| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spiked chains used to have reach: it's a deliberate nerf from 3.5. Martials can't have nice things, etc.
Finesseable two-handed is that good: it gives you the better power attack progression while still being able to up your AC and to-hit on one stat. If you ignore "Agile", it's also one of the only ways to get really high base damage while using finesse.
So yes, plenty of people would take "Reduce the crit range of your weapon by 1 step and gain the ability to use weapon finesse with it" as a feat.
Spiked chains used to have reach: it's a deliberate nerf from 3.5. Martials can't have nice things, etc.
Double Chained Kama and the Kusarigama want to say hello.
Spiked chains used to have reach: it's a deliberate nerf from 3.5. Martials can't have nice things, etc.Double Chained Kama and the Kusarigama want to say hello.
No one is saying it was a sensible, effective or even necessary nerf, but it was in fact a nerf.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spiked chains used to have reach: it's a deliberate nerf from 3.5. Martials can't have nice things, etc.
Paizo just enjoys giving entitled people reasons to whine like small children.
...or...the chain as it was before the change was too good compared to other exotic weapons. The change brought the weapon in line with others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's definitely not better than the Fauchard and Falcata, two of the exotic weapons that are generally considered to be worth the feat.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because of something similar to This
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because of something similar to This
Yep. As long as you're a 1/2 ogre and spend 5 feats and can jump back 15' and use the old AoO that allow multiple AoO on a single action and...
Right now it's inferior to martial weapons (Heavy flail deals more damage and better crit and same specials except finesse) and for finesse Elven curve blade just makes spiked chain look sad. It went from a cool option to useless with no reach. And from what I hear the new melee book adds a elven polearm that's finesse-able, so there's two finesse options that make the chain look like crap...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most martial weapons have 2 "points" of advantages over the base weapon. Each point is worth one step improvement on criticals, increasing the base damage by one step, or adding one property. Almost all exotic weapons are 3 points.
The spiked chain, compared to other 2h weapons, has average damage, disarm (1), trip (1) and can be used with weapon finesse (1), making it a three point weapon. This makes it in-line with the average exotic weapon, and a good weapon for the price (25gp). It and the nunchaku are the only flail group weapons that can be used with weapon finesse.
The heavy flail is just unusually strong. Taking EWP (spiked chain) allows you to use Weapon Finesse and deal piercing damage, which are two unusual things for a flail category weapon.
The rapier is also a little strong, but can't be used two-handed. The halberd and ranseur are just strong. Polearms, however, have wooden shafts, which is something of a disadvantage.
It may be that disarm and trip are each only worth 1/2 a point.
This may be an example where something "fixed twice." In 3.5, the spiked chain had reach, and additionally, could be used to strike adjacent opponents. Like, "super reach." I guess when the decision was made to get rid of super reach, it was decided that reach by itself didn't make a lot of sense. Then, the other stats were probably left alone, for legacy purposes.
By the numbers, it seems like it should have gotten a x3 multiplier to give it parity with polearms. However, it is an all-metal weapon, so it may already be considered better than most polearms already.
The worst weapon is the greatclub, which is a zero point weapon which is made of wood, and does the most common damage type for its category.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My take on this issue is thus:
The issue with the 3.5 spiked chain wasn't so much that it had Reach, it's that it had Reach AND allowed you to attack adjacent targets. That meant it had more spaces it could attack into and broad positioning flexibility. I had several characters use the weapon, at least one in a WotC office game. It was overpowered, and frequently people claimed other exotic weapons were under powered because they weren't as good as the spiked chain.
In the early days of Pathfinder, and change from 3.5 was examined and had to be justified. Saying a spiked chain is shorter, and thus not a reach weapon, is easy to explain. saying it's a reach weapon but the laws of physics are different in Pathfinder so it no longer also hits adjacent targets, is hard to explain.
So it was fixed with an easy explanation, that ensured the game wasn't broken with a too-good choice, and players wouldn't just convince GMs to let them import the spiked chain whole cloth (which is what would have happened if it had simply been excluded).
