Quarterstaff and TWF

[Cadfan]

It makes more sense to me to consider the staff to be a two handed weapon, and then to simply describe its attacks as you please.

Right now, who should be fighting with a staff?

Not the fighter, the staff really doesn't fit with their "athletic guy in heavy armor" schtick. The wizard should be wielding a staff, but not necessarily hitting people with it. If the staff were a double weapon, the ranger could use it, but I don't think that fits his schtick either. Really, no one is well built for fancy staff wielding.

So for now, no one is right for staff wielding. Eventually we'll get a monk though, and hopefully we'll get staff-based powers to give him lots of ways to use a staff. Remember, fancy weapon tricks don't have to be built into the weapon itself anymore, they can be built into the class that makes best use of the weapon.

 

[Tripgnosis]

I'm really happy with the quarterstaff changes. Flailing away with both ends is not how you use a staff!

Might not be how YOU use a staff, but why does everyone have to use a staff the same way?

As far as it being a double weapon, I think it's splitting hairs to say that teh rules don't allow that. Both hands have a weapon in them, and it's teh same form in each hand. A blunt stick. Who's to say which end is the business end, and why can't they both be. Certainly some staffs have some kinda head on them, to me that's more of a wizards staff than a generic staff.

As gfar as making other polearms double weapons, that's a bit more complicated. The damage wouldn't be the same on both ends, and the method of using the weapon would be different, representing some extra training. Then there's the reach factor. Simplest way to create double weapons woudl be to use the polearms as a base, have identical heads, and take way the reach from the weapon permantly - Partly to adjust for weaight but more importantly, just to keep them balanced statistically.

Personally though, I don't like creating or modifying rules. The staff is already simple and basic enough for it to be a non-issue, but other than that, I'm just gonna wait for official rules for double weapons. I' sure there will be some eventually....

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm really happy with the quarterstaff changes. Flailing away with both ends is not how you use a staff!

The Royal Armouries Museum would disagree with you

Now Eastern style staff fighting, sure. But Western style staff fighting can be pretty different.

Cheers

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

It makes more sense to me to consider the staff to be a two handed weapon, and then to simply describe its attacks as you please.

Right now, who should be fighting with a staff?

Personally, I like the idea of a staff-wielding ranger. He looks like a normal peasant/wilderness traveller with a big walking stick, until he gets jumped by bandits, where his mastery of both ends of the quarterstaff shows ....

Anyway, is the quarterstaff a 1d6 weapon in 4E, or did it at least get an upgrade to 1d8 when they deleted its dual-nature?

 

[Aegir]

Anyway, is the quarterstaff a 1d6 weapon in 4E, or did it at least get an upgrade to 1d8 when they deleted its dual-nature?

Its d8 now.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Its d8 now.

Thank goodness. Now I can play a quarterstaff-equipped character without feeling like I've completely gimped myself.

 

[Gloombunny]

Why is it more acceptable to strike with both ends of a spear than it is to "flail away" with both ends of a staff? A spear is nothing more than a staff with a single pointy end, and a staff is nothing more than a spear missing a pointy end. A character with TWF weilding either weapon could fight identically, and still tear up the battlefield.

You strike with the butt end as circumstances warrant. You don't seesaw your weapon back and forth to whack with one end and then the other really quickly. Unless you want to lose a fight and look like a moron doing so. That goes for both staves and spears, naturally - the techniques for using a staff are actually very very similar to the techniques for using a spear.

You don't need special "double weapon" rules to attack with one end sometimes and the other end other times. You only need those rules if you want to use your staff to attack twice as fast as a guy with a sword, and that's stupid and looks stupid.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think what Gloombunny is trying to say is that despite appearances (the whole visual effect of spinning) turning your staff around and attacking with the other end is no faster than swinging a single sword twice.

I'm "proficient" with the staff (though to be fair, not an english quarterstaff, but a japanese rokushakubo) and while it has some pretty quick moves, so does the sword, and "speed" (measured in D&D by getting multiple attacks out of it) is not it's forte. Reach and momentum are.

Although I'd like to see some staff and polearm powers that allow you to attack a SECOND opponent quickly (as opposed to the same opponent twice) as it's much easier (faster) to swing at multiple targets than to swing twice at the same one.

Overall 4E has many more examples of weapons showing the correct "flavour" than any previous edition.

Fitz