Double ended blunt weapon?

[Lheticus]

I have a character (NOT for a game campaign, more like an OC) who I'd like to have using a double ended blunt weapon--basically like a 2 handed mace but with the business end being BOTH ends. As far as I can tell, this is not a thing that has existed before which leads me to suspect there is some kind of practical reason that is the case. If that practical reason is weight, then I'm good to go--I have a specific justification for why it is a very light weapon, but I'd rather not explain it here unless it's truly necessary. However, I can't think that's the only possible reason such a weapon would be impractical. Can anyone enlighten me?

[AtlanteanTroll]

Staff's don't count?

[SiuiS]

A double-ended blunt weapon is a staff. You need length of you want to use two hands in it, and leverage from length generates more power than more mass on a shorter lever would.

Clubs and sticks are also double-ended; while pommelig with a sword is considered a 'technique', jabbing someone with the short end of your club is standard praxis generates tremendous force at a downward angle, often on parts of the head and face that can't deal with a concentrated thrust like the nose bridge, maxillary bone and concavity of the temple.

Also, the sure flail is a double blunt weapon. So they do exist, it's just double weapons are considered inferior in general.

[Lheticus]

A double-ended blunt weapon is a staff. You need length of you want to use two hands in it, and leverage from length generates more power than more mass on a shorter lever would.

Clubs and sticks are also double-ended; while pommelig with a sword is considered a 'technique', jabbing someone with the short end of your club is standard praxis generates tremendous force at a downward angle, often on parts of the head and face that can't deal with a concentrated thrust like the nose bridge, maxillary bone and concavity of the temple.

Also, the sure flail is a double blunt weapon. So they do exist, it's just double weapons are considered inferior in general.

Okay, I see I need to back up here. So you have a staff, right? You put a round hard bit on one end, and a round hard bit on the other end. That's what I'm going for. Now, imagine that through whatever magical means, both round hard ends are not in fact heavy. In fact, they could be described as feather-light. Assuming that someone was willing and able to learn to use this implement to maximum effectiveness, would it be viable, and if not, why not?

[Palanan]

I had a similar idea to the OP's concept, which I used as a dwarven racial weapon. I was assuming that a dwarf's hefty musculature, rock-solid stance and relatively low CG would make it feasible for them where it wasn't for humans.

It was also somewhat shorter than a full staff. Not sure if Lheticus is going for the full-staff approach or if that's just how he's explaining the basic concept.

[BizzaroStormy]

Okay, I see I need to back up here. So you have a staff, right? You put a round hard bit on one end, and a round hard bit on the other end. That's what I'm going for. Now, imagine that through whatever magical means, both round hard ends are not in fact heavy. In fact, they could be described as feather-light. Assuming that someone was willing and able to learn to use this implement to maximum effectiveness, would it be viable, and if not, why not?

Who says it has to be magical? Simply have it be a length of pipe. Given additional weights on each end, I would probably up the damage a size and consider it an exotic weapon.

[Lheticus]

I had a similar idea to the OP's concept, which I used as a dwarven racial weapon. I was assuming that a dwarf's hefty musculature, rock-solid stance and relatively low CG would make it feasible for them where it wasn't for humans.

It was also somewhat shorter than a full staff. Not sure if Lheticus is going for the full-staff approach or if that's just how he's explaining the basic concept.

Who says it has to be magical? Simply have it be a length of pipe. Given additional weights on each end, I would probably up the damage a size and consider it an exotic weapon.

Guys...I did say this isn't a tabletop RPG character. You got that part, right? What I'm asking is if such a weapon existed in something approaching real life but magically negating the weight issue, assuming unlimited time to practice, would this be a viable weapon as compared to other melee weapons, would it at least be on par with them?

[BizzaroStormy]

Guys...I did say this isn't a tabletop RPG character. You got that part, right? What I'm asking is if such a weapon existed in something approaching real life but magically negating the weight issue, assuming unlimited time to practice, would this be a viable weapon as compared to other melee weapons, would it at least be on par with them?

In a tabletop RPG, most things can be viable weapons. In pathfinder, a character can specialize is using literally whatever is at hand. Weight is only really an issue if you try to use something stupid like a crate full of bricks and the time spent training would be reflected by taking up a feat slot. In short YES, it could be a viable weapon so long as you and the GM can reach an agreement on what it takes to use something. The weapon will still be better/worse in some situations than others.

