|
Hey all,
So, this is a little problem that I discovered back in 3.0, then 3.5, and one that we just changed in House Rule, but, here it is...
Quarter Staves... The off hand strike is considered a Light weapon (When two weapon fighting), but not the primary one.
Here's where it gets funny
Farnum Snoddgrass (Yes, my character's name was Farnum Snoddgrass) is a Rogue who uses a Q-Staff. He has the Feats 2 Weapon Fighting, as well as Weapon Finesse. A Dex of 18 (+4) , and a Str of 13 (+1). Base of +5, last time I played him, IIRC....
Here's how his attacks worked out
Standard strike would read +4/+4 (5+1,5+1, but -2 each for 2WF, off is a light weapon).
TWF: +4/+7... the off hand has a higher attack than the primary one, the one that he has been using all of his life, his main hand.
I understand that the designers probably just called the off-hand a Light,so that folks wouldn't be penalized too much, but they couldn't have been thinking things through, regarding Weapon Finesse.
So, I suggest that perhaps the Quarterstaff could be added to the list of Finesse-able weapons? I mean, if the Spiked Chain (One of the most unwieldy weapon concepts ever...) is such a Finesse thing, then surely the humble staff?
Thanks for reading, and any comments are welcome.
-Uriel
I understand that the designers probably just called the off-hand a Light,so that folks wouldn't be penalized too much, but they couldn't have been thinking things through, regarding Weapon Finesse.So, I suggest that perhaps the Quarterstaff could be added to the list of Finesse-able weapons? I mean, if the Spiked Chain (One of the most unwieldy weapon concepts ever...) is such a Finesse thing, then surely the humble staff?
Whether or not it's appropriate for the spiked chain to be finessable, I don't think there's any anomaly with the quarterstaff. The rules for quarterstaff don't say that the second attack actually is a light weapon or is counted as a light weapon in general, just that you fight two-weapon style with the penalties associated with the off-hand being light. So, no weapon finesse with any attack from the staff by the 3.5 rules and no anomaly.
|
|
Whether or not it's appropriate for the spiked chain to be finessable, I don't think there's any anomaly with the quarterstaff. The rules for quarterstaff don't say that the second attack actually is a light weapon or is counted as a light weapon in general, just that you fight two-weapon style with the penalties associated with the off-hand being light. So, no weapon finesse with any attack from the staff by the 3.5 rules and no anomaly.
The Quarter Staff's off-hand is usable as a light weapon. Light weapons are Finesse-able. Treated as a light weapon means that all conditions, be they bonus or penalties, would apply, as if a Light Weapon.
The TWF penalties are only -2,as a Light Weapon. Just how (since the off-hand meets the requirement for being a Light Weapon, when used two handed) do you come to the supposition that it isn't Finesse-able (As a Light Weapon)?-Uriel
PS: Your hat has a bit of 'Anamoly' to it as well..but I like that odd picture. :D
The rule as written in the Beta PDF is:
"A quarterstaff is a double weapon. You
can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, but if
you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated
with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were
using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon." (p. 105)
To my knowledge, all other dual weapons have the same comma-ridden sentence. As I read it, it means the weapon is treated as light for the purposes of interaction with Two-Weapon Fighting only. There's also the fact it explicitly cites that you take penalties, not receive any bonuses.
If one does read it as you say, then the orc double axe, the dwarven urgrosh, dire flail, double-bladed sword, etc. are all treated in the same fashion, and most of those (to me, at least) defy the concept of being light at all.
There's also a qualifier about wielding the weapons one-handed and only being able to use one end or the other without anything explicitly mentioning that the ends operate any differently.
(ever seen a karate staff kata competition?
A staff should be finessable if used as a double weapon
counting both ends as ligth weapons
you still need two weapon figthing anyways
(ever seen a karate staff kata competition?
A staff should be finessable if used as a double weapon
counting both ends as ligth weapons
you still need two weapon figthing anyways
Just because a highly trained expert has alot of skill with a weapon does not mean that accuarcy comes from innate, natural born dexterity. It comes from lots and lots or training. Staff kata's that you watch are a result of high BAB, not finessable high DEX.
The staff is far too long, and weighs much much more than any other fineeseable weapon.By and large the finesseable weapons are very small. The rapier being the largest, but even then not morein weight than a few pounds, at that.
The staff is a bludgeoning weapon and thereby does its damage by speed of strike/centrifugal force, not dextrous pokes. In karate Kata, those aren't dextrous pokes, those are high force thrusts by the by.
(ever seen a karate staff kata competition?
A staff should be finessable if used as a double weapon
counting both ends as ligth weapons
you still need two weapon figthing anyways
Just because a highly trained expert has alot of skill with a weapon does not mean that accuarcy comes from innate, natural born dexterity. It comes from lots and lots or training. Staff kata's that you watch are a result of high BAB, not finessable high DEX.
The staff is far too long, and weighs much much more than any other fineeseable weapon.
By and large the finesseable weapons are very small. The rapier being the largest, but even then not morein weight than a few pounds, at that.The staff is a bludgeoning weapon and thereby does its damage by speed of strike/centrifugal force, not dextrous pokes. In karate Kata, those aren't dextrous pokes, those are high force thrusts by the by.
I think allowing a Quarterstaff (Bo Staff) usable as a finesse weapon is a good idea for monks. Just as Eberron allows monks to use swords.
I imagine the reason a Q-Staff is treated like any other double weapon is for game balance. Would it be abuseable to allow Q-staff to use weapon finesse?
