Two Weapon Fighting Style

[Hytheter]

So I've been thinking - TWF isn't that great for Fighters because 3 or 4 greatsword attacks is generally better than 4 or 5 longsword attacks.

But what about Barbarians and Paladins, who get less attacks but get more damage on them? I did some quick calculations and found that for those classes TWF does more average damage than the other styles for Paladins with Improved Smite and non-Frenzy Barbarians (Frenzy already gives a bonus attack). Paladins can also apply their Divine Smites to these attacks if they choose to, which would push it further, and Magic Weapons also favour TWF. edit: Oh yeah, and Oathbreaker's Aura also favours more attacks, if that's your thing

If they got access to TWF style, do you think they would be worth taking? As it stands, do you think a 1 level Fighter dip (or 2 for Action Surge) is worthwhile for TWF style? I didn't take into account crits or other uses for bonus actions since you can't really figure out their strict quantitative impact. Do they make TWF less viable, or even out, or what?

[Strill]

If you're using a greatsword/greataxe/maul, you'll have Great Weapon Master.

If you're using a Polearm, you'll have Polearm Master.

If you're using a shield, you'll have Shield Master.

Each fighting style already has a way to use its bonus attack for extra attacks/damage.

In other words, no I don't think it would be worthwhile because the other options already get what dual-wielding gets and more.

[Hytheter]

If you're using a greatsword/greataxe/maul, you'll have Great Weapon Master.

If you're using a Polearm, you'll have Polearm Master.

If you're using a shield, you'll have Shield Master.

Each fighting style already has a way to use its bonus attack for extra attacks/damage.

I'll give you Polearm Master. But Great Weapon Master's bonus attack is highly situational. Shield Master doesn't actually give you any extra damage, and won't be useful at all against particularly large opponents. TWF is much more consistent, especially against bigger, stronger opponents.

[Eslin]

I'll give you Polearm Master. But Great Weapon Master's bonus attack is highly situational. Shield Master doesn't actually give you any extra damage, and won't be useful at all against particularly large opponents. TWF is much more consistent, especially against bigger, stronger opponents.

Yup, which is why you use polearm master if you're strength based, crossbow expert if you're ranged and TWF if you're dexterity based.

[Easy_Lee]

Paladins can use polearm master with a quarterstaff, duelist, and a shield.

[Shadow]

Paladins can use polearm master with a quarterstaff, duelist, and a shield.

A ruling by the DM stating that a polearm master doesn't get his bonus attack with the other end unless he has a hand free to actually use the weapon via the versatile quality (thus ruling out the shield if you wanted the bonus attack) would not be unreasonable.
I would argue that the RAI required the versatile weapon to be used two-handed to get the bonus attack.

[Easy_Lee]

A ruling by the DM stating that a polearm master doesn't get his bonus attack with the other end unless he has a hand free to actually use the weapon via the versatile quality (thus ruling out the shield if you wanted the bonus attack) would not be unreasonable.
I would argue that the RAI required the versatile weapon to be used two-handed to get the bonus attack.

In no way, shape or form would that even resemble a "reasonable" ruling.

Is it RAW? Yes, quarterstaves can be used in one hand and polearm master grants a bonus attack with quarterstaves
Is it creative? Yes
Is it game-breaking? No, insofar as +2 armor for the price of reduced damage is game-breaking.

Also, not that it matters for a game, but if you're concerned with real life:
Is it possible in real life? Yes, see real people basically doing this with two sticks at the same time, while defending (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1qrVYh7E1k).

This combination is literally a less extreme version of something you can do in real life. Remember quarterstaves aren't just swung; it's often more beneficial to jab with them. It would be easy to jab with the other end as an offhand strike, immediately after swinging it.

With all of that in mind, I feel this bears repeating. Ruling quarterstaff+duelist+polearm master out of the game is in no way a reasonable ruling. I'd also like to point out that, since I'm a DM and don't have time to just participate in any games, your ruling wouldn't even affect me. I make this post only for others' benefit, in case someone reads your post and actually considers it.

[Shadow]

Your neguni sticks in that vid are not 5-6 foot long staves, so your "video evidence" is invalid.
You'll also notice that the main hand is held at its end like a sword (and is about the same length) while the second one is spun in a shielding motion.
So show me where, at any point in that video, where the main hand gets a secondary attack with the other end. You can't, because it never happens, because (1) that isn't a staff, and (2), there is no "other end" to attack with.

I don't see the relevance of that video at all.

[Slipperychicken]

Paladins can use polearm master with a quarterstaff, duelist, and a shield.

Currently making a paladin, I couldn't think of a compelling mechanical reason to do anything else.

A free bonus attack every round and +2 to damage with all those attacks makes the damage better than the d10 polearms (technically the same on average per attack, but with a smaller range and another attack per round), start the game with 18 AC, and get AoOs when people move into his reach. Those are really attractive.

You'd think spellcasting would be a pain with both hands occupied. However, you can draw or sheathe a weapon as part of your action, so you can just sheathe the quarterstaff right before casting, then draw it before you attack the next round. You'd just have to make an AoO with your gauntlet instead of the quarterstaff. If you want to cast a somatic-component spell as a bonus action on the same round you're attacking, then you'd have to sheathe it the previous round.

You'd think shield master would be just as good because of the free shove, but a polearm master can take that shove just the same. The only difference is that the polearm master can choose to get an attack instead of the shove, and would use a normal attack instead of the bonus action one.

Still, I didn't do quarterstaff-n-board because it would look really stupid and feel abusive.

[JoeJ]

You'd think spellcasting would be a pain with both hands occupied. However, you can draw or sheathe a weapon as part of your action, so you can just sheathe the quarterstaff right before casting, then draw it before you attack the next round.

They have quarterstaff sheaths where your character lives? What do they look like, and how are they worn?

[Eslin]

They have quarterstaff sheaths where your character lives? What do they look like, and how are they worn?
No idea, but all characters can sheathe weapons so it's assumed you've found a way. Please note that restricting martials based on what you envision as being realistic for a warrior to achieve has never once led to a good game decision.


A ruling by the DM stating that a polearm master doesn't get his bonus attack with the other end unless he has a hand free to actually use the weapon via the versatile quality (thus ruling out the shield if you wanted the bonus attack) would not be unreasonable.
I would argue that the RAI required the versatile weapon to be used two-handed to get the bonus attack.
Well, you'd be wrong. It gives three weapons and tells you you can make bonus attacks with them, if they required them to be used two handed they'd say so. It's not like they haven't done so before, the great weapon fighting style specifies that the weapons must be wielded in both hands. Polearm master makes no such mention, so the polearm can be used one handed - there is absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.


Currently making a paladin, I couldn't think of a compelling mechanical reason to do anything else.

A free bonus attack every round and +2 to damage with all those attacks makes the damage better than the d10 polearms (technically the same on average per attack, but with a smaller range and another attack per round), start the game with 18 AC, and get AoOs when people move into his reach. Those are really attractive.

You'd think spellcasting would be a pain with both hands occupied. However, you can draw or sheathe a weapon as part of your action, so you can just sheathe the quarterstaff right before casting, then draw it before you attack the next round. You'd just have to make an AoO with your gauntlet instead of the quarterstaff. If you want to cast a somatic-component spell as a bonus action on the same round you're attacking, then you'd have to sheathe it the previous round.

You'd think shield master would be just as good because of the free shove, but a polearm master can take that shove just the same. The only difference is that the polearm master can choose to get an attack instead of the shove, and would use a normal attack instead of the bonus action one.

Still, I didn't do quarterstaff-n-board because it would look really stupid and feel abusive.

The damage wouldn't be better than the d10 polearms, since they would get great weapon fighting boosting their damage. Dueling is slightly better than GWF out of your choices though, so the difference is less than it should be. And the strength to the glaive/halberd is not damage, it is the fact that they're reach weapons. Pole and board is close to even on damage, the real weakness is you're trading reach for +2 ac, which is a pretty even trade.

Looking stupid wise, I disagree entirely. One of my favourite fights from the Wheel of Time was Mat beating two very good swordsmen at once with a quarterstaff, I love the idea of taking maybe a slightly shorter staff and grabbing heavy armour and a shield for a really defensive paladin.

To all the people saying that wielding a quarterstaff one handed is silly - too bad, it's a versatile weapon, it can be, just as a longsword or spear can be. Would you be objecting if there was a sword master feat, in which you got an extra attack at 1d4 damage with the sword's hilt?

[Easy_Lee]

You'd think spellcasting would be a pain with both hands occupied. However, you can draw or sheathe a weapon as part of your action, so you can just sheathe the quarterstaff right before casting, then draw it before you attack the next round. You'd just have to make an AoO with your gauntlet instead of the quarterstaff.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe paladins can just emblazon their holy symbol on their shield and cast with that hand. So you shouldn't need to "sheathe the quarterstaff", per say. Also:


They have quarterstaff sheaths where your character lives? What do they look like, and how are they worn?

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090512043230/dragonball/images/2/23/Nyoibo.PNG

[Shadow]

Well, you'd be wrong.

This isn't a matter of right and wrong. It's a matter of opinion about what would be reasonable.
I find it unreasonable that someone would be able to hold a 5 or 6 foot pole (at minimum) in one hand, while the other hand was occupied, and still be able to use both ends of the pole effectively as weapons.
The example Easy gave for swinging one end and then jabbing with the other is absolutely unrealistic and not feasible when used with a single hand.

And yes, it's 5 or 6 feet at minimum. A staff is generally considered to be a pole between 6 and 12 feet long.
Anything shorter and it is no longer a staff. Anything shorter and it becomes a club (or jo, or hanbo, if you prefer those terms instead).

[Sartharina]

Anything shorter and it is no longer a staff. Anything shorter and it becomes a club (or jo, or hanbo, if you prefer those terms instead).

Or Shillelagh, perfect for Irish Stick Fighting!

[Shadow]

Or Shillelagh, perfect for Irish Stick Fighting!

Exactly. Just like the video, I might add.
Decidedly not staves.

[Easy_Lee]

Exactly. Just like the video, I might add.
Decidedly not staves.

