Maybe "Staff" isn't the right name, but F&D introduces a few new "variations on a theme", and it seems to me their differences are somewhat arbitrary. For example, the Electrostaff has Linked 1, but the Cortosis staff doesn't.

This came up in another thread:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/124185-two-handed-staff/

...and I think it would be better if there were some consistency. The problem is Linked, which seems too easy.

Base for all staves:
Damage: +1
Crit: 5
HP: 0
Qualities: Staff
Cost: 100

The "Staff" quality provides Defensive 1, and allows the wielder to use the Two-Weapon Combat rules if they choose.

Other weapons would add to this base, with damage, lower crit value, hard points, and other qualities like Stun setting or Cortosis.

Thoughts?

I would probably think about what you want the staff to do narratively and go from there. Do you want it to do a leg sweep? Knockdown. Do you want to defend with it? Defensive 1. Do you want to smack someone upside the head with both ends? Linked 1. And with those qualities, I don't think it would be unreasonable to curtail the lethality of it by giving it Stun Damage.

Why do you want to use two-weapon combat with a single staff? What effect do you want with this that Linked wouldn't cover?

Yes, it's not obvious why they didn't just call them dual weapons and be done with it. There are already rules for dual-wielding. Why the ad hoc s?

Why do you want to use two-weapon combat with a single staff? What effect do you want with this that Linked wouldn't cover?

Because two-weapon combat adds +1 difficulty, whereas Linked 1 doesn't. I just feel Linked 1 by itself might be overpowered, and Auto-fire adds the possibility of too many hits. There's a zone in between there.

Maybe it's obvious that a staff can be used with two-weapon rules already...in which case the proposal is redundant. But I'm not sure then why Electrostaff has Defensive and Linked (and others), while Cortosis staff has only Cortosis. I would think both would have Defensive, and both would either have Linked, or be usable with two-weapon fighting rules.

I guess I'm looking for a little consistency. Either:

- add Defensive and Linked to the Cortosis staff

- add Defensive to Cortosis and remove Linked from Electrostaff, but make it clear that all staves can use the two-weapon combat rules

- have a new quality which encapsulates all that.

I'm not really married to a particular "how", just the "what".

It would be nice if a couple different little items like that were rolled up into weapon qualities. Things like refined cortosis, or cold/hot environmental options (that ignore setback like on adverse environmental gear).

I personally like the linked quality for double weapons. it's how I've been doing double sabers for two years.

yeah I think Staff weapons should get linked, defensive and possible knockdown. Lightsaber staves no knockdown because you cut off their legs but other staves should get it.

I'm not sure which qualities they should get, probably the dual weapon as you suggest. Whatever they pick, what I really want is consistency, so all staves are the same.

Yes, it's not obvious why they didn't just call them dual weapons and be done with it. There are already rules for dual-wielding. Why the ad hoc s?

I agree. For a weapon that can be used as a double weapon, such as a quarterstaff or the gaffi stick, simply apply a bit of GM fiat and allow the player to user it as per the rules for two-weapon fighting.

The double-bladed lightsaber and electrostaff have the Linked quality, but also have Unwieldy (both 3 as of the latest update), so your melee beasts now need to push their Agility (kind of a dump stat for most melee-heavy builds) to a 3 or suffer a setback die on all their attacks (which isn't a huge penalty but is still a penalty).

At most, a bit of errata included in the two-weapon combat section to mention that if the GM agrees the weapon is suitable to allow a PC to attack with both ends, along with a suggestion that weapons such as the force pike or vibro-ax can be used as a double weapon, with the other end having the same stats as a truncheon.

I agree with OggDude, in that when I visualise what I see a staff weapon doing, I think of it in terms of its flexibility and I see the examples he describes (and described elsewhere on this topic). You can strike an exposed limb (standard attack), jab into the ribs or other vulnerable point (Critical), bludgeon someone over the top of the head (Disorient), keep an opponent at bay with its extended reach (Defensive), use it to trip or otherwise direct an opponent's movement (Knockdown), or quickly strike a single opponent twice or fend off two separate opponents (Linked or dual-wielding).

