Unstavish Staffs

[FireHorse]

I don't quite get why the only apparent requirement for a Staff is that it be long and skinny (or at least, longer in one dimension than the other two).

Personally, I rather like the idea of using a Ring — but Rings are specifically mentioned as unacceptable, because "the symbolism is all wrong".

To what symbolism does this refer? The symbolism of a Wizard's Staff™…? If that's the case, why is a Dagger acceptable?

And if a Wand is okay (because it's a long skinny piece of wood), then how about a Club or Mace? Or a Spear — or a Halberd, or a Pike? Why not a Bow? Or a Banner Pole?

It seems to me that the symbolism is really just stereotype — and if the purpose of that restriction is purely formal, then I am inclined to ignore it.

The only practical purpose I can imagine is to ensure that a Wizard's Staff-object is always handheld and therefore capable of being dropped.

But if that's the real reason, then why not just make THAT the rule, rather than a vague rule about general shape?

Thoughts…?

…

Incidentally: ITL uses both "staffs" and "staves". This annoys me. Even if both are technically acceptable forms, using both is just inconsistent.

[Skarg]

Mainly, I think it's up to the GM to decide for their worlds/games what the limits are, by whatever logic they like. So if the symbol seems off to you, don't use it.


As for your specific questions about the current written version, I would think:

* I think another reason (the reason for the reason?) to disallow ring staffs is that rings are one of the most common/least-interesting-in-logical-side-effects shapes for an item - rings become like just a superpower of the wearer unless you take the ring or their hand/arm. Not only can't they be dropped, they don't need to be readied, don't weigh anything, can reasonably be worn day and night, can be hidden under gloves or shoes, etc. Especially with the new "arcane attack", there's less reason to use a larger object, so you'd end up with less interesting variety of circumstances, and more gamey ideas such as "why do you bother having your staff be an object other than a ring?"

* I think the wand/staff is the symbol (seen in other places e.g. Tarot) and a dagger works because it is a pointer like a wand, and because of athames.

* I think a spear/pike/pole/club/maul would definitely work, and probably also a halberd, and probably also a bow or mace (with a wood or silver handle). The metal parts might need to be made out something other than steel or iron.

[JohnPaulB]

Originally Posted by FireHorse

I don't quite get why the only apparent requirement for a Staff is that it be long and skinny (or at least, longer in one dimension than the other two).

Personally, I rather like the idea of using a Ring — but Rings are specifically mentioned as unacceptable, because "the symbolism is all wrong".

To what symbolism does this refer? The symbolism of a Wizard's Staff™…? If that's the case, why is a Dagger acceptable?

And if a Wand is okay (because it's a long skinny piece of wood), then how about a Club or Mace? Or a Spear — or a Halberd, or a Pike? Why not a Bow? Or a Banner Pole?

It seems to me that the symbolism is really just stereotype — and if the purpose of that restriction is purely formal, then I am inclined to ignore it.

The only practical purpose I can imagine is to ensure that a Wizard's Staff-object is always handheld and therefore capable of being dropped.

But if that's the real reason, then why not just make THAT the rule, rather than a vague rule about general shape?

Thoughts…?

…

Incidentally: ITL uses both "staffs" and "staves". This annoys me. Even if both are technically acceptable forms, using both is just inconsistent.

You could always make it a short wand and get a vambrace that has loops to hold the wand on the inside of the arm. When you need it, pull the top and the vambrace will either still hold the wand that is now in your hand or you completely release the wand into your hand.

Having a Staff look like a spear (with a silver blade that is painted to look like steel) will allow a wizard to look like a Hero. And you can still poke with the pointy end.

The problem with anything that does not look like a Staff or wand is that somebody cleaning up the area who KNOWS not to mess with a staff will be blown up when he picks up the 'spear' to sweep under.

I think we drove SJ crazy when a similar Staff thread came up last year.

What would you like Staff to mean? What would you like Stave to mean?

[FireHorse]

Originally Posted by JohnPaulB

What would you like Staff to mean? What would you like Stave to mean?

In a broad, philosophical sense, I kinda feel like a "Staff" ought to be pretty much any object a Wizard chooses — subject, perhaps, to any rational and necessary limitations (such as being handheld, not worn or surgically implanted or whatever).

