's flying straight at you then unless you actually connect with the metal bit then you just touch the rope, and get hit by the metal. If it's swinging and you try to block w/out a shield then it just wraps around and hits you anyways. That's the only reason why a flexible weapon works at all, because without a shield the only option is to get out of the way and that requires some really nice reflexes to do consistently.

pres_man
2009-11-05, 04:38 PM
Something to note about the effectiveness of any flexible weapon, how exactly do you block one? Unless you have a shield for it to bounce off of then the only option left is to get the heck out of the way. You can't "block" a weapon like this with a sword, or really much of anything. If it's flying straight at you then unless you actually connect with the metal bit then you just touch the rope, and get hit by the metal. If it's swinging and you try to block w/out a shield then it just wraps around and hits you anyways. That's the only reason why a flexible weapon works at all, because without a shield the only option is to get out of the way and that requires some really nice reflexes to do consistently.

I think it goes past the shield and hits you anyway.

Zen Master
2009-11-05, 05:00 PM
Factual evidence to support your argument: nil.

I'd say I could dig some up should I had the inclination. I don't. So that's pretty much that. It's completely obvious and self evident - to me - that useful weapons will be widespread, while crappy weapons will be rare and far between.

It's been repeated any number of times that it takes years to master 'hax monk weapon X'. Even when you've spent that time, you'll get stabbed in the eye by a random footsoldier who's trained 6 months with a decent weapon, not some make-believe trick-weapon that only Bruce Lee can make work - and then only on film.

On a side note - I'm not even going to claim that superhuman Shaolin monks never bested armies of better equipped soldiers with their hackeysack improvised peasant weapons. Lets just assume they did. Just for the hell of it.

If they did, their extreme reputation was what worked, breaking enemy morale. Not the weapons.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-05, 05:07 PM
I'd say I could dig some up should I had the inclination. I don't. So that's pretty much that. It's completely obvious and self evident - to me - that useful weapons will be widespread, while crappy weapons will be rare and far between.So nunchuku are useless, because if they were good their use would be widespread. And they were never widespread because people prefer useful weapons. Is that a fair assessment of your argument?

Demons_eye
2009-11-05, 05:15 PM
It's been repeated any number of times that it takes years to master 'hax monk weapon X'. Even when you've spent that time, you'll get stabbed in the eye by a random footsoldier who's trained 6 months with a decent weapon, not some make-believe trick-weapon that only Bruce Lee can make work - and then only on film.


If they did, their extreme reputation was what worked, breaking enemy morale. Not the weapons.

In that 6 months a soldier will learn group tactics but if he ever faces a monk or anyone trained to use those weapons, meteor hammer or hooked sword, they would lose bad. This is crude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadliest_Warrior) but a good way of showing some stats of the monk weapons, you might have to scroll down. With strange moments and fast speeds any monk weapon can be very deadly.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-05, 05:30 PM
I'd say I could dig some up should I had the inclination. I don't. So that's pretty much that. It's completely obvious and self evident - to me - that useful weapons will be widespread, while crappy weapons will be rare and far between.
The only country that ever adopted the M14 was America. The rest of the world at that time went with the FN FAL, HK G3, and the AK-47. The only reason it was adopted by the American army was because of favoritism to an American weapon - the Army basically rigged the trials to favor the M14. Doesn't make the M14 a bad gun though. Performance was basically on par with the other weapons of its caliber at the time.


It's been repeated any number of times that it takes years to master 'hax monk weapon X'. Even when you've spent that time, you'll get stabbed in the eye by a random footsoldier who's trained 6 months with a decent weapon, not some make-believe trick-weapon that only Bruce Lee can make work - and then only on film.

See, this is the sort of thing that undermines your credibility. You're presenting your opinions as fact. It doesn't matter how self-evident you think something is; the list of things people once thought were "self-evident" as being correct stretches on and on, and would be regarded as laughable by us today.

Bring some facts to the discussion or don't even bother, unless you just want to state your opinion, in which case you don't need more than one post.



On a side note - I'm not even going to claim that superhuman Shaolin monks never bested armies of better equipped soldiers with their hackeysack improvised peasant weapons. Lets just assume they did. Just for the hell of it.
Don't believe I've ever said anything of the sort.

Stephen_E
2009-11-05, 05:42 PM
I'm willing to bet that throughout history, whenever anyone anywhere brought nunchucks or a meteor hammer to a swordfight - he lost.



It's a pity that we can't effectively bet on the forum.
We could clean you out with a claim like that.

I'd avoid gambling if I was you, if that's an example of what you consider a "good bet".:smallwink:

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-11-05, 05:52 PM
I'd say I could dig some up should I had the inclination. I don't. So that's pretty much that. It's completely obvious and self evident - to me - that useful weapons will be widespread, while crappy weapons will be rare and far between.

And it's completely self-evident that the sun revolves around the earth, heavier objects fall faster and the earth is flat. :smalltongue:



On a side note - I'm not even going to claim that superhuman Shaolin monks never bested armies of better equipped soldiers with their hackeysack improvised peasant weapons. Lets just assume they did. Just for the hell of it.

If they did, their extreme reputation was what worked, breaking enemy morale. Not the weapons.

I love this. "and even if you prove me wrong, I'm right anyway".:smallwink:
Nice argument style.

