PDA

View Full Version : ((4E)) An injustice to Little John!



Duos Greanleef
2008-09-03, 03:09 PM
If anyone knows much a bout Robin Hood, they know that Little John was a pretty wicked Quarterstaff fighter.
I wanted to make a Little John-esque character and found that the 4E PHB Fighter powers have specializations for just about every other weapon bearer except those wielding Staffs.
This is an injustice and I look to the Playground for whatever your solutions might have been if you've encountered the same.
Thanx in advance!

Ps. For comparison's sake:
From Prince of thieves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kqXt6ToAzc&feature=related)
From Men In Tights (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OsRePNS4pk)

Crow
2008-09-03, 03:17 PM
Well the standard 4e answer would be to stat him as a class that would be good with staves. So Little John is a Wizard!

In all seriousness though, I don't see any reason why you can't stat him as a great weapon fighter and just avoid the weapon-specific powers. You'll have to nerf yourself at certain levels, but it can still be done.

Jimp
2008-09-03, 03:18 PM
You could ask the DM to let certain fitting powers work with staves too.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-03, 03:20 PM
I think if you houserule that Staves act like maces (or hammers?) you might be able to make the fighter - though Light Armor Fighters are really better as Rangers or Rogues.

I'm not sure whether that is a better route than adding Staffs to the list of Rogue Weapons (that is, anytime you could use a Light Blade, you can use a Staff). Since staves aren't that strong, you probably can do either without damaging the game, even if you can then use some weird feat choices (like Nimble Blade, or Light Blade Mastery).

There's my 2 cents.

Spiryt
2008-09-03, 03:27 PM
Well, the thing IMO is that staff is... well a staff.

People were dueling, fighting in scuffles, defending themselves with with it, beacuse it was very handy, fast weapon with reach, but also beacuse it much harder to actualy kill anyone with this.

You can beat the crap out ouf guy, but you had to punt much more effort into killing than with for example mace. As it's just straight stick after all.

It's hard to demand it to be man and troll slaying weapon like glaive or sword.

Edge of Dreams
2008-09-03, 03:36 PM
Treat a staff as a double-weapon ala 3.5 rules, then build Little John as a ranger and rule that double-ended weapons count the same as two-weapon-fighting. Considering that Robin Hood and co. spent so much time in the woods, ranger is pretty fitting flavor-wise too. To make the damage more respectable, maybe convince your DM to create a feat - Heavy Staff Wielder: Requires Str. 15, Increase the damage die of a quarterstaff by one size when you wield it.

Jerthanis
2008-09-03, 03:37 PM
In the Robin Hood story, Little John was also really good with a bow and arrow. I'd probably let a quarterstaff count as two melee weapons for Ranger powers if a player were really interested in going that route. The lower Proficiency bonus and lack of special properties, not to mention lack of weapon feats won't make it any more powerful than any other weapon a Ranger would select anyway.

Spiryt
2008-09-03, 03:39 PM
Well, in 3.5 quarterstaff could be potentialy really interesting, as a two handed weapon that can without problem serve in TWF as well.

The problem is that in 3.5 it anyway didn't have any worth, due to game construction. :smallyuk:

Dunno about 4ed

Yakk
2008-09-03, 03:50 PM
Quarterstaff Ranger Style: Quarterstaffs deal 1d8 damage, can be wielded as double-weapons, and gain the Toughness bonus feat.

Done?

But ya, the Fighter in the PHB needs the Martial sourcebook to be able to know how to use every weapon type.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-09-03, 03:52 PM
In the Robin Hood story, Little John was also really good with a bow and arrow. I'd probably let a quarterstaff count as two melee weapons for Ranger powers if a player were really interested in going that route. The lower Proficiency bonus and lack of special properties, not to mention lack of weapon feats won't make it any more powerful than any other weapon a Ranger would select anyway.

And it'll be counterbalanced by requiring only one weapon to be enchanted. Nice fix.

mangosta71
2008-09-03, 03:56 PM
Well, the thing IMO is that staff is... well a staff.

People were dueling, fighting in scuffles, defending themselves with with it, beacuse it was very handy, fast weapon with reach, but also beacuse it much harder to actualy kill anyone with this.

