|
Instead of jumping on the hate wagon for the spiked chain, how about showing some love for the other reach weapons. It doesn’t make sense to me IMO that one cannot use a glaive (for example) to attack someone adjacent to them. I know the glaive’s strength (as with most, but not all, reach weapons) comes from the increased leverage and speed resulting from the long shaft propelling the blade, but that same shaft is essentially a quarterstaff with one mean end. Why not let the glaive be used like a quarterstaff against adjacent opponents (with the expected modifications to damage, criticals etc.). I would even support a penalty to attack (say -2) when being used in this not specifically designed for usage. I’m not really advocating something that isn’t already achievable within the scope of the existing rules. <see spoiler> I’m just asking that maybe we stream line the process and make it easier for melee types (I’m looking right at you fighter) to broaden their repertoire of weapons and tactics. What do you think?
|
Instead of jumping on the hate wagon for the spiked chain, how about showing some love for the other reach weapons. It doesn’t make sense to me IMO that one cannot use a glaive (for example) to attack someone adjacent to them. I know the glaive’s strength (as with most, but not all, reach weapons) comes from the increased leverage and speed resulting from the long shaft propelling the blade, but that same shaft is essentially a quarterstaff with one mean end. Why not let the glaive be used like a quarterstaff against adjacent opponents (with the expected modifications to damage, criticals etc.). I would even support a penalty to attack (say -2) when being used in this not specifically designed for usage. I’m not really advocating something that isn’t already achievable within the scope of the existing rules. <see spoiler> I’m just asking that maybe we stream line the process and make it easier for melee types (I’m looking right at you fighter) to broaden their repertoire of weapons and tactics. What do you think?
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
|
I'd rather see a feat similar to Short Haft from PHB2 added to Pathfinder, instead of just allowing reach weapons to attack adjacent at a -2.
The best part of the Short Haft feat (from this DM's POV) is that using it to attack an adjacent square costs a swift action, this means that the user can't switch between adjacent and reach targets at their whim multiple times within a single round.
-Skeld
|
|
I prefer to have a feat that allows this. I have seen reenactments using glaives and other polearms in close combat. Essentially they adjusted their grip on the haft or changed the method of attack.
For example when using the polearm for reach they held it low and could use it to poke and strike. The primary use of those weapons were often to poke, jab, and trip.
Then the fighters adjusted their stance. They gripped higher on the haft and rested the weapon on their left arms to use as jabbing weapons. In formation I would never want to fight against them.
The thing is I think it really would need some additional training to use it properly. A standard soldier would use it in formation as a reach weapon. Trained soldiers with feats would use it in close combat as well.
Another thing to remember is that often these soldiers has short swords to use for close combat. When formation was broken the polearm could become a liability. It would be discarded (usually into someone's chest) then short swords drawn.
|
|
I'd rather see a feat similar to Short Haft from PHB2 added to Pathfinder, instead of just allowing reach weapons to attack adjacent at a -2.
The best part of the Short Haft feat (from this DM's POV) is that using it to attack an adjacent square costs a swift action, this means that the user can't switch between adjacent and reach targets at their whim multiple times within a single round.
-Skeld
This. Short Haft is probably the one feat that I will always take if I'm playing a character that totes around a reach weapon of any sort and has plans on using it at least semi-often.
|
|
Short Haft is probably the one feat that I will always take if I'm playing a character that totes around a reach weapon of any sort and has plans on using it at least semi-often.
I have a player in my STAP campaign playing a greatspear-wielding Fighter (straight Fighter, min you; 17th level currently). He's taken Short Haft and, I must say, it requires a bit of tactical thinking about when to adjust for adjacent versus reach.
-Skeld
|
|
I have a player in my STAP campaign playing a greatspear-wielding Fighter (straight Fighter, min you; 17th level currently). He's taken Short Haft and, I must say, it requires a bit of tactical thinking about when to adjust for adjacent versus reach.
-Skeld
That's actually something else I like about the feat; that it requires the fighter to think ahead and choose when to fight with or without the reach.
In all honesty I think fighters need more feats like Short Haft so that they have more to think about in combat than the typical full attack and a 5 ft. step or how much to power attack for.
|
|
I'd rather see a feat similar to Short Haft from PHB2 added to Pathfinder, instead of just allowing reach weapons to attack adjacent at a -2.
