Three Section Staff [Archive] - Wizards Community

Three Section Staff [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Miyamoto_Musashi
02-20-07, 09:07 PM I've just got a quick question about the three section staff appearing in the Oriental Adventures. To me it seems like it would be a douvle weapon, since it has a central staff and two others. It seems like you'd be able to spin and strike with both ends. I'm probably mistaken about it, but could someone tell me why?
Darth Sephiroth
02-20-07, 11:35 PM It could work as a double weapon or a reach weapon depending upon how it's used. Perhaps a feat that allows you to wield it both ways.

You really ought to watch the Fight Science series on National Geographic Channel to see it in action.
Aryxbez
02-21-07, 11:10 PM What I am wondering, what should the stats be for a
Three-section staff?

For I wish to try out this one character who wields it
Although he is not a character of the Oriental Campaign
Setting or of any Asian origins what so ever.

my guess as a reach weapon its a 1d8 x3
as a double weapon its a d6? x2
gives +2 to disarm and can trip with it what do you guys think?
narukagami
02-21-07, 11:13 PM Three section staff as seen in Sword and Fist:
Staff, three section: 4 gp, 1d6(s) 1d8(m), x3, 8 lb., Bludgeoning

Originally a farm implement for threshing grain, this weapon is comprised of three sections of wood of equal lengths, joined at the ends by chain, leather, or rope.
A monk using a three-section staff (for which she must take an Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat due to the weapon's Large size) fights with her unarmed base attack bonus and her more favorable number of attacks per round, along with other applicable attack modifiers. The three-section staff requires two hands to use. A monk/weapon master may choose the three-section staff as her weapon of choice.
Aryxbez
02-21-07, 11:17 PM I am actually aware of those stats which is why I said
for what it SHOULD be not what it currently is.

I thank you none the less, but I believe you can't post stuff
from a book unless it is in the SRD.
narukagami
02-21-07, 11:20 PM I am actually aware of those stats which is why I said
for what it SHOULD be not what it currently is. Then there is my answer regardless.

I thank you none the less, but I believe you can't post stuff
from a book unless it is in the SRD. No, you can't post stuff thats not OGL. There is a difference, and everyone seems to forget that.
Lord Gwydion
02-22-07, 01:00 AM my guess as a reach weapon its a 1d8 x3
as a double weapon its a d6? x2
gives +2 to disarm and can trip with it what do you guys think?

Personal opinion, but I think it's bad design to have a weapon that does one set of damage wielded one way, and a separate set of damage when wielded a different way (as was discussed a while back in one of the katana threads).

If you want it to be usable as either reach or double (similar to the mechanics for the kusari-gama), then I'd go with 1d6/x3 for damage. If you just want it to be a double weapon, then go for 1d8/x3. The bonus to disarm (and allowing it as a "special Monk weapon" if desired) seem fine.
HidaAkira
02-22-07, 04:49 AM You really ought to watch the Fight Science series on National Geographic Channel to see it in action.

The show is of questionable use and its conclusions should be taken with a shaker of salt.
Kid SixXx
02-22-07, 07:23 AM It could work as a double weapon or a reach weapon depending upon how it's used.

One of the fight scenes in Jet Li's Fearless certainly suggests that it is useable either as a reach weapon or a double weapon.

Since proper use of the weapon is a matter of skill, I'd be inclined to agree with your conclusion about the mechanics of a Feat allowing someone to use the weapon interchangably as a reach or double weapon.
Aryxbez
02-22-07, 04:51 PM Personal opinion, but I think it's bad design to have a weapon that does one set of damage wielded one way, and a separate set of damage when wielded a different way (as was discussed a while back in one of the katana threads).

If you want it to be usable as either reach or double (similar to the mechanics for the kusari-gama), then I'd go with 1d6/x3 for damage. If you just want it to be a double weapon, then go for 1d8/x3. The bonus to disarm (and allowing it as a "special Monk weapon" if desired) seem fine.

Well Katanas are different story. but I do see why you think
it is a bad idea since it might replace the use of some weapons
The fact it should be a feat to wield it both ways, I would have
to discuss with my players and DM if I wish to use it like this.

Otherwise a 1d6 x2 doesn't really replace much since most
exotic monk weapons are this, but those weapons suck anyway.
Lord Gwydion
02-22-07, 10:24 PM Well Katanas are different story. but I do see why you think
it is a bad idea since it might replace the use of some weapons
The fact it should be a feat to wield it both ways, I would have
to discuss with my players and DM if I wish to use it like this.

