Staffs and Quarterstaff talent.

[Rick_Smith]

Hi all,
Given that ALL wizards in the new TFT will have staffs, I think that the new TFT needs to spell out how wizard's staffs work with the quarterstaff talent.

Let's say that a wizard spends double experience to pick up the Quarter Staff talent.

Adding 1 die of damage (Staff spell) to the Quarterstaff damage is too good. So much so, that they nerfed it with an illogical rule in the TFT Codex.

What I do in my campaign is say that they both do damage, but the armor protects against each of the damage types in turn. (So you get hit by Staff spell & Quarterstaff. The Quarterstaff does 1d+2 damage and your leather armor protects, then the Staff spell shocks you for 1 die of damage and the leather armor protects against THAT damage as well.)

There are enough things out there with low armor that taking the combo is useful some times, but when you are fighting PC's or bosses, they armor is heavy enough that the combo does not get you much.

A number of my spells that buff weapons also have this rule applied to them.

Anyway this is bound to come up, so SOME SORT of rule should be in place.

Warm regards, Rick.

[David Bofinger]

I find the Rick solution a bit complex, overly special and unnecessary. A wizard's staff should be a sidearm for emergencies, not a melee weapon that can compete with a fighter's primary killing tool. My preferred mechanic:

• The benefit of the staff spell is that a wizard can store mana in the staff, and cast spells while wielding the staff, and incidentally e.g. use it as an explosive booby trap or turn it into a snake if that's his thing.
• The staff spell doesn't provide any bonus to damage.
• If the staff is a small item then it's useless in melee combat, but is at least portable and concealable.
• If the staff is larger it can be used as a quarterstaff, club, maul, boomerang, spear, javelin or whatever it's shaped like. It does damage like any other lump of wood of that size and shape.
• You have to think about whether it's possible to attach a non-ferrous head to it and use it like a polearm. I think that would probably stop it being used like a staff.
• It probably should be possible to use a sword instead, and call it an athame.

All that said, I once played a campaign where our characters all had the advantages of both heroes and wizards, and we all used mauls that had 2+0 bonus damage for staff of power in addition to regular maul damage, and it was quite fun.

[Chris Rice]

The Staff spell allows a Wizard to enchant a piece of wood to do 1d damage not +1d damage. Whether he knows quarterstaff or not surely makes no difference. Where did the idea of +1d damage come from? It doesn't say anything about that in my copies of Wizard or Advanced Wizard.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

The Staff spell allows a Wizard to enchant a piece of wood to do 1d damage not +1d damage. Whether he knows quarterstaff or not surely makes no difference. Where did the idea of +1d damage come from? It doesn't say anything about that in my copies of Wizard or Advanced Wizard.

Hi everyone, Chris.
I think that it doing extra damage is logical:

1) If you have a little willow wand with a staff spell, it does 1 die of magical damage. Why would that damage also not happen when a quarter staff hits someone.

2) If you are a wizard and spend 2 memory to buy the (double priced) Quarterstaff talent, and have also learned the staff spell, you should get a bonus for paying for both effects.

3) I thought about it, questioned it and decided not to bring it up. One of my players thought of it, asked me and forced me to make a decision. The two of us thought that there should be a bonus.

4) Metagaming got enough questions on the combo that they had to answer it in the FAQ in the back of the TFT Codex. So we were hardly the only people who were wondering about this.

If Steve says, "There is no synergy, no bonus for taking both," that is fine. My main point in starting this thread is that the rules should answer the question because with staffs basically being mandatory for wizards, the question will come up.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi everyone, Chris.
I think that it doing extra damage is logical:

1) If you have a little willow wand with a staff spell, it does 1 die of magical damage. Why would that damage also not happen when a quarter staff hits someone.

2) If you are a wizard and spend 2 memory to buy the (double priced) Quarterstaff talent, and have also learned the staff spell, you should get a bonus for paying for both effects.

3) I thought about it, questioned it and decided not to bring it up. One of my players thought of it, asked me and forced me to make a decision. The two of us thought that there should be a bonus.

4) Metagaming got enough questions on the combo that they had to answer it in the FAQ in the back of the TFT Codex. So we were hardly the only people who were wondering about this.

If Steve says, "There is no synergy, no bonus for taking both," that is fine. My main point in starting this thread is that the rules should answer the question because with staffs basically being mandatory for wizards, the question will come up.

Warm regards, Rick.

Thanks Rick, I'd never even considered this as an issue. To me, the Spell gave the Wizard the ability to wield a weapon without needing to have a specific talent, and that was advantage enough in my book. I'd never have allowed it to do "bonus damage". I'm pretty sure, especially looking at the wording of the spell, that was never the intention.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

The Staff spell allows a Wizard to enchant a piece of wood to do 1d damage not +1d damage. Whether he knows quarterstaff or not surely makes no difference. Where did the idea of +1d damage come from? It doesn't say anything about that in my copies of Wizard or Advanced Wizard.

There's a lot of that going around, I've noticed. People have house-ruled for so long that they forget what was a house rule and what was an actual TFT rule.

When discussing TFT, I'd much prefer it if we left out the references to our various house rules and just concentrated on what the books say! ;-)

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by JLV

There's a lot of that going around, I've noticed.

As have I.

I have been amazed at how many words, terms, and concepts which belong to completely different systems - and some *very* closely related systems - have crept into some of the discussions on here as TFT-speak and TFT-rule; when in point-of-fact, they are not.

And the one that makes me wince the hardest when I see it used?

"XP's" when referring to EP's. I know that confession might sound really funny to some, but that one *in particular* goes right up my bee's nest for some reason. LOL! But hey, you guys all know what a purist I am.

JK

[JLV]

And here I am one of the guys most guilty of using that term! Oh well, guess it's just a bad habit I picked up somewhere... ;-)

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by JLV

There's a lot of that going around, I've noticed. People have house-ruled for so long that they forget what was a house rule and what was an actual TFT rule.

When discussing TFT, I'd much prefer it if we left out the references to our various house rules and just concentrated on what the books say! ;-)

Hi all, JLV.
I remind you that the Staff spell and the Quarterstaff talent IS in the basic TFT. Please see the FAQ page G.SPELL 2, in the Fantasy Master's Codex. They had 8 pages of answers to poorly defined parts of the rules, and I found the FAQ the most useful part of that product.

And all I asked was that this question be addressed in the rules. Do you WANT TFT to be patched by 8 pages of errata a year later? Geez.

Regards, Rick.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

Thanks Rick, I'd never even considered this as an issue. To me, the Spell gave the Wizard the ability to wield a weapon without needing to have a specific talent, and that was advantage enough in my book.

I think the other important ability is that it lets a wizard have a ready weapon and cast spells simultaneously.

I'm pretty sure, especially looking at the wording of the spell, that was never the intention.

I absolutely agree. The rules are quite clear as they stand: a staff does 1+0 damage regardless of size. Unfortunately that doesn't really make a lot of sense and many people have trouble suspending their disbelief on the subject. A more believable set of rules might be nice.