You can argue against RAW all you want, but you're going to lose.

[Shadow]

You can argue against RAW all you want, but you're going to lose.

I'm not arguing RAW.
I'm arguing what would be a reasonable ruling.

[Eslin]

This isn't a matter of right and wrong. It's a matter of opinion about what would be reasonable.
I find it unreasonable that someone would be able to hold a 5 or 6 foot pole (at minimum) in one hand, while the other hand was occupied, and still be able to use both ends of the pole effectively as weapons.
The example Easy gave for swinging one end and then jabbing with the other is absolutely unrealistic and not feasible when used with a single hand.

And yes, it's 5 or 6 feet at minimum. A staff is generally considered to be a pole between 6 and 12 feet long.
Anything shorter and it is no longer a staff. Anything shorter and it becomes a club (or jo, or hanbo, if you prefer those terms instead).

Remember that thing I said a few posts up about restricting martials based on what you think of as realistic always resulting in poor rulings? That's been true for many years and hasn't changed in the last few minutes. This is a polearm master, it's in the name, someone who takes this feat is an absolute master of polearms that can do things that would be unfeasible for mere mortals like us, including attacking with both ends of a staff. Why do you have such a problem with this?


I'm not arguing RAW.
I'm arguing what would be a reasonable ruling.
And you are by every metric incorrect. RaW, it works perfectly. RaI, there's absolutely nothing to indicate that it wasn't intended to be used one handed and fairly strong evidence that it was, considering the feat lacks the 'you must use two hands' clause seen elsewhere. Gameplay balance wise, it has different strengths than using a halberd but is overall no stronger. In-universe wise, I can fairly easily picture someone turning to the side and shoving the butt of his quarterstaff into a centaur's belly one handed, especially if they are, one more time, a master of polearm use.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm not arguing RAW.
I'm arguing what would be a reasonable ruling.

First off, it's not unreasonable. It can be done in real life, so it should easily be possible in D&D. Secondly, "unreasonable" is not a good enough reason to make rulings against the player. "Do the rules say it can be done? Is it game-breaking? Is it fun?" Those are the only questions that need to be asked. And if you come up with a positive answer to the question "Is it fun?", then the other two don't matter.

And honestly, you can't conceive it in real life so it doesn't belong in a tabletop game? If I wanted to play "mundane reality simulator" I'd go to Walmart.

[Shadow]

First off, it's not unreasonable. It can be done in real life, so it should easily be possible in D&D. Secondly, "unreasonable" is not a good enough reason to make rulings against the player. "Do the rules say it can be done? Is it game-breaking? Is it fun?" Those are the only questions that need to be asked. And if you come up with a positive answer to the question "Is it fun?", then the other two don't matter.

It's fun to let 1st level characters cast 9th level spells, so I guess you let all your players do that, right?
That is not the only question that needs to be answered in the affirmative.

[Ziegander]

Remember that thing I said a few posts up about restricting martials based on what you think of as realistic always resulting in poor rulings? That's been true for many years and hasn't changed in the last few minutes. This is a polearm master, it's in the name, someone who takes this feat is an absolute master of polearms that can do things that would be unfeasible for mere mortals like us, including attacking with both ends of a staff. Why do you have such a problem with this?

Right, Polearm Master, and yet, quarterstaves, correct me if I'm wrong, have never traditionally been considered polearms in military history, AND, you guys are advocating a fighting style, "polearm" and board, which literally CANNOT be done while wielding any of the traditional polearms. A Polearm Master, sure, they should be able to do things non-masters can't. With polearms. That doesn't mean they should be good at a combat style that is both silly and never existed in history, with a weapon that isn't really a polearm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_weapon).

Is it RAW? Of course, no one is disputing that.

Is it broken? No, I don't think so, but it is probably stronger than most, if not all other options.

Is it RAI? How can I know? All I know is, since the fighting style literally doesn't exist on Earth, I can only imagine it wasn't the designer's intention to enable quarterstaff and shield duelists, and its inclusion was probably an accident. But, since it is listed, right there in the feat, that's more iron clad than any of my guesses. Either way, I don't know why you and Easy Lee both feel the need to so strongly defend something that even players feel leery about doing, regardless of the mechanical benefit.

[Demonic Spoon]

Is it RAI? How can I know? All I know is, since the fighting style literally doesn't exist on Earth, I can only imagine it wasn't the designer's intention to enable quarterstaff and shield duelists, and its inclusion was probably an accident. But, since it is listed, right there in the feat, that's more iron clad than any of my guesses. Either way, I don't know why you and Easy Lee both feel the need to so strongly defend something that even players feel leery about doing, regardless of the mechanical benefit.


Do you think that history (or, the subset of history that you personally are aware of) exhausted all possible options for useful fighting styles?

Do you think that fighting styles that were effective in medieval-era wars are the same fighting styles that would by effective in small group combats against otherworldly creatures? How about weapons that are wielded by creatures that literally aren't even human (elves, dwarves, etc)? Do you think that the same kinds of fighting styles that humans are effective at are the ones that a dwarf or elf would be proficient at?

Do you think that a staff + shield is so incredibly silly that it breaks verisimilitude compared to fighters being trained at using literally every type of weapon, or one of the other many things that aren't strictly speaking realistic but are still well within the bounds of reasonable for fantasy?

I'm all for verisimilitude, and I'm usually the first to argue against people who want to give super-powers to non-magical/martial characters, but being picky about quarterstaff + shield is just silly unless you're attempting to play a gritty medieval simulation game.

[Shadow]

I'm all for verisimilitude, and I'm usually the first to argue against people who want to give super-powers to non-magical/martial characters, but being picky about quarterstaff + shield is just silly unless you're attempting to play a gritty medieval simulation game.

No one said it wouldn't be silly.
What I said was that not allowing the bonus attack while holding a shield would absolutely be a perfectly reasonable ruling by the DM.

"unless you're attempting to play a gritty medieval simulation game."
There you go. Right there. Right there you have agreed that it would be a reasonable ruling.

[odigity]

Either way, I don't know why you and Easy Lee both feel the need to so strongly defend something that even players feel leery about doing, regardless of the mechanical benefit.

I'm a player, and that's how I feel. I like optimization, but I wouldn't touch that combo with a 10' quarterstaff.

[Eslin]

It's fun to let 1st level characters cast 9th level spells, so I guess you let all your players do that, right?
That is not the only question that needs to be answered in the affirmative.

No it isn't, since game balance goes out the window and players cease to enjoy themselves. A player wants their character to be stronger, knowing that the system supports that - if the player could just choose how strong their character was, most of the point to the game would disappear.


Right, Polearm Master, and yet, quarterstaves, correct me if I'm wrong, have never traditionally been considered polearms in military history, AND, you guys are advocating a fighting style, "polearm" and board, which literally CANNOT be done while wielding any of the traditional polearms. A Polearm Master, sure, they should be able to do things non-masters can't. With polearms. That doesn't mean they should be good at a combat style that is both silly and never existed in history, with a weapon that isn't really a polearm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_weapon).
So, let me get this right - you're actually complaining that the feat does what it does? You're not even arguing that it looks silly, which isn't really an argument anyway, your objection to pole'n'board is that the feat includes quarterstaves at all? If so, actually complain about that, since it's kind of inherent to the feat.


Is it RAW? Of course, no one is disputing that.

Is it broken? No, I don't think so, but it is probably stronger than most, if not all other options.

Is it RAI? How can I know? All I know is, since the fighting style literally doesn't exist on Earth, I can only imagine it wasn't the designer's intention to enable quarterstaff and shield duelists, and its inclusion was probably an accident. But, since it is listed, right there in the feat, that's more iron clad than any of my guesses. Either way, I don't know why you and Easy Lee both feel the need to so strongly defend something that even players feel leery about doing, regardless of the mechanical benefit.
I forgot, D&D is a medieval history simulator. I keep forgetting that it isn't a fantasy roleplaying game in which a mid level character can survive plummeting to earth from low orbit.

No, wait, it is, and tactics exist in D&D that could never have existed on earth. One of them being using a quarterstaff and a shield - which is worse than using a quarterstaff one handed by itself how, exactly? Regarding being stronger than other options - compared to a halberd you have less damage, 5 feet less reach (which is important to you considering what the other half of the feat does) but two more AC. That's a useful option, sure, but how is it stronger than the other main way of using the feat?


No one said it wouldn't be silly.
What I said was that not allowing the bonus attack while holding a shield would absolutely be a perfectly reasonable ruling by the DM.

"unless you're attempting to play a gritty medieval simulation game."
There you go. Right there. Right there you have agreed that it would be a reasonable ruling.
No, it would be an incredibly unreasonable ruling. The feat clearly allows you to make a bonus attack with a quarterstaff, if you couldn't do so wielding it one handed it would tell you so, as other similar things do.
And if you're trying a gritty medieval simulation game, why are you playing D&D 5e? 35/40 subclasses have some form of magical ability, the way resting works allows a character to recover from being stabbed in the chest by taking a lunch break and a level 5 barbarian is pretty much guaranteed to survive falling out of a plane just by getting angry.

[Shadow]

Regarding being stronger than other options - compared to a halberd you have less damage, 5 feet less reach (which is important to you considering what the other half of the feat does) but two more AC. That's a useful option, sure, but how is it stronger than the other main way of using the feat?

Actually, compared to halberd it is superior in almost every single way.
Less damage? It's the exact same median damage with less variation, which makes it more consistent.
1d10 = 5.5
1d6+2 = 5.5
Plus two more AC.
Plus, with the way that OAs work in 5e, having reach only means you get less of them, so in this case we can call the longer reach and the easier to proc OAs a wash.

So same median damage, wash the OAs/reach, and give yourself +2 AC.
Advantage staff.


No, it would be an incredibly unreasonable ruling.

It would appear that the vast majority of people that have chimed in on this one disagree with the two of you, so how can you still say that it would be "incredibly unreasonable?"

