Acrobat II and Q-staves

[DNDJESS]

(scratches head)

Not sure what the devs are getting at here. Why pigeonhole thief acrobats into one weapon? Isn't 3.5 about less pigeonholing?

The precedent has already been set for this by the Clerics' 'Follower of.....' line, each of which specializes in one specific weapon. This line also introduced the idea of automatically granting a 'feat' with the enhancement, since the line you choose also gives you a bonus weapon profficiency. So including the ability to make Qstaffs finessable when you choose Way of the Acrobat certainly wouldn't stray from DDO's development philosophies.

I keep seeing people claiming that making Qstaffs finessable would be unbalanced. Can someone please explain to me how it would be overpowered as compared to normal two-hand weapons on a high strength character?

[Invalid_86]

The precedent has already been set for this by the Clerics' 'Follower of.....' line, each of which specializes in one specific weapon. This line also introduced the idea of automatically granting a 'feat' with the enhancement, since the line you choose also gives you a bonus weapon profficiency. So including the ability to make Qstaffs finessable when you choose Way of the Acrobat certainly wouldn't stray from DDO's development philosophies.

I keep seeing people claiming that making Qstaffs finessable would be unbalanced. Can someone please explain to me how it would be overpowered as compared to normal two-hand weapons on a high strength character?

Religious orders using a specific weapon has DnD precedence- see the favored weapon entries in the dieties section. Acrobats, however, do not have this.

Reread my post. There is no reason why staffs should not be finessable. But under DnD rules they would only be so when used as a dual weapon (negating the x1.5 Strength bonus) and only with the off hand attacks, as the main attacks are considered to come from a one handed weapon.

DDO is adding a bonus with no background to a class in a weapon that is poorly set up in the game. So, yeah, it's a head scratcher.

[Angelus_dead]

DDO is adding a bonus with no background to a class in a weapon that is poorly set up in the game. So, yeah, it's a head scratcher.

Sorry wrong. Turn to the Thief-Acrobat prestige class entry in the D&D book. Look at the painting of the example Thief-Acrobat.

See that thing in her hand? It's a quarterstaff. Acrobats wielding weapons are normally depicted with a quarterstaff- it's simply the weapon that makes most sense for the class theme.

For DDO's Way of the Thief-Acrobat to give quarterstaff bonuses makes perfect sense. The choice of a speed bonus instead of an attack bonus is the questionable part.

[Invalid_86]

So what, it's in a painting. Not really a selling point. DnD hardly bases it's bonuses to classes around what they are carrying in a picture, and is that the only weapon that they are seen to carry?

Have you ever actually tried to tumble while carrying a six foot pole? It doesn't help at all. Is a six foot pole going to really help you balance? Or jump? Nope.

So why again are quarterstaffs big with acrobats? Or is it just coincidence? Might as well say that clerics should get a crossbow bonus because they have pictures of them carrying them.

[MysticTheurge]

Have you ever actually tried to tumble while carrying a six foot pole?

Oddly enough, the D&D rules don't have any sort of "encumbrance" penalty for wielding large weapons.

Presumably it wouldn't have been that hard to have a "Weapon Check Penalty" akin to the "Armor Check Penalty" if they really wanted to.

Thus, in D&D, it's no harder to tumble with a six foot pole than it is to tumble with a dagger.

[Invalid_86]

Oddly enough, the D&D rules don't have any sort of "encumbrance" penalty for wielding large weapons.

Presumably it wouldn't have been that hard to have a "Weapon Check Penalty" akin to the "Armor Check Penalty" if they really wanted to.

Thus, in D&D, it's no harder to tumble with a six foot pole than it is to tumble with a dagger.

That's true. But it doesn't add a bonus either.

[LeLoric]

I thin the biggest issue here is why even have q-staff as a bonus apparently because its in some picture in a sourcebook, or maybe some guy at the local circus uses a plole to balance a tightrope?

In all reality tying q-staff into this enhancemnt was a bad idea anyways its a completely dex based enhancement then add a weapon that isnt dex based unless you change the rules of the game slightly?

Not a very well thought out idea imho

[BlueLightBandit]

Because... the D&D rules says it's lacking?

*sigh*

Once again boys and girls... This is not D&D, this is DDO. DDO left D&D rules behind several years ago.

[Angelus_dead]

So what, it's in a painting. Not really a selling point. DnD hardly bases it's bonuses to classes around what they are carrying in a picture, and is that the only weapon that they are seen to carry?

Do I have to spell it out?

