Historically considered by many countries to be the top dueling weapon with advantages over all others and used as a military weapon as well, so why not in Pathfinder? Just read Paradoxes of Defence by George Silver 1599, or Joseph Swetnam ‘TheSchoole of Defence’ 1617, or English Master of Defence by By ZACH. WYLDE 1711 to see the esteem the quarterstaff held for the English and you are left wondering at the Walking Stick that Pathfinder (and many editions of D&D before that) dares call a quarterstaff. The proper length of a Quarterstaff was between 8 and 9 feet while a Longstaff, also used, was 12 feet long... not a 5 foot broom handle. So for my campaign I plan to make some changes, and these changes necessitate more changes... so here they are.
Light Staff (walking stick) One-handed simple weapon
1d4/1d4 1d6/1d6 x2 4lbs Double, Monk, Blocking
Must be used in two hands to gain the Double and Blocking
abilities.
Quarterstaff Two-handed Martial weapon
1d6/1d6 1d8/1d8 x2 8lbs Double, Monk, Blocking, Reach
Provides a +1 shield bonus. Can be used in Quarterstaff mode
as a Reach weapon or in Halfstaff mode as a Double weapon,
switching between modes is a free action.
Long Staff Two-handed Martial weapon
1d8 1d10 x2 12lbs Reach, Monk
May be used in melee against adjacent foes but with a -2
attack penalty and with one step lower damage. Takes a move action
to change the grip.
Bo Staff One-handed Exotic weapon
1d6/1d6 1d8/1d8 x2 3lbs Blocking, Double, Monk, Trip, Disarm
Provides a +1 shield bonus. Must be used in two hands to gain
the Blocking and Double abilities.
Feat Quarterstaff Master Prereqs unchanged
Gain a(n)(additional) +1 shield bonus with any staff.
Quarterstaff may be used one-handed.
Long Staff attack penalty in melee reduced to -1.
All staves give the wielder a +2 on Acrobatics checks to jump or
for balance.
May take Weapon Specialization without fighter levels.
These bonuses do not apply to Polearms used as a staff (I'll get
to that)
Feat Tripping Staff add a +2 bonus to Trip attempts (with those prereqs? come on at least!)
Monks become proficient with all staves.
Those with proficiency in the following Reach weapons and Quartstaff may use the weapon in melee as a double weapon switching modes is a swift action: Long Spear, Bill, Glaive, Glaive-Guisarme, Guisarme, Hooked Lance, Horsechopper, Naginata, Ranseur, and Rhomphaia. Damage is as Quarterstaff on both ends(ie 1d8/1d8 for medium). Crit on blunt end is x2 on other end is unchanged as is damage type unchanged on business end.
Those with proficiency with the following Reach weapons and Long Staff may change their grip as a move action to strike in melee with a -2 attack penalty and one step lower dice damage: Bardiche, Bec de corbin, Lance, Lucernehammer, Tepoztopilli, and Tri-point double-edged sword.
That's it! Archetypes like Polearm master may need slight adjusting, but I believe this fixes the "king of all weapons" without over-powering it or eliminating the usefulness of other martial weapons.
Looks good. I especially like the shield bonus and trip bonus. The balance, acrobatics and Jump check bonus makes a lot of practical sense.
I find this happens a lot with fantasy RPGs. If you are interested in a RPG that was designed around historical combat look up The Riddle of Steel.
hehe quaterstaff.
Now with more seriousness. The quarterstaff is a great and polyvalent weapon... against unarmored foes. But if you wear armor or even heavy padding, it becomes drastically less efficient. To call it the king of weapon is preposterous. I fail to see why it would give the blocking property without the use of a feat. why the quarterstaff? Why not all long hafted weapon? Oh hey, i can block a blow using a sword too, shouldnt it also get the blocking property?
I like the feat you devised bedause it involves having a technique, but otherwise you are boosting an inneficient weapon way too much. one thing i would definitely remove is the weapon spec special allowance, thats a door that shouldnt be opened
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Quarterstaves were used for "polite" dueling the way rapiers were, but less bloody, and cheaper so peasants could bonk each other all day long over petty disputes without (unusually) anyone suffering worse than a broken finger or a concussion, though head blows were considered unsportsmanlike in just about any unarmored duels.
Both the quarterstaff and the rapier were rarely seen on battlefields by any soldiers. Levied peasants who grabbed whatever was lying around the farm often made due with what they had, but those levies generally ground each other to gristle while the real soldiers ignored them or massacred them with real armor and weapons. Why? Quarterstaves and rapiers were dueling weapons designed to fight unarmored enemies - even a good padded aqueton could render them both fairly ineffective, but that guy with his padded armor and a sword or morningstar or flail or spear would pretty much one-shot an unarmored peasant with a dueling weapon.
Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of what you've done, but King of Weapons is a bit much. I think that title still belongs to the sword. Or the minigun. Or the A10 Warthog. But mostly the sword.
I can vaguely remember a passage in the Wheel of Time series, where it was said that the greatest swordsman in history only ever lost one duel, and that was against a farmer armed with a quarterstaff!
Mirrel the Marvelous wrote: I can vaguely remember a passage in the Wheel of Time series, where it was said that the greatest swordsman in history only ever lost one duel, and that was against a farmer armed with a quarterstaff! Yup. It was delivered immediately after...
Let us not forget that all but the toughest staves can be sundered pretty easily by a sword when wielded by a man that has a clue about what he's doing...