The best part of the Short Haft feat (from this DM's POV) is that using it to attack an adjacent square costs a swift action, this means that the user can't switch between adjacent and reach targets at their whim multiple times within a single round.
-Skeld
I understand your point, but eliminating the need for feats to use a reach weapon in this manner is what I was going for. I know that I only mentioned the -2 to attack but I should have also added a penalty to damage (and damage type for that matter) as the weapon is not being used as it was intended. The glaive would then allow a single bludgeoning attack to adjacent targets doing 1d6 with a x2 critical instead of it's normal damage. I am not so concerned with the intermingling of reach and adjacent attacks, but maybe I'm wrong to think that way.
|
|
I am not so concerned with the intermingling of reach and adjacent attacks...
That's where you and I differ on this issue; I'm very much concerned with the intermingling of reach and adjacent attacks. The ability to attack both with impunity in the same round for free makes reach weapons too good. Eliminating the adjacent square restriction of reach weapons effectively makes reach weapons the default weapon choice for all classes. Even by mid-level, a -2/-2 attack/damage penalty is trivial.
I think Wizards got it right in PHB2. Not only does Short Haft cost a feat slot, but it affects economy of actions and forces the user to think ahead about tactical placement on the battlefield.
-Skeld
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
What's wrong with using a glaive for reach and having armor spikes/spiked gauntlets to attack adjacent targets? Yeah, you don't do a whole lot of damage with these "lesser" weapons, but you are still armed and can employ them against adjacent targets without compromising your reach.
|
|
I am not so concerned with the intermingling of reach and adjacent attacks...That's where you and I differ on this issue; I'm very much concerned with the intermingling of reach and adjacent attacks. The ability to attack both with impunity in the same round for free makes reach weapons too good. Eliminating the adjacent square restriction of reach weapons effectively makes reach weapons the default weapon choice for all classes. Even by mid-level, a -2/-2 attack/damage penalty is trivial.
I think Wizards got it right in PHB2. Not only does Short Haft cost a feat slot, but it affects economy of actions and forces the user to think ahead about tactical placement on the battlefield.
-Skeld
I said I wasn't SO concerned, and, that I might be wrong :) Granted using a feat to accomplish the task at hand is less of a cost in feat happy PFRPG, still...
To be clear the penalty I am suggesting isn't just -2 to attack and damage but a reduction in the die type roll itself. Again with the glaive as example it usually does 1d10, x3 crit, slashing and would do so at reach. Used against adjacent foes it would do 1d6, x2 crit, bludgeoning. A little more significant reduction in damage before the -2 penalty don't you think?
** spoiler omitted **Instead of jumping on the hate wagon for the spiked chain, how about showing some love for the other reach weapons. It doesn’t make sense to me IMO that one cannot use a glaive (for example) to attack someone adjacent to them. I know the glaive’s strength (as with most, but not all, reach weapons) comes from the increased leverage and speed resulting from the long shaft propelling the blade, but that same shaft is essentially a quarterstaff with one mean end. Why not let the glaive be used like a quarterstaff against adjacent opponents (with the expected modifications to damage, criticals etc.). I would even support a penalty to attack (say -2) when being used in this not specifically designed for usage. I’m not really advocating something that isn’t already achievable within the scope of the existing rules. <see spoiler> I’m just asking that maybe we stream line the process and make it easier for melee types (I’m looking right at you fighter) to broaden their repertoire of weapons and tactics. What do you think?
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
Problem Skeld. Most fighters that want to be effective NEED reach, without it, they really get hurt. What would you prefer, the meleeist be dependent on that Enlarge Person spell, waste a featslot for what should come naturally? (read my post to see how it is better with the feat, and most people with brains will pick up the feat as soon as possible if they intend to use reach weapons, but that its not necessary)
I'd let 'em trade iterative attacks for movement, and let them save attacks for use as immediate actions later in the round. Then their effective reach is dictated by their skill as well as by their weapon, which is more or less how things really work (at the peak of my unarmed training I could attack anyone within 10 ft. with impunity; now that I'm lazy and out of training, 5 ft. is getting to be a stretch).
|
|
What's wrong with using a glaive for reach and having armor spikes/spiked gauntlets to attack adjacent targets? Yeah, you don't do a whole lot of damage with these "lesser" weapons, but you are still armed and can employ them against adjacent targets without compromising your reach.