Stephen E

Starbuck_II
2009-11-05, 05:55 PM
Bruce Lee brought nunchakus to a swordfight. He won. I will admit it was a movie though, but it was a moment that Nunchakus won.

Ooh, TMNT also brought them to a sword fight and won.

ghashxx
2009-11-05, 06:59 PM
Bruce Lee brought nunchakus to a swordfight. He won. I will admit it was a movie though, but it was a moment that Nunchakus won.

Ooh, TMNT also brought them to a sword fight and won.

Lols, a reference to TMNT on the OOTS role play forums. I give you props for that.

Fhaolan
2009-11-05, 10:59 PM
Something to note about the effectiveness of any flexible weapon, how exactly do you block one? Unless you have a shield for it to bounce off of then the only option left is to get the heck out of the way. You can't "block" a weapon like this with a sword, or really much of anything. If it's flying straight at you then unless you actually connect with the metal bit then you just touch the rope, and get hit by the metal. If it's swinging and you try to block w/out a shield then it just wraps around and hits you anyways. That's the only reason why a flexible weapon works at all, because without a shield the only option is to get out of the way and that requires some really nice reflexes to do consistently.

Actually you don't block flexible weapons like chains, flails, and other such stuff. You 'beat aside'. It's a bit difficult to explain without a demonstration, but I'll try. The chain is swinging at you, you swing your weapon to follow it a touch faster and 'push' it in the desired direction. This deflects the path of the chain. You're not trying to stop it, or bounce it back the way it came, you're just trying to move the path of the weapon so that it misses. It doesn't need to be much, just enough to miss. Much like rapier and smallsword parries. If you've successfully beat the chain aside your weapon should be 'outside' his while still being inside range, requiring him to make the effort to recover the chain weapon fast in order to block or parry your incoming strike. If you also have a chain-style weapon... actually, I don't know what to do there. That wasn't covered in my training. My teachers just assumed that the other person would be the one with the flail/chain.

While chain-style weapons are very fast for demos, katas and the like, recovery when a strike misses, hits the wrong target, or just goes... wrong, tends to be slower than what a solid weapon of the same mass/length can do because you can apply leverage to a solid weapon, while chains tend to... well, bend. If you're good with the chain, there are tricks and techniques to speed it up, but then if you're good with a halberd there are tricks and techniques to speed it up too. Like all one-on-one fights, it's more about the relative skills of the fighters with those specific weapons than anything inherent in the weapons themselves. There are pros and cons to all weapons, and part of the gig of being a fighter is to manipulate the situation to emphasize the pros of your fighting weapon/style/terrain/etc. and emphasize the cons of your oponents weapon/style/terrain/etc.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-05, 11:36 PM
I'd say I could dig some up should I had the inclination. I don't. So that's pretty much that. It's completely obvious and self evident - to me - that useful weapons will be widespread, while crappy weapons will be rare and far between. "I'm too lazy to find any evidence to support my biased and completely unsupported opinion"


It's been repeated any number of times that it takes years to master 'hax monk weapon X'. Even when you've spent that time, you'll get stabbed in the eye by a random footsoldier who's trained 6 months with a decent weapon, not some make-believe trick-weapon that only Bruce Lee can make work - and then only on film.. It takes years to master the weapon. Yes. However, when you do so, you will likely not be stabbed in the eye by a random footsoldier. At least, not the first one. Massed, yes that is a problem. That is more a function of numbers rather than weapon quality. Even a group of firearm-equipped soldiers can get overwhelmed by a mob carrying improvised weapons at 100:1 ratio...

Does that mean that improvised weapons are more powerful than firearms? No, it means they swarmed them.


On a side note - I'm not even going to claim that superhuman Shaolin monks never bested armies of better equipped soldiers with their hackeysack improvised peasant weapons. Lets just assume they did. Just for the hell of it. Armies? No. Although they did fend them off quite successfully for extended periods of time. They also quite soundly thrashed bandits equipped with what you consider 'superior' spears and swords with these so-called 'hackeysack improvised peasant weapons'. Regularly.


If they did, their extreme reputation was what worked, breaking enemy morale. Not the weapons.

Gee... open-minded much?

SparkMandriller
2009-11-06, 12:16 AM
I'd say I could dig some up should I had the inclination. I don't. So that's pretty much that.

I could dig up some evidence that you're really an alien. If I had the inclination.

But I don't, so you'll just have to trust me. You alien. Why don't you go hang out with Elvis?

OracleofWuffing
2009-11-06, 12:25 AM
...Am I the only one who somehow managed to skip over all the illustrations, and just assume that a D&D spiked chain is wielded more like a whip than a fancy-crazy-spinny weapon until someone showed him otherwise?

sonofzeal
2009-11-06, 12:29 AM
...Am I the only one who somehow managed to skip over all the illustrations, and just assume that a D&D spiked chain is wielded more like a whip than a fancy-crazy-spinny weapon until someone showed him otherwise?
To be fair, just about every illustration of it looks significantly different. Only thing in common is chain with spikey things on both ends. Whether or not the chain is spiked, that varies from picture to picture. In this one (http://cs637.vkontakte.ru/u183500/45537805/x_0fc1aed3.jpg), for example, it clearly isn't. If it's just a chain with weights, you could use it more or less like a meteor hammer.