The painting is based on the underlying concept of a fantasy combat acrobat. It represents the idea of what looks and feels good for an acrobat to use in battle. The same reasons the artist decided it would look good to put a quarterstaff in the picture mean it would be fun for developers to put it in the game.

Have you ever actually tried to tumble while carrying a six foot pole? It doesn't help at all.

It helps a whole lot. Especially when trying to tumble in a way that is tactically helpful in combat- vaulting over obstructions to escape the reach of your enemies. The pole itself also helps parry attacks or simply keep enemies at a distance from you... and without some way to achieve that effect, tumbling in battle is even more suicidal.

[MysticTheurge]

Well that would be totally pointless. You'd allow people to finesse the quarterstaff, so long as they treat it like a light mace that denies them the use of a shield or offhand weapon. Who would willingly do that?

People who want an increase in attack speed from Way of the Thief Acrobat.

[KristovK]

That is entirely and explicitly wrong. You can go read the rules:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm
and
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems...ngMagicWeapons



PS. The bit about the quarterstaff doing 1d6/1d4 is also incorrect. They ends are the same, so the do the same damage.

Did you read the two pages you linked? Gonna have to say you didn't or you wouldn't have linked them, they don't support your argument very well. One DOES mention that creating a magical double ended weapon costs x2 as much, that's it. The other one has a subnote that double ended weapons have a 50% chance of EACH end being the same and a 50% chance of one end being +1 less and without any special abilities when you randomly determine the difference, which I'm not used to seeing happen, standard is that a double weapon has the same magic on both ends, which the note even supports. Again..did you actually read them? The double weapon rule is usually applied to things like double bladed swords, orc double axe, urgrosh and gnome h/h, not quarterstaffs..it's not like there's 2 heads on a quarterstaff like the others, maybe end caps, which can change the damage to a pierce type on occasion...don't see that listed in those pages you linked either...again, players know these little things and tend to take them for granted. Also, a quick examination of all the magical quarterstaves listed shows that none of them mention which end is magical and which isn't. Of course, only a few of them are considered magical weapons, but those are clearly missing any mention of either end being of lesser enchantment.

And thanks for pointing that out about the damage though, I missed that, was looking at another weapon for the damage.

*edit*
Just saw this and had to laugh.

Originally Posted by Angelus_dead
Well that would be totally pointless. You'd allow people to finesse the quarterstaff, so long as they treat it like a light mace that denies them the use of a shield or offhand weapon. Who would willingly do that?

Are you aware that you can't use a shield or offhand weapon WHILE using a 2handed weapon? Using the staff as a double weapon takes nothing away but the 1.5 damage bonus and adds the extra attacks of using two weapons.

[Angelus_dead]

it's not like there's 2 heads on a quarterstaff like the others, maybe end caps, which can change the damage to a pierce type on occasion...don't see that listed in those pages you linked either...again, players know these little things and tend to take them for granted.

You don't see it? Well, it's there. It is completely explicit, and not something you have to infer by combining several facts from multiple places. The only double weapon in the random treasure table for D&D is the quarterstaff, and attached to the quarterstaff entry is the comment that the separate head is costed against the treasure value in addition to the primary head.

[KristovK]

You don't see it? Well, it's there. It is completely explicit, and not something you have to infer by combining several facts from multiple places. The only double weapon in the random treasure table for D&D is the quarterstaff, and attached to the quarterstaff entry is the comment that the separate head is costed against the treasure value in addition to the primary head.

First page you linked says nothing about whether or not existing items have different enchantments on each end, it actually only says you have to spend x2 the price to enchant both ends, doesn't even say you don't HAVE to spend x2 the cost if you only enchant one end. Of course, we know as players that we can make that call and only spend the normal price, but it's NOT explicitly stated in the rules now is it.

Second page gives instructions on how to determine random magic items, and it does indeed give the subnote ruling on double weapons, and if you'd actually read the entire page AND the entire list, you'd have seen that that subnote is given for ALL the double weapons, which are all listed as possible items on the random weapon list NOT just the quarterstaff..double bladed sword, orc double axe, dire flail, dwarven urgrosh, and the gnomish h/h. [eaten by cube]

[DNDJESS]

So what, it's in a painting. Not really a selling point. DnD hardly bases it's bonuses to classes around what they are carrying in a picture, and is that the only weapon that they are seen to carry?

Have you ever actually tried to tumble while carrying a six foot pole? It doesn't help at all. Is a six foot pole going to really help you balance? Or jump? Nope.

OK, yet another person wants to argue reality in a fantasy game, so here goes:

What is the name of the ability? Answer: Way of the Acrobat
What could a dextrous Acrobat do with a pole in combat? Answer: more than just swing it like a club I'm sure. There are many different kinds of spinning, vaulting attacks that a skilled acrobat could do with such a weapon.