[Eslin]

Actually, compared to halberd it is superior in almost every single way.
Less damage? It's the exact same median damage with less variation, which makes it more consistent.
1d10 = 5.5
1d6+2 = 5.5
Plus two more AC.
Plus, with the way that OAs work in 5e, having reach only means you get less of them, so in this case we can call the longer reach and the easier to proc OAs a wash.

So same median damage, wash the OAs/reach, and give yourself +2 AC.
Advantage staff.



It would appear that the vast majority of people that have chimed in on this one disagree with the two of you, so how can you still say that it would be "incredibly unreasonable?"

It is not the same damage. That +2 damage you're getting means you aren't taking a different fighting style, you did not include the fact that the halberd wielder has great weapon fighting, which balance wise should cancel out its sister fighting style. If it doesn't, that means dueling is a better benefit than great weapon fighting is, and in that case your argument isn't with polearm master, it's with fighting styles.
Polearm master gives you an opportunity attack whenever somebody enters your reach. With a quarterstaff, you threaten eight squares, and with a halberd you threaten a further sixteen, which is a massive advantage. Pretending that's a wash when it's the primary advantage of wielding a reach weapon is utterly false.

And I case say it would be incredibly unreasonable because it would be. RaW it works, RaI it works, balance wise it works and verisimilitude wise if you have trouble picturing that someone who is explicitly a master of using quarterstaves and who took a feat specifically to enable attacking with both ends of a quarterstaff doing exactly that and attacking with both ends of a quarterstaff, I don't think there's any helping you.

Again, if there was a sword master feat which allowed you to attack with the hilt of your sword for 1d4 damage, would you have any objection to someone doing so while wielding a shield?

[Scirocco]

Sure, you can wield a quarterstaff opposite a shield. It's called a club.

The only reason staves are versatile is so wizards can freely cast while holding them.

[Eslin]

Sure, you can wield a quarterstaff opposite a shield. It's called a club.

The only reason staves are versatile is so wizards can freely cast while holding them.

Except, regardless of whatever reason you think they're versatile for (why would a wizard need a staff? Cantrips do better damage), quarterstaves are versatile weapons. They are wielded one handed, and you can two hand them if you want to do extra damage. If you don't like that, houserule it to work a different way.

[rlc]

You can probably swing the staff and spin it in your hand to jab with the other end

[JoeJ]

No idea, but all characters can sheathe weapons so it's assumed you've found a way.

The fact that all characters can sheathe weapons does not imply that all weapons can be sheathed. Where in the rules does it specifically state either that all weapons have sheathes, or the quarterstaffs in particular do?

[Eslin]

The fact that all characters can sheathe weapons does not imply that all weapons can be sheathed. Where in the rules does it specifically state either that all weapons have sheathes, or the quarterstaffs in particular do?

It... doesn't need to? Weapons can be sheathed, you can arrange a sheathe or at least a bag or cord/chain/strap attachment for pretty much anything. Provided you haven't lost that part of your gear or something, what kind DM would object to you stowing your weapon?

[JoeJ]

It... doesn't need to? Weapons can be sheathed, you can arrange a sheathe or at least a bag or cord/chain/strap attachment for pretty much anything. Provided you haven't lost that part of your gear or something, what kind DM would object to you stowing your weapon?

So RAW, there's nothing that actually says they can be sheathed? You're just basing that on what you envision as being realistic for a warrior to achieve?

[Eslin]

So RAW, there's nothing that actually says they can be sheathed? You're just basing that on what you envision as being realistic for a warrior to achieve?

Yes, I am, and I can see where you're going with this. Sheathing isn't explicitly dealt with much because like doing their laces up it's something that you're assumed to be able to do. Attacking with a quarterstaff in one hand is specifically something you're able to do, the game explains that in very clear terms.

And considering the disadvantage mundane characters already have, whenever you 'base something as being realistic for a warrior to achieve' you should always lean towards allowing rather than disallowing things. People can have surprising skills, and adventurers are already exceptional people by nature - and in this case it doesn't really matter, since it's something the rules explicitly tell you you can do.

[Sindeloke]

Even ignoring all the quarterstuff you guys are talking about and just looking at the OP's TWF question, I was originally enticed by TWF + smite as well, but since pallies don't get TWF style without sacrificing a level (and thus their capstone, all of which are pretty good), and you can read Great Weapon's rerolls to apply to smite damage as well, and perhaps even Mark damage for vengeance pallies (dev tweets notwithstanding), it doesn't seem like a winner compared to just going greatsword or halberd, if you're after damage.

[JoeJ]

Yes, I am, and I can see where you're going with this. Sheathing isn't explicitly dealt with much because like doing their laces up it's something that you're assumed to be able to do. Attacking with a quarterstaff in one hand is specifically something you're able to do, the game explains that in very clear terms.

I'm not disputing that a quarterstaff can be wielded with one hand; it's specifically labeled as Versatile in the weapons table. It's possible that Polearm Master was intended to apply only only to two-handed use of polearms, but it doesn't actually say that's a requirement, so RAW you can use the feat with a quarterstaff and shield (even though it looks silly).

Your assumption only goes so far: you can't lace up your clothes if you aren't wearing anything that has laces, and you can't sheathe a weapon if you don't have a sheathe that it fits. The only mention of sheathing something I can find is on p.190, where it says "sword" not "weapon." Even apart from the rules, quarterstaffs that I've seen in fantasy stories usually don't have sheathes, but are carried in the hand like a walking stick. So where does it say that a quarterstaff normally has a sheathe?

[Eslin]

I'm not disputing that a quarterstaff can be wielded with one hand; it's specifically labeled as Versatile in the weapons table. It's possible that Polearm Master was intended to apply only only to two-handed use of polearms, but it doesn't actually say that's a requirement, so RAW you can use the feat with a quarterstaff and shield (even though it looks silly).

Your assumption only goes so far: you can't lace up your clothes if you aren't wearing anything that has laces, and you can't sheathe a weapon if you don't have a sheathe that it fits. The only mention of sheathing something I can find is on p.190, where it says "sword" not "weapon." Even apart from the rules, quarterstaffs that I've seen in fantasy stories usually don't have sheathes, but are carried in the hand like a walking stick. So where does it say that a quarterstaff normally has a sheathe?

It doesn't. If you have the kind of DM who cares, you mention buying a sheath whenever you buy a weapon and mention making/obtaining a sheath or item with analogous function whenever you loot one, if you have the kind of DM who doesn't it's assumed you can sheathe or stow the weapon. Regarding looking silly, it may, as may dual wielding lances from horseback or running unarmoured up to someone and punching them.

In any case, I probably wouldn't sheathe a quarterstaff, I'd just have a strap for it. But I'm really not sure why it matters.

[Tenmujiin]

I'm not disputing that a quarterstaff can be wielded with one hand; it's specifically labeled as Versatile in the weapons table. It's possible that Polearm Master was intended to apply only only to two-handed use of polearms, but it doesn't actually say that's a requirement, so RAW you can use the feat with a quarterstaff and shield (even though it looks silly).

Your assumption only goes so far: you can't lace up your clothes if you aren't wearing anything that has laces, and you can't sheathe a weapon if you don't have a sheathe that it fits. The only mention of sheathing something I can find is on p.190, where it says "sword" not "weapon." Even apart from the rules, quarterstaffs that I've seen in fantasy stories usually don't have sheathes, but are carried in the hand like a walking stick. So where does it say that a quarterstaff normally has a sheathe?

I think I get where you are going with this and it doesn't matter. You don't even need to sheath your weapon because you can drop it and pick it up again as free actions once a turn.

[Hytheter]

I find it unreasonable that someone would be able to hold a 5 or 6 foot pole (at minimum) in one hand, while the other hand was occupied, and still be able to use both ends of the pole effectively as weapons.

Honestly, If we can already accept the base premise - that a six foot pole can be effectively wielded in one hand at all - I don't think using both ends of the staff is that preposterous a leap. Personally, I can imagine someone holding the staff in the middle and using both ends by essentially flicking his wrist. In fact I find that easier to picture that than say, holding it at one end and swinging the hole 6 foot staff with one hand.

[Regulas]

No matter how silly it is, it is RAW, and more importantly D&D already has lots of silly rules like that anyway it's odd to care about another one?

I'm talking of course about dual wielding. In real life dual-wielding does not equal more attacks, but in D&D somehow when you hold 2 weapons you're able to move your entire body faster then if you only held one.

So if that works I don't see the issue with a character having crazy wrist powers to double hit with a quaterstaff in one hand.


Honestly, If we can already accept the base premise - that a six foot pole can be effectively wielded in one hand at all

Using a pole just like a spear would work fine one handed and was commonly done, but that wouldn't let you twirl it around.

[Eslin]

No matter how silly it is, it is RAW, and more importantly D&D already has lots of silly rules like that anyway it's odd to care about another one?

I'm talking of course about dual wielding. In real life dual-wielding does not equal more attacks, but in D&D somehow when you hold 2 weapons you're able to move your entire body faster then if you only held one.

So if that works I don't see the issue with a character having crazy wrist powers to double hit with a quaterstaff in one hand.



Using a pole just like a spear would work fine one handed and was commonly done, but that wouldn't let you twirl it around.

Also dexterity increases your damage with a longbow despite a longbow requiring lots of training and strength to use and padded armour causes disadvantage on stealth checks while chain shirts or breastplates don't. D&D isn't trying to model the real world all that accurately, and that's fine. 3.5 had longbow damage be based on strength, and while that may make more sense it also caused them to suck.

[Vogonjeltz]

I find it interesting that the feat says it's about reach weapons, but then it goes on and includes a single nonreach weapon.

That oddness aside, the quarterstaff wielded one handed with no other weapon (note, shields in 5e are wielded, so I don't think it would operate while using a shield) would work for dueling, and I'd say the bonus attack would benefit.

[Eslin]

I find it interesting that the feat says it's about reach weapons, but then it goes on and includes a single nonreach weapon.

That oddness aside, the quarterstaff wielded one handed with no other weapon (note, shields in 5e are wielded, so I don't think it would operate while using a shield) would work for dueling, and I'd say the bonus attack would benefit.