You can beat the crap out ouf guy, but you had to punt much more effort into killing than with for example mace. As it's just straight stick after all.

It's hard to demand it to be man and troll slaying weapon like glaive or sword.

I don't know if it's harder to kill someone with a staff than another type of weapon, but it would be easier to deal subdual damage.

Spiryt
2008-09-03, 04:02 PM
I don't know if it's harder to kill someone with a staff than another type of weapon, but it would be easier to deal subdual damage.

Certainly. That was the point of my post. And that's why quarterstaff certainly was popular weapon, apart from the fact that the whole cost of it was good eye to find nice branch and some skill to prepare it nicely.

But D&D, especially 4ed is fight centered. About fighting evil monsters, beacuse you're a good sir kinghty. So naturally battle, deadly weapons would be more important that a weapon that is cheap and can beat people without killing or kill if it's suitable.

Of course, in some more interesting campaign, quarterstaff could be better.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-03, 04:26 PM
Certainly. That was the point of my post. And that's why quarterstaff certainly was popular weapon, apart from the fact that the whole cost of it was good eye to find nice branch and some skill to prepare it nicely.

But D&D, especially 4ed is fight centered. About fighting evil monsters, beacuse you're a good sir kinghty. So naturally battle, deadly weapons would be more important that a weapon that is cheap and can beat people without killing or kill if it's suitable.

Of course, in some more interesting campaign, quarterstaff could be better.

In 4th, you always choose to make last blow subdual and not kill target...
So apparently, people are skilled enough in 4th to not need a quarterstaff.

Aron Times
2008-09-03, 04:30 PM
Staves double as implements in 4E, so if you're playing a gish and you don't want to spend money on both an implement and a weapon, you can just wield a staff to get the benefits of both.

Spiryt
2008-09-03, 04:33 PM
In 4th, you always choose to make last blow subdual and not kill target...
So apparently, people are skilled enough in 4th to not need a quarterstaff.

Damn, they're all have damn sure hands and steel nerves! :smalltongue:

Striking someone with pick in such way to be sure that you've made not dangerous wound would be quite a fun :smalltongue:

mayonase
2008-09-03, 04:56 PM
Incredibly easy fix: Just call it a Polearm. I actually find it somewhat ridiculous that it isn't already considered a Polearm, cause, well, it kinda is. You could go a couple simple routes with this that no sane DM would disprove of:

1. Take the stats for a Long Spear, then just remove the 'Spear' modifier on it. Absolutely not overpowered at all, because you're just removing a descriptor and limiting your maneuver options (not by a lot, but by a couple).

2. Use the stats for a Quarterstaff as written, then add Reach, Polearm Status, and maybe even add the Mace modifier. Since this will be a houseruled weapon, I can't absolutely guarantee that there's no cheese potential, but it seems unlikely at first read.

Polearm maneuvers are VERY much Little John-esque, no?

Duos Greanleef
2008-09-03, 05:25 PM
...adding Staffs to the list of Rogue Weapons...
I thought about this, Oracle Hunter, and seemed to ride the cheeseline pretty well.


...You can beat the crap out ouf guy, but you had to punt much more effort into killing than with for example mace...
Spyrt, beating someone with a blunt object is always painful. Especially when you have enough strength. That and I don't like to include excessive reality in my games. Takes away from the fantasy role-playing aspect.


...I'd probably let a quarterstaff count as two melee weapons for Ranger powers...
Another feasible thought, Jerthanis. I like this option the best!


...In 4th, you always choose to make last blow subdual and not kill target...
Starbuck II, I DMd pretty much since 4E came out and I only had one instance where the PCs wanted to keep a guy alive for questioning. They preferred killing NPCs even if they could be valuable informants. *shrugs*


...Polearm maneuvers are VERY much Little John-esque, no?
Indeed, Mayonase, they are Little John-esque!

:biggrin:
Thank you Playground, you've saved the day once again. Thank you for your input!

tumble check
2008-09-03, 05:27 PM
Actually, I believe the standard 4e answer would be to use a maul or something, and simply write "quarterstaff" on your character sheet... if you're cool with reflavoring, that is.

nagora
2008-09-03, 05:30 PM
can be wielded as double-weapons,
You do know what a quarterstaff is, don't you? It's not a quarter of a full staff.