Gralamin
2009-11-06, 12:34 AM
To be fair, just about every illustration of it looks significantly different. Only thing in common is chain with spikey things on both ends. Whether or not the chain is spiked, that varies from picture to picture. In this one (http://cs637.vkontakte.ru/u183500/45537805/x_0fc1aed3.jpg), for example, it clearly isn't. If it's just a chain with weights, you could use it more or less like a meteor hammer.

Which is why people should just assume this, because that makes it plausible.

sonofzeal
2009-11-06, 12:41 AM
Only slightly off-topic - I don't know if it's been mentioned here before, but it appears that the Pathfinder Spiked Chain has no reach. At all.

Still (2d4/x2), still disarm+trip+finessable, still two handed weapon. No reach though.

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-06, 12:44 AM
Only slightly off-topic - I don't know if it's been mentioned here before, but it appears that the Pathfinder Spiked Chain has no reach. At all.

Still (2d4/x2), still disarm+trip+finessable, still two handed weapon. No reach though.

Blech. That's 99% of why people like the spiked chain.

Oh well. I'll stick with my enlarge person'd/expansion'd ranseur + spiked gauntlet combo, I guess.

sonofzeal
2009-11-06, 12:55 AM
Blech. That's 99% of why people like the spiked chain.

Oh well. I'll stick with my enlarge person'd/expansion'd ranseur + spiked gauntlet combo, I guess.
Yeah, it seems pretty sucky now. Lower damage than a Heavy Flail (by 0.5 average), moderate bonus to disarm, and costs a feat. Yeah, that's soooo worth it. =/

Stephen_E
2009-11-06, 01:30 AM
Yeah, it seems pretty sucky now. Lower damage than a Heavy Flail (by 0.5 average), moderate bonus to disarm, and costs a feat. Yeah, that's soooo worth it. =/

To quote the head designer "just because it takes a feat to use is no reason for it to be any better tham a martial weapon".

Yes, the HD has some whacky "roleplay is what it's about" ideas.
Fortunately IMO this hasn't impacted the system to badly.

Stephen E

AstralFire
2009-11-06, 01:41 AM
Well, 3E is the edition transitioning between 'mechanical options weighted primarily by simulationism' and 'mechanical options weighted primarily by balance.' (I think this owes a lot to the confusion caused by the term 'Experience Level.') So you get a lot of people who also run the gamut.

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-06, 01:47 AM
To quote the head designer "just because it takes a feat to use is no reason for it to be any better tham a martial weapon".

Yes, the HD has some whacky "roleplay is what it's about" ideas.
Fortunately IMO this hasn't impacted the system to badly.

Stephen E

Err...whut?

sonofzeal
2009-11-06, 02:40 AM
Err...whut?
Because, y'know, feats are purely for flavour and shouldn't actually improve a character's ability in combat.

Lycanthromancer
2009-11-06, 02:43 AM
Because, y'know, feats are purely for flavour and shouldn't actually improve a character's ability in combat.

That's what SHE said.

Um...

sonofzeal
2009-11-06, 02:49 AM
That's what SHE said.
.....or he said!

Zen Master
2009-11-06, 03:38 AM
So nunchuku are useless, because if they were good their use would be widespread. And they were never widespread because people prefer useful weapons. Is that a fair assessment of your argument?

That is a fair assesment of my argument, yes.

Take the tablet pc - which Microsoft touted as the thing of the future. Well - it's flashy, but it truly does fail at being a very relevant alternative to a normal pc. It was not the thing of the future.

You can kill stuff with a meteor hammer, but you can also kill stuff with a shovel. Train for 15 years with a shovel, you will likely become good at killing stuff with it, but that doesnt make it a wonderful weapon.

This isn't a rule to end all rules, there will be exceptions. But overall, stuff that works replaces stuff that doesn't. These monk weapons never achieved widespread use because they are poor alternatives to simpler, more effective weapons. The guy who trained for 15 years with a meteor hammer could have trained for 15 years with something else and have achieved far better results.

Zen Master
2009-11-06, 03:41 AM
"I'm too lazy to find any evidence to support my biased and completely unsupported opinion"

You are aware that no one in this discussion has posted anything even resembling proof? Of anything. You are offended that my (unfounded) opinion differs from your (unfounded) opinion. That however does not make you right and me wrong - or vise versa for that matter.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-06, 03:58 AM
You are aware that no one in this discussion has posted anything even resembling proof? Of anything. You are offended that my (unfounded) opinion differs from your (unfounded) opinion. That however does not make you right and me wrong - or vise versa for that matter.

No, I am offended that you seem to feel that it is unnecessary to support your position because it is somehow inherently superior, to the point of flat out stating that 'even if you do provide proof, you are still wrong, because I am right'.

Providing proof and evidence is clearly not sufficient for you, therefore why bother? You will merely discount and/or refute it...

Stephen_E
2009-11-06, 04:43 AM
You are aware that no one in this discussion has posted anything even resembling proof? Of anything. You are offended that my (unfounded) opinion differs from your (unfounded) opinion. That however does not make you right and me wrong - or vise versa for that matter.

Actualy people have posted proofs, you disregarded them,

But you have not only posted no proofs, which is no crime in itself, but you also made absolute claims such as "I'm willing to bet that throughout history, whenever anyone anywhere brought nunchucks or a meteor hammer to a swordfight - he lost." and followed it up with the wonderful "even if you guys provide evidence to prove me wrong, I'm still right and you're still wrong."