As for kata discussion, I think of a finessable weapon as one that you can use your innate speed and accuracy vs. innate strength. I see high force thrusts as a factor of speed (and therefore dexterity) not strength. I am going to go out on limb here and say that most weapons use strength to batter through the opponents defense. Even if it is not true, that is the basis of the D&D combat system giving you a bonus to hit. Finesse weapons use dexterity to go around the defenses or hit an opening in the defenses. The rules only give this quality to light weapons, but I could imagine other weapons having this quality. I don't think of a bo staff as beating its way past a sword. I see it as a dexterous thrust to the throat (Asian bo staff here not a European Q-Staff), so I would like to allow it to use weapon finesse. But again, is this an abuseable rule?
Note that in reality both strength and dexterity would affect your ability to successfully attack, but we are forced to only use one or the other in D&D. I argue that all light weapons should automatically use DEX since STR does not come into play. Weapon Finesse should allow you to use DEX with a weapon that normally allows STR. It is a feat that should allows you to train yourself to use a weapon different than its normal abilities. But than you would need to create more rules that say a two-handed weapon (or maybe a Heavy weapon designation) can not use weapon finesse.
Well again, the Str/DEX argument is more of one of how normal people use a weapon and not the uber trained. The majority of us would swing the the Q-staff pretty much the same as a club.
IF you can get TIRED using a weapon you are using more str than dex/agility. Most of us would get just as tired using a staff as we would a club.
Daggers used by those less trained are clearly being used as smaller short swords using str. Those of us trained in actual knife fighting tecnhniques clearly use a knife/dagger differently and then I would say its clearly a dex thing.
However I would say a q-staff would be more finessable than a spiked chain. But the chain is an anomoly in and of its self and is beng discussed in another thread.
The Q-staff is technically a different weapon (length and weight) than the Bo.
Bo is much longer and its technique is more similar to spear fighting, the Q-Staff is pretty much held like a kiyak paddle and smacks people at either end in a paddling motion.
In DnD the staff is really meant to handle multiple designations (Bo,Quarter, wizards staff bonking people on the head etc) and is thus more generic than the real world version ofit.
Weapon fineese is powerful tho, and the reason it is restricted to light weapons is because letting a player use the same stat for attack as they use for defense can be unbalancing. Therefor light weapons dont actually cause alot of damage.
This way we dont have people gettign +4 to attack and AC from the same stat and doing d8 or better damage.
The same arguement for why the bo staff should be finessable would then apply to oriental polearm fighting style, oriental broad swords (scimitars) and spears.
What you are seeing demonstrated once again is skill, not natural born in dexterity.
There is a big difference between ease of use an years of training, although they can look similar.
If you want weapon fineese with a quarter staff why not have one that is feycraft? Then it IS a light weapon (even though it only does d4 damage instead of d6)
Whether or not it's appropriate for the spiked chain to be finessable, I don't think there's any anomaly with the quarterstaff. The rules for quarterstaff don't say that the second attack actually is a light weapon or is counted as a light weapon in general, just that you fight two-weapon style with the penalties associated with the off-hand being light. So, no weapon finesse with any attack from the staff by the 3.5 rules and no anomaly.
The Quarter Staff's off-hand is usable as a light weapon. Light weapons are Finesse-able. Treated as a light weapon means that all conditions, be they bonus or penalties, would apply, as if a Light Weapon.
The TWF penalties are only -2,as a Light Weapon. Just how (since the off-hand meets the requirement for being a Light Weapon, when used two handed) do you come to the supposition that it isn't Finesse-able (As a Light Weapon)?
As I said, because there is no text that says that the quarterstaff is treated as a light weapon under any circumstances other than using the two-weapon table entry for light weapon in off hand. Using that comparably favorable table doesn't imply that the secondary attack is actually a light weapon, finesse-ready, and non-power attackable. All it implies is that is uses the 2-weapon penalty associated with light weapons.
|
|
Farnum Snoddgrass (Yes, my character's name was Farnum Snoddgrass) is a Rogue who uses a Q-Staff.I just want to know if Farnum Snoddgrass is a gnome, halfling, or really unlucky human.
Haha, are you referring to the name?
One of my fellow player's wife has Farnum as her maiden Last Name. I asked what their other roomate's last name was, and was told Snodgrass.
I happen to like Farnum Snodgrass as a name...in a World of Hrolfgars, Beruthiel (Does every elf use the old Yiddish 'el'...are the all 'Of God'?), Dwarves with variants of Durin,Borin,Gimli,Balin,Zalin, ad infinitum... Anyways, he was a Human,btw.And, he was rather lucky...
-Uriel
A quarterstaff in D&D isn't really a quarterstaff.
It is a generic weapon that has 1d6 damage and a crit multiplier of x2. It doesn't have anything else particularly "special" about it- except that you can dual wield with it. It costs the same to enchant both ends as it does to have two weapons.
So what are we really talking about?
Lets compare it to 2 one handed, light weapons and see if we imbalance things by allowing it to be "finesse"able.
We have the Sickle (generic 1 handed light melee weapon)
1d6/x2 (slashing)
We have the Light Mace
1d6/x2 (blunt)
For the point of comparison I'll go with the Light Mace. It doesn't get a special listing (since it is nothing special) and shares the same damage category as the Q-staff.
Q:Staff:
1d6/x2.
Light Mace:
1d6/x2
Unless I'm missing something, there really is no rules "issue" with making the Quarterstaff Finessable, as it's functionally equivalent to allowing them to do so with the Light Mace. (or arguably the sickle).
(also interesting to note that the 3 classes most likely to dual wield (fighter, rogue and monk can all use the staff and while the monk can't use the mace or sickle, they Can use the hand axe which is 1d6/x3- so the staff is actually a downgrade)
-S
Finessable quarterstaff sounds right to me. Nothing abusable there and it makes sense.