Cardboard Hero wrote: hehe quaterstaff.
Now with more seriousness. The quarterstaff is a great and polyvalent weapon... against unarmored foes. But if you wear armor or even heavy padding, it becomes drastically less efficient. To call it the king of weapon is preposterous. I fail to see why it would give the blocking property without the use of a feat. why the quarterstaff? Why not all long hafted weapon? Oh hey, i can block a blow using a sword too, shouldnt it also get the blocking property?
I like the feat you devised bedause it involves having a technique, but otherwise you are boosting an inneficient weapon way too much. one thing i would definitely remove is the weapon spec special allowance, thats a door that shouldnt be opened
The quarterstaff was often iron shod on both ends and could deliver crushing blows to the head as good as any hammer and at distance. Other weapons especially the sword and shield, as well as many polearms were consider more effect on the battle field in mass combat, but Staff was the "king of weapons" due to its superiority in dueling. It speed, length, and versatility consistently beat all other weapons in equally skilled users.
Sure you can block with a sword, but it is a far more active block then having a thick iron shod piece of lumber between you and your foe at all time - as you have with the staff wielded in two hands.
Oh, and Weapon specialization is already part of that feat I didn't add that bit.
What I'd really like to see is a feat to allow you to apply Weapon Finesse to attacks with Quarterstaff, Bo Staff, and similar two-handed staff-type weapons. I had an idea a while back for a "Staff of Martial Duality". It was a Bo Staff with Agile + Vicious on one end and Guided + Merciful on the other end. The idea was hitched because I forgot Agile only applies to finesseable weapons.
Shanezi wrote: Cardboard Hero wrote: hehe quaterstaff.
Now with more seriousness. The quarterstaff is a great and polyvalent weapon... against unarmored foes. But if you wear armor or even heavy padding, it becomes drastically less efficient. To call it the king of weapon is preposterous. I fail to see why it would give the blocking property without the use of a feat. why the quarterstaff? Why not all long hafted weapon? Oh hey, i can block a blow using a sword too, shouldnt it also get the blocking property?
I like the feat you devised bedause it involves having a technique, but otherwise you are boosting an inneficient weapon way too much. one thing i would definitely remove is the weapon spec special allowance, thats a door that shouldnt be opened
The quarterstaff was often iron shod on both ends and could deliver crushing blows to the head as good as any hammer and at distance. Other weapons especially the sword and shield, as well as many polearms were consider more effect on the battle field in mass combat, but Staff was the "king of weapons" due to its superiority in dueling. It speed, length, and versatility consistently beat all other weapons in equally skilled users.
Sure you can block with a sword, but it is a far more active block then having a thick iron shod piece of lumber between you and your foe at all time - as you have with the staff wielded in two hands.
Oh, and Weapon specialization is already part of that feat I didn't add that bit. I can't find any reference to the quarterstaff as being the King of Weapons...or that it was specifically preferred in duels...or particularly good in any circumstance. Robin of Lockley supposedly fought Little John with one...because he felt it would be unfair to use a sword, when the big man had only a staff...
Mirrel the Marvelous wrote: I can vaguely remember a passage in the Wheel of Time series, where it was said that the greatest swordsman in history only ever lost one duel, and that was against a farmer armed with a quarterstaff! That's a version of a version of Miyamoto Musashi vs. Musou Gonnosuke Katsuyoshi, Part II.
Kazaan wrote: Mirrel the Marvelous wrote: I can vaguely remember a passage in the Wheel of Time series, where it was said that the greatest swordsman in history only ever lost one duel, and that was against a farmer armed with a quarterstaff! Yup. It was delivered immediately after...
** spoiler omitted ** Great scene, but taken from a myth about Miyamoto Musashi, arguably Japan's greatest swordsman, who only ever lost once - to a farmer with a staff.
I can't find any reference to the quarterstaff as being the King of Weapons...or that it was specifically preferred in duels...or particularly good in any circumstance. Robin of Lockley supposedly fought Little John with one...because he felt it would be unfair to use a sword, when the big man had only a staff... Try reading some of the selections I mentioned at the top - here is a link to one of them.
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Also note, in the orient, the king of weapons is the spear, not the staff. The spear has all the advantages of the staff, but is also capable of punching armor and usable in mass combat.
Dueling weapons are made to fight men. In the fantasy universe, they are simply not efficient against monsters and those in armor. Using a staff against an ogre or giant who would barely notice you thumping it isn't the wisest of moves.
Note on the longstaff: Jet Li has a movie where he's a martial artist who goes up against non-Chinese martial artists, and one of his opponents is a big German merc using a longstaff, significantly longer then his own. He wins by getting inside the man's reach, and when, in frustration, the man chops his own staff down, uses his own reach to beat him.
The bo staff is certainly among the most versatile of all weapons. There simply aren't many weapons that qualify as a single weapon, two handed weapon, and double weapon all at the same time. Note that English quarterstaves were wielded like baseball bats, not as double weapons.
==Aerlyinth
DM_Blake wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of what you've done, but King of Weapons is a bit much. I think that title still belongs to the sword. Or the minigun. Or the A10 Warthog. But mostly the sword.
AA-12... King of shotguns, turns quarter staves into toothpicks, most vehicles into Swiss cheese, and most foes into red mist... See explosive rounds at you local death merchants outlet store.
