Can you use a Two-ended weapon (such as a quarterstaff) to dual-wield?

[Phhase]

And do both ends use the higher dice if the weapon is categorized as Versatile?

[Crucius]

You cannot. This is why the Polearm Master feat was invented.

[Phhase]

You cannot. This is why the Polearm Master feat was invented.
Bah. even if you have the Dual Wielder feat?

[Rara1212]

You should be able to hold 1 quarterstaff in each hand, and use them to dual wield if you had the feat.
But as you are holding each one in just one hand they wouldn't get the versatile damage dice. So it'd just be better to use 2x War hammers or long swords or something.

[Phhase]

You should be able to hold 1 quarterstaff in each hand, and use them to dual wield if you had the feat.
But as you are holding each one in just one hand they wouldn't get the versatile damage dice. So it'd just be better to use 2x War hammers or long swords or something.

God, that's stupid. I don't really care about the damage dice, I just think it's stupid that you (Apparently) can't dual wield with a two-ended weapon ostensibly meant to be wielded that way.

[Crucius]

God, that's stupid. I don't really care about the damage dice, I just think it's stupid that you (Apparently) can't dual wield with a two-ended weapon ostensibly meant to be wielded that way.

You can always talk to the DM, but mechanically the Polearm Master feat does exactly what I think you want for flavor.

[Phhase]

You can always talk to the DM, but mechanically the Polearm Master feat does exactly what I think you want for flavor.

Right, but that only deals 1d4 when a one-handed quarterstaff attack deals 1d6, which seems wrong and not the intended method of use. It's even worse if the weapon in question has a blade on each end (ex. Thri-Kreen Gythka, Orc Double Ax).

[king_steve]

You could likely make a new weapon based on the double scimitar. The double scimitar has a special rule that lets you attack with both ends of the weapon.

[stoutstien]

Right, but that only deals 1d4 when a one-handed quarterstaff attack deals 1d6, which seems wrong and not the intended method of use. It's even worse if the weapon in question has a blade on each end (ex. Thri-Kreen Gythka, Orc Double Ax).

Ok what are you actually trying to achieve?

[LordEntrails]

First you ask if you can get versatile damage on both dice, then you say the damage doesn't matter, then you say PAM is inadequate because the off-hand damage is only 1d4. And along the way you are dismissive of people telling you what's RAW/RAI.

Personally if I had a player wanting to dual wield a quarterstaff I would let them, unless they had your attitude that makes it appear as if you are looking for a mechanical advantage and not a cool concept character build, then I would just say no.

[Phhase]

Ok what are you actually trying to achieve?

In 3-editions, double weapons can used as if fighting with two weapons. That's it. Each end is a separate weapon, that can be used to attack. In 5e, if you have a weapon in each hand, you can make an extra attack. I don't know why these concepts should be mutually exclusive.

[GreyBlack]

In 3-editions, double weapons can used as if fighting with two weapons. That's it. Each end is a separate weapon, that can be used to attack. In 5e, if you have a weapon in each hand, you can make an extra attack. I don't know why these concepts should be mutually exclusive.

Fun fact of the day: this isn't 3.x, much to my chagrin. Doing what you're suggesting would make the quarterstaff an even better weapon than it currently is, especially given how inexpensive it is. 5e is way too concerned about "balance" to allow a single simple weapon to let the wielder either attack one handed, attack two handed, or make two attacks.

If you want to do that, either the Polearm Master feat does what you're looking for, or buy 2 quarterstaves and glue them together.

[stoutstien]

In 3-editions, double weapons can used as if fighting with two weapons. That's it. Each end is a separate weapon, that can be used to attack. In 5e, if you have a weapon in each hand, you can make an extra attack. I don't know why these concepts should be mutually exclusive.

Mostly because 5th edition just has more simple written rules. Because of this and the way the action economy works with attacks a single weapon that could be used for two weapon fighting would have a huge advantage over the twf users. Well even more so than now.


the good news is as others have stated there are ways of doing it within the rules that are just fine. So it really depends on what class you're trying to do this with.

