Is the spiked chain “officially statted” now?

[Dualswinger]

So flipping through ToF, I noticed that a Shadar Kai Shadow Dancer (page 225) is equipped with a Spiked Chain. Extrapolating backwards from proficiency bonus and removing extras that could be counted as “class features” we are left with the following stats.

Spiked Chain: 2d6, reach, two handed, finesse.

Thoughts?

[Crgaston]

Ugh.

Could we just have a versatile slashing finesse sword instead?

[Dualswinger]

Ugh.

Could we just have a versatile slashing finesse sword instead?

Some people like the spiked chain. I know I was sad when it was absent from phb.

Perhaps ask your dm to just reflavour it as an “elven greatsword” or something

[Quoz]

I think if those are the stats that's a pretty good reason not to make it a PC option. Maybe if it requires a special feat to use or is otherwise difficult to gain proficiency.

A whip is balanced to be the only reach finesse weapon at 1d4 damage. Make it a d6 or maybe d8 and it's a good niche weapon. At 2d6 and without heavy, if a player tried that on me as a GM they would find themselves facing swarms of goblins and kobolds armed with these things.

[Dualswinger]

I think if those are the stats that's a pretty good reason not to make it a PC option. Maybe if it requires a special feat to use or is otherwise difficult to gain proficiency.

A whip is balanced to be the only reach finesse weapon at 1d4 damage. Make it a d6 or maybe d8 and it's a good niche weapon. At 2d6 and without heavy, if a player tried that on me as a GM they would find themselves facing swarms of goblins and kobolds armed with these things.

Definitely powerful, and I agree about the proficiency challenge. If only the new race got it as a proficiency ;)

I’m not sure heavy would “fit” for the spiked chain. I doubt it’s any heavier than a forged longsword or the like, plus it prevents gwm shenanigans.

[Crgaston]

Some people like the spiked chain. I know I was sad when it was absent from phb.

Perhaps ask your dm to just reflavour it as an “elven greatsword” or something

I don’t have a problem with people liking a spiked chain. I do kinda have a problem with the sudden introduction of something so far superior mechanically to the next best finesse weapon. I already don’t use rapiers because I don’t like the aesthetics, but giving up one die size for RP purposes is a lot easier than giving up double the damage of a short sword or scimitar AND reach. If they were 2d4 it’d be fine.

And true, a versatile scimitar isn’t a tough sell, but it’d be nice if it were in a book so I didn’t have to be a special snowflake about it :)

[Dualswinger]

I don’t have a problem with people liking a spiked chain. I do kinda have a problem with the sudden introduction of something so far superior mechanically to the next best finesse weapon. I already don’t use rapiers because I don’t like the aesthetics, but giving up one die size for RP purposes is a lot easier than giving up double the damage of a short sword or scimitar AND reach. If they were 2d4 it’d be fine.

And true, a versatile scimitar isn’t a tough sell, but it’d be nice if it were in a book so I didn’t have to be a special snowflake about it :)

Know the feeling. I’ve often cringed at myself for asking for “reskins” just so my character feels right.

[War_lord]

It's a monster attack. Monster weapons in 5e aren't really detached from the monster rules wise, it's not balanced for that.

If a player did get a hold of a Shadar-Kai spiked chain, I'd just tell them that, while it's an expertly crafted item, and a collector of extra-planer curios will probably pay good money for it, you can't use it in battle because you can't even figure out how to swing it without slicing yourself open. The Shadar-Kai, as almost immortal beings, have had centuries to develop the skills needed to wield it as a weapon. Even if it was developed before they ended up in the Shadowfell, it's not like any of the instruction manuals still exist on the prime.

[CircleOfTheRock]

I think if those are the stats that's a pretty good reason not to make it a PC option. Maybe if it requires a special feat to use or is otherwise difficult to gain proficiency.

A whip is balanced to be the only reach finesse weapon at 1d4 damage. Make it a d6 or maybe d8 and it's a good niche weapon. At 2d6 and without heavy, if a player tried that on me as a GM they would find themselves facing swarms of goblins and kobolds armed with these things.
This. The quarterstaff shall remain 5e’s spiked chain.

[Unoriginal]

Spiked chains were already in the Volo's, in that case.

[Belier]

So flipping through ToF, I noticed that a Shadar Kai Shadow Dancer (page 225) is equipped with a Spiked Chain. Extrapolating backwards from proficiency bonus and removing extras that could be counted as “class features” we are left with the following stats.

Spiked Chain: 2d6, reach, two handed, finesse.

Thoughts?

Is the creature large? Cuz if it is it would be 1d6.

Being large double the hit dices, huge triple it. The fact that it is a metal chain with spike is enaugh to justify the bump from 1d4 whip to 1d6 reach. Versatile could be useful here

[suplee215]

Is the creature large? Cuz if it is it would be 1d6.

Being large double the hit dices, huge triple it. The fact that it is a metal chain with spike is enaugh to justify the bump from 1d4 whip to 1d6 reach. Versatile could be useful here

They are a subrace of Elves and medium.

[Belier]

They are a subrace of Elves and medium.

Well I would then say it is too strong to be a pc weapon unless the subrace has a bonus with it. 1d6 is more balanced

[Eric Diaz]

2d6, reach, two handed, finesse....

Better than every other reach AND every other two handed weapon in the game... AND the only finesse weapon that is two handed IIRC....

Well...

On one hand:
- Absurdly OP.
- Makes a huge part of the weapon list obsolete.
- Ridiculous weapon that resembles nothing that exists in real life.

On the other hand... If if takes a FEAT just to use it, like it did in 3e, it might be balanced enough.

[Ninja_Prawn]

It's a monster attack. Monster weapons in 5e aren't really detached from the monster rules wise, it's not balanced for that.

I'd have to agree. Monster stat blocks cannot be assumed to be playing by the same rules as PCs. Particularly as regards using Dex to attack. Loads of monsters do that without having any rules to say they can.

Besides, if you want to swing around a spiked object on a chain, what's wrong with a flail?

[OutOfThyme]

This is kind of nuts. 2d6 is the greatsword's weapon damage, and every reach weapon has lower weapon dice to account for the fact that you now have double the attack range. As it stands, this is the obvious pick for any dex-based combatant - especially a Kensai monk. Your martial arts die never catches up to that kind of damage.

[Boci]

Besides, if you want to swing around a spiked object on a chain, what's wrong with a flail?

Because traditionally a D&D spiked chain is substantially different weapon? Either reach, finesseable (in 3.5) or a double weapon (in PF and 4th ed).

[Dualswinger]

I want to stress that I don’t feel the weapon is balanced well in any sense and I’d definitely think twice before allowing players to have one.

Just working backwards from the attack as you can with several enemies.

Take Titivilus for example (ToF 179). A medium creature that has a longsword. It has a bunch of extra effects but it still has the base 1d8+str in its core.

[KorvinStarmast]

On the other hand... If if takes a FEAT just to use it, like it did in 3e, it might be balanced enough. weapon master feat might be intended for stuff like this.

[MadBear]

weapon master feat might be intended for stuff like this.

That could actually be a really cool way to make weapon master a worthwhile feat. Just introduce a slew of really cool unique weapons that are better then other weapons, that you'd need that feat to have the ability to use at all.

[Naanomi]

Significantly different than the tlincalli spiked chain

[Hears You]

That could actually be a really cool way to make weapon master a worthwhile feat. Just introduce a slew of really cool unique weapons that are better then other weapons, that you'd need that feat to have the ability to use at all.

It helps that feats feel like actual options you need to make in this edition, and not check marks on a build. The Fewer Bigger Choices design from later WoW is honestly a good thing to steal.

That said, I think you should look at the 2d6 as an additional class feature. At 1d6 it's a scaled up whip for being two handed which is fine and doesn't require a feat at all. It's not like Whips are tearing up the CharOp builds as is.

[Matrix_Walker]

So flipping through ToF, I noticed that a Shadar Kai Shadow Dancer (page 225) is equipped with a Spiked Chain. Extrapolating backwards from proficiency bonus and removing extras that could be counted as “class features” we are left with the following stats.

Spiked Chain: 2d6, reach, two handed, finesse.

Thoughts?

It is certainly not to be considered as officially statted as a PC weapon.

That said, I would mostly allow it, but limit the damage to 1d6, and declare that the other d6 is a monster/secret technique/racial/magical interaction that does not extend to PC use.

Spiked Chain: 1d6, reach, two-handed, finesse.

Making it identical to a whip with the next higher damage die, which is usually what happens when you take a one-handed weapon and adapt it to two-handed use, so that works out perfectly.

Then we can homebrew a Shadow Dancer Subclass for Fighters, filling in all the missing bits of their special attributes and attacks, so we can play one.

[LordEntrails]

No, the spiked chain is NOT statted for PC use.

As others have said repeatedly, NPC attacks can not (and should not) be extrapolated or inferred into PC weapons and attacks.

I'm sure you could find dozens of other NPC attacks that don't fit the PC rules. Unlike some previous editions of D&D, PC and NPCs are not intended to be interchangeable. PC classes are not the driving mechanics for designing NPC's. NPC traits are not transferable to PCs. Get this through your head people.

[Ganymede]

So flipping through ToF, I noticed that a Shadar Kai Shadow Dancer (page 225) is equipped with a Spiked Chain. Extrapolating backwards from proficiency bonus and removing extras that could be counted as “class features” we are left with the following stats.

Spiked Chain: 2d6, reach, two handed, finesse.

Thoughts?

You can't use this to create PC weapons because monster rules don't work that way. Monsters often simply use either strength or dexterity, depending on which results in a better bonus.

Trust me, I was very excited about the prospect of using Van Richten's finesse bludgeoning sword cane from Curse of Strahd.

[GreatWyrmGold]

...you can't use [spiked chains] in battle because you can't even figure out how to swing it without slicing yourself open. The Shadar-Kai, as almost immortal beings, have had centuries to develop the skills needed to wield it as a weapon.
I've never liked that line of reasoning. Just because you've had loads of time to practice a deeply flawed form of combat doesn't mean you'll be good at it, just less bad than most people. It's especially bad in this case, unless "almost immortal" includes immunity to killing yourself with spikey chains.
Leave it at the first sentence* and I'd have no complaints. In my opinion, it's better to not give an explanation for why shadar-kai can use them than to give a stupid explanation.

*I'd probably let them use the chain at a disadvantage, and throw in some extra rule about potentially hitting yourself on a miss (maybe on double-misses?), but that's a personal style thing.



I'd have to agree. Monster stat blocks cannot be assumed to be playing by the same rules as PCs.
Which is one of the reasons I liked 3.5. If you wanted a monster to break the rules PCs use, you had to admit you were doing it.


Besides, if you want to swing around a spiked object on a chain, what's wrong with a flail?
Not edgelord enough?

[Eric Diaz]

weapon master feat might be intended for stuff like this.


That could actually be a really cool way to make weapon master a worthwhile feat. Just introduce a slew of really cool unique weapons that are better then other weapons, that you'd need that feat to have the ability to use at all.

I agree, but with a big caveat: there should be SOME restriction, lest all wizards and rogues start running around with spiked chains. So I'd propose an "Exotic weapon master" feat that would give you access to one or two special weapons only. Four weapons like this is simply too much for a half feat IMO.

[Boci]

I agree, but with a big caveat: there should be SOME restriction, lest all wizards and rogues start running around with spiked chains. So I'd propose an "Exotic weapon master" feat that would give you access to one or two special weapons only. Four weapons like this is simply too much for a half feat IMO.

For a lot of groups, it won't matter whether its one weapon or four weapons. You're specific problems of all wizards and rogues running around with spiked chains isn't solved for example, in fact it would be more likely (though I am skeptical either class would burn a feat on a two handed weapon, as wizards can likely do better with cantrips and rogues want the offhand attack for a second chance at SA).

[Naanomi]

Really, it is Hexblade and their ‘proficient with whatever they bond’ that is going to exploit this sort of thing the most if it is allowed

[ProseBeforeHos]

Spiked Chain: 2d6, reach, two handed, finesse.

Thoughts?

Broken as hell? Damage of a greatsword, reach of a halberd, and it's the only two handed weapon that can be finessed by a non-monk.

If you let your players use this, don't be surprised if they never use anything else.

N.B. Making it do 2d4 would be the easy fix to making this weapon somewhat balanced.

[Davrix]

Broken as hell? Damage of a greatsword, reach of a halberd, and it's the only two handed weapon that can be finessed by a non-monk.

If you let your players use this, don't be surprised if they never use anything else.

N.B. Making it do 2d4 would be the easy fix to making this weapon somewhat balanced.

