Quarterstaff has been underestimated for too long!!!!
Shadow Kee
The Quarterstaff has been a far missued and underestimated weapon.
Yes, the sword one of the deadliest weapons known in the medieval setting.
However, given the right schooling, the quarterstaff, can prove to be at most
lethal.
Example: To be posted later on this month...coming soon.
"Pay a man enough, and he will walk barefoot into hell"
Neutronium Dragon
says...
>Greetings,
>
>The Quarterstaff has been a far missued and underestimated weapon.
>Yes, the sword one of the deadliest weapons known in the medieval setting.
>However, given the right schooling, the quarterstaff, can prove to be at most
>lethal.
Comparing a quarterstaff to a longsword (seemingly the most popular of them)
does initially make the longsword look like a better choice. The longsword does
better damage, and only requires one hand to use. However, there are some good
reasons to use the quarterstaff, especially if you make use of Combat &
Tactics.
The quarterstaff is slightly faster under normal initiative, and with C&T, is a
phase faster, giving it a significant first strike advantage. It is also a
bludgeoning rather than slashing attack, which gives it Thaco benefits against
many armor types compared to the longsword (or most other slashing blades).
Two additional reasons show up under C&T: It has a better knockdown die than a
longsword, and being a L sized weapon, will cause better critical hits than an
M sized one. The disadvantage gained is it's to hit penalty against plate
armor, but even there, it's benefit for being a bludgeoning weapon leaves it
better off Thaco wise than the longsword.
--
| Neutronium Dragon | Dragon Code: DC.D f+ s++ h++++ CSW a++++ $- |
| aha...@direct.ca | m- d+++ WL++* Fr+++ L+++ BP e++++! g- i- U+++ |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| "Is that all you monks ever think about!? Sects, sects, sects!" |
Rekovin
"suck" in melee combat, so to speak, quarterstaffs aren't given their due as
you see in many movies. However, a fighter can specialize in one if he wants.
Then the staff will get its due.
Gerald Katz
It's not armageddon for a PC to be really good at something.
James A & Terry A Renn
> Greetings,
>
> The Quarterstaff has been a far missued and underestimated weapon.
> Yes, the sword one of the deadliest weapons known in the medieval setting.
> However, given the right schooling, the quarterstaff, can prove to be at most
> lethal.
>
> Example: To be posted later on this month...coming soon.
> "Pay a man enough, and he will walk barefoot into hell"
I agree with you, the quarterstaff has been underestimated since the game
started. The biggest thing I like about the Qstaff is that its: free! Anyone can
make one in any tech level with almost no tools. They're never going to be put
on a "restricted weapons list" either (as melee/missile weapons often were). A
peasant can carry one, a holy man, a mage, a priest, a thief impersonating a
"cripple", any one can carry one without arising suspicion.
As for combat worth: good reach, hard to disarm, decent damage, good knockdown,
non-metal (get that rust monster!), fairly fast. I also allow a master carver to
create non-magical +1/+1 Qstaves out of special or exotic woods. I believe that
there is a spell that hardens wood also.
The Qstaff and the manriki-gusari (weighted chain) are my two favorite
under-rated weapons. Hmmm, a warrior specialized in both Qstaff and chain.....
James
--
James A. & Terry A. Renn (jar...@bit-net.com)
Please specify to whom mail is directed, thank you.
dfenz
>Yes, the sword one of the deadliest weapons known in the medieval setting.
>However, given the right schooling, the quarterstaff, can prove to be at
most
>lethal.
>
>Example: To be posted later on this month...coming soon.
>"Pay a man enough, and he will walk barefoot into hell"
I am not going to bring AD&D into this, just pure real life.
Okay, have you either handled a long sword OR a quarterstaff? You probably
have, but I will add my 2 cents worth anyway. The long sword is heavier,
sharper, and has a pointy end. The quarterstaff is a defense weapon. Also,
it is not very effective unless you use it like a baseball bat.
Probably the best ground melee weapon in the world is the two-handed sword.
It is NOT as slow as AD&D makes it out to be, it is EXTREMELY deadly, and
two-handed weapons are usually the best. Clubs are very good too.
Medium range weapons such as the halberd, spetum, and glaive are really good
too, especially when you use them "baseball bat style." I went on some
historical thing in England, and they let us handle the weapons.
My personal favorite one was the rapier and dagger, which, by the way, WERE
used in the middle ages. They are small and easy to carry around, not to
mention they bend and don't break easily. You can slash someone's throat
really well with them, and the dagger is REALLY good for backstabbing.
Jason M. Hamari
>Greetings,
>The Quarterstaff has been a far missued and underestimated weapon.
>Yes, the sword one of the deadliest weapons known in the medieval setting.
>However, given the right schooling, the quarterstaff, can prove to be at most
>lethal.
A lot of good comments have been made on the topic. I'd like to add, check
out in the 2nd ed. DMG under magical items, and look at "Quarterstaff,
Magical" under the weapons section.
Now what fighter wouldn't want a +5 quarterstaff, eh? **grin**
Russ Taylor
>Okay, have you either handled a long sword OR a quarterstaff? You probably
>have, but I will add my 2 cents worth anyway. The long sword is heavier,
>sharper, and has a pointy end. The quarterstaff is a defense weapon. Also,
>it is not very effective unless you use it like a baseball bat.
??? sorry, I've been studying bo for many years, and it is extremely fast,
very versatile on defense, and sure as hell does not need to be used like
a "baseball bat" to cause damage.
>Probably the best ground melee weapon in the world is the two-handed sword.
>It is NOT as slow as AD&D makes it out to be, it is EXTREMELY deadly, and
>two-handed weapons are usually the best. Clubs are very good too.
The staff isn't two handed? Also, the two-handed sword is NOT fast on the
parry, and tends to wear the wielder out.
--
Russ Taylor (rta...@cmc.net, http://www.cmc.net/~rtaylor/)
Chambers Multimedia Connection Help Desk
"Blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought"
-- Dennis Moore
verkuilen john v
>In article <6th037$ad8$1...@news.interlog.com>, "dfenz" <df...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Okay, have you either handled a long sword OR a quarterstaff? You probably
>>have, but I will add my 2 cents worth anyway. The long sword is heavier,
>>sharper, and has a pointy end. The quarterstaff is a defense weapon. Also,
>>it is not very effective unless you use it like a baseball bat.
>??? sorry, I've been studying bo for many years, and it is extremely fast,
>very versatile on defense, and sure as hell does not need to be used like
>a "baseball bat" to cause damage.
And were it's user stupid enough to use it like a baseball bat against a
skilled foe he'd get exactly what he deserved... which would be death.
I do agree that the quarterstaff was a very effective weapon. One of the
reasons it was so effective, though, was the difficulty of obtaining swords
in many cultures.
But, the bottom line is that AD&D's very abstract combat system (to say nothing
of its seriously screwed up economic system) does not adequately reflect the
advantages of a weapon like the quarterstaff or spear.
Some suggestions that fit within the system:
Allow longarm users to attack from back ranks, behind their tougher buddies.
This makes more sense for stabbing weapons, though, but can be a very
effective tactic given some good battle plans.
Give a proficient quarterstaff wielder a parrying bonus, like say a +2 AC
bonus against melee attacks all the time.
Give the quarterstaff (and other wooden blunt weapons like the truncheon, etc.)
a better ability to do nonlethal damage if the wielder so desires. Make this
much harder with edged weapons. My suggestion would be that any inherently
deadly weapon (sword, mace, etc.) would do 1/2 damage, rounded down when used
in a nonlethal manner while a wooden blunt weapon could do full damage. (As
usual this damage is 1/4 real.) Taking prisoners is often useful as is
defending oneself without committing murder (depends on the campaign), giving
characters an incentive not always to reach for their sword.
Give the quarterstaff and other pole arms a bonus to trip maneuvers, like
a +2 or +4.
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"Language is a Virus from Outer Space."
--a poem by William Burroughs, "Language is a Virus"
James A & Terry A Renn
>
> have, but I will add my 2 cents worth anyway. The long sword is heavier,
> sharper, and has a pointy end. The quarterstaff is a defense weapon. Also,
> it is not very effective unless you use it like a baseball bat.
>
> It is NOT as slow as AD&D makes it out to be, it is EXTREMELY deadly, and
> two-handed weapons are usually the best. Clubs are very good too.
>
> too, especially when you use them "baseball bat style." I went on some
> historical thing in England, and they let us handle the weapons.
>
> My personal favorite one was the rapier and dagger, which, by the way, WERE
> used in the middle ages. They are small and easy to carry around, not to
> mention they bend and don't break easily. You can slash someone's throat
> really well with them, and the dagger is REALLY good for backstabbing.
I have used both in real life. In fact I my wife and I own several swords and
staves. And I agree that most games don't reflect how useful a two-handed sword
is. But it's also expensive and fairly late period. And *very* obvious. I can
carry a Qstaff into any city in any time period and no one will bat an eye. You
walk into a city carrying a two handed sword and you'll attract city guards like
flies to honey.
As for use, how is a Qstaff used much differently then a two handed sword?
Yeah, ones an edged weapon and the other is bludgeoning. But, they're both two
handed, slow on recovery and pack a wallop. And you can thrust with a Qstaff.
Hurts like the dickens too. I have a friend who carries a walking cane with a
large steel knob. Everyone thinks you hit people with it like a club. But in
reality the knob counter balances the cane perfectly. So he can thrust with it
lightning quick. He can hit you in spots you didn't even know you had before you
know what's happened. Thrusting with a blunt object does hurt, take my word for
it.
The rapier and dagger are great weapons. When you face some one else armed the
same. But a person with a Qstaff is going to beat the rapier user silly. And
never get in striking range. Not to mention you can "sweep" an attackers feet
with a Qstaff. Try that with a rapier. :)
The halberd, spetum, and glaive were meant to be used as mass weapons to the
best of my knowledge. With entire units being outfitted the same. Though I have
seen books describing the use of the halberd for single combat. And it's fairly
good as one, if you have the room.
As for a longsword vs. a Qstaff? My silver pieces are on the Qstaff. The user
can block the sword and still counter attack with the other end. And with two
hands they can apply more force. And against many types of armour a blunt weapon
is better then an edged type. A longsword is more expensive also, especially
when compared to a Qstaff.
One point I'd like to make is that longswords weren't historically all that
common. Broad swords and hand-and-a-half (bastard) swords were more common. Not
to mention the short or small sword. And all of these swords look like weapons,
really obvious weapons. Just wearing one might get you challenged to a duel.
While the Qstaff blends right in....
Which is why the Qstaff is underestimated. To get back on topic. :)
dfenz
swords and
>staves. And I agree that most games don't reflect how useful a two-handed
sword
>is. But it's also expensive and fairly late period. And *very* obvious. I
can
>carry a Qstaff into any city in any time period and no one will bat an eye.
You
>walk into a city carrying a two handed sword and you'll attract city guards
like
>flies to honey.
True. The non-fighting aspect of actually carrying the weapons around is
hard enough to account for, never mind fighting with them!
> As for use, how is a Qstaff used much differently then a two handed
sword?
>Yeah, ones an edged weapon and the other is bludgeoning. But, they're both
two
>handed, slow on recovery and pack a wallop. And you can thrust with a
Qstaff.