Dueling specifies no other weapon, and shields are clearly listed under armour, not weapons. This has been asked and answered many times, dueling works with a shield - if it didn't the only one who ever had a reason to take it would be a monk.

[Sartharina]

Dueling specifies no other weapon, and shields are clearly listed under armour, not weapons. This has been asked and answered many times, dueling works with a shield - if it didn't the only one who ever had a reason to take it would be a monk.Or people who wanted to play a swashbuckling fighter who uses only a single rapier or longsword.

[Eslin]

Or people who wanted to play a swashbuckling fighter who uses only a single rapier or longsword.

Yeah, but no point in doing that until we get a subclass or feat that actually lets you gain some advantage for doing so.

[Sartharina]

Yeah, but no point in doing that until we get a subclass or feat that actually lets you gain some advantage for doing so.Defensive Duelist+Eldritch Knight.

And because you want to.

[Vogonjeltz]

Dueling specifies no other weapon, and shields are clearly listed under armour, not weapons. This has been asked and answered many times, dueling works with a shield - if it didn't the only one who ever had a reason to take it would be a monk.

Answered by whom? Shields say they are wielded, and attacks can be made with them (see Shield Master). That makes them de facto weapons, regardless of their placement.

[Eslin]

Answered by whom? Shields say they are wielded, and attacks can be made with them (see Shield Master). That makes them de facto weapons, regardless of their placement.

They clearly aren't weapons. You can shove with your free hand, but you're clearly allowed that, and I want to reiterate this - shields are not weapons. You can't do any damage with them, and they're plainly listed under armour.

A collection of answers from the devs is here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1900-D-D-5th-Edition-Sage-Advice-from-Designers-Mearls-Crawford) if that kind of thing matters to you, and confirms that dueling can be used with a shield - but such things should always be ignored, since you bought the PHB and shouldn't have to go searching online for clarifications to it. Instead, pay attention to basic logic - that there is one specific feat you take which will let you do one thing (shove) with a shield does not make a shield a weapon - don't get me wrong, I'd like it to be a weapon, since that would mean the dual wielder feat would give you a bonus to AC even if you had a shield on. But it isn't.

[HugeC]

No, it would be an incredibly unreasonable ruling.
I guess I'm just an incredibly unreasonably guy! :smallbiggrin:

I find it to be cheesy, but it won't break the game to allow it. I still wouldn't though. Hooray DM empowerment!

[Regulas]

Also dexterity increases your damage with a longbow despite a longbow requiring lots of training and strength to use and padded armour causes disadvantage on stealth checks while chain shirts or breastplates don't. D&D isn't trying to model the real world all that accurately, and that's fine. 3.5 had longbow damage be based on strength, and while that may make more sense it also caused them to suck.

With bow's you could always say that higher dex is more accurate which translates to more devestating shots. It's a stretch but works out.

Actually padding armor giving disadvantage isn't too odd, because real purpose built padded armour (unlike a gambison that is meant as under-armour) are generally quite large and bulky, in contrast a simple breastplate would be easier to move around with (infact I strongly feel Breastplate and Chain shirt should be light armour types but that's a whole other thing), and in the case of a chain shirt, chainmail sewn inside of cloth was quite common (especially in the middle east and japan) this would have been hidden and almost entirely silent chainmail due to the stuffing.


The entire armour system is wrong in terms of fluff... but it works out for balance purposes so I would probably just change names. And then there's the sword names. D&D long sword fun fact: it's not a long sword.

[Occasional Sage]

If you want staff fighting and a shield, why not just add the dueling shield to the weapon list?

[Vogonjeltz]

I guess I'm just an incredibly unreasonably guy! :smallbiggrin:

I find it to be cheesy, but it won't break the game to allow it. I still wouldn't though. Hooray DM empowerment!

Zaphod Beeblebrox?

Well, if it's intended then I guess I don't particularly care, they should probably rename it one handed weapon style though.

[silveralen]

OT: I find it really odd how the only classes who seem like they'd make particularly good usage of it have it locked out. Barbarian has to MC to make two weapon fighting worthwhile, while he can just grab the polearm master feat and probably be more effective long term. Ranger might be able to work it with hunter's mark, but even that is kinda... eh.

[Easy_Lee]

OT: I find it really odd how the only classes who seem like they'd make particularly good usage of it have it locked out. Barbarian has to MC to make two weapon fighting worthwhile, while he can just grab the polearm master feat and probably be more effective long term. Ranger might be able to work it with hunter's mark, but even that is kinda... eh.

I was thinking about this the other day. Barbarians are a good example, but there's also:

Blade Pact Warlocks - would be perfect with CHA+DEX to damage with pact-weapon, except you can only have one pact weapon and can't get DW fighting style without multiclassing anyway.
Rogues - extra chances to sneak attack are great, but you have to multiclass to get a fighting style
Paladins - extra chances to smite, but they don't get the dual wield style as one of their options. A paladin is probably better off with a pole arm and polearm master, but that doesn't permit a DEX build.

It seems everyone who would benefit from dual wielding has better options or doesn't get the options they need to make it effective. In my games, if a player wants to do something like this I know how I would fix it (home-brew fighting style feat and double weapons). But WoTC probably should have thought of this.

[Slipperychicken]

I figured that TWF is supposed to be a low-investment fighting style which is still decent and used mostly by characters which don't want to spend a feat on melee.

Like if an archer spent his feats on archer stuff, but at some pount feels like closing to melee is a good idea, he just draws two weapons and goes in. Or if you want to play a rogue with feats like alert, observant, and dungeon-delver, you can still contribute in combat by TWFing.

[JoeJ]

TWF is a good choice for a DEX-based fighter. It gives you the best damage at low levels, and even at high levels it doesn't drop far enough behind Dueling to feel like you're not contributing. (And if you take the Champion archetype you pick up a second style at level 10, so you can still stay on top damage-wise if you want to go that route.)

[silveralen]

I figured that TWF is supposed to be a low-investment fighting style which is still decent and used mostly by characters which don't want to spend a feat on melee.

Like if an archer spent his feats on archer stuff, but at some pount feels like closing to melee is a good idea, he just draws two weapons and goes in. Or if you want to play a rogue with feats like alert, observant, and dungeon-delver, you can still contribute in combat by TWFing.

The problem is that the weapon does almost nothing without investment of fighting style at least. An extra 3 damage a round for using your bonus action. Your rogue might use it to help insure a successful sneak attack, but locks out any other use of advantage, while the ranger is better of grabbing a shield uless he picked up the fighting style (and with archery fighting style being so good, why wouldn't he?).


TWF is a good choice for a DEX-based fighter. It gives you the best damage at low levels, and even at high levels it doesn't drop far enough behind Dueling to feel like you're not contributing. (And if you take the Champion archetype you pick up a second style at level 10, so you can still stay on top damage-wise if you want to go that route.)

It manages to fall behind the guy using a sword and shield... and you call it good? Now I am confused.

Also, best damage at low levels is a human barbarian/paladin/fighter with polearm master. Which stays pretty constant if they also grab the great weapon feat eventually.

[Knaight]

So RAW, there's nothing that actually says they can be sheathed? You're just basing that on what you envision as being realistic for a warrior to achieve?
RAW doesn't say that, no. Given that the rules are theoretically put over a setting, and the setting clearly has the sophisticated technology of bags to put things in, it makes sense that a sheathe is available.


The only mention of sheathing something I can find is on p.190, where it says "sword" not "weapon." Even apart from the rules, quarterstaffs that I've seen in fantasy stories usually don't have sheathes, but are carried in the hand like a walking stick. So where does it say that a quarterstaff normally has a sheathe?
They usually don't have sheathes, that doesn't mean one couldn't be made. It's kind of pointless most of the time - if a weapon isn't sharpened there's generally not much point putting a sheathe on it - but in the context of magical casting it does make some sense, provided it takes both hands to begin with.

[Eslin]

I was thinking about this the other day. Barbarians are a good example, but there's also:

Blade Pact Warlocks - would be perfect with CHA+DEX to damage with pact-weapon, except you can only have one pact weapon and can't get DW fighting style without multiclassing anyway.
Rogues - extra chances to sneak attack are great, but you have to multiclass to get a fighting style
Paladins - extra chances to smite, but they don't get the dual wield style as one of their options. A paladin is probably better off with a pole arm and polearm master, but that doesn't permit a DEX build.

It seems everyone who would benefit from dual wielding has better options or doesn't get the options they need to make it effective. In my games, if a player wants to do something like this I know how I would fix it (home-brew fighting style feat and double weapons). But WoTC probably should have thought of this.

Blade pact's pretty much just for multiclassing, a warlock by himself pretty much can't make blade pact do better damage than the 1d10+1d6+5+10ft push at range they get from eldritch blast, which also has the benefit of not requiring MAD from melee stats.

Paladin wise, I think it's pretty much just a style thing, which is probably a bit stupid - arbitrarily restricting classes in that manner doesn't make sense, it's not a ranger with a shield or a paladin with two weapons is impossible.

Rogue wise, the damage isn't the point. Rogues are supposed to make a tradeoff, using their bonus action for bonus attacks or to get advantage to make sneak attack damage more reliable or for cunning action.

If you need an 11 to hit, using your round to attack if you're a level 20 rogue with a shortsword will do (11d6+5)/2=21.75 damage on average. If you have a shortsword in your other hand, you'll do((11d6)+(11d6+5)+(12d6+5)+(0))/4=32.25 damage on average. With the TWF fighting style, that average damage will only increase to 34.75, not much of an increase compared to the extra damage the attack gives you in the first place.

[JoeJ]

They usually don't have sheathes, that doesn't mean one couldn't be made. It's kind of pointless most of the time - if a weapon isn't sharpened there's generally not much point putting a sheathe on it - but in the context of magical casting it does make some sense, provided it takes both hands to begin with.

That agrees with what I understand about quarterstaves. It's not usual for them to have sheathes, so if a PC wants one they'll have to either commission somebody to make one or make it themselves. I don't object to PCs having unusual gear, I'm just not going to assume they have it if they haven't previously said anything about getting it.