[JNAProductions]

RAW? No.

RAI? No.

Would I allow it? Sure. You want to use a Quarterstaff as a 1d6/1d6 light weapon, go nuts. Dual Wielder feat can up that to 1d8/1d8.

[PhantomSoul]

In 3-editions, double weapons can used as if fighting with two weapons. That's it. Each end is a separate weapon, that can be used to attack. In 5e, if you have a weapon in each hand, you can make an extra attack. I don't know why these concepts should be mutually exclusive.

Sounds like the feat is exactly what you're looking for then, and you'd get 1d8 (two-handed so versatile damage) for the Attack Action and 1d4 (feat value) for the Bonus Action Attack.

[Phhase]

First you ask if you can get versatile damage on both dice, then you say the damage doesn't matter,
That first ask was a knowing reach. Getting MORE damage DOESN'T really matter to me....


then you say PAM is inadequate because the off-hand damage is only 1d4.

...BUT, doing LESS than minimum dice doesn't make sense to me since I'm trying to use the Dual-Wielding rules here. Also, most polearms are not considered double weapons.


And along the way you are dismissive of *RAW.

Because I think it's poorly done in this instance. I didn't mean to cause offense to fellow users. They're not your rules, after all.


Personally if I had a player wanting to dual wield a quarterstaff I would let them, unless they had your attitude that makes it appear as if you are looking for a mechanical advantage and not a cool concept character build, then I would just say no.

I am looking for a cool concept, I was wondering if there was a mechanical advantage, and I don't want to have to kludge using a Feat that feels unrelated to me.

[stoutstien]

That first ask was a knowing reach. Getting MORE damage DOESN'T really matter to me....

...BUT, doing LESS than minimum dice doesn't make sense to me since I'm trying to use the Dual-Wielding rules here. Also, most polearms are not considered double weapons.

Because I think it's poorly done in this instance. I didn't mean to cause offense to fellow users. They're not your rules, after all.

I am looking for a cool concept, I was wondering if there was a mechanical advantage, and I don'twant to have to kludge using a Feat that feels unrelated to me.

Simple solution with just be a monk and fluff all your bonus action attacks as strikes with your weapon.

[Blood of Gaea]

Using the far end of a weapon is not the same as dual-wielding, both ends are connected. There's a reason in real life you see very few double-ended weapons.

Polearm Master fits perfectly with how you fight with say a poleaxe though, face the bottom end of the handle forward like a quarterstaff to make an opening to bring on of the three heads to bare.

Of course, it makes much less sense with something like a spear, but I guess we can't have all the nice things.

[Phhase]

Using the far end of a weapon is not the same as dual-wielding, both ends are connected. There's a reason in real life you see very few double-ended weapons.

Point, but addressing D&D fighting mechanics I feel like it makes logical sense.



Polearm Master fits perfectly with how you fight with say a poleaxe though, face the bottom end of the handle forward like a quarterstaff to make an opening to bring on of the three heads to bare.

Of course, it makes much less sense with something like a spear, but I guess we can't have all the nice things.
Naturally. It is Polearm Master, after all.

[CheddarChampion]

So maybe I have the wrong notion here, but
1. You ask a mechanical question
2. Someone answers you
3. You say the answer is stupid
4. Someone offers a solution
5. You say it's inadequate
6. Someone offers an alternative solution
7. You express disgust
8. The posters are frustrated that you only have negative things to say when they try to help
9. You wonder why they are mad and/or make an excuse as to why they shouldn't be mad

Friend, I think you will get better results if you change your method.

[Nagog]

If it's just fluff, take two quarterstaves and ask your DM about fluffing them to be one full staff. Done and done. If it's for a mechanical advantage (such as having 2 attacks and having one hand free to cast spells), then it would no longer be "just fluff" and require a bit more mechanical stuff, such as Polearm Master, or in the example, War Caster.

[Damon_Tor]

I am looking for a cool concept, I was wondering if there was a mechanical advantage, and I don't want to have to kludge using a Feat that feels unrelated to me.