.50 cal machine gun...King of machine guns. Everything the AA- 12 does, but better and at greater range.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
*True Story*
I once had a staff duel with a guy at camp who just didn't like me, so we took two poles (he got the wooden one, I got the metal one) and had a dual at his request. I was constantly on the defensive as he was wailing on me with his staff until it broke at which I said the duel was over undecided. Instead he just says that now he has two weapons and then charged at me with both of them broken end forward. Some form of instinct came in and I held up one end of my staff towards his nether-regions, he ran right into the pole and hit himself in the groin.
As he lay on the ground in pain,(from his own stupidity of refusing to end the duel and charging at a guy with a longer stick)I did small twirl and said some remark I have now forgotten before trying to help the guy up, which he rebuffed.
We never became friends.
Lesson: we need RPG rules to gain access to mithral staffs, much more resilient and can withstand a blade.
Thank-you for some of the feedback, I've continued to look at info (here is another good link - http://ejmas.com/jwma/articles/2001/jwmaart_docherty_0501.htm ) and have made some changes to not overpower this weapon - its versatility was its great advantage. Also according to Silver I believe the Forest Bill was rated above the staff as it could be used like a staff but was deadlier in its attack. Most polearms would have been a little too end heavy to use effectively as a staff so I might yet alter my Reach weapon rule change more as it is probably more overpowered than any of the staff changes I've made...
Light Staff (walking stick) One-handed simple weapon
1d4/1d4 1d6/1d6 x2 4lbs Double, Monk, Blocking
Must be used in two hands to gain the Double and Blocking
abilities.
Quarterstaff Two-handed Martial weapon
1d4/1d4 1d6/1d6 x3 8lbs Double, Monk, Blocking, Reach
Provides a +1 shield bonus. Can be used in Quarterstaff mode
as a Reach weapon or in Halfstaff mode as a Double weapon,
switching between modes is a free action.
Long Staff Two-handed Martial weapon
1d6 1d8 x3 12lbs Reach, Monk
May be used in melee against adjacent foes but with a -2
attack penalty and with one step lower damage. Takes a move action
to change the grip.
Bo Staff One-handed Exotic weapon
1d4/1d4 1d6/1d6 x2 3lbs Blocking, Double, Monk, Trip, Disarm
Provides a +1 shield bonus. Must be used in two hands to gain
the Blocking and Double abilities.
Those with proficiency in the following Reach weapons and Quartstaff may use the weapon in melee as a double weapon switching modes is a swift action: Long Spear, Bill, Glaive, Glaive-Guisarme, Guisarme, Hooked Lance, Horsechopper, Naginata, Ranseur, and Rhomphaia. Damage is as Quarterstaff on blunt end. Business end is as the polearm, but one step lower damage.
Those with proficiency with the following Reach weapons and Long Staff may change their grip as a move action to strike in melee with a -3 attack penalty and one step lower dice damage: Bardiche, Bec de corbin, Lance, Lucernehammer, Tepoztopilli, and Tri-point double-edged sword.
zergtitan wrote: *True Story*
Lesson: we need RPG rules to gain access to mithral staffs, much more resilient and can withstand a blade.
Have a Druid cast Ironwood on your staff every week or two, or allow it to be affected by the Permanency spell.
Whipwood is also a decent option for a more resilient staff.
Aelryinth wrote: Also note, in the orient, the king of weapons is the spear, not the staff. The spear has all the advantages of the staff, but is also capable of punching armor and usable in mass combat.
Dueling weapons are made to fight men. In the fantasy universe, they are simply not efficient against monsters and those in armor. Using a staff against an ogre or giant who would barely notice you thumping it isn't the wisest of moves.
Note on the longstaff: Jet Li has a movie where he's a martial artist who goes up against non-Chinese martial artists, and one of his opponents is a big German merc using a longstaff, significantly longer then his own. He wins by getting inside the man's reach, and when, in frustration, the man chops his own staff down, uses his own reach to beat him.
The bo staff is certainly among the most versatile of all weapons. There simply aren't many weapons that qualify as a single weapon, two handed weapon, and double weapon all at the same time. Note that English quarterstaves were wielded like baseball bats, not as double weapons.
==Aerlyinth
Actually the English staff was wielded in as many ways as the eastern one. Quarterstaff form used thrusting more than 'baseball bat' swings and held in Half Staff form it was used as a double weapon.
I've been looking at historical training manuals and books from the 15th, 16th, and 17th century England not some movie that glorifies one style over another (I love Jet Li btw, but really, when you're the star of the movie you don't often lose do you?) And the speed generated at the end of a staff swing is more than significant to bother an ogre or crack the skull of an armoured foe. Most armour is geared towards protecting against slashing and trusting and did little against concussive force. I like the idea of a weapon vs armour weakness system but in practice they too cumbersome and that is not my concern here.
I've looked at tradition and use of the staff in China where it too once held high esteem in military orders and the Shoalin Monks made them famous.
People all love the movies, but most have little to do with reality. Most of the weapons presented in Pathfinder/D&D are not high fantasy weapons but taken from history and military traditions across the globe. I just feel the history of the staff was not looked at closely enough.
Aelryinth wrote: Also note, in the orient, the king of weapons is the spear, not the staff. The spear has all the advantages of the staff, but is also capable of punching armor and usable in mass combat.
Dueling weapons are made to fight men. In the fantasy universe, they are simply not efficient against monsters and those in armor. Using a staff against an ogre or giant who would barely notice you thumping it isn't the wisest of moves.