2D4 is still to damn good at most make it 1D6 and call it a day.

That being said I really dislike this post title. Its not "Officially" anything. Your taking a monster block and extrapolating a weapon based on it. Monsters are designed around how much AC / HP they have and how much damage they can put out. What or how they do it doesn't matter as much. If you want a spiked chain in your game, look at the whip and scale up the damage slightly like I did for a player who wanted one. I kept the whip the same just made it a D6 and he was happy with that.

[War_lord]

I've never liked that line of reasoning. Just because you've had loads of time to practice a deeply flawed form of combat doesn't mean you'll be good at it, just less bad than most people. It's especially bad in this case, unless "almost immortal" includes immunity to killing yourself with spikey chains.
Leave it at the first sentence* and I'd have no complaints. In my opinion, it's better to not give an explanation for why shadar-kai can use them than to give a stupid explanation.

If I wanted my game totally free of D&Disms, I'd run more Savage Worlds. D&D has a certain inherent absurdity that has to be preserved. Spiked Chain fits with that, I just don't want my PCs picking it up, and I want a more immersive explanation then "game mechanics". "It's from another plane and is used by emotionless mutant elves who are resurrected by their Queen in the Shadowfell as soon as they die" works for that.

[Astofel]

In addition to all the other problems that have been pointed out, my question would be 'why on god's green earth is this thing finesse?' When I picture someone using a spiked chain as a weapon I don't picture them making fluid, precision attacks like a scimitar or a rapier, I imagine them swinging it around, relying on nothing but brute force to deal damage.

[Crgaston]

In addition to all the other problems that have been pointed out, my question would be 'why on god's green earth is this thing finesse?' When I picture someone using a spiked chain as a weapon I don't picture them making fluid, precision attacks like a scimitar or a rapier, I imagine them swinging it around, relying on nothing but brute force to deal damage.


I always think of this scene... GoGo Yubari vs. The Bride in Kill Bill...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKQNkcSGFes

[Arkhios]

I always think of this scene... GoGo Yubari vs. The Bride in Kill Bill...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKQNkcSGFes

Except that's not a spiked chain. That's a so-called "meteor hammer" for the lack of a better word. Basically a flail with a short handle and unusually long chain. I'd imagine that a spiked chain would be used in a way that you swing it in a wide arc, and then rip away from the target you hit, causing deep wounds and possibly knocking them prone in the process.

[HolyDraconus]

Broken as hell? Damage of a greatsword, reach of a halberd, and it's the only two handed weapon that can be finessed by a non-monk.

If you let your players use this, don't be surprised if they never use anything else.

N.B. Making it do 2d4 would be the easy fix to making this weapon somewhat balanced.

The stats still break it. Finesse is a strong property on a weapon, which usually cost a die size or 2. Reach also costs a size. To stat this thing with the properties it has for player use the best it should hope for is 1d10. Drop reach, and 2d4 would be fine (scythe and falchions in previous editions).

[Ninja_Prawn]

'why on god's green earth is this thing finesse?

Good question. Seems to me that a spiked chain is more' motorcycle gang' than 'Olympic fencer'.

[War_lord]

Good question. Seems to me that a spiked chain is more' motorcycle gang' than 'Olympic fencer'.

Probably based on pop culture ideas of the Ninja and "Ninja weapons" made for tourists.

[Astofel]

I'd imagine that a spiked chain would be used in a way that you swing it in a wide arc, and then rip away from the target you hit, causing deep wounds and possibly knocking them prone in the process.

Pretty much this. To me finesse weapons require grace and precision. A spiked chain seems to me more like 'I'm going to swing this thing as hard as I can and hope the spikes puncture something important.'

[Ganymede]

If we extrapolate based on the Ogre Chain Brute (which also wields a spiked chain) and not a Shadar Kai, then the spiked chain hits everyone within 10'.

[Willie the Duck]

I'd have to agree. Monster stat blocks cannot be assumed to be playing by the same rules as PCs. Particularly as regards using Dex to attack. Loads of monsters do that without having any rules to say they can.


You can't use this to create PC weapons because monster rules don't work that way. Monsters often simply use either strength or dexterity, depending on which results in a better bonus.

Aren't there already Monsters with weapons that break the assumed power curve if PCs can just pick them up and use (salamander spears or something)?

[Ganymede]

Aren't there already Monsters with weapons that break the assumed power curve if PCs can just pick them up and use (salamander spears or something)?

Maybe? The end result of a PC picking up a salamander's spear or any other exotic monster weapon delves deep into the realm of DM adjudication. A monster's combat options are descriptions of types of attack rather than descriptions of weapons, so a DM has to parse which parts are due to the weapon or due to the creature using the weapon (or some synergy between the two).

The OPs extrapolation of what a spiked chain can do is one possible end result, but that's out of many possible end results.

[Sahe]

Pretty much this. To me finesse weapons require grace and precision. A spiked chain seems to me more like 'I'm going to swing this thing as hard as I can and hope the spikes puncture something important.'

I personally think more of weapons like the chain whip, meteor hammer or rope dart as they are used in Chinese martial arts, which do require a lot of dexterity to wield. Of course if the "spiked chain" is supposed to be effectively a length of chain with spikes all over it's an absolutely nonsensical weapon (opposed to having just spikes at the end which would make it equivalent to above mentioned weapons)

[Willie the Duck]

Maybe? The end result of a PC picking up a salamander's spear or any other exotic monster weapon delves deep into the realm of DM adjudication. A monster's combat options are descriptions of types of attack rather than descriptions of weapons, so a DM has to parse which parts are due to the weapon or due to the creature using the weapon (or some synergy between the two).

The OPs extrapolation of what a spiked chain can do is one possible end result, but that's out of many possible end results.

That seems to be what this is. The Monster designers do not want to be constrained by what is possible for players. If players pick these up, rules are unclear what happens. DM must adjudicate. The same blessedly/cursedly open-endedness as the rest of the edition.

[GlenSmash!]

Spiked Chains have always existed in my games. They have the same stats as a Whip.

Is it accurate to spiked chains? I don't know. But so far it seems to work.

[Arkhios]

Spiked Chains have always existed in my games. They have the same stats as a Whip.

Is it accurate to spiked chains? I don't know. But so far it seems to work.

Well... What is accurate to spiked chains? As far as I know, it's not based even remotely to a real world weapon to begin with.

[GlenSmash!]

Well... What is accurate to spiked chains? As far as I know, it's not based even remotely to a real world weapon to begin with.

Good point.

I guess i meant to say accurate to king fu movies and whatever else the idea stems from.

[Sahe]

Good point.

I guess i meant to say accurate to king fu movies and whatever else the idea stems from.

I'd say the spiked chain is a riff on Meteor Hammer, Chain Whip or Rope Dart. All of which are weapons of Chinese martial arts.

[Naanomi]

I'd say the spiked chain is a riff on Meteor Hammer, Chain Whip or Rope Dart. All of which are weapons of Chinese martial arts.
Castlevania?

[Arkhios]

I'd say the spiked chain is a riff on Meteor Hammer, Chain Whip or Rope Dart. All of which are weapons of Chinese martial arts.

Castlevania?

To be fair, those three used to be real weapons (and, admittedly, may have been the source of inspiration for Spiked Chain in the first place).

[Sception]

I like two handed, finesse, d6 damage suggestion. As mentiined, becomes a 2 handed whip with the usual upgrade for going from one to two handed. Same as the monster version, but they get an extra d6 because monster. Still out-damaged bu rapier, so it doesnt upset the max damage figures for finess characters.

Not a realistic weapon, but cool enough in a rule of cool game what would allow things like scythes as viable weapons.

Frankly, d&d stops being a 'realism simulator' at level one. Maybe you could stretch that to level 3 for a non variant human, non-caster, no magic game with no monsters, only npcs.

[Naanomi]

A two handed finesse weapon has some risky interaction potential with sneak attack and things that require two-handed weapons...

[Lombra]

You know, we shouldn't be afraid of better nonmagical weapons as long as they are special, in the sense that they have to be obtained through some process, like magic weapons do.

In RPGs there are often hundreds of weapons that are better than each other, it's not wrong to introduce strictly better weapons, as long as they are properly introduced.

[Sception]

Meh, if the designers think gwm is a problem, then they should errata it, not hold the rest of the game hostage to it. Besides, rogues can already get -5/+10 on sneak attacks with better than d6 damage and better than 10' range using sharp shooter, so again i don't see a two handed finesse reach d6 damage spiked chain as pushing the envelope in any unreasonable manner.

[Boci]

A two handed finesse weapon has some risky interaction potential with sneak attack and things that require two-handed weapons...

Why would a rogue want GWM though? They have one attack, and if that misses, they deal no damage. At level 5 their sneak attack is already equals the damage they would be dealing with GWM, with no penalty to hit, and they're giving up an offhand attack to half the chance of getting that.

Its only a possible problem for a fighter / rogue milticlass, and at theat point the players is trying, and the DM is presumably allowing, a character to maximuze weapon damage. Having the option for such builds if a good thing. The problem is when you can accidentally stumble into it, but I doubt many players would be stumbling into rogue 3 / fighter 5 action surging spiked chain with GMW...

[Willie the Duck]

I think the real "problem" of a finesse two-handed reach weapon like this is that it further diminishes the value of Strength in the game. Whether that is actually a problem or not, is of course an open question, but I see the logic.

But yes, GWM sneak attackers is not the issue (other than pulling your DPR calculations into all sorts of complex directions), so much as the poor guy with 'halberd, plate and javelin' being left in the dirt by the guy in 'studded, spiked chain, and longbow'. Again, may or may not be a problem (and there's always the 'grappler' and 'guy-in-campaign-where-they-track-encumbrance'...)

[Naanomi]

Isn’t it the Great Weapon Fighting Style/Sneak Attack interaction that is concerning?

[Willie the Duck]

Isn’t it the Great Weapon Fighting Style/Sneak Attack interaction that is concerning?

No, they are dis-synergistic. Reducing your chance to hit per attack for increased damage does not add to increasing your damage by choosing a class with only one main attack. The total DPR probably evens out.

[Boci]

Isn’t it the Great Weapon Fighting Style/Sneak Attack interaction that is concerning?

Its boosts maximum damage, but the -5 to hit could easily translate in a loss of average damage, especially at higher levels. Now consider that a rogue has had to give up their offhand attack (and burn a feat) to make this combo work, and it really seems more like a nonbo.

[jaappleton]

The only way I'd be comfortable with a playing using a Spiked Chain as a weapon is by spending a Feat on proficiency with it.

Even with that, I'm still slightly leery about it.

[Naanomi]

The combat style, not the feat

[Sception]

the poor guy with 'halberd, plate and javelin'

That guy's got PAM, which stacks handily with both GWM and especially sentinel in ways that the ptoposed two handed/finesse/reach/6d piercing chain wielder does not. And the halberd guy has improved base damage dice. I don't think they're hurting at all in this comparison.

Agaon, the proposed chain really doesn't push the envelope in any meaningful way. Rapier is still better base damage and lets you use a shield, halberd is even more vase damage and has pam shenanigans. The only real objection i can see right now is aesthetic, in which case fair enough, but mechanically it still looks fine to me.

[Boci]

The combat style, not the feat

Ah, sorry for misunderstanding. Given that smite has now been clarified to not get rerolls with the style, its likely sneak attack wouldn't either.

[Crgaston]

I know the spiked chain is 2d6 damage in the monsters area of MToF, but in the player rules, in the Shadar-Kai, it's 1d6 (2d4 Versatile).

You have to look at the Shadar-Kai in the Races section of D&D Beyond. It's there in their listing.



Thank you.

[Boci]

Urgh "The exotic nature of the spiked chain makes it nearly impossible to master for non shadar-kai.". That was the worst wording they could have possibly chosen for that, at tleast in me IMO. Either:

a. commit and say its impossible for non-shadar-kai to use this weapon

or

b. be more realistic and say "whilst closely assosiated with shadar-kai culture and made with their physic and preferred fighting style in mind, any martial adept indevidual could learn an apropriatly sized spiked chain given a decent teacher and a few years training"

[Dualswinger]

I know the spiked chain is 2d6 damage in the monsters area of MToF, but in the player rules, in the Shadar-Kai, it's 1d6 (2d4 Versatile).

You have to look at the Shadar-Kai in the Races section of D&D Beyond. It's there in their listing.

Wait, are these First Party rules? Or third party?

[Sception]

Yuck, it shouldnt be varsatile, and shouldnt eat a feat. Gross. Are you sure that's first party content? None of that looks like official design.