Otherwise a 1d6 x2 doesn't really replace much since most
exotic monk weapons are this, but those weapons suck anyway.

Just to clarify, as I'm not sure from your response that you got everything I was trying to say. The katana thread reference wasn't about getting a feat to use the katana one-handed, it was about someone posting thinking that katanas should have completely different stats depending on the fighting style of the wielder (and with all the katana threads around here, my reference was a bit vague--sorry about that).

I've got no problem with being able to weild it both ways, even without takign a feat (assuming you've already taken Ex. Weap. Prof: 3-section staff). If you want a 3-section staff to be a weapon that can be used for reach or as a double-weapon depending on circumstances, fine.

What I don't like is having the same weapon do 1d8 damage used one way, and 1d6 the other.

It's overcomplicating things, and goes against the way the game is designed. In addition, it's illogical. The mass of the weapon doesn't change. It's still the same size/weight of wood hitting the target, so why have it do more damage one way and less the other?

So my advice is, stick with one damage type. And if you want the weapon to be used for either double or reach, then I'd suggest the d6 damage for balance reasons (although I would give it a x3 crit to make it a bit better than other Monk weapons).
Aryxbez
02-23-07, 12:08 AM Well the way I thought it was wielded as a double weapon
you grabbed the the two sticks between the middle stick
and swing them like clubs which is why figured it would be
a d6. then I realized it would be double wielded with the
wielder holding the middle staff part and using the the
other sticks like two flails. So I can see why you want
to keep it the same damage. Sounds good to me.
Thought it weaker since you don't have the full swing force
of the staff to make it a x3 crit.

That there is my logic. but I will keep it simple and just
keep the damage the same and the critical I guess as well.

Also is a monk auto proficient with this weapon?
Although I do know a monk can flurry with it.
PuppyKhan
02-27-07, 11:32 AM You can either hold each of the outer sections like clubs, or hold the outer sections to fight with the middle section, or hold one outer section like a club and the the middle to swing the other outer section like a flail, or hold only the middle and spin (this would be a flurry move), or hold one outer section and swing at full reach (length of staff + length of arm + any lunging) and all these style are taught interchangebly as part of the same form. That would make it like a club with more leverage or a staff with more velocity, a solid d8 either way in my book with an option for secondary attack with standard penalties.

There are abilities not listed such as a greater ability to parry, ways to disarm and trip with it, and a high chance of hitting yourself if entirely untrained. (the latter would go away with any training in staff or sword as those are both tought as foundations)

Its a beautiful weapon, and probably one of the hardest I've ever tried. (Note the hitting yourself comment is based on experience :) )
Bullshido
02-27-07, 11:20 PM The show is of questionable use and its conclusions should be taken with a shaker of salt.