>Hurts like the dickens too. I have a friend who carries a walking cane with
a
>large steel knob. Everyone thinks you hit people with it like a club. But
in
>reality the knob counter balances the cane perfectly. So he can thrust with
it
>lightning quick. He can hit you in spots you didn't even know you had
before you
>know what's happened. Thrusting with a blunt object does hurt, take my word
for
>it.
True, but it takes more energy to thrust than to swing. And although poking
is good, it exposes the hands and is not too effective against stiff armours
such as splint, but especially banded mail.
> The rapier and dagger are great weapons. When you face some one else
armed the
>same. But a person with a Qstaff is going to beat the rapier user silly.
And
>never get in striking range. Not to mention you can "sweep" an attackers
feet
>with a Qstaff. Try that with a rapier. :)
I own a (fencing) foil, a rapier and a cutlass. The fencing foil is just
that. The blade is very thin and rectangular, so that it has two opposing
sides, and therefore bends. There is a 50% chance of bending when attacking
an opponent.
The rapier is AWESOME!!! Its blade is triangular, so that each side has
an opposing corner, and therefore cannot bend. The end is VERY sharp, and
easily slide-able into soft flesh... it is by no way effective against metal
or stiff armour, such as plate, banded, or splint. However, the blade is
long-ish, about 4 feet in length, and VERY light and sharp. Slashing with it
is practically instantaneous, especially next to a quarterstaff.
Also, the rapier's defense ability is probably better than its attacking
ability. Because it is steel and triangular, it is very strong. Slashing
with it is devistating. I have been slashed on the tricep with it, and
believe me, it hurts like a bitch. However, it is most deadly when going for
the face. In Renaissance duals, it was gentlemanly to stab low, such as to
the thorax, but in reality the best place to go for any face place (ear,
eye, nose, mouth). This alone will probably take out any would-be threat.
> The halberd, spetum, and glaive were meant to be used as mass weapons to
the
>best of my knowledge. With entire units being outfitted the same. Though I
have
>seen books describing the use of the halberd for single combat. And it's
fairly
>good as one, if you have the room.
On second thoughts, let's not talk about spetum. That word alone somehow
reminds me of "scrotum."
> As for a longsword vs. a Qstaff? My silver pieces are on the Qstaff. The
user
>can block the sword and still counter attack with the other end. And with
two
>hands they can apply more force. And against many types of armour a blunt
weapon
>is better then an edged type. A longsword is more expensive also,
especially
>when compared to a Qstaff.
As I said above, the rapier is the deadlier of the three weapons (broad
sword, qstaff, rapier). Brashly, a lot of people say rapiers are for
"candy-ass fags" but you and I know better...
> One point I'd like to make is that longswords weren't historically all
that
>common. Broad swords and hand-and-a-half (bastard) swords were more common.
Not
>to mention the short or small sword. And all of these swords look like
weapons,
>really obvious weapons. Just wearing one might get you challenged to a
duel.
>While the Qstaff blends right in....
> Which is why the Qstaff is underestimated. To get back on topic. :)
They are made of wood. They crack easily if they dry.
And druids can cast "warp wood" on them.
Russ Taylor
> One point I'd like to make is that longswords weren't historically all that
>common. Broad swords and hand-and-a-half (bastard) swords were more common. Not
>to mention the short or small sword. And all of these swords look like weapons,
>really obvious weapons. Just wearing one might get you challenged to a duel.
>While the Qstaff blends right in
Depends ENTIRELY on the period. Remember, the shortsword and longsword
(Spathas, anyone?) existed _long_ before the broadsword and bastard sword
did, and the bastard sword didn't exist at all until plate armor made it's
appearance.
Russ Taylor
>As I said above, the rapier is the deadlier of the three weapons (broad
>sword, qstaff, rapier). Brashly, a lot of people say rapiers are for
>"candy-ass fags" but you and I know better...
Well, a rapier is a terrible weapon against someone in armor, and will
break all too often used against a heavier weapon (i.e. a cleaving
sword). But the speed and reach make it a superior weapon between
unarmored opponents -- which is, after all, why the name comes from the
word for a dress sword.
>They are made of wood. They crack easily if they dry.
...the wood isn't kept wet, you know. Go up, whack an oak door. Hard,
isn't it? Quarterstaffs are oak or other hard wood, and while they _do_
crack, swords can break as well. Neither breaks easily, if made well.
--
Russ Taylor (rta...@cmc.net, http://www.cmc.net/~rtaylor/)
Chambers Multimedia Connection Help Desk
Otto: "Apes don't read philosophy."
Wanda: "Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it!"
David Trimboli
<199809130700...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>The problem is that only mages and clerics use the staff regularly. Since
they
>"suck" in melee combat, so to speak, quarterstaffs aren't given their due
as
>you see in many movies. However, a fighter can specialize in one if he
wants.
>Then the staff will get its due.
I've seen this done. A fighter specialized in quarterstaff, that is.
Pretty neat, too, to see a fighter specialized in something other than the
sword! Effective, too.
And clerics do not "suck" in melee combat. They have the 2nd best THAC0
progression out of four.
David
Stardate 98701.9
Michael Scott Brown
>bludgeoning rather than slashing attack, which gives it Thaco benefits against
>many armor types compared to the longsword (or most other slashing blades).
>Two additional reasons show up under C&T [snip]
The 2ndEd (Optional) B/P/S AC modifications by armor type are
superceded by weapon-specific combat advantages in C&T, not
cumulative.
The C&T quarterstaff is thus fast and has good knockdowns but it
has *no* attack bonuses against any armor and is penalized against
any plated armor.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
>True, but it takes more energy to thrust than to swing. And although poking
>is good, it exposes the hands and is not too effective against stiff armours
>such as splint, but especially banded mail.
This gets you a resounding Bah. Go learn more about staff use.
> Also, the rapier's defense ability is probably better than its attacking
>ability. Because it is steel and triangular, it is very strong. Slashing
>with it is devistating. I have been slashed on the tricep with it, and
>believe me, it hurts like a bitch.
<LOL> You've still got your arm, don't you?
*pain* is not the correct criteria for evaluating the combat
effectiveness of a weapon. Dismemberment/broken limbs, and death
are. Your rapier is ... irrelevant ... save when
applied to vital areas (against which it is properly deadly).
A quarterstaff blow to the upper arm will *break* it.
>They are made of wood. They crack easily if they dry.
<yawn> Swords are made of steel. They rust easily when they wet.
>And druids can cast "warp wood" on them.
And psionicists can cast "magnetize" on swords.
I'm not taking a position on this rapier/staff issue, mind you -
just dropping in to point out some *horrific* arguments on your part.
-Michael
Shadow Kee
have. Thank Ladies and Gentlemen. Have a pleasant day.
Berg
: Depends ENTIRELY on the period. Remember, the shortsword and longsword
: (Spathas, anyone?) existed _long_ before the broadsword and bastard sword
: did, and the bastard sword didn't exist at all until plate armor made it's
: appearance.
Not to mention the fact that for the longest time, broadswords and
longswords didn't have points at all...
--
-><- Berg Oswell, be...@eskimo.com -><-
-><- Finger for Geek Code -><-
Neutronium Dragon
I'm comparing it to the longsword however. Compared to the longsword it's
better with thaco, simply because the longsword takes a -3 or -4 to hit penalty
against plate armors because it's a type S weapon, whereas the staff's attack
penalty is only -2. Against most other armors, the S type weapon penalty
against armor is equal or worse than any penalty for B type weapons.
I'm also not sure why the weapon-vs-armor types would be superceded, not
cumulative, as that would result in some weapons specifically bad against
certain types of armor actually getting *better* to hit chances against those
armor types. Where in the book is that stated? It sounds like a goof to me if
it was...
Berg
: I am not going to bring AD&D into this, just pure real life.
Fine by me, I've used both a longsword and a quarterstaff (and
both a bo and a jo staff, plus a long spear) in real life.
: Okay, have you either handled a long sword OR a quarterstaff? You probably
: have, but I will add my 2 cents worth anyway. The long sword is heavier,
: sharper, and has a pointy end. The quarterstaff is a defense weapon. Also,
: it is not very effective unless you use it like a baseball bat.
I've handled both. The quarterstaff is as offensive as they come;
Sure, it's good for defense, but give me one over a longsword any day of
the week (unless I'm mounted, in which case I'd rather have the sword).
If you think a quarterstaff is used like a baseball bat, then
you've never seen one used by someone who knows how to use one.
[Snip]
: Medium range weapons such as the halberd, spetum, and glaive are really good
: too, especially when you use them "baseball bat style." I went on some
: historical thing in England, and they let us handle the weapons.
No, they aren't. Using them "baseball bat style" is what you do
when you really have no clue what you're doing. And if you use that style
in a fight (or even a serious match/mock-duel), you'll get disabused of
the notion those weapons are anything like a baseball bat (and get rather
physically abused at the same time).
: My personal favorite one was the rapier and dagger, which, by the way, WERE
: used in the middle ages. They are small and easy to carry around, not to
: mention they bend and don't break easily. You can slash someone's throat
: really well with them, and the dagger is REALLY good for backstabbing.
I'd prefer a quarterstaff, myself. I've gone up against people
using the Florentine style before, and I never had any problems using a
staff against them. You gotta watch your hands, but if you have a good
pair of gauntlets, that's not a problem.
If I were invited to watch a fight between a guy with nearly any
sword, and a guy with a quarterstaff, I'd put my money on the
staff-wielder. By and large (there are exceptions, but not many), if
both people are of roughly equal skill, the staff usually beats the
sword; Some of the best swordsmen in history have run afoul of farmers
on the battlefield, who couldn't aford anything better than a good, stout
staff.
Patrick and Jennifer Younts
dfenz wrote in message <6th037$ad8$1...@news.interlog.com>...
>
>I am not going to bring AD&D into this, just pure real life.
>Okay, have you either handled a long sword OR a quarterstaff? You probably
>have, but I will add my 2 cents worth anyway. The long sword is heavier,
>sharper, and has a pointy end. The quarterstaff is a defense weapon. Also,
>it is not very effective unless you use it like a baseball bat.
>Probably the best ground melee weapon in the world is the two-handed sword.
>It is NOT as slow as AD&D makes it out to be, it is EXTREMELY deadly, and
>two-handed weapons are usually the best. Clubs are very good too.
>Medium range weapons such as the halberd, spetum, and glaive are really
good
>too, especially when you use them "baseball bat style." I went on some
>historical thing in England, and they let us handle the weapons.
Your perception of "pure, real life" is somewhat skewed. Swinging a
quarterstaff like it was a baseball bat isn't going to accomplish a thing.
No wonder you think it's only a defensive weapon. If you want to know how to
use a staff, go to a martial arts demonstration. A competent staff wielder
can create force enough to break bones with barely any movement at all. Why
are two handed weapons the best? Enlighten us please. Why is the simple club
so spiffy? Why is it better than a flail or mace, or axe or short sword? And
Why on God's green Earth would you swing a polearm like it was a baseball
bat? Give us your answers.
verkuilen john v
[snip]
>I'm comparing it to the longsword however. Compared to the longsword it's
>better with thaco, simply because the longsword takes a -3 or -4 to hit penalty
>against plate armors because it's a type S weapon, whereas the staff's attack
>penalty is only -2. Against most other armors, the S type weapon penalty
>against armor is equal or worse than any penalty for B type weapons.