[Sception]

Thank glob, better nothing and the chance to maybe talk a dm into reasonable homebrew than an ofgicial version that's just sort of terrible.

[Rebonack]

I would be pretty okay with this provided it requires Weapon Master to snag the prof for it. In fact, it makes a solid baseline for what exotic weapons can do.

Just add two extra weapon traits to an existing weapon and you're golden.

[Ralanr]

Oh no, the return of the spiked chain.

[Arkhios]

Oh no, the return of the spiked chain.

Well, at least there's no way of making more than one Opportunity Attack per round.

[Willie the Duck]

Well, at least there's no way of making more than one Opportunity Attack per round.

It's UA, but Tunnel Fighter (https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/02_UA_Underdark_Characters.pdf)

[Sception]

Not unless you count Tunnel Fighter, but that's deprecated playtest content most DMs probably wouldn't (and shouldn't) allow. Regardless, the spiked chain proposed here (the 1d6 piercing version at least) still doesn't touch the halberd for area control due to the PAM feat, so it wouldn't be pushing any boundaries in optimization, imo.

It's still a very silly weapon conceptually, so in games more concerned with realism than rule-of-cool I could see not allowing it, but I still haven't seen any serious balance arguements against it (again, talking about martial weapon, d6 piercing damage, finesse, two handed, reach).

[Arkhios]

It's UA, but Tunnel Fighter (https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/02_UA_Underdark_Characters.pdf)

Well, true. Never liked that one tbh, and wouldn't allow it in my games either. Felt too fiddly in my opinion.

[GreatWyrmGold]

That being said I really dislike this post title. Its not "Officially" anything.

Is the spiked chain “officially statted” now?

The spiked chain is officially statted now!



If I wanted my game totally free of D&Disms, I'd run more Savage Worlds. D&D has a certain inherent absurdity that has to be preserved. Spiked Chain fits with that, I just don't want my PCs picking it up, and I want a more immersive explanation then "game mechanics". "It's from another plane and is used by emotionless mutant elves who are resurrected by their Queen in the Shadowfell as soon as they die" works for that.
...Which is an alternate explanation which removes the part I specified as hating.



Maybe? The end result of a PC picking up a salamander's spear or any other exotic monster weapon delves deep into the realm of DM adjudication. A monster's combat options are descriptions of types of attack rather than descriptions of weapons, so a DM has to parse which parts are due to the weapon or due to the creature using the weapon (or some synergy between the two).
Which is another reason I personally dislike having monsters run on different rules than PCs. Back in my day*, if a monster had a weapon ability unavailable to players, the designers had to specify whether they had a unique weapon with powers independent of themselves or whether they had an ability they gave to weapons they wielded. They weren't always clear (hello, Balor), but they had a better batting average.

*No, I'm not using this with a straight face.



The combat style, not the feat
Who's on first, did nobody have a thesaurus, all the standard jokes.

[Willie the Duck]

Which is another reason I personally dislike having monsters run on different rules than PCs. Back in my day, if a monster had a weapon ability unavailable to players, the designers had to specify whether they had a unique weapon with powers independent of themselves or whether they had an ability they gave to weapons they wielded. They weren't always clear (hello, Balor), but they had a better batting average.

Yes, well they really only deviated from that with one edition (3e) and, although some people liked the idea, the 'build the monsters just like PCS' idea seems also to have contributed to the game becoming massively unwieldy, a huge pain to DM, and very hard for the designers to balance. So, even though I think there's a potential market for "3e, attempt #4 (or 5, once PF 2e comes out)," I highly doubt it will swing around again for WotC.

[Sception]

Back in my day, way earlier than that, before this nonsense of 'D&D as a physics simulation' was introduced, it wasn't a problem. A DM was assumed to be smart enough to say 'the weapon that's unlike anything you've ever seen before, built to be by a creature with completely different physiology, doesn't work.'

This works fine for weapons wielded by strange exotic non-playable monsters like Balors and Chain Devils and so on.

It doesn't work so well in the case of what is apparently among the favored weapons of what is a race explicitly available to player characters.

DM: "That is a weapon unique to immortal mutant shadow elves, a regular person can't use it."

Player: "But I'm not playing a regular person, I'm playing one of those very same immortal mutant shadow elves."

What to do then?

If WotC didn't want to stat up spiked chains, that's fine. Again, they're a silly weapon from a realism perspective. But in that case they probably should have left them out of the Shadar-Kai write up altogether, because there's not a compelling in universe reason why Shadar-Kai npcs can use them but Shadar-Kai PCs just can't.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Back in my day, way earlier than that, before this nonsense of 'D&D as a physics simulation' was introduced, it wasn't a problem.
...What part of "monsters and players follow the same rules" implies "physics simulation"? Many games that don't pretend to be physics simulations (up to and including Toon, for Pelor's sake!) have players and NPCs follow the same rules. The only difference is how many rules that is.
(Also, I hate the term "physics simulation" used in this context. "People are arguing that rules should reflect the real world in some way? Bah, they just want to simulate physics! Even though even simple physics simulators* make FATAL look like FATE.")

*Unless it's just a Keplerian orbital simulator or something, but you never see this pejorative thrown around for much of anything covered by actual physics (as opposed to chemistry, biology, or consistency).


A DM was assumed to be smart enough to say 'the weapon that's unlike anything you've ever seen before, built to be by a creature with completely different physiology, doesn't work.'
...What does this statement accomplish, beyond insulting people who prefer "monsters and players follow the same rules"? And hence, intentionally or not, implying that I'm an idiot?

[MaxWilson]

The stats still break it. Finesse is a strong property on a weapon, which usually cost a die size or 2.

Long sword: 1d8
Rapier: 1d8

Should the long sword be 1d12 because it's non-finesse?


...What part of "monsters and players follow the same rules" implies "physics simulation"? Many games that don't pretend to be physics simulations (up to and including Toon...!) have players and NPCs follow the same rules. The only difference is how many rules that is.

+1. There's a lot of benefit to having PCs and NPCs follow the same rules unless explicitly noted otherwise, and even some benefit to having PCs and monsters follow the same rules (where "NPC vs. monster" is defined roughly as "can you potentially have a conversation with it?", so e.g. orcs are NPCs in this sense but perytons are monsters).

That doesn't necessarily require the DM to do a lot of working choosing traits that don't matter (selecting Ideals/Flaws/Bonds for every mook orc in the horde). It's totally cool to simply leave certain traits undefined--and that goes for PCs as well as NPCs! E.g. when a player rolls up a replacement 1st level PC during a session, you don't need to force him to pick all of his languages or even equipment right away. In the interest of time, you can just say, "Well, you've got some weapons and cheap armor. We'll figure out the details later." Or if you want a 9th level hobgoblin Devastator mage who acts as support artillery for a hobgoblin horde, it's genuinely okay to just say, "He knows Fireball, Shield, Fire Bolt, Conjure Elemental, and Blur," if those are the only spells he's going to cast during his time onscreen. Just assume that his other currently-prepared spells are not relevant (Clairvoyance, Sending, Dream, Comprehend Languages, Unseen Servant, etc.). If he survives to become a recurring character, you can always flesh him out then, otherwise why bother? In fact you may not even bother assigning the mage a Strength score!

It's really no different from the way you don't generally decide the contents of every NPC's pockets or the furniture in every room, until the players decide to have the PCs examine them.

A lot of people who have complaints about rules that are NPC/PC-agnostic seem not to have grasped the point that you can often assign stats on-demand, and therefore that having special monster-only rules does not actually save much work, and sometimes adds work when you have to reverse-engineer stats, like (ahem!) what happens when a Shadar-Kai PC tries to learn to use a spiked chain.

Besides, the game is more fun when everyone plays by the same rules.

[Willie the Duck]

D&D explicitly comes from a tradition of protagonists struggling against the unknown. Wizards with strange magic, Dragons with might beyond any natural creature, things from other dimensions who obey different rules. That's how the game was inspired, built, and written. Mystery and the unknown are part and parcel of the whole thing.

It was only in 3e when the game mechanics were revised that the 'similar rules' were adopted as a methodology to make it a better game. And, this was a disaster, and led to such broken mechanics that computer tools to manage the complexity flourished, high level play became an exercise in spreadsheet management, and an entire 'point 5' update cycle was released to prevent the game from breaking entirely.

That's because when you stat the game to have rules to be interchangeable between characters and monsters, then you give players access to the same power curve as enemies that are supposed to represent overwhelming threats. And, since all the rule synergize, and the more rules you add the more permutations you create, PunPun and the Hulking Hurler are inevitable.

When you try to fix the underlying mechanics that make that all crazy stuff occur, you find (as the designers of 4e did) those are sacred cows and unable to be divorced from the game. Those rules force a certain 'shape' to basic things that make any attempt to unify PC and monster rules (as the designers of 3e did) incredibly dangerous.

The game designers found that when player characters play by one set of rules and monsters another, the complexity of such a huge scope of a game is manageable, balance becomes much easier, and you can add stuff to monsters that is a lot more fun, wacky, and mechanically interesting without needing to balance it for every munchkin with an internet connection.

Well, I will say that pre-3e, giving high level PC magic users the ability to cast spells like geas and wish (that high level npc/opponent mages clearly needed) had some serious consequences, so the problem has been with us pretty much from Eldritch Wizardry or so.

However, yes, 3e showed the dangers of throwing identical mechanics around between PCs and non-PCs.

The problem with using 3e as evidence towards a more blanket statement regarding using shared mechanics is that it was such a glaring example of making decisions based on principles theorized to be good (such as 'shared mechanics'), and serving various designer ideas such as symmetry or elegance with absolutely no regard to whether they served the actual purpose of making a game to be played. That muddies the water quite a bit. There is a theoretical game* out there where the PCs and NPCs/'monsers' are made using the same mechanics that doesn't run into these problems. It would be a much simpler or much more complex game, though (and the complex one having an incredible design burden to make actually work). And that's the real issue, for any given level of total competence + resources (including design time and playtesting burden), any additional burden (such as 'making PC and opponents work in a balanced way using the same mechanics') is going to detract from other concerns.
*Actually, quite a few do, such as Hero System and GURPS, but they pretty much require a lot of GM gatekeeping, just like much of their systems overall.

[sambojin]

If you wanted all the weird wackiness of 3.5e weapons, sure, stat it.

It's 1d6-1, two-handed (heavy), 10' reach, finesse. Not a polearm or great weapon. Martial weapon (but see below).

A potential for zero damage and problems for non-medium races seems good enough. About 2.5 average damage from the weapon, that you're just trying to stack sneak-attack or smites from.

But if I was going to stat that, I'd bring in all kinds of weird stuff. And make up an Exotic Weapon Master feat. Yep, one feat that covers them all (or three of them? If they're a "thing" in your gameworld that everyone knows about), but that no class has until they burn an ASI on it. The feat removes minuses of damage or to-hit from the exotic weapon.

Whacky polearms, strange double weapons, gnomish firearms, all kinds of stuff. All that have minuses to damage and/or to-hit, until they take that feat. You could even have them be pretty big minuses (-4 to-hit/50% potential damage nerf towards zero), so the feat is non-optional for use of the more awesome ones you create. Then simply give out exotic weapons very sparingly. Seems easy enough. But you can make the effects be almost, but not quite, magical in their awesomeness. Because they burnt another feat/ASI for it, just to use it properly. It's available to anyone, but you have to feat it in to get your magical/non-magical weapon of strange greatness. The opportunity cost is high enough that you're force feeding the weapon to the character, so make it kinda cool. But they don't have to go down that path if they've got other ideas.
----------

Considering what martial classes can feat in with Magical Initiate and cantrips, there's very little reason to not make Exotic Weapon Master as a feat just as good, but left up to the DM's imagination on what those weapons *can* do. Because they need the weapon and the feat. Just make sure the weapon isn't that good until they've feated it in. Like MI, but different, and you gave them a "spell thingy" that needed a feat to use. Just like MI.

Essentially, "cantrip weapons" are exactly on the curve of 5e feat-wise to power. Without the feat, they'll have to blow resources or use them situationally to make them work, to level out the minuses without the feat. But cantrip level abilities can be stuff like "Add +1 to all attempts to shove/prone a creature". Or even a 1/day "do about whatever a lvl1 spell could do (lots of stuff), but combat'y, and there's heaps of weird stuff possible." The world is your oyster with exotic weapons and a feat to match. Just like MI.
---------

Considering there's Green Flame Blade (+damage attack), Booming Blade (potential movement control), Shillelagh (stat swapping on attack stat), Eldritch Blast (m-m-m-multihit combo), Create Bonfire (my weapon leaves napalm), Produce Flame (ki-blast), Ray of Frost (knee crackin' good), Sacred Flame (dodge this!), Spare the Dying (slap someone alive again), Thunderclap (very loud crappy Diablo2 barb whirlwind), Thornwhip (lasso you, I do), or Cutting Words (Slap! Biatch!), you've got *heaps* of options for weapons. Even more than I've listed. And many of these have 30'+ range as well as a cantrip, but aren't considered strong. So you do have to scale down weapon damage due to Extra Attack being a thing, especially with effects laid on top of it. But the effects aren't a limiting factor.

