10-09-2010, 11:51 AM | #11 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: Thought I understood the Staff/Spear issue, but...
Quote:
Firstly the jo, adding a spear head makes it cost $10 more, weigh 0.5lbs more and requires +1 ST over the short spear. However, the jo now does thr+2 imp one handed (with staff skill, since no mention is made of using it with a different skill), as well as thr+3 imp two handed. A short spear only does thr+1 imp one handed, so the pros outweigh the cons and you should have a jo with a spear head, not a short spear. Secondly the quarterstaff, adding a spear head brings it to equal cost, weigh 0.5lbs more, but still only require 1 less ST than a spear. Both can do the same impaling damage, so that's a wash. However, the staff can do a one handed thrust at reach 1 or 2, and it doesn't take a ready maneuver for the staff to change reach*. Of the course the staff can't be thrown, but still the second point goes to the staffs. Finally the long staff, adding a spear head leaves it at $15 less, weighs 0.5lbs more and requires +1 ST over the long staff. Again, both do the same impaling damage, and at the same reach, but the long staff doesn't require ready maneuvers to change reach*. The long spear's one handed strike has a parry of 0U, compared to the long staff's parry of +2*. Look's like the staff's win three out of three. To me, the issue itself is caused by calling a staff a hafted weapon. To me, having a haft is synonymous with having a hilt. In other words, having a haft implies there is a head. Staffs don't have heads, so they shouldn't count as a hafted weapon. *These pieces fall under conjecture as there is nothing explicitly stated about them. |
|
10-09-2010, 12:25 PM | #12 | ||||
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Florida
|
Re: Thought I understood the Staff/Spear issue, but...
Quote:
Quote:
Is it balanced? I think so. But it doesn't play well with the previous assumptions on staff/spear use. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
10-09-2010, 03:15 PM | #13 |
Join Date: May 2005
|
Re: Thought I understood the Staff/Spear issue, but...
I don't have MA, so I hope I'm not diverting the discussion, but I have to say the Staff skill always confused me. Why can't you use Staff skill with a pointed pole? Use the same motions, but now when you thrust your damage is impaling (and maybe gets +1 or +2 penetration, cf. thrusting broadswords).
Maybe the little bit of metal at the end messes up the balance? But wait, the naginata (with a much more serious head) can be used with Staff skill, but (for some incomprehensible reason) you're only allowed to thrust with the blunt end. And somehow this restriction doesn't affect your skill at all! Now I've never fought with staff, spear, or polearm, so I have no personal basis for a reality check. Does anyone have an explanation for this? TeV N.B. Back in Ancient Times (3rd edition) Staff was a Hard skill, and I could reasonably just say that Staff works with any balanced polearm, and the extra difficulty covers your improved handling and parry. But that doesn't apply any more. |
10-09-2010, 04:01 PM | #14 |
Untagged
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
|
Re: Thought I understood the Staff/Spear issue, but...
I like, I think it was Kromm or Icelander, that came up with making staff do only swing Cr and no bonus to defenses, but with a floating +2 you could add to either one depending on how you wielded it.
|
10-09-2010, 04:37 PM | #15 | |
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Florida
|
Re: Thought I understood the Staff/Spear issue, but...
Quote:
This would work very well in a prehistoric game I ran that allowed "Shortsword", "Broadsword", "Axe/Mace", etc. to take the Optional specialty of "Sticks". That would make all of our (our, as in homo sapien) first, and easy to make and use weapons an Easy skill... Knife (which includes "hand axes"), spear, and the "stick" versions of other skills. |
|
Tags |
combination weapons, spear, staff |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|