[Grayson01]

Defensive Duelist+Eldritch Knight.

And because you want to.

The Red part that's what's really important, because this is a Role Playing Game and playing a character that you picture in your head and will be fun for you is probably the most important.

[Easy_Lee]

Blade pact's pretty much just for multiclassing, a warlock by himself pretty much can't make blade pact do better damage than the 1d10+1d6+5+10ft push at range they get from eldritch blast, which also has the benefit of not requiring MAD from melee stats.

Rogue wise, the damage isn't the point. Rogues are supposed to make a tradeoff, using their bonus action for bonus attacks or to get advantage to make sneak attack damage more reliable or for cunning action.

On warlocks, I certainly agree with you RAW. I don't much like an archetype that's basically forced to multiclass, which is why I would come up with a custom feat (fighting style) and custom weapon (double weapon that counts as two of a weapon) if I had a player who wanted to do a dual-wielding blade pact warlock. I'm rather fond of the character idea.

Rogue wise, I also agree with you. It's just a shame that rogues don't have an archetype that lets them be good at fighter-ing. It makes one wonder about all of those Drizzt vs. Entreri fights. They must both be doing some sub-optimal multiclassing. Maybe we just need a rogue-variant to apply the assassin archetype to.

[Eslin]

On warlocks, I certainly agree with you RAW. I don't much like an archetype that's basically forced to multiclass, which is why I would come up with a custom feat (fighting style) and custom weapon (double weapon that counts as two of a weapon) if I had a player who wanted to do a dual-wielding blade pact warlock. I'm rather fond of the character idea.

Rogue wise, I also agree with you. It's just a shame that rogues don't have an archetype that lets them be good at fighter-ing. It makes one wonder about all of those Drizzt vs. Entreri fights. They must both be doing some sub-optimal multiclassing. Maybe we just need a rogue-variant to apply the assassin archetype to.

Rogues don't really need a fighter-ing subtype, rogue and battlemaster fighter multiclass with each other fantastically.

If I had a player who wanted to play a hexblade yeah, I'd probably just homebrew some stuff to make him actually work well in melee.

[Hytheter]

On warlocks, I certainly agree with you RAW. I don't much like an archetype that's basically forced to multiclass, which is why I would come up with a custom feat (fighting style) and custom weapon (double weapon that counts as two of a weapon) if I had a player who wanted to do a dual-wielding blade pact warlock. I'm rather fond of the character idea.

I think Blade Pact just needs more invocation support. Though I agree in general that there should be a Fighting Style feat.

[Eslin]

I think Blade Pact just needs more invocation support. Though I agree in general that there should be a Fighting Style feat.

Yep. By itself it has so little support that there's no point doing it single classed, the only way to make it actually useful is by taking 3 levels in a charisma based multiclass melee build.

All they really need to do for it is give it some unique strengths of its own - the ability to make a melee attack as a bonus action if you cast eldritch blast, some more spells and invocations that work with melee and bam, hexblades are fun and viable.

[Shadow]

It makes one wonder about all of those Drizzt vs. Entreri fights. They must both be doing some sub-optimal multiclassing. Maybe we just need a rogue-variant to apply the assassin archetype to.

Drizzt was all over the place, build wise, depending on which edition you were looking at and which book you had open. Mostly ranger, obviously, but the details beyond that varied.
The same goes for Artemis, but the results were usually less varied. Almost every stat allocation I've seen had him with 10-12 fighter, 3-5 rogue, and a level or two elsewhere.

[Strill]

Yep. By itself it has so little support that there's no point doing it single classed, the only way to make it actually useful is by taking 3 levels in a charisma based multiclass melee build.

All they really need to do for it is give it some unique strengths of its own - the ability to make a melee attack as a bonus action if you cast eldritch blast, some more spells and invocations that work with melee and bam, hexblades are fun and viable.

There's also the fact that Blade Pact needs two invocations in order to do less damage than Eldritch Blast does with one invocation.

My houserule for blade pact is that Blade Pact gets medium armor for free, Lifedrinker for free at 11th level, and a custom invocation: "When you make a melee attack with your pact weapon, you may increase your reach by 10'. If you hit, your target is pulled 10' towards you in a straight line."

[Hytheter]

Yep. By itself it has so little support that there's no point doing it single classed, the only way to make it actually useful is by taking 3 levels in a charisma based multiclass melee build.

All they really need to do for it is give it some unique strengths of its own - the ability to make a melee attack as a bonus action if you cast eldritch blast, some more spells and invocations that work with melee and bam, hexblades are fun and viable.

Hell, even just a "Pick a Fighting Style. You gain its benefit while wielding your pact weapon" invocation would go a long way.

[Easy_Lee]

Hell, even just a "Pick a Fighting Style. You gain its benefit while wielding your pact weapon" invocation would go a long way.

I suspect adding a fighting style to the extra attack invocation wouldn't break anything.

[Svata]

Remember that thing I said a few posts up about restricting martials based on what you think of as realistic always resulting in poor rulings? That's been true for many years and hasn't changed in the last few minutes. This is a polearm master, it's in the name, someone who takes this feat is an absolute master of polearms that can do things that would be unfeasible for mere mortals like us, including attacking with both ends of a staff. Why do you have such a problem with this?

Classic 'Guy at the Gym' fallacy.

[Eslin]

Classic 'Guy at the Gym' fallacy.

Needs a snappier name, but I'm glad we have a term for this.

[Svata]

Mwybe. But its called that because of the mentality behind it. Namely, "That guy at the gym can't do it, so its unrealistic for a mundane character to be able to do it."

[Eslin]

Mwybe. But its called that because of the mentality behind it. Namely, "That guy at the gym can't do it, so its unrealistic for a mundane character to be able to do it."

Yep. I see it all the time and it annoys the **** out of me. A third level barbarian will survive a fall from orbit, provided he gets angry before he hits the ground (20d6=70 damage on average, halved to 35 from rage, con 16 barbarian has 12+14+9 hp), and yet people have spent the thread arguing that attacking with both ends of an explicitly single handed quarterstaff shouldn't be allowed.

[Vogonjeltz]

Blade pact's pretty much just for multiclassing, a warlock by himself pretty much can't make blade pact do better damage than the 1d10+1d6+5+10ft push at range they get from eldritch blast, which also has the benefit of not requiring MAD from melee stats.

Paladin wise, I think it's pretty much just a style thing, which is probably a bit stupid - arbitrarily restricting classes in that manner doesn't make sense, it's not a ranger with a shield or a paladin with two weapons is impossible.

Rogue wise, the damage isn't the point. Rogues are supposed to make a tradeoff, using their bonus action for bonus attacks or to get advantage to make sneak attack damage more reliable or for cunning action.

If you need an 11 to hit, using your round to attack if you're a level 20 rogue with a shortsword will do (11d6+5)/2=21.75 damage on average. If you have a shortsword in your other hand, you'll do((11d6)+(11d6+5)+(12d6+5)+(0))/4=32.25 damage on average. With the TWF fighting style, that average damage will only increase to 34.75, not much of an increase compared to the extra damage the attack gives you in the first place.

Your rogue numbers are way off.
11d6+5s average is (16+71)/2, or 87/2 or 43.5

Also, sneak attack is a once per turn thing, and it looks like you factored it in thrice in that line item about using two shortswords.

[Eslin]

Your rogue numbers are way off.
11d6+5s average is (16+71)/2, or 87/2 or 43.5

Also, sneak attack is a once per turn thing, and it looks like you factored it in thrice in that line item about using two shortswords.

How on earth did you get 87 from 11d6+5? The maximum 11d6 plus 5 can get you is 71, and we're looking for the average in any case. 11d6 averages to 38.5, add 5 to that for 43.5 and then halve it because you're only hitting 50% of the time and you get 21.75. I didn't count potential crits for simplicity's sake (since it would multiply every answer out in close to the same way, it wouldn't be that useful for demonstrating how much of an increase TWF was), but even counting the fact that one in ten hits will be crits we only get 23.675, well short of 43.5.

And I clearly didn't factor in sneak attack more than once per turn, I took the four equally possible outcomes (with needing an 11 to hit), added them up and divided them by four to get the average damage.

[Vogonjeltz]

How on earth did you get 87 from 11d6+5? The maximum 11d6 plus 5 can get you is 71, and we're looking for the average in any case. 11d6 averages to 38.5, add 5 to that for 43.5 and then halve it because you're only hitting 50% of the time and you get 21.75. I didn't count potential crits for simplicity's sake (since it would multiply every answer out in close to the same way, it wouldn't be that useful for demonstrating how much of an increase TWF was), but even counting the fact that one in ten hits will be crits we only get 23.675, well short of 43.5.

And I clearly didn't factor in sneak attack more than once per turn, I took the four equally possible outcomes (with needing an 11 to hit), added them up and divided them by four to get the average damage.

Yes, the average of the minimum outcome (16) and the maximum outcome (71) is 16+71, or 87, divided by 2. That's how you get an average, not by dividing just the maximum outcome.

[Easy_Lee]

Yes, the average of the minimum outcome (16) and the maximum outcome (71) is 16+71, or 87, divided by 2. That's how you get an average, not by dividing just the maximum outcome.

Or we can do 11*(average d6 roll), which is either [(11*4)+(11*3)]/2 or (11*3.5). So it's 11 * 3.5 + 5 = 43.5, like you said.

[Knaight]

On the average rolls - people are omitting the zeroes that should be getting averaged in, which is where the 42.5 is coming from. Also averaging based entirely on the minimum and maximum outcomes only works for symmetrical curves (and a few fluke asymmetrical curves), and should probably be presented as the correct method only for that case. After all the maximum of 1d20 is 20, and the minimum is 1. The same applies with advantage and disadvantage mechanics, and if you use the maximum-minimum method you get 10.5 for the normal, advantage, and disadvantage case. Which is incorrect.


Mwybe. But its called that because of the mentality behind it. Namely, "That guy at the gym can't do it, so its unrealistic for a mundane character to be able to do it."