Especially considering all these options come with another cantrip and a lvl1 spell. For the same feat tax.

So linking the feat to the fact you need the "cantrip'y weapon" to use it properly is fine. Because you could have used any of the above (and more), and an actual spell 1/day for the same opportunity cost. Even though it's linked to combat stats only, this means that "exotic weapons" can be as good, if not better, than MI. With the associated feat tax included. Otherwise they're just weird weapons with big minuses or no extra effects.

[Sception]

Im not sure why you feel the need to impose a damage penalty. That's awkward, and a property no other weapon has, and if you just give it flat d6 damage that's already less than any other reach weapon apart from the whip. Also not sure why you put heavy on it. As it is, your version is just 'worse whip', so why bother then?

What's wrong with martial, d6 piercing damage, two handed, finesse, reach? Simpler, doesn't push any significant boundaries (apart from /maybe/ two handed finesse, but i still havent seen any game breaking problems there, considering that 2 handed fighting style wouldn't work on sneak attack dice anyway), just a whip, but piercing, grabbing +1 size damage die at the cost of requiring two hands. Seems like a fair trade.

If you give it heavy as well, then you'd probably need to make the damage higher, not lower. D8 instead of d6. Compare long sword or battle axe to great sword or great axe.

[sambojin]

#1. Because despite what 3.5e indicates, a spiked chain is a stupid weapon.
#2. If you've ever held a 12-15' length of chain that could do decent damage, you'll realize that it's pretty damn heavy. Heavier than a sword by far.
#3. It also might not do any damage even if you do hit something with a decent bit of chain. It's a chain. It bends or wraps around things, unless you hit them just right with the right bit of it (or wrap it around the right bit of them). But there's plenty in 5e that triggers off "hits", not damage caused. So there's still damage options available to it.
#4. So I could make up the Exotic Weapon Master feat and consider giving it all kinds of stupid trippy/AoO goodness, that everyone who wants to use a spiked chain still wants it to do (the standard 3.5e shenanigans). But while making it kind of useless to those without the feat.

Your stats seem fine though. It's just that people seem to want it to be so much more, that I'd rather go the other direction but houserule in something if a player really wanted to go all 3.5e with it. With a feat tax, I could make it good. Without, it's just a spikey bit of chain, that's inconvenient to use for anything, including combat.

[Sception]

#1. Because despite what 3.5e indicates, a spiked chain is a stupid weapon.

That's been acknowledged as a perfectly valid position. Spiked chain is clearly a weapon for 'rule of cool' games, of the sort that would allow battle scythes or the like. Games that prefer a less styalized, more realistic tone might not use it, much as more renaissancy, steam punky games might allow firearms where more medieval games wouldn't.

But thats a reason to disallow the weapon outright, not to Include it but making it terrible.


#2. If you've ever held a 12-15' length of chain that could do decent damage, you'll realize that it's pretty damn heavy. Heavier than a sword by far.

It depends in part on the nature of the chain and how the spiked bit works. Heavier depictions certainly exist, as in the e.5 phb. Eg:


https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/kaldaarpedia/images/a/ab/Spiked_chain.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130707045144
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rCV1Xt9Sy0s/TG64P3h-V6I/AAAAAAAAAHk/pVJsHbBzIFY/s640/Dungeon155Sinruth.jpg
https://78.media.tumblr.com/bc66f381bcf041c163c9a239a2fe4c7f/tumblr_p98ir8NcUa1sazby5o2_r1_1280.png

But these depictions are sometimes too short to call reach weapons, usually too awkward to call finesse, and always look like they'd do a lot more damage than anyone is talking about here, if we were to suspend disbelief on them being reasonable weapons at all. These also tend to be the silliest and least believable spiked chains.

Alternatively, many spiked chain depictions show them as thinner chains with lighter spiked links towards the end, or else no spoked links, just a chain with a dagger, spike, hook, or sickle attatched to one or both ends.

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/e/ed/Shadar-kai.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150922201753
http://www.dandwiki.com/w/images/thumb/0/0a/Cavestalker_by_Eva_Widermann.jpg/180px-Cavestalker_by_Eva_Widermann.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/27/38/34/273834067265c2474eee86c473b6d95b.jpg
http://www.critical-hits.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/shadarkai_illo.jpg


These thinner chained depictions feel a lot closer to the finesse weapons people want out of spiked chains. The 'blade on the end of a thin chain' versions also happen to also be the most believable and least silly versions of the spiked chain, as they bear at least fleeting resemblance to weapons like the kusari-gama or kyoketsu-shoge that actually existed. Frankly, in 5e land those weapons would probably just be 'spiked chains' in the same way that katanas are just 'longswords'.

Regardless, while these depictions don't look 'light' by any stretch, they don't strike me as 'so unweildy that no small size character (or kensei monk) is able to effectively use them', which is what 'heavy' means in game, rather than having anything to do with the actual weight of the weapon. I personally could see a halfling kensai fighting with the 'spike on length of chain' version of a spiked chain.

If you can't, then heavy isn't entirely invalid. But again, saddling the weapon with the heavy drawback should probably push the damage higher, d8 rather than d6, let alone d6-1. Again, compare longsword to greatsword. If we were to make it heavy, then we'd probably be talking martial, d8 piercing, two handed, finesse, reach, heavy. Sounds fair enough, but personally, I'd prefer to avoid contesting the rapier for most base damage finesse weapon, and again i don't see a reason to keep it out of the hands of halflings or kenseis.


#3. It also might not do any damage even if you do hit something with a decent bit of chain.
How is that any different fom a flail or a quarterstaff or anything else? Any weapon might make contact without actually causing damage. A 'hit' in D&D isn't just any touch, it's a damaging one. That's why armor makes 'hits' harder instead of reducing the damage.

And attacks with your chain would still do damage even on a damage roll of one via stat mods. All you've done is lower average damage to effectively make the weapon d4 damage, only via an awkward and distracting nonstandard mechanic. Complication for complication's sake, resulting in a 'bad on purpose' weapon.


#4. So I could make up the Exotic Weapon Master feat

If you want to make it a super weapon that requires a feat and cannot be used otherwise, then just do that, and don't have a normal version. But 'bad on purpose weapon that requires a feat to be as good as a normal weapon' really isn't going to work.

Additionally, feats are optional in 5e. Not all games use them, and if we're going to add a spiked chain at all, I personally think it would be better to do so in a way that assumes as few optional game mechanics as possible. Want an extra feat to do fancy things with it? Sure, or just tell people to play a battle master, but make that separate from the base weapon being playable and fair in and of itself.


Your stats seem fine though. It's just that people seem to want it to be so much more, that I'd rather go the other direction.

That's what battle master maneuvers are for. Beyond that, making up an extra feat for it is fine. Maybe 'lash master, +1 to hit with the spiked chain and whip, and you can use a spiked chain or whip to make grab attacks, or shove attacks to knock a target prone. While you are grabbing a target using a whip, you may not make additional attacks with the weapon. While you are grabbing a target using a spiked chain, additional attacks you make using the weapon lose the reach property'.

Honestly, though, imo you don't even have to make up a new feat, just add spiked chain (and whip while you're at it) to the weapons that work with the 'flail mastery' feat from UA.

I find people more want the edgelord and/or weaboo aesthetic stylings of the spiked chain as a usable two handed finesse reach weapon, rather than being overly hung up on specific legacy mechanics combos. The silly weapon with combi mechanic shenanigans people have mostly been happy to move on to pam/gwm halberds, or pam/sentinel one handed quarterstaves. Admittedly, that might just be projection on my part.

.....

Just make it a two handed reach finesse weapon that's good without being objectively superior to the whip, rapier, or halberd, and i think it'll go over perfectly well with the people who want it to exist at all, and the folks who don't will just ignore it, as they already do for the firearm rules in settings without gunpowder.

[Arkhios]

Personally, I'd just say it's two-handed 2d6, with reach. That's it. Perfectly in line with for example a Lance which is 1d12, a two handed melee weapon with reach (and not Heavy). Keeping spiked chain a finesse weapon is a ridiculous sacred cow that doesn't even make sense for a weapon that is a long steel chain. The construction of it doesn't necessarily mean it's Heavy, however.

[Sception]

Doesn't do what people are looking for, and makes it a particularly poor fit for the races that have been traditionally most associated with it (though it wpuldn't be the first time elf races have been associated with non-finesse weapons they'll never use). The spiked chain is a silly and poorly defined d&dism, but the closest equivalent real world weapons, like the rope dart or chain whip, very much seem like finesse weapons in their use.

If you disagree that's fine, but if you're not going to make it a finesse weapon, then you might as well skip making a new weapon altogether and just use counts-as with an existing weapon, since two handed non-finesse reach weapons already exist.

Setting aside the finesse question, your suggested write up is too strong compared to existing reach weapons like halberd or pike. Lance has significant extra disadvantages to justify that d12. Even if the halberd would still have a place due to PAM, your suggestion is just objectively better than the greatsword, currently the strongest two handed weapon not abusing PAM. You're also suggesting damage dramatically out of line with any other non-heavy melee weapon. Not only would your spiked chain not work for the more dexy, ninjaish characters most often associated with it, it would be flat out be superior to the current best barbarian type weapons, pushing an optimization envelope better left alone.

Again, if you're not going to make it finesse (which imo kind of kills the whole endeavor regardless), you're better of using counts as with the pike. Two handed, reach, piercing, and doesn't upset any current balance issues. No matter how you envision the weapon - finesse or not, heavy or not, it shouldn't be objectively superior to anything already in the game, and especially shouldn't be objectively superior to one of the existing strongest options. "It's a great sword, but with reach and not heavy" fails that standard pretty hard.

[GreatWyrmGold]

A 'hit' in D&D isn't just any touch, it's a damaging one. That's why armor makes 'hits' harder instead of reducing the damage.
Also because many types of medieval armor (particularly the stiffer types, like the plate armor that warriors tend to adopt by the mid-levels) tend to deflect blows more than soften them. Gambeson comes closest to softening blows, but when was the last time anyone in your D&D game used padded armor?

[Arkhios]

Setting aside the finesse question, your suggested write up is too strong compared to existing reach weapons like halberd or pike. Lance has significant extra disadvantages to justify that d12. Even if the halberd would still have a place due to PAM, your suggestion is just objectively better than the greatsword, currently the strongest two handed weapon not abusing PAM. You're also suggesting damage dramatically out of line with any other non-heavy melee weapon. Not only would your spiked chain not work for the more dexy, ninjaish characters most often associated with it, it would be flat out be superior to the current best barbarian type weapons, pushing an optimization envelope better left alone.

Again, if you're not going to make it finesse (which imo kind of kills the whole endeavor regardless), you're better of using counts as with the pike. Two handed, reach, piercing, and doesn't upset any current balance issues. No matter how you envision the weapon - finesse or not, heavy or not, it shouldn't be objectively superior to anything already in the game, and especially shouldn't be objectively superior to one of the existing strongest options. "It's a great sword, but with reach and not heavy" fails that standard pretty hard.

Extra disadvantages? Such as? Also, if you're addressing someone's post in particular, either include a quote, or address by name in your post by typing the name of the person as best as you can read. I'm assuming you addressed mine. If not, then my mistake (and kinda yours, too).

Lance is a weapon that has:
1d12 damage (ranges from 1 to 12; average 6.5)
Reach (10 ft.)
Special (one-handed if you're mounted, two-handed if not)
Cost: 10gp, weight 6 lb.

what-I-proposed-for-Spiked Chain:
2d6 damage (ranges from 2 to 12; average 7)
Reach (10 ft.)
Two-handed
Cost: Kill a monster, Weight (I dunno, come up with something appropriate)

The way I see it, Lance has a huge advantage compared to the Spiked Chain above. I don't see where's the disadvantage (really, as seen below, an average of 0.5 damage isn't worth crying over)? Even a Small character can wield a lance both two-handedly and one-handedly without issues, BECAUSE Lance isn't Heavy.

The only "advantage" over Lance in there is 0.5 damage in average. No big deal.