[Seerow]

In a tabletop RPG, most things can be viable weapons. In pathfinder, a character can specialize is using literally whatever is at hand. Weight is only really an issue if you try to use something stupid like a crate full of bricks and the time spent training would be reflected by taking up a feat slot. In short YES, it could be a viable weapon so long as you and the GM can reach an agreement on what it takes to use something. The weapon will still be better/worse in some situations than others.

But none of that is relevant since Lheticus is specifically asking for a non-tabletop RPG character. He's asking about the possibility of it as an actual weapon (though with magic to make the physics work if needed), rather than about game balance.



On that note, I have nothing to contribute.

[Samuel Sturm]

Okay, I see I need to back up here. So you have a staff, right? You put a round hard bit on one end, and a round hard bit on the other end. That's what I'm going for. Now, imagine that through whatever magical means, both round hard ends are not in fact heavy. In fact, they could be described as feather-light. Assuming that someone was willing and able to learn to use this implement to maximum effectiveness, would it be viable, and if not, why not?

Sounds like a tapered bo staff in actual use, with the ends being lighter than the middle and all. They're pretty darn viable, with the flexing of the wood helping to amplify the impact. They're fully capable of breaking bones, and got used quite a bit in Asia. Usually didn't have weighted ends, but with magic, eh. Monk's spade is also kind of like what you're looking for, but with sharp bits instead.

[SiuiS]

Okay, I see I need to back up here. So you have a staff, right? You put a round hard bit on one end, and a round hard bit on the other end. That's what I'm going for. Now, imagine that through whatever magical means, both round hard ends are not in fact heavy. In fact, they could be described as feather-light. Assuming that someone was willing and able to learn to use this implement to maximum effectiveness, would it be viable, and if not, why not?

This changes nothing in what I said.

Guys...I did say this isn't a tabletop RPG character. You got that part, right? What I'm asking is if such a weapon existed in something approaching real life but magically negating the weight issue, assuming unlimited time to practice, would this be a viable weapon as compared to other melee weapons, would it at least be on par with them?

Yes. This weapon is called a staff. It is used with staff training.

[BizzaroStormy]

But none of that is relevant since Lheticus is specifically asking for a non-tabletop RPG character. He's asking about the possibility of it as an actual weapon (though with magic to make the physics work if needed), rather than about game balance.



On that note, I have nothing to contribute.

Huh...must have somehow missed the "isn't" part. Anywho, still seems viable.Doesn't even need to be a weight issue. a Steel weight on each end of a staff is completely viable if the character knows to use it. an oak or ash staff isn't going to weigh that much, especially if you have it in 2 hands.

[gom jabbarwocky]

So you have a staff, right? You put a round hard bit on one end, and a round hard bit on the other end. That's what I'm going for. Now, imagine that through whatever magical means, both round hard ends are not in fact heavy.

I'm picturing a guy beating people up with a dumbbell.

I think a staff would be more practical, but why let that ruin your fun?

[Lheticus]

Huh...must have somehow missed the "isn't" part. Anywho, still seems viable.Doesn't even need to be a weight issue. a Steel weight on each end of a staff is completely viable if the character knows to use it. an oak or ash staff isn't going to weigh that much, especially if you have it in 2 hands.

Well...I have no idea how you WOULD use something like that, but I guess I can ignore that--just because nobody's made a martial art for using something like I'm picturing doesn't mean it'd be impossible.

I'm picturing a guy beating people up with a dumbbell.

I think a staff would be more practical, but why let that ruin your fun?

This is actually remarkably close to what I'm picturing.

[Bulldog Psion]

Well, it's something that could be actually made, but I don't know how useful it would be. There are some moderate issues with it, I believe, including a heightened possibility of injuring yourself with your own weapon. I mean, hit yourself in the side with a plain weapon haft, you're probably fine. Slam a spiked mace head into yourself ... yeah.

However, if you think it's a fun idea, then run with it. It's not like fiction doesn't have a billion things more improbable than that. Don't worry about the details and enjoy!

[SiuiS]

I'm picturing a guy beating people up with a dumbbell.

