staff vs polearm

[Dreamingfurther]

Ultimately with the exception of Racial skills which depend on your race (not your class) in the new rulebook any class can get any skill. It just costs some a heck of a lot more than others.

The only real skill restrictions come from your race. Many races have specific skills they do not have access to to balance out the other benefits you get from playing that race in addition to racial skills like Resists and such.

 

[phedre]

Staff costs anyone 4 build (except Dwarves, who can't purchase it). You don't need any other weapon skills to have it, and for the love of &%(^% it's a 7 foot tall STICK that you can block weapon blows with while throwing spells with your other hand. Or elemental damage, if you have Oak of the Arcane.

It's a very effective defensive weapon, whereas polearm is a better offensive weapon. It all depends on what you want.

And in my experience, you can effectively use a staff IRL in close combat. It doesn't take much force to break a collarbone.

 

[Duke Frost]

I've been hit in the shoulders and collarbone with just a padded gambeson on with a 7 foot rattan polearm more often than I'd like to admit. It hurts like hell, but has never broken my collar bone. I have been speared with a nine foot spear by very large men in an unprotected belly and had the wind knocked out of me once or twice, but never anything more serious than a couple bruises.

I have never been hit in the collarbone with a true, bladed polearm, sword or other true weapon of war. I do not want to either. I have never been speared in the belly by a sharp instrument or even a sharpened stick. I do not want to.

If anyone would like to put this to the test, please bring your quarterstaff to an agreed upon place. I will bring a real polearm. I think I'll go with a naginata. I'm thinking I'll need one good hit to take you out of the fight. You'll probably need 15-20 to take me out of the fight. To make it a little more fair, I would bet everything I own on naginata Scott (or sword Scott or probably even knife Scott) than quarterstaff Scott, as we are debating the usefulness of the weapon and not the skill of the wielder.

I would bet even more money on gun Scott, or gun Phedre or even gun Mini-Me, but that's not relevant to the discussion.

Scott

 

[markusdark]

The people in the SCA are trained how not to hurt someone. In fact, I think they are better trained than LARPers. Not to mention the give of rattan. I have used a staff to break boards and bricks before. Although a bladed hit will do much more damage against an unarmored opponent than a blunt one, given that both hit with the same amount of force, a staff really isn't anything to sneeze at if used by someone trained in one.

Also the staff allowed you to carry a weapon in the open in places where weapons were illegal.

Now I know you said 'untrained' and as such and I would agree with you as a staff tends to be too unwieldy for an untrained individual. Its mechanics don't allow for the same amount of kenetic energy that a bat would give you. However there are many ways to win combat besides the one hit/one kill situation. I don't think that staff combat was ever made to be so but against naginata Scott, I think I'd stand a good chance as staff Mark. Not that I'm going to try it anyday.

Oh, and as for historical reference - not sure if this counts:

http://www.fighttimes.com/magazine/maga ... rticle=191

 

[phedre]

Guns scare me, make me cringe and miss my shot. On an archery range, though, I'm not half bad.

Staff was the only martial arts weapon I got more than nominal training in. That's part of the reason I didn't take it as a new player, but am now considering trading in One Handed Edge for it. I get 6 build back, and a more effective blocking tool.

It doesn't take much force to break a collarbone, the average bone in the human body will break under like 14 pounds per square inch. The collarbone is a great one to go after with staff, because it's parallel to the ground and requires a simple lever action.


...all said, though, I don't really want to fight Scott with any sort of weapon. I'm a wuss like that

 

[Toddo]

...all said, though, I don't really want to fight Scott with any sort of weapon. I'm a wuss like that

Just yell "Toddo found Spare's old writeups and he's statting a clown wave battle!" And use Scott's momentary rage/horror paralysis to drop an eviscerate and run.
-toddo

 

[syra pefferfoot]

...all said, though, I don't really want to fight Scott with any sort of weapon. I'm a wuss like that

Just yell "Toddo found Spare's old writeups and he's statting a clown wave battle!" And use Scott's momentary rage/horror paralysis to drop an eviscerate and run.
-toddo

i know ive said this before, but toddo, i love your posts

 

[Duke Frost]

Surely that is historical, but it is about one talented person who happened to have chosen a staff. Would he have been better with another weapon? Very possibly. That article shows that the man was a very good "martial artist", not that the staff is super awesome great.