1d8+1d4 is indistinguishable from 1d6+1d6, which is what a standard dual-wielding build would manage. And you get +str to the second attack without dedicating your fighting style, so there's your mechanical advantage right there. Plus the other benefit of PAM, the greatly improved ability to OA.

[Phhase]

1d8+1d4 is indistinguishable from 1d6+1d6, which is what a standard dual-wielding build would manage. And you get +str to the second attack without dedicating your fighting style, so there's your mechanical advantage right there. Plus the other benefit of PAM, the greatly improved ability to OA.

Good point. I guess it's just the principle of it. I did grow up reading 3rd edition books, after all.

[Misterwhisper]

Take the double scimitar, reskin it as a staff.

Take the feat for it but instead call it some kind of staff name.

Now you have a double weapon that does 2d4 each, 1 ac, has finesse, and gives you a +1 to a stat with the feat.and with great weapon fighting rerolling 1s on all those d4s.

[CNagy]

Quarterstaff isn't a double weapon and shouldn't have been in 3e. The quarterstaff fighting grip is the end grip; one hand on/near the butt of the quarterstaff, the other part way up--similar to other, longer pole weapons. Thus the feat, which gives you the ability to expertly shift your grip to strike out with the butt of the weapon.

[GreyBlack]

That first ask was a knowing reach. Getting MORE damage DOESN'T really matter to me....

...BUT, doing LESS than minimum dice doesn't make sense to me since I'm trying to use the Dual-Wielding rules here. Also, most polearms are not considered double weapons.

Because I think it's poorly done in this instance. I didn't mean to cause offense to fellow users. They're not your rules, after all.

I am looking for a cool concept, I was wondering if there was a mechanical advantage, and I don't want to have to kludge using a Feat that feels unrelated to me.

How is this feat unrelated? It literally does what you want it to.

[Phhase]

How is this feat unrelated? It literally does what you want it to.
I guess the distinction isn't really important anymore. Just a principle thing to do with leftover 3e mores.


Friend, I think you will get better results if you change your method.
Likewise.

[GreyBlack]

I guess the distinction isn't really important anymore. Just a principle thing to do with leftover 3e mores.

Likewise.

Yeah, I've had my share of growing pains from 3.x myself. I still feel like I need to look up the grappling rules whenever someone starts to grapple.

[Willie the Duck]

Okay, I think the primary questions have been answered, but I think I will try to consolidate and maybe try to put them in a nonthreatening capsule.

Phhase, the first thing to understand is that 5e is not specifically a redux of D&D 3e or 'D20 system, take four*'. It definitely shares a lot of common ground (particularly for things where they clearly weren't going to go back to the way TSR-era A/D&D did it, like different XP charts for each class, or the like), but it is its' own game. 3e is the only one (maybe 4e, I forget) where the whole 'quarterstaves and a bunch of fictional fantasy weapons are effectively two weapons glued together and are wielded like you would wield two weapon' schema was a thing. Other games don't do it. Other versions of D&D don't do it. Expecting it to work exactly the same in 5e would be like expecting 2H weapons to do 1.5 x Str bonus, completely ignoring how the 1H/2H weapon dichotomy has changed between the editions.
*treating Pathfinder as 3.75 in this logic.

Regarding the situation: a quarterstaff is a simple weapon. Str-based simple weapon-using characters without a feat can wield two clubs for 1d4+str + 1d4 (let's say 16 str, so avg.8 damage). With one feat (dual wielder) they can wield two maces for 1d6+str + 1d6 (avg 10). They can also pick the Polearm Master feat (the feat which this edition defines as the quarterstaff-enhancing feat, regardless as to whether you like the name or the mechanics) and do 1d8+str + 1d4+str ( avg. 13). In addition, this character only needs to get one magic weapon (the plusses for which effect all attacks), and as their number of attacks go up, the extra attacks all pick up 1d8+str(+magic), as opposed to 1d6+str(+magic), which is what would happen if it were a double-ended 1d6/1d6 weapon. All of this is before the fact that there are ways to get to use the attribute of your choice with quarterstaffs through various class features or cantrips, and the probably-unintentional/cheeze design space of a fighter with dueling fighting style and Polearm Master feat using a quarterstaff one handed with a shield and doing 1d6+2+str(+magic) x {normal # of attacks} + 1x 1d4+2+str(+magic), all while still having +2(+magic) to their AC. Quarterstaffs are already on the 'best options' list of weapons for this edition, and are used best with a feat that is also considered one of the best in the edition (so if you never find that magic quarterstaff, but do run into a pike+2 or halberd+1, you get a strong force-multiplier with those as well). If it doesn't happen to use the exact mechanics you specifically want, all I can say is sorry to hear that, but quarterstaff-wielding combatants are still set up with ways to be really good in this edition, and count your blessings that your favorite weapon style isn't something like mace-wielder or Trident and net fighter or the like.