And you've completely failed to address the difference between formation fighting and individual or skirmish fighting.

I'm curious if you also consider rapiers to be a useless imparactical weapon since it too has never been a battlefield weapon.

Stephen E

sonofzeal
2009-11-06, 05:33 AM
Is it worth mentioning that most of the really exotic weapons were specifically designed so that it wasn't obvious that they were weapons? The nunchuck specifically is a glorified rice flail, and was used in combat because, hey, being able to kill people with the stuff at hand was more important than being great with a sword when you can't get them past checkpoints in the first place.

Comparing a nunchuck to a broadsword is apples and oranges. One was a stealth weapon, something innocuous that could offer a great advantage over being unarmed when conventional weapons were impossible. The other was a tool of war simple enough to be used by the common masses and deadly enough to get the job done fast. The rapier, in its turn, was a courtly "refinement" on the sword that required less strength from ponsy nobles, was less likely to cause accidental death or disfigurement in normal practice, and was still at least fairly lethal when needed.

As for meteor hammer, it functions in the real world much like reach weapons are claimed to in D&D - if you charge someone who's wielding one and knows what he's doing, he's going to get an unreturned attack on you as you close. It's possible to deflect or dodge, but it's fast and it moves in very strange ways that your eye doesn't naturally track the way it does an enemy's sword. That said, gaining that single first attack in a duel is mostly all of what it's good for. It's too chaotic a weapon to be particularly effective in limited spaces like a battlefield, and you can't count on being able to set up a second hit, or on being able to block worth a damn. That doesn't mean it's a bad weapon, as landing the first hit is pretty crucial a lot of the time. It's not a perfect weapon, and it's somewhat limited in scope, but it's a viable and effective choice in certain contexts.


(Edit - Some of this is from personal experience, btw. I have several friends who do Rope Dart, some who do SCA combat, one who's opening up his own dojo for weapons training, and I've personally done Iaido, Naginata, SCA, and LARP. Strangly, the LARP has been the best practical weapons training. Anyway, point is, hey, evidence. Anecdotal evidence, but still evidence.)

Killer Angel
2009-11-06, 05:42 AM
You can kill stuff with a meteor hammer, but you can also kill stuff with a shovel. Train for 15 years with a shovel, you will likely become good at killing stuff with it, but that doesnt make it a wonderful weapon.
This isn't a rule to end all rules, there will be exceptions. But overall, stuff that works replaces stuff that doesn't. These monk weapons never achieved widespread use because they are poor alternatives to simpler, more effective weapons. The guy who trained for 15 years with a meteor hammer could have trained for 15 years with something else and have achieved far better results.

You are making a little confusion here.
Your right that standard-issue weapons are standard-issue because they work well, with a minimum of training, and are thus more worth the time than the "unusual"; anyone can pick up an axe or a club and smash your head. Anyone can pick up a nunchaku... but it ends smashing his own head with it.
The nunchaku isn't less deadly than the mace, it's more difficult to master.
(note that even in the middle age, the "common" swords, were considered a elite's weapon, because they were expensive to make and because using a sword effectively required more training than a pike)

Shaolin monks use "exotic" weapons also to train their mind and body, and from this pov, a meteor hammer is better than a shovel.
Following your reasoning, a knife is deadlier than a punch, so why train in martial arts?

(EDIT: i agree with sonofzeal comment. Weapon's efficacy depends a lot on fight's circumstances)

JellyPooga
2009-11-06, 05:42 AM
As for meteor hammer, it functions in the real world much like reach weapons are claimed to in D&D - if you charge someone who's wielding one and knows what he's doing, he's going to get an unreturned attack on you as you close. It's possible to deflect or dodge, but it's fast and it moves in very strange ways that your eye doesn't naturally track the way it does an enemy's sword. That said, gaining that single first attack in a duel is mostly all of what it's good for. It's too chaotic a weapon to be particularly effective in limited spaces like a battlefield, and you can't count on being able to set up a second hit, or on being able to block worth a damn.

From watching the various vids of the meteor hammer people have posted links to, it seems to me that it works best when moving a lot. Sure, if you stay still, you're going to get one hit in and then get caught up trying to set up your second hit. If, however, you move it gives you opportunity and space to continue your assault. In D&D terms; it's a weapon to use in conjunction with Skirmish.

sonofzeal
2009-11-06, 05:57 AM
From watching the various vids of the meteor hammer people have posted links to, it seems to me that it works best when moving a lot. Sure, if you stay still, you're going to get one hit in and then get caught up trying to set up your second hit. If, however, you move it gives you opportunity and space to continue your assault. In D&D terms; it's a weapon to use in conjunction with Skirmish.
Well, it depends on what sort of opponent you have. One who knows what he's doing will just run straight for you (or a little to the side to throw off your aim), and if he's running while you're launching your first attack, you won't be able to create room effectively to get a good second one off. There's some nice close range attacks you can do, but these can be dangerous to set up and it generally get in the way of, y'know, dodging whatever he's trying to do to you. You use your whole body for it, and as such your whole body is pretty well committed to what you're doing with it, and doesn't have much leeway left over for the other stuff you might want to be doing.