Try "it doesn't exist in historical accounts or even in slightly mythologized accounts that borrow heavily from real history, or even in the source literature to any real degree".

[Shadow]

Try "it doesn't exist in historical accounts or even in slightly mythologized accounts that borrow heavily from real history, or even in the source literature to any real degree".

There's no point in debating with him on this. Whether or not this is reasonable is completely a matter of opinion, and yet he continiues to claim that people are wrong.
People's opinions are wrong.
He's not saying that he disagrees, he's saying that this opinion is wrong.

edit:
It was Eslin saying that, and he was part of that specific conversation. My mistake.

[Eslin]

Try "it doesn't exist in historical accounts or even in slightly mythologized accounts that borrow heavily from real history, or even in the source literature to any real degree".

Powerful wizards getting that way through meticulous study and using teleport, conjuring mephits, reanimating a specific number of the dead and going to sleep in an invisible magically created hut every time they run out of spells don't really exist in any of that either, and yet here we are. Nor do bards that inflict disease, summon meteor storms, raise the dead and control the weather. D&D is allowed to move away and create its own thing, you're fine with the previous examples existing but not with attacking with both ends of a quarterstaff while using a shield?


There's no point in debating with him on this. Whether or not this is reasonable is completely a matter of opinion, and yet he continiues to claim that people are wrong.
People's opinions are wrong.
He's not saying that he disagrees, he's saying that this opinion is wrong.

edit:
It was Eslin saying that, and he was part of that specific conversation. My mistake.
Not sure whose opinion I was saying is wrong, but I will happily admit I think the opinion of anyone who restricts martials in a game like D&D where they're already behind on being able to do things based on thinking achieving a mundane outcome is unrealistic is wrong. I repeat: In D&D if you ever err on the side of realism for martial characters when deciding if something that is rules legal should be allowed, you are wrong. You'd think there'd be an exception for playing a gritty medieval game, but you'd still be wrong because why are you playing gritty medieval with a system designed around magic that lets barbarians fall from orbit and survive at level 3 when there are systems that do gritty medieval play very well?


Yes, the average of the minimum outcome (16) and the maximum outcome (71) is 16+71, or 87, divided by 2. That's how you get an average, not by dividing just the maximum outcome.
No you don't. You get the average by adding up all possible outcomes then dividing them by the number of possible outcomes. But hey, since you've arrived at the same number because all potential rolls are equally likely (which is the only time the minimum+maximum thing will work), I'll explain where you went wrong.

For the damage, you ended up with 87 and divided by 2, getting 43.5. That's fine, we're about on the money, but that's the average damage if you hit - and there's only a 50% chance of hitting in this scenario. To get to the answer you need to divide by 2 again, since you'll only hit 1/2 times, getting 21.75.

[Shadow]

Not sure whose opinion I was saying is wrong,
Are you kidding me? You've done it multiple times, even doing so in the very post you quote which states it as a matter of opinion.
Me: "It's a matter of opinoin, not a matter of right and wrong."
You: "No, you're wrong."


A ruling by the DM stating that a polearm master doesn't get his bonus attack with the other end unless he has a hand free to actually use the weapon via the versatile quality (thus ruling out the shield if you wanted the bonus attack) would not be unreasonable.
I would argue that the RAI required the versatile weapon to be used two-handed to get the bonus attack
to which you responded with this:

Well, you'd be wrong.
to which I responded with this:

This isn't a matter of right and wrong. It's a matter of opinion about what would be reasonable.
I find it unreasonable that someone would be able to hold a 5 or 6 foot pole (at minimum) in one hand, while the other hand was occupied, and still be able to use both ends of the pole effectively as weapons.
The example Easy gave for swinging one end and then jabbing with the other is absolutely unrealistic and not feasible when used with a single hand.

And yes, it's 5 or 6 feet at minimum. A staff is generally considered to be a pole between 6 and 12 feet long.
Anything shorter and it is no longer a staff. Anything shorter and it becomes a club (or jo, or hanbo, if you prefer those terms instead).
and then posted the following:


You can argue against RAW all you want, but you're going to lose.
I'm not arguing RAW.
I'm arguing what would be a reasonable ruling.
to which you responded with this:

And you are by every metric incorrect.

You aren't saying that you disagree. You're saying that something which is completely subjective is objectively wrong.
There's no point in talking about it any longer with you because you claim that opinions which differ from yours are wrong. Not that you disagree, but that they are flat out wrong.

[Eslin]

Are you kidding me? You've done it multiple times, even doing so in the very post you quote which states it as a matter of opinion.
Me: "It's a matter of opinoin, not a matter of right and wrong."
You: "No, you're wrong."


to which you responded with this:

to which I responded with this:

and then posted the following:

to which you responded with this:


You aren't saying that you disagree. You're saying that something which is completely subjective is objectively wrong.
There's no point in talking about it any longer with you because you claim that opinions which differ from yours are wrong. Not that you disagree, but that they are flat out wrong.

No, most opinions I just disagree with. Some people like to have games in which magical items are so rare they can't be bought, which I disagree with, but it impacts everyone the same and so they aren't wrong to do so, they're just doing something I personally wouldn't.

I responded that someone was wrong about several things, and they were. First off you said that you needed two hands to make the extra attack with a quarterstaff, which was wrong. A quarterstaff is a one handed, versatile weapon, you don't need two hands to use the other end any more than you would for a longsword if they had a similar feat.

The second time you said they were arguing that it would be a reasonable ruling, and you were wrong. It wasn't. All it was was banning something the rules explicitly allow because they didn't like the mental image, which to be honest seems to be linked more to quarterstaves being one handed at all than the feat in question. It was, by pretty much every single measure we use(RaW, RaI, game balance, what makes sense for a martial to be able to do), wrong - just because you, I or the guy at the gym can't do it doesn't mean an explicit master of the quarterstaff who took a feat to do exactly this can't. A quarterstaff is a one handed weapon now, yet you persist in treating it like a two handed weapon when you visualise it, and you're making rulings on the baseless assumption that it should have to be used two handed to do certain things, which is wrong. The only thing it needs two hands for is do deal 1d8 damage rather than 1d6, and removing a perfectly valid way of playing the game just because you're still thinking of it as essentially a two handed weapon is wrong.

[Shadow]

First off you said that you needed two hands to make the extra attack with a quarterstaff, which was wrong.
That's not what I said. What I said was that someone could make that ruling if they felt inclined, and that ruling would be perfectly reasonable.


The second time you said they were arguing that it would be a reasonable ruling, and you were wrong.
Once again, it is not a matter of right or wrong. It's a matter of what any given person feels would be reasonable. There's no right or wrong to it. It's subjective.
Unless someone disagrees with you about it, in which case they're wrong.

Don't bother responding to this, because I'm done.

[Eslin]

That's not what I said. What I said was that someone could make that ruling if they felt inclined, and that ruling would be perfectly reasonable.

Once again, it is not a matter of right or wrong. It's a matter of what any given person feels would be reasonable. There's no right or wrong to it. It's subjective.
Unless someone disagrees with you about it, in which case they're wrong.

Don't bother responding to this, because I'm done.
In this instance? Yes, they are. We've examined all reasons to make such a ruling, and all of them are bad. It's plainly a bad idea by every metric used to determine such things, so yes, they're wrong. I'm about done here too, arguing over something which has such an obvious answer is getting a bit silly.

[toapat]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe paladins can just emblazon their holy symbol on their shield and cast with that hand. So you shouldn't need to "sheathe the quarterstaff", per say.

doesnt work because you arent holding the holy symbol, nor does it work because of just how rare somatic paladin spells are.


The example Easy gave for swinging one end and then jabbing with the other is absolutely unrealistic and not feasible when used with a single hand.

and yet thats what choking your grip does. It isnt a martial art to the same degree we have put to fencing, but that doesnt make it less possible.


Do you think that history (or, the subset of history that you personally are aware of) exhausted all possible options for useful fighting styles?

No, and yet, yes. The technical of every unique type of weapon has never been really perfected, but what has been fully explored is the theoretical benefits of each weapon. The Quarterstaff is more of a ritualistic weapon then practical by simply not being as effective or versatile as say, a weapon based on the pilum would be in the same situation. It lacks the advantage of say, a true polearm's counterweight/morningstar to deform armor or a spear/glaive's blade for severing/piercing.

[Eslin]

doesnt work because you arent holding the holy symbol, nor does it work because of just how rare somatic paladin spells are.
No, devs have confirmed it does work. Which is fine, you shouldn't have to worry about that kind of thing


No, and yet, yes. The technical of every unique type of weapon has never been really perfected, but what has been fully explored is the theoretical benefits of each weapon. The Quarterstaff is more of a ritualistic weapon then practical by simply not being as effective or versatile as say, a weapon based on the pilum would be in the same situation. It lacks the advantage of say, a true polearm's counterweight/morningstar to deform armor or a spear/glaive's blade for severing/piercing.
It's not like D&D is a great simulator of weapons in the first place - the best weapon damage is someone on horseback with a lance in each hand.

[Easy_Lee]

doesnt work because you arent holding the holy symbol, nor does it work because of just how rare somatic paladin spells are.

In what way is the paladin/cleric not holding his holy symbol if it's emblazoned on his shield? How in the hell could he hold it harder than strapping it to his arm and devoting a hand to it? What is the point of having this line in the PHB otherwise?

I just reread the relevant rule. The character must have a free hand to access components or their arcane focus, but it can be the same hand as used for somatic components. That means wizards can cast with a focus in one hand and a staff in the other. It also means clerics can cast with their holy symbol in one hand and weapon in the other. Holding a shield with your holy symbol on it is holding your holy symbol.

[Regulas]

This one weird thread.

There are lots of easier ways to reconcile stuff if the surrealism bothers you. Like maybe he's just trained so he can ultimately strike slightly faster with the quaterstaff and that's how he's actually getting the extra attack. Or maybe he's just really skilled and good at landing very damaging blows and the extra attack just represents his deadlier aim.

