The Bladestaff: How to incorporate this into TFT?

[phiwum]

Really could not be clearer.

Originally Posted by ITL 23

Your staff is now immune to Drop Weapon and Break
Weapon spells and critical failures.

[Bill_in_IN]

I find the new array of Staff Spells in TFT an interesting change over the original TFT to be very interesting as I try to navigate them as a part of wizard development. The original TFT only had two levels of staff spell. The first one is about the same in both versions. The original TFT only had one high level Staff of Mastery Spell after that which really didn't give it the same abilities as the new Staff 5 spell. As a result, in the original TFT, wizard staves were not much of an important part of a powerful wizard's character. The new TFT allows for power points to be stored in the staff which is an interesting new resource to explore. In the original TFT, wizards gravitated toward power stones with much less dependence upon staves.

Originally Posted by phiwum

That's a pretty interesting point that the optional Aimed Shot rule makes the quarterstaff ability less significant. However, if disarming is your aim, then a quarterstaff is still slightly more effective than a maul.

(1) For unarmored or lightly armored opponents, both quarterstaff and maul can be used in an aimed shot, with 3 or more damage resulting in a dropped weapon, no save roll. Both do the same damage, so no real difference.

(2) For well-armored opponents, the quarterstaff has the option of using its special disarming attack, which may have a better chance of succeeding.

Still, disarm attacks don't come up too often in my games, aside from those aimed at staff-wielding wizards.

Originally Posted by hcobb

Who are the only ones who are immune to disarming attacks. (Even Weapon Mastery only applies to a few retain weapon cases.)

I don't know if a wizard is immune from a disarming attack against their staff. I would say that Staff 2 would be required for that statement to be made at all. I would say that there is a strong case that disarming of a wizard with Staff 2 and above can't happen or is definitely more difficult.

Originally Posted by Shostak

No. As has been pointed out a multitude of times, the advanced wizards' staves are not immune to disarming maneuvers. Rather, they are immune to the Drop Weapon and Break Weapon spells and to those results from critical failures on attack rolls.

I concur. However, RAW is a strong argument for not being able to disarm a wizard of their staff. I point to the distinction that Staff 2 would be required before the assertion that a wizard can't be disarmed of their staff.

Originally Posted by phiwum

Really could not be clearer.

I concur that a wizard's staff is not immune to disarming especially at Staff Spell 1 level. Starting at Staff Level 2, this may be a GM's call. I lean on the side of NOT allowing a wizard to be disarmed of their staff. If one were to make a GM call and allow it, as the Staff Spell levels increase, perhaps, the probability of disarming the wizard of his staff decreases.

So, per this info exchange, one can say that a quarterstaff is a good option for a wizard for the following reasons.

1. It provides two more points of damage over a standard staff when the occult damage option is NOT used. Later Staff spell levels allow for both physical and occult attacks at the same time which will allow the wizard to inflict more damage.

2. The quarterstaff talent only costs the wizard two IQ/Talent points as opposed to pole weapons costing him 4 points. Also, a pole weapon is more likely to have metal and buying a silver version of a spear or naginata gets expensive.

3. If someone were to try to disarm a wizard with a quarterstaff, It should be harder to disarm a wizard of their quarterstaff because of the quarterstaff talent and pre-existing knowledge of such an attack.

4. While a quarterstaff doesn't have a sharp edge and cannot be increased in damage via a fine weapons build, It could be finely made to increase DX by 1 point.

5. The disarming attack of a quarterstaff may be preferred when you are wanting to subdue an opponent as opposed to eliminate them. We just had an encounter where this would have been preferred over shooting a guy with arrows until he capitulated. Yes...I'm the guilty one that was firing the arrows and trying for them to inflict smaller amounts of damage.

[phiwum]

The way I reckon it, Bill, is that we err on the side of caution. Staff II explicitly mentions three types of immunity.

(1) Immunity to Drop Weapon spell.
(2) Immunity to Break Weapon spell.
(3) Immunity to critical failures.

None of these are related to the various non-magical means of disarming a foe, aside from the effect. Barring an explicit erratum that says otherwise, I can't see any reason to presume that Staff II was intended to prevent all unintentional dropping of the staff and the omission merely an oversight.

Moreover, the wizard obviously must drop his staff, whether he wants to or not, when someone initiates HTH with him. This has to be the case or else HTH becomes awkwardly broken.

Similarly, as happened in my game, what would be the effect of a bola to the arms of a wizard if he doesn't drop his staff? His arms are entangled but he maintains his grip nonetheless? I guess it's physically possible, but more than a bit weird.

And surely, we must agree that if we use the optional Aimed Shot rule, at the least a hit of six points (which requires loss of the use of an arm until healed) would require dropping of the staff.

So, I reckon all I have here are the literal words on the page and no particularly good reason to think those words sloppily omitted an important additional immunity or protection. Staff II provides protection against two specific spells and fumbles. That should be enough, especially since wizards with staves have advantages enough in combat and it sure doesn't hurt to give their opponents some means of taking those advantages away.

[hcobb]

Old adv Wiz page 16 Staff of Power has immunity only to drop and break spells, however the immunity clause on page 11 also provides protection against purely accidental drops. So this isn't a new issue, it's just more common at Staff II than before.


Also is a wand immune to drop for HTH or does that only apply to the Dagger Staff (t.m.).

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by phiwum

The way I reckon it, Bill, is that we err on the side of caution. Staff II explicitly mentions three types of immunity.

(1) Immunity to Drop Weapon spell.
(2) Immunity to Break Weapon spell.
(3) Immunity to critical failures.