How is the Q-staff different from other dual-weild weapons? Like the two bladed sword?
The two bladed sword is essentially wielded in the same manner as the q staff, why not allow that to be finessable too?
Then where do we stop?
Hand axe? light pick? Club? why can't ehy be finesseable?
The Qstaff is a far cry from the rapier, which is finessable, yet scimitar (which has the same game mechanics as a rapier) is not finessable.
The finessable weapons should stay as they are with no mods.
Monks are more likely to fight with their unarmed attacks anyway for much more of their career, and their fists arent fineesed either, so its not like we are helping the monk. We are more likely to help human rogues with qstaffs than anything, by finessing the quarter staff.
How is the Q-staff different from other dual-weild weapons? Like the two bladed sword?
The two bladed sword is essentially wielded in the same manner as the q staff, why not allow that to be finessable too?
Then where do we stop?
Hand axe? light pick? Club? why can't ehy be finesseable?
Well, the hand axe and light pick are light weapons, so they ARE finesseable. And I always pictured a quarterstaff weilder relying on the speed of the relatively light wooden weapon to do damage rather than the weight or cutting edge (such as with a club or two bladed sword).
That's why I think a quarterstaff should be finessable.
How is the Q-staff different from other dual-weild weapons? Like the two bladed sword?
The two bladed sword is essentially wielded in the same manner as the q staff, why not allow that to be finessable too?
Then where do we stop?
Hand axe? light pick? Club? why can't ehy be finesseable?Well, the hand axe and light pick are light weapons, so they ARE finesseable. And I always pictured a quarterstaff weilder relying on the speed of the relatively light wooden weapon to do damage rather than the weight or cutting edge (such as with a club or two bladed sword).
That's why I think a quarterstaff should be finessable.
how is speed generated? Agility? or Power?
The speed of a thrust or strike is based on the strength of the weilder, not his dexterity.
Speed in that sense is force, running through tires quickly andnot tripping on your face would be considered dexterity.
Using the tip of the quarter staff to play simon says would be dexterity.
But power/speed is not a basis of dexterity.
You yourself thought the hand axe and light pick were not finessable, but they are. Also, a spiked chain is finessable and I'm not sure how generating speed wouldn't be ultra-important for that weapon. Based on the hand axe, light pick, and spiked chain being finessable then yes I still think a quarterstaff fits the profile.
You yourself thought the hand axe and light pick were not finessable, but they are. Also, a spiked chain is finessable and I'm not sure how generating speed wouldn't be ultra-important for that weapon. Based on the hand axe, light pick, and spiked chain being finessable then yes I still think a quarterstaff fits the profile.
I thought they were in the club range (because honestly they would be the same weight)
Spiked chain being finesseable is based on the fact that the length of chain is not solid, there for "aiming" it to strike isnt based on the principles of leverage orforce so much as they are based on well two things "grace" and "not getting tangled up in the dang thing yourself"
The spiked chain its self is its own anomoly, but is most like a set of nunchucks or a bolas.
How many times have you seen a parody of someone wrapping a bola around their own face (ewoks come to mind) or smakcing themselves in the back with nunchucks (think jackie chan did this in more than one movie)
Those things are based on Dex, the chain is just a giant version of it (I think it should require a minimum 17 dex just to wield)
Gladiators of old used to fight with a combo of trident and net. The net clearly needed a natural dex to wield an ther for woul be a fineese weapon.
But what about that trident? Why is that not fineese-able? Under your argument it clearly strikes for with speed?
What about a spear?
How is a spear different than a quarter staff? I have seen many martial art spear demos that use the spear just like a staff, striking with the blunt end in the same way as the staff and turning it to slash or thrust with the spear tip, just like one would fight with a staff?
Handaxe or pick being finessable is just retarded, they are both clearly inertial weapons like a club or sword.
Daggers, rapiers, short sword (which is a stretch in my opinion) or even sabre/katana I could see because the weapons are more based on placement and keen edges or vital area striking.
But there wouldnt be any picking or axes, or staffing at my table with the finesse feat.
AndI certainly dont see Jason making the staff finesseable because it would open up that whole arguement "why the staff and not the club, scimitar,etc etc)"..Its meant for light ONE handed weapons.
What about a spear?
How is a spear different than a quarter staff? I have seen many martial art spear demos that use the spear just like a staff, striking with the blunt end in the same way as the staff and turning it to slash or thrust with the spear tip, just like one would fight with a staff?
Yes, I agree a spear should be a double weapon that you can finesse with just like the quarterstaff. For both of these weapons I'd have a blurb stating that if you use the weapons as a double weapon then the weapons are finessable, but if you use the weapon as a two handed weapon, then they are not.
A quarterstaff in D&D isn't really a quarterstaff.
It is a generic weapon that has 1d6 damage and a crit multiplier of x2. It doesn't have anything else particularly "special" about it- except that you can dual wield with it. It costs the same to enchant both ends as it does to have two weapons.
So what are we really talking about?
Lets compare it to 2 one handed, light weapons and see if we imbalance things by allowing it to be "finesse"able.
We have the Sickle (generic 1 handed light melee weapon)
1d6/x2 (slashing)We have the Light Mace
1d6/x2 (blunt)For the point of comparison I'll go with the Light Mace. It doesn't get a special listing (since it is nothing special) and shares the same damage category as the Q-staff.
Q:Staff:
1d6/x2.Light Mace:
1d6/x2Unless I'm missing something, there really is no rules "issue" with making the Quarterstaff Finessable, as it's functionally equivalent to allowing them to do so with the Light Mace. (or arguably the sickle).
