Double ended blunt weapon?

[Lheticus]

I have a character (NOT for a game campaign, more like an OC) who I'd like to have using a double ended blunt weapon--basically like a 2 handed mace but with the business end being BOTH ends. As far as I can tell, this is not a thing that has existed before which leads me to suspect there is some kind of practical reason that is the case. If that practical reason is weight, then I'm good to go--I have a specific justification for why it is a very light weapon, but I'd rather not explain it here unless it's truly necessary. However, I can't think that's the only possible reason such a weapon would be impractical. Can anyone enlighten me?

[AtlanteanTroll]

Staff's don't count? :smallconfused:

[SiuiS]

A double-ended blunt weapon is a staff. You need length of you want to use two hands in it, and leverage from length generates more power than more mass on a shorter lever would.

Clubs and sticks are also double-ended; while pommelig with a sword is considered a 'technique', jabbing someone with the short end of your club is standard praxis generates tremendous force at a downward angle, often on parts of the head and face that can't deal with a concentrated thrust like the nose bridge, maxillary bone and concavity of the temple.

Also, the sure flail is a double blunt weapon. So they do exist, it's just double weapons are considered inferior in general.

[Lheticus]

A double-ended blunt weapon is a staff. You need length of you want to use two hands in it, and leverage from length generates more power than more mass on a shorter lever would.

Clubs and sticks are also double-ended; while pommelig with a sword is considered a 'technique', jabbing someone with the short end of your club is standard praxis generates tremendous force at a downward angle, often on parts of the head and face that can't deal with a concentrated thrust like the nose bridge, maxillary bone and concavity of the temple.

Also, the sure flail is a double blunt weapon. So they do exist, it's just double weapons are considered inferior in general.

Okay, I see I need to back up here. So you have a staff, right? You put a round hard bit on one end, and a round hard bit on the other end. That's what I'm going for. Now, imagine that through whatever magical means, both round hard ends are not in fact heavy. In fact, they could be described as feather-light. Assuming that someone was willing and able to learn to use this implement to maximum effectiveness, would it be viable, and if not, why not?

[Palanan]

I had a similar idea to the OP's concept, which I used as a dwarven racial weapon. I was assuming that a dwarf's hefty musculature, rock-solid stance and relatively low CG would make it feasible for them where it wasn't for humans.

It was also somewhat shorter than a full staff. Not sure if Lheticus is going for the full-staff approach or if that's just how he's explaining the basic concept.

[BizzaroStormy]

Okay, I see I need to back up here. So you have a staff, right? You put a round hard bit on one end, and a round hard bit on the other end. That's what I'm going for. Now, imagine that through whatever magical means, both round hard ends are not in fact heavy. In fact, they could be described as feather-light. Assuming that someone was willing and able to learn to use this implement to maximum effectiveness, would it be viable, and if not, why not?

Who says it has to be magical? Simply have it be a length of pipe. Given additional weights on each end, I would probably up the damage a size and consider it an exotic weapon.

[Lheticus]

I had a similar idea to the OP's concept, which I used as a dwarven racial weapon. I was assuming that a dwarf's hefty musculature, rock-solid stance and relatively low CG would make it feasible for them where it wasn't for humans.

It was also somewhat shorter than a full staff. Not sure if Lheticus is going for the full-staff approach or if that's just how he's explaining the basic concept.


Who says it has to be magical? Simply have it be a length of pipe. Given additional weights on each end, I would probably up the damage a size and consider it an exotic weapon.

Guys...I did say this isn't a tabletop RPG character. You got that part, right? What I'm asking is if such a weapon existed in something approaching real life but magically negating the weight issue, assuming unlimited time to practice, would this be a viable weapon as compared to other melee weapons, would it at least be on par with them?

[BizzaroStormy]

Guys...I did say this isn't a tabletop RPG character. You got that part, right? What I'm asking is if such a weapon existed in something approaching real life but magically negating the weight issue, assuming unlimited time to practice, would this be a viable weapon as compared to other melee weapons, would it at least be on par with them?

In a tabletop RPG, most things can be viable weapons. In pathfinder, a character can specialize is using literally whatever is at hand. Weight is only really an issue if you try to use something stupid like a crate full of bricks and the time spent training would be reflected by taking up a feat slot. In short YES, it could be a viable weapon so long as you and the GM can reach an agreement on what it takes to use something. The weapon will still be better/worse in some situations than others.

[Seerow]

In a tabletop RPG, most things can be viable weapons. In pathfinder, a character can specialize is using literally whatever is at hand. Weight is only really an issue if you try to use something stupid like a crate full of bricks and the time spent training would be reflected by taking up a feat slot. In short YES, it could be a viable weapon so long as you and the GM can reach an agreement on what it takes to use something. The weapon will still be better/worse in some situations than others.

But none of that is relevant since Lheticus is specifically asking for a non-tabletop RPG character. He's asking about the possibility of it as an actual weapon (though with magic to make the physics work if needed), rather than about game balance.



On that note, I have nothing to contribute.

[Samuel Sturm]

Okay, I see I need to back up here. So you have a staff, right? You put a round hard bit on one end, and a round hard bit on the other end. That's what I'm going for. Now, imagine that through whatever magical means, both round hard ends are not in fact heavy. In fact, they could be described as feather-light. Assuming that someone was willing and able to learn to use this implement to maximum effectiveness, would it be viable, and if not, why not?

Sounds like a tapered bo staff in actual use, with the ends being lighter than the middle and all. They're pretty darn viable, with the flexing of the wood helping to amplify the impact. They're fully capable of breaking bones, and got used quite a bit in Asia. Usually didn't have weighted ends, but with magic, eh. Monk's spade is also kind of like what you're looking for, but with sharp bits instead.

[SiuiS]

Okay, I see I need to back up here. So you have a staff, right? You put a round hard bit on one end, and a round hard bit on the other end. That's what I'm going for. Now, imagine that through whatever magical means, both round hard ends are not in fact heavy. In fact, they could be described as feather-light. Assuming that someone was willing and able to learn to use this implement to maximum effectiveness, would it be viable, and if not, why not?

This changes nothing in what I said.


Guys...I did say this isn't a tabletop RPG character. You got that part, right? What I'm asking is if such a weapon existed in something approaching real life but magically negating the weight issue, assuming unlimited time to practice, would this be a viable weapon as compared to other melee weapons, would it at least be on par with them?

Yes. This weapon is called a staff. It is used with staff training.

[BizzaroStormy]

But none of that is relevant since Lheticus is specifically asking for a non-tabletop RPG character. He's asking about the possibility of it as an actual weapon (though with magic to make the physics work if needed), rather than about game balance.



On that note, I have nothing to contribute.

Huh...must have somehow missed the "isn't" part. Anywho, still seems viable.Doesn't even need to be a weight issue. a Steel weight on each end of a staff is completely viable if the character knows to use it. an oak or ash staff isn't going to weigh that much, especially if you have it in 2 hands.

[gom jabbarwocky]

So you have a staff, right? You put a round hard bit on one end, and a round hard bit on the other end. That's what I'm going for. Now, imagine that through whatever magical means, both round hard ends are not in fact heavy.

I'm picturing a guy beating people up with a dumbbell.

I think a staff would be more practical, but why let that ruin your fun?

[Lheticus]

Huh...must have somehow missed the "isn't" part. Anywho, still seems viable.Doesn't even need to be a weight issue. a Steel weight on each end of a staff is completely viable if the character knows to use it. an oak or ash staff isn't going to weigh that much, especially if you have it in 2 hands.

Well...I have no idea how you WOULD use something like that, but I guess I can ignore that--just because nobody's made a martial art for using something like I'm picturing doesn't mean it'd be impossible.


I'm picturing a guy beating people up with a dumbbell.

I think a staff would be more practical, but why let that ruin your fun?

This is actually remarkably close to what I'm picturing.

[Bulldog Psion]

Well, it's something that could be actually made, but I don't know how useful it would be. There are some moderate issues with it, I believe, including a heightened possibility of injuring yourself with your own weapon. I mean, hit yourself in the side with a plain weapon haft, you're probably fine. Slam a spiked mace head into yourself ... yeah.

However, if you think it's a fun idea, then run with it. It's not like fiction doesn't have a billion things more improbable than that. Don't worry about the details and enjoy! :smallsmile:

[SiuiS]

I'm picturing a guy beating people up with a dumbbell.

I think a staff would be more practical, but why let that ruin your fun?

You would use a dumbbell like a staff though, so it's not even distinct.

http://youtu.be/d43qH9w5Dow


Well, it's something that could be actually made, but I don't know how useful it would be. There are some moderate issues with it, I believe, including a heightened possibility of injuring yourself with your own weapon. I mean, hit yourself in the side with a plain weapon haft, you're probably fine. Slam a spiked mace head into yourself ... yeah.

However, if you think it's a fun idea, then run with it. It's not like fiction doesn't have a billion things more improbable than that. Don't worry about the details and enjoy! :smallsmile:

Depends on the length and technique. The OP wants a stick weapon that looks like it's heavy but is fundamentally a single stick. Single stick style will work great, which means both one handed stick, two handed stick, and mid-haft sword work added in.

[ICN]

Okay, I see I need to back up here. So you have a staff, right? You put a round hard bit on one end, and a round hard bit on the other end. That's what I'm going for. Now, imagine that through whatever magical means, both round hard ends are not in fact heavy. In fact, they could be described as feather-light. Assuming that someone was willing and able to learn to use this implement to maximum effectiveness, would it be viable, and if not, why not?

Just guessing here, but to me that sounds like you would be lowering the effectiveness of a staff by adding those changes. By putting a round hard bit on the end you're spreading out the area of impact and diffusing the force, which when you're trying to impart a lethal amount of kinetic force on somebody is generally a no-no.