It took a good hit from the nerfbat. The best Exotic Weapon in 3.5e, now it's so bad it's not worth a feat.
My take on this issue is thus:
The issue with the 3.5 spiked chain wasn't so much that it had Reach, it's that it had Reach AND allowed you to attack adjacent targets. That meant it had more spaces it could attack into and broad positioning flexibility. I had several characters use the weapon, at least one in a WotC office game. It was overpowered, and frequently people claimed other exotic weapons were under powered because they weren't as good as the spiked chain.
In the early days of Pathfinder, and change from 3.5 was examined and had to be justified. Saying a spiked chain is shorter, and thus not a reach weapon, is easy to explain. saying it's a reach weapon but the laws of physics are different in Pathfinder so it no longer also hits adjacent targets, is hard to explain.
So it was fixed with an easy explanation, that ensured the game wasn't broken with a too-good choice, and players wouldn't just convince GMs to let them import the spiked chain whole cloth (which is what would have happened if it had simply been excluded).
If reach + adjacent was the issue, a 'fix' like how the meteor hammer would have been preferable instead of making it an exotic with the abilities of a middle-ground martial weapon. As it stands, the chain vs the elven curved blade or the Heavy flail is no contest.
About the ONLY reason to ever take it is a 1/2 orc with chain fighter that wants a 2 handed finesse weapon without taking the exotic weapon feat. That'll pretty much lock you into putting agile on it, meaning about only advantage to it's being 2 handed is better power attack... That's a mighty narrow niche...
|
If all you want is a finessable two handed weapon, the elven curve blade is much better. If you want a reach/close weapon, you have the double chain Kama, the kurasigama, the meteor hammer, the dwarven dorn dergar, the whip, and the kyotesu shoge. While the intent was to nerf the 3.5 spiked chain, there have been several other weapons added to the game since then that have made the nerfed version obsolete.
No one is saying it was a sensible, effective or even necessary nerf, but it was in fact a nerf.Spiked chains used to have reach: it's a deliberate nerf from 3.5. Martials can't have nice things, etc.Double Chained Kama and the Kusarigama want to say hello.
I was responding to "martials can't have nice things". Kusarigama might not be finessable, but its still a 2 handed double weapon that has reach and can strike adjacent, as well as being able to trip and grapple.
It was too good in 3.5, so it was nerfed in PF during the conversion.
That's the reason.
|
I will say the reach/note reach wouldn't be as bad in Pathfinder as it was in 3.5 anyway. (The weapons that have both in Pathfinder are so awkwardly written that you need to expect table variation.)
The reason it was so very OP in 3.5 (and it was) - was because of how you could abuse the AOOs. Remember - while in Pathfinder - the max AOOs for movement is 1 per opponent - that wasn't a limitation in 3.5.
So - picture this - there's an enlarged character with a spiked chain, Combat Reflexes, and Spring Attack. You charge him - he gets 3 AOOs as you come in (possibly with a trip/disarm attempt or two mixed in). During his turn he uses Spring Attack to hit you once and move 30 feet away.
During your turn - you charge him again - and he gets 3 AOOs.
The abuse was that it let them duel - getting a 4-to-1 ratio on attacks (all at full BAB). There were ways to get even more AOOs out of it - I think powerful build or something gave you an extra. I can't remember.
And against mooks - they had their dex in the sky - so they got three swings at virtually every mook as they came in.
However - the build was nerfed in three different ways.
1. Spiked chain lost reach.
2. AOOs from movement limited to 1.
3. Spring Attack nerfed. (can't be used against adjacent target)
With the other two - did spiked chain really need to be nerfed? Maybe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could always just put reach back in on any games that you run for the spiked chain. I doubt the chain is going to make a whole lot of difference anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason it was so very OP in 3.5 (and it was) - was because of how you could abuse the AOOs. Remember - while in Pathfinder - the max AOOs for movement is 1 per opponent - that wasn't a limitation in 3.5.
Actually it was. "Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent."
