The Bladestaff: How to incorporate this into TFT?

[larsdangly]

Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN

No. It's a blade staff. A spear is a pole with a point on it. This has a sword blade on the end of a quarter staff. It's not the same. It would also require pole weapons and quarterstaff talentes to fully use all of its capabilities. I also accounted for keeping it as ST 11 weapon by downgrading the blade from a broadsword to a short sword.

Damage would need to have similarities to the type of blade on it with some advantages based upon physics. While the damage is up for discussion, what is presented doesn't make it a super weapon to which all players will flock. It squeezes some additional points out of current weaponry. That is what innovative weapon designs are supposed to do provided that characters have the ability to wield them.

I was searching the web for quarterstaff info and the bladestaff in the link that I posted came up. I found it interesting. It described it well but didn't go into damage either than it being a very lethal weapon. The same link mentioned one with blades at both ends. It didn't even go there because I didn't want to see any heads explode.

Of course you should do what you want with your game and house rules. I would just note that lots and lots of period european spears had really stout bladed heads a foot or more long and hacking and slashing with the head was a standard part of the formal training we see in the manuals. So, while I'm sure what you have in mind is different in detail it is broadly the same idea. The bigger issue is the trade off of damage for required ST. You can get a point off the normal progression without really messing up the game (assuming you impose some kind of gate keeping talent or other disadvantage). But I'll irritatingly repeat that getting several points off is definitely going to transform your game into 'sword spears vs. the world!'. What player would walk away from something like that if they could have it? It would be like offering a +5 magic weapon as something you can just snag off the normal equipment lists for 100 bucks.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN

So, per the description provided in the link. There is ambiguity with respect to the bladestaff being strictly a pole weapon or also a type of quarterstaff. It's clearly both depending upon it's use.

Once you put a large blade on one end, it just isn’t a quarterstaff anymore, regardless of what the person who came up the description wrote.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

So TFT doesn't support the level of nuance in combat physics that I think you are looking for. Using RAW, if the weapon has a long shaft and a blade of pretty much any length on one end (or both) it should be covered by the POLE ARMS talent.

And BTW, I whole-heartedly support the addition of more/better polearms to the game.

That's cool. There is an argument for keeping it strictly a pole weapon per classification. However, TFT is only as restrictive as you let it be. Being old school, we used the game well over a decade after it went out of print. Thoughtful innovation kept the game alive and fun. RAW is a guideline and foundation upon which we should heavily rely. Not a box with walls 500 feet thick.

This staff blade, per the provided description, is clearly a quarterstaff with a blade on it. So, it does present a classification dichotomy. I think that TFT can allow for it provided that it is properly described and documented to allow for its use. It would be like adding your own weapon description to RAW. In that description, the talents required for its use as a pole weapon and/or a staff would be defined.

So far as damage, it would vary based upon the type of blade which would also affect required ST. I described how to keep it within quarterstaff requirements. A compromise would be to use the corresponding blade damage and only add one point for the physics. I suggested three as a reasonable discussion starter. This would result in a quarterstaff or pole weapon with 2D6 damage. No different than a broad sword or a halberd. Certainly not a super weapon but a ST 11 character could wield it. If a broad sword blade is used, it would be a ST 12 weapon with one more point of damage.

If course finding someone to make such a weapon would also make it rare.

I think finding ways in add innovative weapons is a good way to keep it interesting and fun. At least that used to be the case in the original TFT.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

Of course you should do what you want with your game and house rules. I would just note that lots and lots of period european spears had really stout bladed heads a foot or more long and hacking and slashing with the head was a standard part of the formal training we see in the manuals. So, while I'm sure what you have in mind is different in detail it is broadly the same idea. The bigger issue is the trade off of damage for required ST. You can get a point off the normal progression without really messing up the game (assuming you impose some kind of gate keeping talent or other disadvantage). But I'll irritatingly repeat that getting several points off is definitely going to transform your game into 'sword spears vs. the world!'. What player would walk away from something like that if they could have it? It would be like offering a +5 magic weapon as something you can just snag off the normal equipment lists for 100 bucks.