[Phhase]

Okay, I think the primary questions have been answered, but I think I will try to consolidate and maybe try to put them in a nonthreatening capsule.

Phhase, the first thing to understand is that 5e is not specifically a redux of D&D 3e or 'D20 system, take four*'. It definitely shares a lot of common ground (particularly for things where they clearly weren't going to go back to the way TSR-era A/D&D did it, like different XP charts for each class, or the like), but it is its' own game. 3e is the only one (maybe 4e, I forget) where the whole 'quarterstaves and a bunch of fictional fantasy weapons are effectively two weapons glued together and are wielded like you would wield two weapon' schema was a thing. Other games don't do it. Other versions of D&D don't do it. Expecting it to work exactly the same in 5e would be like expecting 2H weapons to do 1.5 x Str bonus, completely ignoring how the 1H/2H weapon dichotomy has changed between the editions.
*treating Pathfinder as 3.75 in this logic.

Regarding the situation: a quarterstaff is a simple weapon. Str-based simple weapon-using characters without a feat can wield two clubs for 1d4+str + 1d4 (let's say 16 str, so avg.8 damage). With one feat (dual wielder) they can wield two maces for 1d6+str + 1d6 (avg 10). They can also pick the Polearm Master feat (the feat which this edition defines as the quarterstaff-enhancing feat, regardless as to whether you like the name or the mechanics) and do 1d8+str + 1d4+str ( avg. 13). In addition, this character only needs to get one magic weapon (the plusses for which effect all attacks), and as their number of attacks go up, the extra attacks all pick up 1d8+str(+magic), as opposed to 1d6+str(+magic), which is what would happen if it were a double-ended 1d6/1d6 weapon. All of this is before the fact that there are ways to get to use the attribute of your choice with quarterstaffs through various class features or cantrips, and the probably-unintentional/cheeze design space of a fighter with dueling fighting style and Polearm Master feat using a quarterstaff one handed with a shield and doing 1d6+2+str(+magic) x {normal # of attacks} + 1x 1d4+2+str(+magic), all while still having +2(+magic) to their AC. Quarterstaffs are already on the 'best options' list of weapons for this edition, and are used best with a feat that is also considered one of the best in the edition (so if you never find that magic quarterstaff, but do run into a pike+2 or halberd+1, you get a strong force-multiplier with those as well). If it doesn't happen to use the exact mechanics you specifically want, all I can say is sorry to hear that, but quarterstaff-wielding combatants are still set up with ways to be really good in this edition, and count your blessings that your favorite weapon style isn't something like mace-wielder or Trident and net fighter or the like.

I get it. I was just a little disappointed that the concept of "Double" weapons was mostly thrown out while dual-wielding was embraced. What happened to maces and Myrmidon? I get that Tridents are literally just spears but a little heavier in carry weight, but aren't Nets a bit better in 5e? The checks to escape are easier, but isn't restrained a bit stronger than the penalties in 3.x?

[Willie the Duck]

I get it. I was just a little disappointed that the concept of "Double" weapons was mostly thrown out while dual-wielding was embraced. What happened to maces and Myrmidon? I get that Tridents are literally just spears but a little heavier in carry weight, but aren't Nets a bit better in 5e? The checks to escape are easier, but isn't restrained a bit stronger than the penalties in 3.x?