The 2nd edition armor vs. weapon type modifiers are seriously stupid.
A quarterstaff or club would not be very effective against plate armor,
certainly not more than a heavy sword, which is far more effective at
concentrating energy than a staff. Yes, a weapon like a late Medieval
flanged-head mace or a warhammer will be--that's because they were special
weapons designed to mess up someone in armor.
>I'm also not sure why the weapon-vs-armor types would be superceded, not
>cumulative, as that would result in some weapons specifically bad against
>certain types of armor actually getting *better* to hit chances against those
>armor types.
Right, which gets us about halfway back to the 1st edition system. Frankly
I support getting rid of the extra tables and just putting in some specific
modifiers for certain weapons or classes of weapons. Dividing things into
blunt, piercing, and slashing is too broad. Actually this division wouldn't
be so bad if it weren't for the IMO really f***ing stupid priestly weapon
restrictions based on a complete BS hypocritical Medieval ethics dodge. The
problem is a weapon like a warhammer that is good at attacking armor is NOT
a blunt weapon, not really. It should be piercing. But they want to let
priests use it, so....
Where in the book is that stated? It sounds like a goof to me if
>it was...
Use your head before you use the book. TSR really botched on this one.
dfenz
Uh, yeah. Whatever.
> <LOL> You've still got your arm, don't you?
See, but that's the thing. Ever heard of a little thing called Shock? It's
what *everyone* gets when a little thing like gushing blood spurts forth
from your arm. Take first aid, you ignorant tit.
> *pain* is not the correct criteria for evaluating the combat
Oh no? Want me to slash your torso and see what happens to your ducking
ability? Again, *I* am not the one with the stupid argument.
> effectiveness of a weapon. Dismemberment/broken limbs, and death are
Duh? Really? I thought death made you more powerful that I could ever
imagine! (q.v. Star Wars)
> are. Your rapier is ... irrelevant ... save when
> applied to vital areas (against which it is properly deadly).
Uh... yeah. You keep thinking that.
> A quarterstaff blow to the upper arm will *break* it.
Would you *stop* talking out of your ass? Tai kick-boxers smash
quarterstaves on their legs to harden and numb-efy the leg, and thus stop
the bone from breaking when they break your quarterstaff over their knee.
>>They are made of wood. They crack easily if they dry.
> <yawn> Swords are made of steel. They rust easily when they wet.
Yeah, they rust if you treat them like shit. If you treat wood like a king,
it will *still* break.
>>And druids can cast "warp wood" on them.
>
> And psionicists can cast "magnetize" on swords.
How many psionicists do you see walking around?
dfenz
>quarterstaff like it was a baseball bat isn't going to accomplish a thing.
>No wonder you think it's only a defensive weapon. If you want to know how
to
>use a staff, go to a martial arts demonstration. A competent staff wielder
>can create force enough to break bones with barely any movement at all. Why
>are two handed weapons the best? Enlighten us please. Why is the simple
club
>so spiffy? Why is it better than a flail or mace, or axe or short sword?
And
>Why on God's green Earth would you swing a polearm like it was a baseball
>bat? Give us your answers.
Because if you're not proficient in the weapon (that's not a D&D term, I'm
*still* talking real life), then it is the most effective usage.
Happy?
Michael Scott Brown
:> The 2ndEd (Optional) B/P/S AC modifications by armor type are
:> superceded by weapon-specific combat advantages in C&T, not
:> cumulative.
:>
:> The C&T quarterstaff is thus fast and has good knockdowns but it
:> has *no* attack bonuses against any armor and is penalized against
:> any plated armor.
>I'm comparing it to the longsword however. Compared to the longsword it's
>better with thaco, [] because the longsword takes a -3 or -4 to hit penalty
>against plate armors because it's a type S weapon
You apparently weren't listening. If you are using C&T rules, then
there is no slashing penalty against plate for the longsword.
>I'm also not sure why the weapon-vs-armor types would be superceded, not
>cumulative, as that would result in some weapons specifically bad against
>certain types of armor actually getting *better* to hit chances against those
>armor types. Where in the book is that stated? It sounds like a goof to me if
>it was...
Look at the big picture. Both earlier incarnations of the
Weapon vs Armor rules are horrible. 1stEdition's was overcomplicated
and was wedded to gary's nasty assumption that "AC 6" would be enough
to let the user know that he was talking about scale mail (for ex).
Cumbersome and annoying, with 81 entries or so.
2ndEdition's moved in the correct direction- simplification - but
it went too far in the other direction by just describing weapons with
one parameter. Lumping all bludgeoning weapons together is foolish,
given their wide ranges in mass - likewise for the other classes.
The resulting system produced AC modifications that were
oversimplified and just plain *wrong*
The C&T rules are obviously a replacement - therin, some weapons have a
simple, _small_, easily adjucated advantage (or weakness) against some
type of armor which reflects that weapon's unique design features.
The character just adds an attack bonus when he sees that armor or
its equivalent, rather than continually referencing weapon type
against armor type on some table.
This captures the flavor of the weapon, promotes tactical savvy,
and accomplishes the goals of WvA modifiers without the previous
burdens. The idea that this set of bonuses was meant to be added
onto the (optional) 2ndEd WvA table guts the potential benefits of
this approach!
After all, *everything* in C&T supercedes rules on the same subject
in 2ndEd. Do you use both initiative systems? Both unarmed combat
systems? Why would you think you were meant to use both WvA systems?
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
:> This gets you a resounding Bah. Go learn more about staff use.
>Uh, yeah. Whatever.
Hey, nimrod. You just claimed it took more energy to thrust
with a staff than to swing it. You don't get to "whatever"
without being publicly shamed first.
:> <LOL> You've still got your arm, don't you?
>See, but that's the thing. Ever heard of a little thing called Shock? It's
>what *everyone* gets when a little thing like gushing blood spurts forth
>from your arm. Take first aid, you ignorant tit.
<yawn> This is combat we're talking about. A minor flesh
wound is irrelevant in the greater scheme of living or dying.
:> *pain* is not the correct criteria for evaluating the combat
>Oh no? Want me to slash your torso and see what happens to your ducking
>ability? Again, *I* am not the one with the stupid argument.
Compare: cut to torso vs. broken ribs. Your suggestion that
the rapier is deadly because the wounds it produces "hurt like
a bitch" is not meaningful. *Every* injury from weaponry is
going to hurt. However, there are hurts that are merly pain-
such as the injury you are currently playing up -
and then there are hurts which involve serious degradation in
one's ability to move and fight.
:> A quarterstaff blow to the upper arm will *break* it.
>Would you *stop* talking out of your ass? Tai kick-boxers smash
>quarterstaves on their legs to harden and numb-efy the leg, and thus stop
>the bone from breaking when they break your quarterstaff over their knee.
<ROTFL> "Numbe-efying" the leg keeps the bone from breaking?
Try this little hint, from a real martial artist to one who isn't:
If you harden your muscles at the moment of impact, your flesh
serves as a type of armor. This technique can be used to mitigate
the damage from bludgeoning attacks such as punches, kicks, and
*wow*! _STICKS_. The more muscle strength you've got and the better
your timing, the greater impacts you can resist. Your kickboxers
have *enormously* strong thigh muscles and thus can handle stick
impacts to the upper leg if they are very mentally prepared.
However: the staves they practice with are _not_ european quarterstaffs
(which would not break in that situation) but bo-sticks (or even
just bamboo shafts), which are a far sight lighter.
In addition: they cannot protect their *kneecaps* in this fashion.
:>>They are made of wood. They crack easily if they dry.
:> <yawn> Swords are made of steel. They rust easily when they wet.
>Yeah, they rust if you treat them like shit. If you treat wood like a king,
>it will *still* break.
Ditto for steel. Your argument is weak and justly crushed.
Deal with it and get on with your life.
:>>And druids can cast "warp wood" on them.
:> And psionicists can cast "magnetize" on swords.
>How many psionicists do you see walking around?
How many high level druids do you see walking around?
Again, your argument was weak and justly crushed.
-Michael
Neutronium Dragon
> in 2ndEd. Do you use both initiative systems? Both unarmed combat
> systems? Why would you think you were meant to use both WvA systems?
Because there's no direct contradiction in using both of them, nor is it
anywhere stated that the WvA should not be used. Using the specific
weapon modifiers in addition to the normal ones keeps things more diverse in
terms of what is effective against what. Otherwise, you're back to having a
couple of weapons be pretty much equally effective against anything, and no
real reason to use anything else.
Michael Scott Brown
:> After all, *everything* in C&T supercedes rules on the same subject
:> in 2ndEd. Do you use both initiative systems? Both unarmed combat
:> systems? Why would you think you were meant to use both WvA systems?
>Because there's no direct contradiction in using both of them, nor is it
>anywhere stated that the WvA should not be used.
Don't be foolish. How often does C&T take the time to point out
"by the way, we're superceding X". It's obvious to the rest of
the english speaking universe what has precedence. If C&T has
a rule that touches on a subject, it's intended to dominate it.
>Using the specific
>weapon modifiers in addition to the normal ones keeps things more diverse in
>terms of what is effective against what.
No. It totally dilutes the impact of the C&T system, since
most of the benefits gained by certain weaponry are negated
by the poorly-organized and poorly-scaled penalties that come
from the 2ndEd WvA.
The *intent* is that under C&T, certain weapons *are* good at breaching
certain armors - as opposed to "sucking less" than other weapons
of their P/B/S class; which is what you advocate.
> Otherwise, you're back to having a
>couple of weapons be pretty much equally effective against anything, and no
>real reason to use anything else.
How on earth do you come up with that? Rather, weapons
are now as effective against armor as the armor's AC indicates.
This is as it should be. Some weapons' special features include
the penetration (or lack thereof) against specific armor types.
I don't see how this leads to "a couple weapons being equally
effective against anything". Quite the contrary - those weapons
with armor penetration abilities will have tactical significance;
especially at low levels.
(And weren't you just suggesting that being a bludgeoning weapon
was such an advantage under 2ndEd WvA that there wasn't much
reason to use anything besides those?)
-Michael
Michael Caldwell
>I am not going to bring AD&D into this, just pure real life.
>Okay, have you either handled a long sword OR a quarterstaff? You probably
>have, but I will add my 2 cents worth anyway. The long sword is heavier,
>sharper, and has a pointy end. The quarterstaff is a defense weapon. Also,
>it is not very effective unless you use it like a baseball bat.
Yes, handled both, trained with both (for a bit, less with the quarterstaff,
but enough to know it's a very effective weapon).
As for baseball bat - LoL. If you wield a six foot pole like a baseball bat
you'll be lucky to raise it above your sholder let alone swing it with any
sort of force. Also, since it's symetrical you don't get the momentum you
acheive with a weighted baseball bat. Quarterstaff attacks tend to be pokes
and sweaps, with the hands starting equidistant along the staff.
>Probably the best ground melee weapon in the world is the two-handed sword.