Now, a cautious attacker or one who's kept at bay some other way, then you're looking at a nice hit-and-run skirmish approach. I wouldn't count on that happening though. Mostly I'd just spend a few moments looking really cool, get that first attack off, and whether it hit or miss I'd drop the rope right there and draw something more suited to close range combat. A nice pair of shortswords works for me. Assuming I can grab them quickly, I'm still better off than I'd have been if I started with them. A heavy Meteor Hammer can easily break bones, and if I connect then that could be the fight right there with no need to risk whatever he's working with.

Zen Master
2009-11-06, 06:07 AM
No, I am offended that you seem to feel that it is unnecessary to support your position because it is somehow inherently superior, to the point of flat out stating that 'even if you do provide proof, you are still wrong, because I am right'.


Nah, you're wrong. My position isn't superior, but it's flat out logical, as far as I can tell. And yea - I'm stating that unless you can point out some logical flaw in my reasoning, whatever 'proof' you may post will be disregarded. Because, as I also wrote, I will be convinced that something else besides the quality of the weapons made the difference.

I'm really not trying to offend anyone. But I really do feel that most of you want these weapons to be good, you want to believe - and no logical argument will change that. Short of a time machine, we are all just stating opinion.

However, I'm not the one getting offended at people who disagree.

Zen Master
2009-11-06, 06:17 AM
Is it worth mentioning that most of the really exotic weapons were specifically designed so that it wasn't obvious that they were weapons? The nunchuck specifically is a glorified rice flail, and was used in combat because, hey, being able to kill people with the stuff at hand was more important than being great with a sword when you can't get them past checkpoints in the first place.

Yes! Beautiful. This is exactly my point. It's a poor choice of weapon for anything that is a weapon. It's a wonderful choice of weapon for something that truly is a rice flail.

Learning to kill with a shovel will be a great advantage if you happen to be the guy the enemy hires to dig trenches. But in a non-trenchdigging situation, you're unlikely to take a shovel as your weapon of choice - because most other weapons will be better.


Comparing a nunchuck to a broadsword is apples and oranges.

No - it isn't. A broadsword is a better weapon in almost all situations. If your enemy is likely to approach you, unawares, while you are flailing rice, if may be advantageous for you to be able to kill him with a rice flail.

But again, it would almost certainly be more advantageous for you to be able to hide a broadsword (or some other weapon - I'm not a broadsword fanboy) under the rice.

Oh ... maybe I should point out: IMHO.

Cracklord
2009-11-06, 06:35 AM
Banning it for flavor reasons is okay: I too find it a ridiculous weapon from a concept standpoint, but alot of the stuff I've seen was bashing it's mechanics, which I don't find nearly as reprehensible. Yes, it's powerful, probably more that it should be, but not by the degree they seem to be implying.

Yes, because in a game where people can, after spending enough time in libraries, fly shoot fire and rewrite reality, a chain makes no sense.
I can accept talking to animals and dragons, but a spiked chain stretches credulity far too much.


You are making a little confusion here.
Your right that standard-issue weapons are standard-issue because they work well, with a minimum of training, and are thus more worth the time than the "unusual"; anyone can pick up an axe or a club and smash your head. Anyone can pick up a nunchaku... but it ends smashing his own head with it.
The nunchaku isn't less deadly than the mace, it's more difficult to master.
(note that even in the middle age, the "common" swords, were considered a elite's weapon, because they were expensive to make and because using a sword effectively required more training than a pike)

Shaolin monks use "exotic" weapons also to train their mind and body, and from this pov, a meteor hammer is better than a shovel.
Following your reasoning, a knife is deadlier than a punch, so why train in martial arts?

(EDIT: i agree with sonofzeal comment. Weapon's efficacy depends a lot on fight's circumstances)

No, because a shaolin monk would be more dangerous with a knife then with a numchuck. The reason they trained with household implements was because owning weapons was a killing offense, so revolts would be impossible, and even in the places that weren't, they were expensive and monks do not live lives of affluence. Not because martial arts somehow makes them better.

A soldier trained to use a knife at a professional level is more dangerous then a man trained to use his fists at a professional level. His claim is that If two people are assumed to be equal, it's better to have a weapon then to not.

Kaiyanwang
2009-11-06, 06:35 AM
Well, since the thing started from the game, should be pointed out that the game HAS mechanics for this.

There are weapons (war fan, OAdv) that are used to to take enemies by surprise, as well attack teniques that are based on certain weapons (flick of the wirst, CAdv).

In Underdark and DMG you find limitations about fighting in certain condition (tight spaces and underwater).

These weapons don't have the 2d6 damage of a greatsword, but reward the combatant that is able to reach an advantage, choose hit terrain or situation. Or are good in a restricted area.

pretty much, you are saying the same thing, simply, in my view, Acromos sees the situational advantage and the ability to reach it less relevant.

sonofzeal
2009-11-06, 06:49 AM
No - it isn't. A broadsword is a better weapon in almost all situations. If your enemy is likely to approach you, unawares, while you are flailing rice, if may be advantageous for you to be able to kill him with a rice flail.

But again, it would almost certainly be more advantageous for you to be able to hide a broadsword (or some other weapon - I'm not a broadsword fanboy) under the rice.

Oh ... maybe I should point out: IMHO.
Well, the nunchuck is a particularly excessive example of something that's mostly just an improvement over unarmed combat. Most of the other Okinawan kobudō actually have legitimate advantages as weapons, compared to other weapons (possible other exception: the Tekko, which was basically just iron knuckes). Most of these weapons were much harder to use than standard spears/swords/axes, but had other major advantage instead. This doesn't mean they were universally superior, just that they work better in some contexts and for some purposes.