But in the (totally nitpicky, and arguably irrelevant) sense of grammar and vocabulary, I consider "Staves" to be the correct plural form. "Staffs" is only for the other kind, as in: "The staffs of the two offices collaborated to market a new design of Wizard's Staves." :)

Originally Posted by Skarg

* I think the wand/staff is the symbol (seen in other places e.g. Tarot) and a dagger works because it is a pointer like a wand, and because of athames.

I suppose that makes sense, and the same people who'd use an Athame do occasionally use a Sword for the same purpose, so I'll give you that too.

But it still sort of bugs me though, because it means there's one and only one kind of magic-users in this world. I can imagine a great many more, but the system doesn't allow them.

* I think a spear/pike/pole/club/maul would definitely work, and probably also a halberd, and probably also a bow or mace (with a wood or silver handle). The metal parts might need to be made out something other than steel or iron.

I wonder… how about Nunchaku? ;)

And now I'm remembering the Priest of Poseidon character I once created (many years ago), for whom I argued vehemently against the stupid clerical weapon limitations in AD&D (1E) — which were based on one very specific, rigidly Medieval Christian interpretation of what a "Cleric" is (or ought to be).

And my argument was successful, too. So we dumped that stupid rule, and my Priest of Poseidon was allowed to carry a Trident after all — as Poseidon intended.

[hcobb]

Whataboutism variant wizards who don't use wood and instead store mana in their familiars?

[FireHorse]

Originally Posted by hcobb

Whataboutism variant wizards who don't use wood and instead store mana in their familiars?

Or a whole new class of magic-users: Summoners, all of whose spells revolve around compelling other things to do their bidding.

[JohnPaulB]

Originally Posted by FireHorse

Or a whole new class of magic-users: Summoners, all of whose spells revolve around compelling other things to do their bidding.

Or another whole new class of Magic-User: the Operatic Wizard. He has a Sheet of Music that has his "Staff" on it and he sings out his spells.

In Western musical notation, the staff (US) or stave (UK) (plural for either: staves) is a set of five horizontal lines and four spaces that each represent a different musical pitch or in the case of a percussion staff, different percussion instruments. - Wikipedia

[JohnPaulB]

Originally Posted by FireHorse

In a broad, philosophical sense, I kinda feel like a "Staff" ought to be pretty much any object a Wizard chooses — subject, perhaps, to any rational and necessary limitations (such as being handheld, not worn or surgically implanted or whatever).

I wonder… how about Nunchaku? ;)

And now I'm remembering the Priest of Poseidon character I once created (many years ago), for whom I argued vehemently against the stupid clerical weapon limitations in AD&D (1E) — which were based on one very specific, rigidly Medieval Christian interpretation of what a "Cleric" is (or ought to be).

And my argument was successful, too. So we dumped that stupid rule, and my Priest of Poseidon was allowed to carry a Trident after all — as Poseidon intended.

How about a wooden cross "staff" on a rosary for those magic wielding clerics?

Or drumsticks for those percussion masters? Only one stick at a time, though. The other one is normal.

[KevinJ]

A walking stick for the fashionable wizard about town...

[warhorse11h]

Originally Posted by FireHorse

I don't quite get why the only apparent requirement for a Staff is that it be long and skinny (or at least, longer in one dimension than the other two).

Personally, I rather like the idea of using a Ring — but Rings are specifically mentioned as unacceptable, because "the symbolism is all wrong".

To what symbolism does this refer? The symbolism of a Wizard's Staff™…? If that's the case, why is a Dagger acceptable?

And if a Wand is okay (because it's a long skinny piece of wood), then how about a Club or Mace? Or a Spear — or a Halberd, or a Pike? Why not a Bow? Or a Banner Pole?

It seems to me that the symbolism is really just stereotype — and if the purpose of that restriction is purely formal, then I am inclined to ignore it.

The only practical purpose I can imagine is to ensure that a Wizard's Staff-object is always handheld and therefore capable of being dropped.

But if that's the real reason, then why not just make THAT the rule, rather than a vague rule about general shape?

Thoughts…?

…

Incidentally: ITL uses both "staffs" and "staves". This annoys me. Even if both are technically acceptable forms, using both is just inconsistent.

I house ruled a change to the staff spells to allow for staffs, holy symbols (or unholy if you prefer), and even talismans and medicine bags for others. I didn't like the idea that a mage has to have an obvious and visible staff just to be competitive. Some of that was probably influenced by my fondness for Belgarath. He generally did not carry a staff, but he did have a silver medallion around his neck.