Spiryt
2008-09-03, 05:47 PM
Spiryt, beating someone with a blunt object is always painful. Especially when you have enough strength. That and I don't like to include excessive reality in my games. Takes away from the fantasy role-playing aspect.

Corrected the name :smalltongue:

And anyway, one more time - exactly my point about painfulness - it's great weapon to fall the enemy by sheer pain and bruised, useless muscles.

About fantasy - it depends on what people like in fantasy, but generally I agree. I was just pointing out that quarterstaff in D&D is treaten quite realistically - as a cheap and reliable thing that can be used to hang your washing, if there's a need (:smallwink:), not a deadly weapon.

Kiero
2008-09-03, 06:16 PM
Well, the thing IMO is that staff is... well a staff.

People were dueling, fighting in scuffles, defending themselves with with it, beacuse it was very handy, fast weapon with reach, but also beacuse it much harder to actualy kill anyone with this.

You can beat the crap out ouf guy, but you had to punt much more effort into killing than with for example mace. As it's just straight stick after all.

It's hard to demand it to be man and troll slaying weapon like glaive or sword.

Uh, what? Do you know how many people are murdered with blunt objects every year? Crack someone across the base of the skull/top of the spine hard enough, and you'll kill them or at least cause permanent injury. Head injuries generally can kill if you cause bloodclots or swelling. Crush their windpipe and they'll die if they don't get medical attention.

Spiryt
2008-09-03, 06:21 PM
Uh, what? Do you know how many people are murdered with blunt objects every year? Crack someone across the base of the skull/top of the spine hard enough, and you'll kill them or at least cause permanent injury. Head injuries generally can kill if you cause bloodclots or swelling. Crush their windpipe and they'll die if they don't get medical attention.

And how many of them are actual fights, not murders? How many of those end with "just" concussion, and other stuff? How many are actually "head shots"?

Please don't put in my mouth something I haven't said. I'm not saying that killing someone with blunt object isn't possible.

If he is defensless/exposed to good strike in one way or another, it's even scarily easy.

My point, as you can see from my post, that it's not so easy to kill someone if you aren't actualy trying to do so. If you hit with the sword, you can even try not to harm too much, but you cut some artery, and game's over.

It's no comparision with staff which you can just beat one's ass with, and make him loose all desire and ability to fight, without killing.

Knaight
2008-09-03, 09:56 PM
Yes, but if you want to kill someone its not that hard. I'm too lazy to work out the math again, but basically a staff has about twice the range of a sword, and is just as fast. Swinging it in an arc means that the end hits roughly four times as fast as a sword, and the force is transferred way more quickly, meaning that a good shot can easily break ribs, collar bones, skulls, etc.

Grynning
2008-09-03, 11:54 PM
You do know what a quarterstaff is, don't you? It's not a quarter of a full staff.

That's not what people are saying at all, man. In 3.5, quarterstaffs were a double-weapon, meaning it was a single weapon with two striking ends, so you could use a two-weapon fighting style with it if desired. Think Darth Maul if you're having trouble visualizing that.

They're saying that for 4th edition you have the staff count as two weapons so you could make double strikes and other ranger two-weapon attacks with it (attacking once with each end).

nagora
2008-09-04, 04:39 AM
That's not what people are saying at all, man. In 3.5, quarterstaffs were a double-weapon, meaning it was a single weapon with two striking ends, so you could use a two-weapon fighting style with it if desired. Think Darth Maul if you're having trouble visualizing that.

They're saying that for 4th edition you have the staff count as two weapons so you could make double strikes and other ranger two-weapon attacks with it (attacking once with each end).
Ah, right. It was late. Sounds fair enough (apart from the usual ranger two-weapon nonsense).

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-04, 04:52 AM
Well, the thing IMO is that staff is... well a staff.

People were dueling, fighting in scuffles, defending themselves with with it, beacuse it was very handy, fast weapon with reach, but also beacuse it much harder to actualy kill anyone with this.

You can beat the crap out ouf guy, but you had to punt much more effort into killing than with for example mace. As it's just straight stick after all.

