Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-10-2010, 01:18 PM   #31
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: My thoughts on Staves

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen View Post
I once read, probably in an Usenet post, that during a certain long period in medieval England, more murders were committed with quarterstaves than with all other weapons combined. They can really injure people.
Heh.

Sw+1 cr is still plenty lethal. For an average man, that's 1d+1 cr, which does an average of 10 points of injury against a man's skull and a maximum of 20. A Committed or All-Out Attack (Strong) will easily call for a death check in most cases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen View Post
The main problem is perhaps that a quarterstaff isn't efficient at all at injuring armoured opponents, especially ones wearing metal armour, even more so rigig metal armour. AFAIK GURPS doesn't simulate that fact at all. So maybe that's what you should look into?
Oh, I've already fixed that with a house rule inspired by Cabaret Chicks on Ice, but far more harsh.

Let's just say that anyone wishing to penetrate armour had better use unbalanced weapons or else thrust (preferably at chinks, while Grappling and in a Committed or All-Out Attack).
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 01:21 PM   #32
Daeglan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Default Re: My thoughts on Staves

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen View Post
I once read, probably in an Usenet post, that during a certain long period in medieval England, more murders were committed with quarterstaves than with all other weapons combined. They can really injure people.

The main problem is perhaps that a quarterstaff isn't efficient at all at injuring armoured opponents, especially ones wearing metal armour, even more so rigig metal armour. AFAIK GURPS doesn't simulate that fact at all. So maybe that's what you should look into?
Well the SCA does not allow the use of quarter staves because you can generate enough force to kill someone in armor. Specifically a blow to the head at full force with a quarter staff will kill you even if you have a helm on.
Daeglan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 01:22 PM   #33
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: My thoughts on Staves

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
Well, it is DX/A, but it normally only works with rather specific forms of weapons. Compare to Guns(SMG), which covers anything from a converted-to-autofire Glock to a Tompson Submachine Gun.
Given that it works with anything with a long pole (from a 4' long stick to a 9' long halberd), I'd say it's not more or less broad than typical Melee Weapon skills.

With the reduction in damage (which can be counter-acted by learning new skills or using Skill or Weapon Adaptation, I guess), I'm just trying to prevent it from being better in all ways than other skills. I like every weapon to have its role and no weapon being better at all things. That also seems realistic to me.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 01:25 PM   #34
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: My thoughts on Staves

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daeglan View Post
Well the SCA does not allow the use of quarter staves because you can generate enough force to kill someone in armor. Specifically a blow to the head at full force with a quarter staff will kill you even if you have a helm on.
The key word is may. May kill you.

If it would always kill people, historical warriors would not have bothered with maces, hammers, picks or all the myriad heads put on poles. Those were put on there because they made the weapon more dangerous against armour.

But yes, I agree that even with high DR on the head, blows to it may cause serious trauma through concussion and whiplash, even if the armour is not penetrated.

This is currently not modelled in GURPS. I was thinking, as a quick fix, that perhaps we should simply note that all attacks to the Face and Skull used the Blunt Trauma rule, even if the armour there was not flexible?
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 01:28 PM   #35
Daeglan
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Default Re: My thoughts on Staves

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
The key word is may. May kill you.

If it would always kill people, historical warriors would not have bothered with maces, hammers, picks or all the myriad heads put on poles. Those were put on there because they made the weapon more dangerous against armour.

But yes, I agree that even with high DR on the head, blows to it may cause serious trauma through concussion and whiplash, even if the armour is not penetrated.

