| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
According to paizo, a quarterstaff is "a simple piece of wood, about 5 feet in length."
No, no, no, no, no!
A five-foot long staff is just a staff, the kind someone might use for walking. Yes, it can make a nice weapon.
The english short staff was about eight feet long (ideally sized exactly to suit the user). You could use it in two fighting styles - half staffing (holding the middle half of the staff and hitting with both ends - a double weapon) or quarter staffing (holding it between a quarter of the way along and half way along - a reach weapon). A skilled user could easily outmatch most swordsmen (there's a good story of an englishman, Richard Peeke, who outfought three top spanish rapier wielders at once). You could also use the staff to trip opponents. In addition, it's relatively quick (a swift action?) to switch between halfstaffing and quarterstaffing.
The english long staff was a blunt pole weapon, typically twelve to fifteen feet long, striking with the end. It's also a great peasant weapon - the best way to face off against mounted attackers for no cost. It can be braced.
The pathfinder stats for "quarterstaff" seem to be more for a japanese style fighting staff - much shorter than the english short staff.
Maybe for half-staffing with the english short staff, the existing stats are ok? (1d6/1d6, x2, B, double, monk) but we should also add (trip). We should also be able to use it quarter-staffing, which would be something like (1d8, x2, B, reach, trip).
Long staff would be the same as quarter-staffing, except that reach goes up from 10 feet to 15ft (?) and we could brace it. (1d8, x2, reach (15ft), trip, brace).
Having a good quality staff made (or making one) will cost a little more than the 'free' cost of the pathfinder 'quarterstaff' though; but only a few gp at most.
Given that getting the most out of the short staff requires quite a bit of training, I think it would be martial weapon.
Thoughts?
True staff-fighting is an art. The staff in DnD/Pathfinder is the version wizards lean on. So yes, having a "serious" fighting staff makes sense, and your rules seem reasonable.
This is probably an exotic weapon, and damage is still rather modest, but it has lots of exiting options, as you outline.
There is actually an oriental version of this in Tai Chi - bambo staff fighting. These staves are also very long, and unlike the English version, it is flexible and has moves using this flexibility to advantage.
The problem here is the naming. There is a terminology for staves which I can't recall on the top of my head, but I think the Pathfinder staff would be a half-staff as you said, while a quarter-staff is paradoxically longer (if I recall). For Pathfinder, calling them staff and long staff should probably do, with log staff being this new exotic weapon.
Actually, the Pathfinder staff is a decent weapon - it is a simple double weapon, and only does 1 less damage than a proper double weapon. It also has some special feats that only work with the staff.
Sounds nice and would make the quarterstaff master feat much more appealing. But I would not give the quarterstaff reach. Not even all polearms have reach.
And the longstaff should have 10ft, not 15.
Sounds nice and would make the quarterstaff master feat much more appealing. But I would not give the quarterstaff reach. Not even all polearms have reach.
And the longstaff should have 10ft, not 15.
The english short staff is described historically as being 8-9 feet in length, and with the 'quarter-staffing' method of use, you strike with the end.
The paizo rules longspear is described as 8 feet in length, and is ruled as a reach weapon. By that logic, an 8-9 feet staff - if used to jab like a spear - should also be a reach weapon.
(I only went for 15 feet reach on the long staff, however, because it felt that if the 8-9 foot staff was reach weapon - therefore threatening at 10 feet - then the 12-15 foot staff had to have a longer reach. By comparison, other statted polerams that paizo consider reach were shorter - Guisarmes about 6-9 feet, Ranseur 7-8 feet. I think 15 feet reach is fine though; a 12-15 foot staff is SO impractical outside of combat as to be a real pain dungeoneering, and you can't threaten closer than that distance, so the long staff is a one-trick wonder really. Its best use in real life was in wide-open spaces against mounted attackers - and this probably continues with this version.)
This is probably an exotic weapon, and damage is still rather modest, but it has lots of exiting options, as you outline.
I'm not sure what the criteria for 'exotic' should be; it was a common and respected weapon among soldiers in medieval England; though less common elsewhere in Europe. It wasn't used as much by knights/noble warriors because of its relative ineffectiveness against heavy armour (and also perhaps its 'common' image).
The problem here is the naming. There is a terminology for staves which I can't recall on the top of my head, but I think the Pathfinder staff would be a half-staff as you said, while a quarter-staff is paradoxically longer (if I recall). For Pathfinder, calling them staff and long staff should probably do, with log staff being this new exotic weapon.
Originally the 8-9ft weapon was the 'english short staff', and half-staffing and quarter-staffing were methods of using it. As time went on, 'quarterstaff' became the name for the weapon, especially (confusingly) when it was used in the 'half-staff' method.
1) Rename the weapon from Quarterstaff (technically a "manner of wielding" rather than a type of weapon) to Short Staff. It will have the existing stats of the Quarterstaff and the Double and Reach features with a special caveat that, when the Reach feature is used, it loses Double for the rest of the turn and vice versa. It retains the Monk feature.
2) It is a Martial weapon and, as an Immediate Action, you can switch between Reach and Double properties
I agree so far ...
If you lack Martial proficiency with the weapon, it can be used as a Simple weapon instead, but loses the immediate-action switch ability.
The greater length and the variety of ways of wielding makes this more complicated than a spear or club, so I'd keep it as martial only.
3) It is still free, but comes with the Fragile feature (masterwork removes Fragile).
I'd charge 2 or 3 gp for it ... structurally it's basically a longspear without the tip. Maybe charge it as 5 gp if the two ends are shod in iron - as they sometimes were. And as a well-made longspear isn't fragile, neither should a short staff be. A longspear only costs 5 gp.