Point is - saying that a weapon is bad just because it wasn't used in battle, or isn't suitable to the battlefield, is a bit of a fallacy. Massed armies are only one context where weapons are useful, and there's also duels, ambushes, intimidation, policing, and stealth. Armoured vs unarmoured also makes a big difference, as does the number of opponents, the skill of opponents, and the weapons of opponents. That last one especially is a big convoluted game of rock-paper-scissors, and occasionally it really helps to be able to throw out something off the wall (http://www.umop.com/rps25.htm).

(and then you go to Ancient China, where they've gone way past that point and into pure insanity (http://www.umop.com/rps101/rps101chart.html))

Stephen_E
2009-11-06, 06:55 AM
Nah, you're wrong. My position isn't superior, but it's flat out logical, as far as I can tell. And yea - I'm stating that unless you can point out some logical flaw in my reasoning, whatever 'proof' you may post will be disregarded. Because, as I also wrote, I will be convinced that something else besides the quality of the weapons made the difference.


The problems/flaws with your "logic" have been pointed out repeatedly. You have failed to address them every time.
On the otherhand your points have been addressed and explained.

What more is there to say?

Stephen E

Killer Angel
2009-11-06, 07:01 AM
A soldier trained to use a knife at a professional level is more dangerous then a man trained to use his fists at a professional level. His claim is that If two people are assumed to be equal, it's better to have a weapon then to not.

Not at all, re-read his posts. His claim (if I'm cuttin too much, correct me) was:


...it takes years to master 'hax monk weapon X'. Even when you've spent that time, you'll get stabbed in the eye by a random footsoldier who's trained 6 months with a decent weapon.
...

Bruce Lee is another matter. For instance, he has the power of plot as well as cutting and editing working for him. He does make for impressive use of otherwise silly weapons

He was not talking about equal training. He was talking 'bout random soldier being superior to a master in exotic weapons, because these are silly and ineffective.

Zen Master
2009-11-06, 09:24 AM
Not at all, re-read his posts. His claim (if I'm cuttin too much, correct me) was: He was not talking about equal training. He was talking 'bout random soldier being superior to a master in exotic weapons, because these are silly and ineffective.

No, that's a reasonanbly accurate description of what I said, even if I was exaggerating a bit. Basically, human life is terribly perishable. It is horribly simple to bring to a halt the processes that we associate with being alive. It does not take years and years of training.

Now, there are to aspects here: Physical fitness, and weapons training.

I refer only to weapons training. With 6 months to learn how to master a simple but effective weapon, you can beat a guy who has trained for 6 years to master a clumsy, inaccurate, hard-to-use weapon. Yes - that is my claim, absolutely.

Zen Master
2009-11-06, 09:33 AM
Point is - saying that a weapon is bad just because it wasn't used in battle, or isn't suitable to the battlefield, is a bit of a fallacy. Massed armies are only one context where weapons are useful, and there's also duels, ambushes, intimidation, policing, and stealth. Armoured vs unarmoured also makes a big difference, as does the number of opponents, the skill of opponents, and the weapons of opponents.

Really - I wasn't the one who mentioned massed soldiers on the battlefield. I did mention soldiers tho, but not to indicate that every effective weapon in the history of man would eventually be used by massed troops.

I'm fully aware that context accounts for a lot - a bow is a terrible weapon in melee, but at decent range beats a sword every time.

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.

Fhaolan
2009-11-06, 09:36 AM
No, because a shaolin monk would be more dangerous with a knife then with a numchuck. The reason they trained with household implements was because owning weapons was a killing offense, so revolts would be impossible, and even in the places that weren't, they were expensive and monks do not live lives of affluence. Not because martial arts somehow makes them better.

Just as a technical note: Shaolin monks are Chinese. Nunchucks are Japanese (Okinawan to be precise). I believe it would be unlikely that Shaolin monks would be using nunchucks. To my knowledge, they're more likely to be using hook-swords, funky spears, and things that were orginally shovels.

Not really important to the discussion. Don't mind me.

crazedloon
2009-11-06, 09:43 AM
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.

the concept behind flexible weapons are they are near impossible to block due to their flexibility and examples of meteor hammers have been found/presented that used chain to bypass the cut the rope theory (though I have a hard time seeing that as being easy)


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.

also it is not an accurate weapon in the conventional sense, you do not need to hit a vital point to cause mass bleeding to stop a warrior you just need to make contact with bone to crush it. Surprise surprise that is pretty much any part of your body thus a crushing weapon has a much larger target.


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

Also could you name one bludgeoning weapon with its reach which is capable of bending around a defense?

JellyPooga
2009-11-06, 10:08 AM
Swinging it about in flashy fashion is all well and nice, but I'd truly like to see some targets too.

One of the links to YouTube posted earlier showed a guy hitting targets (hanging water pots about the size of your head) at a range of 4 meters with a meteor hammer.

Saph
2009-11-06, 10:16 AM
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.

pres_man
2009-11-06, 10:16 AM
I might suggest that a weapon like a nunchaku is not so hard to use as some have suggested. To do all the swinging around your back and such, sure, that takes time, but if you are just using it as a light flail it is not too difficult. Remember it is based on a farm tool, it wasn't like the farmers were braining themselves everytime they used the tool. To get the most out of the weapon you have to really train in its use, but if you just want to swing and hit someone, it isn't that terribly hard to use.