[Bickerstaff]

Not only does a round, hard bit on the end spread out the force, but would the diffusion of force even be mitigated by additional weight that would normally come from such an augmentation? I mean, because of the OP's stipulation that the end bits be magically weightless. Normally the only reason to add something to the end of a stick (if the intention is to bludgeon) is to increase mass at the point of impact. While the bludgeoning bit affixed to the ends are weightless in this scenario, I guess the object would still have mass and therefore increased force...? But I'm not really a physics person, so I dunno.

So I suppose I have a question:

Why would someone use this weapon? What advantages would it give over another weapon, especially a similar weapon (like a staff)?

[SiuiS]

Not only does a round, hard bit on the end spread out the force, but would the diffusion of force even be mitigated by additional weight that would normally come from such an augmentation? I mean, because of the OP's stipulation that the end bits be magically weightless. Normally the only reason to add something to the end of a stick (if the intention is to bludgeon) is to increase mass at the point of impact. While the bludgeoning bit affixed to the ends are weightless in this scenario, I guess the object would still have mass and therefore increased force...? But I'm not really a physics person, so I dunno.

So I suppose I have a question:

Why would someone use this weapon? What advantages would it give over another weapon, especially a similar weapon (like a staff)?

It looks unique and functions like most anime weapons anyway; that is, they are used without regards to physics.

[Cespenar]

It would lose the potential to be mistaken for an old man's walking stick, so there's that.

[Knaight]

That sort of thing generally wasn't made because double weapons in general aren't a particularly good idea. Even with a staff, it's pretty common to hold it with one end a lot longer than the other and generally used as a business end, though you can switch up which end that is. That said, what you describe would still be a staff, and should be fairly usable, even if it has no real advantage over a weapon where you put the heavy bit only on one end.

[Jay R]

A blunt weapon doesn't slice through; it delivers force, which is to say, mass times acceleration. Reducing the mass in the ends reduces its effectiveness. Lots of mass at the point of impact is the goal.

Two heads would be too heavy. The compromise is a staff, in which the same mass goes through it. But you should realize that a staff is a peasant's weapon - a big stick he picked up - because it's not particularly good against an armored opponent. (Yes, a good staff user has techniques against an armored opponent, but he'd be more interested in tripping, because he can't do much damage. By contrast, a mace or flail works well with against armor.)

[Lheticus]

A blunt weapon doesn't slice through; it delivers force, which is to say, mass times acceleration. Reducing the mass in the ends reduces its effectiveness. Lots of mass at the point of impact is the goal.

Two heads would be too heavy. The compromise is a staff, in which the same mass goes through it. But you should realize that a staff is a peasant's weapon - a big stick he picked up - because it's not particularly good against an armored opponent. (Yes, a good staff user has techniques against an armored opponent, but he'd be more interested in tripping, because he can't do much damage. By contrast, a mace or flail works well with against armor.)

THERE'S the elephant in the room I wasn't seeing. Thx much dood. So basically, my magic negation of the weight wouldn't work. An alternate justification would have to be super-strength or something, I suppose.

[Aedilred]

THERE'S the elephant in the room I wasn't seeing. Thx much dood. So basically, my magic negation of the weight wouldn't work. An alternate justification would have to be super-strength or something, I suppose.

If you're using magic anyway, you could do something like Belkar's dagger in the latest OOtS strip - that is, the weight is evenly distributed throughout the staff, for better balance in wielding it, which shifts into the head at point of impact. To an extent, D20 +n blunt weapons must have some way of retaining the effect of the mass for damage purposes while mitigating it for the wielder, otherwise a +n mace/morningstar/etc would be heavier and harder to use than a mundane version.

In general, though, double-ended weapons of most types are suboptimal, as people have mentioned.

[shawnhcorey]

Maces, war hammers, and war axes work best if most of their weight is at the business end. :smallsmile: A double-ended mace would be, in essence, a heavy (as in tiring) quarterstaff. And it would have different techniques to use it effectively.

[factotum]

If you're using magic anyway, you could do something like Belkar's dagger in the latest OOtS strip - that is, the weight is evenly distributed throughout the staff, for better balance in wielding it, which shifts into the head at point of impact.

That sounds like the sword in Gene Wolfe's "Book of the New Sun"--it contains some sort of liquid metal in a channel in the middle (most likely mercury, but the story doesn't make it clear that it is or not) which shifts as the blade is swung, making the impact harder. No idea if that would actually work as presented in the novels or if it really would require magic, though.

[Knaight]

That sounds like the sword in Gene Wolfe's "Book of the New Sun"--it contains some sort of liquid metal in a channel in the middle (most likely mercury, but the story doesn't make it clear that it is or not) which shifts as the blade is swung, making the impact harder. No idea if that would actually work as presented in the novels or if it really would require magic, though.

That would be a pretty terrible design. It makes handling more difficult, it makes the construction more delicate (and delicate is a very bad thing in a weapon), and it wouldn't even really accomplish anything.

[Bulldog Psion]

That would be a pretty terrible design. It makes handling more difficult, it makes the construction more delicate (and delicate is a very bad thing in a weapon), and it wouldn't even really accomplish anything.

Actually, it's an executioner's sword, designed to have the weight towards the hilt when he has it raised over his head so that he can hold the pose easily while a sentence is being read out by an official. Then it flows forward to make the descending blow heavier, thus ensuring it cuts off the victim's head in one stroke.

In short, Terminus Est not a fighting weapon, though Severian uses it as one. But the blade seems preternaturally sharp -- likely it uses high-tech materials, since such are available to the upper echelons of society -- Severian himself is some sort of dark messiah figure, which may explain a bit of its effectiveness in his hands beyond its intended use, and the blade does eventually break in combat.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Lheticus
An alternate justification would have to be super-strength or something, I suppose.

Or, you know, dwarven strength, as I mentioned earlier.


Originally Posted by factotum
That sounds like the sword in Gene Wolfe's "Book of the New Sun"--it contains some sort of liquid metal in a channel in the middle (most likely mercury, but the story doesn't make it clear that it is or not) which shifts as the blade is swung, making the impact harder.

And now I finally know the source of the mercurial greatsword in the AEG. Thank you.

As Knaight mentioned, I'm pretty sure that concept wouldn't work too well with an actual sword, since the mercury would be shifting back and forth with every move. Even if it did, the cost associated with wrangling the mercury would probably be prohibitive. And I'm not sure if a sword with a hollow core is what I'd want when I absolutely, positively have to stop the other guy's greatsword screaming down at me.

[Knaight]

Actually, it's an executioner's sword, designed to have the weight towards the hilt when he has it raised over his head so that he can hold the pose easily while a sentence is being read out by an official. Then it flows forward to make the descending blow heavier, thus ensuring it cuts off the victim's head in one stroke.

It does make more sense in that context, though it's still a terrible fighting weapon, and just having a heavier sword would pretty much cover the same thing, as holding them vertically isn't all that difficult (holding a sword outstretched for a whole speech would be tiring).

[Iruka]

THERE'S the elephant in the room I wasn't seeing. Thx much dood. So basically, my magic negation of the weight wouldn't work. An alternate justification would have to be super-strength or something, I suppose.

If your are going to use magic anyway, negate the weight just for the wielder of the weapon. They get to accelerate the weights at the end "for free" so to say, but the mass influences the impact normally, resulting in a net gain of force.

[Brother Oni]

There's the Chinese Iron Shod Staff, which is a normal staff with the ends reinforced with metal caps.

As Knaight said, most staff use is typically one ended to provide the necessary range advantage over shorter weapons. The switching of ends is only for confusing the enemy and in the longer length staff forms, typically is not done.

[Jay R]

THERE'S the elephant in the room I wasn't seeing. Thx much dood. So basically, my magic negation of the weight wouldn't work. An alternate justification would have to be super-strength or something, I suppose.

That's correct. These weapons are sometimes generically called "mass weapons". Momentum is mas time velocity. Its derivative, force, is mass time acceleration. The mass is important to the functioning of the weapon.

[Lheticus]

If your are going to use magic anyway, negate the weight just for the wielder of the weapon. They get to accelerate the weights at the end "for free" so to say, but the mass influences the impact normally, resulting in a net gain of force.

Well well...intriguing. Yes, that could very well work for what I have in mind. ^_^

[SiuiS]

THERE'S the elephant in the room I wasn't seeing. Thx much dood. So basically, my magic negation of the weight wouldn't work. An alternate justification would have to be super-strength or something, I suppose.

What? The math of impact was touched on in the third post. If you reduce mass you will need a much longer lever to generate force.

You could work it like Adamantine where the mass is still high and only the apparent weight is lower, but that confuses people.


That sounds like the sword in Gene Wolfe's "Book of the New Sun"--it contains some sort of liquid metal in a channel in the middle (most likely mercury, but the story doesn't make it clear that it is or not) which shifts as the blade is swung, making the impact harder. No idea if that would actually work as presented in the novels or if it really would require magic, though.

They do not actually work, no. There is no technique for swinging which will put the weight into the tip before hitting the target. It's been tested by many people in many ways, my favorite being a tube with a battery and springs on either end of the battery. But basically, swords don't work that way. You swing a sword in a fashion that would not accelerate the fluid to the end, so you would have to purposefully let the fluid into the end and then swing the sword, which is much more cumbersome than just have img a sword with the same but static mass distribution.

[Scarlet Knight]

What about a tri staff where the outer sections are metal?

[Closet_Skeleton]

A double-ended hammer would have a completely different centre of mass to a one ended hammer. The fact that one end is heavier helps give that end momentum.

If you like me have a pencil sharpner and a pencil next to you, this can be tested very easily (a pen with a lid will do just as well). Try to balance the pencil on your finger, then do the same thing with something on one end of the pencil.

If you can change weight with magic, a better trick would be to give the opposite end of the weapon negative weight. Making a impractical weapon practical is a parlour trick and a terrible waste of magic that could be used to make something incredibly destructive. Of course then you have the problem of having to wield that kind of weight with human arms that could easily snap when dealing with those forces, magic missile is much more sensible form of magic attack.

"I know it would be impractical in real life but magic" is a terrible trope. Any mage who uses magic so frivolously is not really a heroic character. He's either showing off or being unnecessarily cruel to his opponents.