That it's not heavy also makes it quite inferior to a Halberd or Pike, both of which are Heavy, and thus, qualify for Great Weapon Master (and PAM), which is quite a big thing. Also, you claim that two-handed weapon dealing 2d6 damage with reach and not heavy is BETTER than greatsword which doesn't have reach but is heavy? I Heavily disagree.

Imho, people put too much weight on the spiked chain as a "must-be-finesse" weapon. There's absolutely nothing saying that any race should favor finesse weapons. Nothing. That some races (elves for example) have a +2 to Dex is of no consequence. In other words, IT'S IN YOUR HEAD. Nowhere does the rulebook say that an elf absolutely must be a Dex-whatever-class, period. Nothing prevents an elf being strong and using a Spiked Chain that isn't finesse to great results. Absolutely nothing. Besides, if spiked chain isn't heavy, more options for the small folk! I'd say that's merely a small bonus, but a bonus nonetheless.

Also, I never intended that a spiked chain would be common enough that every shop would sell them. My intent was that if you'd want to start using the chain you looted from the creature, there's your stats. Have fun with it. Or ditch it, I don't really care that much.

Edit: another bonus that I noticed is that currently there are no piercing weapon that deals 2d6 damage. Who cares if it's not Heavy, at least now there would be slashing (greatsword), bludgeoning (maul), and piercing (spiked chain).

[Asmotherion]

No big deal, if no PC would actually be able to be proficient in it. You'd loot it, sure, and then what? Make attacks with it, without your proficiency bonus, for a chance of an extra d6?

Devoting a Feat for it, I feel is enough of a balancing factor on the other hand.

[Rhaegar14]

Spiked Chain: 2d6, reach, two handed, finesse.

I don't see why everybody's crying that OP's proposed stats are such an absurdly overpowered weapon. GWM specifically states that the -5/+10 can only be used with a heavy weapon (this spiked chain is not), and you can't use PAM with it because it's not a polearm. As long as you keep it from gaining access to melee feat support (finesse and heavy should be fundamentally incompatible properties in my opinion, both thematically and from a balance perspective) it's a very solid weapon choice but it's not gonna break anything.

[Arkhios]

No big deal, if no PC would actually be able to be proficient in it. You'd loot it, sure, and then what? Make attacks with it, without your proficiency bonus, for a chance of an extra d6?

Devoting a Feat for it, I feel is enough of a balancing factor on the other hand.

Either say it's a martial weapon, or have the player take Weapon Master feat. No need to make another feat specifically for Spiked Chain.

[Sception]

Extra disadvantages? Such as?

Such as disadvantage on attacks against enemies witjin 5 feet, which is a big enough penalty that the lance is basically never used outside of mounted builds despite its high damage die. If you think having to suffer disadvantage on your aytacks, or back up ans eat opportunity attacks every round, isn't a significant penalty, then I don't know what to say. You didn't mention disadvantage on attacks on targets within 5' in you're write up of lance properties, did you never realize that was a thing?

Your suggestion relies on feats to not be objectively and significantly superior to pikes, halberds, glaives, great axes, and great swords. Given that feats are an optional rule, that's not really a good move. Even in games with feats 'balanced by lack of feat support' would preclude you from later adding weapon style feats to it.

And the question of finesse isn't some arbitrary sacred cow, its a matter of which character types want to be using the thing, big strong folk
or fast dexy folk. Ime, its people playing fast, dexy characters who want this thing in the first place. Big stronguy players mostly aren't asking for it, probably because they already have several two handed reach weapons to choose from.

[Asmotherion]

Either say it's a martial weapon, or have the player take Weapon Master feat. No need to make another feat specifically for Spiked Chain.

I was going for an other approach. Say it's not a weapon at all (treat it as an improvised weapon), and gain proficiency with Weapon Master (since it is a Martial Weapon, you just need to devote time and effort to learn how to use it) or Tavern Brawler (since they can use anything they come by as weapons... probably not as effectively as weapon master, thus for 1d6 damage?).

Am I overthinking this?

[Sception]

I think any feat-reliant implementation is overthinking things. Weapons and Feats are independent systems that interact but are not meant to depend on one another. 'Access to PAM' is not meant to be a balancing element between weapons, the weapons are supposed to be balanced with one another, at least within the same proficiency tier, from the start, and the feats are supposed to be balanced with other feats (and with stat advancement) as well. Hence why the pike doesn't get extra advantages in damage or special properties just because you can't use PAM with it (though, to be honest, I always thought it was BS that PAM worked with quarterstaffs, which aren't polearms, but not pikes, which are). The pike user can't take pole arm master, but in principle at least they are taking some other equally good feat or stat advancement instead.

Weapons in particular are supposed to work even when feats are entirely removed from the game. A weapon only usable with a feat (whether you couldn't use it at all without the feat or just saddle it with penalties and drawbacks such that it isn't worth using without the feat doesn't matter, those are functionally the same thing) breaks that system and as such isn't really compatible with the overall design philosophy of 5e.

This isn't 3e or 4e, where the existence of feats, and balancing based on them, is baked into the weapon mechanics from the ground up. 'Exotic' weapons in the 3e or 4e sense deliberately are not a thing in 5e, and any homebrew spiked chain for 5e should, imo anyway, remain within that overall framework. Regardless of whether you see it as finesse or not, heavy or not, it should be a workable, usable, balanced weapon entirely independent of feats, and in particular shouldn't overtly overshadow any existing published options.

Not overshadowing published options is like the number one rule of balancing homebrew content, unless the point of your homebrew is to fix something that's bad or broken in the core rules, and that's not the case here.

[Naanomi]

Making it a pact weapon also provides proficiency

[GreatWyrmGold]

(though, to be honest, I always thought it was BS that PAM worked with quarterstaffs, which aren't polearms, but not pikes, which are)
I mean, it kinda is. A quarterstaff is a pole being used as armament. That's basically what "polearm" literally means.
Though I agree that it's kinda silly that you can't use it with pikes, too.

[Asmotherion]

Making it a pact weapon also provides proficiency

Indeed, but it's a fair trade. You get it as a class feature.

You also need to give up Wielding a Shield (if Hexblade) or a free hand for an Arcane Focus (if lacking an appropriate invocation/feat/item), wich is kind of a big deal for a caster.

[Arkhios]

Such as disadvantage on attacks against enemies witjin 5 feet, which is a big enough penalty that the lance is basically never used outside of mounted builds despite its high damage die. If you think having to suffer disadvantage on your aytacks, or back up ans eat opportunity attacks every round, isn't a significant penalty, then I don't know what to say. You didn't mention disadvantage on attacks on targets within 5' in you're write up of lance properties, did you never realize that was a thing?

Your suggestion relies on feats to not be objectively and significantly superior to pikes, halberds, glaives, great axes, and great swords. Given that feats are an optional rule, that's not really a good move. Even in games with feats 'balanced by lack of feat support' would preclude you from later adding weapon style feats to it.

And the question of finesse isn't some arbitrary sacred cow, its a matter of which character types want to be using the thing, big strong folk
or fast dexy folk. Ime, its people playing fast, dexy characters who want this thing in the first place. Big stronguy players mostly aren't asking for it, probably because they already have several two handed reach weapons to choose from.

Ok, I overlooked the matter of attacking creatures immediately adjacent to you. Still, since both lance and spiked chain suffer from the same issue due to being a reach weapon, that evens out and neither is better than the other in that respect. Except that when you are mounted on a large creature, you can choose where is your point of origin in a 10x10 ft. square, in which case a lance is significantly better, not because you can choose where you are in that space since that applies to any reach weapon while mounted, but because in that situation, you can use a shield as well (or another lance, as has been brought up numerous times elsewhere).

How exactly is my suggestion relying on feats not to be significantly superior to those weapons? I didn't say that you could attack adjacent creatures without penalty, did I? Spiked Chain as a reach weapon suffers from ALL the same issues as ANY OTHER reach weapon. It seems to me that you might be mixing up rules from past editions to the current edition. Just because it's a spiked chain it does NOT automagically mean that a rule from a previous edition suddenly applies to the weapon in 5th edition as well.

How Spiked Chain without the Heavy property is any BETTER than other reach weapons is beyond my understanding. Seriously, since it wouldn't have Heavy property, Spiked Chain would be a great option from small characters that are strong rather than agile. (FYI, it can be a thing, even if "in your experience" it's less likely to happen).

I didn't say that a finesse property is arbitrary, I said it is a sacred cow that doesn't make sense. There's a difference, regardless how small. A length of chain made of steel that can reach out to 10 feet is definitely going to weigh quite a bit and as such it's - imho - inappropriate to be able to attack with dexterity by default. However, since it IS (likely) made from steel, it's heavy enough to warrant 2d6 damage.
What I suggested falls in kind of a middle ground between finesse, versatile, and heavy.

Dexy folk can have just as high strength as non-dexy folk (yes, even NPC's). They only have an "advantage" of reaching higher dexterity score earlier than other races. THAT DOES NOT MEAN, that a character of a Dexterous race is MEANT TO rely on using finesse or ranged weapons ONLY.

Take longsword for example. Both high and wood elf are proficient with it, even though it is NOT a finesse weapon. Likewise, other subraces seem to have proficiency in other non-finesse weapons, DESPITE the fact that elves have a racial +2 to dexterity. Care to explain why? The way you argue about this implies that you think you know the rules, and the design philosophy behind them, better than anyone else? :smallwink:

Player-originated presumptions are not default by rules as written. It IS in your head. However you have experienced things has no weight on how the rules are written.



You also need to give up -- a free hand for an Arcane Focus (if lacking an appropriate invocation/feat/item), wich is kind of a big deal for a caster.

Not really, when you cast a spell, usually you only need one hand free if the spell has Material and/or Somatic component (I said usually, because in the case of two certain cantrips, you use your weapon as a component for those spells a.k.a. cantrips) While a weapon requires two hands to attack with it, it doesn't suddenly drop from your hands if you only hold it in the other hand (which is perfectly viable). When you cast a spell that doesn't include an attack with a weapon, you won't be using the weapon anyway on that turn. Again, the weapon won't drop if you use only one hand to hold it, and changing from using two hands to just one hand is (iirc) a free action that doesn't count as an object interaction, so you can do it more than once in your turn.

[Sception]

Ok, I overlooked the matter of attacking creatures immediately adjacent to you. Still, since both lance and spiked chain suffer from the same issue due to being a reach weapon,

Reach weapons dont all suffer disadvantage on attacks against enemies within 5'. That is a penalty unique to the lance, and a fairly major one, hence lance's high damage die and ability to single hand mounted.

I strongly recommend that you read the weapon section of the equipment chapter, familiarize yourself with what the weapon properties actually do, and what the existing options are, before designing your own homebrew weapons.



How exactly is my suggestion relying on feats not to be significantly superior to those weapons?
The only thing stopping your suggested version from being objectively superior to greatsword, greataxe, and pike is heavy weapon master. The only things stopping your suggested version from being objectively seperior to glaive and halberd are great weapon master and polearm master. That is how your version is relying on feats to not be objectively better than several of the existing strongest weapons in the game.



Spiked Chain as reach weapon suffers from ALL the same issues as ANY OTHER reach weapon
Other reach weapons don't have this issue. It is specific to the lance, to balance out its high damage die and one handed while mounted. Giving the spiked chain an even bigger damage die without a similar penalty (and unlike the lance, there isnt really a narrative reason for that penalty here) is what makes your version objectively superior to several other weapons if you ignore feat support (which you should).

Again, you really need to closely read the existing weapon rules, understand the reasoning behind them, before designing your own. There's a reason the lance's damage die is so high compared to other reach weapons, and there's a reason why it's never used outside of niche mounted builds despite its damage die being higher than weapons like the halberd or glaive, which are popular even in featless games without gwm or pam. The lance's damage die is a weird outlier, not the baseline.


How Spiked Chain without Heavy property is any BETTER than other reach weapons is beyond my understanding.
Because you gave it 2d6 damage, when the nearest equivalents have only d10 damage? And access to heavy weapons is more restricted, so they get to have slightly higher damage (compare greatword to a longsword wielded in two hands). Your non-heavy spiked chain should thus deal less damage than glaive, halberd, or pike, not more. D8 at most, not d10, let alone 2d6.


Seriously, since it wouldn't have Heavy property, Spiked Chain would be a great option from small characters that are strong rather than agile. (FYI, it can be a thing, even if "in your experience" it's less likely to happen).

Setting aside where you're finding any small size characters in this game that are 'strong rather than agile', your suggested version isn't just great, it's overwhelmingly better than anything else such a character could concievably use. That's a sure sign that the balance on your suggestion is way off.