(also interesting to note that the 3 classes most likely to dual wield (fighter, rogue and monk can all use the staff and while the monk can't use the mace or sickle, they Can use the hand axe which is 1d6/x3- so the staff is actually a downgrade)
-S
the monk can use both ends of a staff in a flury or part of a flury off blows as described in the 3.5 monk class description
that is why i think it should be finessablein reality it is definetly not a strenght weapon
in DND it was used primarly by mages and considered a weak weapon
in the hands of a monk or practiced character it should be a facinating weapon not just a thin club with reach
Personally, if the rules were changed JUST FOR MONKS, I could agree.
I think monk weapons should be: Dagger, scimitar, spiked chain, staff, spear, crossbow, club, hand/throwing axe, shurkien, guantlet.
Any of those in the hands of a monk should be able to add STR AND DEX (no feat required) for the purposes of getting a "to hit" modifier (with the exception of the crossbow of course).
I'd also let monks use light shields. (shaolin monks frequently use small shields)
Id drop all those crazy exotic weapons for monks (seriously who uses iron arrows as stabbing weapons?)
Id also let the monk add 1/2 level to damage with melee weapons.
and choose one weapon as a "bonded" weapon (similar to arcane bond) that he can do all his ki/monky things with.
This would serve to keep weapons in the monk for the long run and not just be something monks carry around for the first 6 levels.
But as for the weapon fineese feat? Nah cant see it. Monk special ability? definately.
Id also let the monk add 1/2 level to damage with melee weapons.
Woah, there's a throwback to 1st edition. I'd agree with if it replaced the strength bonus to damage. Not sure I'd want it stacking though.
It doesn't seem right that a quarterstaff should be able to utilize Finesse. The weapon is a large stick, essentially a double club. Can you finesse a club? Heck no!
This just doesn't make sense.
You've never seen someone use Escrima sticks, have you? Totally finessable. And no, that's not the training of the wielder, it's the nature of the weapon.
The quarterstaff should be too. Yes, it is a long stick, and seems like it should be ungainly. Wielded in two hands, however, it becomes much more like two smaller sticks that happen to be attached to each other.
|
It doesn't seem right that a quarterstaff should be able to utilize Finesse. The weapon is a large stick, essentially a double club. Can you finesse a club? Heck no!
This just doesn't make sense.
You've never seen someone use Escrima sticks, have you? Totally finessable. And no, that's not the training of the wielder, it's the nature of the weapon.
The quarterstaff should be too. Yes, it is a long stick, and seems like it should be ungainly. Wielded in two hands, however, it becomes much more like two smaller sticks that happen to be attached to each other.
An Escrima is nothing like an actual quarterstaff. Its more flexible and thinner. A quarterstaff is a fairly thick strait stick with a more considerable heft than an escrima. It is a big club. :p
Even if stat wise an Escrima is like a quarterstaff the rules pretty clearly state that its too big to use with finesse and isn't one of the exceptions.
eh...
ever seen darth mole use the double ligth saber
its a good think George has a better understanding of combat than some off the posts i see here
Every movie i have ever seen about someone figthing with a staff
is based on speed and dex (finess)
i chalenge you to find a movie where a super strong guy uses one hand on the staff and strikes a blow (strenght)
except maybe the hulk
ever seen darth mole use the double ligth saber
its a good think George has a better understanding of combat than some off the posts i see hereEvery movie i have ever seen about someone figthing with a staff
is based on speed and dex (finess)i chalenge you to find a movie where a super strong guy uses one hand on the staff and strikes a blow (strenght)
except maybe the hulk
Darth Maul is a fictious character with mystic (force) powers. The "blade" of a light saber is (as written in the books) weightless energy. Darth Mauls lightsaber would be in this game a Two Bladed sword and NOT a Staff. Likely two blades of sunblade make.
Which brings up another question a weapon made of brillant energy BE fineeseable?So essentially, Jedi and Sith are really manipulating handles.
But if you read the books, the saber combat is done with the force. Which explains why in Return of the Jedi, Darth Vader could not simple "muscle" through Luke skywalker when skywalker blocked his saber, they were using their "minds" in the struggle,not their muscle.
The weapon cannot be properly used by anyone not trained in the force, a non force trained person is more likely to kill themselves with the weapon than another, also written my Lucas in the books.
The exception the the Rule was Gen. Grievous who had mechanical super dexterity, and even he spent years learning saber fighting styles from Dooku, Who I may add could easily beat grievous when ever he felt like it.
So although a machine could duplicate through inhuman dexterity, light saber combat, it was still second fiddle to a master of the weapon using the force.
Maul was, as written in the Book Epsiode III revenge of the Sith, a MASTER of several saber fighting styles as we has trained by Sidious from youth as most Jedi were of the same age, with the exception that Sidious focused on Mauls combat rather than developing more mystic capabilites in his apprentice (like force lighting).
What Maul did was not done out of second nature, or a built in ability.
Why this was taking up space in a book that chronologically happens 20 years after mauls death? I dunno. It was part of Sidious thinking about the difference between his two apprentices, Dooku and Maul.
For the record, Lucas writes the Sidious considers Dooku much more of a graceful and fineese fighter and Maul was more ferocious and anger driven.
What you see in the movie however, is something extremely interesting.
In the beginning of the movie A) when you first see Maul introduced, and B)when Maul engages in single blade lightsaber combat with Qui Gon on Tatooine.. that is infact the orginially cast actor doing those scenes.
The original actor is much taller than the figure of Maul you see in the final battle when Maul fights Qui Gon and Obi Wan, Why?