EDIT: I might also point out the discussion has changed from "spiked chains aren't believable" to "spiked chains should be ineffective". There are real world examples of (crappy perhaps) weapons that work in a fashion similar to the spiked chain, thus the argument that they are not believable is just silly. It is like saying platypuses are not believable, clearly they are real just because they "feel" funky to you doesn't mean they are not believable.

Also, the stats don't support the idea that the spiked chain is the most awesome weapon from a damage standpoint, which is what most weapons you want to put into the hands of your warriors should be concerned with. Compared to almost all other two-handed weapons, the spiked chain is inferior in damage. Comparing it to the longspear for example, a much easier to learn weapon, while it does beat it out on average damage initially, if you can get a +6 to the damage, it evens out, and any additional (+) to damage will favor the longspear. A single 1st level fighter with a spiked chain facing 20 1st level commoners armed with longspears isn't going to last long.

So I fail to see what all the hate is about. a) The weapon has been shown to be 'believable' and b) it is not unreasonably powerful.

Kurald Galain
2009-11-06, 10:32 AM
I might suggest that a weapon like a nunchaku is not so hard to use as some have suggested.

Are you basing this on personal experience, or are you inferring this from a variety of fantasy books you have read or films you have seen?

pres_man
2009-11-06, 10:34 AM
Are you basing this on personal experience, or are you inferring this from a variety of fantasy books you have read or films you have seen?

When I was a teenager I played around with a nunchaku and didn't once bash myself in the head. So both I guess. Also just plain logic that since farmers weren't braining themselves repeatedly, that must indicate that at least some basic use of the item was not beyond the level of ordinary people.

Kurald Galain
2009-11-06, 10:39 AM
When I was a teenager I played around with a nunchaku and didn't once bash myself in the head. So both I guess. Also just plain logic that since farmers weren't braining themselves repeatedly, that must indicate that at least some basic use of the item was not beyond the level of ordinary people.
Well, I'm not a proponent of the notion that player characters should bash or stab themselves on rolling a natural one. Nevertheless, being able to swing an object around without hitting yourself is a far cry from using it as an effective weapon.

Interestingly, Wikipedia claims that contemporary USA police uses nunchakus, albeit with the common [citation needed] tags...

Stephen_E
2009-11-06, 10:50 AM
No, that's a reasonanbly accurate description of what I said, even if I was exaggerating a bit. Basically, human life is terribly perishable. It is horribly simple to bring to a halt the processes that we associate with being alive. It does not take years and years of training.

Even there your statement is very dodgy. Humans are extremly tough and there are only a couple of wounds that are guarateed to drop them instanly. And peircing the heart isn't one of them. :smallwink:


Now, there are to aspects here: Physical fitness, and weapons training.

I refer only to weapons training. With 6 months to learn how to master a simple but effective weapon, you can beat a guy who has trained for 6 years to master a clumsy, inaccurate, hard-to-use weapon. Yes - that is my claim, absolutely.

Do you have any actual martial arts experiance to support your claim.


Stephen E

Fhaolan
2009-11-06, 10:51 AM
As another note: The nunchaku you see in the junk-shops and in the Bud K wallhanger catalogs are a *lot* lighter than the ones being used in actual Okinawan dojos. Oddly enough, the originals apparantly had curved arms and were likely developed from horse bits, not rice flails. There is an Okinawan weapon derived from rice flails, but it looks like a European flail.

Here's an article on nunchaku I've found does mostly match the information I've found on the subject. It also goes on about the story of martial arts being developed by peasants denied weapons, and shows an alternate theory of these weapons being developed by already-combat-proficient former nobles who had been impoverished during a power-centralization shift towards a single strict kingdom somewhere near the end of the 1400's and who had their weapons taken away by that centralized king (later reinforced by the Japanese occupation of the 1600's). Unfortunately, this specific article doesn't have citations, as seems it's mostly derived from verbal conversations with Okinawan historians. http://nunchaku.tripod.com/about_e.htm

EDIT: I think the wikipedia article is a bit odd there about US police using nunchaku. I think they've confused nunchaku with tonfa. The current-issue police baton in the US is very much a tonfa.

Stephen_E
2009-11-06, 10:54 AM
One of the links to YouTube posted earlier showed a guy hitting targets (hanging water pots about the size of your head) at a range of 4 meters with a meteor hammer.

Shhh. You don't want to confuse Acromas with facts that he's doing his best to ignore. :smallwink:

Stephen E

Killer Angel
2009-11-06, 10:55 AM
I refer only to weapons training. With 6 months to learn how to master a simple but effective weapon, you can beat a guy who has trained for 6 years to master a clumsy, inaccurate, hard-to-use weapon. Yes - that is my claim, absolutely.

mmm... I don't agree. Hard to use? yes. Clumsy or inaccurate? not exactly.
Example with "standard" weapons: you need more time to learn how to use a bow, than a crossbow (which is immediate), but the bow isn't inaccurate.
Example with "exotic" weapons: a Kusarigama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja#Weaponry) gives more options than standard short melee weapons, and is more difficult to practise at good levels (hence the need to spend a feat... :smallwink:), but it's damn deadly.