Well, dual wielding isn't exactly embraced. It is routinely considered underpowered for all but the most specific non-rogue builds.

Regarding double weapons, I understand if they were one of your favorite things, but I don't think that was a commonly held perspective. They were controversial during 3e's heyday. I was on the WotC board at that point. People complained constantly about how unrealistic it was, how all these weapons (save staves) were made up (not even a common fantasy fiction trope, literally made up by the 3e designers for this edition), and how dire flails and orc double axes would be more of a danger to their wielder than to anyone they fought. If it weren't for the extreme ire that spike chains tended to get, I think they would be the least popular part of the 3e weapons chart.

I'm not sure what Maces & Myrmidon is -- Myrmidon to my mind is either the AD&D level title for level 6 fighters, or a 2e fighter kit. Can you elaborate?

Nets -- I think the intent might have been to make them stronger (maybe) as you are correct that restrained is a decent penalty. However, they run into a serious problem: they are ranged weapons (as opposed to throwable melee weapons) so you have disadvantage when using them when an opponent is within 5' of you, but their short range is 5'. Baring something like Sharpshooter or the like, you cannot attack with one without disadvantage.

[Nagog]

I get it. I was just a little disappointed that the concept of "Double" weapons was mostly thrown out while dual-wielding was embraced. What happened to maces and Myrmidon? I get that Tridents are literally just spears but a little heavier in carry weight, but aren't Nets a bit better in 5e? The checks to escape are easier, but isn't restrained a bit stronger than the penalties in 3.x?

I'm not familiar with how nets worked in previous versions, but in 5e nets are hot garbage. They are remarkably easy to escape (50/50 chance if you have 0 Str bonus) and super easy to break. If you're trapped in one (because you seriously flubbed your roll or you have a negative Str mod and still flubbed your roll), rolling to hit a 10 AC and dealing 5 slashing damage will destroy it and free you. If you can't hit an AC of 10, even at disadvantage, you are likely both extremely unlucky or level 1. Restrained is in fact much less of an issue in 5e as it was in Pathfinder (which I've seen equated as a bridge between 3.5 and 5e), and it has no penalty to spellcasting, which is a shame because spellcasters are literally the only ones who would feasibly fail a DC Str save past level 1 or 2.

EDIT: Also, as was stated by Willie The Duck, you will almost always be attacking with disadvantage with it.

[JNAProductions]

I'm not familiar with how nets worked in previous versions, but in 5e nets are hot garbage. They are remarkably easy to escape (50/50 chance if you have 0 Str bonus) and super easy to break. If you're trapped in one (because you seriously flubbed your roll or you have a negative Str mod and still flubbed your roll), rolling to hit a 10 AC and dealing 5 slashing damage will destroy it and free you. If you can't hit an AC of 10, even at disadvantage, you are likely both extremely unlucky or level 1. Restrained is in fact much less of an issue in 5e as it was in Pathfinder (which I've seen equated as a bridge between 3.5 and 5e), and it has no penalty to spellcasting, which is a shame because spellcasters are literally the only ones who would feasibly fail a DC Str save past level 1 or 2.

EDIT: Also, as was stated by Willie The Duck, you will almost always be attacking with disadvantage with it.

It's not a strength save, it's a strength check-made as an action.

Nets aren't the best, I agree, but used right they're awesome.

[Damon_Tor]

It's not a strength save, it's a strength check-made as an action.

Nets aren't the best, I agree, but used right they're awesome.

Nets shine when you already have an action economy advantage: a fighter with haste can use the haste action to toss the net then use his regular action to attack for his regular 2/3/4 attacks, now with advantage. There are a few ways to mitigate the net's "always disadvantage" penalty; either Sharpshooter or Crossbow Master will eliminate it on one end or the other. and it's worth noting that a fighter/ranger Archery Fighting Style applies a +2 bonus to your attack with the net.