I didn't say that it would be common or cheap. If that was the implication, I do apologize.

Since you mentioned such spear modifications, I'm now interested. Do you have some info?

I'm not out to create greatly imbalanced super weapons but innovation need not be stifled either. If you read my posts, I clearly stated that the damage is still up for discussion. I threw out numbers to get the discussion started as opposed to bringing out the fun police.

[Jeff Lord]

"This staff blade, per the provided description, is clearly a quarterstaff with a blade on it. So, it does present a classification dichotomy. "

At the risk of echoing others, have you seen a naginata?

Also, I think the thread is fun, but should probably be shifted over to house rules.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Once you put a large blade on one end, it just isn’t a quarterstaff anymore, regardless of what the person who came up the description wrote.

I concur per the polearm classification. However, the description that I linked did muddy the water by stating the following:

The Blade Staff can be used by anyone capable of wielding a spear, halberd, or quarterstaff. The Blade Staff is an effective weapon with more reach than your average sword giving it an advantage in melee combat. It cannot be thrown as one might throw a spear however, this is because the blade is not symmetrically balanced as the head of a spear is (throwing a Blade Staff is like throwing a halberd, it's not very practical), but is instead used to tear an opponent apart with devastating slashes with the keen blade.

Therefore, classifying it as an equivalent to a spear may not be practical even though it's polearm.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lord

"This staff blade, per the provided description, is clearly a quarterstaff with a blade on it. So, it does present a classification dichotomy. "

At the risk of echoing others, have you seen a naginata?

Also, I think the thread is fun, but should probably be shifted over to house rules.

I'm having fun. It's all good. Just getting in an old grumpy old man (old schooler) poke. This kind of stuff doesn't get my dander up although intentional NERFing does trigger me. LOL!

I did just start relearning about the naginata. It's been a while.

Per a prior post, the naginata was posted in the original ITL as having damage of 1D+2 and was not called out in the new ITL except as being equivalent to a spear which makes absolutely no sense to me.

Now add that a quarterstaff does 1D+2 in both versions of ITL, This is now where my confusion lies. It;s my understanding that a quarter is a well-balanced piece of hard wood with no sharp edges. Am I correct? So, why would a piece of wood do the same amount of damage as a piece of wood with a blade like the naginata.

Based upon the closeness of the bladestaff and the naginata, I am now convinced via this discussion that is the route to go. However, I'm still looking at the damage question from a fine tuning aspect. I'm confused that a quarterstaff with no blade would do the same amount of damage as a naginata (per original ITL). I am even more confused why the new ITL would equate it to a spear (New ITL page 111) which is even less damage.

Also per this discussion, the bladestaff and naginata are pole weapons with no confounding quarterstaff talents and/or usage. So, to me, the question about its damage being the same as a quarterstaff is still a mystery. However, unlike original ITL, the new ITL has no required naginata talent with a pole weapons talent prerequisite. So, I would assume that pole weapons talent should suffice. As with other pole weapons, this would also include the +1D6 modifier for charge attacks.

I do see potential for a adding singular points of damage to the 1D+2 but that would mostly be accomplished via fine weapons adjustments (Cha-ching!).

Perhaps, the house rules forum isn't needed. I didn't see it in the stick list above. If it gets moved, I'll have trouble finding it.

[TippetsTX]

Started a new thread in the house-rules forum.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

Started a new thread in the house-rules forum.

If you read my prior last post in this thread. I think that it is mostly resolved. Perhaps that's not needed.

I like your signature line.

I finally found the House Rules Forum at the far top of the list. I had hoped my new glasses worked better. LOL!

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN

If you read my prior last post in this thread. I think that it is mostly resolved. Perhaps that's not needed.

I like your signature line.

Thanks. And I made the new thread broader than this particular topic.