This is currently not modelled in GURPS. I was thinking, as a quick fix, that perhaps we should simply note that all attacks to the Face and Skull used the Blunt Trauma rule, even if the armour there was not flexible?
Well modern padding may mitigate that to some degree. I am sure something could be worked out though.
Daeglan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 01:33 PM   #36
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: My thoughts on Staves

Blunt Trauma is going to only result in one or two points of injury. Eventually incapacitating, but slow and unlikely to actually kill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog View Post
Heh. True. I should have made my point differently - which is that a single-skill weapon (or just picking a single skill) generally nets you more overall advantage for the same point investment in multiple skills. That's a problem inherent in GURPS's point cost system and default system, which is a whole different discussion. Changing staff damage wouldn't change that.
Definitely true, just pointing out that Staff skill doesn't leave you helpless one-handed.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 01:34 PM   #37
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: My thoughts on Staves

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog View Post
And yeah, off-hand parrying will affect two-handed fencers, but I've yet to see a two-weapon user who didn't just pay his or her 1 point to get rid of that penalty entirely.
Goose, gander.

If we're assuming a style perk for all fencers, we should certainly assume that all staffmen have Grip Mastery (Staff) and thus another +1 to Parry, relatively.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog View Post
...and I guess I'm wondering, does making Staff do -1 damage "solve" all of this?
Not at all and not meant to.

A staff ought to be brilliant defensively. I just have problems visualising how one manages to get the same damage from it while holding it near the middle and ready for another +2 Parry as one gets while holding it near the end and swinging full force.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog View Post
Does reducing the +2 parry to +1 for certain staff weapons equalize them?
Note that here I did not propose reducing the +2 Parry, but of increasing the 0 Parry that duelling polearms used with Staff skills in MA to +1.

While not as balanced as a quarterstaff, they do seem to have some of the defensive advantages. And I'm always more comfortable with a smoother sliding scale than a gaping abyss between two extremes.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 01:37 PM   #38
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: My thoughts on Staves

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
Blunt Trauma is going to only result in one or two points of injury. Eventually incapacitating, but slow and unlikely to actually kill.
But more than enough to justify forbidding it in sports as unsafe.

For the occasional killing blow with a quarterstaff against heavy head armour, I'm happy to rely on critical hits. The staff will certainly never actually penetrate the helmet.

But yes, I suppose whiplash and concussion rules could be more severe than just regular Blunt Trauma. Any ideas for how to implement that?
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 01:43 PM   #39
aesir23
 
aesir23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vermont
Default Re: My thoughts on Staves

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog View Post
My copy of GURPS Martial Arts disagrees with you here. I'm looking at pg. 194 and I don't see Two-Handed Sword at all on Shaolin Kung Fu.

Wing Chun (pg. 204) does, as an optional skill, but that's a very specific case - lots of schools seem to take the approach of teaching you to fight with a staff (presumably a boat's pole) by swinging it around at maximum reach, without much emphasis on the cool stuff that you can do with a staff otherwise. But since it more-or-less originated as a way for people on boats to fight other people also on boats, it's less representative than exceptional.
I train with the staff and spear in my kung fu classes (hsing-i and baji), we very very rarely hold it in the cross body stance associated with European and Japanese styles, but usually hold it towards the back, the theory being to take maximum advantage of it's reach. [EDIT] although there are several moves in the forms where you choke up on it the other way strike closer opponents.

Despite both styles being derived from spear fighting, we always keep both hands on the staff, thrust with both ends equally, and swing as often as we thrust, so I would argue that I am learning Staff and not Spear or Two-Handed Sword.

I wonder if, as a house rule, one could do away with the Staff skill all together. A staff or pole can be used with Spear or Two-Handed Sword without penalty.

Styles like Jojutsu, Bojutsu, and Quarter-Staff fighting should be noted to train using only Defensive Grip, and improve that method as a technique, as suggested in this thread.

Last edited by aesir23; 08-10-2010 at 01:47 PM.
aesir23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 01:53 PM   #40
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: My thoughts on Staves

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
Goose, gander.

If we're assuming a style perk for all fencers, we should certainly assume that all staffmen have Grip Mastery (Staff) and thus another +1 to Parry, relatively.
I don't think that accomplishes all that much...They only get to switch once per turn, and defensive grip is rather more (inconvenient, for the most part) than just a +1 to parry.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
martial art, polearm, rules interpretation, rules question, staff

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.