>It is NOT as slow as AD&D makes it out to be, it is EXTREMELY deadly, and
>two-handed weapons are usually the best. Clubs are very good too.
The trouble with most two handed weapons (quarterstaffs strangely enough are
an exception to this rule), apart from their weight, is that your hands and
wrists are pretty much set, and thus your wrists are difficult to defend. I
took a sabre and epee to Japan with me, and convincingly beat much more
skilled opponents, who fought using kendo techniques, by attacking their
wrists.
Twohanded swords (and other heavy blades) are also particularly bad against
sabres as their attack vector is hard to change midswing, and they take time
to reset after they have been parried. With a saber you can effectively
parry the heavy weapon and attack while it is being reset.
Finally, I found the twohanded sword I practiced with to be extremely heavy,
although not as unweildy as I expected due to good balance. To get an idea
of how much of a difference this would make hold a twohanded sword at arms
lenght for two minutes, and then try the same with a quarterstaff or sabre.
Tiredness kills.
>Medium range weapons such as the halberd, spetum, and glaive are really
good
>too, especially when you use them "baseball bat style." I went on some
>historical thing in England, and they let us handle the weapons.
LOL. The momentum of the weapons would allow a half pie decent fighter to
step behind the swing if you were to use them as bats. Also, once you are
inside the reach of mid range weapons their user is at a great disadvantage.
Holding the point at waist hight and making short stabbing or clashing
strokes with the tip (not the haft) of the weapon is the correct usage -
this stops your opponent from getting inside your swing, and gives you the
advantage of relative reach.
>My personal favorite one was the rapier and dagger, which, by the way, WERE
>used in the middle ages. They are small and easy to carry around, not to
>mention they bend and don't break easily. You can slash someone's throat
>really well with them, and the dagger is REALLY good for backstabbing.
Yeah, they aren't bad so long as you know how to use them, an open stance
isn't a good idea. My personal favourite combo is twin sabres - proper
pointed footman's ones, not modern fencing sabres (I have an english
footman's sabre from the 1800's and love it dearly), They're nicely pointed
so you can use the left handed one like a foil when you aren't defending
with it. underhanded slashes upwards across the throat/face are particularly
effective against sabre/foil opponents.
--
Michael Caldwell.
Michael Caldwell
> As for use, how is a Qstaff used much differently then a two handed
sword?
>Yeah, ones an edged weapon and the other is bludgeoning. But, they're both
two
>handed, slow on recovery and pack a wallop. And you can thrust with a
Qstaff.
>Hurts like the dickens too. I have a friend who carries a walking cane with
a
>large steel knob. Everyone thinks you hit people with it like a club. But
in
>reality the knob counter balances the cane perfectly. So he can thrust with
it
>lightning quick. He can hit you in spots you didn't even know you had
before you
>know what's happened. Thrusting with a blunt object does hurt, take my word
for
>it.
Indeed it does, I've sported the bruises to prove it. IMHO the one big
advantage the Q-staff has over the two handed sword is it allows you to move
your hands and wrists more easily, change attack vector mid-swing, and
feint.
> The rapier and dagger are great weapons. When you face some one else
armed the
>same. But a person with a Qstaff is going to beat the rapier user silly.
And
>never get in striking range. Not to mention you can "sweep" an attackers
feet
>with a Qstaff. Try that with a rapier. :)
Mmm once again I've had it done, not pleasent. For the range it depends how
well you can parry with your dagger, but since the Q-staff's an effective in
close weapon as well it doesn't matter too much.
> The halberd, spetum, and glaive were meant to be used as mass weapons to
the
>best of my knowledge. With entire units being outfitted the same. Though I
have
>seen books describing the use of the halberd for single combat. And it's
fairly
>good as one, if you have the room.
The Japanese had a weapon similar to a halbard called the Naginata which is
really good fun, it was a woman's weapon (as a rule) and very effective one
on one.
<snip>
>Not
>to mention the short or small sword. And all of these swords look like
weapons,
>really obvious weapons. Just wearing one might get you challenged to a
duel.
>While the Qstaff blends right in....
Short swords are very effective indeed, great for parrying, much lighter
than longer swords, and packing a deadly punch (just look at the epee which
developed from short swords used in italian dueling).
> Which is why the Qstaff is underestimated. To get back on topic. :)
Indeed.
--
Michael Caldwell
Michael Caldwell
>True, but it takes more energy to thrust than to swing. And although poking
>is good, it exposes the hands and is not too effective against stiff
armours
>such as splint, but especially banded mail.
LOL. More energy to thrust than to swing?!? You must swing like a girl (or
poke like a titan). Also, poking leaves the hands (or more importantly the
wrists) a good deal less exposed than swinging (slashing) which is why
sabre's have full hand guards and epees do not. When you lift or turn your
hand to swing you expose the entire underside of your lower arm and wrist.
>In Renaissance duals, it was gentlemanly to stab low, such as to
>the thorax, but in reality the best place to go for any face place (ear,
>eye, nose, mouth). This alone will probably take out any would-be threat.
The head, wrists and legs are always the best places to attack. Legs are a
lot more dificult to defend than heads though (and if you're fighting with a
rapier it isn't too hard to parry at head hight due to it's lightness).
>As I said above, the rapier is the deadlier of the three weapons (broad
>sword, qstaff, rapier). Brashly, a lot of people say rapiers are for
>"candy-ass fags" but you and I know better...
Indeed, although I still prefer sabres, easier to parry with, harder to
parry, that sort of thing.
>They are made of wood. They crack easily if they dry.
Not that easily, they were pretty thick, and usually made from hardwoods.
--
Michael Caldwell
Michael Caldwell
>> <LOL> You've still got your arm, don't you?
>See, but that's the thing. Ever heard of a little thing called Shock? It's
>what *everyone* gets when a little thing like gushing blood spurts forth
>from your arm. Take first aid, you ignorant tit.
Mmm yes, although shock takes a while, especially if the adrenalin's up.
Flesh wounds will slow an opponent, but it'll take time for anything less
than massive muscular damage to render an arm ineffective.
Even badly cut arms can be used the next day in most cases - My father
opened a six inch long cut along the back of his forearm with a chainsaw,
bone showing the whole lenght, and used it for light work the day after
(drove himself 23 miles to the hospital too come to that, as I was 4 and too
young to do much, shock can make you do silly things if you're amped up).
>> *pain* is not the correct criteria for evaluating the combat
>Oh no? Want me to slash your torso and see what happens to your ducking
>ability? Again, *I* am not the one with the stupid argument.
Yes you are. Staffs hurt more through heavy armour (plate/band/splint etc as
you listed earlier) than rapiers, because the kinetic dump is greater. I
would like to see a rapier slash get through even boiled leather, the blades
are too thin to gain decent leverage, and the triangular shape prevents deep
cuts.
Also I beleive the example was slashed arm vs broken arm - broken arm is
worse.
>> A quarterstaff blow to the upper arm will *break* it.
>Would you *stop* talking out of your ass? Tai kick-boxers smash
>quarterstaves on their legs to harden and numb-efy the leg, and thus stop
>the bone from breaking when they break your quarterstaff over their knee.
Heh, I love that Numbefying the leg. The other poster below is correct when
he explains in the next post how this strenghtens muscle not bone. Also,
Quarterstaffs DO have a higher kinetic dump than the smaller, thinner,
lighter staffs used by the kickboxers.
--
Michael Caldwell.
Dave Harper
>Wow. I didn't know that people felt as strongly about the quarterstaff as I
>have. Thank Ladies and Gentlemen. Have a pleasant day.
Hey! I didn't get my chance to post yet! <sigh> The
quarterstaff is one of my favourite weapons...<sigh>
Question for the group: is AD&D's quarterstaff listing the
steel-shod/iron-shod staves used by some staffers in Europe, or more
like the walking stick/bo stick staves used in the East? If the
latter, I can see the damage listed as being fair. The iron really
adds punch.
Dave
"You flirt with cats?" -Orm
"I like them better than humans." -Dave
"That's illegal in some countries."
"HEY! NOT LIKE THAT!!"
Staffan Johansson
> Question for the group: is AD&D's quarterstaff listing the
> steel-shod/iron-shod staves used by some staffers in Europe, or more
> like the walking stick/bo stick staves used in the East? If the
> latter, I can see the damage listed as being fair. The iron really
> adds punch.
According to the Complete Fighter's Handbook, the Quarterstaff is the
iron-shod version. There is a new weapon, Bo, in it which basically is a
Quarterstaff that only does d4 versus Large. Also, the Bo proficiency
and Quarterstaff proficiency are interchangeable - while they're not
specifically the same, you can use a Bo with Qstaff prof, and vice
versa.
--
Staffan Johansson (d9...@efd.lth.se)
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness.
(Terry Pratchett, Men At Arms)
dfenz
> with a staff than to swing it. You don't get to "whatever"
> without being publicly shamed first.
...and I stick to that argument.
> <yawn> This is combat we're talking about. A minor flesh
> wound is irrelevant in the greater scheme of living or dying.
Except that it's not a minor flesh wound. A rapier's a blocking/thrusting
weapon, but can serve SOMETIMES as a slashing weapon. Therefore, I would be
thrusting at you, not slashing you.
> Compare: cut to torso vs. broken ribs. Your suggestion that
> the rapier is deadly because the wounds it produces "hurt like
> a bitch" is not meaningful. *Every* injury from weaponry is
> going to hurt. However, there are hurts that are merly pain-
> such as the injury you are currently playing up -
> and then there are hurts which involve serious degradation in
> one's ability to move and fight.
...and a bruise is not as effective as having a deep hole in your kneecap.
> <ROTFL> "Numbe-efying" the leg keeps the bone from breaking?
Correct.
> Try this little hint, from a real martial artist to one who isn't:
Are you a martial artist?
> If you harden your muscles at the moment of impact, your flesh
> serves as a type of armor. This technique can be used to mitigate
> the damage from bludgeoning attacks such as punches, kicks, and
> *wow*! _STICKS_. The more muscle strength you've got and the better
> your timing, the greater impacts you can resist. Your kickboxers
> have *enormously* strong thigh muscles and thus can handle stick
> impacts to the upper leg if they are very mentally prepared.
Thanks for backing me up on my own argument (?).
> However: the staves they practice with are _not_ european quarterstaffs
> (which would not break in that situation) but bo-sticks (or even
> just bamboo shafts), which are a far sight lighter.
Bamboo is not exactly the hardest of woods.
> In addition: they cannot protect their *kneecaps* in this fashion.
Kneecaps are VERY hard to get, unless you are specifically going for them.
> Ditto for steel. Your argument is weak and justly crushed.
> Deal with it and get on with your life.
Huh? How so? You're more of an idiot than I thought. How is my argument
crushed by you saying "ditto for steel?" You're the one who should get on
with your life, claiming that wood is harder than steel. (Fucking moron)
> How many high level druids do you see walking around?
Warp wood is a lvl. 2 spell, you cocksucker.
> Again, your argument was weak and justly crushed.
Of course. Your argument is so superior to mine, because you are such a
genius. I would LOVE to get on my knees and kiss your ass.
dfenz
>lot more dificult to defend than heads though (and if you're fighting with
a
>rapier it isn't too hard to parry at head hight due to it's lightness).