Yes, the enemy can escape from the net rather trivially, but it needs to take an action to do so. So using a net on a given enemy is about figuring out if your action is worth as much as the enemy's action. Against a "solo boss fight" the odds are good that the enemy has extremely valuable actions to take, and forcing him to pull a net off of himself instead of taking those actions is a very good trade.

[stoutstien]

Nets shine when you already have an action economy advantage: a fighter with haste can use the haste action to toss the net then use his regular action to attack for his regular 2/3/4 attacks, now with advantage. There are a few ways to mitigate the net's "always disadvantage" penalty; either Sharpshooter or Crossbow Master will eliminate it on one end or the other. and it's worth noting that a fighter/ranger Archery Fighting Style applies a +2 bonus to your attack with the net.

Yes, the enemy can escape from the net rather trivially, but it needs to take an action to do so. So using a net on a given enemy is about figuring out if your action is worth as much as the enemy's action. Against a "solo boss fight" the odds are good that the enemy has extremely valuable actions to take, and forcing him to pull a net off of himself instead of taking those actions is a very good trade.

Or toss it at the monk and let deflect missile take over

[ad_hoc]

...BUT, doing LESS than minimum dice doesn't make sense to me since I'm trying to use the Dual-Wielding rules here. Also, most polearms are not considered double weapons.

1d4+ability mod is better than 1d6.

[Misterwhisper]

By the rules in the book Dual Wielding kind of sucks. Every other form of bonus attacking gets a stat free, except the easiest way to do it.

[Arkhios]

And do both ends use the higher dice if the weapon is categorized as Versatile?


Bah. even if you have the Dual Wielder feat?


God, that's stupid. I don't really care about the damage dice, I just think it's stupid that you (Apparently) can't dual wield with a two-ended weapon ostensibly meant to be wielded that way.


In 3-editions, double weapons can used as if fighting with two weapons. That's it. Each end is a separate weapon, that can be used to attack. In 5e, if you have a weapon in each hand, you can make an extra attack. I don't know why these concepts should be mutually exclusive.

The 5th edition rules don't recognize a 3rd edition term "double weapon". As has already been mentioned, 5th edition ≠ 3rd edition. Period.

[NNescio]

God, that's stupid. I don't really care about the damage dice, I just think it's stupid that you (Apparently) can't dual wield with a two-ended weapon ostensibly meant to be wielded that way.

It's technically not dual-wielding (in the real life sense). Actually I find the 3.Xe terminology to be kinda silly when applied to double weapons (and quarterstaff counting as a double weapon is also a bit off considering how it's normally wielded), but I accepted it as a game abstraction.


RAW? No.

RAI? No.

Would I allow it? Sure. You want to use a Quarterstaff as a 1d6/1d6 light weapon, go nuts. Dual Wielder feat can up that to 1d8/1d8.

Agreed on all three counts.

(Maybe not on low-level shipwrecked/etc. 'extreme survival' situations where every gp cost [and makeshift crafting] matter, but hey those almost never come up aside from [semi-]joke one-offs.)

[samcifer]

You can always talk to the DM, but mechanically the Polearm Master feat does exactly what I think you want for flavor.

I also wish quarterstaff counted as a finesse weapon since it would make it much more usable to non-strength characters.

[stoutstien]

I also wish quarterstaff counted as a finesse weapon since it would make it much more usable to non-strength characters.

Would be reallllly good for rouges then.

[Phhase]

Well, dual wielding isn't exactly embraced. It is routinely considered underpowered for all but the most specific non-rogue builds.

Regarding double weapons, I understand if they were one of your favorite things, but I don't think that was a commonly held perspective. They were controversial during 3e's heyday. I was on the WotC board at that point. People complained constantly about how unrealistic it was, how all these weapons (save staves) were made up (not even a common fantasy fiction trope, literally made up by the 3e designers for this edition), and how dire flails and orc double axes would be more of a danger to their wielder than to anyone they fought. If it weren't for the extreme ire that spike chains tended to get, I think they would be the least popular part of the 3e weapons chart.

I'm not sure what Maces & Myrmidon is -- Myrmidon to my mind is either the AD&D level title for level 6 fighters, or a 2e fighter kit. Can you elaborate?

