Double ended blunt weapon?

[Lheticus]

Both ends of the quarterstaff are used, but because the two ends aren't weighted, it's pretty useless against armored foes. It's pretty much a peasant's weapon.

A blunt weapons is a mass weapon. I can't imagine it working well with a large mass on the wrong end - it would slow the weapon down for no particular gain. So I suspect that there is no such thing as a two-ended blunt weapon - except in the sense that if my mace head has been forced back, I can still whap my opponent in his (unarmored) nose with the pommel.

Certainly, if I had a two-headed mass weapon, and had time to modify it before a fight, I would take one of the heads off to make it a more effective weapon.

All right, so we're back to where the "magic spheres" on either end of the weapon need an effect other than magical mass. I know that because magic I could do that, but I don't particularly want to. You mentioned armor--the sort of effect that works well against an armored opponent seems like a good thing to aim for, but I'm not sure what. Btw, these spheres as I mentioned once before are actually conjurations by a "bubble mage"--as such, if they don't rely on mass to hurt, by what a bubble even is, they would need virtually no mass at all and be able to achieve that easily.

[Jay R]

All right, so we're back to where the "magic spheres" on either end of the weapon need an effect other than magical mass. I know that because magic I could do that, but I don't particularly want to. You mentioned armor--the sort of effect that works well against an armored opponent seems like a good thing to aim for, but I'm not sure what. Btw, these spheres as I mentioned once before are actually conjurations by a "bubble mage"--as such, if they don't rely on mass to hurt, by what a bubble even is, they would need virtually no mass at all and be able to achieve that easily.

To get through metal armor, the most obvious effect is electricity. Any kind of disruption would do.

[ngc7293]

Though it has been established what this double weapon does, maybe not exactly what it looks like. So here is the Dire Mace from the video game Never Winter Nights.

[factotum]

To get through metal armor, the most obvious effect is electricity.

Actually, electricity probably wouldn't work--the armour would have much lower resistance to it than the human body inside, so the electricity would tend to harmlessly run to earth through the armour without affecting the occupant much at all.

[SiuiS]

But staff fighting doesn't necessitate a blunt object on both ends of the staff, so I don't. :(

Yes it does. The staff is the blunt object. This objection is like saying that a mace and a Morningstar are fundamentally different because one uses a mace and the other uses spikes.

Regardless of what objects are on the ends or not on the ends, there are only three possible, physical ways for a stick to be used two handed.
• grip in middle, use like staff
• grip at end, use like staff
• grip at end, use like spear
Spear is modified staff. There are only so many possible ways to make a stick move. I know you want to avoid just saying it's a staff. But I assure you, the thing you are looking for? It's a staff. I promise you.

Both ends of the quarterstaff are used, but because the two ends aren't weighted, it's pretty useless against armored foes. It's pretty much a peasant's weapon.

Peasant staff actually works fairly well against armor. Aside from the, you know, being swing by a peasant. There's only so much armor can help before getting struck by a high speed weight before the kinetic energy, even dispersed into the armor, is enough to scramble your brains.

[Heliomance]

Both ends of the quarterstaff are used, but because the two ends aren't weighted, it's pretty useless against armored foes.

Except for the bit where it's a tripping weapon, and a guy in full plate on the ground had lost.

[Lheticus]

All right...at this point I feel there's 2 things I need to emphasize:

1. Think less "realistic" damage and more "TV action/adventure show" damage.

2. Think less "mage that happens to have a weapon" and think more "genuine bona-fide Magic Knight."

[Aedilred]

Except for the bit where it's a tripping weapon, and a guy in full plate on the ground had lost.

Not necessarily. You still need to deal with them when they're on the ground, and preferably stop them getting back up again. Knocking them over is fine, but you need to have somethng else capable of hurting them to finish them off once you've done so. Assuming their armour is properly-fitting and articulated, they're not otherwise injured and they're not fighting in some kind of quasi-swamp, that shouldn't be a problem for them, and even stabbing them with a dagger or the like requires getting into range of their own weapon and/or wrestling.

