Reflavoring Quarterstaff+Shield

[Schopy]

Some, if not most, don't like the aesthetic aspect of the quarterstaff+shield(+PAM) combo.

If the visual of wielding a quarterstaff one-handed and using a shield bothers you, would it help to imagine it as just wielding the quarterstaff two-handed and using it to deflect blows etc. and therefore get a +2 Bonus to AC?

Other than having to deal with a possible Shield-Master Feat and the donning and/or doffing of a shield, it would be mechanical the same.

Thoughts?

[Quoxis]

I think it’s more of a „it looks overpowered to have mechanical benefits with feat investment“ problem. I don’t particularly care because it’s ok by RAW.
If anyone complains about it because it doesn’t look realistic, there are multiple ways:
- it’s an internalized magic that can’t be replicated by most without proper training (=feat) that lets the character hit faster, giving two weak hits instead of one strong one
- your idea, maybe combined with a strap-on shield that doesn’t require a free hand or a shield worn in the same hand as the weapon (look at the picture of a fighter in the phb!)
- a long staff combined with acrobatic whirling

[RandomNPC]

Raw allows it, so it's allowed, yadda yadda.

I'd go with the long staff with lots of acrobatics mentioned by Quoxis. The staff is the lightest possible pole arm, and there are plenty of real world examples of spinning one around your body, I learned how to do the twist around the neck move in a few tries, and in half an hour was reliably up to speed one handing that move. But this is D&D not real life, so either talk to the DM about house-ruling something like PAM needing two hands, or just live with knowing there's something out there that does more damage than another option.

Just remember every build has a counter. For example we had a guy make something with a burrow speed and a ridiculous grapple, he'd just grab the hardest hitter and go ten feet down, leaving them there. After a brief trip where he got to show off we started the next three fights in a row in the upper floors of buildings or on solid stone. Then the ghosts and other digging/non-breathing things showed up, because the guy was a literal one trick pony and the DM was trying to get him to make something well rounded.

[Corran]

If the visual of wielding a quarterstaff one-handed and using a shield bothers you, would it help to imagine it as just wielding the quarterstaff two-handed and using it to deflect blows etc. and therefore get a +2 Bonus to AC?

No. For me, it would take re-flavoring the quarterstaff into a different weapon completely, treating the bonus action attack simply as an extra attack with the 1-handed reflavored weapon my character is using. Basically I'd just think of the PAM feat in a completely different way in this case, very much like a general one-handed weapon training feat that allows you to attack at a faster rate (bonus action attack) and also when an advancing enemy would least expect it (reaction).

[Edenbeast]

Maybe reflavour it as this:

http://www.scrollsoflore.com/gallery/albums/ft_art/ss02.jpg

[LudicSavant]

Some, if not most, don't like the aesthetic aspect of the quarterstaff+shield(+PAM) combo.

If the visual of wielding a quarterstaff one-handed and using a shield bothers you, would it help to imagine it as just wielding the quarterstaff two-handed and using it to deflect blows etc. and therefore get a +2 Bonus to AC?

Other than having to deal with a possible Shield-Master Feat and the donning and/or doffing of a shield, it would be mechanical the same.

Thoughts?

My favorite way of handling it is to just consider a one-handed quarterstaff a mace or a war club (like a kanabo). Quarterstaves are statistically just buffed maces, after all.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I imagine a grip kinda like a tonfa, with 2-3 feet sticking out and the rest flat against your forearm. I don't think it's an actual technique, but it's certainly plausible.

Vaguely like this, I guess https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vYSFv6q-TEA/maxresdefault.jpg

[Maxilian]

I don't know, i have always though that Quarterstaff + Shield is not that weird, just that it would require a small shield (bucklet style)

https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2842/12281901816_217cba4b9f_b.jpg

Note: I´m no expert on combat, nor weaponry, so yeah... take my comment as a grain of salt.

[Ganymede]

Some, if not most, don't like the aesthetic aspect of the quarterstaff+shield(+PAM) combo.

If the visual of wielding a quarterstaff one-handed and using a shield bothers you, would it help to imagine it as just wielding the quarterstaff two-handed and using it to deflect blows etc. and therefore get a +2 Bonus to AC?

Other than having to deal with a possible Shield-Master Feat and the donning and/or doffing of a shield, it would be mechanical the same.

Thoughts?

You could pretend that there is a spike/blade on the end of the quarterstaff and that you are wielding some sort of "spear."

[CTurbo]

I was just talking about this in another thread. One handed quarterstaff + shield + PAM, while RAW, is one of these cheesiest things you can do in 5e. I allow it at my table, but will never ever reward a player for using it. That means the player will never at anytime find a magic staff of any kind. They'll be at level 20 and will still be using a 2sp staff.