It's hard to demand it to be man and troll slaying weapon like glaive or sword.

This doesn't really apply to 4E, though, since you can beat a monster or NPC into -100 HP with a greatsword, and declare that you just knocked them unconscious.

Hecore
2008-09-04, 07:19 AM
If the argument is that a quarterstaff isn't deadly enough, you could always have one cored and filled with lead. I don't know how it would hold up in combat, but it would at least look the same.

Knaight
2008-09-04, 07:20 AM
You do know what a quarterstaff is, don't you? It's not a quarter of a full staff.

Well they should have just called it a staff, since using it as a quarterstaff is technically a fighting style. Then there is using it as a halfstaff, which is also a style. Although back to topic, for 4e just use a spear and change the name. Use spear abilities too, and describe them differently, a lot of them are shoving people long distance, and a staff works just as well as a spear for that.

DMfromTheAbyss
2008-09-04, 10:00 AM
I suggest you go with the fighter. Take the staff, have it iron "shod" or put some extra weight on it... then use the stats for a glaive. (except make it blunt not slashing damage).

There's a fair amount of historical precident for quarter staves being "converted" in times of war/danger to something a bit more deadly by a variety of methods... mostly adding weight and metal pokey bits to make them into makeshift polearms. The whole "monkspade" concept and the crossier (those fancy staves with the crossbar and rings that make the ching sound, popular with religious types) are examples of a staff that with the addition of metal construction to make them deadlier, but keeping the exact same hitting surface/configuration, enabling someone practiced with a stick to use them with proficiency.

bosssmiley
2008-09-04, 03:18 PM
You do know what a quarterstaff is, don't you? It's not a quarter of a full staff.

Ah, at last! Someone had to say it. ... And I note people are still missing the point. :smallamused:

Clue:

To give quarter: to accept as prisoner, on submission in battle; to forbear to kill, as a vanquished enemy.

A quarterstaff is *supposed* to be less-than-lethal. It's a sparring and brawling implement, rather than a battlefield weapon. That's why people used to fight with staves rather than swords (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNByvWxVx0A) at country fairs.

Yes, Little John was badass, but ultimately he was fighting another guy with a stick. Even Musashi only made a habit of *bok*-ing (rather than slicing) people into submission late in life.

That said, if you really want to make waggling a stick about a rewarded lifestyle choice in 4E, then follow the "quarterstaff = ranger-usable double weapon" suggestions made above. Just remember that the monsters will be looking at you thinking "Cool! Dinner bought along its own spit!" :smallbiggrin:

Mando Knight
2008-09-04, 03:44 PM
A quarterstaff is *supposed* to be less-than-lethal. It's a sparring and brawling implement, rather than a battlefield weapon. That's why people used to fight with staves rather than swords (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNByvWxVx0A) at country fairs.

Yes, Little John was badass, but ultimately he was fighting another guy with a stick. Even Musashi only made a habit of *bok*-ing (rather than slicing) people into submission late in life.

That said, if you really want to make waggling a stick about a rewarded lifestyle choice in 4E, then follow the "quarterstaff = ranger-usable double weapon" suggestions made above. Just remember that the monsters will be looking at you thinking "Cool! Dinner bought along its own spit!" :smallbiggrin:

Aye, as much as I like Little John, he's not using a staff to kill. If he wanted to kill, the Merry Men raid enough caravans to get him a proper sword or spear. I'd give him a quarterstaff for friendly bouts, but when it comes down to lethal fights, he should use a bow, spear, or sword of some sort.

Grynning
2008-09-04, 07:52 PM
Even Musashi only made a habit of *bok*-ing (rather than slicing) people into submission late in life.

You're forgetting that he was rather infamous for killing a few of his opponents even when only armed with a bokken.

While I concede that the staff is less lethal than a sword, it is only *less* lethal, not *non* lethal. Hence, I suggest leaving the damage die as it is, 1D6, but allowing it to be used by rangers and to benefit from other feats/powers that could reasonably be performed with it.

Voshkod
2008-09-04, 07:57 PM
You do know what a quarterstaff is, don't you? It's not a quarter of a full staff.

"Actually, it's a buck-and-a-quarter quarterstaff, but I'm not telling him that. Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha - THRUST!"