[Asta Kask]

Not necessarily. You still need to deal with them when they're on the ground, and preferably stop them getting back up again. Knocking them over is fine, but you need to have somethng else capable of hurting them to finish them off once you've done so. Assuming their armour is properly-fitting and articulated, they're not otherwise injured and they're not fighting in some kind of quasi-swamp, that shouldn't be a problem for them, and even stabbing them with a dagger or the like requires getting into range of their own weapon and/or wrestling.

In other words, there's a reason knights carried big swords and not quarterstaffs.

[Jay R]

Except for the bit where it's a tripping weapon, and a guy in full plate on the ground had lost.

Is this just a made-up guess, or do you have a historical example of a group of men in armor taken out by a group of men with quarterstaves?

[SiuiS]

All right...at this point I feel there's 2 things I need to emphasize:

1. Think less "realistic" damage and more "TV action/adventure show" damage.

2. Think less "mage that happens to have a weapon" and think more "genuine bona-fide Magic Knight."

Doesn't matter. Any stick, no matter what it looks like – barbell, mace, staff, etc. – can only be swing on certain ways.

Your weapon may not be a staff, but it will be used like a staff, which means it's like in a video game where your staff has a different skin.

In other words, there's a reason knights carried big swords and not quarterstaffs.

And also why they used those swords like staves sometimes.

[Stardrake]

And also why they used those swords like staves sometimes.

Beat me to it. Popular imagery - and most RPGs - may present greatsword use as crudely swinging the blade at people, but the greatsword was in fact extraordinarily versatile, particularly if the wielder had good hand protection and the blade had the various modifications (such as an extended ricasso and extra quillions) to allow for it. You could use it as a sword. You could put one hand on the blade a little above the hilt and use it as a short (relatively speaking...) spear. You could hold it around the middle and use it like a quarterstaff, or even turn it upside-down and strike with the hilt like a crude hammer.

There's a reason they were popular once personal armour reached the point where shields became largely obsolete - because it allowed people to carry a single weapon that could be used in a number of ways as appropriate to the situation.

[Lheticus]

Doesn't matter. Any stick, no matter what it looks like – barbell, mace, staff, etc. – can only be swing on certain ways.

Your weapon may not be a staff, but it will be used like a staff, which means it's like in a video game where your staff has a different skin.

Doesn't matter for what? I wasn't addressing the method of wielding/swinging with those points, but rather the people who were talking about how much damage it would/would not do, and emphasizing that knocking people around with this weapon is not a secondary means of attack, as it would be with a straight-up mage, but a primary one.

[Asta Kask]

So, to summarize:

1) There seems to be no historical precedent for an American gladiator-staff type weapon.
2) There is nothing to prevent you from making such a weapon as an Exotic weapon.
3) People who disagree with me are poopheads.

[Frozen_Feet]

I know I'm late to the party, but I wanted to say that various polearms had both ends used. Those ends just tended to be different and, well, not blunt. The common assemblies were an axe or a hammer at one end, and a speartip at the other. So you first slashed them or bashed them down with the big, heavy end and then stabbed them with the small pointy end when they were down. Symmetrical staff weapons were and are pretty rare save for, well, basic staffs.

A "double-ended blunt weapon" would hence just be a hammer with a long haft and a pommel at the other end, or a simple staff with both ends reinforced with metal cappings or rings.

As a side-note, a sturdy oak stick or staff anywhere from 4 to 9 feet long can be used against an armored opponent pretty effectively. With a stick, you use pretty much the same techniques you'd use with a longsword, even. The trick is that you're not trying to bash through their armor - just like you'd not try to cut through it with a sword either. (Against steel plates or padded maille, it doesn't make much difference whether you're hitting someone with a stick made of wood or stick made of metal.) Instead you'd deflect their blows, get to close range and use the leverage bestowed by your weapon to throw them, trip them, lock them etc. into a position where you can wrench their helmet off and then kill them dead.