Agreed, but, I am shooting for the flavor of the glaive user employing his weapon of choice. Really my biggest beef is the assumption that you can't hit something right beside you with a reach weapon in any manner unless you apply feats etc. Hasn't anybody seen a cross check? :)
If every member of a common character build needs something, perhaps it should be part of the game without making up special rules and feats. Otherwise, it's just a "feat tax".
Allow polearms to attack adjacent foes, perhaps giving them a "grip change" attack penalty for the first round's attacks.
|
|
One last time, my concern is that if you change the default reach weapon usage rules from "can only attack reach squares" to "can attack reach squares and also adjacent squares at x penalty," you devalue all reach weapons for all classes while increasing the desire of all classes to carry a reach weapon. Changing the base rules of reach weapons affects how all classes use reach weapons, not just Fighters.
Reach weapons fill a niche that non-reach weapons can't, they attack through adjacent squares into non-adjacent squares (this is especially useful when you can't get to a square that is adjacent to your target). If reach weapons fill the niche of both reach and non-reach weapons, non-reach weapons become effectively useless.
That's the point I'm trying to make. I think this would be a bad change.
-Skeld
Director of Game Design
|
I have been thinking about this particular issue for a while now. I am currently thinking that some of these reach weapons, such as polearms, should also be able to be used as a quarterstaff, when attacking an adjacent foe. That said, this might also include a penalty, as using them in this way is cumbersome to say the least.
I am thinking that the current solution is to define them, instead of completely rewrite them, but I am open to thoughts.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
The spiked chain was a joke and an insult to D&D.
It only has its place in The Order of the Stick strips.
Please remove it.
Seriously.
|
|
One last time, my concern is that if you change the default reach weapon usage rules from "can only attack reach squares" to "can attack reach squares and also adjacent squares at x penalty," you devalue all reach weapons for all classes while increasing the desire of all classes to carry a reach weapon. Changing the base rules of reach weapons affects how all classes use reach weapons, not just Fighters.
-Skeld
I would like to point out the fact that all reach weapons save for longspear (which is a simple weapon) fall under the martial weapon category and as such are not (initially at least) proficient weapons for any of the non-fighter type classes. So, in a way, this is a more significant ruling to fighter types than it is for the other classes.
I think we should go whole hog and make most of the spears and polearms function in this fashion, but that your post title isn't a good indication of it's contents.
Greatest name for a thread EVER.
Conversely, Razor Sharp Chairleg is the greatest name for a feat ever.
|
|
The spiked chain was a joke and an insult to D&D.
On the other hand, I am quite fond of the Spike-less Chain as an Exotic Weapon. Drop the damage to 1d6 B for a weighted end, or allow someone to mount a hook on one or both ends that does 1d4 P and gives the +2 Disarm / Trip feature, and it's a pretty neat weapon.
Unless they are going to rewrite the favoured weapon of one of there deities (Zon Kuthon I believe) I think its safe to say the spiked chain is going no where.The spiked chain was a joke and an insult to D&D.
It only has its place in The Order of the Stick strips.
Please remove it.
Seriously.
Not to mention that they added two more weapons with similar reach (urumi and bladed scarf) in the Campaign Setting!
First, I really don't want to see reach rules change any at all. I'm not for making many more changes, especially when some of the proposed changes essentially give characters "free feats" compared to how things work in core 3.5.
That having been said, when it comes to bladed scarves and spiked chains and the like, I almost wouldn't mind a slight borrowing of 4e terminology and allow weapons like that to be reach weapons that don't threatened (i.e. default reach weapons in the game would be "threatening reach" weapons, but a few, like spiked chains and scarves, would just be able to attack at range, but not threaten squares for purposes of AoO, for example).
I'd probably already rule that someone that tries to bash someone with a polearm that isn't threatening a given square would be using an improvised weapon, by default.
Oh, and Razor Sharp Chair leg rocks as a feat name. Please don't change it.
I like the feat option myself, similar to Short Haft from PHB II. I think this offers the most in terms of choice without adjusting the rules for reach weapons.
If you go for reach weapons you can:
A) Wield a reach weapon by itself and threaten at range only. This is already a free alternative to standard weapons. Attacking adjacent is not an option.