A much better double-ended magic weapon would be something like a shock/electro-staff from Star Wars. It can be nonlethal so there's actually a point to it and its a sensible weapon since its just a staff, which as already stated is what you're just trying to over-complicate anyway.


You swing a sword in a fashion that would not accelerate the fluid to the end, so you would have to purposefully let the fluid into the end and then swing the sword, which is much more cumbersome than just have img a sword with the same but static mass distribution.

Could work with an axe or hammer. Don't think it would actually help but the mass would transfer as long as you swung it downwards. But then you have a weapon that limits the possible angles of attack which is a stupid idea. Swinging the hammer sideways would shift the weight away from the front and swinging it upwards would be really slow and the weight wouldn't move.

[SiuiS]

"I know it would be impractical in real life but magic" is a terrible trope. Any mage who uses magic so frivolously is not really a heroic character. He's either showing off or being unnecessarily cruel to his opponents.

I'm not sure I agree. A dynamic shifting of effective mass when swinging a weapon is basically what magic weapons do. They are easier to swing but generate more force. That's contradictory. Force comes from momentum comes from mass.



Could work with an axe or hammer. Don't think it would actually help but the mass would transfer as long as you swung it downwards. But then you have a weapon that limits the possible angles of attack which is a stupid idea. Swinging the hammer sideways would shift the weight away from the front and swinging it upwards would be really slow and the weight wouldn't move.

Wow. Ignore that. I somehow entirely misread what you said and thought we were discussing a weapon with magically shifting mass and balance. I completely agree that the fluid thing is stupid for a weapon. There is no weapon I have ever heard of where this would be beneficial.

[Xuc Xac]

Terminus Est is the sword with a channel of liquid metal in it. It's an executioner's sword. The purpose of the shifting weight isn't to make the sword hit harder on combat. It's to make the center of gravity shift toward the hilt while holding it up for a decapitation. With the weight nearer the hands, it's easier to hold up for a long time while waiting for a signal to strike or release the prisoner. Then the weight shifts back to the blade's tip for the downward strike. It's optimized for one angle of attack at the expense of all others because it's not a combat weapon. The point isn't even sharp.

[SiuiS]

Terminus Est is the sword with a channel of liquid metal in it. It's an executioner's sword. The purpose of the shifting weight isn't to make the sword hit harder on combat. It's to make the center of gravity shift toward the hilt while holding it up for a decapitation. With the weight nearer the hands, it's easier to hold up for a long time while waiting for a signal to strike or release the prisoner. Then the weight shifts back to the blade's tip for the downward strike. It's optimized for one angle of attack at the expense of all others because it's not a combat weapon. The point isn't even sharp.

Here's the thing with that, though. Assuming a swing that would actually cut instead of crush (and I'm thinking target on their knees; laying on the ground on a block might work...) the taret's neck is going to be at pelvic height.

The fluid will not do anything for center of gravity until the channel is horizontal-to-tip below handle point. The. It will begin to accelerate, having stayed mostly motionless for the swing. Which means the fluid will not move fast enough to actually affect the end-swing as it contacts the target's neck.

I suppose the executioner could dip the blade tip behind their head to "load" the top of the weapon, but then you need to wait for it to settle or you'll experience something people with heavier two handed weapons run into – you will pull forward but not overcome the rotational inertia and bang the blade into the back of your head.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Well a double ended blunt weapon sound kind of point less. Why use two ends with the same type of mace?

The closer I can think is the moon spade aka monk spade. A tool used by traveling buddhists monks as a walking stick, a shovel to bury dead bodies, a way to carry heavy things and a parrying weapon for protection against bandits. They used the moon end to parry and the shovel end to do non-lethal damage.

And you don't need magic or super strength to use it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqeA18VgBS4

[Lheticus]

Well a double ended blunt weapon sound kind of point less. Why use two ends with the same type of mace?

The closer I can think is the moon spade aka monk spade. A tool used by traveling buddhists monks as a walking stick, a shovel to bury dead bodies, a way to carry heavy things and a parrying weapon for protection against bandits. They used the moon end to parry and the shovel end to do non-lethal damage.

And you don't need magic or super strength to use it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqeA18VgBS4

Okay, I think it needs to be said. Really what I had envisioned with a double ended weapon was somebody striking with one end then very quickly whirling it around and striking with the other, kind of like Darth Maul's double lightsaber (or at least my idea of it in my head, been forever since I saw The Phantom Menace)

Ya with me now?

[Brother Oni]

Okay, I think it needs to be said. Really what I had envisioned with a double ended weapon was somebody striking with one end then very quickly whirling it around and striking with the other, kind of like Darth Maul's double lightsaber (or at least my idea of it in my head, been forever since I saw The Phantom Menace)

Ya with me now?

Except that lightsabres are energy weapons, so don't need mass to inflict damage.

Even the fictional weapon the doubleheaded lightsabre is based on (double headed sword staff) isn't a blunt weapon. All the real two headed weapons (for example the lajatang, monk's spade and double headed spear) are sharp weapons as well, so are not too reliant on mass.

The closest you're going to get to what you want is the staff.

[Chen]

Here's the thing with that, though. Assuming a swing that would actually cut instead of crush (and I'm thinking target on their knees; laying on the ground on a block might work...) the taret's neck is going to be at pelvic height.

The fluid will not do anything for center of gravity until the channel is horizontal-to-tip below handle point. The. It will begin to accelerate, having stayed mostly motionless for the swing. Which means the fluid will not move fast enough to actually affect the end-swing as it contacts the target's neck.


That's not correct. Fill an empty tube with water, start with it vertical above your head and swing out downwards. You're going to get a bunch of water coming out way before the tube is horizontal due to the centrifugal force. Clearly whether it will be at the tip or not it will depend on the viscosity of the fluid, the speed of the swing etc.

[Lheticus]

Except that lightsabres are energy weapons, so don't need mass to inflict damage.

Even the fictional weapon the doubleheaded lightsabre is based on (double headed sword staff) isn't a blunt weapon. All the real two headed weapons (for example the lajatang, monk's spade and double headed spear) are sharp weapons as well, so are not too reliant on mass.

The closest you're going to get to what you want is the staff.

Except there was that thing someone said about the heavy ends being heavy to everyone BUT the wielder--and honestly, I've expanded on the idea of this weapon as a whole a little bit. The character actually using this weapon is a special type of magic-user, a "bubble mage", and in essence, her weapon DOES start out as a staff. When she's about to start fighting and needs something for close combat, she breaks it out and adds a pair of "Heavy Bubbles" to the end--ones that only break for her either by her will or if she runs out of magic. It's a simple matter to change the property of these "heavy bubbles" from "magic bubble things that are heavy" to "magic bubble things that are heavy to everyone that isn't a bubble mage." She basically creates them and attaches them to a staff designed to accept them. She can even modulate what to use (and this is the part where I've expanded since the start)--by attaching bubbles with elemental attributes, say a fire or lightning bubble (think fire or electric "sphere") she can turn the staff into a flamethrower or lightning gun--or heck, since one is at both ends, she could do both a flamethrower and a lightning gun at the same time.

I guess it was a mistake not to delineate just *what* magic is in the world this weapon is in that is relevant to the question. I apologize.

[Closet_Skeleton]

It's a simple matter to change the property of these "heavy bubbles" from "magic bubble things that are heavy" to "magic bubble things that are heavy to everyone that isn't a bubble mage." She basically creates them and attaches them to a staff designed to accept them

Might as well just use concussive force fields then. Its a lot simpler.




Even the fictional weapon the doubleheaded lightsabre is based on (double headed sword staff) isn't a blunt weapon.

Darth Maul's lightsaber is based off a staff and is wielded as a staff. I have heard a claim that it originally had a shorter handle and Ray Park made them change it so he could actually use it.

[Lheticus]

Might as well just use concussive force fields then. Its a lot simpler.

Um...I'm sorry, a force field is SIMPLER than magic? By what definition?

[Heliomance]

Um...I'm sorry, a force field is SIMPLER than magic? By what definition?

A magical concussive forcefield is simpler than a magical effect that makes the ends have mass for everyone except the wielder. A concussive forcefield is simply a violation of Newton's Third Law. I have no idea how the observer-dependent mass would work.

[Brother Oni]

Except there was that thing someone said about the heavy ends being heavy to everyone BUT the wielder--and honestly, I've expanded on the idea of this weapon as a whole a little bit.

Sounds a lot like the Gold Tipped Rod used by the Monkey King. Weighing ~8 tonnes and can change size from a needle to a massive pillar that pinned the seas to the land during the time of the great floods.

There's some magic stopping it having its full weight at needle size otherwise it would be ~100 times as dense as a black hole.



Darth Maul's lightsaber is based off a staff and is wielded as a staff. I have heard a claim that it originally had a shorter handle and Ray Park made them change it so he could actually use it.

The first time I saw a double headed sword was in the manga Blade of the Immortal, which pre-dates TPM by ~5 years. That version did have a much shorter handle, so I'm not surprised that an actual martial artist would modify it into a usable form.
In any case, it beats the utterly idiotic lightsaber tonfa that shows up later.

[Knaight]

Sounds a lot like the Gold Tipped Rod used by the Monkey King. Weighing ~8 tonnes and can change size from a needle to a massive pillar that pinned the seas to the land during the time of the great floods.

There's some magic stopping it having its full weight at needle size otherwise it would be ~100 times as dense as a black hole.

I'm not sure there is any magic stopping it having its full weight at needle size. Being 100 times as dense as a black hole isn't necessarily a problem for the setting. Plus, there's no subjective mass to it anyways. Sun Wukong is just that ridiculously strong.

[SiuiS]

That's not correct. Fill an empty tube with water, start with it vertical above your head and swing out downwards. You're going to get a bunch of water coming out way before the tube is horizontal due to the centrifugal force. Clearly whether it will be at the tip or not it will depend on the viscosity of the fluid, the speed of the swing etc.

