My thoughts on Staves

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by lwcamp

Maybe instead of making a staff master learn lots of different skills, you could just say that for sw+2 or thr+2, he must forfeit the +2 to parry for his round. Using the +2 to parry gives you sw+1 and thr+1.

In fact, you could extend this to all pole weapons. Spears used at -1 to damage get +2 to parry. Halberds used at -1 to damage get +2 to parry. And so on. Heck, even a 2 handed sword held with one hand well along the blade might qualify for +2 to parry at -1 to damage (they were historically often used like this).

That's a much better option than saying that all Staff users must automatically also have Two Handed Sword and Spear Skills at the same level as their Staff skill.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

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?

That's more an issue of armor stats, we already have multiple current threads on that subject.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

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.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

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).

[Daeglan]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

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.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Daeglan

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?

[Daeglan]

Originally Posted by Icelander

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.

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

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.

[nik1979]

Originally Posted by Icelander

So I reduce the damage of all weapons used with Staff* to thr+1 cr and sw+1 cr. That way, if a character wants to make a powerful swing, he has to use Two-Handed Sword skill for it and if he wants to thrust for thr+2 damage, he needs to use Spear skill or Reverse Grip.

Does the hive mind believe that I'm totally off here?

*Except the Qui Kun Ri Yue Dao, which already includes such a reduction and the Jo which is already at this damage.

Makes sense to me, the leverage of the staff and 2hs are supposed to be very different, with the 2-hs sacrificing speed and defense for added leverage.