Nets -- I think the intent might have been to make them stronger (maybe) as you are correct that restrained is a decent penalty. However, they run into a serious problem: they are ranged weapons (as opposed to throwable melee weapons) so you have disadvantage when using them when an opponent is within 5' of you, but their short range is 5'. Baring something like Sharpshooter or the like, you cannot attack with one without disadvantage.

Wow. That bad, huh? I didn't even know what a Drizzt was and 12 year old me already knew that dire flails and Gythka were the peak of coolness. No taste I guess.

Please elaborate on the alleged legendary status of the hatred surrounding spiked chains. That was another weapon I was sad to see retired. I saw the "Ideal build" comic in Oots, but is there more?

Uuuh, my bad, I mixed up my greek warrior words. I meant to say maces and Retiarius, as in net and trident.

Weird. That sounds like nets aren't working as intended.

[Blood of Gaea]

Would be reallllly good for rouges then.
For sure, while the +mod to your bonus action attack isn't amazing compared to just using two light weapons, the fact that you get an AoO against someone who enters your range is amazing.

[GreyBlack]

Wow. That bad, huh? I didn't even know what a Drizzt was and 12 year old me already knew that dire flails and Gythka were the peak of coolness. No taste I guess.

Please elaborate on the alleged legendary status of the hatred surrounding spiked chains. That was another weapon I was sad to see retired. I saw the "Ideal build" comic in Oots, but is there more?

Uuuh, my bad, I mixed up my greek warrior words. I meant to say maces and Retiarius, as in net and trident.

Weird. That sounds like nets aren't working as intended.

Spiked chain hate stems from 3.x where the spiked chain was almost the ideal weapon for any situation. You could trip with them, attack from range, deal both bludgeoning and piercing damage, disarm with them, and they were 2 handed weapons which made them ideal for the THF build, which meant it combined with Power Attack and Shock Trooper to deal absolutely ridiculous damage.

They're kinda the catch all signifier of everything wrong with 3.x. I think they're looked down on for that.

[Misterwhisper]

Spiked chain hate stems from 3.x where the spiked chain was almost the ideal weapon for any situation. You could trip with them, attack from range, deal both bludgeoning and piercing damage, disarm with them, and they were 2 handed weapons which made them ideal for the THF build, which meant it combined with Power Attack and Shock Trooper to deal absolutely ridiculous damage.

They're kinda the catch all signifier of everything wrong with 3.x. I think they're looked down on for that.

Ah the days of playing a master of chains/occult slayer... not that master of chains was very good, like at all but the thematically fit.

[GreyBlack]

Ah the days of playing a master of chains/occult slayer... not that master of chains was very good, like at all but the thematically fit.

Dungeoncrasher fighter/Suel Arcanamach/Slayer/Occult Slayer/Human Paragon/Master of Chains you mean?

[Drascin]

Spiked chain hate stems from 3.x where the spiked chain was almost the ideal weapon for any situation. You could trip with them, attack from range, deal both bludgeoning and piercing damage, disarm with them, and they were 2 handed weapons which made them ideal for the THF build, which meant it combined with Power Attack and Shock Trooper to deal absolutely ridiculous damage.

They're kinda the catch all signifier of everything wrong with 3.x. I think they're looked down on for that.

Basically they suffer from a combination of "this is mechanically the best weapon in the game, with maybe one competitor" and "this weapon, flavorwise, fits like 2% of actual character concepts, tops". Like a spiked chain just kinda looks real dumb and doesn't fit the aesthetics of a lot of players, but they kept getting recommended because they were overtuned due to basically having every tag in the game.

[Misterwhisper]

Basically they suffer from a combination of "this is mechanically the best weapon in the game, with maybe one competitor" and "this weapon, flavorwise, fits like 2% of actual character concepts, tops". Like a spiked chain just kinda looks real dumb and doesn't fit the aesthetics of a lot of players, but they kept getting recommended because they were overtuned due to basically having every tag in the game.

They were not super popular in my area because of the 20x2 crit rating.