I didn't say that a finesse property is arbitrary, I said it doesn't make sense. There's a difference, regardless how small. A chain made of steel and spikes that can reach out to 10 feet is definitely going to weigh quite a bit and as such it's, imho, inappropriate to be able to attack with dexterity by default.

Spiked chain is a made up fantasy weapon with a lot of different representations, but the nearest equivalent real world weapons, rope dart, chain whip, kusari gama, etc, are all relatively light weapons used more with agility that brute force.

By dexy folk i dont mean dex boosting races, i mean dex based characters. Typical rogues, dex fighters, kensei monks. These are the characters generally asking for spiked chains. Strength based characters arent so much, because, again, *non-finesse two handed reach weapons already exist*. If that's what you want the spiked chain to be, just use the same stats as a pike. Two handed, reach, heavy, martial, d10 piercing damage. If you want it to not be heavy, so all the halfling barbarians who apparently are so common in your game can use it, fine, but then you need to lower the damage to d8. It should not have better than or even equal to the best damage currently available to such a character AND get reach to boot.

But, to me, making a weapon that is effectively for the exclusive use of halfling and gnome characters playing against type as barbarians or strength fighters is niche to such an extreme that it probably isn't worth your time. And why you would pick the spiked chain for that is beyond me. Maybe instead the talenta sharrash, a weapon actually associated with tribes of barbarian halflings?

Again, halfling and gnome barbarians arent the characters asking for spiked chains, drow and shadar-kai rogues are.

[Arkhios]

Reach weapons dont all suffer disadvantage on attacks against enemies within 5'. That is a penalty unique to the lance, and a fairly major one, hence lance's high damage die and ability to single hand mounted.

I strongly recommend that you read the weapon section of the equipment chapter, familiarize yourself with what the weapon properties actually do, and what the existing options are, before designing your own homebrew weapons.



The only thing stopping your suggested version from being objectively superior to greatsword, greataxe, and pike is heavy weapon master. The only things stopping your suggested version from being objectively seperior to glaive and halberd are great weapon master and polearm master. That is how your version is relying on feats to not be objectively better than several of the existing strongest weapons in the game.



Other reach weapons don't have this issue. It is specific to the lance, to balance out its high damage die and one handed while mounted. Giving the spiked chain an even bigger damage die without a similar penalty (and unlike the lance, there isnt really a narrative reason for that penalty here) is what makes your version objectively superior to several other weapons if you ignore feat support (which you should).

Again, you really need to closely read the existing weapon rules, understand the reasoning behind them, before designing your own. There's a reason the lance's damage die is so high compared to other reach weapons, and there's a reason why it's never used outside of niche mounted builds despite its damage die being higher than weapons like the halberd or glaive, which are popular even in featless games without gwm or pam. The lance's damage die is a weird outlier, not the baseline.

Huh. OK, I admit, I never realized that it's unique to Lance. Then again, I've never liked reach weapons that much (probably because I used to play 3.5/Pathfinder A LOT and diagonal reach is bollocks).
I agree I made a mistake there.


Because you gave it 2d6 damage, when the nearest equivalents have only d10 damage? And access to heavy weapons is more restricted, so they get to have slightly higher damage (compare greatword to a longsword wielded in two hands). Your non-heavy spiked chain should thus deal less damage than glaive, halberd, or pike, not more. D8 at most, not d10, let alone 2d6.

Setting aside where you're finding any small size characters in this game that are 'strong rather than agile', your suggested version isn't just great, it's overwhelmingly better than anything else such a character could concievably use. That's a sure sign that the balance on your suggestion is way off.

Spiked chain is a made up fantasy weapon with a lot of different representations, but the nearest equivalent real world weapons, rope dart, chain whip, kusari gama, etc, are all relatively light weapons used more with agility that brute force.

By dexy folk i dont mean dex boosting races, i mean dex based characters. Typical rogues, dex fighters, kensei monks. These are the characters generally asking for spiked chains. Strength based characters arent so much, because, again, *non-finesse two handed reach weapons already exist*. If that's what you want the spiked chain to be, just use the same stats as a pike. Two handed, reach, heavy, martial, d10 piercing damage. If you want it to not be heavy, so all the halfling barbarians who apparently are so common in your game can use it, fine, but then you need to lower the damage to d8. It should not have better than or even equal to the best damage currently available to such a character AND get reach to boot.

Why would I want to use the stats of the pike which are, as you say, "two-handed, reach, heavy, martial, d10 piercing damage", when I don't see Spiked Chain as heavy as a pike, but likewise not light enough to warrant finesse use. When you drop Heavy out of that list, the spiked chain falls behind in balance against pike, even without considering feats. Likewise, without the finesse property, it lacks something special to be worth considering it as a new weapon at all. Thus, I don't see why I shouldn't/couldn't upgrade the damage by one step. (Note: one step from 1d10 is 1d12 or 2d6, because 1d12 is just as good as 2d6. The ONLY difference is that the average damage for a 2d6 is a half point (7.0) more than 1d12 average (6.5)! "IS SO POWERFUL OMFG!" :smallamused:
And why, exactly, should the damage be even lower? Spiked Chain that is essentially a pike without Heavy is already weaker than pike. Why does it need yet another nerf?


But, to me, making a weapon that is effectively for the exclusive use of halfling and gnome characters playing against type as barbarians or strength fighters is niche to such an extreme that it probably isn't worth your time. And why you would pick the spiked chain for that is beyond me. Maybe instead the talenta sharrash, a weapon actually associated with tribes of barbarian halflings?

Again, halfling and gnome barbarians arent the characters asking for spiked chains, drow and shadar-kai rogues are.
There is no "Playing against type" because no race is said to prefer any class. There are no "favored classes" in 5th. I just noted that it would be a valid option for the small folk as well as for anyone else.

Also, who said drow and shadar-kai rogues (or any rogue of any race) are asking for spiked chains? Certainly nothing in the rules is.

[Boci]

There is no "Playing against type" because no race is said to prefer any class. There are no "favored classes" in 5th.

No, but half-orcs as a whole make better fighters and barbarians than wizards or warlocks.

[Arkhios]

No, but half-orcs as a whole make better fighters and barbarians than wizards or warlocks.

Yes and no. Half-orc Wizards or Warlocks with Booming Blade and/or Green-Flame Blade, or Half-orc Hexblades, are just as good, if not better, at hitting things hard with a weapon.

[Boci]

Yes and no. Half-orc Wizards or Warlocks with Booming Blade and/or Green-Flame Blade, or Half-orc Hexblades, are just as good, if not better, at hitting things hard with a weapon.

Yes, but the fact that you have to make a specific half-orc wizard or warlockto compare well with those who are humans or high elves, kinda proves that favoured class is a thing, even if the rules don;t directly aknowledge it. A favoured class is the class a race's stat modifiers, and potentially other abilities, make them most suited too. Humans, and potentially half-elves, truly have no favoured class, but all the others have classes that will match their stat bonuses better and less better.

Hell, the two times in D&D there was a favoured clasds mechanic, 3.5 and pathfinder, the favoured class mechanic did virtually nothing to nudge any race towards any one class. Even back then it was the stat modifiers that led people.

[Arkhios]

Yes, but the fact that you have to make a specific half-orc wizard or warlockto compare well with those who are humans or high elves, kinda proves that favoured class is a thing, even if the rules don;t directly aknowledge it. A favoured class is the class a race's stat modifiers, and potentially other abilities, make them most suited too. Humans, and potentially half-elves, truly have no favoured class, but all the others have classes that will match their stat bonuses better and less better.
Uhh... What "fact" exactly? You don't "have to make a specific" half-orc wizard or whatever. You pick a class, and a race. That's it. The race might have some extra baggage with it, but it isn't more complicated than that. Even barring rolling to determine your stats, any race can be a master of any class. It only takes four levels to overcome the "limitations" (of which there really isn't any) of your race. You don't need a 16 or 17 in your primary ability score to be effective. 15 or even 14 is just fine. And even if half-orcs have a racial ability that makes them deal more damage with melee weapon attacks, you don't have to build your character around that. It's a nice bonus and even wizards may need to attack with a melee weapon sometimes. If they crit with it, good for them if you're a half-orc.


Hell, the two times in D&D there was a favoured clasds mechanic, 3.5 and pathfinder, the favoured class mechanic did virtually nothing to nudge any race towards any one class. Even back then it was the stat modifiers that led people.


A minor nitpick: Pathfinder isn't D&D per sé. D&D is a brand of Wizards of the Coast. Pathfinder is a game based on the d20 system and built upon the 3.5 OGL, yes, but it isn't D&D. It's Pathfinder, which is a brand of Paizo. Paizo ≠ Wizards of the Coast.

And, actually, 3.5 did nudge races towards any one class. There was an experience penalty included if you multiclassed and your class levels were more than 1 level apart from each other, unless one of your classes was a favored class for you, in which case the levels in that class didn't count towards this rule. The more levels in different classes you took, the more you risked getting those penalties.
Pathfinder removed those penalties entirely, and instead chose to give bonuses depending on your race and first class. (If I had to choose, I'd choose pathfinder's version over experience penalties any day).

And if we take a little journey back in time, the closer we get to the first edition, the more pronounced race and class connections were. Heck, there was a time in D&D's past, when a dwarf was your "class" and essentially meant a fighter (which is why 3rd edition dwarves had a favored class: fighter, for example).

[Unoriginal]

Volo's Guide to Monsters p. 193:


Spiked Chain. Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 6 (ld6 + 3) piercing damage, and the target is grappled (escape DC 11) if it is a Large or smaller creature. Until this grapple ends, the target is restrained, and the tlincalli can't use the spiked chain against another target

Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes p. 221:


OGRE CHAIN BRUTE
An ogre chain brute wields a great spiked chain. It swings this chain with both hands in a wide circle around itself to knock foes off their feet. Alternatively, it can swing the chain in a crushing overhead smash that's nearly impossible to block or deflect

Chain Sweep. The ogre swings its chain, and every creature within 10 feet of it must make a DC 14 Dexterity saving throw. On a failed saving throw, a creature takes 8 (1d8 + 4) bludgeoning damage and is knocked prone. On a successful save, the creature takes half as much damage and isn't knocked prone.

Chain Smash (Recharge 6). Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 13 (2d8 + 4) bludgeoning damage, and the target must succeed on a DC 14 Constitution saving throw or be knocked unconscious for 1 minute. The unconscious target repeats the saving throw if it takes damage and at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success.

Mordenkainen's Tome of Foe p. 225:


Spiked Chain. Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 10 (2d6 + 3) piercing damage, and the target must succeed on a DC 14 Dexterity saving throw or suffer one additional effect of the shadow dancer's choice:
• The target is knocked prone.
• The target is grappled (escape DC 14) if it is a Medium or smaller creature. Until the grapple ends, the target is restrained, and the shadow dancer can't grapple another target.
• The target takes 22 (4d10) necrotic damage.

So, from this, we can deduce that the spiked chain does 2d6 + DEX damages, 1d6+STR damages or 1d8(doubled for Large size)+STR damages but only once every 6 turns on average, and that it can knock prone/grapple-restrain/deal necrotic damage, grapple-restrain, or knock unconscious/be used for sweeps that can knock everyone prone in a 10 ft radius and damage them.

Note that the Chain Sweep is the only one of those versions/technique that is said to be used two-handed, and the Tlincalli is explicitly one-handed while the illustration for the shadow dancer gives one spiked chain for each of the dancer's arms, a la Kratos.

So, we can either say the Spiked Chain is officially stated based on one example of several, or we can simply say that scavengers with limited smithing skills, trained brutes and crazy quasi-immortals with too much time on their hands just took different kinds of heavy chain with pointy bits and developed different techniques using them based on the idea 10ft of metal getting swung around will hurt.



Uhh... What "fact" exactly? You don't "have to make a specific" half-orc wizard or whatever. You pick a class, and a race. That's it. The race might have some extra baggage with it, but it isn't more complicated than that. Even barring rolling to determine your stats, any race can be a master of any class. It only takes four levels to overcome the "limitations" (of which there really isn't any) of your race. You don't need a 16 or 17 in your primary ability score to be effective. 15 or even 14 is just fine.

This can't be said enough, thank you.

[Willie the Duck]

. (Note: one step from 1d10 is 1d12 or 2d6, because 1d12 is just as good as 2d6. The ONLY difference is that the average damage for a 2d6 is a half point (7.0) more than 1d12 average (6.5)! "IS SO POWERFUL OMFG!" :smallamused:

This entire thread is about picking nits over the weapon balance. By even participating in this thread, we are all vaguely pretending that these minor differences in damage are meaningful (when in fact any and all of them will be dwarfed by simple things like how frequently you will run into a magic version of each weapon, or what ratio of fights are going to be ranged vs. melee given your DM's preferred style). Any of us suddenly pulling the equivalent of 'OMFG, guys, this is so silly!" :smallamused:' seems a little out of place.