Haven't you seen in the movie Sparticus when the slave master is showing the
slaves where to attack for a slow death, medium death, and quick death?
(Kidding)
>Indeed, although I still prefer sabres, easier to parry with, harder to
>parry, that sort of thing.
They're heavy.
>Not that easily, they were pretty thick, and usually made from hardwoods.
Still doesn't beat metal.
Blueman
dfenz wrote:
Actually a quarter staff has a number of advantages over a sword in both
combat and non- combat situations:
Especially in AD+D:
Jump into a deep pool with a 2 handed sword in hand and you will sink like a
rock (unless you drop it)
Jump in with a quarter staff and you can tread water and swim.
It dosn't matter if you blunt or dull your Qstaff in combat it still is just as
effective. In fact a Qstaff requires almost no maintenence.
If you sprain your ankle, your sword will not help you walk (watch it bend when
you put weight on it.) A quarter staff can double as a waking staff or a stop
gap crutch.
A quater staff makes a good improvised fishing pole.
A quarter staff can be used as a good fulcrum device to pry with. Try this with
a sword and watch it bend.
With a Qstaff You can run at an enemy and use it to pole vault your feet into
his chest. Try this with a sword and your enemy will laugh ....a lot.
An acrobatic individual can use a Qstaff as a climbing tool or an instant bar to
hang down from. A Qstaff may allow you to save yourself from falling into a pit
a sword won't.
You can help your buddy out of quicksand with a qstaff.... but not with a sword.
A Qstaff is superior against skeletons.
Finally, you can get a new Qstaff almost anywhere. Not so with a sword.
--- TG
dfenz
We weren't talking about the quarterstaff as a tool, we were talking about
it purely as a weapon. I totally agree with you about how useful it is in
non-combat situations, but that's not what we were talking about. Yes, my
thief carries around a staff, but he doesn't use it very much as a weapon;
he prefers a short sword/dagger combo.
Russ Taylor
>Still doesn't beat metal.
Actually, it does: metal swords will indeed shatter a lot more easily than
an oaken staff.
--
Russ Taylor (rta...@cmc.net, http://www.cmc.net/~rtaylor/)
Chambers Multimedia Connection Help Desk
"Come on Natural 20. Daddy needs a new Sword of Wounding!" -- Langley
dar...@my-dejanews.com
Staffan Johansson <d9...@efd.lth.se> wrote:
> Dave Harper wrote:
> > Question for the group: is AD&D's quarterstaff listing the
> > steel-shod/iron-shod staves used by some staffers in Europe, or more
> > like the walking stick/bo stick staves used in the East? If the
> > latter, I can see the damage listed as being fair. The iron really
> > adds punch.
> According to the Complete Fighter's Handbook, the Quarterstaff is the
> iron-shod version. There is a new weapon, Bo, in it which basically is a
> Quarterstaff that only does d4 versus Large. Also, the Bo proficiency
> and Quarterstaff proficiency are interchangeable - while they're not
> specifically the same, you can use a Bo with Qstaff prof, and vice
> versa.
The iron-shod version is the one you pay money for. The one that's free is
not iron-shod. You can define "iron-shod" as basically the equivalent of
"fine" or "exceptional".
This is actually a major "selling point" on quarterstaff proficiency; the
fact that you can make the weapon yourself, out of common materials (a small
tree, or branch), for free. One of my nicer fighter characters, a Little
John clone, armed himself according to this concept; he was very good with
both quarterstaff and bows, carried arrowheads (sewn to his boots and belt),
bowstrings and a hunting knife, and could walk unarmed into a forest, build
his own weapons, and walk out fully armed after a few day's work.
Darryl
--
ab...@uu.net
ab...@hotmail.com
ab...@prodigy.net
ab...@sprintmail.com
ab...@ibm.net
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Michael Scott Brown
:> Hey, nimrod. You just claimed it took more energy to thrust
:> with a staff than to swing it. You don't get to "whatever"
:> without being publicly shamed first.
>...and I stick to that argument.
Then do the biomechanical calculations to back it up, stud.
:> <yawn> This is combat we're talking about. A minor flesh
:> wound is irrelevant in the greater scheme of living or dying.
>Except that it's not a minor flesh wound. A rapier's a blocking/thrusting
>weapon, but can serve SOMETIMES as a slashing weapon. Therefore, I would be
>thrusting at you, not slashing you.
Gee, bubba. You claimed that you had been *slashed* on the
tricep with a rapier and it "hurt like a bitch", in some attempt
to justify the lethality of your favorite sword. *Now* you're
saying that it's only the thrusts that really matter. Which I
had pointed out several posts ago. It's good to see that you
are finally catching up to the rest of us.
:> <ROTFL> "Numbe-efying" the leg keeps the bone from breaking?
>Correct.
Numbness has nothing to do with the issue.
:> Try this little hint, from a real martial artist to one who isn't:
>Are you a martial artist?
Yes.
:> In addition: they cannot protect their *kneecaps* in this fashion.
>Kneecaps are VERY hard to get, unless you are specifically going for them.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gee, cuddles, why do you suppose I raised the point?
>Huh? How so? You're more of an idiot than I thought. How is my argument
>crushed by you saying "ditto for steel?" You're the one who should get on
>with your life, claiming that wood is harder than steel. (Fucking moron)
Careful with those 'moron's, bubba. If the person who suggests
that wood is harder than steel is a moron, then the moron is you,
as I have not suggested such. I have rightfully pointed out that
steel weapons can break - just as wooden ones can. In fact,
blades are easier to snap than quarterstaves.
>Of course. Your argument is so superior to mine, because you are such a
>genius.
That pretty much covers it, actually. I'm brilliant and you're
not. This discrepancy is made all the more evident with every
post that you make.
> I would LOVE to get on my knees and kiss your ass.
This is a dream I can help you with, monica.
-Michael
The Wraith
>This is actually a major "selling point" on quarterstaff proficiency; the
>fact that you can make the weapon yourself, out of common materials (a small
>tree, or branch), for free. One of my nicer fighter characters, a Little
>John clone, armed himself according to this concept; he was very good with
>both quarterstaff and bows, carried arrowheads (sewn to his boots and belt),
>bowstrings and a hunting knife, and could walk unarmed into a forest, build
>his own weapons, and walk out fully armed after a few day's work.
Well, if you count a makeshift staff and a club fully armed. A decent
bow takes a long time to make, and even a decent staff needs quite a
while.
--
Now, by popular demand, a new .sig!
I still can't think of anything witty to say, though.
The Wraith
The Wraith
[snip lots of rather silly advantages of staves]
> With a Qstaff You can run at an enemy and use it to pole vault your feet into
>his chest. Try this with a sword and your enemy will laugh ....a lot.
Try this with a staff and your enemy will laugh a lot, too, if he's
any good at combat himself. Ever thought about just how vulnerable
this sort of maneuver would leave you?
But actually, quarterstaves do have a number of advantages over
swords. Longer (than one-handed swords, anyway), faster (two-handed
leverage, and lower weight when compared to two-handers), two ends to
belt enemies with. A few others.
Of course, swords have advantages against staves. One-handed (leaves
other hand for a shield or another weapon), sharp, pierces armour,
don't need as much room to the sides. A few others.
There's no such thing as a "superior weapon". Even nukes aren't always
superior to a smooth stick. (What if a bodyguard tried to defend his
employer with a nuke?) For maximum effectiveness, determine your
needs, and compare the characteristics of the available weapons to
those needs.
Adam Fugman
>
> I am not going to bring AD&D into this, just pure real life.
>
> Okay, have you either handled a long sword OR a quarterstaff? You probably
> have, but I will add my 2 cents worth anyway. The long sword is heavier,
> sharper, and has a pointy end. The quarterstaff is a defense weapon. Also,
> it is not very effective unless you use it like a baseball bat.
I have used both in combat. I'll pick the quarterstaff every time. I
worked with a variety of weapons for years, then got involved in the SCA
(a medieval recreation organization).
An interesting point regarding the SCA is that, although the 'swords'
used for armored (heavy) fighting are made of rattan (wood), they are
capable of denting modern 12 gauge steel - I have the dented armor to
prove it. Despite this, the quarterstaff is not a legal weapon in SCA
combat - because it is too dangerous. Using a quarterstaff like a
baseball bat is as silly as trying to kill someone with the flat of a
broadsword - in either case, it is not the proper way to use the
weapon. The primary reason why a quarterstaff is so dangerous is due to
the leverage gained by having one's hands spread fairly widely across
the length of the staff.
> Probably the best ground melee weapon in the world is the two-handed sword.
> It is NOT as slow as AD&D makes it out to be, it is EXTREMELY deadly, and
> two-handed weapons are usually the best. Clubs are very good too.
I'll be happy to take a quarterstaff against a swordsman with a
two-hander any day, armored or not. Odds are I'll be able to hit him
three times before he starts an attack, and by then he won't want to.
<snip more baseball bat stuff>
> My personal favorite one was the rapier and dagger, which, by the way, WERE
> used in the middle ages. They are small and easy to carry around, not to
> mention they bend and don't break easily. You can slash someone's throat
> really well with them, and the dagger is REALLY good for backstabbing.
Agreed, the rapier is a fine weapon, and I'm not sure I'd want to take a
quarterstaff against one. I fenced for years before I got involved in
the SCA, and fought light weapons (rapier, etc. after). The
quarterstaff would do more damage per strike, but the rapier has the
reach. Odds are that the first successful attack sequence would end the
combat.
Adam
--
Reverse the elements of my given address to get my real one
===========================================================
Think of how stupid the average person is...
and half of them are even dumber than that. -- George Carlin
dfenz
> tricep with a rapier and it "hurt like a bitch", in some attempt
> to justify the lethality of your favorite sword. *Now* you're
> saying that it's only the thrusts that really matter. Which I
> had pointed out several posts ago. It's good to see that you
> are finally catching up to the rest of us.
You don't understand, you AROGANT BASTARD!!! I was illustrating that if a
slash hurt like a bitch, imagine what a thrust would feel like!!!!
> Numbness has nothing to do with the issue.
As a matter of fact it does. If you can't feel something, then why not keep
using it, even though it's pretty hurt?
>:> Try this little hint, from a real martial artist to one who isn't:
>>Are you a martial artist?
>
> Yes.
Have you ever weilded a quarterstaff against an opponent who had a rapier?
>>Kneecaps are VERY hard to get, unless you are specifically going for them.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Gee, cuddles, why do you suppose I raised the point?
You didn't raise the point, you fucking nimrod. I did, and you replied about
it. Look back in the threads.
> Careful with those 'moron's, bubba. If the person who suggests
> that wood is harder than steel is a moron, then the moron is you,
> as I have not suggested such. I have rightfully pointed out that
> steel weapons can break - just as wooden ones can. In fact,
> blades are easier to snap than quarterstaves.
What the fuck? Why would I say that wood is harder than metal when I am
backing the metal? (Is Bubba supposed to be some kind of cool insult or
something? Because it sounds dumber than you think... and even stupider
since you use it twice.)
> That pretty much covers it, actually. I'm brilliant and you're
> not. This discrepancy is made all the more evident with every
> post that you make.
Hail to the God of Arogant Pricks.