Okay, so if you have a really long staff (9 feet f.ex.), you might be able to knock someone on their ass or give them a concussion if you hit them to the head full-force with the last quarter of it. But that's easier said than done.

[Lheticus]

I know I'm late to the party, but I wanted to say that various polearms had both ends used. Those ends just tended to be different and, well, not blunt. The common assemblies were an axe or a hammer at one end, and a speartip at the other. So you first slashed them or bashed them down with the big, heavy end and then stabbed them with the small pointy end when they were down. Symmetrical staff weapons were and are pretty rare save for, well, basic staffs.

A "double-ended blunt weapon" would hence just be a hammer with a long haft and a pommel at the other end, or a simple staff with both ends reinforced with metal cappings or rings.

As a side-note, a sturdy oak stick or staff anywhere from 4 to 9 feet long can be used against an armored opponent pretty effectively. With a stick, you use pretty much the same techniques you'd use with a longsword, even. The trick is that you're not trying to bash through their armor - just like you'd not try to cut through it with a sword either. (Against steel plates or padded maille, it doesn't make much difference whether you're hitting someone with a stick made of wood or stick made of metal.) Instead you'd deflect their blows, get to close range and use the leverage bestowed by your weapon to throw them, trip them, lock them etc. into a position where you can wrench their helmet off and then kill them dead.

Okay, so if you have a really long staff (9 feet f.ex.), you might be able to knock someone on their ass or give them a concussion if you hit them to the head full-force with the last quarter of it. But that's easier said than done.

I think you just salvaged the idea. I've mentioned before--though it's been a while--that with the way the weapon is set up, the magic orbs/bubbles placed on either end are not a strict part of the weapon itself, but attachments MEANT to be modulated. So for example, the user could have a magically heavy attachment on one end for close quarters, and a weightless attachment on the other end that shoots lightning bolts for fighting at a greater range. With that configuration, the weapon would balance like an ordinary greatmace. Yeah...this could work.

[SiuiS]

Doesn't matter for what? I wasn't addressing the method of wielding/swinging with those points, but rather the people who were talking about how much damage it would/would not do, and emphasizing that knocking people around with this weapon is not a secondary means of attack, as it would be with a straight-up mage, but a primary one.

My mistake then.

[Sartharina]

A blunt weapons is a mass weapon. I can't imagine it working well with a large mass on the wrong end - it would slow the weapon down for no particular gain. So I suspect that there is no such thing as a two-ended blunt weapon - except in the sense that if my mace head has been forced back, I can still whap my opponent in his (unarmored) nose with the pommel.

Why would the weapon be slowed down? It's either pivoting around the center of mass with a balanced grip, or you're 'choked up' on one end.

Ideally, though, I think you might want to affix two hammer heads to the weapon, to concentrate the force to a specific point on the arc of the swing. Doesn't need to be too much weight, though.

[warty goblin]

Why would the weapon be slowed down? It's either pivoting around the center of mass with a balanced grip, or you're 'choked up' on one end.

Ideally, though, I think you might want to affix two hammer heads to the weapon, to concentrate the force to a specific point on the arc of the swing. Doesn't need to be too much weight, though.

Balancing the weight on one end with a weight on the other however has two unfortunately effects. Firstly your center of mass is now centered, and no longer as close to the striking surface of the weapon. This tends to enhance mobility, but decrease the effective power of your strikes.

The second effect is that it gives you a large moment of inertia. Which will in fact for a given amount of force result in a slower strike, and on the flipside require more effort on the part of the wielder to recover it after a swing. A weight on either end of a pole makes a good flywheel because it is relatively difficult to start and stop, but a terrible weapon for the same reason.

[Sartharina]

So, obviously, the strategy is to not stop it once it starts going. And that's why it's double-ended, as well! Just... kinda pinwheel across the battlefield.