Yes I agree. Was not very impressed by that show.
LuckyDragon
03-01-07, 06:16 PM The Bo staff is a far better weapon for combat.
Ogrelee
03-03-07, 08:26 PM I've noticed that many of the flexible weapons in rl don't translate well into the game. The chain whip, the three section staff, even nunchaku. I belive this to be caused by an ephemeral in the equation- skill of the user. Many weapons of this nature act like solid weapons when used with great vigor. And the Chain whip in particular is also used from a prone position, often with the user on his back. I've never seen anyone skilled enough to use it this way in rl, but that is a large part of the training with it. In my campaign, many of these weapons are finessable, and most of the polearms can be used as double weapons.
The three section staff in particular is difficult to use in combat, mainly because of it's many possible utilities. Many of the people I've known that could use it in a sparring environment, could only use it in a few of these ways, not all of them. Like many things in martial arts, you are better off learning the basics, and specializing in a few of the more advanced maneuvers. In game terms, this means using a weapon like this the same way you would use the bastard sword: a "standard user" can take the martial weapon proficiency, which would include the reach aspect of the weapon, then give it extended utility with an exotic weapon proficiency. The extended utilities could include finessable(This weapon definitely is), trip, or flurry of blows. IMHO, ALL staff weapons should be double or single weapons. In my campaign, the exotic weapon proficiency can be added to any polearm for use as a double weapon, iether bludgeoning or (with a spike) piercing.
The damage should remain the same, though. Probably d6 is appropriate, after all, two hits would be 2-12 points.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Miyamoto_Musashi 02-20-07, 09:07 PM	I've just got a quick question about the three section staff appearing in the Oriental Adventures. To me it seems like it would be a douvle weapon, since it has a central staff and two others. It seems like you'd be able to spin and strike with both ends. I'm probably mistaken about it, but could someone tell me why?
Darth Sephiroth 02-20-07, 11:35 PM	It could work as a double weapon or a reach weapon depending upon how it's used. Perhaps a feat that allows you to wield it both ways. You really ought to watch the Fight Science series on National Geographic Channel to see it in action.
Aryxbez 02-21-07, 11:10 PM	What I am wondering, what should the stats be for a Three-section staff? For I wish to try out this one character who wields it Although he is not a character of the Oriental Campaign Setting or of any Asian origins what so ever. my guess as a reach weapon its a 1d8 x3 as a double weapon its a d6? x2 gives +2 to disarm and can trip with it what do you guys think?
narukagami 02-21-07, 11:13 PM	Three section staff as seen in Sword and Fist: Staff, three section: 4 gp, 1d6(s) 1d8(m), x3, 8 lb., Bludgeoning Originally a farm implement for threshing grain, this weapon is comprised of three sections of wood of equal lengths, joined at the ends by chain, leather, or rope. A monk using a three-section staff (for which she must take an Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat due to the weapon's Large size) fights with her unarmed base attack bonus and her more favorable number of attacks per round, along with other applicable attack modifiers. The three-section staff requires two hands to use. A monk/weapon master may choose the three-section staff as her weapon of choice.
Aryxbez 02-21-07, 11:17 PM	I am actually aware of those stats which is why I said for what it SHOULD be not what it currently is. I thank you none the less, but I believe you can't post stuff from a book unless it is in the SRD.
narukagami 02-21-07, 11:20 PM	I am actually aware of those stats which is why I said for what it SHOULD be not what it currently is. Then there is my answer regardless. I thank you none the less, but I believe you can't post stuff from a book unless it is in the SRD. No, you can't post stuff thats not OGL. There is a difference, and everyone seems to forget that.
Lord Gwydion 02-22-07, 01:00 AM	my guess as a reach weapon its a 1d8 x3 as a double weapon its a d6? x2 gives +2 to disarm and can trip with it what do you guys think? Personal opinion, but I think it's bad design to have a weapon that does one set of damage wielded one way, and a separate set of damage when wielded a different way (as was discussed a while back in one of the katana threads). If you want it to be usable as either reach or double (similar to the mechanics for the kusari-gama), then I'd go with 1d6/x3 for damage. If you just want it to be a double weapon, then go for 1d8/x3. The bonus to disarm (and allowing it as a "special Monk weapon" if desired) seem fine.
HidaAkira 02-22-07, 04:49 AM	You really ought to watch the Fight Science series on National Geographic Channel to see it in action. The show is of questionable use and its conclusions should be taken with a shaker of salt.
Kid SixXx 02-22-07, 07:23 AM	It could work as a double weapon or a reach weapon depending upon how it's used. One of the fight scenes in Jet Li's Fearless certainly suggests that it is useable either as a reach weapon or a double weapon. Since proper use of the weapon is a matter of skill, I'd be inclined to agree with your conclusion about the mechanics of a Feat allowing someone to use the weapon interchangably as a reach or double weapon.
