Quarterstaff damage

Well, a Quarterstaff can also be used as a normal weapon, only using one standard attack per round. That's how most people use them in the PnP, from what I understand.

 

Indeed it can. In fact, that's how most people would use it, because you wouldn't suffer those penalties. The double weapon rules are for the benefit of those characters who have trained in those styles, not everyone who picks up a quarterstaff. To me, it reflects the difference between a novice swinging a long stick (like I would be) and a professional who's devoted time to learning how to use a staff to it's full advantage (like a martial arts student).

 

You're right, Spike. And were it a commoner or even an epic commoner, I might agree with you, but the fact that the class itself comes with proficiency in tow, says that even your stick wielding bookworm has the ability and training to use a staff for fighting at a novice level, which is why they 1st levelers only have one attack. Just happens that "one attack" with a staff is both ends. The movement is actually very natural. Besides, as is reflected in the number of attacks a wizard recieves as he or she progresses, that class is not very concerned with using the staff as a weapon...so really, your point is already represented by the system.

(Ah, come on SDragoon. You sure you don't want to learn Tracy's Kenpo with me? Real unfriendly sort of style. You'd like it!)

...yeah, so what Perk said, only without all the stats, numbers and facts to back it up. Thanks man...

 

Hmmm... I guess I should be more clear and use less words -- but I tend to be verbose.

I'm definitely NOT a master - none of my students are Sifus and none of them have trained a Sifu (but yeah - Shadow, you are welcome Anytime to come to Cleveland and train with us! - Long Fist style, baby! - :Crazy_Lio Woooo ). And while my sword play is obviously closer to martial arts (def Not fencing although I did a little of that Years ago) than maybe traditional middle/dark ages hack and bash :chainsaw: - I know a little somethin (not everything obviously, I'm not That opinionated)

All I was tryin to say is that the staff is hella easier to learn to use as a "double weapon" for multiple attacks than a sword. I understand just 'cause I'm not good enough doesn't mean it can't been done. But I have been lucky enough to fight and compete across the country and in France and China -- The people I saw in China... WOW - Some of them could probably definitely slash at you with a sword, shuffle in and smash your face with the quillions... but it took them a LOT of training to get there. So my point was that with the staff almost anyone with really not a lot, but Some TRAINING could learn to use it pretty decently for multiple attacks (even at low levels) - But a sword would take a Lot more time and training (and muscle) - you'd have to be..... hmmmm.... Epic ? :mrhappy:

(ok - That was kinda lame... but I couldn't help it).

Anyway - I think that's all I got to contribute to this post - the rest of ya can hash it out

EDIT: I lied - I have one more thing to say, ha ha. Aleric has a really good point I think. I figure that at very low levels there is less difference between a trained fighter, who has studied many, many, many weapons to get a base level f proficiency in all of them and someone (even a wizard) who has had close to the same training, but in only a very few weapons. As it was pointed out before - as the classes progress the fighter becomes significantly more effective than a "bookworm" who probably only uses the weapon as a back up. I think the rules pretty effectively cover the additional attacks per round that a fighter would get with a sword, without making it a double weapon.

That said - I do agree with one thing I think Spike was referring to - if this game Was more akin to the real world there should be a feat that maybe gives a fighter an extra bash or attack with said sword or weapon that they are HIGHLY trained in (besides something like whirlwind attack - and yes, there might be I just don't feel like gettin out my books, ha ha). I know he didn't say anything about a feat and (i think) was saying it was a property of the weapon - I think the only thing we really differ on is I think it is a property of Training in said weapon. NOW I'm done

 

The 3.5 rules are trying to represent the fact that a weapon with 2 business ends AND long enough to be held in both hands might be used like 2 separate weapons held in separate hands. If we are going to dispute this, then perhaps we should also dispute the second separate weapon giving you another attack? (The latter is also a perfectly valid argument IMO, but you can't have it both ways).

Fighting with 2 weapons has significant penalties. A quarterstaff or dagger and sword combo gives you -4/-8 which is a MAJOR penalty unless you are highly skilled (high level) or highly buffed. IN ADDITION, as a fighter type you forego the use of a shield, so you are easier to hit.