Simply put, the ACTOR could NOT do the scene properly. Lucas relieved the actor and had the subject matter expert, an actual Japaneese Samurai and sword and staff master, made up and put in the scene.
The poor japanese guy was hired oringinally to train the actors for their saber fighting, specifically the Maul actor.
This substitution,allowed Liam Niessen and Ewan Macgregor to have tutilage IN the scenes from their actual instructor as WELL as allow the instructor to fight the way you actually see in the film.
This would NOT have been possible without, literally a samurai doing the stunts.
It is also intersting to note, that much of the "flurry of movement" and "dance" that was in the final fight as portrayed by Maul was "ad lib" from the Japaneese Samurai Instructor and not originally in the script or story board. (basically the guy was having fun)
All Mauls lines were taken out in this scene (where he was supposed to taunt and curse at them) because maul would have ended up sounding like Mr. Miagi from karate kid. Then they would have had to go back and dub over his voice (much in the same way the did with Darth Vader in other films with the voice of Jamer Earl Jones). There is no insight in anything written or recorded as to WHY they didnt do this.
However as I have pointed out before, the RESULT of Maul Fighting with a Staff/two bladed sword, could ONLY be accomplished by an extremely skilled master, and is not infact an inherit quality of an easily manipulated weapon.
And for the record, I can smack anyone I want up side the head one handed with a Bo staff. However,I cannot do so with a quarter staff, an oaken cudjel is much much heavier than the bo. I might be able to do it once, but it would be telegraphed and easily dodged.
No one can shoot an M60 machine gun one handed like Rambo either, thats also a movie stunt.
I find it intersting, that younger generations are so ready to beleive anything they see in the movies as a version of reality and/or use it to proove a point. Intersiting indeed.
Pendagast, can you send me to a site that talks about Ray Parks being replaced by the Japanese instructor (if it isn't only in a book)? My google came up bust and I was curious to learn more. :\
However as I have pointed out before, the RESULT of Maul Fighting with a Staff/two bladed sword, could ONLY be accomplished by an extremely skilled master...
And that's why we play this game, to become the hero...the powerful wizard, the honorable and evil smiting paladin, the master of weapons.
The idea of a quarterstaff master is compelling and works much better when you imagine it as someone like this japanese samurai using the weapon with his dexterity than having Conan dancing around trying to use a staff that way.
And besides, D&D isn't about reality or there wouldn't be wizards and clerics. It's about fantasy adventure.
Pendagast, can you send me to a site that talks about Ray Parks being replaced by the Japanese instructor (if it isn't only in a book)? My google came up bust and I was curious to learn more. :\
Jade, saw it on TV talking about the making of, Also read it in an article in a Fan-zine. We are talking 1999-2000 vintage, so Im not sure where to find 10 year old material.
The reason why I remember it is a) I watched the dang movie 15 times just for that reason to see all the "differences"b) to topic was extremely interesting and "explained" alot.
Watch the movie again tho, Dath Mauls Face is different in the later fight and he loose about a foot of hieght (compare vs. qui gon in the tatooine fight and then the naboo battle)
I noticed that the first time I ever saw the movie (wait wasnt darth maul tall and skinny?) but had no idea why.
The Maul actor (Ray Parks) wasn't "fired" as I undertstood it, just that the battle wasnt getting filmed to satisfaction and cuts kept getting interupted by the instructor having to keep going in and correcting things, they were falling behind in shooting schedule, so they just dressed little Japeneese guy up like Maul.
You're so busy watching cool fight, that you dont notice he's short and has a different face (hard to notice all red/black and horny).
On another note, I was thinking about this. Gandalf fights one handed with a qaurter staff (well "staff" anyway) in Return of the King during the battle of pelinor fields.
This breaks game mechanics (although I guess he could have just taken insane attack penalties to fight two handed sword and staff).
But it goes to show, that the stuntman (Im sure that wasnt Ian) was "capable" of swinging the staff one handed.
Interesting to note that ALL doubles, stuntmen and anyone who was involved in fight scenes in that movie were all "at least" blackbelts, as stated in the making of.
I remember Gandalf having a specific guy as a double who was some kind of uber horse and sword master, but I dont remember the guys name.
Would gandalfs staff attacking be considered "melee with a quarter staff" or a magical strike or smacking someone with a staff of striking (magical weapon) and there for only need to make a touch attack?
I dunno.
Although obviously someone "good" can clearly swing THAT staff one handed.
However as I have pointed out before, the RESULT of Maul Fighting with a Staff/two bladed sword, could ONLY be accomplished by an extremely skilled master...And that's why we play this game, to become the hero...the powerful wizard, the honorable and evil smiting paladin, the master of weapons.
The idea of a quarterstaff master is compelling and works much better when you imagine it as someone like this japanese samurai using the weapon with his dexterity than having Conan dancing around trying to use a staff that way.
And besides, D&D isn't about reality or there wouldn't be wizards and clerics. It's about fantasy adventure.
Well the arguement there wouldnt be "clerics or wizards" without fantasy, depends on how much you beleive in religion.
The Bible has numerous stories of healing and raising the dead (no doubt where the idea for some of the spells came from)And practicioners of Wicca, and other similar religions clearly beleive in the powers of witches.
While others just think it's a bunch of hooey. But that is really an unwinnable arguement (no matter what side you are on)
The "typical" quarter staff, as mentioned numerous times IS NOT the Bo staff of japaneese origin.
The Q-staff and its fighting style is based on a more robin hood/little john type fight.
Little john was clearly a big "Conan" type.
The Q-staff is shorter than a typical man, the bo staff taller than a typical man (and substantially lighter)
Now as far as fantasy goes, The game is based mostly on European style combat than on the oriental style, and the "generic" weapon q-staff in the game is NOT a monk specific weapon.
