[Basic] Is a quarterstaff obviously a weapon?

[Tomsdad]

I think the give away point between a quarterstaff and walking stick/staff is the metal end on both ends (rather than one) and possibly length.

But that said a well made and protected 6ft-8ft stick is just a useful tool and while clearly it can be weapon I think it's not going to ping on radars* unless security is v.high. In terms of "obvious weapon status" I'd put around the handy ubiquitous knife in many settings.

That said a 6-8ft staff is going awkward and out of place in some social situations so putting it to one side (or being expected to, or asked to) would also be pretty reasonable is those situations.

Try walking around with one in a busy pub and see how it goes (I've done this it get's quickly annoying).


On the Hama thing, I think it's about 50% he kind of figured what Gandalf was there for and 50% respect for elders (very elder), the latter giving him allowance for the former.


*there's also the question of who's carrying it, some frail (looking) 60+ old man as opposed to Little John

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I think the give away point between a quarterstaff and walking stick/staff is the metal end on both ends (rather than one) and possibly length.

But that said a well made and protected 6ft-8ft stick is just a useful tool and while clearly it can be weapon I think it's not going to ping on radars* unless security is v.high. In terms of "obvious weapon status" I'd put around the handy ubiquitous knife in many settings.

It's basically a tool that's usable as a weapon. You'll get attention if you carry it in an inappropriate situation, or in situations where all weapons are prohibited, but it doesn't look like only a weapon.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Anthony

A (0.5) armor divisor for unarmed attacks also seems fair, though of course it makes unarmed fighters useless so you probably don't want to do it in a cinematic campaign.

Applying a mathematical complication to the default, most common form of attack (blunt force, particularly of the sort easily available to all characters in one form or another) seems like bad design. GURPS is generally calibrated around the unarmed trained punch (thr+0) and the swing of a blunt stick of a certain size (thr+0).

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Weapons like a Bo or Jo are going to be made from the hardest, heaviest wood possible and might be treated to make them even tougher. At the very least, they'll be made from something like fire-hardened bamboo or rattan.

And the hardened/treated version, such as the Yagyuzue, gets +1 damage over the default value.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Applying a mathematical complication to the default, most common form of attack (blunt force, particularly of the sort easily available to all characters in one form or another) seems like bad design.

Eh, it's probably less complicated than all the rules for hurting yourself. The reality is, if your target's armor is harder than the weapon you're using, you're going to do more damage to your weapon than you do to your target, and metal armor is harder than just about any natural attack, as well as wood or bone weapons.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Applying a mathematical complication to the default, most common form of attack (blunt force, particularly of the sort easily available to all characters in one form or another) seems like bad design. GURPS is generally calibrated around the unarmed trained punch (thr+0) and the swing of a blunt stick of a certain size (thr+0).

I see the point, but I think I'd go the other way. Most violence that's gamed out will involve weapons (IMO), and people will most commonly wear armor in situations where sharp, poke-y weapons abound. If I were to rule that weapons and fists have different armor divisors, I think it'd be simpler to keep things unchanged for weapons, and give fists the 0.5.

(Of course, some games may be far heavier on fists than swords...)

(And it's a moot tangent anyway; I'm not aware of anyone who's actually decided to game different armor divisors for weapons vs fists/feet.)

[a humble lich]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Eh, it's probably less complicated than all the rules for hurting yourself. The reality is, if your target's armor is harder than the weapon you're using, you're going to do more damage to your weapon than you do to your target, and metal armor is harder than just about any natural attack, as well as wood or bone weapons.

I'm not sure I agree with that. For cutting, piercing, and impaling attacks, the strength of the weapon's material is important. However, for crushing weapons, I think the weapons weight is more important in most cases than the weapons hardness. I don't see a steel bar with the same length and mass as a wooden quarterstaff being significantly more effective against armor--especially not by a factor of two.

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

X-ray machines are actually not that effective for detecting explosives (I have had food items be mistaken for explosives because they have similar density to some of the more common explosives). Plastic explosives also come in a wide variety of density, as do woods, so I am sure that someone cleverer than me could find a perfect match. Of course, you could have dogs around sniffing for explosives, but explosive sniffing dogs are much less common than x-ray machines.

Well, that was pointless.

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

X-ray machines are actually not that effective for detecting explosives (I have had food items be mistaken for explosives because they have similar density to some of the more common explosives). Plastic explosives also come in a wide variety of density, as do woods, so I am sure that someone cleverer than me could find a perfect match. Of course, you could have dogs around sniffing for explosives, but explosive sniffing dogs are much less common than x-ray machines.

Marzipan used to be quite popular for making model IEDs for training exercises ... but that may just have been based on a desire to eat the stuff later...

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I think the give away point between a quarterstaff and walking stick/staff is the metal end on both ends (rather than one) and possibly length.

...although the classic "gentleman's cane" traditionally has a metal tip at one end and a solid metal ball at the other...

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

...

...although the classic "gentleman's cane" traditionally has a metal tip at one end and a solid metal ball at the other...

True but a gentleman's cane and a quarterstaff are pretty different things. Also potentially carried by pretty* different people who might get judged differently.

However those canes were often sold as items of self defence (with or without blades and pistols built into them!)


Another good thing about a cane over a Quarterstaff is it's a hell of lot less obtrusive and awkward to carry about indoors. Cane stands and closets upon arrival were also a thing. I.e a gentleman would upon entering a home or club or what have you divest themselves of their overcoat, hat, gloves and cane.



*Bill Sykes shows that it wasn't soley confined to the upper classes of course! (I'm guessing they were pretty ubiquitous, even if not all as fancy)