A pole won't help balance? Ever hear of something called a tightrope walker?
A pole won't help you jump? Ever hear of pole vaulting?

[Invalid_86]

OK, yet another person wants to argue reality in a fantasy game, so here goes:

What is the name of the ability? Answer: Way of the Acrobat
What could a dextrous Acrobat do with a pole in combat? Answer: more than just swing it like a club I'm sure. There are many different kinds of spinning, vaulting attacks that a skilled acrobat could do with such a weapon.

A pole won't help balance? Ever hear of something called a tightrope walker?
A pole won't help you jump? Ever hear of pole vaulting?

You apparently missed the part where a quarterstaff is only about six feet long (about 4 feet for a small character)- a useless length for pole vaulting and of dubious use as a tightrope balance.

Spinning and vaulting attacks are actually not restricted to just quarterstaffs- in fact they are better suited to many other smaller, less cumbersome weapons or one where one hand is always free.

I've actually tumbled with a pole. It is not a particularly handy object to take with you into a roll.

Do I have to spell it out?

The painting is based on the underlying concept of a fantasy combat acrobat. It represents the idea of what looks and feels good for an acrobat to use in battle. The same reasons the artist decided it would look good to put a quarterstaff in the picture mean it would be fun for developers to put it in the game.

So a guy painted a thief acrobat with a quarterstaff, and now they just magically get a bonus with them. You may want to spell it out better, as many weapons can look and feel good- and in DnD terms, be more efficient- in a thief acrobat's hands.

It helps a whole lot. Especially when trying to tumble in a way that is tactically helpful in combat- vaulting over obstructions to escape the reach of your enemies. The pole itself also helps parry attacks or simply keep enemies at a distance from you... and without some way to achieve that effect, tumbling in battle is even more suicidal.

No, a pole that is as tall as you won't help you vault. A polearm length staff, maybe, a quarterstaff, no.

The rest of that can also be done with a wide variety of weapons, or improvised attacks, or maybe even the Bluff skill. No special quarterstaff qualities there.

[DNDJESS]

So if you're going to make all these arguments, perhaps you can explain how a ring can make me float like a feather. Or how a hat can make me more intelligent. Or how a pair of boots can help me jump (or perhaps you believe pumping up your shoes makes you jump higher?)

THIS IS A FANTASY GAME! Stop trying to deny good ideas because you don't think they'd work in reality. They work here. It's magic. Accept it and ST%U!

[Invalid_86]

So if you're going to make all these arguments, perhaps you can explain how a ring can make me float like a feather. Or how a hat can make me more intelligent. Or how a pair of boots can help me jump (or perhaps you believe pumping up your shoes makes you jump higher?)

THIS IS A FANTASY GAME! Stop trying to deny good ideas because you don't think they'd work in reality. They work here. It's magic. Accept it and ST%U!

Now this is just desperation. Acrobats and quarterstaffs exist in real life, we have something solid to draw on. Saying "it works because it's a fantasy game" is just a cop out.

But I will humor you and fight fantasy with fantasy. Where in the DnD 3.5 rules does it say that thief acrobats get to attack faster with a quarterstaff simply because they are thief acrobats?

Right then, that should clear that nonsense up.

[DNDJESS]

Now this is just desperation. Acrobats and quarterstaffs exist in real life, we have something solid to draw on. Saying "it works because it's a fantasy game" is just a cop out.

But I will humor you and fight fantasy with fantasy. Where in the DnD 3.5 rules does it say that thief acrobats get to attack faster with a quarterstaff simply because they are thief acrobats?

Right then, that should clear that nonsense up.

Can you please direct me to the page in the 3.5 rulebook that discusses Enhancements...........

The point is, you were arguing against ideas that would improve the game because it isn't possible in reality. Now you're arguing against ideas that would improve the game because it isn't in a ruleset that DDO has moved beyond.

Forget all that nonsense. The only question that really, truly matters is this: how would the change effect DDO? Would it improve gameplay for some? Undoubtedly yes. Would it make the game worse for some people? Undoubtedly no. If you don't like the enhancements, can you ignore them? Yes.

As far as DDO is concerned, there is absolutely no downside to the ideas presented, and plenty of upside to make it worth implementing.

[Invalid_86]

Can you please direct me to the page in the 3.5 rulebook that discusses Enhancements...........

Nope those aren't in there either. But that wasn't the question was it?

[DNDJESS]

Nope those aren't in there either. But that wasn't the question was it?

I answered your question, and the answer was - it doesn't matter. See above post.