B) Wield a reach weapon and wear spiked gauntlets to attack adjacent foes. A drawback is not being able to where other sorts of magical gloves such as gloves of dexterity.
C) Wield a reach weapon by itself and choose the short haft feat.
It's simple, tactical, and provides choice. Coming up with rules for fighting with the haft of a reach weapon might be nice, but I think it needlessly clutters the core rules, and is better served being a house rule option.
I like the feat option myself, similar to Short Haft from PHB II. I think this offers the most in terms of choice without adjusting the rules for reach weapons.
If you go for reach weapons you can:
A) Wield a reach weapon by itself and threaten at range only. This is already a free alternative to standard weapons. Attacking adjacent is not an option.
B) Wield a reach weapon and wear spiked gauntlets to attack adjacent foes. A drawback is not being able to where other sorts of magical gloves such as gloves of dexterity.
C) Wield a reach weapon by itself and choose the short haft feat.It's simple, tactical, and provides choice. Coming up with rules for fighting with the haft of a reach weapon might be nice, but I think it needlessly clutters the core rules, and is better served being a house rule option.
Agreed.
|
|
Aside from the reasons I've already stated for not liking this change, I thought of something else:
What problem does this fix? I haven't seen a bunch of threads talking about reach fighters being broken because they can't attack adjacent squares. I would imagine they just suck it up and take the feat (if it's available), they just take a 5' step, or they carry a gauntlet or other weapon for when someone gets to close and the 5' step is out of the question. If there's no stated problem that this addresses, it seems more like changing a rule for the sake of changing it.
-Skeld
|
|
I would like to point out the fact that all reach weapons save for longspear (which is a simple weapon) fall under the martial weapon category and as such are not (initially at least) proficient weapons for any of the non-fighter type classes. So, in a way, this is a more significant ruling to fighter types than it is for the other classes.
you are correct. When I was thinking about this, in my mid I was thinking "longspear" (which would apply to all classes). But this wouldn't be as much an issue for halberds or other reachers.
-Skeld
The spiked chain was a joke and an insult to D&D.On the other hand, I am quite fond of the Spike-less Chain as an Exotic Weapon. Drop the damage to 1d6 B for a weighted end, or allow someone to mount a hook on one or both ends that does 1d4 P and gives the +2 Disarm / Trip feature, and it's a pretty neat weapon.
this is what I do myself. Much cooler anyhow a weighted chain rocks.
|
|
If every member of a common character build needs something, perhaps it should be part of the game without making up special rules and feats. Otherwise, it's just a "feat tax".
I don't agree. There are several feats that fall under the "feat tax" argument: weapons focus, weapon specialization, the "greater" versions, improved critical, cleave & great cleave, power attack, the list goes on. Archer-style Fighters also want point-blank shot and precise shot (not to mention manyshot and rapid shot). So why not give all those feats over to common-build Fighters too? The arguement can easily be made that the Fighter needs those feats to be functional also.
That matter aside, I don't think a reach Fighter needs Short Haft to be functional (I mean, they were functional before the feat was introduced into the ruleset). Any reach Fighter in his right mind wants the feat, but he doesn't need it.
-Skeld
Here's my vote.
With a polearm, you can attack someone adjacent to you with a -4 penalty and deal 1d6 dmg. plus 1/2 Str modifier.
It's tough to fight close in with a 10' weapon and it would be difficult to put all of your weight behind the attack.
Add a feat that reduces the penalty to -2 and lets you add your Str modifier.
|
|
I agree with a poster above that this fix doesn't really fix any real problem with the game. A feat to allow reach weapons to be used in close combat has existed for a long time. The only real consideration, in my opinion, is how the feat should function.
In essence I would say that as part of the description for fighting with these reach weapons there should be a note that close combat incurs a -4 penalty to hit and only 1/2 STR MOD is added to damage.
The feat then should operate much like an exotic weapon proficiency and remove those penalties and allow the weapon to be used to its fullest advantage with no attack or damage penalties.
That is all I really see that needs to be done.
For the most part, I'm with Dan and Krome on this one:
Sounds good to me: simple, workable, and useful all around.