[Maxilian]

I was just talking about this in another thread. One handed quarterstaff + shield + PAM, while RAW, is one of these cheesiest things you can do in 5e. I allow it at my table, but will never ever reward a player for using it. That means the player will never at anytime find a magic staff of any kind. They'll be at level 20 and will still be using a 2sp staff.

That's kinda sad, i don't know why people say its chesse, it may look weird to some people, but its not that weird (and IMHO is more interesting that a sword + board char)

[CTurbo]

It's a great example of a silly mechanical exploit IMO. I don't expect everybody to agree.

[LudicSavant]

It's a great example of a silly mechanical exploit IMO. I don't expect everybody to agree.

Exploit suggests that something unintended is going on. Jeremy Crawford has confirmed that one-handed quarterstaves are working as intended.

[Asmotherion]

What you talking about? It looks awesome! Just imagin a Mage's Stuff instead of a simplistic quarterstuff as the visual with the shield (Ideally that dubs as an Arcane Focus). :)

[Laserlight]

Some, if not most, don't like the aesthetic aspect of the quarterstaff+shield(+PAM) combo.

If the visual of wielding a quarterstaff one-handed and using a shield bothers you, would it help to imagine it as just wielding the quarterstaff two-handed and using it to deflect blows etc. and therefore get a +2 Bonus to AC?

Other than having to deal with a possible Shield-Master Feat and the donning and/or doffing of a shield, it would be mechanical the same.


The next question would be "if quarterstaff can get that +2AC, then why can't halberd, spear, glaive, etc?"

I wouldn't actually allow it as a 1 handed weapon--if you want a jo stick, get a club--but if I did, I'd say that you can do either 1H with a shield or PAM, not both.

[GreatWyrmGold]

For example we had a guy make something with a burrow speed and a ridiculous grapple, he'd just grab the hardest hitter and go ten feet down, leaving them there....we started the next three fights in a row in the upper floors of buildings or...
I will choose to imagine that he attempted his standard tactic anyways.


The shield/staff/polarm-master combo doesn't seem that bad. The tradeoff for not using a "proper" polearm is that you can use a shield, I guess. And it shouldn't be any weirder to think of having a staff in one hand and a shield in the other as just having a staff in one hand.

[Greywander]

The next question would be "if quarterstaff can get that +2AC, then why can't halberd, spear, glaive, etc?"
Spear is a one-handed (versatile) weapon, just like the q-staff.

Mechanically, there's nothing wrong with a q-staff + shield, it's no different from using any other one-handed simple weapon with a shield, and less powerful than many martial weapons usable with a shield. No, what seems to be rustling peoples jimmies is PAM.

I can understand why someone might feel like you shouldn't be able to get both +2 AC from a shield and the bonus action attack, but I feel like people make a bigger deal out of it than it deserves. It's only 1d4 + STR mod damage, and they spent a feat to get it. And you're losing out on the longer reach and higher damage of a two-handed polearm. Is it on the strong side? Sure. Is it OP? If it was, more people would be doing it.

Personally, my only complaint is that you can only do this with the q-staff. Why not have a similar feat for other weapons?

I guess a second complaint is that it makes dual-wielding even more of a joke.

EDIT: It's also worth pointing out that q-staff + shield is mutually exclusive with GWM/GWF, the other martial feat that many decry as being OP and in need of a nerf. I'm not saying that neither of these are strong combos, but they're supposed to be strong. That's why you take the feat. If damage isn't your priority, you'll take something else instead.

[Schopy]

I was just talking about this in another thread. One handed quarterstaff + shield + PAM, while RAW, is one of these cheesiest things you can do in 5e. I allow it at my table, but will never ever reward a player for using it. That means the player will never at anytime find a magic staff of any kind. They'll be at level 20 and will still be using a 2sp staff.

I'm fairly certain that posting prompted this thread. ☺ I was (and am) also interested if the (imagined or real) cheese is perceived from a mechanical or visual viewpoint.

Mechanical the difference is the damage die for ALL "mainhand" attacks, reach/no reach, eligibility for great weapon things (feat/fighting style) and no AC-Bonus/+2 AC.

Without having done deeper research, that looks pretty balanced to me. 🤔

[qube]

Exploit suggests that something unintended is going on. Jeremy Crawford has confirmed that one-handed quarterstaves are working as intended. I've found the tweet him acknowledging that PAM doesn't require two hands {as is written} - but not that it was intended {specifically designed to included this}.
spear & shield (https://www.google.com/search?q=spear+%26+shield&tbm=isch) isn't uncommon at all. If quarterstaff & shield were any type of consideration for PAM, it begs the question why they exculded the spear -- the actual hybrid between pole-arm and onehanded staff weapon.

---

I'm of the opinion, that if the player thinks it silly, he should go for something else that he likes more.

... if he quote-unquote can't , because other combo's don't have the same numerical benefits? Yeah, then there's the issue: the player doesn't want to do something cool - he want's to scrape the bottom of the barrel, and then is suprized his combo ends up looking weird.