A small enough amount of water density fluid to not fill the whole would not impart enough mass to be worthwhile. Experiments with batteries, rocks, sand, and denser fluids have shown that instead of the swing pushing the fluid to the top, t remains near the hands. This was from swings that people used to actually try to cut things as opposed to just swinging the object, so I surmise technique had some effect.

There was also a more thorough testing with a boffer, but that's a boffer.

You may be right, but attempts to verify it say otherwise. Moving from jodan stance to a downward cut doesn't seem to force anything to the tip – or not fast enough to beat or even match the swing.

[Sorrcerousflux]

Perhaps you should Google the "Meteor Hammer" which involves neither hammers, or meteors, but is still an extremly deadly weapon. Plus its blunt ends could be lit on fire! pure awesomeness.

[Stardrake]

Huh. I'd meant to reply to this thread when I initially saw it, but obviously I forgot...

One thing I was thinking might have the desired effect if it was to be a purely physical weapon is to invoke the properties of a flanged mace - the flanges, depending on how they're designed, may not add too much to the weights of the heads that it becomes unmanageable, but concentrates the force into a smaller contact area to make it more effective at breaking armour.

Since you've already invoked attaching fire and lightning globes to the staff, though, Closet Skeleton's suggestion may actually be the best: Have heads that generate a concussive blast when they strike a target.

[Brother Oni]

I'm not sure there is any magic stopping it having its full weight at needle size. Being 100 times as dense as a black hole isn't necessarily a problem for the setting. Plus, there's no subjective mass to it anyways. Sun Wukong is just that ridiculously strong.

While I agree that carrying a miniature blackhole isn't a problem for the setting, there is a subjective mass to the weapon. Sun Wukong's complaint of being unable to find a weapon heavy enough for him to use, is what led him to the Gold Tipped Rod in the first place.

There is an upper limit to his strength (he was unable to escape the 5-Elements mountain dropped on him by the Buddha) and I think carrying an ~8 ton needle stashed in his ear probably exceeds that as well.

[factotum]

Experiments with batteries, rocks, sand, and denser fluids have shown that instead of the swing pushing the fluid to the top, t remains near the hands.

One would think that would probably be due to the piston effect--e.g. the fluid or object entirely blocks the tube it's contained in, so the air being compressed as it moves will tend to stop it. Evacuate the tube of air and that problem goes away.

[SiuiS]

Perhaps you should Google the "Meteor Hammer" which involves neither hammers, or meteors, but is still an extremly deadly weapon. Plus its blunt ends could be lit on fire! pure awesomeness.

Those are fun but not worth the bone bruises.


One would think that would probably be due to the piston effect--e.g. the fluid or object entirely blocks the tube it's contained in, so the air being compressed as it moves will tend to stop it. Evacuate the tube of air and that problem goes away.

That was accounted for. Many people more intelligent than I conspired to see if there was anything to it with the batter, for example. But hey, who knows! Recreate the experiment. I'm all for hands on science~

[Asta Kask]

Perhaps you should Google the "Meteor Hammer" which involves neither hammers, or meteors, but is still an extremly deadly weapon. Plus its blunt ends could be lit on fire! pure awesomeness.

That... looks more dangerous to the wielder than to the enemy.

[factotum]

That... looks more dangerous to the wielder than to the enemy.

Wouldn't be the first time someone has come up with a weapon that kills more people who actually use it than the enemy--check out the British K-boat submarines from WW1, for example! :smallsmile:

[Sorrcerousflux]

That... looks more dangerous to the wielder than to the enemy.

Without proper training of course, this thing was used in china in ancient times (the warring state period I believe.)
The things are like nunchucks, except cooler.

[Brother Oni]

Without proper training of course, this thing was used in china in ancient times (the warring state period I believe.)
The things are like nunchucks, except cooler.

I'd think it would be used for duelling or skirmishing. I can't see the meteor hammer being used in any sort of close formation, let alone against a decently drilled block of spearmen with shields.

[Asta Kask]

I dare say that a spear is better at actually killing your foe, especially if you equalize training duration.

[Sorrcerousflux]

I dare say that a spear is better at actually killing your foe, especially if you equalize training duration.

Methinks your a little biased

*points at profile picture*

Besides, double blunt weapons, not spears are the point of discussion here.

[Lheticus]

Okay...I've ironed out some things about just why I wanted this to be a double-ended weapon. Basically, I want the wielder to be capable of hitting a foe with one end, then quickly turning it and hitting with the other end faster than it would take to land 2 blows with a normal one ended blunt weapon. I've figured out that for this to happen, the weapon would have to be held horizontally rather than vertically as with a typical staff. But then I run into another problem--the weight isn't even the issue for force generation anymore, the momentum is. Clearly, this can't be or even just behave as a typical heavy object.

Thanks all for getting me this far, I'll post again when I have an idea where to go from here.

[Heliomance]

I'd think it would be used for duelling or skirmishing. I can't see the meteor hammer being used in any sort of close formation, let alone against a decently drilled block of spearmen with shields.

What makes you think shields would be any use at all against a flexible weapon like the meteor hammer? I imagine it was designed as an anti-shield weapon.

[Xuc Xac]

Basically, I want the wielder to be capable of hitting a foe with one end, then quickly turning it and hitting with the other end faster than it would take to land 2 blows with a normal one ended blunt weapon.

Please explain why you think turning the weapon around to use the other end is somehow faster than just using the same end twice.

[Brother Oni]

What makes you think shields would be any use at all against a flexible weapon like the meteor hammer? I imagine it was designed as an anti-shield weapon.

I didn't say the meteor hammer would be ineffective against shields (you're correct, it was indeed an anti shield weapon), I said the meteor hammer couldn't be used in close formation.

If a big block of spearmen with shields are marching towards you, you generally need a similarly sized block of long weapon users to stop them pushing you around the battlefield*. While you can certainly hold off a single spearman, it's the other 4 or 5 spears within range that will kill you.

That is, unless you a believe a group of meteor hammers in skirmish order can beat a close order spear block on the battlefield.

*Cavalry, missile and gunpowder weapons were the normal counters.

[Heliomance]

Please explain why you think turning the weapon around to use the other end is somehow faster than just using the same end twice.

You don't turn it around. Holding it horizontally, you strike with one end, and then as you pull that end back, you use the staff like a lever so that the same motion that pulls back strikes out with the other end.

[Lheticus]

You don't turn it around. Holding it horizontally, you strike with one end, and then as you pull that end back, you use the staff like a lever so that the same motion that pulls back strikes out with the other end.

^ This. 2,000 YES points for saving me the trouble. This is also the exact reason momentum is now an issue--less distance is covered with the swing, which means the object is harder to accelerate.

[pkoi]

Please explain why you think turning the weapon around to use the other end is somehow faster than just using the same end twice.

Plenty of staff techniques involve both ends, and are quite fast. It depends on the length of the staff. Jodo for example, extensively uses both ends of the weapon.

[SiuiS]

Without proper training of course, this thing was used in china in ancient times (the warring state period I believe.)
The things are like nunchucks, except cooler.

And also except they aren't like nunchaku at all XD


I'd think it would be used for duelling or skirmishing. I can't see the meteor hammer being used in any sort of close formation, let alone against a decently drilled block of spearmen with shields.

Ssshhhhh!


I dare say that a spear is better at actually killing your foe, especially if you equalize training duration.

Probably. The benefit of the meteor hammer and similar weapons is how proficient at physics you have to be to use them.


Okay...I've ironed out some things about just why I wanted this to be a double-ended weapon. Basically, I want the wielder to be capable of hitting a foe with one end, then quickly turning it and hitting with the other end faster than it would take to land 2 blows with a normal one ended blunt weapon. I've figured out that for this to happen, the weapon would have to be held horizontally rather than vertically as with a typical staff. But then I run into another problem--the weight isn't even the issue for force generation anymore, the momentum is. Clearly, this can't be or even just behave as a typical heavy object.

Thanks all for getting me this far, I'll post again when I have an idea where to go from here.

While I understand your point, you're not actually going to save any time doing that.


What makes you think shields would be any use at all against a flexible weapon like the meteor hammer? I imagine it was designed as an anti-shield weapon.

Because the meteor hammer is accelerated on an arc but fired in a straight line, as opposed to swung like a mace or flail.


I didn't say the meteor hammer would be ineffective against shields (you're correct, it was indeed an anti shield weapon), I said the meteor hammer couldn't be used in close formation.

Oh? Am I misinformed? We're talking heavy ball on a rope, yes?

[Brother Oni]

Because the meteor hammer is accelerated on an arc but fired in a straight line, as opposed to swung like a mace or flail.

Oh? Am I misinformed? We're talking heavy ball on a rope, yes?

It's a very exotic weapon and there's very little in western weaponry that's comparable. While straight line attacks are for long range strikes, it can also be swung in an arc as an attack: meteor hammer demonstration (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvIwg0RyW1E).

A heavy weight moving at speed would hurt regardless of its arc of travel compared to you. :smalltongue:

[Asta Kask]

Looks like they're trying for the "I can wield this extremely impractical weapon, so just imagine how good I must be" thing. I can see why it never caught on.

[Marusu]

But then I run into another problem--the weight isn't even the issue for force generation anymore, the momentum is.

Perhaps a three section staff would work, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-section_staff

It could start as a staff and split into three parts with a twist of something. They work like a whip, more flashy than effective, but the flexible parts and the possibility of making both ends heavier with magic makes it a more plausible combat possibility.

[SiuiS]

It's a very exotic weapon and there's very little in western weaponry that's comparable. While straight line attacks are for long range strikes, it can also be swung in an arc as an attack: meteor hammer demonstration (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvIwg0RyW1E).

A heavy weight moving at speed would hurt regardless of its arc of travel compared to you. :smalltongue:

Yeah, no, I know what they are. I've used one, hence the comment on bone bruises. I've just never really considered an arc viable; it adds extra variables to an already carefully precarious equation. Too easy for repurcussions to be concussions, I would think, unless you're blowing through the body, and isn't a rebound being a sign of higher force an elementary part of physics? Nine section whip chain is more my speed, really.