And why, exactly, should the damage be even lower? Spiked Chain that is essentially a pike without Heavy is already weaker than pike. Why does it need yet another nerf?

A pike without heavy is better, unless you are using feat support, as a Halfling, etc. can use it without penalty.


There is no "Playing against type" because no race is said to prefer any class. There are no "favored classes" in 5th. I just noted that it would be a valid option for the small folk as well as for anyone else.

Neither of your two pieces of evidence actually support your conclusion. The existence of favored classes, as well as the flavor text of the races, don't actually inform the discussion on whether one can play against type. 5e actually has some pretty weird 'types' incentivized by the ruleset -- goblins are best for being anything except rogues, hobgoblins make good wizards, mountain dwarves make good str-rogues, etc.

[Boci]

Uhh... What "fact" exactly? You don't "have to make a specific" half-orc wizard or whatever. You pick a class, and a race. That's it. The race might have some extra baggage with it, but it isn't more complicated than that. Even barring rolling to determine your stats, any race can be a master of any class. It only takes four levels to overcome the "limitations" (of which there really isn't any) of your race. You don't need a 16 or 17 in your primary ability score to be effective. 15 or even 14 is just fine. And even if half-orcs have a racial ability that makes them deal more damage with melee weapon attacks, you don't have to build your character around that. It's a nice bonus and even wizards may need to attack with a melee weapon sometimes. If they crit with it, good for them if you're a half-orc.

The problem is you're assuming I'm talking about indevidual characters when I'm not, I'm very specifically mentioned the race as a whole. Good roleplaying is making whatever you want with whatever. If you want to make a mechanically good match of race and class, cool, if not, also cool. But that's not related to what I said.

I said half-orcs as a whole would produce more fighters than wizards. That is world building. And yes, you would expect a race with +2 strength to produce more fighters and barbarians than a race with +2 intelligence.


A minor nitpick: Pathfinder isn't D&D per sé. D&D is a brand of Wizards of the Coast. Pathfinder is a game based on the d20 system and built upon the 3.5 OGL, yes, but it isn't D&D. It's Pathfinder, which is a brand of Paizo. Paizo ≠ Wizards of the Coast.

Oh I'm well aware, but since you understood what I meant, and I imagine others did too, it seemed unneccissary to clarify that PF was a seperate legal entity since it is largely compatible with 3.5.


And, actually, 3.5 did nudge races towards any one class.

Yes, any one class, not one specific class. Favoured classing was about multiclassing, not about which race fit best with which class. That has always been a stat thing.

[Arkhios]

Yes, any one class, not one specific class. Favoured classing was about multiclassing, not about which race fit best with which class. That has always been a stat thing.

For Half-elf and human, any one.

Every other (core) race had a specific one keyed for each race.

For example, as I mentioned above: Dwarf had fighter, specifically.
Likewise, half-orc was paired with barbarian, halfling with rogue, and elf with wizard.
That had nothing to do with stats.

[Boci]

For Half-elf and human, any one.

Every other (core) race had a specific one keyed for each race.

For example, as I mentioned above: Dwarf had fighter, specifically.
Likewise, half-orc was paired with barbarian, halfling with rogue, and elf with wizard.
That had nothing to do with stats.

Yes, but that didn't do anything for single classed builds. Favoured class did not make any difference between a half-orc barbarian 8, a half-orc rogue and a half-orc wizard 8.

The important thing that made the half-orc assosiated with the barbarian was, apart from the fluff, the stat bonus, not the favoured class naming barbarian. The stat bonuses are still there in 5th ed.

Yes, you can play whatever you want in 5th ed. You could equally play what you wanted in previous editions.

[Arkhios]

Yes, but that didn't do anything for single classed builds. Favoured class did not make any difference between a half-orc barbarian 8, a half-orc rogue and a half-orc wizard 8.

The important thing that made the half-orc assosiated with the barbarian was, apart from the fluff, the stat bonus, not the favoured class naming barbarian. The stat bonuses are still there in 5th ed.

Yes, you can play whatever you want in 5th ed. You could equally play what you wanted in previous editions.

I'd hesitate to claim that stats really had that much importance, just because one race had appropriate stats for the class. Elf had +2 dex, -2 con. That doesn't exactly scream wizard, especially with 3.5 wizard hit die being d4.

[Boci]

I'd hesitate to claim that stats really had that much importance, just because one race had appropriate stats for the class. Elf had +2 dex, -2 con. That doesn't exactly scream wizard, especially with 3.5 wizard hit die being d4.

No race had +2 intelligence in core, unless you count grey elves. Had they, that would have been a problem. There's also fluff, not just mechanics, but that has stayed largely the same between editions for the core races at least.

5th edition has favoured classes pretty much the same way 3.5 had them. You are massivly overestimating the importance of the actual favoured class rule.

[Arkhios]

here's also fluff, not just mechanics, but that has stayed largely the same between editions for the core races at least.

5th edition has favoured classes pretty much the same way 3.5 had them. You are massivly overestimating the importance of the actual favoured class rule.

It's less that I'm overestimating an actual rule, and more that I'm criticizing how people claim to see rules between the lines of actual written text.

[Boci]

It's less that I'm overestimating an actual rule, and more that I'm criticizing how people claim to see rules between the lines of actual written text.

If that's what you want to do, I'd recommend not saying "there's no favoured class bonus in 5th ed" and rather "you don't have to match racial bonuses to key stats". The second is RP advise for all systems, whilst the first implies 5e deserve special mention and invokes a rule that probably didn't work the way it was intended to.


Edit: Isn't the book out now? Couldn't we have a definitive answer rather than speculating on how reliable monster stats are for new weapons for plkayers? Did I miss something? Wasn't this thread speculation on whether or not the book was going to have a spiked chain based on snippets already available?

[Arkhios]

If that's what you want to do, I'd recommend not saying "there's no favoured class bonus in 5th ed" and rather "you don't have to match racial bonuses to key stats". The second is RP advise for all systems, whilst the first implies 5e deserve special mention and invokes a rule that probably didn't work the way it was intended to.
I'm quite certain that I was talking about "no such thing as playing against type" rather than speaking of "favored class bonuses in 5th ed". Type in the context can refer to both fluff and mechanical side of things, which was my intent.


Edit: Isn't the book out now? Couldn't we have a definitive answer rather than speculating on how reliable monster stats are for new weapons for plkayers? Did I miss something?

AFAIK, the book didn't include rules for a spiked chain, but yet another creature using that as its' weapon, as referred to by Unoriginal earlier today. Which, again, I think was the reason for the whole thread.

[Unoriginal]

If that's what you want to do, I'd recommend not saying "there's no favoured class bonus in 5th ed" and rather "you don't have to match racial bonuses to key stats". The second is RP advise for all systems, whilst the first implies 5e deserve special mention and invokes a rule that probably didn't work the way it was intended to.


Edit: Isn't the book out now? Couldn't we have a definitive answer rather than speculating on how reliable monster stats are for new weapons for plkayers? Did I miss something? Wasn't this thread speculation on whether or not the book was going to have a spiked chain based on snippets already available?

Dude, I literally posted the spiked chain attack(s) 8 posts above yours.

[Boci]

Dude, I literally posted the spiked chain attack(s) 8 posts above yours.

I know. I guess I probably shouldn't be, because its the playground, but I was just surprised that the debate about whether or not a spiked chain was "officially stated" in a book with no spiked chain weapon was still going on. Guess it depends how big the "" marks are.

[Unoriginal]

I know. I guess I probably shouldn't be, because its the playground, but I was just surprised that the debate about whether or not a spiked chain was "officially stated" in a book with no spiked chain weapon was still going on. Guess it depends how big the "" marks are.

True. I wish I was surprised.

At least the Ogre Chain Brute is awesome. Casually turns a 20ft (10ft of reach + 10ft of occupied space) radius into a death zone for regular combatants. Plus they're trained fistfighters too.

[Boci]

Its the word "offical" that I find strange. As a guide to homebrewing a spiked chain, I feel this has been a very productive thread.

Homebrewed spiked chain, 2d6 damage, reach, finesse, two handed

Is it balanced? With feats like polararm mastery and great weapon master, yes, it had a high floor but the cieling is very close. In a game where those feats are reined in/not taken, maybe required proficiency through weapon master, or cut the damage to 1d6.

Obligatory note: Spiked chains are silly and rather divorced from reality, even by the standard of D&D weapons. If you want a more realistic game, this weapon likely won't work in any form, but if rule of cool dominates or your suspension of disbelief happens to have room for what is a decently establed piece of D&D weaponry, then go ahead.

That nicely covers the subject I feel.

[Unoriginal]

I don't see why make it 2d6 or two handed (again, nothing in the Shadow Dancer's entry imply that) when you can basically take the Tlincalli one without a change.

It's basically a net with reach instead of thrown that deals damage.

[Sception]

When you drop Heavy out of that list, the spiked chain falls behind in balance against pike
Just the opposite, actually:

'Heavy' is considered a *disadvantage* by the core rules that justifies a higher damage die. If you remove it, you're removing a disadvantage, making the weapon better, so the damage die needs to be *lower* to get back to balance. Hence why 'pike, but not heavy' needs to have lower damage than the pike as it is, so d8 damage.

It's worth noting that my suggested version would take yours, but add finesse, another advantage over the pike just like removing heavy, and in doing so would drop one more damage die to land at d6, which is the same place we end up if we add the two handed disadvantage to whips, pushing them up one damage die from d4. And since we're end up with the same numbers coming from multiple different starting points, I'm confident that reach, teo handed, d6 damage if finesse, d8 damage if not falls withing the current balance structure.

Granted, weapon comparisons don't always come out so neatly. You could end up with a stronger weapon if your starting point was the rapier, but the rapier is a bit of an overstrong outlier itself, so it's probably best to start from something a little weaker when developing homebrew, as its very important to avoid overshadowing printed options with power creep.
Again, read through the existing weapon rules, as they are. It's important to understand what's already there and why before adding to it.


Also, who said drow and shadar-kai rogues (or any rogue of any race) are asking for spiked chains? Certainly nothing in the rules is.

The players of drow and shadar kai rogues are the ones saying they're asking for spiked chains. That was a statement of my personal experience as a player and DM. I think I've only once seen the player of a non-dexy character, a half orc battle master iirc, ask me to homebrew a spiked chain for them, and i told them to use counts as with an existing weapon, and they did with halberd which worked just fine.

I've multiple times seen the players of dexy characters ask their dm for a homebrew a spiked chain, both as a player asking or watching someone else at the table asking and as the dm being asked. Unfortunately, 'refluff an existing weapon' doesn't work for these characters because at present there are no two handed finesse reach weapons.

...

As for playing against type:

Races very much do have types that can be played to or against, most of which are inherited from the source material that inspired them, whether that source material is drawn from tolkein, in the case of most elves, dwarves, & halflings, or a trip to Hot Topic in the case of Shadar-Kai. Basically just the stereotypes associated with the races.

Characters can play towards or against type even when still sticking to relatively 'optimized' class choices. Dragonborn are, in general, aggressive, elemental, and, well, draconic. A dragonborn draconic sorcerer is playing to type, while a dragonborn playing a shadow sorcerer or Fey bladelock is, comparatively, playing against type, even if they're still choosing classes that generally fit their stat bonuses and racial features.

There's nothing wrong with an individual character playing against type. Ideally, though, the racial features of a race should predispose them to whatever their 'type' is. Eg, the sterotypical big brute half orc, with racial features that reinforce that image and encourage (not require) players to select classes, subclasses, and other features that reinforce that further. That way the fluff and mechanics reinforce each other. A player isn't prevented from playing 'against type', but feels resistance from the mechanics that echoes the in-universe resistance their characters would feel from society. Imo, that's a feature, not a bug, though personally had I designed the system racial bonuses to any given stat would cap at +1, and standard point but would allow the purchase of a starting 16, so that those who were playing against type could still start with a +3 mod in their key stat, albeit with heavy investment that would limit their other stats, without allowing anyone to start with a +4. But that's a different subject.
The rules can never be perfect, so sometimes the mechanics and fluff won't quite sync up, as with elves liking long swords narratively, even though they're generally better of using something else. Or with shadar-kai not quite making top tier hexblades. They're ok, mind, but lack of cha bonus on a subclassed designed to be as 'single stat dependent' in cha as possible, makes them kind of second tier there, mechanically, while they work better as fighters, rogues, or monks. Or with githzerai being better clerics than monks mechanically, even though their fluff would have that the other way around.