Note on the longstaff: Jet Li has a movie where he's a martial artist who goes up against non-Chinese martial artists, and one of his opponents is a big German merc using a longstaff, significantly longer then his own. He wins by getting inside the man's reach, and when, in frustration, the man chops his own staff down, uses his own reach to beat him.
The bo staff is certainly among the most versatile of all weapons. There simply aren't many weapons that qualify as a single weapon, two handed weapon, and double weapon all at the same time. Note that English quarterstaves were wielded like baseball bats, not as double weapons.
==Aerlyinth
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html
http://www.shaolin-overseas.org/ShaolinStaffForm.html
I agree that the spear and other light headed pole weapons are more effective WHEN USED WITH STAFF TECHNIQUES which is why I included the rule about Reach weapons. It needs tweaking which is why I posted here hoping for some constructive thought...
"The basics of quarterstaff play are fairly easily acquired, and represent a simple,
powerful, and effective form. Mastery of the quarterstaff was clearly highly regarded, as
it was a weapon frequently declared in the playing of prizes by the Masters of Defence of
London (Sloane MS. # 2530). Moreover, it forms the foundation for English pole arm
play."
From http://celyn.drizzlehosting.com/jherek/Quarterstaff.pdf
And... "Not only do staff forms occupy important positions in Shaolin Temple martial arts, they also occupy important positions in other branches of Chinese martial arts. As the Ming Dynasty staff master Ji-Gurang Chi once said, 'If you know how to use staff, then you should have no problem with other sharp weapons.' Many other experienced martial artists also express this opinion: 'To learn martial arts, you first learn how to use your fists, then you learn how to use a staff. When both fit forms and staff forms are clear to you, then the techniques of broad sword and spear will be clear to you. That is why fist forms and staff forms are the foundations for all sharp weapons."
From http://www.shaolin-overseas.org/ShaolinStaffForm.html
and... " The fighting staff was listed as one of the “five weapons” as early as the Former Han Dynasty (206 B.C.- A.D.). Staves found in tombs of this period were round and made from a single piece of wood. It is documented that at Shaolin, weapons in the form of staves were part of the training from the earliest times. It is very likely that at Shaolin the staff in combination with a range of athletic maneuvers reached its highest level of refinement. Even a military manual, which was published by order of the Korean Imperial government in 1790, acknowledges that Shaolin staff methods were excellent–having the characteristics of both the spear and the staff... Even as late as the Song Dynasty (A.D. 960–1279), when bladed (cold) weapons reached their height of development, the staff was seen as a viable military weapon, and Wu Jing Zong Yao military encyclopedia from the Song Dynasty lists a number of variations including a simple wooden staff named bai bang."
From http://ironbodhisattva.blogspot.ca/2013/01/shaolin-staff-ii.html
I was hoping for constructive thought here, but at least some of the comments spurred on my research. Here are my final changes that I will be implementing in my game.
Light Staff (walking stick) One-handed simple weapon
1d4/1d4 1d6/1d6 x2 4lbs Double, Monk, Blocking
Must be used in two hands to gain the Double and Blocking
abilities.
Quarterstaff Two-handed Martial weapon
1d4/1d4 1d6/1d6 x3 8lbs Double, Monk, Blocking, Reach
Can be used in Quarterstaff mode
as a Reach weapon or in Halfstaff mode as a Double weapon,
switching between modes is a swift action.
Long Staff Two-handed Martial weapon
1d6 1d8 x3 12lbs Reach, Monk
May be used in melee against adjacent foes but with a -2
attack penalty and with one step lower damage. Takes a move action
to change the grip.
Bo Staff One-handed Exotic weapon
1d4/1d4 1d6/1d6 x3 3lbs Blocking, Double, Monk, Trip, Disarm
Must be used in two hands to gain
the Blocking and Double abilities.
Feat Quarterstaff Master Prereqs proficiency with all staves, +5 base
attack
Quarterstaff may be used one-handed switching forms is now a free
action.
Long Staff attack penalty in melee reduced to -1 and switching
forms is now a swift action.
All staves give the wielder a +2 on Acrobatics checks to jump or
for balance.
May take Weapon Specialization in staves without fighter levels.
Special: If proficient with the weapon in question, this feat may be used to treat any staff-like weapon (most reach weapons and spears) 11lbs and under as double weapons for use in close melee. For staff like weapons over 11lbs you may use it in close melee like a long staff.
All kinds of armor wear padding underneath to guard them from the concussive force of blows.
Armor with rigid plates disperses blunt impacts across the armor, dispersing much of the killing power. If you wanted to hurt someone in real armor with a blunt weapon, you had to put flanges on it to concentrate the blunt impact trauma at point of impact instead of just bouncing them around a bit. The old adage about unblunted swords being used against plate armor is for precisely this reason...concentrating a blunt impact in a narrow area bent the armor and made strikes actually useful.
A staff would rely hugely on being able to strike bone instead of muscle, fat, or layers of clothing to be effective. Sure, it's as good as a mace if it hits those points. If it doesn't, it's next to useless.
I agree completely on mastery of staff being needed to use other polearm weapons. But the reason those other polearm weapons exist is because they are BETTER WEAPONS for fighting then a staff is.
===Aelryinth
I love staves...but there's a reason you don't see them as weapons of war, historically. The truth is...they rather suck against even light armor. They're barely even considered weapons, in medieval Europe, more like training tools...but hey, it's fantasy.