I can concede one point: some weapons are more easy to master than others, and some weapons have more "flexibility" than others (and so are less hampered by the circumstances of the fighting). But if you master a weapon, you're always dangerous.

Fhaolan
2009-11-06, 11:12 AM
I'm on a role with my useless information factoids. :smallsmile: (The misspelling in this one case is deliberate.)

Another thing to consider, the meteor hammer, the rope dart, and their related weapons, would be somewhat difficult to stick spikes all over due to the way the weapon is normally maneuvered. (This is based on personal martial arts training (minimal, so don't trust it), and conversations with martial artists who do work with those weapons (uncitable, unfortunately.)

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).

pres_man
2009-11-06, 11:31 AM
And another catgirl dies.

Zen Master
2009-11-06, 12:32 PM
the concept behind flexible weapons are they are near impossible to block.

also it is not an accurate weapon in the conventional sense.

Also could you name one bludgeoning weapon with its reach which is capable of bending around a defense?

They are not near impossible to block - they are more difficult to block, but nowhere near impossible.

By inaccurate, I really meant 'you are likely not to hit your target - at all'.

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.

But no - I don't know a bludgeoning weapon with similar reach. Likely that's because very few people in the history of a race renowned for weaponizing anothing from farm implements to tofu, ever considered it a brilliant idea.

Zen Master
2009-11-06, 12:38 PM
Even there your statement is very dodgy. Humans are extremly tough and there are only a couple of wounds that are guarateed to drop them instanly. And peircing the heart isn't one of them. :smallwink:

Do you have any actual martial arts experiance to support your claim.
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.

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?

hamishspence
2009-11-06, 12:52 PM
Losing an eye to an arrow (King Phillip of Macedon) is not exactly a minor scratch. Or severed limbs or various other wounds- that people survived, and lived for years with.

The claim "anything more than a minor scratch was lethal" sounds like a bit of an exaggeration.

Amphetryon
2009-11-06, 12:59 PM
Now - anyone can do that. Move *inside* it's reach If you could enlighten me as to why this is exclusive to the chain weapons, I'm interested. The same argument seems to be equally applicable to a long sword; the problem arises from the fact that 'anyone' translates into 'anyone who is well trained and/or has better reaction times than their opponent and is willing to deal with the potentially lethal wound he'd take to get inside.' That seems a bit limiting, to me.

DragoonWraith
2009-11-06, 01:07 PM
Take the tablet pc - which Microsoft touted as the thing of the future. Well - it's flashy, but it truly does fail at being a very relevant alternative to a normal pc. It was not the thing of the future.
I know a lot people who swear by tablet PCs. They're very popular on college campuses, though because they're relatively expensive a lot of that popularity is "I wish I could have one". The people who do swear by them. So your example fails. They may not have been everything Microsoft's advertising department said they are/would be, but of course - they were hyping it up to get better press and make more money. That is, after all, their job.


My position isn't superior, but it's flat out logical, as far as I can tell.
No, it isn't. A logical argument would be to take accepted facts, and show that due to a given combination of accepted facts, it cannot be any other way. You have done no such thing. You have offered no facts, and you have offered zero logical reasoning of any kind.

All you have done is assert the same opinion over and over, and ignore everyone else.

Fluffles
2009-11-06, 01:09 PM
Also, the stats don't support the idea that the spiked chain is the most awesome weapon from a damage standpoint, which is what most weapons you want to put into the hands of your warriors should be concerned with. Compared to almost all other two-handed weapons, the spiked chain is inferior in damage. Comparing it to the longspear for example, a much easier to learn weapon, while it does beat it out on average damage initially, if you can get a +6 to the damage, it evens out, and any additional (+) to damage will favor the longspear. A single 1st level fighter with a spiked chain facing 20 1st level commoners armed with longspears isn't going to last long.


... 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.

Hp of the Fighter: (14 Con): 7 on average.
Hp per commoner: 2.

Commoners damage per round (if they all hit): 20d8.

Commoners have a +0 to hit, the fighter will have an AC of 14-20. We'll go with 20 just to make a point.

Each commoner has to roll an 18 if they want to hit (flanking bonus), and there are 20 commoners. That means (on average) 3 people in the group will hit the fighter, for 3d8 damage. Which averages out to 12 damage. Bye bye fighter.

Zen Master
2009-11-06, 01:12 PM
Losing an eye to an arrow (King Phillip of Macedon) is not exactly a minor scratch. Or severed limbs or various other wounds- that people survived, and lived for years with.

The claim "anything more than a minor scratch was lethal" sounds like a bit of an exaggeration.

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.

This would have been lower in asia, I expect.

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.

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.

Zen Master
2009-11-06, 01:20 PM
No, it isn't. A logical argument would be to take accepted facts, and show that due to a given combination of accepted facts, it cannot be any other way. You have done no such thing. You have offered no facts, and you have offered zero logical reasoning of any kind.

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.


All you have done is assert the same opinion over and over, and ignore everyone else.

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.

JellyPooga
2009-11-06, 01:20 PM
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.

: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...

Xenogears
2009-11-06, 01:28 PM
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.



But see even in your own example it isn't a logical conclusion. The key word is OBVIOUSLY. Meteor Hammers are not OBVIOUSLY good so they were not copied. That doesn't mean that they are not good. Just that they do not appear to be so.