There ARE a couple of ways to use a quarterstaff as a double weapon and reduce the penalty to a more manageable -2/-2. One is two weapon fighting BUT this requires BOTH dex 15 AND the sacrifice of a feat. Another is immediately available to the monk as part of their class abilities-flurry of blows. Flurry of blows gives -2/-2, dropping to -1/-1 at 5th lvl and 0/0 at 9th, finally giving an extra attack again at 11th lvl.

Now, to me this all seems to be properly balanced and not unreasonable at all. If we are going to accept that being able to use both hands to strike is quicker but less accurate than concentrating on a strike with a single weapon, the rules fit this very well. An ordinary person gets -4/-8 to try hitting you with both ends of his staff rather than +0 concentrating on connecting with one end. A highly dextrous person who has neglected anything else to train exclusively with his staff gets -2/-2, so its worth him using his skills rather than just getting +0. A monk, having been trained in martial arts, gets -2/-2 as part of his standard training and as he progresses to Master he gets good enough to reduce those penalties AND even land an extra effective strike eventually.

Mastering a single weapon sufficiently to effectively strike multiple times with it, is covered by the base attack bonus progression, so the name of that feat is "Fighter level 6" :mrhappy: Edit :-Now, perhaps the rules should allow for a single handed "flurry" at the expense of accuracy. However, there are balance issues (use of a shield at the same time, undermining benefit to taking certain skills/feats/classes) and flavour issues here, so the flurry is left as just a different attack routine, resolved by the single attack roll. Remember that the single attack roll represents more than one cut or thrust...

 

IMO characters don't begin until they reach level 5, tank characters don't have a high enough BAB before then and mages are useless casters etc. for example a level 1 fighter isn't significantly better at fighting than a wizard especially when it comes to using simple weapons contraiwise a level 1 wizard can't cast many spells and none of them are overly effective. Honestly I don't know why anyone would start adventuring at such a low level. On that note a hastened level 20 monk with TWF feats and monk weapons gets 9 attacks (in his 6 second round).

 

:nosebleed I give, I give! ha ha ha

Seriously, though - Good point.

 

Sounds sort of like power attack...putting all of the effort into one mighty blow; you take a chance of not connecting since you're sacrificing all those other "attacks which miss" in the round.

^
^
^
These things.

BTW, these are kind of what I was getting at some time ago; sword fighters cut, thrust, parry, dodge, spin, pummel, slash...constantly moving & attacking, not just swinging like a batter in the box at a baseball game. They use all the deadly parts of the sword in the process. So do trained warriors with any weapon, including a staff. Wizards, not so much, especially without the special training. I'm quite sure all the rules-ey stuff you guys said is right; I just like what I'm used to.

 

I can certainly sympathize with that. I cut my teeth on 2nd Edition and have to constantly remind myself Not to use those in a 3rd edition game. They're still my favorite rules set, though 3.5 is growing on me.

 

Heh. Would I be ritually stoned to death if I said that I thought 1st and 2nd edition were abhorrent? 3.5 is the only way to fly...for D&D that is :kirby: :kirby: , but again, that comes from a guy who prefers realism (not to be confused with lawyerism) in his games. Never thought that the THAC0 system really represented fighting all that well (this is how my comment connects to the quarterstaff discourse). And as that is what I like, well...

 

The only real problem I had with the earlier D&D games, is that the Armor Class didn't make any sense at all to me. I mean, it made a bit of sense that, say, a Fighter started with a better base AC than a Cleric, but As far as how armor affected AC...

 

Yeah, the confusion was an issue. To Hit Armour Class 0, so as you strapped on armour, your AC dropped. (smirk) Doesn't really apply to anything, just wanted to show off that I knew something about D&D.

 

I understand the THAC0. That was (relatively) simple. But, figuring out how much your AC would change by equipping certain armor...

 

So my AD&D knowledge wasn't impressive? Damn, 'cause that's the extent of my brain storage on the matter. Just remember playing a lot at art college and then stopped for a looong while after being level drained by a ghost of some variety. Ah, good ole Rimmer Dane! Back when I was naive and didn't know just how bad of a name that was.

I think he touched a quarterstaff once, to come back to post.

 

aper: :chew: :rant: :grin: aper: