Quarterstaff damage

By the logic asserted here as "quoted" from the rules, anyone using a weapon with more than one feature ought to be able to get multiple attacks with that weapon. My sword has two edges, a pommel, and a pair of quillons...that's four attacks, for fuck's sake! Stupid. With a staff, you should be able to only hit with one end at a time. If one has the benefit of multiple attacks, then the attacker should be able to say which end they are attacking with, and be able to try connecting up to their max number of attacks.

 

Well, as for your implication that I'm misquoting the rules:

Player's Handbook 3.5ed. Page 113

"Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaffs and two-bladed swords are considered double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he or she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two weapon combat, Just as though the character were wielding a one handed weapon and a light weapon (see Two-Weapon fighting, page 160)."

Player's Handbook 3.5ed. Page 160

"Two Weapon Fighting
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
...(A section follows detailing various penalties to attack rolls for using this style and ways to reduce them)...
You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons. The penalties apply as if the off-hand end of the weapon were a light weapon."

As to the logic behing it, a sword having two edges on the same blade is not quite the same as a weapon with two business ends seperated by three feet of handle. Whether your sword hits a guy with a forehand or a backhand, the effects going to be pretty much the same, so describe it however you want. It's still just one hit according to the rules. And the rules do allow for punching with the pommel, quillons, flat of the blade, etc under the rules for nonlethal damage.

 

You're assuming that because my post followed yours, it was about you...Well, you're not the only one in the discussion, here. Re-read post #11. Anyone who has to qualify a statement by saying "I think..." by definition does not "know", which is why I used quotation marks around the word quote. They weren't really quoting rules, just stating a belief.

My belief is, rules or not, the whole two-ended weapons thing is just dumb.

And, if you had to type all of that, maybe this will help you in the future. You can simply cut & paste:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35

 

I did indeed make that assumption. My apologies. I didn't have to type all that, thankfully. I have most of the books on my hard drive as .txt files, but that link may still come in handy in the future. ty.

 

I never claimed I was quoting a damn thing. I said "I think" because it's been a while since I looked at the rules for a double weapon, but I was very sure at my statement. And my statement was even confirmed by another person.

 

I think I see where it's going again. Gaear, close the topic before it's going to get really off topic.
Edit: Guess I was being paranoid again.

 

First of all, you can't say "I think the rule is"...and be considered as not quoting rules.

Second, the reason why I put " " around quoted, was because I knew it wasn't a direct quote, but merely your belief.

Third, if you're not sure about something, take the time to look it up first. Quote the rule...Please!

My belief is, still, that the whole two-ended weapons thing is just dumb. The rule is stupid, not you. :nerd:

 

Ever practiced with a staff, Spike? Hitting a target twice in one second is pretty damn easy.

 

Not with a staff per se...

A skilled swordsman can put multiple hits on several someones in very short order, too, using all the parts I mentioned above. I didn't say it wasn't possible, simply that I thought the rules...especially as it applies to the things like two bladed swords & double axes...was stupid. A staff is the only weapon of this type that doesn't expose the wielder to a serious threat from his own weapon; unless the ends are shod with metal and/or spiked. But that's in the real world. In this game, (which is after all a simulation, and not always an accurate one) only fighters & their kind should be getting the number of multiple attacks to which I am accustomed in AD&D.

 

Some very good points. I'll go ahead and play devil's advocate, though. A skilled (ie. experienced) user can get multiple hits quickly with a sword, but that's covered by the multiple attacks for higher levels. A staff is much easier to use in that way at a relatively low level. An extra attack, but penalties on all the attacks, covers that nicely. I totally agree with you point about injuring yourself with the others as well, but I believe that's the reason quarterstaff is the only one of the bunch that doesn't require Exotic Weapon Proficiency.

To me, the only people who are going to be using the double weapons (or at least using them well) are going to be people who have either dedicated some training to them or very high level characters who can overcome the penalties involved.