I think it is humorous that people tend to glorify the "Martial Arts" specifically kung fu styles of fighting when they have been proven to be no more or less effective than any other fighting styles. My prof? Look at the results of the first few UFC competitions. A street fighter and Brazilian Jujitsu ruled the day.
You say well that is just hand to hand fighting. Then I give you the Roman style of fighting. A tower shield, three pilums (well designed javalins), and a short sword conquered and held the known world for an exorbitant amount of time. Meanwhile people try to put forth a glorified stick as "King of Weapons" really? What country was EVER concurred with a staff?
What I find funny is everyone has an opinion (yes, I'm somewhat biased), but nobody is willing to read or research anything. Yes, I'm an expert, because I watch UFC... because I watch Kung-fu movies or Braveheart etc, etc...
Yes Pole arms , sword and target, two-handed swords, in the research I've done, were all considered superior on the field of battle where quick kills were desirable and space was limited, BUT those same weapons in one on one or small groups, where space was at a premium, were at a disadvantage against the versatility and maneuverability of the staff. Even an against an armoured foe it was only a matter of time.
This was according to 15th and 16th century English writers about the English Short Staff (typically 7-8 feet or 8-9feet in length depending on author), I have found similar writings about the Shaolin Staff... On the field of battle - viable, but not as effective as deadlier weapons, on the open road (or possibly the dungeon) where groups are small, space is open and time isn't a major factor, the staff was considered one of the top choices due to versatility, maneuverability, defense and speed of attack.
Your "I'm right and you suck because I watch movies and UFC" are all great and fine (and typical of message boards), but please do some reasearch, read a little.
The one comment above about the spear is entirely correct in that it turns the staff into a far more deadly weapon without limiting its speed or maneuverability where as most pole arms lost defensive capability with the extra weight on the head.
I'm sure at other times or other countries there might be rather different interpretations of the top dueling weapon for a variety of reasons. I've merely looked at 300+ year period in England, and a much longer one in China - perhaps my research is too narrow.
My final, final changes - If you will note it is essentially the same weapon with much increased versatility.
Light Staff (walking stick) One-handed simple weapon
1d4/1d4 1d6/1d6 x2 4lbs Double, Monk
Must be used in two hands to gain the Double.
Short staff Two-handed Martial weapon
1d4/1d4 1d6/1d6 x2 8lbs Double, Monk, Blocking, Reach
Can be used in Quarter staff mode
as a Reach weapon or in Half staff mode as a Double weapon,
switching between modes is a swift action.
Long Staff Two-handed Martial weapon
1d6 1d8 x2 12lbs Reach, Monk
May be used in melee against adjacent foes but with a -2
attack penalty and with one step lower damage. Takes a move action
to change the grip.
Bo Staff One-handed Exotic weapon
1d4/1d4 1d6/1d6 19-20x2 3lbs Blocking, Double, Monk, Trip, Disarm
+1 shield bonus vs melee. Must be used in two hands as a Double weapon.
Superior design and training turn the light staff into something formidable.
Feat Staff Master Prereqs: proficiency with martial staves, +5 base
attack
Quarterstaff may be used one-handed and switching forms is now a free
action.
Long Staff attack penalty in melee reduced to -1 and switching
forms is now a swift action.
All staves give the wielder a +2 on Acrobatics checks to jump or
for balance.
Staves with blocking now provide a +2 bonus when used thus.
May take Weapon Specialization in staves without fighter levels.
Special: If proficient with the weapon in question, this feat may be used to treat any staff-like weapon (most reach weapons and spears) 11lbs and under as double weapons for use in close melee. For staff like weapons over 11lbs you may use it in close melee like a long staff. In either case the above Staff Master bonuses do not apply.
Shanezi wrote: What I find funny is everyone has an opinion (yes, I'm somewhat biased), but nobody is willing to read or research anything. Yes, I'm an expert, because I watch UFC... because I watch Kung-fu movies or Braveheart etc, etc...
Yes Pole arms , sword and target, two-handed swords, in the research I've done, were all considered superior on the field of battle where quick kills were desirable and space was limited, BUT those same weapons in one on one or small groups, where space was at a premium, were at a disadvantage against the versatility and maneuverability of the staff. Even an against an armoured foe it was only a matter of time.
This was according to 15th and 16th century English writers about the English Short Staff (typically 7-8 feet or 8-9feet in length depending on author), I have found similar writings about the Shaolin Staff... On the field of battle - viable, but not as effective as deadlier weapons, on the open road (or possibly the dungeon) where groups are small, space is open and time isn't a major factor, the staff was considered one of the top choices due to versatility, maneuverability, defense and speed of attack.
Your "I'm right and you suck because I watch movies and UFC" are all great and fine (and typical of message boards), but please do some reasearch, read a little.
The one comment above about the spear is entirely correct in that it turns the staff into a far more deadly weapon without limiting its speed or maneuverability where as most pole arms lost defensive capability with the extra weight on the head.
I'm sure at other times or other countries there might be rather different interpretations of the top dueling weapon for a variety of reasons. I've merely looked at 300+ year period in England, and a much longer one in China - perhaps my research is too narrow.
Ummm...yeah, all those staff units marching into war...no, wait...it must be the weapon of tournaments...
Seriously, some of us have done our research. Don't try pulling that nonsense...and there are an amazing number of treatises on medieval weapons...on swords...bows...axes...spears...polearms...have you read those?
Hats off to you Shanzei! I have never been thrilled with the various staves' statistics, until now. I like what you've done. That being said, there are many ways to kill, and many effective weapons to do it. I prefer spells myself...