[qube]

I can understand why someone might feel like you shouldn't be able to get both +2 AC from a shield and the bonus action attack, but I feel like people make a bigger deal out of it than it deserves. It's only 1d4 + STR mod damage, and they spent a feat to get it. And you're losing out on the longer reach and higher damage of a two-handed polearm. Is it on the strong side? Sure. Is it OP? If it was, more people would be doing it.No, it's not just "only 1d4 + STR".
it's "only 1d4 + STR + all other effects from all other abilities (divine smite, rage, magic,...)"

it's "for -1.5 on damage, you 2 attacks instead of 1" (sword and board uses a 1d8 weapon for for this 1d6/1d4), or 3 instead of 2

And if you don't think that's powerful, I suggest playing in a mixed level group, with character lower then, and equal or higher then 5th level. The difference is MASSIVE.

I'm not saying that neither of these are strong combos, but they're supposed to be strong. That's why you take the feat. If damage isn't your priority, you'll take something else instead.... I would argue they are supposed to be balanced

[Greywander]

No, it's not just "only 1d4 + STR".
it's "only 1d4 + STR + all other effects from all other abilities (divine smite, rage, magic,...)"
Working as intended. If you're not stacking these up, then PAM diminishes in value somewhat.

It still roughly equates to an additional attack at the cost of a bonus action, typically on a class that already has the Extra Attack feature. Again, it's strong, stronger than dual-wielding, but you paid a feat for it.


... I would argue they are supposed to be balanced
Around what?

It must be stronger than not having the feat, otherwise why take the feat? So it can't be balanced with builds that don't have this feat. About the best you can do is balance it around +2 to an ability score, but the feat should still be slightly stronger or there'd be little reason to take feats.

A +2 to STR would give you (a) +1 to each attack roll, (b) +1 to damage for each attack, (c) +1 to STR saves, and (d) noncombat bonuses like carry weight and Athletics checks. The value of +2 STR is going to depend on how many attacks you make (causing that +1 damage to add up) and how high you need to roll to hit (if you hit only on a 20, then +2 STR is +50% hit rate, if you hit on a 15, then it's +16%, if you hit on an 11, it's +10%). PAM, by contrast, runs from a bit less than +100% damage (without Extra Attack) to +25% damage (with three Extra Attacks), so on paper it seems quite a bit better than +2 STR. So I'll grant you that.

If you compare it to TWF with both the fighting style and feat for each, PAM + Dueling comes out ahead, but I'd argue that's because TWF is too weak. (I'd make the TWF feat append your off-hand attack to the Attack action, freeing up your bonus action. This would be huge for rogues.)

The real comparison would be with GWM/GWF. I think you'll find that either combo is quite powerful.

If I were to tweak PAM, I'd probably say the bonus action attack shouldn't get your STR bonus to damage, but that's about the only nerf I'd do. Dueling FS, Improved Smite, Rage bonus, etc. would all still add to the damage, as that is, in my mind, the whole point of getting a bonus action attack.

[sithlordnergal]

I was just talking about this in another thread. One handed quarterstaff + shield + PAM, while RAW, is one of these cheesiest things you can do in 5e. I allow it at my table, but will never ever reward a player for using it. That means the player will never at anytime find a magic staff of any kind. They'll be at level 20 and will still be using a 2sp staff.

That feels like a poor way to dm... "I'll allow you to do this...but because I don't like it I'll make sure you don't get any goodies that actually help with the build you're investing stuff into". Kind of reminds me of what this video is talking about https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVfGZPVqCNk

And to be honest, it isn't that great of a combo to begin with. You gain an extra 1d4 attack as a bonus action, while being stuck with a 1d6 weapon. I mean, you can make a strong build around it, don't get me wrong. I have a Paladin/Druid that uses a quarterstaff, shield, plate armor, shillelagh, and PAM, and it gives me stuff to do with my bonus action...but truth me told I do better damage with my Paladin/Sorcerer who can Quicken Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade for the same effect as having the PAM bonus attack...only my Soradin has a stronger attack with the cantrips and you don't have to jump through the hoops of having 13 Strength, Charisma, and Wisdom.

[LudicSavant]

I've found the tweet him acknowledging that PAM doesn't require two hands {as is written} - but not that it was intended {specifically designed to included this}.
spear & shield (https://www.google.com/search?q=spear+%26+shield&tbm=isch) isn't uncommon at all. If quarterstaff & shield were any type of consideration for PAM, it begs the question why they exculded the spear -- the actual hybrid between pole-arm and onehanded staff weapon.

The weapon and armor rules in 5e beg an awful lot of questions, if you ask me. But the proper complaint isn't "rules exploit" it's "the rules could be written better."

[GreatWyrmGold]

But the proper complaint isn't "rules exploit" it's "the rules could be written better."
Which is true of a number of rules in this edition. Which is standard, I suppose.