Grynning
2008-09-04, 08:08 PM
"Actually, it's a buck-and-a-quarter quarterstaff, but I'm not telling him that. Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha - THRUST!"

You sir, win!

http://possumblog.mu.nu/images/daffy1.jpg

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-09-04, 09:56 PM
Umm... the reason why the quarterstaff was widely used among briggands and bandits during days past is because a) It's free, with a bit of whittling and a sapling, and b) it is one of the very few weapons a non-noble can obtain which can take out a belted knight in full armor. Even with a helmet, you can easily knock someone cold with a staff. Without a helmet, it can very easily kill.

Yes, the 'quarterstaff' was a training weapon, because it was typically harder to kill each other on accident with one (assuming you put in simple rules such as 'no head shots' and 'not below the belt or in the back'). However, the staff (as in a long and straight stick) was one of the first weapons man ever invented, and has been with us since before recorded history, because it is effective.

I would say that the staff is just as effective at killing people as a sword is. In fact, I'd say it is MORE effective against people in armor than a sword is, because you have a MUCH greater force applied by two rotating fulcrum over a much longer lever. The only reason the sword is possibly more effective against unarmored opponents is the blade, making the surface area much less so that it is harder to dissipate the kenetic force of the blow. Against any chain or plate, however, a sword is little more than a cudgel anyways, since you're not going to be able to cut through metal.

Knaight
2008-09-04, 10:16 PM
4 times the speed, then for force were looking at about one and a half times the weight, so 6 times the force, and it all goes into the person, as opposed to a sword that can lose force after going through, that said the staff isn't likely to dissipate the force far enough into the person to cause killing, except for head shots, spinal shots, etc. That said, tripping someone is relatively easy, and hitting someone on the head post trip is also fairly easy. It is also possible to break a rib, meaning that someone could be incapacitated fairly easily without killing them, but a dagger to the face, or just a well aimed head shot with the staff fixes that.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-09-04, 10:44 PM
4 times the speed, then for force were looking at about one and a half times the weight, so 6 times the force, and it all goes into the person, as opposed to a sword that can lose force after going through, that said the staff isn't likely to dissipate the force far enough into the person to cause killing, except for head shots, spinal shots, etc. That said, tripping someone is relatively easy, and hitting someone on the head post trip is also fairly easy. It is also possible to break a rib, meaning that someone could be incapacitated fairly easily without killing them, but a dagger to the face, or just a well aimed head shot with the staff fixes that.

There's all kinds of places you can kill a fellah with a staff. Head shots are not difficult, particularly not if you have an opponent who is confident in his helmet being able to defend him from such blows. Kidney/liver shots are also not difficult, as it's mostly a body shot just under the ribs. Floating rib can EASILY break and go into a lung or liver, and that's a natural target for someone swinging it like a baseball bat. Then let's not forget kneecaps, which at least incapacitates your opponent. Furthermore, if you're wearing chain, you're actually better off unarmored, as even with the padding underneath, chain does nothing against blunt force, and often makes things worse by digging loose rings into the wearer.

Kiero
2008-09-05, 04:54 AM
Furthermore, if you're wearing chain, you're actually better off unarmored, as even with the padding underneath, chain does nothing against blunt force, and often makes things worse by digging loose rings into the wearer.

Well, that's why you wear a padded jacket underneath mail. You wouldn't have just layer of ordinary cloth between mail and skin.

Knaight
2008-09-05, 07:48 AM
There's all kinds of places you can kill a fellah with a staff. Head shots are not difficult, particularly not if you have an opponent who is confident in his helmet being able to defend him from such blows. Kidney/liver shots are also not difficult, as it's mostly a body shot just under the ribs. Floating rib can EASILY break and go into a lung or liver, and that's a natural target for someone swinging it like a baseball bat. Then let's not forget kneecaps, which at least incapacitates your opponent. Furthermore, if you're wearing chain, you're actually better off unarmored, as even with the padding underneath, chain does nothing against blunt force, and often makes things worse by digging loose rings into the wearer.