The Long Staff would be as follows:
1) 1d8 x2 damage. Reach and Brace as normal.2) Martial weapon and, when wielded by a proficient user, you may benefit from the Lunge feat, even if you don't have or qualify for it. If you lack Martial Proficiency, you may wield it as a simple weapon but you lose the Lunge ability.
3) Free, but comes with Fragile feature (again, mwk removes Fragile).
Not sure on this; as I said I'd give it a longer (15 ft) reach - balanced heavily by the fact it can't threaten anything at 5 or 10 ft range, and is a pain to carry around ... actually I can't see adventurers ever using it (but they may see it used by a commoner militia). Given it's harder to make a solid 15ft staff, but these are likely prepared in bulk and therefore not to a high standard, I think free + fragile for a long is probably fair.
As an aside - we could also add a pike (if a short staff is a longspear without a tip, then a long staff is a pike without a tip) ... same 15 feet size and reach, same absolute pain to live with. Long spear is 5 gp, 9 lbs, 1d8, x3, brace, reach, so a pike should be 10 gp, 18 lbs, 1d8, x3, brace, reach (15ft))
Dot.
No weapon in Pathfinder has a reach of 15 ft. The whip pretends to have, but as it doesn't threaten the area, it is a meaningless distinction. 10 ft. is well enough. If you give it 15 ft., you'd have to introduce a bunch of new 15 ft. and 20 ft. reach weapons, as the long staff certainly is not the furthest-reaching melee weapon ever.
Also, I maintain it has to be an exotic weapon - the ability to shift from double weapon to reach weapon mandates this. Compare the dwarven dorn dergar [http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/dorn-dergar-dwarven], also an exotic weapon. It fits well as a culture-specific weapon. If you feel it fits in a particular locale, you can make a trait that least people from this region gain proficiency in it.
No weapon in Pathfinder has a reach of 15 ft. The whip pretends to have, but as it doesn't threaten the area, it is a meaningless distinction. 10 ft. is well enough. If you give it 15 ft., you'd have to introduce a bunch of new 15 ft. and 20 ft. reach weapons, as the long staff certainly is not the furthest-reaching melee weapon ever.
Also, I maintain it has to be an exotic weapon - the ability to shift from double weapon to reach weapon mandates this. Compare the dwarven dorn dergar [http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/dorn-dergar-dwarven], also an exotic weapon. It fits well as a culture-specific weapon. If you feel it fits in a particular locale, you can make a trait that least people from this region gain proficiency in it.
I guess the 15 foot staff (or the pike: 15 foot spear) can't easily be given pathfinder stats ... they definitely have a 15 foot range BUT don't threaten an area all around - it would likely take a full round to turn around and threaten the opposite direction with one (and if with a group of similarly armed people, it would be impossible). Because pathfinder combat doesn't give combatants facing directions, the current rules can't support the longest weapons in a meaningful way. Given that they're niche weapons, I guess it's easier to drop the extra-long versions altogether rather than needing a whole ream of rules to handle them.
You've talked me around on the exotic weapon; the story I mentioned (Richard Peeke) shows it was regional; the englishman was an expert in the weapon and referred to it as being a country of his weapon, but the spaniards who were trained soldiers were clearly ignorant of its potential and wouldn't have known how to handle it.
So we have:
Short staff - exotic weapon.
"The short staff is a straight wooden shaft, about 8 feet in length, capped at both ends with iron or steel."
5 gp, 8 lbs, monk weapon.
This can be used either
- 'half-staffing' as a double weapon: 1d6/1d6, x2, B, double
- 'quarter-staffing' as a two-handed reach weapon: 1d8, x2, B, reach
As an Immediate Action, a proficient wielder may switch between half-staffing and quarter-staffing properties, however this switch may only be made once per round. For a wielder unproficent in the short staff, switching requires a Move Action.
(Note: that physically the striking end can be moved through greater distance when quarter staffing, therefore the damage potential is higher giving a d8 instead of a d6).
(Keep the existing quarterstaff as it is; it could be renamed to just 'staff' but that would only add confusion for people that already know it in the game. There's clearly room for the 5 ft staff to stay as a weapon; lighter and provides a walking support for those feeble wizards. It's also less overtly martial than the short staff - in diplomatic situations etc. where weapons can't be carried, a regular staff may still be taken (remember Gandalf and Theoden?) but a short staff couldn't.)
You can only take one swift/immediate action each round, so no need to mention that. The ability to switch to reach as an immediate action is powerful indeed, but you'd then not be able to shift back until AFTER your next round (check the rules on immediate/swift actions).
Calling the longer staff "short staff" might be etymologically correct but is just too counter-intuitive. "Long staff" is the natural name of the weapon in Pathfinder.
Might be interesting to compare this to the Irish shillelagh tradition - does it go back to a common root?
While I'm normally not too stressed at Pathfinder (and D&D before it) weapons not really resembling or mimicking the wide variety of weapons and weapon styles available in the world... I have always wanted to see more things done with staves and the potential of a staff so this is a very cool read.
Now fix it so you don't have to pay a three-feat tax, have a minimum Int, and be at least a 6th level martial class (or higher level other class) just to be able to use a staff as a trip weapon.
The idea you need to go through all that before you figure out, "Hey, this is a long stick! I can probably trip people with it really well!" has always boggled me.
Thanks for the clarification/reminder on Immediate Actions.
Yes, 'short staff', while historically correct, as a name only makes sense in the presence of the huge 'long staff'.
Let's call it a 'war staff'.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who was aware of this... LOL
Good reminder Kazaan, actually makes more sense that way.
I miss hideously fatal traps. And poisons. And spells.
In the real world, all that is probably true.
On Golarion, apparently, staves are one size fits all.
That and, of course, the weapon descriptions are just fluff. You want your stick longer or shorter? *poof* it is, through the magic of reflavoring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where does the "buck and a quarter" staff fit in?