khaleb83's page

Weel, I know that the stick and the staff are the basis of many martial arts; some of them consider it even better than a sword. So? We are talking about rules. I repeat it another time: I have no problem to consider it as a staff in my own game, but now I'm asking for a RAW answer. And RAW, if it's not called quarterstaff or club, it's not a simple weapon. The "0 cost" argument is not valid: no money doesn't mean no manifacturing.

@Happler: sure? What I can read doesn't mean that, but just that you can find many types of staves (for shape, materials etc). Where can you read that your interpretation of the rule is the right one? (I don't want to be polemic, but I can't see anything saying that the GM must choose one).

@Zog: sorry but... what does it mean? I could fight at Chuck Norris with the chair I'm sitting on, if I'd train enough. This doesn't make my chair a simple weapon, when we are talking about rules. A walking stick CAN be a club, cudgel or even a quarterstaff, but it's not true that it MUST be those weapons. A weapon written in the weapons list is a simple/war/exotic weapon, a weapon not listed is an improvised weapon.

Well, I really appreciate this. I know that the scope of the game is not having the perfect respect of the rule; I starded by sayng that I'd no problem to consider a magic staff as a quarterstaff in every situation.
But I think that the rule 0 is not the correct answer for a RAW doubt, that should be totally legitimate - I don't mind to use a quarterstaff as a weapon (but a Staff Magus could), I don't mind to use te perfect rule.

I just want to know what's the parameter to decide is a magic staff can be used as a quarterstaff, as a cudgel or just as a walking stick (that is not a proper weapon). The rule says that it can be one of the three, and the description of some magic staves lists weapon statistics.
So, I assume by logic that if no weapon statistic is listed, the magic staff can't be a weapon, because I can't say if it's a weapon or not (it could be a walking stiff, with a clear difference between weapon and improvised weapon).

I repeat: the "spirit of the game" or the "does it really mean?" arguments are logic and good, and I use them in my games... but I'm now looking for a RAW answer.

The argument of the descrpition of the staff is very interesting, but still does not answer the question: is just a master's choice? So, why some magic staves need the weapon statistics, while some other don't?

Well, double/not double weapon, monk/non monk weapon, simple/improvised weapon, according to me are not just details, but concrete things that make the three kind of staff really different (RAW I mean). Similar does not mean interchangeable.
And according to che magic staff creator argument... this does not involve the case of a staff found in treasure.
I can see that quote as the only RAW argument, but I need it's source to present it on the original board where the question was born ;)

Thanks a lot, it was just what I was looking for... I don't agree about the "virtually identical" and with your arguments: a walking stick could be a quarterstaff doesn't mean it is. Buth the RAW answer is clear... could you tell me where is it from, so that I can report this to the other ones I was dissussing about this?

Well, I still explained that in the long run I'd have no problem about that, but i strictly need the RAW answer. And according to my point, on RAW rule says that a magic staff is a quarterstaff, but only that it could be (1 possibility over 3), and some magic staves got specific statistic like quarterstaff - why should I RAW consider the not-specified ones like that?

PS: yes, quarterstaff is one of that weapons... but a staff is not necessarely a quarterstaff even if a quarterstaff is a staff.

Sorry, I must be more precise: that's not a problem in my group (I sayd that I had no problem to consider every magic staff as a quarterstaff too), but a question on an italian board; I'm strictly looking for a RAW answer because I am sure that if the rule says "functions as a walking stick, a quarterstaff or a cudgel", the master should not be free to choose the more convenient option (RAW I mean) when there's a deep difference between the three kind of staff...

Thanks but I'm afraid this won't help: in my own games I considered it a quarterstaff too (I'll use staff for magic items and quarterstaff for weapons, to be clear), but I need to know the exact interpretation of the rules. The Craft Staff feat doesn't say about stick of wood but it doesn't about quarterstaff, too: it only says "raw materials", so the source about the right use is still in the quarterstaff descrption - yet the "walk stik, quarterstaff OR cudgel": is it possible that the GM should just choose what kind of staff a magic staff is? I'm sure that this cannot be a right answer...

(Please, I don't want to seem rude, but I can only be quite direct in speech ;) )

Hi,
I'm an Italian player, so please forgive me for my grammar.
I got a great doubt about magic staves: are they basically quarterstaff when there's nothing about that in their description, or I must consider them as improvised weapon?
I think that the right answer should be the first option, because the rules do not say that a staff is a quarterstaff, but just that it "functions as" a walk stik OR a quarterstaff OR a cudgel: this should mean that if there's no specific description about that, I must consider the staff as a walk stick (the only one option that does not need clear weapon statistics).

Thanks for your help.