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It all comes down to the proper technique.
"Ummm...yeah, all those staff units marching into war...no, wait...it must be the weapon of tournaments...
Seriously, some of us have done our research. Don't try..." Did you read the bit where I said the deadly weapons were preferred in War for obvious reasons?
I regret using "king of weapons" in my title, because it seems that's all most people can read before they comment.
I have a high respect for spear and pole arms and think they deserve more credit then they are given as well - most players will use once (if at all) and drop to pull a smaller melee weapon. Very common on the battle field where, again, space was limited, but a skilled user with space could use it viciously in close as well. And if you look at my feat change to the "Quarterstaff master" feat I've tried to address this.
I probably should have used "Mother of all weapons" as the training in staff was considered a prereq (in the time frames and articles I've looked at and mentioned) for the training of most weapons and especially polearms.
Though the fact remains (well documented) that as a dueling weapon the staff did extremely well against all other weapons. Was it deadlier? No, but the speed of its attack, its reach and versatiliy was difficult to defend against for most weapons. I have shown links to historic documents and writings and not just said "I'm right, you're wrong."
One thing I also forgot, and am often guilty of myself, is that most people won't read all the posts, they'll look at the first then skim down quickly... My initial set of stats were, in game terms, excessive, but I have since made two revisions as I couldn't seem to edit the initial one after a day.
My "final, final changes" don't change the damage at all and are only meant to reflect the versatility of the weapon and its importance as a stepping stone to more deadly counterparts. This makes it viable as a fighter specced weapon, but more than likely would still lose out to any Two-handed specced class in one on ones (used defensively one may still have a shot). But it does make it extremely useful as a Monk weapon (whereas most monk weapons provide little use at all) especially with the Staff Master feat. And fighters can make use of the same feat to be true terrors with a pole arm instead of it being a casual weapon.
A highly regarded expert wrote: It all comes down to the proper technique. CLASSIC!!!
Shanezi wrote: One thing I also forgot, and am often guilty of myself, is that most people won't read all the posts, they'll look at the first then skim down quickly... My initial set of stats were, in game terms, excessive, but I have since made two revisions as I couldn't seem to edit the initial one after a day.
My "final, final changes" don't change the damage at all and are only meant to reflect the versatility of the weapon and its importance as a stepping stone to more deadly counterparts. This makes it viable as a fighter specced weapon, but more than likely would still lose out to any Two-handed specced class in one on ones (used defensively one may still have a shot). But it does make it extremely useful as a Monk weapon (whereas most monk weapons provide little use at all) especially with the Staff Master feat. And fighters can make use of the same feat to be true terrors with a pole arm instead of it being a casual weapon.
I did read it...and if you'll actually read MY post, you'll see that it's not directed at the extra work you've done...which I see as pretty much on target...but on the assumption that you seem to love to make that you're the only one that reads anything.
That's pretty insulting.
I HAVE done my research...for a long time, the differences in bows was utterly fascinating...though the English longbow is the military champion, the Turkish recurve is actually capable of more power. It took a while before I understood the differences, especially as I'm no archer. I've forgotten most of what I knew about polearms, but they were a subject I researched a long time ago, being utterly unfamiliar with most of them when I first started playing D&D back in the 70s. I still look for information on swords...the variety and differences is incredible. THAT is the king of weapons, pre-firearms heyday.
I've also studied the units that wielded them...the tactics...read Musashi and Sun-Tzu...Thucydides...I could go on and on.
In short - I find what you're doing with the staff interesting. I find YOUR attitude condescending.
Shanezi wrote:
Bo Staff One-handed Exotic weapon
1d4/1d4 1d6/1d6 19-20x2 3lbs Blocking, Double, Monk, Trip, Disarm
+1 shield bonus vs melee. Must be used in two hands as a Double weapon.
Superior design and training turn the light staff into something formidable.
Meant to read "Must be wielded in two hands for use as a double weapon."
EldonG wrote:
I did read it...and if you'll actually read MY post, you'll see that it's not directed at the extra work you've done...which I see as pretty much on target...but on the assumption that you seem to love to make that you're the only one that reads anything.
That's pretty insulting.
I HAVE done my research...for a long time, the differences in bows was utterly fascinating...though the English longbow is the military champion, the Turkish recurve is actually capable of more power. It took a while before I understood the differences, especially as I'm no archer. I've forgotten most of what I knew about polearms, but they were a subject I researched a long time ago, being utterly unfamiliar with most of them when I first started playing D&D back in the 70s. I still look for information on swords...the variety and differences is incredible. THAT is the king of weapons, pre-firearms heyday.
I've also studied the units that wielded them...the tactics...read Musashi and Sun-Tzu...Thucydides...I could go on and on.
In short - I find what you're doing...
Then I apologize, as I found so many casual denials and the odd movie quote without any real backing or proper argument - to be insulting, and I reacted much the way you did by being a little rude to get my point across. You just happen to be last in a line of people who... was short with their rebuttal.
I too have read Musashi, and Sun-tzu, etc, etc and started D&D in the early 80s. I've recently discovered numerous writings in England about the staff from the 15th to 19th century and have been decidedly exuberant in my appreciation for a weapon I already love.
Shanezi wrote: EldonG wrote:
I did read it...and if you'll actually read MY post, you'll see that it's not directed at the extra work you've done...which I see as pretty much on target...but on the assumption that you seem to love to make that you're the only one that reads anything.
That's pretty insulting.
I HAVE done my research...for a long time, the differences in bows was utterly fascinating...though the English longbow is the military champion, the Turkish recurve is actually capable of more power. It took a while before I understood the differences, especially as I'm no archer. I've forgotten most of what I knew about polearms, but they were a subject I researched a long time ago, being utterly unfamiliar with most of them when I first started playing D&D back in the 70s. I still look for information on swords...the variety and differences is incredible. THAT is the king of weapons, pre-firearms heyday.
I've also studied the units that wielded them...the tactics...read Musashi and Sun-Tzu...Thucydides...I could go on and on.
In short - I find what you're doing...
Then I apologize, as I found so many casual denials and the odd movie quote without any real backing or proper argument - to be insulting, and I reacted much the way you did by being a little rude to get my point across. You just happen to be last in a line of people who... was short with their rebuttal.
I too have read Musashi, and Sun-tzu, etc, etc and started D&D in the early 80s. I've recently discovered numerous writings in England about the staff from the 15th to 19th century and have been decidedly exuberant in my appreciation for a weapon I already love. FWIW, I like staves a lot, too. I had a friend who had a few of them made of something the likes of which I'd never seen before...the wood wasn't like a branch...it twisted together naturally, and was of some incredibly tough wood...heavy, too. They were deadly...but slow. You'd have to be very strong...they were easily 10-15 lbs, and short (none over about 6'), where most staves are much lighter and usually longer.
The real advantage with these...they were almost viny...flexible, somewhat...but more like roots in their density and toughness. They could stop a sword, cold. I doubt even the heaviest of the zweihanders would do much more than leave a notch in this stuff...and they might even break a blade.
I wonder...it's native to the southern coastal states...you might find it interesting...but I have no clue what the wood was.
That would be interesting, but at that weight more akin to a Greatclub or Earthbreaker, still would make one cool Barbarian or beefy Druid/wood Oracle weapon.
What really got me excited about staves again was reading Silver and how he broke down the various dueling weapons and how one had advantage over the other between warriors of equal skill. Then I got even more excited reading Swetnam, Silver, and Wylde and the various techniques of using the Short Staff with the quarter staff grip. I was somewhat familiar with what they call Half staff from Robin hood and various Eastern staff forms, but I was somewhat surprized by the quarter staff positions, feints, and attacks. I took fencing for a number of years in my youth and the parries, feints, and thrusts were identical, then getting more excited I pulled out my copy of Heiho Kaden Sho from the book The Sword & the Mind and was delighted to see that quarter staff form was very similar to these techniques. No where near as deadly as a Katana, but a skilled warrior with reach (Just look up what Miyamoto Musashi is said to have done with a longer Oar carved Bokken - really not unlike a shortened quarter staff).
Perhaps I should have led with this. Quarter staff is a way of holding your staff (much like a greatsword) and not the staff itself, although that term eventually fell into use for what was known as the Short Staff.
What pathfinder presents is half staff form, but with a much shorter staff - 5 feet has little advantage against most swords. Where as Swetnam says a Short staff should be between 7 and 8 feet long, and Silver says between 8 and 9 depending on the height of the wielder.
I just finished making a 8 foot Hardwood staff according to Silver's description its about 4" circumference, thick, solid, and surprizingly light.... I cheated and used a hardwood dowel( just whittled the ends rounder sanded and varnished it), I might try and cut my own sapling this winter but the dowel turned out so well I might not bother ;D.
I like the idea of fighting with a staff, but as was already said, there had to be a reason it never truly became a weapon of war. I don't really have a problem with its stats being as they are: for a simple weapon to be a double 1d6 weapon isn't half bad. The problem, if you want to make a staff adept, is that in the end, it's just a simple weapon with no crit threat boosters (mind you, a staff rogue with bludgeoneer and sap adept can be quite good).
Rather, I'd like to see a "simple weapon mastery" option for those martial types that CHOOSE to specialize in simple weapons - staves, spears, maces etc. For example, it could be an option having them trade all their martial proficiencies (from this and future classes) for a bonus with simple weapons - i.e. +1 to attack and damage. An option to allow the staff for a duelist variant and putting the shillelagh spell on the ranger list wouldn't hurt either. Something like the quarterstaff master feat might work quite well, though with different bonuses (the biggest reward is holding it one-handed - congrats, you blew a feat to have the equivalent of a club).
@ Shanezi - different sizes bring their own pluses and minuses. This reminds me of the incident where Musashi was defeated with a jo staff - essentially a shortstaff.
You know, I searched for a while, and still can't figure out what it was he used. It was in Mississippi...where I was born, actually. These staffs he made were nice...easily gripped...he said the biggest issue was finding them long enough.
I think the +1 bonus to AC was a logical idea; it makes sense considering how often the bulk of the weapon between the wielder and the enemy. Certainly worth a buckler bonus at any rate.
The quaterstaff is a fine simple weapon. Consider a monk flanking his foe using it for 1d6/1d6 and the chance for a sneak attack damage on each one. If he's using a staff made of wyroot he gets a free ki point with every critical hit! Now that's money in the bank!
Also, who is more likely to be stopped by the town guards and questioned about their weapons: The dwarf with the great-axe and morninstar and bandolier of daggers....or the guy with the six foot crutch. You would not part an old man from his walking stick?
Cap the ends with cold iron and maybe some spikes and you'll be blugening and piercing fey/demons all damn day!