Well yes. Not to mention head shots are far easier against shorter weapons, like most swords, where you have reach advantage, which is a huge advantage. A sword is much more likely to kill someone with Kidney or liver shots, but a staff is pretty effective, and armor changes this. A floating rib works, not to mention the pain alone giving a large example. And lots of leg bones work fairly well.

mangosta71
2008-09-05, 09:18 AM
A jab with the butt of a staff to the sternum is also quite detrimental to an unarmored or lightly armored opponent. The solar plexus is another good target. I would point out, however, that staves are generally held in both hands near the middle, and in that position they really don't have much of a reach advantage, though the wielder can always choke toward an end to gain it if necessary. However, staves are far less effective in close quarters when used in such a manner.

Saph
2008-09-05, 10:28 AM
I think the discussions of how effective a quarterstaff is are a lot of fun (and really interesting from my point of view, since I've used one a few times), but I think we should remember here that this is 4e. This is a game where you can harmlessly knock someone out by shooting them in the chest with an bow and arrow, and where an ally with their jugular opened can be returned to full health by the Warlord yelling at them from across the battlefield. Realism and weapon simulation are not remotely a priority anymore. :)

So basically, just rule it in accordance with how powerful a weapon you want it to be and whether you want to encourage PCs to use it or not.

- Saph

Knaight
2008-09-05, 12:52 PM
Well there are two main ways to use a staff, the quarterstaff style, with one hand near the end and another about a quarter of the way up, and then using half staff style, where you hold it in the middle. In a duel against one person quarterstaff styles is usually better. If outnumbered, half staff style becomes invaluable.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-09-05, 07:43 PM
I think the discussions of how effective a quarterstaff is are a lot of fun (and really interesting from my point of view, since I've used one a few times), but I think we should remember here that this is 4e. This is a game where you can harmlessly knock someone out by shooting them in the chest with an bow and arrow, and where an ally with their jugular opened can be returned to full health by the Warlord yelling at them from across the battlefield. Realism and weapon simulation are not remotely a priority anymore. :)

So basically, just rule it in accordance with how powerful a weapon you want it to be and whether you want to encourage PCs to use it or not.

- Saph

Absolutely true, Saph. I was simply acting in a knee-jerk reaction to people saying a staff is not a lethal weapon.

To be honest, this now begs someone to come up with a quarterstaff style, probably for ranger or rogue.

Knaight
2008-09-05, 09:00 PM
Which incidentally involved quoting me saying a staff struck with 6 times the force of a sword. And a fighter staff style would be pretty nice(or they could just call the staff a pole arm already. Its not like there is a difference between a staff and a pole.)

Firefingers
2008-09-05, 10:04 PM
A staff works quite effectively when used like a polearm, as the styles are almost identical, (the polearm giving you a choice as to which end you want the bladed part).

Its a very powerful weapon and after having seen how much damage a staff can do to a helm (there wasnt a head in it at the time but the dent was rather impressive), I wouldnt rely on my armor if I saw a staff wielder around, its ease of use compared to the sword also made it relatively more tempting for brigands. A good swordsman takes years to train with a staff takes a few weeks to make him good enough to work effectively

Shadow_Elf
2008-09-05, 10:32 PM
See my sig for a fighter paragon path I developed (staffmaster). Hope this helps a bit. (2 lazy to write out the URL again...)

Duos Greanleef
2008-09-06, 02:18 PM
Well, I'm sure glad this turned into a debate about medieval weapons or armor!:smalltongue:
I've collected all the necessary data.
I'll be leaving now.
Thanks again!

Ralfarius
2008-09-06, 02:36 PM
where an ally with their jugular opened can be returned to full health by the Warlord yelling at them from across the battlefield.
"I'm bleedin', coach!"
"Salt tablet!"

As for the quarterstaff as a serious weapon debate:
Yes, you can kill someone with a stick. However, you can also kill someone by punching them hard enough in the head. That doesn't mean that it's a serious choice as compared to putting sharp objects into their supple flesh. I mean, the fact is that if you bust someone's arm or leg with a quarterstaff, they're just as likely to give up as if you cut them open or kill them with blunt force trauma. Just because you're capable of ending someone's life, doesn't mean that it's the primary purpose of the implement, especially with all the precedent of it being used primarily for nonlethal combat.