((4E)) An injustice to Little John!

[Duos Greanleef]

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
From Men In Tights

[Crow]

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]

You could ask the DM to let certain fitting powers work with staves too.

[Oracle_Hunter]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Dunno about 4ed

[Yakk]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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

[mayonase]

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]

...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!


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

[tumble check]

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]

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]

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

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 (), not a deadly weapon.

[Kiero]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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 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!"