And because of that flexibility I think it would be sensible to reduce its damage and/or increase its difficulty. There should be a reason that despite its versatility we don't see everyone carrying one: conspicuous, reduced lethality, difficult to use at their full potential (Unwieldy). I would be happy to see a standard staff inflict only Stun damage, obviously different variations might change that.

I don't know if their needs to be an actual staff quality, just for the qualities to be applied more consistently. Maybe an actual quality that could apply to all "double-bladed" weapons, just to make it explicit that they can use the dual wielding rules (and possibly that they need to be wielded with two hands)? As there are some poleaxe / glaive type weapons that might share some of the suite of "staff" qualities, but that definitely shouldn't have Linked or dual-wielding.

My personal take (based on what me and Fictionsuit agreed for the game, as I am the GM) on this would be:

Damage: +2

Crit: 5

HP: 0

Qualities: Defensive 1 (fending off the enemy with the weapon's length), Disorient 2 (the truncheon gets it, so I don't see any reason the staff shouldn't, other than a thematic idea that a truncheon is used to bonk people over the head).

I am personally not keen on Linked, as whatfrog is probably correct in that it may be too easy to activate. It also doesn't really reflect how I would see these weapons working anyway. I don't know where the whole idea of using two ends of a weapon as separate attacks comes from (DnD? Star Wars Episode 1?). Now, this doesn't mean I don't think it should be impossible, but it certainly isn't going to be as easy as just hitting someone again with the same end you hit them with previously, and in fact it is going to be most advantageous against multiple opponents (use one end against one, while using the other against someone positioned near the other end), which Linked does not permit. Two Weapon Wielding does, and more significantly highlights the skill required to do it (which I personally don't think Unwieldy does terribly well).

Part of the problem with allowing staffs more flexibility is that 1) in all game systems, flexibility is power. A staff is not going to be an expensive thing, yet giving it these different modes gives it more options than other weapons. 2) Why is only the flexibility of a staff being highlighted? Weapons can often be used in a variety of ways to do different things. In most cases this can all be wrapped into the narrative of the way the weapon is being used, but if you give a staff these qualities then you need to start allowing other weapons to do it too. Now, you are not going to use a knife to perform a Knockdown, but why not an axe, or a sword? These weapons can be used to trip and unbalance, but allowing weapons to be as flexible as that just adds further complexity to the system.

In my mind this system means that it is only possible to highlight what makes a weapon different (ie, what makes a staff a staff, or a sword a sword). The number one thing in my mind is therefore it's length and speed (when compared to other weapons of similar lengths, such as pole arms), which is primarily a defensive advantage. This is further highlighted by the fact that staffs are traditionally defensive weapons used by those that were unlikely to have another weapon (either because they are not allowed to use one, or because they are unlikely to need one).

My personal take (based on what me and Fictionsuit agreed for the game, as I am the GM) on this would be:

Damage: +2

Crit: 5

HP: 0

Qualities: Defensive 1 (fending off the enemy with the weapon's length), Disorient 2 (the truncheon gets it, so I don't see any reason the staff shouldn't, other than a thematic idea that a truncheon is used to bonk people over the head).

I am personally not keen on Linked, as whatfrog is probably correct in that it may be too easy to activate. It also doesn't really reflect how I would see these weapons working anyway. I don't know where the whole idea of using two ends of a weapon as separate attacks comes from (DnD? Star Wars Episode 1?). Now, this doesn't mean I don't think it should be impossible, but it certainly isn't going to be as easy as just hitting someone again with the same end you hit them with previously, and in fact it is going to be most advantageous against multiple opponents (use one end against one, while using the other against someone positioned near the other end), which Linked does not permit. Two Weapon Wielding does, and more significantly highlights the skill required to do it (which I personally don't think Unwieldy does terribly well).