As long as the disconnect isn't egregious, and to be clear I'm not saying it is in any of those cases, that's fine. Again, nothing's ever perfect, and minor conflicts will inevitably emerge. Where all else is equal, though, the mechanics of the game should align with the narrative archetypes those mechanics represent.

....

Coming back to the spiked chain, the weapon itself is a silly rule-of-coolism, without consistant depiction. As such, there are certainly representations of it that make it out to be slow and heavy, a brutish barbarianish weapon. Depictions like this:

http://www.gamehollow.com/catalog/images/dd/dk22.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/4f/23/42/4f2342b8769ee0241e69eff8aa8a7bc5--wayne-reynolds-hobgoblin.jpg
And many more besides.

So depictions of the spiked chain as a strength weapon; by which I mean, "a weapon that looks like it takes more power than finesse to use, or one shown being used by characters that look like they favor power over finesse, or both"; certainly exist. I'm not at all arguing that a non-finesse version of the spiked chain is invalid conceptually. I would argue, however, that it would be somewhat mechanically redundant.:

Again, two handed reach weapons already exist. A non-heavy version would make such available to small characters, but to maintain balance it would have to do less damage than the two handed, non-reach weapons already available to them (ie, less damage than a long sword wielded in two hands, so less than d10), and less damage than the reach weapons not available to them (ie, less damage than pike, halberd, or glaive, so again less than d10).

Regardless, small-sized but strength-based characters are very much edge case examples of playing against type, where specific mechanical encouragement isn't really needed and might be inadvisable. Further, halfling and gnome characters have never been associated with the spiked chain to my knowledge. As I suggested previously, if you were looking to add a two handed reach weapon for strength-based small characters specifically, the Talenta Sharrash, one of the tribal halfling weapons from Eberron, would be a better candidate. Because the sharrash is already conceptually associated with halfling barbarians.

All that said, yes, a non-finesse spiked chain is conceptually valid.

However, again, the spiked chain is a made up fantasy weapon with a lot of differing depictions, and many of those depictions represent it as a dexterity weapon; by which I mean a weapon that looks like it relies more on finesse than power to wield, or shown being used by characters that look like they favor finesse over power, or both. Examples include:

http://petesfr.wdfiles.com/local--files/session-01-23/50110.jpg

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VV3ZofA7X30/VrrSc1pFSMI/AAAAAAAAF8U/y0Hpcz-a7ZQ/s1600/vamp3e.jpg

https://78.media.tumblr.com/13e437aaa57cce6da27e0fc833293f7d/tumblr_inline_nn91u7z8ZR1rwopi4_500.jpg

http://www.ddarling.ca/dd/character/warblade/chain06.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSzcOwnRu5YEPPlQPsfiq4HPvlvvVZM6 kOHtw_rZXiIbr23zu51Bw

http://www.critical-hits.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/shadarkai_illo.jpg

https://78.media.tumblr.com/e9be093f984c0ec19ef29c21b6764e2b/tumblr_ol1ht2s5Rb1v4fvg9o1_500.jpg

https://t00.deviantart.net/8Tt-UgeOMJm89IW0uEeB7E48yCU=/fit-in/700x350/filters:fixed_height(100,100):origin()/pre00/f243/th/pre/f/2017/024/7/7/mm_blackwarrior_grey_01_by_prodigyduck-dawlv22.png

http://www.dandwiki.com/w/images/thumb/0/0a/Cavestalker_by_Eva_Widermann.jpg/180px-Cavestalker_by_Eva_Widermann.jpg

https://pre00.deviantart.net/e71d/th/pre/i/2006/283/6/2/arinae_new_by_imperiusunforgivable.png

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/kz4AAOSwcUBYROSU/s-l400.jpg

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/dnd4/images/f/f8/Shadar-kai_Monster_Manual.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140801223756

I find this last image particularly amusing, as it's just straight up a two handed whip. As silly as that is, it is exactly what my preferred version out of those suggested in this thread is mechanically. Start with whip, add two handed penalty in exchange for +1 damage die size.

Some of those images are first party D&D content, while others are either are non-wotc art or minis that players have used to represent D&D characters. If anything, it's the latter I would lean more heavily on, as I've always felt the point of D&D rules should be to reflect how players see their their characters in a rule of cool story sense, not to represent how those ideas would play out in real life.

But if by chance you are at all concerned about realism:

The nearest real world equivalents to some sort of weaponized spikey chain are are the Chinese rope weapons - rope dart, flying claw, meteor hammer, etc, which are often depicted with chains instead of ropes for rule-of-cool reasons, or the Japanese chain weapons - kusari-gama, kyoketsu-shoge, & the like. All of these would likely be called spiked chains in 5e d&d, possibly only varying the damage type depending on the nature of the weapon or weight attached to the rope or chain.

All of these operate more like very short ranged thrown weapons than melee weapons, using the chain or rope to sling the weapon forward, then draw it back after the attack in the case of the Chinese weapons, or to entangle the opponent's weapon or legs with a weight attached to one side of the chain before closing in to strike with a blade attached to the other in the case of the Japanese ones. All of these weapons focus as much or more on speed and hand-eye coordination than pure strength, both to effectively use the weapon and to avoid hurting or entangling yourself with them.

And to circle the point back from realism back to narrative and rule-of-cool, all of these weapons are associated with character archetypes like 'shaolin monk' or 'ninja' that favor finesse over power, and in D&D would favor dexterity over strength, to exactly the same degree that a swash-buckling fencer would.

Which is all to say that Spiked Chain as a finesse weapon is not just some grognard hold over quirk of previous edition mechanics, it is a core aspect of many of the archetypes players want to bring to life via spiked-chain wielding characters in the first place, archetypes that predate D&D altogether, that helped inspire D&D rather than vice versa.

...

My point with all of that is not that spiked chain conceptually *must* be a finesse weapon, just that it *can* be, that there's plenty of conceptual justification to go either way with it. And to quote myself from earlier in this way-too-long post, "Where all else is equal, ... the mechanics of the game should align with the narrative archetypes those mechanics represent." Once you allow that the spiked chain could just as reasonably be either finesse or not from a conceptual standpoint, then the question of weather or not the weapon *should* be finesse comes down to:


Which would be more favorable to mechanically justifying fluff stereotypes. Here the race most associated with the spiked chain is the Shadar-Kai, and while there's nothing preventing them from using strength based weapons there's no denying that they would work a lot better with a finesse version.
Which would make the spiked chain more novel and less redundant in game. Here, finesse would still be preferred, as non-finesse two handed reach weapons already exist. Granted, non-heavy ones don't, but the spiked chain could be both finesse and non-heavy, and small characters would still be free to use it with their strength if desired, where it would still be more damaging than their other reach options, even with only d6 damage die.
Which would best enable players' visions of their characters. And here again a finesse version would allow all those many edgelords and edgeladies and weeaboos, myself included, to play the spikey, chainy, emo elf ninjas that using counts-as with existing 5e weapons does a poor job representing currently.

[Arkhios]

Hmm... Now that you put it that way, it may be that I was overestimating the value of Heavy as-is. It would, indeed, appear that Heavy property is a penalty rather than a bonus. Likewise, in white room, finesse is pretty much the opposite of heavy in all respects, thus a bonus with no downsides.

...There, I admitted you were right all along. Just, please, don't get smug about it, alright?

On hindsight, I probably shouldn't play multiple editions at the same time, since I lost my grasp of balance so quickly :S

Alright, let's see.

a "pike" but with finesse instead of heavy:

two-handed, reach, finesse, 2d4, piercing.

I dropped damage from pike's 1d10 by one step to d8 due to giving it finesse, but switched it to 2d4 because it seems fair given the brutality of the weapon. (also because there isn't a weapon with 2d4 yet and because it's roughly equal to d8).

(I'd still hesitate to put it on sale in every market, as it isn't exactly very common weapon — only three creatures so far have been seen using it — and a player would have to loot one. Proficiency isn't really that big of an issue. I'm of the opinion that DM's should provide their players enough downtime so they could use it to learn new things, such as proficiency with a weapon)

[Specter]

I know I'm late to the party, but you can make it the same as a whip, but dealing 1d8 damage and being two-handed. That would be neat and non-broken.

[Sception]

Just, please, don't get smug about it, alright?

Not at all! Or at least, i certainly don't mean to be. I know i tend to drone on for too long, and can come off as lecturing or condescending when i dont mean to. Its a problem i probably need to put more work into.


On hindsight, I probably shouldn't play multiple editions at the same time, since I lost my grasp of balance so quickly :S

Seriously, keeping everything straight can be a hassle. I was playing majic jar wrong for the longest time, but that's another topic.

Honestly, this is one area where I think 4e handled things better, what with the defined weapon groups, and your attack stat being determined by your class & powers, not your weapon. No need to argue about what should or shouldn't have finesse.


Alright, let's see.

a "pike" but with finesse instead of heavy:

two-handed, reach, finesse, 2d4, piercing.

Removing heavy takes off a penalty, which should drop the damage die by one, and adding finesse is adfing an extra advantage, which should drop the damage die again, landing in the d6 range, not the d8 range, and ideally any homebrew finesse weapon should avoid better damage than the current most damaging finesse weapon, which is the rapier at d8.
Arguably you could start with the rapier, add reach and two handed as offsetting penalties, and land back at d8 damage. However, the rapier itself is a slightly overtuned weapon in 5e already, so it's a dubious starting point for homebrew if part of the objective is avoiding power creep compared to published options.

2d4 could work for your non-finesse version, though. Which, again, would be a totally valid option.

And, though my personal preference again is to avoid hanging weapon design on feats, you could do a 2d4 non-finesse spiked chain, and add finesse back in as part of a weapon style feat.

That would mostly work, though again my personal preference would be to just make it finesse to start and run with d6 damage.

[Unoriginal]

Seriously, why is everyone talking about making it two-handed?

[Arkhios]

Seriously, why is everyone talking about making it two-handed?
Probably because that's how the weapon has been depicted in previous editions. A two-handed weapon. Probably unnecessary to keep it as such, but... oh well.


Not at all! Or at least, i certainly don't mean to be. I know i tend to drone on for too long, and can come off as lecturing or condescending when i dont mean to. Its a problem i probably need to put more work into.

Removing heavy takes off a penalty, which should drop the damage die by one, and adding finesse is adfing an extra advantage, which should drop the damage die again, landing in the d6 range, not the d8 range, and ideally any homebrew finesse weapon should avoid better damage than the current most damaging finesse weapon, which is the rapier at d8.
Arguably you could start with the rapier, add reach and two handed as offsetting penalties, and land back at d8 damage. However, the rapier itself is a slightly overtuned weapon in 5e already, so it's a dubious starting point for homebrew if part of the objective is avoiding power creep compared to published options.

2d4 could work for your non-finesse version, though. Which, again, would be a totally valid option.

And, though my personal preference again is to avoid hanging weapon design on feats, you could do a 2d4 non-finesse spiked chain, and add finesse back in as part of a weapon style feat.

That would mostly work, though again my personal preference would be to just make it finesse to start and run with d6 damage.

Glad that we're on the same page and no offense was meant from either side of the discussion. (Though I did start to get on the defensive back there, for which I apologise)

Another option that just occurred to me, it could well be one-handed d6, but with versatile (2d4*). Now, I'm not entirely sure if it's a good idea to add finesse to it, if it's also versatile. But, for example, Kensei could get around that issue, sort of. Although, I do understand that rogues might still complain if it lacks finesse.
*Again, 2d4 instead of 1d8 due to the slightly brutal aspect of it. Not a big difference, but at least something different.

[Rowan Wolf]

Seriously, why is everyone talking about making it two-handed?

Maybe to prevent duel wielding.

[Sception]

player-usable versions have basically always been 2 handed since their introduction in 3e, the vast majority of depictions of it are two handed (though, again, as a made up fantasy weapon there is admittedly inconsistency here) and the closest real world equivalents, with this exception of the chain whip (which in game terms would just be a whip), are typically wielded in two hands (though their are one handed versions of the kusari-gama, usually with shorter cords attached to the top of the sickle instead of longer chains attached to the bottom and swung with the opposite hand).

And yeah, any one-handed interpretation of the spiked chain is well enough represented by reskinning the existing flail or whip profile, just like two handed, heavy, non-finesse interpretations are well enough represented via reskinned pikes or halberds.

So it's not that a spiked chain couldn't conceptually be a one handed weapon, just that there's no point to stating up that version as a new weapon.