I think a staff would be more practical, but why let that ruin your fun?

You would use a dumbbell like a staff though, so it's not even distinct.

http://youtu.be/d43qH9w5Dow

Well, it's something that could be actually made, but I don't know how useful it would be. There are some moderate issues with it, I believe, including a heightened possibility of injuring yourself with your own weapon. I mean, hit yourself in the side with a plain weapon haft, you're probably fine. Slam a spiked mace head into yourself ... yeah.

However, if you think it's a fun idea, then run with it. It's not like fiction doesn't have a billion things more improbable than that. Don't worry about the details and enjoy!

Depends on the length and technique. The OP wants a stick weapon that looks like it's heavy but is fundamentally a single stick. Single stick style will work great, which means both one handed stick, two handed stick, and mid-haft sword work added in.

[ICN]

Okay, I see I need to back up here. So you have a staff, right? You put a round hard bit on one end, and a round hard bit on the other end. That's what I'm going for. Now, imagine that through whatever magical means, both round hard ends are not in fact heavy. In fact, they could be described as feather-light. Assuming that someone was willing and able to learn to use this implement to maximum effectiveness, would it be viable, and if not, why not?

Just guessing here, but to me that sounds like you would be lowering the effectiveness of a staff by adding those changes. By putting a round hard bit on the end you're spreading out the area of impact and diffusing the force, which when you're trying to impart a lethal amount of kinetic force on somebody is generally a no-no.

[Bickerstaff]

Not only does a round, hard bit on the end spread out the force, but would the diffusion of force even be mitigated by additional weight that would normally come from such an augmentation? I mean, because of the OP's stipulation that the end bits be magically weightless. Normally the only reason to add something to the end of a stick (if the intention is to bludgeon) is to increase mass at the point of impact. While the bludgeoning bit affixed to the ends are weightless in this scenario, I guess the object would still have mass and therefore increased force...? But I'm not really a physics person, so I dunno.

So I suppose I have a question:

Why would someone use this weapon? What advantages would it give over another weapon, especially a similar weapon (like a staff)?

[SiuiS]

Not only does a round, hard bit on the end spread out the force, but would the diffusion of force even be mitigated by additional weight that would normally come from such an augmentation? I mean, because of the OP's stipulation that the end bits be magically weightless. Normally the only reason to add something to the end of a stick (if the intention is to bludgeon) is to increase mass at the point of impact. While the bludgeoning bit affixed to the ends are weightless in this scenario, I guess the object would still have mass and therefore increased force...? But I'm not really a physics person, so I dunno.

So I suppose I have a question:

Why would someone use this weapon? What advantages would it give over another weapon, especially a similar weapon (like a staff)?

It looks unique and functions like most anime weapons anyway; that is, they are used without regards to physics.

[Cespenar]

It would lose the potential to be mistaken for an old man's walking stick, so there's that.

[Knaight]

That sort of thing generally wasn't made because double weapons in general aren't a particularly good idea. Even with a staff, it's pretty common to hold it with one end a lot longer than the other and generally used as a business end, though you can switch up which end that is. That said, what you describe would still be a staff, and should be fairly usable, even if it has no real advantage over a weapon where you put the heavy bit only on one end.

[Jay R]

A blunt weapon doesn't slice through; it delivers force, which is to say, mass times acceleration. Reducing the mass in the ends reduces its effectiveness. Lots of mass at the point of impact is the goal.

Two heads would be too heavy. The compromise is a staff, in which the same mass goes through it. But you should realize that a staff is a peasant's weapon - a big stick he picked up - because it's not particularly good against an armored opponent. (Yes, a good staff user has techniques against an armored opponent, but he'd be more interested in tripping, because he can't do much damage. By contrast, a mace or flail works well with against armor.)

[Lheticus]

A blunt weapon doesn't slice through; it delivers force, which is to say, mass times acceleration. Reducing the mass in the ends reduces its effectiveness. Lots of mass at the point of impact is the goal.

Two heads would be too heavy. The compromise is a staff, in which the same mass goes through it. But you should realize that a staff is a peasant's weapon - a big stick he picked up - because it's not particularly good against an armored opponent. (Yes, a good staff user has techniques against an armored opponent, but he'd be more interested in tripping, because he can't do much damage. By contrast, a mace or flail works well with against armor.)