The simplest answer is that armies did not equip their people with staves. And militaries are known for being cheap and looking for the most cost effective method for outfitting their soldiers. If the staff was so effective, why weren't armies outfitted with them? They could also be used for many other practical purposes and nothing is much cheaper than a wooden stick. Yet I didn't see George Washington or Henry VIII or th pharoahs or the Aztec emperors handing out staves to their soldiers.

As for the SCA, you paint a misleading picture. SCA fighters are taught to hit hard and fast. Most I know aren't thinking about hitting 'safely'. They often have much better control than larpers, because you have to have control to land a good strike and get through defenses. Maybe my experiences are different because I've fought in the East Kingdom and often fight against Atlantia, which is known as the hardest hitting kingdom in the known worlde of SCA. You pretty much have to hit as hard as you can out here for people to take your shots. I make this statement as someone who was VERY active in the SCA for 6 years or so (2-3 practices a week with knights and dukes) and marginally active the last two or so. In the deep end of the SCA pool, you have to hit hard or people just aren't going to take your shots. Rattan really doesn't have all that much give, no more than most wood especially when it's new. It doesn't shatter though, it "brooms", and that's why it's chosen over other woods.

Mass is also something people aren't calculating in. Quarterstaves are pretty light for the most part. It's much easier to do damage with a heavier weapon. That's why they make 10 pound sledgehammers instead of using a claw hammer for everything.

"Who would win in a fight" is a popular topic of many talk radio shows and forums. Nothing is ever proven. But I feel history still bears out my original point. Either that or the armies throughout history wasted lots of money on outfitting their armies with anything other than staves.

Scott

 

[Duke Frost]

...all said, though, I don't really want to fight Scott with any sort of weapon. I'm a wuss like that

Just yell "Toddo found Spare's old writeups and he's statting a clown wave battle!" And use Scott's momentary rage/horror paralysis to drop an eviscerate and run.
-toddo

I'm really only ever paralyzed by laughter. I avoid rage, as it's not pretty. But if you bring back the "Clown Stronghold", you will likely see it in person.

 

[markusdark]

As for the SCA, you paint a misleading picture. SCA fighters are taught to hit hard and fast. Most I know aren't thinking about hitting 'safely'.

I keep on forgetting that you're east coast so our experiences differ greatly. Out on the West, our fighters are always thinking about safety. Yes, you hit hard and fast but only as hard as is required. No one is trying to ring someone's bell and if they do, they're called on it. The only thing is that you can go harder when someone is wearing armor and expecting it. I've seen people taken off the field due to hitting too hard.

And, as someone who has been hit with a bokken numerous times, rattan is a much more flexible wood. Again, it isn't rubber but when the blow lands hard, the fiberous material of the rattan compacts, absorbing some of the blow. Granted, it's a marginal amount but it does better than hardwood.

Oh, and as for outfitting armies - I would imagine that it was that a sharpened piece of metal would last longer and is easier to use than a staff. And since you were usually outfitting people who usually were farmers and masons, the easier the better. In addition, in wars you 'got in close' and the area needed to wield a staff effectively wouldn't be there. But you are right, if it was a superior weapon, more photos or records of armies using them would exist.

 

[Maxondaerth]

Not that you don't make good points on the real and true virtues of the quarterstaff and how it really functions, Scott, and not that I am eager to see how the one handed blocking rule and OotA ritual affects the number of staves used in the game before rallying more rules changes to get staff used, but my big question is since when has Alliance ever been a historical-based game? It's FANTASY based, and in fantasy the wizard's staff is a staple of the genre, yet we almost never see it. Why? Because to date it's sucked as a weapon and the alternatives really weren't THAT much more expensive for what more you got out of using them instead. But, like I said, there have been improvements and I for one wanna see how those play out over a year or more.

Plus, if we wanna get into real world effectiveness vs what it does in game, why don't bows do waaaaay more damage than they do?