>
>> I would LOVE to get on my knees and kiss your ass.
>
> This is a dream I can help you with, monica.
Dream on, Michael Scott Brown... your name sounds like you're an assassin or
something.
dfenz
Michael Scott Thomas, who I *know* is going to reply to this:
1. Metal can pierce armour better than wood, but a quarterstaff is a better
everyday tool.
2. Metal is better at poking and slashing, but wood is better for
bludgeoning.
3. A rapier was invented at the end of the middle ages, but a quarterstaff
was invented by an old man who needed a cane.
4. A lot of other things can be brought up, but I won't do so.
5. This makes the quarterstaff and the rapier about equal in their
effectiveness. If Michael Scott Thomas replies to this message saying
otherwise, he is only making himself look stupid, because I really don't
want to keep this stupid and pointless thread up; its relavence died long
ago.
Blueman
The Wraith wrote:
> On 16 Sep 1998 18:32:04 -0500, Blueman <blu...@castlegate.net> wrote:
> [snip lots of rather silly advantages of staves]
> > With a Qstaff You can run at an enemy and use it to pole vault your feet into
> >his chest. Try this with a sword and your enemy will laugh ....a lot.
>
> Try this with a staff and your enemy will laugh a lot, too, if he's
> any good at combat himself. Ever thought about just how vulnerable
> this sort of maneuver would leave you?
>
True, but it would make an excellent surprise attack.
> But actually, quarterstaves do have a number of advantages over
> swords. Longer (than one-handed swords, anyway), faster (two-handed
> leverage, and lower weight when compared to two-handers), two ends to
> belt enemies with. A few others.
>
> Of course, swords have advantages against staves. One-handed (leaves
> other hand for a shield or another weapon), sharp, pierces armour,
> don't need as much room to the sides. A few others.
>
> There's no such thing as a "superior weapon". Even nukes aren't always
> superior to a smooth stick. (What if a bodyguard tried to defend his
> employer with a nuke?)
Don't know 'bout that..... The Cold War proved that even the mere prescence of a
nuke can deter an attacker....You don't even have to use it...:]
> For maximum effectiveness, determine your
> needs, and compare the characteristics of the available weapons to
> those needs.
>
This is true.
--- TG
Blueman
dfenz wrote:
> We weren't talking about the quarterstaff as a tool, we were talking about
> it purely as a weapon. I totally agree with you about how useful it is in
> non-combat situations, but that's not what we were talking about. Yes, my
> thief carries around a staff, but he doesn't use it very much as a weapon;
> he prefers a short sword/dagger combo.
That's great if your fighting in a staged arena.Most combat in medieval times
occured on battlefields... (with the exception of Tournaments).
On the battlefield the value of a weapon that doubles as tool is imesurable.
(Take the U.S. Marine's K- Bar knife as a good example.)
Because of this fact, staves, knives, hammers,spears and axes are some of the
best weapons of war available.
Remember, It was weapons developed from lowly peasent farmer tools that
eventually laid to rest the armor clad knight.
(though gunpowder did play a large part in this role).
--- TG
Russ Taylor
> Use a spear instead of a staff (the fighting style is almost the
>same), and you negate a lot of the benefits of using a sword.
Yes, the spear is actually one of the most effective weapons ever devised,
if used properly. However, it suffers from the problem of the sword: it
(mentally) reduces your focus to one end of the weapon, and limits your
attack and defense options if you aren't careful. One of the most
beautiful parts of staff style is learning to you use the whole surface of
the weapon. Plus elbows, knees, feet, and your HAID :)
Color me Zen.
--
Russ Taylor (rta...@cmc.net, http://www.cmc.net/~rtaylor/)
Chambers Multimedia Connection Help Desk
"Pigs - 3, Lord Nelson - 1" -- Monty Python's Flying Circus
Michael Scott Brown
>You don't understand, you AROGANT BASTARD!!!
<LOL> And proudly so, oh favored worshipper.
I bought you some knee pads, by the way.
>I was illustrating that if a
>slash hurt like a bitch, imagine what a thrust would feel like!!!!
Actually, it would hurt *less*. Your pain receptors are
mainly on the outside of the system; thus scratches and
slashes cause a lot of irritation for only light damage
because the cross section of pain receptors encountered is larger.
A thorough poke in the arm with the rapier is the more damaging
injury compared to the feeble rapier slash but even that isn't
a particularly harmful strike. "Just a flesh wound" and all that.
:> Numbness has nothing to do with the issue.
>As a matter of fact it does. If you can't feel something, then why not keep
>using it, even though it's pretty hurt?
<rolls eyes> You're not getting it. Overloading your pain
receptors has *no* effect on structural integrity. The
kickboxer's "iron legs" are the result of FLEXING THEIR MUSCLES.
>Have you ever weilded a quarterstaff against an opponent who had a rapier?
No. That's not the subject of my intervention in this discussion.
My intervention has been because you have been saying remarkably
stupid things and such behaviour demands mockery and correction.
:>>Kneecaps are VERY hard to get, unless you are specifically going for them.
:> Gee, cuddles, why do you suppose I raised the point?
>You didn't raise the point, you fucking nimrod. I did, and you replied about
>it. Look back in the threads.
<LOL> And a fine understanding of the conversation you're
demonstrating. Allow me to remind you: I pointed out that
the kickboxer's stick-defense technique doesn't work for their
joints, which have no muscles. You claimed joints were hard to
hit, unless you were attacking them. To which I say *exactly*.
Somone with good "iron skin" discipline is hard to hurt with
limb/body shots so you specifically attack the joints to bypass
their defense technique. Get it?
:> Careful with those 'moron's, bubba. If the person who suggests
:> that wood is harder than steel is a moron, then the moron is you,
:> as I have not suggested such.
>What the fuck? Why would I say that wood is harder than metal when I am
>backing the metal?
My question exactly. And yet, you made this interpretation.
>Dream on, Michael Scott Brown... your name sounds like you're an assassin or
>something.
Cool!
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
>Okay, I am not calling a truth, I am stating something. Everyone, even
>Michael Scott Thomas, who I *know* is going to reply to this:
I love a boy who can pay attention.
>1. Metal can pierce armour better than wood, but a quarterstaff is a better
>everyday tool.
Than a knife?
>2. Metal is better at poking and slashing, but wood is better for
>bludgeoning.
<points>
<laughs>
>4. A lot of other things can be brought up, but I won't do so.
Thank the gods.
-Michael
Berg
: Of course, swords have advantages against staves. One-handed (leaves
: other hand for a shield or another weapon), sharp, pierces armour,
: don't need as much room to the sides. A few others.
Use a spear instead of a staff (the fighting style is almost the
same), and you negate a lot of the benefits of using a sword.
--
-><- Berg Oswell, be...@eskimo.com -><-
-><- Finger for Geek Code -><-
Terry Austin
>From: "dfenz" <df...@hotmail.com>
>>Okay, I am not calling a truth, I am stating something. Everyone, even
>>Michael Scott Thomas, who I *know* is going to reply to this:
> ^^^^^^
> I love a boy who can pay attention.
Damn! I was wondering if he was referring to you. This one's a treasure, all
right.
>
>>1. Metal can pierce armour better than wood, but a quarterstaff is a better
>>everyday tool.
>
> Than a knife?
I'd like to see him slice bread with a quarterstaff.
>
>>2. Metal is better at poking and slashing, but wood is better for
>>bludgeoning.
>
> <points>
> <laughs>
Guess he never heard of aluminum baseball bats.
>
>>4. A lot of other things can be brought up, but I won't do so.
>
> Thank the gods.
>
Probably be pretty disgusting.
So, Mike, how's it going?
The Wraith
<tuele...@afugman1.com> wrote:
>
>I'll be happy to take a quarterstaff against a swordsman with a
>two-hander any day, armored or not. Odds are I'll be able to hit him
>three times before he starts an attack, and by then he won't want to.
I won't, because I have. At least one type of two-handed sword is used
in a manner very similar to that of polearms, which means it gets many
of the same advantages, including that of two-handed leverage.
>Odds are that the first successful attack sequence would end the
>combat.
Yes, that's usually the case. :)
The Wraith
>
>Don't know 'bout that..... The Cold War proved that even the mere prescence of a
>nuke can deter an attacker....You don't even have to use it...:]
Yes someone still shot JFK, who controlled more nukes than anyone in
the world.
The Wraith
>The Wraith (wra...@powerup.com.au) wrote:
>: Of course, swords have advantages against staves. One-handed (leaves
>: other hand for a shield or another weapon), sharp, pierces armour,
>: don't need as much room to the sides. A few others.
>
> Use a spear instead of a staff (the fighting style is almost the
>same), and you negate a lot of the benefits of using a sword.
Actually, no, the style isn't really the same. Spear-fighting tends to
be rather more front-on. After all, you've got this point, you might
as well stick someone with it, while quarterstaves are often used in
rather more sweeping blows. This results in the spear having a rather
more restrictive style.
That said, though, there are also extreme similarities, such as the
grip, and most spear moves which also work with staff. Probably 90% of
the styles are the same.
All in all, you end up with a weapon that is quite a lot more usable
when fighting alongside a number of companions. Even better when
enough of them have shields so you don't have to worry quite so much
about the fairly limited (relatively) defensive options of polearms.
Really, I wouldn't want to fight amongst a group of people using
staves, but using spears is fine. Mixed weapon groups
(sword-and-shield plus polearms, say) is even better.
(Pike-walls are something else entirely. Completely different
conditions needed there. Lots of people.)
Adam Fugman
>
> On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:59:16 -0500, Adam Fugman
> <tuele...@afugman1.com> wrote:
> >
> >I'll be happy to take a quarterstaff against a swordsman with a
> >two-hander any day, armored or not. Odds are I'll be able to hit him
> >three times before he starts an attack, and by then he won't want to.
>
> I won't, because I have. At least one type of two-handed sword is used
> in a manner very similar to that of polearms, which means it gets many
> of the same advantages, including that of two-handed leverage.
Out of curiosity, which type of two-hander are you referring to?
In all fairness, I should say that my above statement excludes the
katana (which, I suppose technically can be a two-handed sword).
Vermilion
>The Wraith wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:59:16 -0500, Adam Fugman
>> <tuele...@afugman1.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >I'll be happy to take a quarterstaff against a swordsman with a
>> >two-hander any day, armored or not. Odds are I'll be able to hit him
>> >three times before he starts an attack, and by then he won't want to.
>>
>> I won't, because I have. At least one type of two-handed sword is used
>> in a manner very similar to that of polearms, which means it gets many
>> of the same advantages, including that of two-handed leverage.
>Out of curiosity, which type of two-hander are you referring to?
>In all fairness, I should say that my above statement excludes the
>katana (which, I suppose technically can be a two-handed sword).
A bit more than "can be". Many traditional kenjutsu stances operate from
a two-handed position. It's more along the lines of a two-handed long sword
than anything else.
- Vermilion, who notes there really aren't many advantages to using a
katana one-handed, unless you've got something constructive to do with
that free hand.
Patrick M. Berry
>
> That's great if your fighting in a staged arena.Most combat in medieval times
> occured on battlefields... (with the exception of Tournaments).
> On the battlefield the value of a weapon that doubles as tool is imesurable.
