Smaller Quarterstaffs

[Thomas MacFinn]

I know the veterans of Belegarth are not fans of changes to the rules when a safety hazard is not an issue, but please hear me out.

It is difficult to securely grasp the fat, round striking surface of a quarterstaff regardless of how a local group feels about the legality of half-swording within the Belegarth rules (and I will leave that discussion for other threads).

However, if the minimum striking surface was reduced from 18" down to 15", it would be possible for an average size person to reach over the striking surface to the adjacent area and swing the weapon in such a way that the tip of the quarterstaff could pass between his hand and his body. This would not make the quarterstaff more effective than other weapons on the field but this increased maneuverability would greatly reduce the Belegarth quarterstaff's deficiencies when compared to both other Belegarth weapons and the maneuverability of a real quarterstaff.

Since reducing the minimum striking surface from 18" down to 15" would increase the realism and playability of the quarterstaff, do you feel it will have a measurable effect on its safety?

For my part, I believe that a newbie who is a danger for hafting others, will still be a danger whether the striking surface is 18", 15" or 12" and that this added glaive-style maneuver will not pose a safety hazard as it is already used by Belegarth red weapons.

[Derian]

One of the major reasons our version of a quarterstaff is inefficient is because it's a very large weapon, yet still counts only as blue (& green, I suppose).

You sacrifice pretty much the same things as you would for a glaive or a spear, but gain none of the benefits. You can't deal out shield breaking strikes like you can with a glaive, and you lack the speed of a spear.

That said, I don't think this is a bad rule change, necessarily, only that it won't really change anything.

You may or may not have heard this, but the best way to propose a rule change is to convince your local realm to fight with the modified rule(s) - build a quarterstaff with 15" striking surfaces, and fight with it for a while; if it seems like a change that wouldn't compromise the trinity, and is still a worthwhile rule change, get your War Council rep to propose it to WC and present your findings during the testing period.

[Thomas MacFinn]

Thank you for the suggestion. Since quarterstaffs are not used at all locally, I believe I will make both a standard quarterstaff and a modified one, so that people will be able to compare.

[Thomas MacFinn]

1.4.6. Double-ended Weapons must conform to all of the following:
1.4.6.1. Double-ended Weapons must not be more than 7 feet long.
1.4.6.2. Double-ended Weapons must have a minimum of 18 inches in length of padding covering each end in a cylindrical fashion. Both striking surfaces of this weapon must follow Class 3 Weapon standards for a Double-ended Weapon to be legal.
1.4.6.3. Regardless of length, a Double-ended Weapon is a Class 1 Weapon when swung and Class 3 when thrust.

On another thread somebody pointed out that 1.4.6.2 does not say the 18" has to be striking surface. Could the suggestion I am talking about already be legal in the rules if the remainder of the 18" is haft padding?

[Derian]

Looks like it.

I was under the impression it was at least 18" of striking surface, but it looks like that's not the case. Were I checking weapons, I wouldn't have a problem passing a weapon that was made in this fashion.

[Thomas MacFinn]

It took me a while to find the image off another thread, but this last bit of news made this weapon spring to mind.

[Arrakis]

Keep in mind, that weapon would have to be modified to feature both a stabbing tip on the butt end AND a reasonably passable amount of blue striking surface. I've never seen a blue weapon pass with less than 4" of striking surface, so.

But yeah.

[savetuba]

and a continuation of the same thoughts, you could make a madu:

[Arrakis]

You can make a madu in the traditional quarterstaff manner: a small quarterstaff (like, 18-8-18 striking, handle, striking) used with a 12" buckler held in the same hand by leather straps.

[savetuba]

or an 18" SS, 12" HP, 4" SS, 2" dagger tip. Held with a 18" to 12" square shield.

[MagnusofDregoth]

Just a note to those who may be reading this thread and not be familiar with the rules:

Madus are not legal, because no weapon may incorporate a shield into it. I realize you guys probably know this, but I wanted to be sure everyone did.

[Thomas MacFinn]

I believe Arrakis's madu would be legal since it would be possible to discard the shield portion while retaining the weapon.

[Angmarth]

You may hold two objects and "emulate" a madu, but you can't actually have a shield attached to a weapon and have it be legal no matter how detachable the shield is.

[Thomas MacFinn]

You may hold two objects and "emulate" a madu, but you can't actually have a shield attached to a weapon and have it be legal no matter how detachable the shield is.

Which is exactly what Arrakis suggested.

[Arrakis]

Not that I would ever want to do such a ridiculous thing.

[Thomas MacFinn]

I think a madu (or an emulated madu) would make a great trainer for people who want to fight florentine but tend to attack with only one hand. Put a madu in the "attack hand" and a regular sword in the other hand.

The fighter would have a few more options than fighting sword and shield "wrong handed", but not many.