None of these are related to the various non-magical means of disarming a foe, aside from the effect. Barring an explicit erratum that says otherwise, I can't see any reason to presume that Staff II was intended to prevent all unintentional dropping of the staff and the omission merely an oversight.

Moreover, the wizard obviously must drop his staff, whether he wants to or not, when someone initiates HTH with him. This has to be the case or else HTH becomes awkwardly broken.

Similarly, as happened in my game, what would be the effect of a bola to the arms of a wizard if he doesn't drop his staff? His arms are entangled but he maintains his grip nonetheless? I guess it's physically possible, but more than a bit weird.

And surely, we must agree that if we use the optional Aimed Shot rule, at the least a hit of six points (which requires loss of the use of an arm until healed) would require dropping of the staff.

So, I reckon all I have here are the literal words on the page and no particularly good reason to think those words sloppily omitted an important additional immunity or protection. Staff II provides protection against two specific spells and fumbles. That should be enough, especially since wizards with staves have advantages enough in combat and it sure doesn't hurt to give their opponents some means of taking those advantages away.

I have no reason to disagree with your post above. I am still navigating the new array of staff spells. I can't really lean on the original TFT for this new situation other than disarming a wizard of his staff could occur in the original TFT even though the Staff of Power had similar stated immunities. The first staff spell reads almost the same as the new Staff 1 spell with some slight difference. The original didn't allow for the physical staff damage to vary from 1D6 based upon the actual weapon used. The new TFT opened a staff up to many new possibilities in that respect.

Per ITL page 23 (Staff 2 spell):

Your staff is now immune to Drop Weapon and Break Weapon spells and critical failures.

I guess that it comes down to how the GM defines 'critical failures'. Does the wizard get a saving roll from a disarming style of attack? Is the failure of that roll considered to be a critical failure? Is the successful roll of a detailed shot to the staff arm of the wizard considered to be a critical failure?

The detailed shot is definitely not a critical failure on the part of the wizard who is not rolling to make a hit where he had definite immunity to rolls 17 and 18 causing a dropped/broken weapon. A successful to hit roll on the part of the attacker would result in that arm being affected and causing the staff to be dropped but not broken. So, I would say that if the attack, in any way requires a savings roll of any kind on the part of the wizard, the stated immunity would definitely apply because the failure of that roll could be considered to be a critical failure. Sometimes the wizard has to suffer such bad luck just like the other characters--especially if they are not allowed a saving roll.

Now, if a GM is consistent with a house rule across the board with respect to the wizards staff never being dropped under any combat circumstances, then so be it. It definitely simplifies game play. At least, they are being consistent even though I don't fully agree with it. Sometimes being consistently wrong is better than inconsistency (being all over the place) until it is finally resolved.

I would also be accepting of a gradual decreased probability of drop based upon the increasing level of staff spell (As a GM, I probably wouldn't go there). The only reason that I say this is because, in the new TFT, it is obvious that the roll of the staff in the development of a wizard character seems to have been elevated to much higher levels than in the original TFT. In fact, our wizards were much less likely to have staves because of their lack of overall utility for the wizard as opposed to other weapons and means of storing/accessing energy. The staves had little/none of that going for them in the original TFT.

So, in the end, I have my biases but I would follow house rules with respect to the immunity of dropping a wizard's staff as it applies to disarming attacks.

Gee...I'm glad that the Bladestaff discussion was resolved. LOL!

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by hcobb

Old adv Wiz page 16 Staff of Power has immunity only to drop and break spells, however the immunity clause on page 11 also provides protection against purely accidental drops. So this isn't a new issue, it's just more common at Staff II than before.


Also is a wand immune to drop for HTH or does that only apply to the Dagger Staff (t.m.).

I'm puzzled. Are you suggesting that the various disarming attacks are covered by Staff II immunities? Because I don't see that is so.

I don't have Adv. Wizard and it's not really relevant if we're playing Legacy anyway. The entry quoted previously does not speak of "accidental drops" but of "critical failures". Even if you have an argument that the result of a disarming attack is an "accidental drop", it is NOT a "critical failure".

I don't see a wand as an exception to the rules for initiating TFT. The dagger-staff is an exception because it's a dagger. The rules for HTH refers to "ready weapon and/or shield", so I suppose if you wanted to make hay, you could say a wand is neither a weapon nor a shield, but it would be a silly argument.

[hcobb]

The quarterstaff is much better than Club Mastery because Weapon Masters don't have immunity to the quarterstaff, which can disarm giant clubs and battle axes.

[phiwum]

Yes, I suppose anyone considering Club Mastery just for the ability to disarm giants should think again.

But I haven't had anyone even consider mastery of such a simple and low-damage weapon. Nor has disarming been a big part of my game so far (though it's a nice option on occasion).

Anyway, if it ever came down to learning quarterstaff or spending six talent points -- at least[1] -- and learning club mastery with an IQ 13 and if the only criterion was the ability to disarm, I think you're right. They should go with quarterstaff.

Your post did make me wonder about other issues, Henry. Even without mastery -- which only allows disarming of like weapons or weapons of lower ST -- anyone can disarm by making an aimed attack at the weapon arm (if we're using these optional rules). The target drops his weapon if at least 3 hits are done. I suppose that these 3 hits must be adjusted upward for large targets. It won't come up too often, but an adjustment like those found in "Reactions to Injury" (ITL 118) would certainly make sense.

[1] I'd require one extra talent point at least for Club Expertise, since I think unskilled use of a club isn't enough to gain expertise.