THERE'S the elephant in the room I wasn't seeing. Thx much dood. So basically, my magic negation of the weight wouldn't work. An alternate justification would have to be super-strength or something, I suppose.

[Aedilred]

THERE'S the elephant in the room I wasn't seeing. Thx much dood. So basically, my magic negation of the weight wouldn't work. An alternate justification would have to be super-strength or something, I suppose.

If you're using magic anyway, you could do something like Belkar's dagger in the latest OOtS strip - that is, the weight is evenly distributed throughout the staff, for better balance in wielding it, which shifts into the head at point of impact. To an extent, D20 +n blunt weapons must have some way of retaining the effect of the mass for damage purposes while mitigating it for the wielder, otherwise a +n mace/morningstar/etc would be heavier and harder to use than a mundane version.

In general, though, double-ended weapons of most types are suboptimal, as people have mentioned.

[shawnhcorey]

Maces, war hammers, and war axes work best if most of their weight is at the business end. A double-ended mace would be, in essence, a heavy (as in tiring) quarterstaff. And it would have different techniques to use it effectively.

[factotum]

If you're using magic anyway, you could do something like Belkar's dagger in the latest OOtS strip - that is, the weight is evenly distributed throughout the staff, for better balance in wielding it, which shifts into the head at point of impact.

That sounds like the sword in Gene Wolfe's "Book of the New Sun"--it contains some sort of liquid metal in a channel in the middle (most likely mercury, but the story doesn't make it clear that it is or not) which shifts as the blade is swung, making the impact harder. No idea if that would actually work as presented in the novels or if it really would require magic, though.

[Knaight]

That sounds like the sword in Gene Wolfe's "Book of the New Sun"--it contains some sort of liquid metal in a channel in the middle (most likely mercury, but the story doesn't make it clear that it is or not) which shifts as the blade is swung, making the impact harder. No idea if that would actually work as presented in the novels or if it really would require magic, though.

That would be a pretty terrible design. It makes handling more difficult, it makes the construction more delicate (and delicate is a very bad thing in a weapon), and it wouldn't even really accomplish anything.

[Bulldog Psion]

That would be a pretty terrible design. It makes handling more difficult, it makes the construction more delicate (and delicate is a very bad thing in a weapon), and it wouldn't even really accomplish anything.

Actually, it's an executioner's sword, designed to have the weight towards the hilt when he has it raised over his head so that he can hold the pose easily while a sentence is being read out by an official. Then it flows forward to make the descending blow heavier, thus ensuring it cuts off the victim's head in one stroke.

In short, Terminus Est not a fighting weapon, though Severian uses it as one. But the blade seems preternaturally sharp -- likely it uses high-tech materials, since such are available to the upper echelons of society -- Severian himself is some sort of dark messiah figure, which may explain a bit of its effectiveness in his hands beyond its intended use, and the blade does eventually break in combat.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Lheticus
An alternate justification would have to be super-strength or something, I suppose.

Or, you know, dwarven strength, as I mentioned earlier.

Originally Posted by factotum
That sounds like the sword in Gene Wolfe's "Book of the New Sun"--it contains some sort of liquid metal in a channel in the middle (most likely mercury, but the story doesn't make it clear that it is or not) which shifts as the blade is swung, making the impact harder.

And now I finally know the source of the mercurial greatsword in the AEG. Thank you.

As Knaight mentioned, I'm pretty sure that concept wouldn't work too well with an actual sword, since the mercury would be shifting back and forth with every move. Even if it did, the cost associated with wrangling the mercury would probably be prohibitive. And I'm not sure if a sword with a hollow core is what I'd want when I absolutely, positively have to stop the other guy's greatsword screaming down at me.

[Knaight]

Actually, it's an executioner's sword, designed to have the weight towards the hilt when he has it raised over his head so that he can hold the pose easily while a sentence is being read out by an official. Then it flows forward to make the descending blow heavier, thus ensuring it cuts off the victim's head in one stroke.

It does make more sense in that context, though it's still a terrible fighting weapon, and just having a heavier sword would pretty much cover the same thing, as holding them vertically isn't all that difficult (holding a sword outstretched for a whole speech would be tiring).