Part of the problem with allowing staffs more flexibility is that 1) in all game systems, flexibility is power. A staff is not going to be an expensive thing, yet giving it these different modes gives it more options than other weapons. 2) Why is only the flexibility of a staff being highlighted? Weapons can often be used in a variety of ways to do different things. In most cases this can all be wrapped into the narrative of the way the weapon is being used, but if you give a staff these qualities then you need to start allowing other weapons to do it too. Now, you are not going to use a knife to perform a Knockdown, but why not an axe, or a sword? These weapons can be used to trip and unbalance, but allowing weapons to be as flexible as that just adds further complexity to the system.

In my mind this system means that it is only possible to highlight what makes a weapon different (ie, what makes a staff a staff, or a sword a sword). The number one thing in my mind is therefore it's length and speed (when compared to other weapons of similar lengths, such as pole arms), which is primarily a defensive advantage. This is further highlighted by the fact that staffs are traditionally defensive weapons used by those that were unlikely to have another weapon (either because they are not allowed to use one, or because they are unlikely to need one).

How much staff fighting have you actually done? I have and yes it is very easy to attack with both ends.

I'd like to presage this comment by thanking Borithan for contributing to this thread, acknowledging his game lore, his wisdom, and above all his sense of decency and balance. Not at all the type of vindictive GM to abuse Dark Side counters against players who might appear to hold different viewpoints to his own...

Flexibility might equate to power, but less flexible weapons will generally make up for that with... more power. You're not going to see basic staffs with Vicious or Piercing or Sunder, high damage or low critical ratings. More powerful staff weapons should lose some of those options. Giving staff weapons more options should make them a more viable selection for players, at least for a certain period of a character's career. That isn't actually to say I think they're not viable, more that maybe they need to be more consistent, which would make tweaking a level appropriate weapon easier.

I'm not going to disagree with keeping staff qualities to a minimum for sake of simplicity, game balance, consistency etc. When I've been thinking about this I'm trying to bear in mind the way the system narrates combat and accounts for damage, so if you strike your opponent with the the pommel of your Corellian cutlass that can be suitably accounted for by the narration of that round of combat, rather than dual wielding, if you hit an opponent's head with the flat edge of your blade maybe you do a low level Critical that gives them a concussion, but your sword doesn't need the Disorient quality. So there's a level of flexibility built in to the system both in thematic and mechanical terms. What remains is whether a staff weapon, or really any weapon, has properties so intrinsic to their use they need to be described by a special weapon quality, that either gives them a passive property like Defensive or describes what most characters will be actively attempting to do with said weapon e.g. a lightsabre sunders, an axe pierces viciously, a truncheon delivers blunt force trauma. For me, one of the typical uses of a staff weapon is the leg sweep, which to me suggests the Knockdown quality, far more than a sword or axe does, but maybe not enough to justify an actual quality? A lot of other respondents have focused on the striking multiple times/opponents in quick succession aspect, but it's unclear (although not intractably so) whether dual-wielding covers that.

Apologies if some of the above seems obvious, I'm clearly still trying to get a handle on how the system operates.

I think striking multiple opponents would be something akin to the blast quality. But i don't think we need it as the linked quality hitting minions does it well enough and stronger opponents require more focus to hit.

I think striking multiple opponents would be something akin to the blast quality. But i don't think we need it as the linked quality hitting minions does it well enough and stronger opponents require more focus to hit.

Agreed. Minion groups exist primarily to be taken down in groups, particularly once the PC has reached a certain threshold of badassery.

Just a note that certain weapons, like the gaffi stick and a proposed quarterstaff weapon can be used in conjunction with the two-weapon combat rules is sufficient to cover the "can attack with both ends" aspect. The electrostaff and double-bladed lightsaber both have Linked 1, but they've also got Unwieldy 3 to counteract it.