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm#provokinganAttack ofOpportunity
I wrote a LOT of 3.5 game material, and this was always the rule.
|
The hilarious thing about all of this for me?
The artwork of the spiked chain in the 3.5 players' handbook made it look like a double weapon. I could never wrap my head around why this thing had reach in the first place.
Now, in PF, it no longer has reach... but it still isn't a double weapon! What gives?!
They decided that since the spiked chain was a good exotic weapon that they would nerf it and make a couple exotic weapons to take its place as viable exotic weapons.
|
|
The reason it was so very OP in 3.5 (and it was) - was because of how you could abuse the AOOs. Remember - while in Pathfinder - the max AOOs for movement is 1 per opponent - that wasn't a limitation in 3.5.Actually it was. "Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent."
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm#provokinganAttack ofOpportunity
I wrote a LOT of 3.5 game material, and this was always the rule.
You sure that wasn't errata'd in later?
|
|
The reason it was so very OP in 3.5 (and it was) - was because of how you could abuse the AOOs. Remember - while in Pathfinder - the max AOOs for movement is 1 per opponent - that wasn't a limitation in 3.5.Actually it was. "Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent."
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm#provokinganAttack ofOpportunity
I wrote a LOT of 3.5 game material, and this was always the rule.
You sure that wasn't errata'd in later?
Pretty sure that was always there. 3.5 games just kinda sucked at knowing about & enforcing the true rule.
The reason it was so very OP in 3.5 (and it was) - was because of how you could abuse the AOOs. Remember - while in Pathfinder - the max AOOs for movement is 1 per opponent - that wasn't a limitation in 3.5.Actually it was. "Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent."
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm#provokinganAttack ofOpportunity
I wrote a LOT of 3.5 game material, and this was always the rule.
You sure that wasn't errata'd in later?
Improved and greater Combat Reflexes from dragon allowed a 2nd and 3rd AoO. Hold the Line was thought to be a diffent trigger (charge entering square) and not movement (moving out of a square). So right there you can rack up 4 AoO. Most likely the comic is Hold the line, Combat Reflexes and spring attack.
|
|
Improved and greater Combat Reflexes from dragon allowed a 2nd and 3rd AoO. Hold the Line was thought to be a diffent trigger (charge entering square) and not movement (moving out of a square). So right there you can rack up 4 AoO. Most likely the comic is Hold the line, Combat Reflexes and spring attack.The reason it was so very OP in 3.5 (and it was) - was because of how you could abuse the AOOs. Remember - while in Pathfinder - the max AOOs for movement is 1 per opponent - that wasn't a limitation in 3.5.Actually it was. "Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent."
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm#provokinganAttack ofOpportunity
I wrote a LOT of 3.5 game material, and this was always the rule.
You sure that wasn't errata'd in later?
Right! I knew there was a way to get it done. Forgot about those feats. (Been awhile since I've played 3.5 :P)
It was always the rule in 3.5, though not clear. As of the Rules Compendium, it was settled law.
Right! I knew there was a way to get it done. Forgot about those feats. (Been awhile since I've played 3.5 :P)Improved and greater Combat Reflexes from dragon allowed a 2nd and 3rd AoO. Hold the Line was thought to be a diffent trigger (charge entering square) and not movement (moving out of a square). So right there you can rack up 4 AoO. Most likely the comic is Hold the line, Combat Reflexes and spring attack.The reason it was so very OP in 3.5 (and it was) - was because of how you could abuse the AOOs. Remember - while in Pathfinder - the max AOOs for movement is 1 per opponent - that wasn't a limitation in 3.5.Actually it was. "Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent."
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm#provokinganAttack ofOpportunity
I wrote a LOT of 3.5 game material, and this was always the rule.
You sure that wasn't errata'd in later?
LOL you and me both. I had to look it up myself because i KNEW there was a way to get multiple AoO in 3.5 but couldn't remember off the top of my head. ;)
Breaking down each option (all are listed as two-handed melee weapons):
Dorn Dergar, dwarven 50 gp 1d8 1d10 ×2 — 15 lbs. B reach
Type: Exotic
Benefit: By adjusting the slack of the chain, the weapon can be used either with or without reach.