@ Gold Edition: the first part is something the staff shares with most polearms. It might be a problem with the relatively basic reach rules pathfinder has, though. I wouldn't say a flat bonus to AC, but perhaps a +1 if you fight defensively?
Some context regarding 'king of weapons'... George Silver in his various weapon manuals suggested that, and this is going off memory, "the staff has vantage against all manner of weapons whatsoever." The wording may be slightly different, but that's pretty close. This is probably what was meant by Shanezi's citations in the original post.
That said, you can make a very strong case that Silver meant this in regard to duels. And he might well be right; well trained staff fighting is far more devastating in single combat than you might think! Several related weapons at least partially used styles developed from it, such as certain 'knightly' poleaxes (pollax, etc.; however you want to spell it).
In field combat with armies involved, there's room to wonder how effective the staff would be. Other weapons might be better there.
Nonetheless, there were some period authors who held the staff in incredibly high esteem (followed by polearms in general, then going down the list of swords/axes until you arrived at very light blades) and they had good reasons for it.
The Shaman wrote: I like the idea of fighting with a staff, but as was already said, there had to be a reason it never truly became a weapon of war. I don't really have a problem with its stats being as they are: for a simple weapon to be a double 1d6 weapon isn't half bad. The problem, if you want to make a staff adept, is that in the end, it's just a simple weapon with no crit threat boosters (mind you, a staff rogue with bludgeoneer and sap adept can be quite good).
Rather, I'd like to see a "simple weapon mastery" option for those martial types that CHOOSE to specialize in simple weapons - staves, spears, maces etc. For example, it could be an option having them trade all their martial proficiencies (from this and future classes) for a bonus with simple weapons - i.e. +1 to attack and damage. An option to allow the staff for a duelist variant and putting the shillelagh spell on the ranger list wouldn't hurt either. Something like the quarterstaff master feat might work quite well, though with different bonuses (the biggest reward is holding it one-handed - congrats, you blew a feat to have the equivalent of a club).
@ Shanezi - different sizes bring their own pluses and minuses. This reminds me of the incident where Musashi was defeated with a jo staff - essentially a shortstaff.
An interesting idea and not without merit, but it doesn't address my issue that 1: there were quite a variety of staff length used and 2: Its importance at different times in different countries an important military training weapon. (and yes to that other post about Silver - he did say that 'deadlier weapons were better on the field of battle, but that the staff had advantage in duels') There is also already a presidence set that training allows better use of certain weapons by fact of the bastard sword and weapons like it.
I love the story of Musashi only ever beaten by a peasant with a staff - can't remember where I read it, but can't much online - only that some staff Master who lost to Musashi is said to have fought him again and won then went on to found a school - unfortunatly that is only recoerded by his school. But - That would be simply a difference of skill and not necessarily have anything to do with weapons. What I like about Silver is, for dueling, he breaks down weapon vs weapon who has the advantage "in equally skilled opponents."
One other thing I've been thinking of adding - mostly due to an earlier post, but something that kinda makes sense - is Weapon Finesse but only with light staff and Bo staff and only while wielded as Double weapons. A one handed weapon wielded as a double is essentially two light weapons. I don't think it is a great advantage (or any real advantage) but it does make sense in the stats I've presented and gives Dex characters an alternative.
Shanezi wrote: One other thing I've been thinking of adding - mostly due to an earlier post, but something that kinda makes sense - is Weapon Finesse but only with light staff and Bo staff and only while wielded as Double weapons. A one handed weapon wielded as a double is essentially two light weapons. I don't think it is a great advantage (or any real advantage) but it does make sense in the stats I've presented and gives Dex characters an alternative. By default rules, a weapon must be wielded in two hands to be used as a double weapon. A weapon wielded in 1 hand for any reason cannot be used as a double barring an explicit, specific exception. For example, a medium creature can wield a small quarterstaff in one hand, but only fight with one end per round.
Perhaps another special Feat for staff users.....
Spinning Cover: As a full-round action a character may rapidly rotate his staff directly in the path of oncoming missle fire. This provides an AC bonus equivalent to soft-cover (+4).
Hmmm....perhaps the AC bonus is a little off.
Just make the staff more effective when fighting defensively....instead of base -4 TH/+2 AC, get it to -3/+3. Small, subtle benefits are what make certain weapons better then others.
===Aelryinth
I love Quarterstaff's. Love all the Fantasy movies with them.
I have made them out of sweet gum trees, and used them for walking sticks for 20 years now. 7-8 feet tall ones anyway. As big around as your arm. Sweet gun is nice, as after 4-6 week they get light, as they lose there water and dry out.
Even learn to twirl them like a baton, around my body. Ok, not very well, but good enough not to drop it while i am walking the trails.
The only think i keep wondering about is how do you go up against someone with a sword or dagger. And not get your fingers chopped off. ??
Swords, have hilts, which make them king of the weapons... and Quarterstaff's, while fast and light, never the less leave your hands exposed to being chopped off.
Quarterstaff's, do make for a great walking stick, for keeping out of the ditches while car's drive by tho, and for keeping dogs and snakes away. :)
It's a matter of training and selecting where your staff is getting hit. After all, the staff is six feet long, and your fingers are on only six inches of it.
also, staves of oak and jungle hardwoords that are properly treated and dried are nearly as hard as metal. Almost impossible for a normal man to cut through unless your opponent is really stupid.
==Aelryinth
|