(Also, let me go on record saying how much I hate the spiked chain!)
|
|
I appreciate the discussion that has been generated by this thread, and while I would like to specifically comment on a number of the posts, I think it be better if I restated my intent. I feel that my original posting was not clear. This is obviously my fault. I am not advocating a massive rewrite of the weapon and reach rules, as it would at first seem. I am actually just looking to add a little flavour to the weapons selected and used by fighter types, and to a lesser degree, adding a little versatility to the fighter class (Skeld: You ask what problem does this fix? While you are correct, no threads have been clamouring for fixes to the reach weapons, a quick search finds a number of threads bemoaning the imbalance between fighter types and spell casters). My main contention is that the spiked chain already exists. Unless it is removed from the game or reworked, the in game mechanic for a reach weapon that that can also be used to strike/threaten adjacent foes exists. Other than costing a character a single exotic weapon feat, it requires no other expenditure on the part of the wielder to accomplish what a number of you resist allowing any of the other reach weapons from doing. The spiked chain doesn’t incur a penalty to hit or damage to compensate for its versatility. It does the same type and amount of damage (2d4) whether used at reach or at close range. It doesn’t require a swift action to switch targets. It allows trip attacks and can be dropped to avoid being tripped yourself. It adds +2 CMB to disarm attempts. It allows you to use weapon finesse with it. Wow. If I had started a thread that had advocated the addition of an exotic weapon called “Light Glaive” or “Half Halberd” that had identical stats to the spiked chain, I imagine the response to my suggestion would have been overwhelmingly against. Why? Because my weapon would be too powerful? Because a blade on a pole can be used to strike at reach and adjacent foes is somehow less believable that a spiked chain doing the very same thing? Because my weapon is not historically accurate in a fantasy game with trolls, wizards and dragons? What makes spiked chain an acceptable exception to the normal rules for reach weapons to the exclusion of all others? Instead of advocating the demise of the arguably overpowered spiked chain I am merely suggesting allowing other reach weapons to function in a similar, and might I add, in a significantly reduced/penalized manner. And without the need for additional feats, improvised weapon rules applications or reach weapon/spiked gauntlet combos. IMHO the answer to every problem is not by adding feats. To those who think that making the change I suggest would result in every fighter carrying the new “improved” reach weapons by default, I would ask. Are your current games awash in spiked chain wielding fighters? How come the vast majority of NPC fighter types encountered in most published adventures are not brandishing them? On the flip side, how many PCs and NPCs in your games currently employ any of the other reach weapons as their primary weapons? I have to think long and hard to come up with a memorable villain who employed a glaive/gisarme/ranseur as their weapon of choice. How many magical weapons of this type have you encountered in your games? If and when they are found are they automatically placed in the sell for cash at the 1st opportunity pile of loot? Why have these weapons if nobody uses them? They are merely taking up print space that could otherwise be used more effectively. By virtue of some of the arguments within this thread it would seem that the spiked chain should really require the addition of feats to achieve what it already can do so freely. This is NOT what I am asking for. And finally, to those who would say that this is a rule to be “house ruled”, by all means, you are always free to house rule anything. That is the beauty of this wonderful system/game, but in the spirit of the open beta I instead chose to throw in my 2 coppers. Thanks for listening and cheers to all.
The simple problem that haft striking with a polearm solves is, in fact, a simple simulation problem.
Short Haft allows the head to be brought to bear at 5' range, and is appropriate as a feat.
Hitting someone with a stick is not hard, even if the stick is 8'+ long. Ignoring the business end of a polearm to use the stick end in an approximation of stick techniques is difficult at reach lengths, but not impossible.
The simulationist in me, that has trained with weapons which could be considered pike length, would be happy with a simple blurb in the reach weapon description, that all reach weapons can be used as a club at 5' at a -2 penalty, doing 1d6 (1d4 small) bludgeoning with 1x strength modifier. If I have weapon focus (reach weapon), and can then grab another feat to turn that into no penalty and 1.5 strength is probably okay. Then, every feat I take with my longspear, lance or whatever will apply both to the 10' strike and the 5' strike, and I think, mechanically, this is much cleaner. Razor Sharp Chair Leg could still be used to beef this up, and provides a reasonable simulation of what I know to be useful poleweapon techniques. And EWP: Spiked Chain or other flexible weapon still has a place, since it works differently.
|
|
...would be happy with a simple blurb in the reach weapon description, that all reach weapons can be used as a club at 5' at a -2 penalty, doing 1d6 (1d4 small) bludgeoning with 1x strength modifier. If I have weapon focus (reach weapon), and can then grab another feat to turn that into no penalty and 1.5 strength is probably okay. Then, every feat I take with my longspear, lance or whatever will apply both to the 10' strike and the 5' strike, and I think, mechanically, this is much cleaner. Razor Sharp Chair Leg could still be used to beef this up...
