Damage anomaly with Wizard's Staves?

[Kirk]

OK, finally sat down with the new rules and spent hours working through things.

What's the deal with wizards' staves? The spell says it does 1 die damage at a cost of 1 ST. Allright, but why not use a club?

As an example, a ST-11 wiz does, according to club damage chart, 1d - 2 + 4 = 1 + 2 striking two handed, 1 + 1 one-handed. Wait, what?

If my staff is basically a club, I'll do more damage than spending 1 ST and as much damage as someone with the ax/mace talent (1 + 2) wielding an axe!

It's wood, no problem there for the wizard. The rules say *anyone* can strike with a club. Hmmm, even if I forgive the wording and assume it means any *fighter*, aka not a wizard, the rules state that if something requires a talent without an attempt roll, someone may try doing that by adding one die.

So even narrowly interpreting certain parts of the rules as much as possible, we have a ST-11 DX-13 say, wizard, doing 2 more damage wielding his staff/club at *no* ST cost vs. using his staff magically, only (possibly) having to make a 4 die roll to hit instead of 3 dice, and doing the same as fighter with ax/mace talent does with his small axe.

Am I missing something?

[hcobb]

Occult strikes are not stopped by defending or dodging. At higher levels they ignore armor also.

In all other cases your ST 11 wizard should make a two handed maul strike for 1d+2, but why exactly did your wizard waste 3 points on ST? That makes each IQ level eight times as expensive.

BTW note this text on page 148:
• An actual staff. Advantage: has other uses, including walking, whacking foes, and poking questionable items. Disadvantage: bulky, visible.
• A wand. Advantages: light, stylish, can be concealed. Disadvantage: does no damage of its own if you strike with it.

So mauling is explicitly noted.

Also of note is the difference in the Spell Shield descriptions between Wizard and ITL.

[Kirk]

So I'm right, the rules they changed around staves don't work well?

I haven't "wasted" 3 points on ST. ST for a wizard has advantages as I am sure you know, being able to absorb more hits, casting more spells for a longer period, combining with talents to use various weapons and such, and endurance on long journeys.

And, it seems, to be able to pick up a stick and do as much damage as a refined fighter! And if you think about it, why should a fighter spend 2 points towards Sword, for instance, if they can use a club for almost as much damage (or equal)?

And, of course, why would anyone with Staff spell spend a point of ST to do less damage? There are no advantages I see to the Staff spell or use of a wizard's staff, and very little to Staff II to overcome the generous damage done with a simple club wielded unskilled.

I surely hope you don't take 8 ST with a 36 point wizard, you'll not live long in any of our adventures!

Club damage as written, then, in combination with the weak attack in a Staff style attack at lower levels, seems like a poorly tested rules change. And that even applies to a ST 11 fighter who foregoes a weapon talent, grabs a stick, and does almost, or all, of the damage of a trained one who spent 2 points on a talent.

Someone, please correct me if I have misread the rules somehow, I hate to think we are going to have to house rule this to fix it straight out of the box!

[hcobb]

The reason heroes don't fight with sticks is that they are talented. (Unlike those wimpy wizards.) There is no talent for Club and hence there is no mastery for it either.

Hoplite Cassidy
ST 9 DX 12 IQ 11 MA 12
Javelin(1d-1+1, -1DX to attack) Small Shield(1+1, -1DX to attack), Dagger(1d+1 in HTH)
Weapon Expertise(Pole Weapons)(3), Shield Expertise(2),Shield(1),Pole Weapons(2), Running(2), Knife(1)

You can't have Weapon Expertise(Club) because there is no Club talent.

[Kirk]

OK, I don't think you understand the issue, or at least your answer doesn't address my question.

The way the rules seem to be written makes a club, which doesn't require the 2 points that ax/mace or sword etc. require, does about the same damage as these more sophisticated and complicated skilled weapons at several ST levels, and the Staff spell and use of the staff by spending 1 ST, and Staff II, really, is completely bogus over using a staff as a club/maul, and not having to spend 1 ST every time you use it, nor having to have the Staff or Staff II spell.

That's about as descriptively plain as I can be. In other words, there seems to be no real advantage to the Staff, Staff II, or weapons talents over just wielding a club, contrary to the verbiage stating that it is a crude and unbalanced weapon. That point of view is not supported by the rules very well at all.

[hcobb]

If the target is defending the mundane mauling by the Wizard's Staff would require 4/DX to hit while Staff I's occult strike is 3/DX to hit.

Mauling with a Wizard's Staff is a magical weapon, but some creatures are only subject to magical attacks, not magical weapons, hence the occult strike is needed.

Lastly if your wizard is holding a club that isn't his Staff then he's limited to spells 2 or more below his IQ as per Gestures and Incantations on page 142.

[Kirk]

Well, you are not really addressing my points, but perhaps we can clear up one thing, and that is your interpretation that a 4d/DX roll is required if defending against a Staff I, for instance, as a maul, whereas as a 1 ST "spell" attack using the Staff it is not "defensible". I can't find that, can you tell me where it is?

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by Kirk

Well, you are not really addressing my points, but perhaps we can clear up one thing, and that is your interpretation that a 4d/DX roll is required if defending against a Staff I, for instance, as a maul, whereas as a 1 ST "spell" attack using the Staff it is not "defensible". I can't find that, can you tell me where it is?

Page 117: "Defending is effective only against non-missile spells and attacks. A figure can defend only if it has a staff, sword, club, etc., ready to parry the attack with. In other words, dodging makes a missile likely to miss; defending is used against physical attacks from adjacent hexes."

Page 18: "The staff does not have to touch its target in order to deliver its flare of magical energy."

Page 28: "if an astral figure wishes to cast a spell on any physical person or object, or use the occult attack of his staff, the ST cost is tripled."

Page 148: "A wand. Advantages: light, stylish, can be concealed. Disadvantage: does no damage of its own if you strike with it."

Page 27: "Spell Shield (T): Prevents any spells (hostile or otherwise) from being cast on its subject – that is, protects against effects of all Special, Missile, and Thrown spells, and the occult damage from a staff. Does not affect spells already cast; does not protect against ordinary physical force, including damage done by created beings or things, damage done by weapons (ordinary or magical), or the effects of magic ropes and slippery floors."

Ergo the Occult strike is neither a spell nor a physical attack, but it's own special thing.

[Kirk]

Hmmm, I don't buy your argument. If a staff's attack cannot be defended against because it isn't considered a "physical attack" but rather a "magical" one, then that means Lightning, Fireball, etc. can't be dodged, because they aren't "physical", but rather "magical".

Do you play that way, also?

Also, do you concede that weapons talents such as Sword, Ax/Mace, etc. compared to clubs really aren't very advantageous? 2 IQ points for almost the same amount of damage, doesn't seem worth it. And of course, clubs are much cheaper than swords...

[TippetsTX]

Sometimes I wonder if the problem isn't with wizards using their staff in combat, but rather with the 'club' rules themselves.