> (Take the U.S. Marine's K- Bar knife as a good example.)
I believe the Marines still carry firearms, too. In a match between a guy
with an AK-47 and one with a K-Bar, I would bet on the one with the gun.
> Remember, It was weapons developed from lowly peasent farmer tools that
> eventually laid to rest the armor clad knight.
> (though gunpowder did play a large part in this role).
That's not what I learned in Evolution of Warfare class: it was the
longbow that defeated the armored knight.
Blueman
The Wraith wrote:
> On 17 Sep 1998 17:48:03 -0500, Blueman <blu...@castlegate.net> wrote:
> >
> >Don't know 'bout that..... The Cold War proved that even the mere prescence of a
> >nuke can deter an attacker....You don't even have to use it...:]
>
> Yes someone still shot JFK, who controlled more nukes than anyone in
> the world.
True, but defending against internal threats is a completely different scenerio.
Nukes are good against external ones.
>
>
>
>
dfenz
Michael Scott Brown wrote in message <6tsgp0$9di$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
Blueman
Patrick M. Berry wrote:
> In article <360194EA...@castlegate.net>, Blueman <blu...@castlegate.net> writes:
> >
> > That's great if your fighting in a staged arena.Most combat in medieval times
> > occured on battlefields... (with the exception of Tournaments).
> > On the battlefield the value of a weapon that doubles as tool is imesurable.
> > (Take the U.S. Marine's K- Bar knife as a good example.)
>
> I believe the Marines still carry firearms, too. In a match between a guy
> with an AK-47 and one with a K-Bar, I would bet on the one with the gun.
Depends on terrain, and conditions ...During WWII a respectable number of Japanese soldiers
were killed by Machette wielding Polynesians. The Japs were armed with rifles.Anyway....
You can get a knife, but, Try finding an AK- 47 in medieval times!
> > Remember, It was weapons developed from lowly peasent farmer tools that
> > eventually laid to rest the armor clad knight.
> > (though gunpowder did play a large part in this role).
>
> That's not what I learned in Evolution of Warfare class: it was the
> longbow that defeated the armored knight.
Tsk, tsk ... you forgot about the Footman's Flail.....Developed from the peasant's
threshing tool in was instrumental in defeating armored calvary.
Russ Taylor
>That's not what I learned in Evolution of Warfare class: it was the
>longbow that defeated the armored knight.
Eek, really simplistic view, that: economics defeated the armored knight
as much as anything.
--
Russ Taylor (rta...@cmc.net, http://www.cmc.net/~rtaylor/)
Chambers Multimedia Connection Help Desk
"Blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought"
-- Dennis Moore
The Viper
> Rekovin wrote in message
> >However, a fighter can specialize in one if he
> wants.
> >Then the staff will get its due.
>
> I've seen this done. A fighter specialized in quarterstaff, that is.
> Pretty neat, too, to see a fighter specialized in something other than the
> sword! Effective, too.
Tell me about it. The Ranger/Druid I'm playing at the moment is
specialised in Quarterstaff (due to a generous DM) - I'm having a lot of
fun with it, describing exactly how I'm attacking with it.
Best moment so far - I'm facing two thugs in an alley, the party is being
attacked from both ends of the alley and from the rooftops as well, and
my partner at our end of the alley has just gone down. I say to the DM "I
drop my staff, catch it on my foot, and when the thugs advance to finish
me off, I'll flick it up, catch it horizontally, and slam it into both of
their faces".
The DM gives me a curious look and says, "OK, roll a d20 (5) - Alright,
roll another one (6). Cool, roll two d20's at once (19 & 20!!)."
Pulled it off beautifully. Unfortunately, I killed one of the thugs (not
my intention at all) by breaking his jaw and shoving it back into his
spinal column (high damage roll on the crit).
Definately more fun than a boring old sword (that I can't use anyway, due
to my religion).
--
The Viper
"You know it's bad when your characters try to escape [their] reality"
Quote from one of my players. <wince>
Autolycus
Sorry, I couldn't keep track of who said this:
> >:> Careful with those 'moron's, bubba. If the person who suggests
> >:> that wood is harder than steel is a moron, then the moron is you,
> >:> as I have not suggested such.
> >>What the fuck? Why would I say that wood is harder than metal when I am
> >>backing the metal?
But wood can be 'harder' than metal in some ways. Not scratchability
(the Mohs scale), but ability to absorb impact without so much
deformation, strength to mass ratio, etc. It fatigues in different ways
too, since wood's made of tiny fibres while metal is made mainly of
crystalline aggregates and grains and stuff...
Autolycus
Phase
Zachary Paul Stewart
dfenz wrote:
> Okay, whatever you say, buddy boy.
And the winner is..............
Michael!!!!!!!!
--
Zachary Paul Stewart
I hear the horses' thunder down in the valley below.
I'm waiting for the angels of Avalon,
Waiting for the eastern glow.
-Led Zeppelin
remove spamdeath to reply
Dave Harper
wrote:
>That's not what I learned in Evolution of Warfare class: it was the
>longbow that defeated the armored knight.
I don't have any such credentials, but from what little I can
dredge out of my flu-sotted brain this evening, I remember the
longbow's height (Agincourt) was when it was already on the way out;
it never really was introduced into many places, especially in Eastern
Europe. There, it was the invention of the polearm - awl pikes
especially - and muskets that led to the downfall of the cavalry
charge and of heavy plate armours, both on foot and on horse.
Dave
"You flirt with cats?" -Orm
"I like them better than humans." -Dave
"That's illegal in some countries."
"HEY! NOT LIKE THAT!!"
The Wraith
Precisely my point. All weapons have their strong points and their
weak points, things they are good for and things they are not so good
for. This example shows what nukes are not good at. They are great at
killing huge numbers of people and causing incredible amounts of
damage to objects. They are smegging awful for personal defense. What
about territorial conquest? No good there, either. Once you use the
nuke, you can't use the territory for decades. And so on and so forth.
The Wraith
<alis...@acs.sch.edu.sg> wrote:
>
>But wood can be 'harder' than metal in some ways. Not scratchability
>(the Mohs scale), but ability to absorb impact without so much
>deformation, strength to mass ratio, etc. It fatigues in different ways
>too, since wood's made of tiny fibres while metal is made mainly of
>crystalline aggregates and grains and stuff...
Wood is actually quite amazing stuff that way. It has been said that
weight-for-weight, wood is by far the strongest stuff around. Problem
is, it takes a lot more wood to match the weight of steel.
All of which is completely beside the point. We now return you to your
regularly scheduled pointlessness.
dfenz
Zachary Paul Stewart wrote in message <36033B02...@psu.edu>...
>
>
>dfenz wrote:
>
>> Okay, whatever you say, buddy boy.
>
>And the winner is..............
>
>
>Michael!!!!!!!!
you are SUCH a loser.
Michael Scott Brown
>But wood can be 'harder' than metal in some ways. Not scratchability
>(the Mohs scale), but ability to absorb impact without so much
>deformation, strength to mass ratio, etc. It fatigues in different ways
>too, since wood's made of tiny fibres while metal is made mainly of
>crystalline aggregates and grains and stuff...
None of these are "hardness", however, which is a fairly
specific quality. You are discussing various kinds of "strengths".
Also, I'm not seeing how wood outstrips metal (steel) in any
of these categories you've raised.
-Michael
Russ Taylor
(Michael Scott Brown) wrote:
> None of these are "hardness", however, which is a fairly
> specific quality. You are discussing various kinds of "strengths".
> Also, I'm not seeing how wood outstrips metal (steel) in any
> of these categories you've raised.
Uh, the mohs scale IS the hardness scale, if I recall -- you know, from
talc to diamond? (and whatever that nifty boron compound is that's a
smidge harder)
--
Russ Taylor (rta...@cmc.net, http://www.cmc.net/~rtaylor/)
Chambers Multimedia Connection Help Desk
"Hoody hoo! How many hedge-ogres did I get?" -- Knights of the Dinner Table
The Wraith
>
>Of course, it starts getting a little impractical in the case of very large
>buildings, where the strength/mass ratio of steel I-beams is very useful.
I was under the impression that wooden beams generally have a higher
strength/mass ratio, but that steel beams have a much better
strength/volume ration, and the sheer volume of wood required to give
the necessary strength (not to mention the difficulty of getting
enough wood in appropriate lengths) made using it in such buildings
impractical.
Autolycus
(Russ Taylor) wrote:
>In article <6u1013$5l3$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, mik...@euler.Berkeley.EDU
>(Michael Scott Brown) wrote:
>
>> None of these are "hardness", however, which is a fairly
>> specific quality. You are discussing various kinds of "strengths".
>> Also, I'm not seeing how wood outstrips metal (steel) in any
>> of these categories you've raised.
>
>Uh, the mohs scale IS the hardness scale, if I recall -- you know, from
>talc to diamond? (and whatever that nifty boron compound is that's a
>smidge harder)
This 'hardness' scale merely defines resistance to scratching. It doesn't
even define resistance to piercing or rigidity, which I think were the
types of 'hardness' people were discussing in this thread. Forgive me. I
mean, isn't hardness one sort of 'strength' if you define strength here as
ability to resist a specific type of applied force?
'Boron nitride' (borazon), I think.
Autolycus
Michael Scott Brown
>This 'hardness' scale merely defines resistance to scratching. It doesn't
>even define resistance to piercing or rigidity, which I think were the
>types of 'hardness' people were discussing in this thread. Forgive me. I
>mean, isn't hardness one sort of 'strength' if you define strength here as
>ability to resist a specific type of applied force?
When discussing material properties, there is a nomenclature
designed to help everyone understand just what they're talking
about. "Strengths" are levels of stress (F/A) at which various
transitions occur. For instance, the "yield strength" of a
material is the stress at which it will begin to deform permanently.
The "ultimate strength" is the stress at which it will shred.
"fatigue strength" is the stress at which brittle-fracture
failures will set in with cyclic loading. "endurance strength" is
the stress level below which a material will *never* fail in fatigue.
'Hardness' is not quite the same beast as strength, though for
some materials they correlate. But not always. For instance -
graphite is wonderfully strong in tension; but it is not *hard*.
Diamonds are *hard* but due to brittleness issues they are not
in all ways *strong*. Likewise for steels with certain heat
treatments - hard and brittle weakness go hand in hand.
I don't deal with hardness much so I don't have the 'perfect'
definition in my head at the moment (will look up in metallurgical
resource later); but hardness tests involve concentrated failures
(scratching, denting) as opposed to large scale material failure.
Off the cuff, I would try to separate the two by suggesting that
"hardness" is typically considered resistance to *any* deformation,
permanent or not (which captures the "modulus of elasticity"
and can also aspects of Yield strength). Restance to failures
get the label "strength" (ultimate or fatigue strength).
-Michael, wondering if this engineering claptrap didn't just confuse everyone
Arian Hokin
Zachary Paul Stewart wrote:
> dfenz wrote:
>
> > Okay, whatever you say, buddy boy.
>
> And the winner is..............
>
> Michael!!!!!!!!
>
My friend Sid will be so disappointed! Juan-Antonio said *he* won!
(Is that joke too obscure for an international audience?)