Aryxbez 02-22-07, 04:51 PM	Personal opinion, but I think it's bad design to have a weapon that does one set of damage wielded one way, and a separate set of damage when wielded a different way (as was discussed a while back in one of the katana threads). If you want it to be usable as either reach or double (similar to the mechanics for the kusari-gama), then I'd go with 1d6/x3 for damage. If you just want it to be a double weapon, then go for 1d8/x3. The bonus to disarm (and allowing it as a "special Monk weapon" if desired) seem fine. Well Katanas are different story. but I do see why you think it is a bad idea since it might replace the use of some weapons The fact it should be a feat to wield it both ways, I would have to discuss with my players and DM if I wish to use it like this. Otherwise a 1d6 x2 doesn't really replace much since most exotic monk weapons are this, but those weapons suck anyway.
Lord Gwydion 02-22-07, 10:24 PM	Well Katanas are different story. but I do see why you think it is a bad idea since it might replace the use of some weapons The fact it should be a feat to wield it both ways, I would have to discuss with my players and DM if I wish to use it like this. Otherwise a 1d6 x2 doesn't really replace much since most exotic monk weapons are this, but those weapons suck anyway. Just to clarify, as I'm not sure from your response that you got everything I was trying to say. The katana thread reference wasn't about getting a feat to use the katana one-handed, it was about someone posting thinking that katanas should have completely different stats depending on the fighting style of the wielder (and with all the katana threads around here, my reference was a bit vague--sorry about that). I've got no problem with being able to weild it both ways, even without takign a feat (assuming you've already taken Ex. Weap. Prof: 3-section staff). If you want a 3-section staff to be a weapon that can be used for reach or as a double-weapon depending on circumstances, fine. What I don't like is having the same weapon do 1d8 damage used one way, and 1d6 the other. It's overcomplicating things, and goes against the way the game is designed. In addition, it's illogical. The mass of the weapon doesn't change. It's still the same size/weight of wood hitting the target, so why have it do more damage one way and less the other? So my advice is, stick with one damage type. And if you want the weapon to be used for either double or reach, then I'd suggest the d6 damage for balance reasons (although I would give it a x3 crit to make it a bit better than other Monk weapons).
Aryxbez 02-23-07, 12:08 AM	Well the way I thought it was wielded as a double weapon you grabbed the the two sticks between the middle stick and swing them like clubs which is why figured it would be a d6. then I realized it would be double wielded with the wielder holding the middle staff part and using the the other sticks like two flails. So I can see why you want to keep it the same damage. Sounds good to me. Thought it weaker since you don't have the full swing force of the staff to make it a x3 crit. That there is my logic. but I will keep it simple and just keep the damage the same and the critical I guess as well. Also is a monk auto proficient with this weapon? Although I do know a monk can flurry with it.
PuppyKhan 02-27-07, 11:32 AM	You can either hold each of the outer sections like clubs, or hold the outer sections to fight with the middle section, or hold one outer section like a club and the the middle to swing the other outer section like a flail, or hold only the middle and spin (this would be a flurry move), or hold one outer section and swing at full reach (length of staff + length of arm + any lunging) and all these style are taught interchangebly as part of the same form. That would make it like a club with more leverage or a staff with more velocity, a solid d8 either way in my book with an option for secondary attack with standard penalties. There are abilities not listed such as a greater ability to parry, ways to disarm and trip with it, and a high chance of hitting yourself if entirely untrained. (the latter would go away with any training in staff or sword as those are both tought as foundations) Its a beautiful weapon, and probably one of the hardest I've ever tried. (Note the hitting yourself comment is based on experience :) )
Bullshido 02-27-07, 11:20 PM	The show is of questionable use and its conclusions should be taken with a shaker of salt. Yes I agree. Was not very impressed by that show.
LuckyDragon 03-01-07, 06:16 PM	The Bo staff is a far better weapon for combat.
Ogrelee 03-03-07, 08:26 PM	I've noticed that many of the flexible weapons in rl don't translate well into the game. The chain whip, the three section staff, even nunchaku. I belive this to be caused by an ephemeral in the equation- skill of the user. Many weapons of this nature act like solid weapons when used with great vigor. And the Chain whip in particular is also used from a prone position, often with the user on his back. I've never seen anyone skilled enough to use it this way in rl, but that is a large part of the training with it. In my campaign, many of these weapons are finessable, and most of the polearms can be used as double weapons. The three section staff in particular is difficult to use in combat, mainly because of it's many possible utilities. Many of the people I've known that could use it in a sparring environment, could only use it in a few of these ways, not all of them. Like many things in martial arts, you are better off learning the basics, and specializing in a few of the more advanced maneuvers. In game terms, this means using a weapon like this the same way you would use the bastard sword: a "standard user" can take the martial weapon proficiency, which would include the reach aspect of the weapon, then give it extended utility with an exotic weapon proficiency. The extended utilities could include finessable(This weapon definitely is), trip, or flurry of blows. IMHO, ALL staff weapons should be double or single weapons. In my campaign, the exotic weapon proficiency can be added to any polearm for use as a double weapon, iether bludgeoning or (with a spike) piercing. The damage should remain the same, though. Probably d6 is appropriate, after all, two hits would be 2-12 points.