Action: Changing between using it as a normal weapon and a reach weapon is a move action.
Can be used either as a two-handed reach weapon or a two-handed weapon without reach, but not simultaneously (and it takes a move action to switch between the two).
Double-chained kama 8 gp 1d4/1d4 1d6/1d6 ×2 — 4 lbs. S Double, monk, reach, trip
Type exotic
This weapon comprises a pair of kama connected with an 8-foot length of chain. The wielder can attack as if armed with a single kama in each hand or extend the chain to make a single reach attack. By swinging the chain, the wielder can whip the kama about to disarm or trip opponents. Furthermore, if one of the weapons is dropped, the wielder can retrieve it as a free action by pulling on the chain.
Has the double weapon property, which means it can attack with each/either end. If attacking with both ends, it doesn't have reach ("...as if armed with a single kama in each hand..."); if attacking with reach, it can't simultaneously attack adjacent targets ("...extend the chain to make a single reach attack;" reach attacks, unless specifically mentioned, can't be used in close).
Kusarigama 12 gp 1d2/1d4 1d3/1d6 ×2 — 3 lbs. S or B Double, grapple, monk, reach, trip
Type exotic
This weapon has a single kama or sickle held in the off hand, attached by 10 feet of fine chain to a weighted metal ball. The sickle can be used to make trip attacks, jabs, and blocks, while the ball is whipped around at high speeds and then smashed into the opponent, or used to tangle an opponent's sword or spear, allowing the wielder to then attack with the sickle.
Functionally the same as a double-chained kama, but with a flail/mace head on one end instead of a second kama. I'd treat it the same, other than one end having different damage and adding the grapple weapon quality.
Kyoketsu shoge 6 gp 1d3 1d4 ×2 20 ft. 1 lb. S or P Disarm, grapple, monk, reach
Type exotic
This weapon consists of a foot-long double-edged blade, with another smaller, curved hook-blade sticking out the side like a rooster's spur. The blade is strung to a large iron hoop with a 10-foot length of rope. The blade can be used as an off-handed melee weapon or thrown like a dagger, while the rope and circlet can be whipped around and swung at opponents as a bludgeoning reach weapon.
Seems similar to a kusarigama at first, except with a dagger/hoop instead of a kama/ball. However, the text reveals some differences: "The blade can be used as an off-handed melee weapon or thrown..." (note, the kyoketsu shoge lacks the double weapon quality, so this needs to be explicitly mentioned) and "...while the rope and circlet can be whipped around and swung at opponents as a bludgeoning reach weapon." It looks like you can attack at both reach (with the hoop) and in close (with the blade; explicitly as an off-hand attack), but you have to use two-weapon fighting (or attacking with each hand separately using normal iteratives); damage/critical properties are poor, however.
Meteor hammer 10 gp 1d6 1d8 ×2 — 10 lbs. B Reach, trip
Type exotic
This weapon consists of one or two spherical weights attached by a 10-foot chain. You whirl the weights and wrap them around an opponent's body. If you succeed at a trip attempt with a meteor hammer, you can drag your opponent 5 feet closer to you rather than knocking her prone. You may use this weapon in two different ways: In meteor mode you use it as a double weapon, while in fortress mode you cannot use it as a double weapon but gain reach and a +1 shield bonus to AC. Switching between these two modes is a free action decided at the start of your turn.
Basically, this is Pathfinder's version of the 3.x spiked chain. It does similar damage (1d8 vs. 2d4) and can be used either at reach or adjacent (just not simultaneously). Note, you can use one end as a two-handed weapon against adjacent targets in meteor mode (per the normal double weapon property).
Spiked chain 25 gp 1d6 2d4 ×2 — 10 lbs. P Disarm, trip
Type exotic
A spiked chain is about 4 feet in length and covered in wicked barbs. Some have metal hoops to use as handgrips. You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a spiked chain sized for you, even though it isn't a light weapon.