[warty goblin]

So, obviously, the strategy is to not stop it once it starts going. And that's why it's double-ended, as well! Just... kinda pinwheel across the battlefield.

In practice this is basically a terrible idea. You lose the reach of a regular spear or polearm, don't get the amazing utility of a shield, and in order to keep the thing moving your strikes become extremely predictable. Fighting with weapons akimbo is already usually a bad idea, but at least they can act independently. The two ends of a pole do not, a fact normally compensated for by the speed of the weapon, and usually by taking advantage of its superior length.

[Brother Oni]

In practice this is basically a terrible idea. You lose the reach of a regular spear or polearm, don't get the amazing utility of a shield, and in order to keep the thing moving your strikes become extremely predictable.

This last point of predictability, more than anything, will get you killed on the battlefield. If I know exactly when and how you're going to attack, I can do pretty much whatever I want to counter it and/or kill you.

[Sartharina]

Soul Calibur 2 Lied to me!

[Zadhadras]

Most staff techniques look like sword or spear fighting..grabbing the the staff in the middle and doing the stereotypical friar tuck stuff isn't done very often. Here is a style of stick fighting that uses both ends of the stick. it might give folks some ideas about how a double ended blunt weapon might function. The base of the style is derived from boxing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcH0ww_Jbfg

[SiuiS]

Soul Calibur 2 Lied to me!

Yep!

There are some clever tricks you can do with the pinwheel staff method, to redirect the momentum or change the trajectory of the attack, but they are definitely in the 'better work the first time' camp unless you outclass your opponent enough to make up for the handicap.

Most staff techniques look like sword or spear fighting..grabbing the the staff in the middle and doing the stereotypical friar tuck stuff isn't done very often. Here is a style of stick fighting that uses both ends of the stick. it might give folks some ideas about how a double ended blunt weapon might function. The base of the style is derived from boxing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcH0ww_Jbfg

Ah, this specific video was enlightening. My stick was too long! Well, and my triceps and wrists were flimsy and underdeveloped, and I didn't bother to knobble off the bumps and kept splitting my hand open, but still. Good to see!

It's nice to know others are aware of this partic'lar art. I take it being posted twice as a glowing recommendation for how to use a double ended bubble staff :)

[Frozen_Feet]

For a style where the staff typically is grabbed at the middle, look at Okinawan kobudo. The default grip is such because it allows for rapid change of sides and covering the whole body with blocks. For invidual strikes, the grip can still be lenghtened for reach, so it still fits the criteria of looking or being like "sword or spear fighting".

[Lheticus]

Yep!

There are some clever tricks you can do with the pinwheel staff method, to redirect the momentum or change the trajectory of the attack, but they are definitely in the 'better work the first time' camp unless you outclass your opponent enough to make up for the handicap.



Ah, this specific video was enlightening. My stick was too long! Well, and my triceps and wrists were flimsy and underdeveloped, and I didn't bother to knobble off the bumps and kept splitting my hand open, but still. Good to see!

It's nice to know others are aware of this partic'lar art. I take it being posted twice as a glowing recommendation for how to use a double ended bubble staff :)

Oh please, this stopped being about my original idea like months ago. I mean, this post has been entirely ignored since the thread resumed in the first place:

I think you just salvaged the idea. I've mentioned before--though it's been a while--that with the way the weapon is set up, the magic orbs/bubbles placed on either end are not a strict part of the weapon itself, but attachments MEANT to be modulated. So for example, the user could have a magically heavy attachment on one end for close quarters, and a weightless attachment on the other end that shoots lightning bolts for fighting at a greater range. With that configuration, the weapon would balance like an ordinary greatmace. Yeah...this could work.

Essentially no one who posted after that comes from the altered framework of the other end being light as a bubble and shooting magic spells on command. Not that there's anything wrong with that--this is still good discussion happening and by all means carry on.

[Zrak]

Soul Calibur 2 Lied to me!

It does have some accurate respects, for example, like France being a military superpower for a while after they were the first nation who learned to mash the A button.