It can easily be used by an 80 year old wizard in the fashion that Gandalf uses it (for the most of the trilogy).
The vision of people building arcane casters with high dex (both for more ac and better attack with a q-staff) is exactly what game designers try to prevent.
So the idea of a "staff master" is much better portrayed by a character with a high BAB than that of one with a high dex.
It is (mechanically wise) muh easier to get a high BAB than it is to keep raising ones dexterity to get "good" with a staff.
What would the "visual" difference be, between two characters with a +5 to hit with a staff?
Person A is a 1st level fighter with an 18 dex (+5 attack if the q-staff is finesseable and the feat is taken)
Or Person B who is a 4th level fighter with a 10 dex and the weapon focus Q-staff (also a +5 attack bonus)
I would say person B would be more of a "staff master" due to his training. Can you visualize an actual difference between to two identical +5 attack bonuses, however?
What about an Ogre smashing a Q-staff over your head? Different visual right? Same bonus however.
How you visualize the attack bonus is of little matter, only your imagination.
Want to be a staff master? Make a fighter that takes weapon focus, specialization, greater weapon focus and greater weapon specialization in q-staff.
AS I said before, the game mechanics of making ONE stat, work for both AC bonus and attack bonus can be unsettling and unbalance if allowed on too many weapons.
If you allow it on qstaff, where do you stop?
I can make the same arguement you make for the q-staff on the two bladed sword (given the maul example)
So should I be able to get a dex bonus on two bladed sword?
What about Katana?(which is a bastard sword)
Spear?
Scimitar?
You can easily break the balance once the snowball starts rolling down the hill.
As for wanting sorcerors or even rogues to be "staff masters" and claiming your "vision" of them is ruined because they get lousy bonuses to attack with the weapon, isnt a good reason to change the game mechanics or rules, because you are having a visualization problem.
The fact is a 10th level fighter with a 10 dex who has never in his career lifted a q-staff could pick up your 5th level rogues q-staff and beat him silly with it at much better proficency than he himself could.
And that same 10th level fighter could have an 11 str to boot.
Now if you have two rogues one with an 18 str, and one with an 18 dex.
They both square off with Q-staves. As far as the game is concerned, the strong rogue would be "better" with the weapon and hit more often than the quick and wily rogue.
Why? Because afirst level rogue is not using that weapon like Darth Maul or a 6th level monk, hes using it more like Babe Ruth and just railing the other rogue with it.
But as much as the strong rogue can "hit better" with the q-staff, the dextrous rogue is that much harder to hit (dex bonus to ac) so the difference between the two combatants is equal. One swings harder the other blocks quicker and easier.
That would be a classic example of the staff dual between robin hood and little john.
Someone trying to fire a bow,throw a dagger or whatnot is going to be naturally better at it if they have a high dex.
This isnt true of something like a quarterstaff, no matter how dancey and twisty you imagine the fighting style, its more along the lines of HIGH BAB and years of training than it is ofjust being good at it the first time you pick it up.
i made myself a walking staff witch is about the size of a qwarterstaff
and i played with both bo-staff and my staff and i can tell you the weapon is finessable because of actual play combat
after a couple of swings you get to the point that it as nothing to do with strength but that is in reality not DND
by the way the short staff in martial arts still exists:
( (4.18 foot) long wooden staff, used in some Japanese martial arts. The martial art of wielding the jo; is called jo-jutsu Also, aiki-jo; is a set of techniques in aikido which uses the jo; to illustrate aikido's principles with a weapon. The jo; staff is shorter than the bo staff;. Today, the jo staff; is still used by some Japanese police forces.)
if it is used in Aikido it should be finessable since Aikido uses the strenght of its oponent not its own strenght
I've also learned techniques with walking canes for the elderly
finess doesn't mean you are a master but you have found a good way to use your weapon other than bash someones head with it
I guess we could argue for ever on this simple topic
but i dont see why it would be bad to the game if it was finessable
maybe combined with an other feat
any weapon is deadly in the rigth hands
Ray Parks was the stunt man who replaced teh other actor who was going to play maul.Pendagast, can you send me to a site that talks about Ray Parks being replaced by the Japanese instructor (if it isn't only in a book)? My google came up bust and I was curious to learn more. :\
Ohhhhhhh! Thanks, Studpuffin, studliest of all waterfowl.
So, if I'm getting this right (and there's a great chance I'm not), an actor was to play DM, but Ray Parks was brought in to replace him, but then, despite Parks martial excellence, he still didn't have the sword fighting down like the kenjustu choreographer, so they thought it easier to just let that guy do the final scene?
Now as far as fantasy goes, The game is based mostly on European style combat than on the oriental style, and the "generic" weapon q-staff in the game is NOT a monk specific weapon.
Here's a quote from the SRD:
"When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham)."
Right there, a quarterstaff is a special monk weapon. YOU are the one with the wrong vision of what a quarterstaff is.
OK...
Just to clarify, whether or not one thinks the QStaff *SHOULD* be a "Finesse" Weapon,
according to the SRD/Beta RAW, it is NOT. The wording for it's use as a Double Weapon is basically the same as how ALL Double Weapons are treated in 2WF.
IMO, I don't think it should be a Finesse Weapon.
If there WERE a Finesse-able Staff, I think it would be an Exotic Weapon.
Of course, Monks are proficient in several Exotic Weapons, so I don't see why such a "Monk Staff" shouldn't be on THEIR list, but as mentioned, such a Weapon SHOULDN'T be on every Wizard's Simple Weapon proficiency list.
Ray Parks was the stunt man who replaced teh other actor who was going to play maul.Pendagast, can you send me to a site that talks about Ray Parks being replaced by the Japanese instructor (if it isn't only in a book)? My google came up bust and I was curious to learn more. :\
Ohhhhhhh! Thanks, Studpuffin, studliest of all waterfowl.
So, if I'm getting this right (and there's a great chance I'm not), an actor was to play DM, but Ray Parks was brought in to replace him, but then, despite Parks martial excellence, he still didn't have the sword fighting down like the kenjustu choreographer, so they thought it easier to just let that guy do the final scene?
My understanding is that Lucas realized that the stuntman (Ray Parks) made for a better Darth Maul than the actor originally hired. Actor gone, Ray Parks in. Prior to that role, he was an "unknown" stuntman specializing in martial arts action. He was the replacement referred to in the media, and he completed all the action scenes. It was quite a career defining moment because he used it to launch an acting career that he likely otherwise would never have gotten.
See this
Couple questions above his picture
Hmm, think I'm going to put my Google-fu up to 5 ranks now.
It doesn't seem right that a quarterstaff should be able to utilize Finesse. The weapon is a large stick, essentially a double club. Can you finesse a club? Heck no!
This just doesn't make sense.
You've never seen someone use Escrima sticks, have you? Totally finessable. And no, that's not the training of the wielder, it's the nature of the weapon.
The quarterstaff should be too. Yes, it is a long stick, and seems like it should be ungainly. Wielded in two hands, however, it becomes much more like two smaller sticks that happen to be attached to each other.
An Escrima is nothing like an actual quarterstaff. Its more flexible and thinner. A quarterstaff is a fairly thick strait stick with a more considerable heft than an escrima. It is a big club. :p
Even if stat wise an Escrima is like a quarterstaff the rules pretty clearly state that its too big to use with finesse and isn't one of the exceptions.
eh...
My comment on Escrima sticks was referring to your comment on clubs not being finessable.
|
|
@ Melayl
The club is still too big. I wouldn't think the escrima might even do as much (maximum) damage in real life, but its not quite the way the club is designed. Its a stick for whomping your opponent with a mighty wallop.
What I don't get is why we're associating speed with dexterity in this case. A stronger (as in power control) man is more likely to have faster attacks than a flexible guy IRL.
My understanding is that Lucas realized that the stuntman (Ray Parks) made for a better Darth Maul than the actor originally hired. Actor gone, Ray Parks in. Prior to that role, he was an "unknown" stuntman specializing in martial arts action. He was the replacement referred to in the media, and he completed all the action scenes. It was quite a career defining moment because he used it to launch an acting career that he likely otherwise would never have gotten.
Thanks for the fill-in and the link, Daeglin!
Based on the rules of the game, no a q-tip is not a finessable (god, is that a real world
It isn't, but anything is better than finessifiable. Oh let's not let that happen.
Ray Parks was the stunt man who replaced teh other actor who was going to play maul.Pendagast, can you send me to a site that talks about Ray Parks being replaced by the Japanese instructor (if it isn't only in a book)? My google came up bust and I was curious to learn more. :\
Ray Parks doesnt sound like he's Japanese.
IS he short?I know there was lengthy discussion about the maul replacement in the naboo fight being a) much shorter than the original actor b) being a samurai/sword master/staff master c) being originally hired just for consulting/training and not actually to be IN the movie.
I MAY have assumed "samurai" meant "japanese". Is Ray Parks significantly shorter than the orginal actor and/or Liam Niessen? Maybe it was him and I "assumed" the guy was japanese?
Based on the rules of the game, no a q-tip is not a finessable (god, is that a real world?), but to reason and logic it could be. Whether or not Dnd made it to be based on strength or dexterity is irrelevant, the fact is Both the wizard and the monk gain proficiency with it, and the monk uses it differently then ye olde man of arcane lore.
I think for a monk it should be allowed, but for anything else (except maybe for a Shaman from OA) it should not be allowed. In fact, I think it should be a monk abiity to replace his str bonus with his dex bonus with some of his weapons, q'tip included.
I think Dnd fails at incorporating both western ideas of the staff, as an "old man's walking stick" and "pupil disciplinary tool", and a deadly poker of the eastern monks.
My point exactly, Im Fine with it being a monk feature (like basically getting a free two weapon fighting feat) But not in the case of "wizard-fu-do-jong-ki"
Like wise the jo staff (which I have never seen one 4 feet long!) which is essentially the same as the escrima stick is, well mechanically a club: Wooden stick go bonk.
But lets say your monk/fighter is conceptualized as this said escrima fighter, simple,discuss it with the DM and have him let you finesse clubs with this charater.
There is no reason to make a new weapon "escrima stick" or "jo staff" OR change the weapon fineese feat.
But I will put my vote in for the monk is going to use the staff in such a way that should let it be used in the finesse way, (but only monks) and that he should be able to deflect arrows with it and all that other monlky stuff too.
Limiting all that ki/special feat stuff to "monk weapons" has always been stupid. Its a monk feature, not the feature of the weapon.
Ray Parks was the stunt man who replaced teh other actor who was going to play maul.Pendagast, can you send me to a site that talks about Ray Parks being replaced by the Japanese instructor (if it isn't only in a book)? My google came up bust and I was curious to learn more. :\
Ray Parks doesnt sound like he's Japanese.
IS he short?I know there was lengthy discussion about the maul replacement in the naboo fight being a) much shorter than the original actor b) being a samurai/sword master/staff master c) being originally hired just for consulting/training and not actually to be IN the movie.