Arian
Fyacre1
>My friend Sid will be so disappointed! Juan-Antonio said *he* won!
>
>(Is that joke too obscure for an international audience?)
I think so, though I would not considewr myself the most intertnationalyy
cultured person in the hemisphere.
Fyacre1
I always sound so goddamned stupid in my posts, I should be much more careful.
I am truly sorry.
Arian Hokin
Fyacre1 wrote:
> >My friend Sid will be so disappointed! Juan-Antonio said *he* won!
> >
> >(Is that joke too obscure for an international audience?)
>
> I think so, though I would not considewr myself the most intertnationalyy
> cultured person in the hemisphere.
Sorry. For months after the decision on who was to host the 2000 Olympic
games, Australians saw the clip of Juan-Antonio Samaranch (sp?), the
president of the International Olympic Committee, on their televisions about
once a day. Mr Samaranch said, "And the winner is
...................Sydney!!!"
After hearing it so often for so long, it just came automatically into my
head.
Arian Hokin
Zachary Paul Stewart
dfenz wrote:
> Zachary Paul Stewart wrote in message <36033B02...@psu.edu>...
> >
> >
> >dfenz wrote:
> >
> >> Okay, whatever you say, buddy boy.
> >
> >And the winner is..............
> >
> >
> >Michael!!!!!!!!
>
> you are SUCH a loser.
No, I said you lost, not me.
I wasn't even in the competition.
Zachary Paul Stewart
Fyacre1 wrote:
> I always sound so goddamned stupid in my posts, I should be much more careful.
> I am truly sorry.
Don't worry, as long as you sound better than dfenz, you are all right.
If you get that bad, kill yourself.
dfenz
>If you get that bad, kill yourself.
Wow. You have such courage over the internet. Would you TRULY say that if I
was looking over your shoulder?
Zachary Paul Stewart
dfenz wrote:
Just you and me? Oh yes.
I am confident that I am able to physical defeat 85% of all people in
one-on-one physical combat.
Bring in a lawyer and that is another matter.
Michael Scott Brown
:>Don't worry, as long as you sound better than dfenz, you are all right.
:>If you get that bad, kill yourself.
>Wow. You have such courage over the internet. Would you TRULY say that if I
>was looking over your shoulder?
<points>
<laughs>
Hell yes!
(I'd say it *loudly*, with much snickering and the promise
of future mockery)
-Michael
PS- note the irony of your "courageous" internet blustering
dfenz
>I am confident that I am able to physical defeat 85% of all people in
>one-on-one physical combat.
That's easy to say when you're TYPING it.
>Bring in a lawyer and that is another matter.
Do you REALLY think I'm THIS much of a pussy?
Michael Scott Brown
>Do you REALLY think I'm THIS much of a pussy?
We call 'em like we see 'em, kitten.
-Michael
Zachary Paul Stewart
dfenz wrote:
> >Just you and me? Oh yes.
> >I am confident that I am able to physical defeat 85% of all people in
> >one-on-one physical combat.
>
> That's easy to say when you're TYPING it.
>
> >Bring in a lawyer and that is another matter.
>
> Do you REALLY think I'm THIS much of a pussy?
Oh, you want physical stats, even though you will say i'm making it up?
I'm 6'4" and weigh about 280lbs. I bench 350 and wrestled and played
football all through
High School. I was recruited for football by division two schools, but
wanted to go to Penn State.
You can see pictures of me at
http://brooks.southfayette.com/pictures/SF-Old_school_pictures/
scroll to the bottom of the page, any of the pics that have Zach in
the name.
If you still want to fight, look up my address at Penn State's home page
and drop by any time.
But since you are just bucket of luke warm piss, you will just reply with
some lame comment about how I am all bluster.
Until later, semen-guzzler.
Zachary Paul Stewart
Alistair Chew wrote:
> Thanks a lot for the entertainment. Your friendly banter is now more in
> line with the original title 'Quarterstaff has been underestimated for
> too long!!!!'... *grin*
>
> Autolycus
> 5'7" 130lb pathetically underdeveloped ex-NCO
I aim to please.
Adam Fugman
<snip>
> I'm 6'4" and weigh about 280lbs. I bench 350 and wrestled and played
<snip>
Sheesh! People like you are why guns were invented!<g>
Adam - 5'8" 195lbs - lying on the floor typing 'cause my bad back gave
out!
--
Reverse the elements of my given address to get my real one
===========================================================
Think of how stupid the average person is...
and half of them are even dumber than that. -- George Carlin
Alistair Chew
>
> dfenz wrote:
>
> > >Just you and me? Oh yes.
> > >I am confident that I am able to physical defeat 85% of all people in
> > >one-on-one physical combat.
> >
> > That's easy to say when you're TYPING it.
> >
> > >Bring in a lawyer and that is another matter.
> >
> > Do you REALLY think I'm THIS much of a pussy?
>
> Oh, you want physical stats, even though you will say i'm making it up?
> High School. I was recruited for football by division two schools, but
> wanted to go to Penn State.
> You can see pictures of me at
> http://brooks.southfayette.com/pictures/SF-Old_school_pictures/
> scroll to the bottom of the page, any of the pics that have Zach in
> the name.
> If you still want to fight, look up my address at Penn State's home page
> and drop by any time.
> But since you are just bucket of luke warm piss, you will just reply with
> some lame comment about how I am all bluster.
>
> Until later, semen-guzzler.
>
Thanks a lot for the entertainment. Your friendly banter is now more in
Vermilion
<The "everything you could measure on Zach but cup size" list snipped, in
resonse to more of dfenz's unceasing commentary>
Jesus Christ - would someone please go get the big keg over there marked
*reality* and make sure everyone here gets a full glass? My God, who the fuck
cares how much who can lift or how big someone's chest is? This is not the
third grade. There are not going to be any "my dad can beat up your dad"
dicksize contests here. Sit down, shake your head a bit, and think about how
freaking juvenile it is to do this shit. It's absolutely ridiculous. I don't
care if someone can pick up my car and throw it half a block - that amounts to
a big pile of absofuckinglutely nothing. No one is going to anyone else's
house to throw down and report back the results of how the bout went. No one
is going to be called upon to defend his manhood in honorable combat. It's
high time everyone takes their bruised little egos and puts them in a nice,
big box and walks away. This is so fucking stupid, it's actually starting to
agitate me. I'm almost embarassed that I can come to this newsgroup and
find this kind of childish bullshit. I'm embarassed that supposedly full
grown men can possibly act this way. You all need to back up a few steps and
really look at how meaningless this all is and how damn stupid you're starting
to look with all this macho bravado crap. Go fight an important battle
somewhere else - only people who truly have nothing else to live for can find
so much anger and purpose in a lame ass Usenet thread. Don't be those people,
go find something that *matters* to get pissed about.
- Vermilion, who's address can be found simply by inquiring at the
university in the above email, should someone wish to stop by for a
good ol' fashioned beat down. Of course, I'll either be too
parazlyzed with laughter or broken down with grief at the futility of
humankind to fight back, so I'm afraid you might not be able to make a
good display of your manly prowess and impress your girlfriend.
Zachary Paul Stewart
Vermilion wrote:
> Jesus Christ - would someone please go get the big keg over there marked
> *reality* and make sure everyone here gets a full glass? My God, who the fuck
> cares how much who can lift or how big someone's chest is? This is not the
> third grade. There are not going to be any "my dad can beat up your dad"
> dicksize contests here. Sit down, shake your head a bit, and think about how
> freaking juvenile it is to do this shit. It's absolutely ridiculous. I don't
> care if someone can pick up my car and throw it half a block - that amounts to
> a big pile of absofuckinglutely nothing. No one is going to anyone else's
> house to throw down and report back the results of how the bout went. No one
> is going to be called upon to defend his manhood in honorable combat. It's
> high time everyone takes their bruised little egos and puts them in a nice,
> big box and walks away. This is so fucking stupid, it's actually starting to
> agitate me. I'm almost embarassed that I can come to this newsgroup and
> find this kind of childish bullshit. I'm embarassed that supposedly full
> grown men can possibly act this way. You all need to back up a few steps and
> really look at how meaningless this all is and how damn stupid you're starting
> to look with all this macho bravado crap. Go fight an important battle
> somewhere else - only people who truly have nothing else to live for can find
> so much anger and purpose in a lame ass Usenet thread. Don't be those people,
> go find something that *matters* to get pissed about.
>
There aren't cup sizes, they are one size fits all....
Anyway, you are right, this is stupid and should stop.
In the past I've always tried to be civil with people, even complete idiots, I
don't know what has gotten
into me recently.
I hereby apologize for my behavior.
Zachary Paul Stewart
Adam Fugman wrote:
> Zachary Paul Stewart wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I'm 6'4" and weigh about 280lbs. I bench 350 and wrestled and played
>
> <snip>
>
> Sheesh! People like you are why guns were invented!<g>
>
I thought castles and ships were the reason guns (cannons) were invented.
Vermilion
>There aren't cup sizes, they are one size fits all....
Heh - maybe for you little guys... ;)
>Anyway, you are right, this is stupid and should stop.
>In the past I've always tried to be civil with people, even complete idiots, I
>don't know what has gotten
>into me recently.
>I hereby apologize for my behavior.
Thank you for returning to normal. We now return your newsgroup to it's
regularly scheduled nonsense, already in progress.
- Vermilion, who thinks occasionally the drill sergeant approach is good
for getting folks to step back and take a look at things...
Shadow Kee
Is this post still about the Quarterstaff or personal issues? LOL. Be good
people.
"Pay a man enough, and he will walk barefoot into hell"
dfenz
>
OK, you're on, fat ass.
dfenz
>High School. I was recruited for football by division two schools, but
>wanted to go to Penn State.
>You can see pictures of me at
>http://brooks.southfayette.com/pictures/SF-Old_school_pictures/
>scroll to the bottom of the page, any of the pics that have Zach in
>the name.
>If you still want to fight, look up my address at Penn State's home page
>and drop by any time.
>But since you are just bucket of luke warm piss, you will just reply with
>some lame comment about how I am all bluster.
>
>Until later, semen-guzzler.
No, I will not reply with some candy-ass bullshit about how I am bigger than
you, but I will say that I *can* fight, and I *do* use weapons (no, not
guns).
"Weapons," says Zach, "what a coward!" Oh well, life sucks, buddy boy.
dfenz
>In the past I've always tried to be civil with people, even complete
idiots, I
>don't know what has gotten
>into me recently.
>I hereby apologize for my behavior.
I apologize too. After my reformation and institution of the FAQ, I am a new
man and shall therefore act that way.
Anyone who starts fights on this NG will have their internet connection
discontinued, as seen my me: the D&D police.
I am the new law in town!
Zachary Paul Stewart
dfenz wrote:
> I apologize too. After my reformation and institution of the FAQ, I am a new
> man and shall therefore act that way.
>
> Anyone who starts fights on this NG will have their internet connection
> discontinued, as seen my me: the D&D police.
>
> I am the new law in town!
See, I know that you can't get my connection removed, so I'm not too worried.
Anyway, at least this minor skirmish is over, but I don't know how well you will
get off from other members after that remark.
Zachary Paul Stewart
dfenz wrote:
This is over.
I have no other reply.