Also remember that technically the Attack action is not explicitly "1 attack" 1 attack is just the rules representation for the sequence of combat and extra attacks again just represents what a more skilled fighter achieves. 1 Attack could actually be 5 or 6 or 7 attacks, the ruled 1 attack just represents the whole of this; that being that in a fight between blocks, dodges and feints and parrys you will be able to land 1 attack on average if it goes well for you, a skilled fighter in contrast might be able to land more blows in the same sequence of combat.

[toapat]

In what way is the paladin/cleric not holding his holy symbol if it's emblazoned on his shield? How in the hell could he hold it harder than strapping it to his arm and devoting a hand to it? What is the point of having this line in the PHB otherwise?

Writing an icon onto a shield doesnt make the shield a religious object, no matter how formal the process is. {scrubbed}

Shields are, by definition, exempt from the Holy symbol Material component transparency clause because they are not part of the holysymbol. {scrubbed}

This also doesnt cover the fact that Material components are extremely rare for paladin spells, unlike somatic (i made a typo there)

[Eslin]

This one weird thread.
Yep. This is the first time I've seen so many people arguing that the intended use of something completely rules legal should be banned because they don't like the mental picture. Arguing that it's unintended use I see all the time, arguing that it's overpowered is pretty common and we had some of that here even if they were wrong (you're trading reach and damage for +2ac), but arguing on the basis that they think it's unrealistic that the guy who can survive falling to earth from low orbit could hit people with two ends of a stick, that came as a surprise.


Writing an icon onto a shield doesnt make the shield a religious object, no matter how formal the process is. Believing this is the case will get a backhand from any properly zealous religious person, and i only havent been on the receiving end of such because of how agnostic my mom is.
Except the rules explicitly say it counts. So it does.

[Sartharina]

Writing an icon onto a shield doesnt make the shield a religious object, no matter how formal the process is.Do you not have a player's handbook, or even the basic rules? A shield is EXPLICITLY CALLED OUT AS A HOLY SYMBOL!


Holy Symbol. A holy symbol is a representation of a god or pantheon. It might be an amulet depicting a symbol representing a deity, the same symbol carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield, or a tiny box holding a fragment of a sacred relic. The Player’s Handbook lists many gods in the multiverse and their typical symbols. A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.

Emphasis added.

[Eslin]

Do you not have a player's handbook, or even the basic rules? A shield is EXPLICITLY CALLED OUT AS A HOLY SYMBOL!
Don't worry, arguing that things that the PHB tells us are legal and how they are intended to work shouldn't work because their real life experiences tell them that they're unlikely is exactly in keeping with the spirit of this thread.

[JoeJ]

Writing an icon onto a shield doesnt make the shield a religious object, no matter how formal the process is. Believing this is the case will get a backhand from any properly zealous religious person, and i only havent been on the receiving end of such because of how agnostic my mom is.

Different religions have different rules regarding sacred images.

[toapat]

Except the rules explicitly say it counts. So it does.

No, they dont.

Because Either you have a shield with a holy symbol on it, in which case you get to ignore cheap material components but dont get a free hand, Or you have a giant piece of artwork strapped to your arm that doesnt give you +2 AC. Pick your suck


Different religions have different rules regarding sacred images.

Thats why i didnt go beyond the base level stuff. Formal and Exact rules i dont know, The universal reality is that Canvas =/= component.


Do you not have a player's handbook, or even the basic rules? A shield is EXPLICITLY CALLED OUT AS A HOLY SYMBOL!

You skipped the word On in the statement about the shield. Your quote lacks the phrase "As part of"

[silveralen]

Don't worry, arguing that things that the PHB tells us are legal and how they are intended to work shouldn't work because their real life experiences tell them that they're unlikely is exactly in keeping with the spirit of this thread.

I'll be honest, reading through the thread it seems far more "this is absurdly silly looking makes the quarterstaff the best one handed weapon in the game, which is going to cause campaign worlds where all fighters walk around with staff and shield."

If I allowed it, I'd also have a feat that allowed any one handed weapon to do it, with some other rider to fill out the feat. Or just add on a shield bash option to shield master.

[Eslin]

I'll be honest, reading through the thread it seems far more "this is absurdly silly looking makes the quarterstaff the best one handed weapon in the game, which is going to cause campaign worlds where all fighters walk around with staff and shield."

If I allowed it, I'd also have a feat that allowed any one handed weapon to do it, with some other rider to fill out the feat. Or just add on a shield bash option to shield master.

Well yeah, so would I. Again, I suspect your problem is mostly with the quarterstaff being usable one handed at all - between polearm master and shillelagh, staff and shield is quite a common option this edition. I'm turning the feat into 'weapon expertise', it's the exact same feat only every part of it can be used with any melee weapon.

[toapat]

Well yeah, so would I. Again, I suspect your problem is mostly with the quarterstaff being usable one handed at all - between polearm master and shillelagh, staff and shield is quite a common option this edition. I'm turning the feat into 'weapon expertise', it's the exact same feat only every part of it can be used with any melee weapon.

Why not bows? Crossbows you could even affix a dagger to in some form to make a, granted rather unwieldy, spear.

[Shadow]

I'll be honest, reading through the thread it seems far more "this is absurdly silly looking makes the quarterstaff the best one handed weapon in the game, which is going to cause campaign worlds where all fighters walk around with staff and shield."

Exactly.
Except, of course, at tables where the DM doesn't care about what a strict reading of the RAW says and does care about what the RAI was, in which case they may possibly rule that the bonus action granted by polearm master doesn't apply unless you're using the staff as a versatile weapon.
Which would be a perfectly reasonable ruling.

As for the holy symbol on a shield bit: I explained to topat a few months ago that the presentation of the symbol is the important part, and that you can present the symbol just fine if it's on a shield. He doesn't agree, and so he makes placing an holy on your shield utterly useless in his games.

[Knaight]

Yep. This is the first time I've seen so many people arguing that the intended use of something completely rules legal should be banned because they don't like the mental picture. Arguing that it's unintended use I see all the time, arguing that it's overpowered is pretty common and we had some of that here even if they were wrong (you're trading reach and damage for +2ac), but arguing on the basis that they think it's unrealistic that the guy who can survive falling to earth from low orbit could hit people with two ends of a stick, that came as a surprise.

Falling to earth from low orbit is an outlier. The same person who survives falling to earth from low orbit has a decent chance screwing up swimming in mildly rough water. The same person who survives falling to earth from low orbit gets seriously injured with a handful of crossbow bolts. It's not a useful representative sample, and is largely indicative of weirdness in the falling rules more than anything else - or of the falling rules only being built to cover falling likely to happen in setting.

[silveralen]

Well yeah, so would I. Again, I suspect your problem is mostly with the quarterstaff being usable one handed at all - between polearm master and shillelagh, staff and shield is quite a common option this edition. I'm turning the feat into 'weapon expertise', it's the exact same feat only every part of it can be used with any melee weapon.

That's a pretty good solution. It can already be stacked with the great weapon feat, where it has the most synergy, so i doubt it causes a balance issue. Beyond making TWF slightly more pointless, but that needs homebrew as is.

Which reminds me, an idea for an add on to the dual wielder feat: If both weapons are light or the off hand weapon is a dagger, you may make an additional offhand attack.

Gives the feat a little extra oomph for people who don't want to duel wield longswords for conceptual reasons, actually allows duel wielding to maintain an additional attack over other styles with feat investment, gives you an actual reason to use the sword+dagger style that is so iconic.

[Eslin]

Why not bows? Crossbows you could even affix a dagger to in some form to make a, granted rather unwieldy, spear.
You can already make a bonus attack with crossbows, it has its own feat.


Exactly.
Except, of course, at tables where the DM doesn't care about what a strict reading of the RAW says and does care about what the RAI was, in which case they may possibly rule that the bonus action granted by polearm master doesn't apply unless you're using the staff as a versatile weapon.
Which would be a perfectly reasonable ruling.
Well, no, it wouldn't be a reasonable ruling at all. Quarterstaff was deliberately put in there, and they deliberately left the 'you must use two hands' part they included in other abilities part out. RaI is clearly that it is usable one handed. This isn't a 'strict reading of RaW', this is you deciding somethat that clearly works both RaW and RaI doesn't work because you don't like the mental image.


That's a pretty good solution. It can already be stacked with the great weapon feat, where it has the most synergy, so i doubt it causes a balance issue. Beyond making TWF slightly more pointless, but that needs homebrew as is.

Which reminds me, an idea for an add on to the dual wielder feat: If both weapons are light or the off hand weapon is a dagger, you may make an additional offhand attack.

Gives the feat a little extra oomph for people who don't want to duel wield longswords for conceptual reasons, actually allows duel wielding to maintain an additional attack over other styles with feat investment, gives you an actual reason to use the sword+dagger style that is so iconic.
Dual wielder has proved tricky to balance - the best I've done so far is having the dual wielding feature give one attack with each bonus action per attack with your normal action instead of giving you the attribute bonus, but that favours big weapons too strongly. I'll have to think of a way to reward light weapons too without making it too complicated.

[toapat]

As for the holy symbol on a shield bit: I explained to topat a few months ago that the presentation of the symbol is the important part, and that you can present the symbol just fine if it's on a shield. He doesn't agree, and so he makes placing an holy on your shield utterly useless in his games.

And i dont care about the bit that says the holy symbol works, the relevant fact is there are transparancy rules, Which i can explain in full technical DONT BYPASS shields using your offhand which is the only relevant thing.


You can already make a bonus attack with crossbows, it has its own feat.

Not a melee attack, Crossbow master is a ranged attack

[silveralen]

Not a melee attack, Crossbow master is a ranged attack

That doesn't have disadvantage at close range, thanks to the feat. So... I mean I suppose you could add that in, but why?


Dual wielder has proved tricky to balance - the best I've done so far is having the dual wielding feature give one attack with each bonus action per attack with your normal action instead of giving you the attribute bonus, but that favours big weapons too strongly. I'll have to think of a way to reward light weapons too without making it too complicated.

I'm reasonably happy with my solution. You make two bonus action attacks with a weakish weapon and have +1 AC, compared to the +2 AC, +2 damage per hit, and weakish extra attack (plus more common reaction attack) a sword and board guy could grab. I'm not sure it's perfect, but if I used your feat in my game (which I probably will) it'd be where I start.