The bone bruises did not abate however. :(


Looks like they're trying for the "I can wield this extremely impractical weapon, so just imagine how good I must be" thing. I can see why it never caught on.

Oh, it has. This is part of why slungshot is on the books as illegal in California, for example. A weight on a rope has been an elementary makeshift murder tool since humans learned to put weights on ropes. And every single weight-on-rope weapon has to a count for the fact that, with your hand as origin, your face is within trajectory. Flails extend the origin, other weapons lengthen the rope– and then account for the aditional levers.

[Asta Kask]

If only your military had the foresight to replace the obsolete knife with meteor hammer in, say, Marine training.

[SiuiS]

If only your military had the foresight to replace the obsolete knife with meteor hammer in, say, Marine training.

You say that with droll sarcasm, but I guarantee you marine training is cataphatic and not apophatic. When they teach you knife, that's not instead of anything. It's just lower on the totem pole and easier to grasp the basics of.

I also know the navy used rolls of quarters in a handkerchief, so it's good odds out marine training does include this stuff.




Although really, this post should have just been;


obsolete knife

PahHahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[Asta Kask]

You say that with droll sarcasm, but I guarantee you marine training is cataphatic and not apophatic. When they teach you knife, that's not instead of anything. It's just lower on the totem pole and easier to grasp the basics of.

Cataphatic = Knowledge of God obtained through defining God with positive statements.

Apophatic = Knowledge of God obtained through negating concepts that might be applied to him.

I do not understand this statement.

Surely there must be an opportunity cost to learning the knife, though? It's not as if the USMC has an infinite amount of time to train in.


PahHahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

My point exactly. You were a street rat? Was your weapon of choice knife or meteor hammer (or something else)? And why?

The point is that weapons like the meteoric hammer have an Ethnic Badass factor which is not insubstantial, and that can matter reputation-wise. If it didn't have that going for it, few would use it.

[Sorrcerousflux]

before this becomes to toxic I would suggest all the poster not talking about double blunt weapons, do so now.

speaking of which, while this may not be exactly what you were thinking of... it is a double weapon that bludgeons people so Brass Knuckles!

But seriously, im pretty sure we are running out of ideas (though you should look into the multi-piece weapons)

[Lheticus]

Well, if we're running out of ideas, maybe a refresher of where things are at this point is in order. I've figured out that the wielder would not be able to use it effectively cartwheeling it vertically. I've also gathered that with a horizontal stance, it's possible (as in, I don't yet have hard data that says it can't be done) to swing efficiently where it is not in a vertical stance. However, in a horizontal stance, much less momentum is built due to shortening the length of the swing, which is a problem.

All this means that what I need next is an alternative effect, given that the objects on both ends are actually magical attachments on a staff designed to accept them. Maybe something that inflicts PAIN without inflicting IMPACT--possibly a la something similar to a Klingon pain stick.

[Stardrake]

Sounds like you're coming back to those Star Trek electric staves. :P

[SiuiS]

Cataphatic = Knowledge of God obtained through defining God with positive statements.

Apophatic = Knowledge of God obtained through negating concepts that might be applied to him.

I do not understand this statement.

Oh come on, you can separate the two. Catechism is also a religious term in origin that has value without the religion. The lingual origin is in Ana and kata, absence and presence. Whether something is limited by what is stated or what is stated is just the starting point.


Surely there must be an opportunity cost to learning the knife, though? It's not as if the USMC has an infinite amount of time to train in.

Nope! The idea is sound, but you don't allow for overlap. Both weapons are use of a lever in lines and arcs. It's a simple matter to extrapolate how the chain works from what you'd already have from knife work.

Knife work is also pretty fundamental. The opportunity cost is usually less "how to use a knife" and more a combination of "how to kill someone while they are screaming right there" and "how to train out all the stupid stuff you pick up from movies". Both of those are applicable to swinging a weight on a line. :smallsmile:



My point exactly. You were a street rat? Was your weapon of choice knife or meteor hammer (or something else)? And why?


Neither would be trained for though, and since both are equally untrained, you're as likely to end up with a sock full of quarters/rocks as you are a knife. I've dented glass with a sock weapon. It was terrifying. XD


Well, if we're running out of ideas, maybe a refresher of where things are at this point is in order. I've figured out that the wielder would not be able to use it effectively cartwheeling it vertically. I've also gathered that with a horizontal stance, it's possible (as in, I don't yet have hard data that says it can't be done) to swing efficiently where it is not in a vertical stance. However, in a horizontal stance, much less momentum is built due to shortening the length of the swing, which is a problem.

All this means that what I need next is an alternative effect, given that the objects on both ends are actually magical attachments on a staff designed to accept them. Maybe something that inflicts PAIN without inflicting IMPACT--possibly a la something similar to a Klingon pain stick.

Did you see the video I posted? Look up Doyle family shillelagh.
Aside from scraping the ground, there's no real difference between horizontal and vertical axis staff work. That was based on faulty data on mass and function.

[Brother Oni]

Oh come on, you can separate the two. Catechism is also a religious term in origin that has value without the religion. The lingual origin is in Ana and kata, absence and presence. Whether something is limited by what is stated or what is stated is just the starting point.


Uh SiuiS? It's unreasonable to assume that a non-native speaker knows what the roots of an English word are and how they break down. If Google Translate throws up that meaning for a word, then that's all he has for understanding it.

I could ask why you don't understand how 魔女 in Japanese has evil connotations due to the rather obvious 鬼 in 魔.

[SiuiS]

Uh SiuiS? It's unreasonable to assume that a non-native speaker knows what the roots of an English word are and how they break down.

Yup. You have me there. I'm so used to Anders operating on a certain level that it just didn't occur to me it could be a simple error like that. I still feel he knows enough to have made the connection, but only because the route I got to the roots was to learn the words and work back to why and how they functioned, which it seemed he did as well.
Regardless, I am responding through the lens of our history and not consciously; that is a terrible habit that I should not indulge in. I am sorry.

What say, Anders? Difference of application, difference of linguistic assumption, or something else entirely?


E: I almost get the symbols actually. That's neat for osmosis.
... Is that magical girl, as witch? From memory, that would be maho, then? Minimal searching tells me the root for that is devil, which is interesting — magic is inherently evil? No, not evil. Not exactly; devil doesn't have the same values, and would relate to spirits and ogres more than fallen deific servants.

[Asta Kask]

Yup. You have me there. I'm so used to Anders operating on a certain level that it just didn't occur to me it could be a simple error like that. I still feel he knows enough to have made the connection, but only because the route I got to the roots was to learn the words and work back to why and how they functioned, which it seemed he did as well.
Regardless, I am responding through the lens of our history and not consciously; that is a terrible habit that I should not indulge in. I am sorry.

What say, Anders? Difference of application, difference of linguistic assumption, or something else entirely?

More like "sloppy google-search". And a little bit of snark. I've been doing that too much lately.

[Brother Oni]

E: I almost get the symbols actually. That's neat for osmosis.
... Is that magical girl, as witch? From memory, that would be maho, then? Minimal searching tells me the root for that is devil, which is interesting — magic is inherently evil? No, not evil. Not exactly; devil doesn't have the same values, and would relate to spirits and ogres more than fallen deific servants.

Spoilered for off topic:


Close, it's majo rather than maho (魔法) which is magic. The root 鬼 is oni, which is a Japanese ogre. They're not evil per se, just brutish, powerful and hostile to humans, which implies evil.

Akuma (悪魔) would be devil (aku meaning bad/evil). The Devil would be rendered in katakana as that's technically a proper noun.

[Lheticus]

Did you see the video I posted? Look up Doyle family shillelagh.
Aside from scraping the ground, there's no real difference between horizontal and vertical axis staff work. That was based on faulty data on mass and function.

So...what you're saying is a horizontal stance could be EQUALLY fast as a vertical stance, and hurt as much?

[Sorrcerousflux]

Perhaps a staff like weapon that has two hollow mallets at the ends, these ring when they hit something and do sonic damage (or simply deafen) the target.

[Lheticus]

Okay seriously, I'd like to know: Would a blunt weapon, if weight wasn't a concern (through magic or whatever else) with something other than stick on both ends be viable if used in a horizontal stance?

[SiuiS]

Spoilered for off topic:


Close, it's majo rather than maho (魔法) which is magic. The root 鬼 is oni, which is a Japanese ogre. They're not evil per se, just brutish, powerful and hostile to humans, which implies evil.

Akuma (悪魔) would be devil (aku meaning bad/evil). The Devil would be rendered in katakana as that's technically a proper noun.


Interesting. I should have known on I, it's been too long since my anime days. It was rendered as 'devil' by a casual translation, otherwise if had it. XD
Majo? That's interesting. The root for the DBZ majin, then? I assumed from mahotsukai, really.


Okay seriously, I'd like to know: Would a blunt weapon, if weight wasn't a concern (through magic or whatever else) with something other than stick on both ends be viable if used in a horizontal stance?

; swinging downward does not have more momentum than swinging sideways, except for negligible amounts of gravity and air resistance changes.

[Lheticus]

swinging downward does not have more momentum than swinging sideways, except for negligible amounts of gravity and air resistance changes.

But, I mean...if you hold it vertically, you're not holding it in the middle--you can hold it from the other end. Wouldn't that mean more distance is covered, leading to more acceleration--and more momentum?

[tyckspoon]

But, I mean...if you hold it vertically, you're not holding it in the middle--you can hold it from the other end. Wouldn't that mean more distance is covered, leading to more acceleration--and more momentum?

If you're holding it from one end, you're not using it as a double weapon. Congratulations, you've recreated the polearm. You might be able to lever back faster with a center-grip, yeah, but at that point you've already made the decision that potentially striking faster/recovering to ready/guard position faster is worth not getting the extra force behind using the longer grip for more lever length. Which it may well be, if your magical attachments/enhancements/whatever provide sufficient power on their own.

[Brother Oni]

Interesting. I should have known on I, it's been too long since my anime days. It was rendered as 'devil' by a casual translation, otherwise if had it. XD
Majo? That's interesting. The root for the DBZ majin, then? I assumed from mahotsukai, really.