Totally agreed. Exactly in the spirit in which I posted my original comment.
this is what I do myself. Much cooler anyhow a weighted chain rocks.The spiked chain was a joke and an insult to D&D.On the other hand, I am quite fond of the Spike-less Chain as an Exotic Weapon. Drop the damage to 1d6 B for a weighted end, or allow someone to mount a hook on one or both ends that does 1d4 P and gives the +2 Disarm / Trip feature, and it's a pretty neat weapon.
Chain lash from Savage Species: as you mentionned and usable as a double OR reach weapon. I allowed it as a monk weapon (but not the reaching in flurry) and my players love it.
|
Director of Game Design
|
...would be happy with a simple blurb in the reach weapon description, that all reach weapons can be used as a club at 5' at a -2 penalty, doing 1d6 (1d4 small) bludgeoning with 1x strength modifier. If I have weapon focus (reach weapon), and can then grab another feat to turn that into no penalty and 1.5 strength is probably okay. Then, every feat I take with my longspear, lance or whatever will apply both to the 10' strike and the 5' strike, and I think, mechanically, this is much cleaner. Razor Sharp Chair Leg could still be used to beef this up...Totally agreed. Exactly in the spirit in which I posted my original comment.
And this is exactly what I am currently considering. It should be noted, that I think that the spiked chain is fine as an exotic weapon. I have considered nerfing it a bit many times, but the feat cost to use the weapon effectively has kept me from doing so... Unless I hear some sort of outcry, this is probably the way I am going to go.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
I appreciate the discussion that has been generated by this thread, and while I would like to specifically comment on a number of the posts, I think it be better if I restated my intent. ... Because a blade on a pole can be used to strike at reach and adjacent foes is somehow less believable that a spiked chain doing the very...
The reason I would say a feat is still the mechanic to use is simple...
You point out, correctly, that the spiked chain is an Exotic Weapon and requires a feat to use it properly. By the same token then the logic should be that every reach weapon should require a unique feat to use it in the many ways you mentioned above. So a fighter that wants to drop his spiked chain for the magic glaive needs to take a new feat for it, and then when he wants to use a Ranseur he would need another feat to use it, and lastly when he wants to switch to a Guisarme he'd need yet another feat to use it.
Or by giving these abilities to all of these martial weapons you make someone not want to ever take a Spiked Chain simply because it requires an extra feat to use while these polearms are just regular martial weapons and do not require a unique. So, either we require unique feats for every one of the weapons, or we need to remove Spiked Chain from exotic weapons.
However, a decent compromise is to allow ONE feat that can be used with ALL of those martial weapons.
And I certainly don't think the Spiked Chain is overpowered when you consider you really need a unique feat to use it properly. That balances it's amazing abilities. IF it did not require a feat I would say your arguement is perfectly sound. But it does already require a unique feat to use it.
So, since the Spike Chain is the model of comparison, what would be wrong with requiring one generic feat to allow reached martial weapons to gain similar abilities to the Spiked Chain that requires a unique feat?
|
|
...would be happy with a simple blurb in the reach weapon description, that all reach weapons can be used as a club at 5' at a -2 penalty, doing 1d6 (1d4 small) bludgeoning with 1x strength modifier. If I have weapon focus (reach weapon), and can then grab another feat to turn that into no penalty and 1.5 strength is probably okay. Then, every feat I take with my longspear, lance or whatever will apply both to the 10' strike and the 5' strike, and I think, mechanically, this is much cleaner. Razor Sharp Chair Leg could still be used to beef this up...Totally agreed. Exactly in the spirit in which I posted my original comment.And this is exactly what I am currently considering. It should be noted, that I think that the spiked chain is fine as an exotic weapon. I have considered nerfing it a bit many times, but the feat cost to use the weapon effectively has kept me from doing so... Unless I hear some sort of outcry, this is probably the way I am going to go.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Spiked Chain is fine as is. The Exotic Weapon Feat required balances it all out.
