Battlemaster/hunter dualwielding quarterstaffs

[Spacehamster]

So got this silly idea of a 11 BM / 9 hunter two weapon fighting style + armored style, taking hordebreaker for the free attack if 2 enemies close to eachother, start with 6 fighter levels then 4 ranger, followed by fighter up to 3rd attack. Take polearm master for the reaction attack when ppl enter your range. AC would be good from full plate + armored style and dual wield feat.

In my head it sounds fun and flavourful but would it be good/decent mechanically? :)

Take dual wielder feat at lvl 4 and polearm-m at lvl 6.

[Bloodcloud]

No good. your bonus action economy is crowded between polearm master and two weapon fighting. Take a spear instead, you'll get better damage, range and less feat dependency with more or less the same crowd control result. Change two weapon feat for sentinel later on, it'll work fine.

[Theodoxus]

No good. your bonus action economy is crowded between polearm master and two weapon fighting.

I'd take the 1d6 over 1d4 - just because both offer bonus actions, doesn't mean you want to use both. PAM's bonus of 1d4 is the worst possible use of a bonus action if you have any other attack option (GWM cleave, Frenzy, off hand attack). The point of PAM is generally not the bonus attack, but the reaction provided by moving into your threatened area. It creates opportunities that otherwise wouldn't exist.

I do agree with Sentinel, as it again, opens up more opportunities for reactions - even if it conceivably clashes with PAM in a single round, you have choices - I'd rather face too many (one reason I love cunning action) than not having any.

[Spacehamster]

No good. your bonus action economy is crowded between polearm master and two weapon fighting. Take a spear instead, you'll get better damage, range and less feat dependency with more or less the same crowd control result. Change two weapon feat for sentinel later on, it'll work fine.

Polearm master is not for its bonus attack but for the reaction attack as I said. :)

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I'd take the 1d6 over 1d4 - just because both offer bonus actions, doesn't mean you want to use both. PAM's bonus of 1d4 is the worst possible use of a bonus action if you have any other attack option (GWM cleave, Frenzy, off hand attack). The point of PAM is generally not the bonus attack, but the reaction provided by moving into your threatened area. It creates opportunities that otherwise wouldn't exist.

I do agree with Sentinel, as it again, opens up more opportunities for reactions - even if it conceivably clashes with PAM in a single round, you have choices - I'd rather face too many (one reason I love cunning action) than not having any.Except, if you just use the one quarterstaff, you can pick up duelist instead of TWF. +2 damage is superior to a damage die increase. And, y'know, you free up a hand for shield use.

That said, if OP really wants to bonk people on the head with some sticks then it's not the end of the world, and PM may still be worth it depending on what type of enemies you face.

[Submortimer]

Except, if you just use the one quarterstaff, you can pick up duelist instead of TWF. +2 damage is superior to a damage die increase.

+2 per strike is not better then dage die + stat, and with feats, he'll only be 1 point of Ac lower than armor+shield.

EDIT: I misunderstood what you were saying. Yes, you are correct.

[Bloodcloud]

There is, like, no synergy at play here. Lots of wasted features.

Polarm + sentinel gives reach, 2d10+1d4 + strx3 at reach, stop enemy out of reach with the reaction and better stickiness/punishing power (your OA is 1d10 after all)

Two weapon gives 3d6 + strx3. Your OA is 1d6, you have no reach, and you wasted the bonus action from polarm master and the increased die size from two weapon. And you stealth is gonna be crap, so any ranger feature that rely on you being stealthy is also rendered moot. The reaction attack is two dice size weaker too than straight polearm.

It just... isn't optimized in any way. It's viable I guess but subpar.

[Spacehamster]

Cool > Optimization tho. :)