Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 mrdoobie Jun 28, 2009 9:34:26	Inspired by the "Two-Bladed Sword" thread: Out of all the weapons in D&D, the gyrspike has to be the most ridiculous. How the hell are you supposed to wield it? How the hell are you supposed to sheathe it? I guess you could grip it by one end and swing the other end by the chain, but the rules say you can wield it like a double-ended weapon, so... yeah. Bad physics is bad.
#2 corvusdrake Jun 28, 2009 11:23:23	Inspired by the "Two-Bladed Sword" thread: Out of all the weapons in D&D, the gyrspike has to be the most ridiculous. How the hell are you supposed to wield it? How the hell are you supposed to sheathe it? I guess you could grip it by one end and swing the other end by the chain, but the rules say you can wield it like a double-ended weapon, so... yeah. Bad physics is bad. Isn't this a version of the spiked chain that has a rapier on one end? It's pretty much made for weapon finesse. That helps you consider the moves involved in its use and storing. I'd say it's probably a standard scabbard and the chain itself folds into the top of the scabbard as you push it in. To pull it back out, grab the chain and just whip it up and out.
#3 sockmonkey66 Jun 28, 2009 17:55:10	Sword chucks? :D
#4 mrdoobie Jun 29, 2009 13:37:54	Isn't this a version of the spiked chain that has a rapier on one end? It's pretty much made for weapon finesse. That helps you consider the moves involved in its use and storing. I'd say it's probably a standard scabbard and the chain itself folds into the top of the scabbard as you push it in. To pull it back out, grab the chain and just whip it up and out. The Gyrspike is a bastard sword/flail combination, observe...
#5 ness Jun 29, 2009 15:03:53	I always thought of it as having a longer chain, IE: you hold the bastard sword in your MH, then the chain goes behind your back, and you swing the flail part OH, which has enough slack to work. Still pretty dumb weapon, though.
#6 salla Jun 29, 2009 17:09:02	It's a fantasy weapon. You wield it in such a way that you look cool doing it.
#7 FlashbackJon Jun 29, 2009 17:10:28	You wield it in such a way that you look cool doing it. Try as I might, I cannot imagine such a way.
#8 corvusdrake Jun 29, 2009 19:43:08	Try as I might, I cannot imagine such a way. Indeed, i keep imagining smacking oneself on the back of the head. I'd houserule that this weapon cannot be quick-drawn with a feat or ability.
#9 Janx_14 Jun 29, 2009 20:18:25	What book is this thing from?
#10 jimprofit Jun 29, 2009 23:23:20	Two-Bladed Sword isn't that ridiculous. Specialy if it has gears in which you can press a button to unhinge the blade parts of the sword from their locked holds. (Think primitive lightsaber)
#11 mondos123 Jun 29, 2009 23:25:33	Realistically, how are you supposed to stop the ball from spinning around and hitting you if you throw it on a horizontal curve. I can imagine it coming back and roping around you until it reaches the end of the chain. I guess you either have to hit the target or throw it so it comes down vertically. I'm probably putting too much thought into this. If a character wants to use this, I wouldn't impose any penalties on them. It's fantasy, you should be able to use these kinds of weapons for the cool factor.
#12 entropy_judge Jun 30, 2009 10:02:09	Two-Bladed Sword isn't that ridiculous. Specialy if it has gears in which you can press a button to unhinge the blade parts of the sword from their locked holds. (Think primitive lightsaber) Except then you lose structural integrity of the sword, and any real sword will break the blades. Or remove them, if you're thinking more like the Kurgan.
#13 sanityfaerie Jun 30, 2009 10:22:10	Except then you lose structural integrity of the sword, and any real sword will break the blades. Or remove them, if you're thinking more like the Kurgan. Nah - he's thinking more Darth Maul. Like a bo staff but sharper.
#14 mrdoobie Jun 30, 2009 13:05:15	It's a fantasy weapon. You wield it in such a way that you look cool doing it. Both my gaming group and I find such an idea impossible, mostly because we simply can't imagine anyone using this weapon without accidently committing suicide.
#15 balmas Jun 30, 2009 13:57:04	Gyrspikes and the like are fancy ways of getting yourself killed. I would rule that on a natural 1, the ball comes around and hits you.