 

[Duke Frost]

Not that you don't make good points on the real and true virtues of the quarterstaff and how it really functions, Scott, and not that I am eager to see how the one handed blocking rule and OotA ritual affects the number of staves used in the game before rallying more rules changes to get staff used, but my big question is since when has Alliance ever been a historical-based game? It's FANTASY based, and in fantasy the wizard's staff is a staple of the genre, yet we almost never see it. Why? Because to date it's sucked as a weapon and the alternatives really weren't THAT much more expensive for what more you got out of using them instead. But, like I said, there have been improvements and I for one wanna see how those play out over a year or more.

Plus, if we wanna get into real world effectiveness vs what it does in game, why don't bows do waaaaay more damage than they do?

Actually, my first point was that the game needs a weapon that is cheap buildwise and effective as a defensive/last line kind of weapon, ergo the dagger and staff. My original point was not based in real world history. It was based on game mechanics. The conversation then morphed into how staff was effective in real life.

In many example throughout fantasy lit, the staff is used by the wizard as a channeling tool, not an offensive weapon. Their staves were feared because of what came out of them, not how hard they hit with them. When Gandalf fought in melee, he pulled out Glamdring and blocked with his staff. In D&D, the staff did what, 1-6/1-4 or some such?

I'm also a firm believer that a fantasy world that is believable in its context is much more desirable than one that is just all over the place. One of the reasons I love the LOTR movies is because all the armor and weapons look functional and like they could have actually existed in a real world. The more "real" the fantasy world feels, the more I can personally get into it. I also do not like anime fantasy for exactly the opposite reason...giant swords the defy the laws of physics, armor that would stab the wearer in the eye, hair that always looks perfect. Yeah, I especially hate anime hair

Bows are also made to fit into the game mechanics. You really couldn't block a sword effectively with a bow consistently nor would you be able to shoot right away with your bow if you just stopped a greatsword with it. I have a very nice longbow and I couldn't imagine wanting to block anything with it, mostly because it would get ruined but also because its way too light to soak up the impact.

Mark, the East Coast fighters don't want to hurt anyone. I don't want anyone to get that impression. But they certainly take great joy in ringing someone's bell or knocking the wind out of them. Bruising up your friend is a very popular past time. As I got older and stopped healing as fast, my fighting time hs diminished proportionately. And now I mostly fight with a spear so when I don't get hit as much. Something to be said for hitting someone from 9-12 feet away.

Scott

 

[Duke Frost]

I just wanted to thank everyone for a lively, fun and friendly discussion.

Scott

 

[Maxondaerth]

Anytime, thanks for taking it that way .

 

[Dreamingfurther]

In many example throughout fantasy lit, the staff is used by the wizard as a channeling tool, not an offensive weapon. Their staves were feared because of what came out of them, not how hard they hit with them. When Gandalf fought in melee, he pulled out Glamdring and blocked with his staff. In D&D, the staff did what, 1-6/1-4 or some such?

I'm also a firm believer that a fantasy world that is believable in its context is much more desirable than one that is just all over the place. One of the reasons I love the LOTR movies is because all the armor and weapons look functional and like they could have actually existed in a real world. The more "real" the fantasy world feels, the more I can personally get into it.
Scott

Although the possibility of seeing something like what I am going to imagine from this is probably remote...

I am supper excited that it would be possible to have (probably a templar) who fights Gandalf style has a staff for blocking with one hand, and possibly even channeling OotA through, and then carries a short sword to swing if things are getting in close or they just want to mele. I didn't even realize this could also come out of one hand staff blocking, but since the ruling came down this style is legal, I may just have to make a character who uses it some day...

 

[Maxondaerth]

In 2.5 years when my long sword expires, depending on where my character's tree is at at that point, I may do this for style points, but there's a lot of game to be played between now and then, we'll have to see what happens. Go C-templars!

 

[FrankManic]

Alright, my belief that staves were useful weapons hinges on the following.

1. They only work in one on one fights or small group battles.

2. They only work against unarmored fighters

3. You need some room to work.

4. They're a peasant weapon. Most of the world, most of the time, had some kind of sumptuary law forbidding peasants from owning or carrying swords, spears, and various weapons of war. Sticks are more or less free.