Yes, it's been drastically weakened. The 3.x version had all of the above properties, plus the ability to attack simultaneously at reach and adjacent as a two-handed weapon (with all of the bonuses from 1 1/2 x Str mod and Power Attack to damage). There was a reason that spiked chain was pretty much the first choice of weapon for a tripping specialist in 3.x (reach + adjacent + trip property + two-handed to boost damage bonuses).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because Jason didn't like 3.5's trip builds... So he nerfed tripping (and maneuvers in general) as much as he could. Feats, weapons, AoOs, the maneuver themselves... It all got a huge beating from the nerf bat.
It's one of the reasons why some people mock Pathfinder by calling it D&D 3.5 - Caster Edition.
Improved and greater Combat Reflexes from dragon allowed a 2nd and 3rd AoO.
Anyone else find it ironic, given the topic, that the Paizo feat was the one that caused the issues?
If you are trying to justify the change based on game mechanics, then you are on the wrong track. The spiked chain didn't lose the reach for any game balance issue, it lost it because Jason didn't like it having reach. Period.
Finesse was not a valuable quality in 3.5 for a spiked chain, since almost all builds were designed around tripping, and tripping in 3.5 was always done by using Str for the attacker. Focusing on Dex over Str in those builds would be counter-productive, not to mention it required an additionally feat in a feat heavy build already. It should be noted that the trip feat was more powerful in 3.5 as well.
The fact that the trip mechanics and feat were nerfed made any legitimate mechanics argument for nerfing the spiked chain's reach irrelevant. No the reach wasn't nerfed for mechanic reasons, it was done for purely aesthetic reasons.
From what I'm reading it sounds like the Spiked Chain just use to be the Whip with a higher damage dice and 3 saved feats. Is that correct?
Also, what's this about moving through multiple threathened squares not provoking multiple times? Does PF have similar language or is it a 3.5 thing?
Also, what's this about moving through multiple threathened squares not provoking multiple times? Does PF have similar language or is it a 3.5 thing?
It's quoted above. "Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent."
Because the original 3.5 spiked chain which had all the above plus reach was simply too damm good a weapon to the point where it was THE SINGLE weapon to take. and then munchkin to death with.
There's a little thing called "overkill". "Hey, this weapon is currently insanely good—better make it suck now to make up for lost time" is a good example.
I'm actually a tad confused why the guisarme hasn't been mentioned. It does the same damage as a spiked chain, gets reach and trip, and has a x3 crit. Hell, it's even cheaper. Best of all, it doesn't require a feat tax.
The spiked chain as it stands kinda sucks. Why would I take it when I could take an elven curve blade? Or, hell, just stick with a rapier and later grab Weapon Specialization with the feat I saved. The average damage is actually half a point better, not even counting the crit.
Surely there's a middle ground between "lol this sux" and "omgwtfOPnerfplox".
I think it was because it had reach but could be use adjacently and had trip. But for the price of a feat I dont think that is a problem. I might houserule it back.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They probably could have removed the ability to hit adjacent targets. That is kind of dumb for a reach weapon to have that. I think that is the only change needed really?
I would agree if the weapon did not cost a feat. If a weapon cost a feat I want something special from it. For most reach weapons I would say it is dumb for them to be able to hit someone that is adjacent because they have a fixed length, but a spiked chain should have variable length as you decide. That allows you to let more of the chain go for reach, or let less of the chain be slack so you can hit people close to you.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would agree if the weapon did not cost a feat. If a weapon cost a feat I want something special from it.
Pretty much. If exotic weapons are only given that designation because they are, well, exotic, and not because they offer something special mechanically or are in some way superior than martial weapon, then why do they cost a feat again? You're essentially charging for flavor at that point. It's like saying your fighter can't have a beard without first taking the feat Beard Proficiency. It literally provides you with no benefit beyond saying that you are "special," (which confers it's own disadvantages gear wise) but not special enough to have a weapon that isn't identical mechanically to one that doesn't cost a special feat to use.
So yeah, throw s#%+ like the spiked chain into the martial weapons category or make it more than "identical or worse than martial weapon X."