 

Oh, I'm with ya. I don't know how many ceiling tiles I damaged while practicing. Not to mention the knocks to head, but that was doing more advanced work. That is where I agree that a staff user needs to be practiced. Initially, just holding it level and hitting with either end to a still or slow target any fool can do...mind you, as you pointed out Spike, that this is all reality. My friend and I who schooled together had many a go-around with GM/DM when the rules got hazy and needed clarification when it came to fighting. So, as though it needed saying, reality and this simulation do not always mix well.

However, in the game sense, I believe (so as not to start another roe), this is reflected well in the off handed penalties. If you don't train, you don't get better thus the two-handed weapon feat applying to quarterstaff, representing your character's level of advancement and commitment. If your class allows proficiency with it, there is no reason to assume it hasn't been practiced at least at a rudimentary level.

EDIT: Sorry, had to fix that last sentence in all its multiple negativeness, grammar-wise. It was bothering me.

 

Since the debate has ranged from TOEE rules to reality, I figured I might as well chime in. As brief back story - In my off time (when I'm not doing my real job) I teach Northern Shaolin and Seven Star Praying Mantis Kung Fu, so I have trained with a variety of weapons including the staff and the Chinese Straight Sword (which for all intents and purposes really is almost the same as a long sword). As someone else mentioned - two attacks with the staff is actually not difficult, as most staff forms actually have several movements that are a series of attacks using each end. Not so much with the sword, however. The sword takes significantly more training to use (which TOTALLY fits in with it as a martial weapon) - especially when you need to execute a combination of movements that would be the equivalent of two or more attacks in the game. Also, for multiple attacks, a tremendous amount of the control and movement is handled by the wrist - so even if you could strike with the edge and then try and quickly move in and reverse the momentum for say a pommel strike - well you'd have to be pretty dang strong in order to do any damage at all - and not risk losing your blade (since in order to move it that quickly you must use a somewhat relaxed grip).

ANYWAY - in summation, while my above ramblings seemed to have no bearing :smoke: I guess what I was trying to say is the rules fit pretty OK with reality -- at least as far as the staff as a double-ended weapon (or being able to be used with the two-weapon feat) is concerned.


EDIT: wow - that was a lot of typing for not saying a heck of a lot, ha ha -- sorry.

 

I might agree with that, except you're only speaking of the kind of sword you claim to know, in comparison with one you're assuming is basically the same. What you sound like you're describing is more like fencing to me, as opposed to sword fighting, which is what I was attempting to describe. Now, I'm not the "master" you say you are, but I do know that all parts of the swords used in the kind of sword play I was describing are meant to be used. And a skilled sword fighter could & would use them, far better than some bookworm with a stick (wizard-type). Now, another highly trained and disciplined person (monk-type) would have an even chance against the sword fighter, and would get strikes in with both ends. In the rules I'm familiar with, this translated to monks getting extra damage per level with weapon attacks (staff or otherwise), while Magic Users only got one attack with their staves. Fighters were the ones getting multiple attacks. It just makes more sense to me.

 

Teach me, oh wise one!! :notworthy

I've always wanted to learn Northern Shaolin, but there are no places around here that teach it...

*ahem* Sorry about that. But, when I look at the posts, I have to say, for the sake of the system actually making sense, I think I agree with what Lord_Spike is saying (for the first and probably last time). I've always favored a more real flavor to D&D, and I have to say, Spike has a point. I couldn't see a wizard having training anywhere near sophisticated enough in martial combat to have as much control with a quarterstaff as a student of the martial arts would.

Did you say that this was just an older system of D&D you were reffering to, Spike? I really don't know much beyond the 3.5 ed. rules, and what I've learned from the Baldur's Gate games (which really don't use attacks per round as a system).

 

I think I see your point, Lord Spike, but I'm not really clear on why you think the rules don't reflect what you're saying. As far as I can tell, they do. A first level Wizard has a BAB of +0. Unless he devotes a Feat to Two Weapon Fighting, he'd take his two attacks at -4 and -8 to hit, making it unlikely he'd connect at all. In fact, he wouldn't even break even on those penalties until he was 16th level. Hardly a baby-faced scholar straight from his apprenticeship. The two-weapon fighting rules don't benefit him at all unless he sacrifices feats to train in that style (or is willing to gamble on missing a lot).