I have no problem using a reach weapon in close combat as long as it has some penalties it incurs. These penalties can be offset by one additional feat, rather than a unique feat for every weapon.
Something along those lines is what I have been saying- maybe not very well- :)
|
|
I appreciate the discussion that has been generated by this thread, and while I would like to specifically comment on a number of the posts, I think it be better if I restated my intent. ... Because a blade on a pole can be used to strike at reach and adjacent foes is somehow less believable that a spiked chain doing the very...The reason I would say a feat is still the mechanic to use is simple...
You point out, correctly, that the spiked chain is an Exotic Weapon and requires a feat to use it properly. By the same token then the logic should be that every reach weapon should require a unique feat to use it in the many ways you mentioned above. So a fighter that wants to drop his spiked chain for the magic glaive needs to take a new feat for it, and then when he wants to use a Ranseur he would need another feat to use it, and lastly when he wants to switch to a Guisarme he'd need yet another feat to use it.
Or by giving these abilities to all of these martial weapons you make someone not want to ever take a Spiked Chain simply because it requires an extra feat to use while these polearms are just regular martial weapons and do not require a unique. So, either we require unique feats for every one of the weapons, or we need to remove Spiked Chain from exotic weapons.
However, a decent compromise is to allow ONE feat that can be used with ALL of those martial weapons.
And I certainly don't think the Spiked Chain is overpowered when you consider you really need a unique feat to use it properly. That balances it's amazing abilities. IF it did not require a feat I would say your arguement is perfectly sound. But it does already require a unique feat to use it.
So, since the Spike Chain is the model of comparison, what would be wrong with requiring one generic feat to allow reached martial weapons to gain similar abilities to the Spiked Chain that requires a unique feat?
My intention is not to remove feats from the equation entirely. Of course you *could* move all the reach weapons into the exotic weapon category, but I don’t think that is the best solution. As far as the spiked chain goes, I absolutely believe that an exotic weapon feat should be required as it is extremely versatile and powerful and as such should “cost” the user. If I was advocating that the other reach weapons kept their respective stats intact (and gained the additional bonus of the spiked chain) whether they were used at reach or adjacent then I would agree with your statement that all of the reach weapons should require a feat as well. That is not what I want at all. We have the spiked chain, we don’t need any more variations on a theme. The only reason the spiked chain is being used in this discussion is to illustrate the precedent set by it, both as a stats block and a tactical implications example. The leading idea for the other reach weapons is a diminished stat block when used against adjacent foes. The chain does not suffer this same penalty so as agreed should require the feat for its use. Again I am not advocating changing the chain at all. This is not an arms race. I am not trying to make all reach weapons on par with the spiked chain or vice versa. In fact a few of the reach weapons would most likely not receive the changes we are talking about at all (ie. the whip).
|
|
And this is exactly what I am currently considering. It should be noted, that I think that the spiked chain is fine as an exotic weapon. I have considered nerfing it a bit many times, but the feat cost to use the weapon effectively has kept me from doing so... Unless I hear some sort of outcry, this is probably the way I am going to go.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Works for me.
|
|
Spiked Chain is fine as is. The Exotic Weapon Feat required balances it all out.
I have no problem using a reach weapon in close combat as long as it has some penalties it incurs. These penalties can be offset by one additional feat, rather than a unique feat for every weapon.
Something along those lines is what I have been saying- maybe not very well- :)
So we are coming to an agreement? :)
So we are coming to an agreement? :)
Pretty much. I'm happy with the club statblock for the reach weapon haft with a -2 and normal Strength versus 1.5, and I'm very keen on something like Short Haft playing into the 5' use of the reach weapon, requiring Weapon Focus in any reach weapon.
That way, there is a Feat Option which provides one way to improve the 5' strike, and the alternate option of allowing Caught Off Guard and Razor Sharp Chair Leg to further improve the haft strike.
If the Lunge feat makes it into the final rules (10' reach with 1-handed weapons in exchange for -2 to atks), then a "reverse lunge" feat for attacking adjacent targets with any reach weapon would make a VERY nice symmetry... on the other hand, if reach weapons suddenly get to attack adjacent targets at -2 with no feat, then the Lunge option should be stripped of its "feathood" as well and made into a general rule.
In proposing all these new rules, it's easy to lose track of where symmetrical ones already exist...