I only used one on one character and that only started after I was cursed to be a flaming skeleton. I ghost ridered it up, I got the curse spread to my mount too.

Most of the time I was the only non-caster and I preferred more crit focused builds like a duelist/champion of corean something something that threat on a 13 and added 3 stats to damage, or a big two handed that would crit x5 or something.

[Zalabim]

Some more net facts. Nets will also not have disadvantage if the enemy cannot see you, and may even have advantage if you're at 5' and the enemy cannot see you. The disadvantage and advantage will cancel out if you use a net on a prone enemy within 5'. Basically, nets are most effective when used in an ambush or against enemies that are otherwise at a disadvantage. There's a certain kind of enemy (of the ogre model: low AC, high value, no or poor slashing attack) where nets are a great option for anyone, but there's vanishingly few characters for whom a net will be a good option often. Basically, it requires martial weapon proficiency, good dexterity, and only making one attack. That leaves just a small number of clerics and beast master rangers. Tempest clerics can benefit from restrained with spells like call lightning. War clerics can make a few net attacks basically automatically hit with their channel divinity.

Nets may seem like a forgettable niche consideration, but equip the goblin scouts in a hobgoblin contingent with nets and see how the party squirms. A 50/50 chance to succeed with +0 strength still means an average of 2 actions to remove each net.

[Arkhios]

Dungeoncrasher fighter/Suel Arcanamach/Slayer/Occult Slayer/Human Paragon/Master of Chains you mean?

I've never heard of Dungeon Crasher ACF before and I played 3.5 for quite some time. Now that I looked it up, all I can say is that while I can't deny base Fighter would've needed (a lot of) work, dungeon crasher's damage dealing ability is hands down ridiculous.

[Phhase]

Spiked chain hate stems from 3.x where the spiked chain was almost the ideal weapon for any situation. You could trip with them, attack from range, deal both bludgeoning and piercing damage, disarm with them, and they were 2 handed weapons which made them ideal for the THF build, which meant it combined with Power Attack and Shock Trooper to deal absolutely ridiculous damage.

They're kinda the catch all signifier of everything wrong with 3.x. I think they're looked down on for that.

That's pretty funny. I feel like other weapons must have more powerful in certain niches, though? Critical, raw damage, etc?

[Laserlight]

That's pretty funny. I feel like other weapons must have more powerful in certain niches, though? Critical, raw damage, etc?

If one weapon is obviously superior, to the extent that it's constantly recommended as Spiked Chain was, there's probably something wrong. If that weapon is not Spear, Sword, or Polearm (historically the most popular melee weapons by a wide margin, for anyone who has the metallurgy to make them), but is instead something weird like Spiked Chain, then there's definitely something wrong.

Speaking as a DM, I wouldn't let someone use Dual Wield with a staff weapon because Dual Wield means using two weapons, and a staff--even one with pointy bits on both ends--isn't two weapons. You should actually be okay with this, because a) you can use PAM to get the effect you want, and b) you only need one magic weapon, not two.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

I've never heard of Dungeon Crasher ACF before and I played 3.5 for quite some time. Now that I looked it up, all I can say is that while I can't deny base Fighter would've needed (a lot of) work, dungeon crasher's damage dealing ability is hands down ridiculous.

You should have seen the Dungeoncrasher/Warforged Juggernaut with Blood-spiked Charger, Combat Brute, and Shock Trooper that somebody ran in one of my campaigns. It was a little cheesy but a lot of fun and at least it was thematic. Also the trick to dealing with Dungeoncrashers is to have half your fights happen in open areas. Your PC still feels like his ability counts because he gets to use it sometimes but it doesn't dominate every fight.

[GreyBlack]

That's pretty funny. I feel like other weapons must have more powerful in certain niches, though? Critical, raw damage, etc?

Sure; crit fighters would prefer something like the rapier or the Elven Thinblade, raw damage dealers would go greatsword, etc.... but for the vast majority of weapon builds, picking up the spiked chain was ideal. Even dexterity builds because you could apply the weapon finesse feat to it.