5. My idea of a stave isn't a stripped sapling so much as a 6-7 foot piece of hardwood heart wood with a good, straight grain. I have a purpleheart staff that is 6'6" long and weighs about as much as my longsword. It's a somewhat different animal than a rattan stave, and I'm fairly confident that it hits at least as hard as a Louisville Slugger.

So, you advantages in that kind of fight are the ability to reach out and touch someone eight or ten feet away with a lot of force, block in many directions, attack in many directions, and use the long piece of hardwood as a lever to hit people with considerable force. It's very obviously of no use in a war, but when the conditions are right it can be effective. Admittedly, all apocryphal, but it's what I've got without hitting up the library.

I suppose it's worth taking into account that different weapons work for different fights. A rapier isn't much use against full articulated plate, spears are difficult to use in personal combat against sword and board, archers make mockery of two handed swords, one pike man is worse than useless, firearms were substantially less effective than bows until the reload time and accuracy were dramatically improved, Crossbows are more dangerous against plate armor because of the specific characteristics of the projectile, but they don't have the range of bows and they're much, much more expensive. Fighting with two swords was, the best of my knowledge, almost never done, but it's quite effective in sport fighting.

 

[Dreamingfurther]

I suppose it's worth taking into account that different weapons work for different fights. A rapier isn't much use against full articulated plate, spears are difficult to use in personal combat against sword and board, archers make mockery of two handed swords, one pike man is worse than useless, firearms were substantially less effective than bows until the reload time and accuracy were dramatically improved, Crossbows are more dangerous against plate armor because of the specific characteristics of the projectile, but they don't have the range of bows and they're much, much more expensive. Fighting with two swords was, the best of my knowledge, almost never done, but it's quite effective in sport fighting.

Nice list of fighting styles here. =) I have to say I've enjoyed reading this conversation exceedingly.

 

[Angrydurf]

Alright, my belief that staves were useful weapons hinges on the following.

1. They only work in one on one fights or small group battles.

2. They only work against unarmored fighters

3. You need some room to work.

4. They're a peasant weapon. Most of the world, most of the time, had some kind of sumptuary law forbidding peasants from owning or carrying swords, spears, and various weapons of war. Sticks are more or less free.

5. My idea of a stave isn't a stripped sapling so much as a 6-7 foot piece of hardwood heart wood with a good, straight grain. I have a purpleheart staff that is 6'6" long and weighs about as much as my longsword. It's a somewhat different animal than a rattan stave, and I'm fairly confident that it hits at least as hard as a Louisville Slugger.

So, you advantages in that kind of fight are the ability to reach out and touch someone eight or ten feet away with a lot of force, block in many directions, attack in many directions, and use the long piece of hardwood as a lever to hit people with considerable force. It's very obviously of no use in a war, but when the conditions are right it can be effective. Admittedly, all apocryphal, but it's what I've got without hitting up the library.

I suppose it's worth taking into account that different weapons work for different fights. A rapier isn't much use against full articulated plate, spears are difficult to use in personal combat against sword and board, archers make mockery of two handed swords, one pike man is worse than useless, firearms were substantially less effective than bows until the reload time and accuracy were dramatically improved, Crossbows are more dangerous against plate armor because of the specific characteristics of the projectile, but they don't have the range of bows and they're much, much more expensive. Fighting with two swords was, the best of my knowledge, almost never done, but it's quite effective in sport fighting.

Staff fighting is single/small group fighting true so no the army argument isn't perfect but the fact is that the staff is pretty well represented by the rules taking safety into account. The big benifits of staff are in regards to big hits from sweeping lever actions, which are illegal in alliance, tripping and binding, which is illegal in alliance, and cheap/easy to use at a basic level, which is true in alliance.

Staff has been underused because the effectiveness of staff is very limited by alliance safety rules.

on a nitpicky note rapiers are actually incredibly effective against articulated plate and along with crossbows and firearms led to its eventual disuse. The point control is such that you can strike the joints and the tip of a rapier is actually structured to be more effective at piercing even a solid plate than a standard broadsword for instance.

 

[Maxondaerth]

The realities of what weapons would be effective IRL goes entirely out the window when you take into account that you can stop a 6 foot long Polearm that is being swung at you with enough force to cut you entirely in half with an 18" dagger.