Why are Staffs are Budgeon-Weapons?

A Staff - for me - is more a mage-weapon ...

But they are declarated as bludgeons - but the innate skills in the bludgeon-tree are more tank-skills then useful for mages:

• increase stun-effects = need to fight near enemy
• increase damage with bludgeons = meele-fight
• increase strength damage with bludgeons = also just for meele-fight

Polearm would be much better for staff-weapons (and mages), when we take a look at the skills:

• increases range = more distance to the enemy is better for mages
• increases damage resistence = also better for mages
• increases critical hit damage = okay, this is also for meele-fight

But that's just my opinion ...
So i can't use a staff for my mage ...
But i can use a scythe! *harrharrharr*
(looks more evil)

 

Polearms are bladed pole weapons, staffs are not bladed pole weapons, they're bludgeoning weapons.

Staffs and Wands really shouldn't be used as or classified as bludgeon weapons imo.

 

I know that polearms are bladed weapons and a staff is more a "smashing" weapon like a hammer, etc.
So i can understand why a staff is a bludgeon and not a polearm - but what i mean is that a staff is more a mage-weapon (i think everyone agree with that *gg*), but the innate skills from the bludeon-tree are for tanks and not useful for mages.

 

The staff is more a mage weapon, and the base bonuses (-reg cost, -fizzle rate) material bonuses and masterworks are all mage appropriate. They are completely distinct from the bonuses you apply to hammers, maces, etc. The materials give things like spell damage, spell crit, focus, etc. and the masterworks follow suit. Also, as with wands, staffs get the unique attunement bonus enchant that 'normal' bludgeon weapons do not.

If you happen to hit something with it, yeah, you're using the bludgeoning tree. And levelling up the passives in there are probably not really useful for you if you're doing most of your damage with magic, but makes for some interesting hybrid possibilities.

 

The reason they are bludgeon weapons is that there wa no other way to classify them when they first were put into the game. They weren't able to give them their own tree because they just pew pew with a small little attack and there wasn't a need to build a whole skill tree around them that wouldn't be a duplicate of some kind of magic.

 

Thats fine ... But i don't want a statement what's the technical reason the developers put them in any tree - it's just my optinion, my "feedback" that i think, staffs are mage weapons and the skills for bludgeons don't fit for mages

 

Wands, maybe. But no mage has ever smacked somebody in the face with their staff?

 

They had to go into something so you could masterwork them.

 

The staves available in game, yes... but there are other types, such as the ones used in the nigh-legendary (wait... it's part of legend, or at least Hollywood legend, so I guess it IS legendary) battle between John Little and Robin Hood. Get yourself a nice, solid, 6 foot length of oak branch that is an inch or so in diameter, and tell me you don't have a bludgeoning weapon in your hands.

 

Quarter staffs in the hands of someone trained to use them are quite lethal weapons.
They have lever and reach, even for an plate wearing knight dangerous.
(because using an sword becomes difficult as soon you faceplant, hard, while your neck is in the perfect striking with the metal capped end position)

 

Games are not really noted for their accurate portrayal of medieval weaponry, and to some degree that might be a good thing. For that matter, combat in general is rarely accurately portrayed in any for of entertainment unless realism is a major point in the story telling. So I try not to let what I know about everything that's wrong with weapons and combat in game irk me. (Except axes really do belong in bludgeon.. but that's another argument which was already won.. just saying).

I would however, like to see some staff love. I would give them their own tree which would be split between melee use and magic use.. and maybe include wands somehow..

 

Small wands should be ranged weapons with ranged spell (fire, ice...). And in bludgeoms there can be battle two handed staffs...

 

strength adds defensive bonuses; and as such are kind of useful for mages. (more health.) break armor, knockdown, knockback are all "movement" abilties that aren't super useful for movement. I'll agree. That leaves 2 attack abilites that aren't create range for mage cast and 2 passives that aren't semi-mage oriented. (stun is stun,)

 

Yea, under the current system, the assumption is that polearms are bladed weapons.

But as I describe in this thread, the way the system is set up currently also has a lot of other problems in excluding odd weapons. For example, crossbows can do rapidfire and mulitshot, you can't have blades like sickles that do slashing damage but not piercing damage, or stilettos, which do piercing damage but not slashing damage, you can't have polearms which have an axe blade but no pointed end.

But you want all these kinds of things... in particular, it would be good for mages for staves to be polearms, because then they could use the staff defenses, as in the Defensive Positions passive. Gandalf used his staff to defend himself, for instance. This would give mages the ability to add defenses at the cost of certain advantages you'd get with a wand.

So, in that thread, I suggested splitting damage into Pierce/Slash/Blunt, which I hear is coming in some form, as well as some 'Grip' property, which determined whether it had a hook. And essentially, a staff would have 0 Pierce and 0 Slash, and all its damage in Blunt, and no hook. That means it would be able to do some attacks effectively, but consistently do 0 damage on other attacks.

 

I like the staff like it is*. Some mobs are magic resistend, so i have a decent meele direct in hand. Also i can use all the bludgeon styles with the staff. It is not as harmfull if i where using my 2-handed hammer, but it is enough when in doubt.
Knockdown and Knockback are more defensive styles when you cast. You know, mages do not wear plate.

Currently wands have advantages over a staff. Wielding 2 wands gives you more bonus then one staff.

Also like it to not train a second weapon tree when i want to use the hammer.

*except: it should not loose the double amount on durablity on enchanting or mastworking compared to a wand

 

I wouldn't agree with that. A staff is definitely a melee weapon. I might of put it in the Polearm tree though.

 

Wands and staves are suppose to make casting spells hit harder etc.... and can be uses to smack something up close, the staff can, not the wand But usually spells cast go through the wand or staff to do their damage.