More off topic stuff:

Not quite - majin is 魔人, which is literally 'demon people'. Majo (魔女) as you've noted, is literally 'demon girl' but reads as 'witch'.

The issue is that kanji doesn't represent a word, it represents an idea or concept, thus the exact meaning changes depending on the context.
Breaking down words to their roots can also lead to misunderstandings in any language, particularly when you start taking each root out of context. The town Swindon isn't a pig hill (it is a bloody miserable place though) and the less said about S****horpe the better...

[Knaight]

swinging downward does not have more momentum than swinging sideways, except for negligible amounts of gravity and air resistance changes.

There's also the matter of the extent to which the ability to exert force is an effect of the physiology of the person exerting it, along with the shape of the target, along with the effects of the physiology of the time requirements of the strike. Given all that, the claim that downward and sideways are equivalent is somewhat dubious - gravity and air resistance aren't even pertinent.

[SiuiS]

More off topic stuff:

Not quite - majin is 魔人, which is literally 'demon people'. Majo (魔女) as you've noted, is literally 'demon girl' but reads as 'witch'.

The issue is that kanji doesn't represent a word, it represents an idea or concept, thus the exact meaning changes depending on the context.
Breaking down words to their roots can also lead to misunderstandings in any language, particularly when you start taking each root out of context. The town Swindon isn't a pig hill (it is a bloody miserable place though) and the less said about S****horpe the better...

Oh, I misunderstood, then. I meant maho as my understanding of just "magic" which contains "oni". Not that the extent to whicch I am wrong matters, but... XD


There's also the matter of the extent to which the ability to exert force is an effect of the physiology of the person exerting it, along with the shape of the target, along with the effects of the physiology of the time requirements of the strike. Given all that, the claim that downward and sideways are equivalent is somewhat dubious - gravity and air resistance aren't even pertinent.

Yes, very much so! This came up all the time with LARP weapon stuff. Often new kids would go for the single most efficient weapon, but would not have the strength, agility or reflexes to take advantage of them. There's a minimum weight where a lighter weapon will not actually be faster because you've reached the maximum of your arm meat to motivate the lever, and actually require more mass to make arresting the lever after a swing possible without wrenching your own arm out of the socket - because you either have to do poorly on the acceleration, or else fight the acceleration at full power using only your own musculature, which is by no means as good at pulling in force as it is at exerting it.

Kinetic energy is mass times the square of velocity, but people fail to remember that this just gives you the energy, and what you do with it is it's own equation! Accelerating it to velocity, the distance traveled and the arc, angle, the ability to stop it afterwards or redirect... All worthwhile to understand.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Surely there must be an opportunity cost to learning the knife, though? It's not as if the USMC has an infinite amount of time to train in.

Yes they kind of do. They're elite forces, not conscripts or reserves. They have only two jobs, fighting and being the best at fighting. If they have to waste time doing jobs other soldiers can do then they're over-stretched.


So...what you're saying is a horizontal stance could be EQUALLY fast as a vertical stance, and hurt as much?

Sounds like you understand weapon speed purely in a RPG mechanics sense.

Using two weapons is not faster than using one weapon in real life.

Weapon speed is almost irrelevant in a real fight. Reach is more important as a weapon property and footwork is more important as a skill. If one martial artist spends all his time training to punch faster and another spends all his time practising footwork then the footwork guy will be able to strike first every time.


But, I mean...if you hold it vertically, you're not holding it in the middle--you can hold it from the other end. Wouldn't that mean more distance is covered, leading to more acceleration--and more momentum?

Holding a staff from one end is generally better than holding it in the middle for that reason. Since holding it in the middle is needed to use both ends effectively, using both ends is kind of a bad idea and not actually done very often.

If your fighting style is defined as 'Vertical' vs 'horizontal' then its a terribly limited style and you're probably already dead. You want to be as dynamic as possible, you can't 'attack quickly' if you can't attack using the opportunities open to you in an actual fight.

Sometimes you can hit someone with your staff and then swing your staff round and hit someone with other end. What you cannot do is build a entire fighting style around that as a method of attack. It is completely possible to change your grip on a weapon during a fight. There are some 'finishing moves' in European Longsword fighting where you change to a half-sword or reverse grip just to exploit an opening you created while holding your weapon differently and you can also follow up one handed attacks with their longer reach with more powerful two handed attacks once you close distance.


Okay seriously, I'd like to know: Would a blunt weapon, if weight wasn't a concern (through magic or whatever else) with something other than stick on both ends be viable if used in a horizontal stance?

If weight isn't a concern with due to magic, why would you care about being able to hit with both ends. If your weapon has so much momentum it can kill anyone with one strike you don't need to hit them twice. It would only become important when you're fighting against a group, but then its no longer about attacking faster, its about being able to attack and defend from a wider variety of directions. You'd change to a stance that didn't allow you to use the other end in a one on one fight.

[Lheticus]

Sounds like you understand weapon speed purely in a RPG mechanics sense.

Well, I mean...should a geek like me that abhors combat in real life in fact have more realistic understanding? XD ^^;


Using two weapons is not faster than using one weapon in real life.

Weapon speed is almost irrelevant in a real fight. Reach is more important as a weapon property and footwork is more important as a skill. If one martial artist spends all his time training to punch faster and another spends all his time practising footwork then the footwork guy will be able to strike first every time.

Gah...buzzkill on Aisle Five. D: I just really think the concept of a double ended weapon is cool, and so I want to make it work. Maybe it REALLY can't? D: D: D:


Holding a staff from one end is generally better than holding it in the middle for that reason. Since holding it in the middle is needed to use both ends effectively, using both ends is kind of a bad idea and not actually done very often.

If your fighting style is defined as 'Vertical' vs 'horizontal' then its a terribly limited style and you're probably already dead. You want to be as dynamic as possible, you can't 'attack quickly' if you can't attack using the opportunities open to you in an actual fight.

Sometimes you can hit someone with your staff and then swing your staff round and hit someone with other end. What you cannot do is build a entire fighting style around that as a method of attack. It is completely possible to change your grip on a weapon during a fight. There are some 'finishing moves' in European Longsword fighting where you change to a half-sword or reverse grip just to exploit an opening you created while holding your weapon differently and you can also follow up one handed attacks with their longer reach with more powerful two handed attacks once you close distance.

I'm not building a fighting style, I'm building a weapon and trying to figure if there is a viable fighting style for it?


If weight isn't a concern with due to magic, why would you care about being able to hit with both ends.

Um, because it's COOL? ^^; I mean...I COULD just go "Rule of Cool" on this, but I like things I write to have a basis with a realism factor of > 0, even the Rule of Cool stuff.


If your weapon has so much momentum it can kill anyone with one strike

Okaaaaaay, ya lost me. "Kill anyone with one strike" is a bit too much realism, honestly. The world this weapon will be found in is not going be one with bullets/bullet grade efficiency killing technology.

[SiuiS]

snip

Alternately, someone who doesn't even know the physics of kinetic energy through levers shouldn't be required to have a realistic view of combat training. Some of these are "no, that just plain cannot work or make sense ever", but some are just terribly inefficient; something easily overcome in stories or games.

[Sorrcerousflux]

Alternately, someone who doesn't even know the physics of kinetic energy through levers shouldn't be required to have a realistic view of combat training. Some of these are "no, that just plain cannot work or make sense ever", but some are just terribly inefficient; something easily overcome in stories or games.

By magic, witch basically means he just needs help with ideas because physics dosent matter at all, am-I-right?

Hech he could get away with having telekineticly controlled stones capable of forming any weapon he wants.

Or have giant rockets on your weapon that boost it to insane speeds but (because magic) the wielder is completely safe.

[SiuiS]

By magic, witch basically means he just needs help with ideas because physics dosent matter at all, am-I-right?


No, just by deempahisizing realism. I mean, one of my earlier memories of weapons was Tuxedo Mask's stick, that was basically a cane. And then I played games like soul calibur. And you can watch all sorts of animes and shows that have people tossed around by realistically impotent and insulting moves because they are "that strong". Like, a a guy kicks upward, toes to your chin, then leaves his leg hanging there, then drops his heel two inches into your nose. Not his whole leg, just bends his knee. That's not gonna do anything, but it still does as intended; demonstrate proficiency of the user. Even though it isnt' realistic in the slightest.

[Stardrake]

Okaaaaaay, ya lost me. "Kill anyone with one strike" is a bit too much realism, honestly. The world this weapon will be found in is not going be one with bullets/bullet grade efficiency killing technology.And according to one video I've seen (do a search on 'skallagrim' on YouTube) attempting one-hit kills with medieval melee weapons generally weren't a good idea. Anything short of an actual decapitation (or removal of their sword arm or the like would still leave a mortally wounded opponent time to strike back before they expire and nothing to lose by doing so, while such fierce blows usually leave the attacker open to just such a revenge strike... and that's assuming you get past the opponent's defense in the first place.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Gah...buzzkill on Aisle Five. D: I just really think the concept of a double ended weapon is cool, and so I want to make it work. Maybe it REALLY can't? D: D: D:

Three-sectioned staves and quarter staves can be used with both ends. Its just not the best way to actually use a staff in a lot of situations.

Technically a sword is a double-ended weapon because its occasionally a relevant tactic to hit people with the pommel. Its not worth having a specialised to deal damage pommel though.


I'm not building a fighting style, I'm building a weapon and trying to figure if there is a viable fighting style for it?

That's perfectly fine logic if you just picked up a random object as an improvised weapon, its terrible logic for purchasing a weapon before you go into battle.


Okaaaaaay, ya lost me. "Kill anyone with one strike" is a bit too much realism, honestly. The world this weapon will be found in is not going be one with bullets/bullet grade efficiency killing technology.

A regular quarter staff, just a piece of wood, can easily kill in one strike to the head. Anything more powerful than a quarter staff due to magic is going to be overkill against unarmoured non-magical humans.