[Sartharina]

And i dont care about the bit that says the holy symbol works, the relevant fact is there are transparancy rules, Which i can explain in full technical DONT BYPASS shields using your offhand which is the only relevant thing.The transparency rules allow for using the shield, because if you're holding your shield in one hand, you're also holding your holy symbol. There's a reason I bolded two parts of the Holy Symbol description. If you have the holy symbol emblazoned on your shield, you're counted as holding your holy symbol if you're holding your shield.

[Shadow]

And i dont care about the bit that says the holy symbol works, the relevant fact is there are transparancy rules, Which i can explain in full technical DONT BYPASS shields using your offhand which is the only relevant thing.

It doesn't need to bypass a shield using your off hand.
The shield becomes your holy symbol for all intents. I know, I know, your mom restores religious artifacts for a living, and she says that the symbol matters and the shield doesn't. But for the purposes of this ability, the shield does indeed effectively become that vehicle for you to hold your holy symbol.
So the shield becomes the vehicle for you to hold your spellcasting focus. And if you're holding your focus you can cast any spell with a material component. And you can cast any spell with a somatic component using the same hand that accesses the material component. So if you're *holding* a focus, you don't need a hand free (edit/ unless the spell cast a costly component /edit).
That's the entire point.

[sigfile]

And i dont care about the bit that says the holy symbol works, the relevant fact is there are transparancy rules, Which i can explain in full technical DONT BYPASS shields using your offhand which is the only relevant thing.
Your concern is that using a Holy Symbol on a shield covers the material component of most spells being cast, but will not allow the caster to handle the somatic components, yes? A staff and board combatant doesn't have a free hand to cast spells with a somatic component. This is true, as written. That's what the War Caster feat is for.

[Eslin]

Not a melee attack, Crossbow master is a ranged attack
Yes, it is. It's a ranged attack, with a crossbow, which is why it's from the crossbow expertise feat.

I'm... not really seeing your point.

[sigfile]

So the shield becomes the vehicle for you to hold your spellcasting focus. And if you're holding your focus you can cast any spell with a material component. And you can cast any spell with a somatic component using the same hand that accesses the material component. So if you're *holding* a focus, you don't need a hand free.
That's the entire point.

PHB203. You read that backwards and are stretching. You need a free hand to use somatic components. You may use the free hand you have for somatic components to access material components. A spellcasting focus may be used in place of most spell components.

It makes sense that a wand, for example, could be used for the somatic components. But that's not the written word. And it makes less sense when applied to other spellcasting foci.

There are DevTweets regarding the issue, but expect a lot of table variation until there's an official errata document. And then expect table variation, but slightly less of it.

[toapat]

Your concern is that using a Holy Symbol on a shield covers the material component of most spells being cast, but will not allow the caster to handle the somatic components, yes? A staff and board combatant doesn't have a free hand to cast spells with a somatic component. This is true, as written. That's what the War Caster feat is for.

Which is what Others dont understand. While the shield counts for the Material component bypass when it has an emblem (no issues), it doesnt qualify for the Somatic-material transparancy because the Shield is not the Holy Symbol and no one with personal investment in religious iconography would accept the shield as part of the holy symbol, only as the canvas for the holy symbol. {scrubbed}


Yes, it is. It's a ranged attack, with a crossbow, which is why it's from the crossbow expertise feat.

I'm... not really seeing your point.

Melee attack option for bows. Not crossbows. Bayonettes are a whole other issue which in 5th we dont need because of the change to movement.

[Eslin]

Melee attack option for bows. Not crossbows. Bayonettes are a whole other issue which in 5th we dont need because of the change to movement.

Why would we want a melee attack option for a bow? Isn't the fact that it's ranged kind of the point?

[Easy_Lee]

{scrubbed}

[toapat]

Why would we want a melee attack option for a bow? Isn't the fact that it's ranged kind of the point?

well, there is that 1/120 times where a bow user needs to fight someone in melee. and dropping items this ed isnt a completely free action unlike prior.

[Shadow]

Melee attack option for bows. Not crossbows. Bayonettes are a whole other issue which in 5th we dont need because of the change to movement.

Either can be used as an improvised melee weapon for 1d4 bludgeoning (without proficiency bonus to attack unless you had the feat).


{scrubbed}

OK, now go back a few pages and read this to yourself regarding what a "reasonable ruling" would be.

[Eslin]

well, there is that 1/120 times where a bow user needs to fight someone in melee. and dropping items this ed isnt a completely free action unlike prior.

Then they need to waste time switching weapons, since they were caught in melee with a ranged weapon. This seems entirely appropriate.

[Cybren]

I find it interesting that the feat says it's about reach weapons, but then it goes on and includes a single nonreach weapon.

That oddness aside, the quarterstaff wielded one handed with no other weapon (note, shields in 5e are wielded, so I don't think it would operate while using a shield) would work for dueling, and I'd say the bonus attack would benefit.

What makes sense is that using a large two handed weapon in a staff grip like you would a short pole weapon like a dueling halberd, or, yknow, a staff, could get the extra attack. In a strictly simulationist game, using a staff one handed is probably using it like a short spear one handed: it's just stabbin'. It makes less sense from a purely simulationist point of view for reach weapons in D&D (which are approachign ten feet long) to benefit from the extra "offhand" attack of polearm master. But that's why this is the Rulings not Rules edition: It doesn't break anything to let a staff user benefit one handed and it doesn't hurt them that much to say "naw that's dumb". It's not like you're forbidding them a critical class feature.

[Sartharina]

Which is what Others dont understand. While the shield counts for the Material component bypass when it has an emblem (no issues), it doesnt qualify for the Somatic-material transparancy because the Shield is not the Holy Symbol and no one with personal investment in religious iconography would accept the shield as part of the holy symbol, only as the canvas for the holy symbol. {scrubbed}The holy symbol is on the shield, and by extension held when you use the shield. The standards of the people you live with on what is holy or not is irrelevant.

Warcaster allows you to cast even if you're bound or do not have a focus you can be holding (Whether you're holding two swords, or a shield that lacks an engraved focus-emblem.)

[Easy_Lee]

OK, now go back a few pages and read this to yourself regarding what a "reasonable ruling" would be.

Oh, you mean the part where I said polearm mastery works with quarterstaves? The part where everyone re-read the rules and agreed it's RAW? The part where a few people vehemently argued that it should not be RAW, even though it unquestionably is, and the thread got into a long debate with people on both sides?

I don't see your point, and I'm not convinced you have one.

[Shadow]

Oh, you mean the part where I said polearm mastery works with quarterstaves? The part where everyone re-read the rules and agreed it's RAW? The part where a few people vehemently argued that it should not be RAW, even though it unquestionably is, and the thread got into a long debate with people on both sides?

I don't see your point, and I'm not convinced you have one.
I honetly don't know why I have to continue to repeat that this isn't about RAW.
It was never about RAW in any way.

[Easy_Lee]

What part of "No one is arguing RAW" don't you comprehend?
It was never about RAW in any way.

RAW is all that matters when the rules explicitly state something. If polearm mastery said "pole-hafted weapons", we could have a nice debate. If it were merely implied but not addressed (mount dodging affects rider), we could have some difference of opinion. But it explicitly says quarterstaff is included.

To deny that rule is to deny falling damage, or quickened casting, or crossbow expert. It it a person's opinion of how it should be, not how it is. A reasonable DM does not argue with the explicit rules in the book, but merely says "I do not like this rule." It is understood that you may not use it in your games, but to start a multi-page debate arguing with people who want to just use the rules as written? That is inordinate.

This debate is over. I'll not participate in the further derailment of this thread.

[Shadow]

So I reiterate once again that this was never about RAW at all in any way, and your response is to rant about RAW.

[Strill]

{scrubbed}

[Regulas]

I almost feel like this thread should just be closed at this point...

[Hytheter]

I'm just sitting here surprised because I didn't even know you could use a hand holding an arcane focus to also perform somatic components. I thought that only applied to actual material components.

Suffice to say, this changes everything.

[toapat]

{scrubbed}

The reality is, The Mona Lisa could have been painted on a Mirror, metal plate, or a Silk frame and it wouldnt change anything because the mastery of paint is what matters. And the exact same case applies to putting a holy symbol on a shield

[Shadow]

I'm just sitting here surprised because I didn't even know you could use a hand holding an arcane focus to also perform somatic components. I thought that only applied to actual material components.

Suffice to say, this changes everything.

Well, to be fair, an extremely strict reading of the RAW doesn't let you.
But:
(a) a spellcasting focus literally has zero use when reading the RAW that strictly because then you'd need to be holding the focus.... and then still need a hand free anyway, so why hold the focus at all?
and
(b) there have been mutiple tweets from the designers stating that the reverse reading I was refering to is kosher by intent (if not by strict wording).

The intent is that holding a focus lets you cast freely unless you need to provide a costly component, in which case you still need a hand free to access that particular component.

[Hytheter]

Well, to be fair, an extremely strict reading of the RAW doesn't let you.
But:
(a) a spellcasting focus literally has zero use when reading the RAW that strictly because then you'd need to be holding the focus.... and then still need a hand free anyway, so why hold the focus at all?
and
(b) there have been mutiple tweets from the designers stating that the reverse reading I was refering to is kosher by intent (if not by strict wording).

The intent is that holding a focus lets you cast freely unless you need to provide a costly component, in which case you still need a hand free to access that particular component.

Yeah that makes sense. I was pretty annoyed that I apparently couldn't use a Wand to perform Somatic components.

Well, time to go play a Paladin with Polearm Master, a Quarterstaff in one hand and a Holy Symbol Shield in the other.

[Shadow]

Well, time to go play a Paladin with Polearm Master, a Quarterstaff in one hand and a Holy Symbol Shield in the other.

LOL
Or, to put it back on track from the OP, you can dual wield and wear your holy symbol visibly. That works by RAI but not by RAW.

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: Locked for review.