I MAY have assumed "samurai" meant "japanese". Is Ray Parks significantly shorter than the orginal actor and/or Liam Niessen? Maybe it was him and I "assumed" the guy was japanese?
I guess short is relative. Parks is 5'9" so he is "short" by Western fight standards perhaps. I can't remember the other actor's name, but they kept him to do Darth Maul's voice - Parks only did the visuals. Actually, in all his roles, Park's has never done the voice work. Makes me wonder if his voice is... unique sounding. His next big role is SnakeEyes in the upcoming GIJoe movie - again, no voice work...
Anyway, sorry for the threadjack folks.
Oh and Parks is British.
i made myself a walking staff witch is about the size of a qwarterstaff
and i played with both bo-staff and my staff and i can tell you the weapon is finessable because of actual play combat
after a couple of swings you get to the point that it as nothing to do with strength but that is in reality not DNDby the way the short staff in martial arts still exists:
( (4.18 foot) long wooden staff, used in some Japanese martial arts. The martial art of wielding the jo; is called jo-jutsu Also, aiki-jo; is a set of techniques in aikido which uses the jo; to illustrate aikido's principles with a weapon. The jo; staff is shorter than the bo staff;. Today, the jo staff; is still used by some Japanese police forces.)
if it is used in Aikido it should be finessable since Aikido uses the strenght of its oponent not its own strenght
I've also learned techniques with walking canes for the elderly
finess doesn't mean you are a master but you have found a good way to use your weapon other than bash someones head with itI guess we could argue for ever on this simple topic
but i dont see why it would be bad to the game if it was finessable
maybe combined with an other featany weapon is deadly in the rigth hands
So by your definition and vastly limited martial expereince, Aikido is dexterity based?
And its sub-style Hapkido then? What's that?Aikido is more Philosophy, trying to define it with DnD stats is actually impossible,
However it is clearly more Wisdom based than dexterity based.
Aikido, like VingTsun (or Wing Chung depending on what part of china) kung fu is basically designed for weaker, smaller, infirm people to use against stronger, more youthful, larger, more phsyically imposing opponents. But it certainly doesn't mean the practicioners have high dexterity either.
I chose Wing Chung (which I have been a student of since 1998) because I did not posses a high degree of agility. Before that I studied Kenpo for many years, since then I have learned alittle bit of Krav, Scars and Jiu-jutsu. I dare say if I attempted something along the lines of Tae Kwon Do or Shaolin Kung Fu, I would do more hurting myself than the other guy.
Anyway, your assumptions of what means "dexterity/agility" are heavily flawed.
Most older/infirm people dont have very good dexterity (naturual) at the same rate they lack strength.
And a statement like "Any weapon can be deadly in the right hands" Points to training, which Ive been syaing all along, not innate born aptitude.
Ray Parks was the stunt man who replaced teh other actor who was going to play maul.Pendagast, can you send me to a site that talks about Ray Parks being replaced by the Japanese instructor (if it isn't only in a book)? My google came up bust and I was curious to learn more. :\
Ohhhhhhh! Thanks, Studpuffin, studliest of all waterfowl.
So, if I'm getting this right (and there's a great chance I'm not), an actor was to play DM, but Ray Parks was brought in to replace him, but then, despite Parks martial excellence, he still didn't have the sword fighting down like the kenjustu choreographer, so they thought it easier to just let that guy do the final scene?
Im willing to bet Ray Parks is the guy i was talking about (I wrongfully assumed the guy was japanese, it happens some times), after all Im pulling it from memory 10 years old....its likely I have a mistake here and there.
But the point is one in the same, The replacement expert (with years of training) was needed to complete the scene, If the Darth Maul weapon was Fineeseable, anyone with a high degree of agility could have pulled off the scene. Instead, it required an expert/master.
i made myself a walking staff witch is about the size of a qwarterstaff
and i played with both bo-staff and my staff and i can tell you the weapon is finessable because of actual play combat
after a couple of swings you get to the point that it as nothing to do with strength but that is in reality not DNDby the way the short staff in martial arts still exists:
( (4.18 foot) long wooden staff, used in some Japanese martial arts. The martial art of wielding the jo; is called jo-jutsu Also, aiki-jo; is a set of techniques in aikido which uses the jo; to illustrate aikido's principles with a weapon. The jo; staff is shorter than the bo staff;. Today, the jo staff; is still used by some Japanese police forces.)
if it is used in Aikido it should be finessable since Aikido uses the strenght of its oponent not its own strenght
I've also learned techniques with walking canes for the elderly
finess doesn't mean you are a master but you have found a good way to use your weapon other than bash someones head with itI guess we could argue for ever on this simple topic
but i dont see why it would be bad to the game if it was finessable
maybe combined with an other featany weapon is deadly in the rigth hands
So by your definition and vastly limited martial expereince, Aikido is dexterity based?
And its sub-style Hapkido then? What's that?
Aikido is more Philosophy, trying to define it with DnD stats is actually impossible,
However it is clearly more Wisdom based than dexterity based.Aikido, like VingTsun (or Wing Chung depending on what part of china) kung fu is basically designed for weaker, smaller, infirm people to use against stronger, more youthful, larger, more phsyically imposing opponents. But it certainly doesn't mean the practicioners have high dexterity either.
I chose Wing Chung (which I have been a student of since 1998) because I did not posses a high degree of agility. Before that I studied Kenpo for many years, since then I have learned...
funy you say kung fu is for the weak since its one of the hardest martial arts to practice because you need a very high agility
(acrobatics)Whyle Wing Chung is a dex based martial art short and fast attacks
(hand eye coordination) didnt you notice?
back to DND puting everything in one stat combines them by default
and the fact that you have to take a feat to do it counts to me as experience