People have survived being hit by 20 bullets and people have died from single arrows. Absence of guns doesn't really matter much.

If you want to have overly powerful weapons, you need overly powerful targets. If the enemies are supernatural creatures then there's no reason why any laws of physics should be relevant to fighting them. If your enemies have magically enhanced armour then magically enhances weapons don't have to be overkill, but if you just up the offensive power without compensating with defensive power you're going to have a very bloody setting.

[Tzevaot]

Can't you just use a double ended balded weapon? They are impossible enough.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Are you looking for soemthing like this?

http://www.bravenewman.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Circus-Strongman-Weightlifter-271x315.jpg

I guess it is the closest picture of a Double ended blunt weapon.

[Asta Kask]

Or this, for something designed to strike:

http://www.cobrabrigade.com/photos/venom_003.jpg

[Gnomvid]

It's already been established earlier in the thread the OP was indeed basically imagining a dumbbell

Edit: where the "weights" would be magically weightless to the wielder but not to the recipient of either end

[Asta Kask]

Sorry. It's just that after a certain amount of pages the thread begins to replicate itself. Or be about Hitler. Either one.

[Lheticus]

Or this, for something designed to strike:

http://www.cobrabrigade.com/photos/venom_003.jpg

Yeah--honestly I drew a lot of inspiration from the American Gladiators Joust.

[Asta Kask]

There's the Double Mace from Arms&Equipment Guide (see here (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/UA:Weapon_Group_%28Exotic_Double_Weapons%29))

Has that been mentioned yet?

[Closet_Skeleton]

Yeah--honestly I drew a lot of inspiration from the American Gladiators Joust.

The whole point of that being absolute ineffectiveness.

[Lheticus]

The whole point of that being absolute ineffectiveness.

I thought the whole point of it was to poke the opponent enough to fall off the platform? :P

[Jay R]

Are you looking for soemthing like this?


Or this, for something designed to strike:

http://www.cobrabrigade.com/photos/venom_003.jpg

I sure am. (Well, except for the silly weapon she's holding.)

[Lheticus]

I sure am. (Well, except for the silly weapon she's holding.)

LOL! 1,000 YES points awarded for your 100ccs of humor injected in this thread.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I thought the whole point of it was to poke the opponent enough to fall off the platform? :P

While limiting all other possible occurrences.

Well, technically its there to allow people to do avoid other possible occurrences while wearing tight spandex rather than padded body armour.

If you want something based off a silly sport you could just have a silly magic contact sport. But then using those weapons outside of the sport would be as silly as someone going into battle in American Football armour and tackling his enemies.

[Gnomvid]

To be fair it's a fictional world from Lheticus imagination there's no need for anything in it to make sense from a real world point of view, if he wants nonsensical weapons because they seem cool to him let him it's his world.

[Asta Kask]

Then my suggestion is that he makes a double-mace weapon, an exotic weapon doing 1d8/1d8 x2.

[factotum]

To be fair it's a fictional world from Lheticus imagination there's no need for anything in it to make sense from a real world point of view, if he wants nonsensical weapons because they seem cool to him let him it's his world.

Presumably, though, if Lheticus himself doesn't care if his weapon makes sense, he wouldn't have asked if it did on the forum?

[Lheticus]

Presumably, though, if Lheticus himself doesn't care if his weapon makes sense, he wouldn't have asked if it did on the forum?

Correct--I at least wanted there to be a possible circumstance where the base concept of a 2-ended blunt weapon would make sense.

[SiuiS]

Staff fighting (which is what you would do even if not with a staff) is a firmly established thing, so yeah you make sense. :)

[Lheticus]

Staff fighting (which is what you would do even if not with a staff) is a firmly established thing, so yeah you make sense. :)

But staff fighting doesn't necessitate a blunt object on both ends of the staff, so I don't. :(

[Jay R]

Correct--I at least wanted there to be a possible circumstance where the base concept of a 2-ended blunt weapon would make sense.

Both ends of the quarterstaff are used, but because the two ends aren't weighted, it's pretty useless against armored foes. It's pretty much a peasant's weapon.

A blunt weapons is a mass weapon. I can't imagine it working well with a large mass on the wrong end - it would slow the weapon down for no particular gain. So I suspect that there is no such thing as a two-ended blunt weapon - except in the sense that if my mace head has been forced back, I can still whap my opponent in his (unarmored) nose with the pommel.

Certainly, if I had a two-headed mass weapon, and had time to modify it before a fight, I would take one of the heads off to make it a more effective weapon.

[Lheticus]

Both ends of the quarterstaff are used, but because the two ends aren't weighted, it's pretty useless against armored foes. It's pretty much a peasant's weapon.

A blunt weapons is a mass weapon. I can't imagine it working well with a large mass on the wrong end - it would slow the weapon down for no particular gain. So I suspect that there is no such thing as a two-ended blunt weapon - except in the sense that if my mace head has been forced back, I can still whap my opponent in his (unarmored) nose with the pommel.

Certainly, if I had a two-headed mass weapon, and had time to modify it before a fight, I would take one of the heads off to make it a more effective weapon.

All right, so we're back to where the "magic spheres" on either end of the weapon need an effect other than magical mass. I know that because magic I could do that, but I don't particularly want to. You mentioned armor--the sort of effect that works well against an armored opponent seems like a good thing to aim for, but I'm not sure what. Btw, these spheres as I mentioned once before are actually conjurations by a "bubble mage"--as such, if they don't rely on mass to hurt, by what a bubble even is, they would need virtually no mass at all and be able to achieve that easily.

[Jay R]

All right, so we're back to where the "magic spheres" on either end of the weapon need an effect other than magical mass. I know that because magic I could do that, but I don't particularly want to. You mentioned armor--the sort of effect that works well against an armored opponent seems like a good thing to aim for, but I'm not sure what. Btw, these spheres as I mentioned once before are actually conjurations by a "bubble mage"--as such, if they don't rely on mass to hurt, by what a bubble even is, they would need virtually no mass at all and be able to achieve that easily.

To get through metal armor, the most obvious effect is electricity. Any kind of disruption would do.

[ngc7293]

Though it has been established what this double weapon does, maybe not exactly what it looks like. So here is the Dire Mace (http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Dire_mace) from the video game Never Winter Nights.

[factotum]

To get through metal armor, the most obvious effect is electricity.

Actually, electricity probably wouldn't work--the armour would have much lower resistance to it than the human body inside, so the electricity would tend to harmlessly run to earth through the armour without affecting the occupant much at all.

[SiuiS]

But staff fighting doesn't necessitate a blunt object on both ends of the staff, so I don't. :(

Yes it does. The staff is the blunt object. This objection is like saying that a mace and a Morningstar are fundamentally different because one uses a mace and the other uses spikes.

Regardless of what objects are on the ends or not on the ends, there are only three possible, physical ways for a stick to be used two handed.
• grip in middle, use like staff
• grip at end, use like staff
• grip at end, use like spear
Spear is modified staff. There are only so many possible ways to make a stick move. I know you want to avoid just saying it's a staff. But I assure you, the thing you are looking for? It's a staff. I promise you.


Both ends of the quarterstaff are used, but because the two ends aren't weighted, it's pretty useless against armored foes. It's pretty much a peasant's weapon.

Peasant staff actually works fairly well against armor. Aside from the, you know, being swing by a peasant. There's only so much armor can help before getting struck by a high speed weight before the kinetic energy, even dispersed into the armor, is enough to scramble your brains.

[Heliomance]

Both ends of the quarterstaff are used, but because the two ends aren't weighted, it's pretty useless against armored foes.

Except for the bit where it's a tripping weapon, and a guy in full plate on the ground had lost.

[Lheticus]

All right...at this point I feel there's 2 things I need to emphasize:

1. Think less "realistic" damage and more "TV action/adventure show" damage.

2. Think less "mage that happens to have a weapon" and think more "genuine bona-fide Magic Knight (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicKnight)."

[Aedilred]

Except for the bit where it's a tripping weapon, and a guy in full plate on the ground had lost.

Not necessarily. You still need to deal with them when they're on the ground, and preferably stop them getting back up again. Knocking them over is fine, but you need to have somethng else capable of hurting them to finish them off once you've done so. Assuming their armour is properly-fitting and articulated, they're not otherwise injured and they're not fighting in some kind of quasi-swamp, that shouldn't be a problem for them, and even stabbing them with a dagger or the like requires getting into range of their own weapon and/or wrestling.

[Asta Kask]

Not necessarily. You still need to deal with them when they're on the ground, and preferably stop them getting back up again. Knocking them over is fine, but you need to have somethng else capable of hurting them to finish them off once you've done so. Assuming their armour is properly-fitting and articulated, they're not otherwise injured and they're not fighting in some kind of quasi-swamp, that shouldn't be a problem for them, and even stabbing them with a dagger or the like requires getting into range of their own weapon and/or wrestling.

In other words, there's a reason knights carried big swords and not quarterstaffs.

[Jay R]

Except for the bit where it's a tripping weapon, and a guy in full plate on the ground had lost.

Is this just a made-up guess, or do you have a historical example of a group of men in armor taken out by a group of men with quarterstaves?

[SiuiS]

All right...at this point I feel there's 2 things I need to emphasize:

1. Think less "realistic" damage and more "TV action/adventure show" damage.

2. Think less "mage that happens to have a weapon" and think more "genuine bona-fide Magic Knight (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicKnight)."

Doesn't matter. Any stick, no matter what it looks like – barbell, mace, staff, etc. – can only be swing on certain ways.

Your weapon may not be a staff, but it will be used like a staff, which means it's like in a video game where your staff has a different skin.


In other words, there's a reason knights carried big swords and not quarterstaffs.

And also why they used those swords like staves sometimes.

[Stardrake]

And also why they used those swords like staves sometimes.
Beat me to it. Popular imagery - and most RPGs - may present greatsword use as crudely swinging the blade at people, but the greatsword was in fact extraordinarily versatile, particularly if the wielder had good hand protection and the blade had the various modifications (such as an extended ricasso and extra quillions) to allow for it. You could use it as a sword. You could put one hand on the blade a little above the hilt and use it as a short (relatively speaking...) spear. You could hold it around the middle and use it like a quarterstaff, or even turn it upside-down and strike with the hilt like a crude hammer.