#16 entropy_judge Jun 30, 2009 18:11:27	Nah - he's thinking more Darth Maul. Like a bo staff but sharper. What he seems to have said is that the blades are either folded out of the way, or are hollow and can extend. In either case, you lose structural integrity. My comment about the Kurgan is similar: he had a sword that he carried around in a suitcase, and when he got ready to fight, he put it together - three pieces. Hilt, lower half of the blade, and upper half of the blade ... and while I thought it bolted together, it actually just snaps together .... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLhYLlib8U0 In any case, any moving or removable parts in something designed to whack something else really hard is a bad idea, as those are structural weak points. If the Kurgan didn't have the Rule of Cool on his side, his sword would split in half the first time he tried to use it.
#17 roivas Jul 01, 2009 23:36:33	I managed to come up with a way to work this stuff. You just tell the player that if they wield such a weapon they do get hit by the weapon but it doesn't do anything more than scar their face up. To illustrate this point for my players I dug up four weapons out of the Arms & Equipment Guide and had four monsters that used them. I think the funniest was the four armed Sahaugan with four stump knives and improved critical. He would threaten on a 12-20 and get a x3. The gyrspike guy died a painful and hilarious death after cutting up his face but I basically showed which weapons were overpowered and which were useless and stupid. Ironically, the stupid weapons are not always useless, just the gyrspike.
#18 entropy_judge Jul 01, 2009 23:40:54	Bastard Swords can be wielded one-handed. Hold the sword in one hand, the other hand holds the chain half-to-two-thirds the way down. If you're close enough, you swing/toss the ball-and-chain, if you're not, you use the sword and the ball-and-chain is kept in reserve for if you have an open shot. Yes, you have to be strong, fit, and dextrous to use it (ie, I couldn't use it, but Marv from Sin City could, as could Conan).
#19 sanityfaerie Jul 04, 2009 21:48:31	What he seems to have said is that the blades are either folded out of the way, or are hollow and can extend. In either case, you lose structural integrity. My comment about the Kurgan is similar: he had a sword that he carried around in a suitcase, and when he got ready to fight, he put it together - three pieces. Hilt, lower half of the blade, and upper half of the blade ... and while I thought it bolted together, it actually just snaps together .... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLhYLlib8U0 In any case, any moving or removable parts in something designed to whack something else really hard is a bad idea, as those are structural weak points. If the Kurgan didn't have the Rule of Cool on his side, his sword would split in half the first time he tried to use it. Ah. Yes. I had misunderstood his post. I'd been thinking something more along the lines of a pair of swords that you could lock together at the pommels. You still have to figure out a fighting style that actually finds some advantage in the thing (not necessarily an easy task) but you can at least sheathe it relatively easily (in two separate sheaths) when you're done.
#20 entropy_judge Jul 04, 2009 21:59:02	You still have to figure out a fighting style that actually finds some advantage in the thing (not necessarily an easy task) The fighting style for a two-bladed sword is actually pretty easy - just look at spear and bo forms and you've got half of it done. Personally, whenever I picture a two-bladed sword, the middle hilt area is around two to three feet, and the blades are no more than three feet each. You have plenty of room to shift your grip if you need to (including the ability to grasp at the base of one hilt and try to hit with just the other end, giving yourself about a 5 foot reach), the blades are big enough to use effectively, and they're not so big as to seriously inconvenience you once you get used to the fact that they're there. Sort of like the half-dragon in the Monster Manual, but maybe a bit more blade.
#21 madapplejack Jul 05, 2009 12:29:17	Thinking about the two-bladed sword makes me wonder why they didn't take the logical next step and invent the two-handled sword. It looks like a big Y and you hold it like a dowsing rod, then charge at your enemies.
#22 entropy_judge Jul 05, 2009 12:56:37	You mean like a military fork or a trident? Or with longer blades? The former never really caught on because a spear is a simpler (and generally, therefore, better) weapon, and the latter because eventually you'll get to a point where the weapon is impossible to use efficiently - anything above the size of a punch dagger, really - as you're either not getting enough benefit for the extra effort required or the weapon is simply too unwieldy. *EDIT*: Oh, you mean two *handles*, not two blades. Because then you lose versatility and you might as well be using a spear. Having the two handles makes it more difficult to maneuver the blade (how would you block high and then low?) and makes it impossible to use a shield as well.