There's a reason they were popular once personal armour reached the point where shields became largely obsolete - because it allowed people to carry a single weapon that could be used in a number of ways as appropriate to the situation.

[Lheticus]

Doesn't matter. Any stick, no matter what it looks like – barbell, mace, staff, etc. – can only be swing on certain ways.

Your weapon may not be a staff, but it will be used like a staff, which means it's like in a video game where your staff has a different skin.

Doesn't matter for what? I wasn't addressing the method of wielding/swinging with those points, but rather the people who were talking about how much damage it would/would not do, and emphasizing that knocking people around with this weapon is not a secondary means of attack, as it would be with a straight-up mage, but a primary one.

[Asta Kask]

So, to summarize:

1) There seems to be no historical precedent for an American gladiator-staff type weapon.
2) There is nothing to prevent you from making such a weapon as an Exotic weapon.
3) People who disagree with me are poopheads.

:smallwink:

[Frozen_Feet]

I know I'm late to the party, but I wanted to say that various polearms had both ends used. Those ends just tended to be different and, well, not blunt. The common assemblies were an axe or a hammer at one end, and a speartip at the other. So you first slashed them or bashed them down with the big, heavy end and then stabbed them with the small pointy end when they were down. Symmetrical staff weapons were and are pretty rare save for, well, basic staffs.

A "double-ended blunt weapon" would hence just be a hammer with a long haft and a pommel at the other end, or a simple staff with both ends reinforced with metal cappings or rings.

As a side-note, a sturdy oak stick or staff anywhere from 4 to 9 feet long can be used against an armored opponent pretty effectively. With a stick, you use pretty much the same techniques you'd use with a longsword, even. The trick is that you're not trying to bash through their armor - just like you'd not try to cut through it with a sword either. (Against steel plates or padded maille, it doesn't make much difference whether you're hitting someone with a stick made of wood or stick made of metal.) Instead you'd deflect their blows, get to close range and use the leverage bestowed by your weapon to throw them, trip them, lock them etc. into a position where you can wrench their helmet off and then kill them dead.

Okay, so if you have a really long staff (9 feet f.ex.), you might be able to knock someone on their ass or give them a concussion if you hit them to the head full-force with the last quarter of it. But that's easier said than done.

[Lheticus]

I know I'm late to the party, but I wanted to say that various polearms had both ends used. Those ends just tended to be different and, well, not blunt. The common assemblies were an axe or a hammer at one end, and a speartip at the other. So you first slashed them or bashed them down with the big, heavy end and then stabbed them with the small pointy end when they were down. Symmetrical staff weapons were and are pretty rare save for, well, basic staffs.

A "double-ended blunt weapon" would hence just be a hammer with a long haft and a pommel at the other end, or a simple staff with both ends reinforced with metal cappings or rings.

As a side-note, a sturdy oak stick or staff anywhere from 4 to 9 feet long can be used against an armored opponent pretty effectively. With a stick, you use pretty much the same techniques you'd use with a longsword, even. The trick is that you're not trying to bash through their armor - just like you'd not try to cut through it with a sword either. (Against steel plates or padded maille, it doesn't make much difference whether you're hitting someone with a stick made of wood or stick made of metal.) Instead you'd deflect their blows, get to close range and use the leverage bestowed by your weapon to throw them, trip them, lock them etc. into a position where you can wrench their helmet off and then kill them dead.

Okay, so if you have a really long staff (9 feet f.ex.), you might be able to knock someone on their ass or give them a concussion if you hit them to the head full-force with the last quarter of it. But that's easier said than done.

I think you just salvaged the idea. I've mentioned before--though it's been a while--that with the way the weapon is set up, the magic orbs/bubbles placed on either end are not a strict part of the weapon itself, but attachments MEANT to be modulated. So for example, the user could have a magically heavy attachment on one end for close quarters, and a weightless attachment on the other end that shoots lightning bolts for fighting at a greater range. With that configuration, the weapon would balance like an ordinary greatmace. Yeah...this could work.

[SiuiS]

Doesn't matter for what? I wasn't addressing the method of wielding/swinging with those points, but rather the people who were talking about how much damage it would/would not do, and emphasizing that knocking people around with this weapon is not a secondary means of attack, as it would be with a straight-up mage, but a primary one.

My mistake then.

[Sartharina]

A blunt weapons is a mass weapon. I can't imagine it working well with a large mass on the wrong end - it would slow the weapon down for no particular gain. So I suspect that there is no such thing as a two-ended blunt weapon - except in the sense that if my mace head has been forced back, I can still whap my opponent in his (unarmored) nose with the pommel.Why would the weapon be slowed down? It's either pivoting around the center of mass with a balanced grip, or you're 'choked up' on one end.

Ideally, though, I think you might want to affix two hammer heads to the weapon, to concentrate the force to a specific point on the arc of the swing. Doesn't need to be too much weight, though.

[warty goblin]

Why would the weapon be slowed down? It's either pivoting around the center of mass with a balanced grip, or you're 'choked up' on one end.

Ideally, though, I think you might want to affix two hammer heads to the weapon, to concentrate the force to a specific point on the arc of the swing. Doesn't need to be too much weight, though.
Balancing the weight on one end with a weight on the other however has two unfortunately effects. Firstly your center of mass is now centered, and no longer as close to the striking surface of the weapon. This tends to enhance mobility, but decrease the effective power of your strikes.

The second effect is that it gives you a large moment of inertia. Which will in fact for a given amount of force result in a slower strike, and on the flipside require more effort on the part of the wielder to recover it after a swing. A weight on either end of a pole makes a good flywheel because it is relatively difficult to start and stop, but a terrible weapon for the same reason.

[Sartharina]

So, obviously, the strategy is to not stop it once it starts going. And that's why it's double-ended, as well! Just... kinda pinwheel across the battlefield.

[warty goblin]

So, obviously, the strategy is to not stop it once it starts going. And that's why it's double-ended, as well! Just... kinda pinwheel across the battlefield.

In practice this is basically a terrible idea. You lose the reach of a regular spear or polearm, don't get the amazing utility of a shield, and in order to keep the thing moving your strikes become extremely predictable. Fighting with weapons akimbo is already usually a bad idea, but at least they can act independently. The two ends of a pole do not, a fact normally compensated for by the speed of the weapon, and usually by taking advantage of its superior length.

[Brother Oni]

In practice this is basically a terrible idea. You lose the reach of a regular spear or polearm, don't get the amazing utility of a shield, and in order to keep the thing moving your strikes become extremely predictable.

This last point of predictability, more than anything, will get you killed on the battlefield. If I know exactly when and how you're going to attack, I can do pretty much whatever I want to counter it and/or kill you.

[Sartharina]

Soul Calibur 2 Lied to me!

[Zadhadras]

Most staff techniques look like sword or spear fighting..grabbing the the staff in the middle and doing the stereotypical friar tuck stuff isn't done very often. Here is a style of stick fighting that uses both ends of the stick. it might give folks some ideas about how a double ended blunt weapon might function. The base of the style is derived from boxing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcH0ww_Jbfg

[SiuiS]

Soul Calibur 2 Lied to me!

Yep!

There are some clever tricks you can do with the pinwheel staff method, to redirect the momentum or change the trajectory of the attack, but they are definitely in the 'better work the first time' camp unless you outclass your opponent enough to make up for the handicap.


Most staff techniques look like sword or spear fighting..grabbing the the staff in the middle and doing the stereotypical friar tuck stuff isn't done very often. Here is a style of stick fighting that uses both ends of the stick. it might give folks some ideas about how a double ended blunt weapon might function. The base of the style is derived from boxing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcH0ww_Jbfg

Ah, this specific video was enlightening. My stick was too long! Well, and my triceps and wrists were flimsy and underdeveloped, and I didn't bother to knobble off the bumps and kept splitting my hand open, but still. Good to see!

It's nice to know others are aware of this partic'lar art. I take it being posted twice as a glowing recommendation for how to use a double ended bubble staff :)

[Frozen_Feet]

For a style where the staff typically is grabbed at the middle, look at Okinawan kobudo. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iFoeac8wLI) The default grip is such because it allows for rapid change of sides and covering the whole body with blocks. For invidual strikes, the grip can still be lenghtened for reach, so it still fits the criteria of looking or being like "sword or spear fighting".

[Lheticus]

Yep!

There are some clever tricks you can do with the pinwheel staff method, to redirect the momentum or change the trajectory of the attack, but they are definitely in the 'better work the first time' camp unless you outclass your opponent enough to make up for the handicap.



Ah, this specific video was enlightening. My stick was too long! Well, and my triceps and wrists were flimsy and underdeveloped, and I didn't bother to knobble off the bumps and kept splitting my hand open, but still. Good to see!

It's nice to know others are aware of this partic'lar art. I take it being posted twice as a glowing recommendation for how to use a double ended bubble staff :)

Oh please, this stopped being about my original idea like months ago. :smallyuk: I mean, this post has been entirely ignored since the thread resumed in the first place:


I think you just salvaged the idea. I've mentioned before--though it's been a while--that with the way the weapon is set up, the magic orbs/bubbles placed on either end are not a strict part of the weapon itself, but attachments MEANT to be modulated. So for example, the user could have a magically heavy attachment on one end for close quarters, and a weightless attachment on the other end that shoots lightning bolts for fighting at a greater range. With that configuration, the weapon would balance like an ordinary greatmace. Yeah...this could work.

Essentially no one who posted after that comes from the altered framework of the other end being light as a bubble and shooting magic spells on command. Not that there's anything wrong with that--this is still good discussion happening and by all means carry on.

[Zrak]

Soul Calibur 2 Lied to me!

It does have some accurate respects, for example, like France being a military superpower for a while after they were the first nation who learned to mash the A button.