TWF and quarterstaffs

[Iampower]

Need some clarification on how a few rules and feats go together.

TWF requires you to use light weapons for both attacks.
Dual wielder feat lets you TWF even if the weapons arent light
Quarterstaff are not two-handed

Does this mean i can dual wield quarterstaff with no rules violation or 'negotiation' when i have dual wielder? Or am i missing something important?

Edit: i wanted confirmation since i saw a sageadvice that said he'd only allow for a good reason. It didnt mention dual wielder feat though

[JNAProductions]

You can dial wield TWO quarterstaves.

As a DM, I’d let you use one staff as a double weapon with pretty much no trouble, though.

[Man_Over_Game]

JNAProductions is correct.

However, I'd just recommend picking up Polearm Master. As cliche as it is, it'd allow you to wield a shield and do the same thing, as well as allow you to make an Opportunity Attack when enemies approach.

Overall, it'd mean +2 AC, 2x as many Opportunity Attacks, and your ability score on your Bonus Action Attack (~2 damage or a Fighting Style), compared to dual wielding staves.

[AvvyR]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Quarterstaves should be two-handed. I have no idea how the DnD tradition of acting like they can be effectively one-handed got started.

[Man_Over_Game]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Quarterstaves should be two-handed. I have no idea how the DnD tradition of acting like they can be effectively one-handed got started.

Probably was a technical concern when considering other elements. They wanted there to be a difference between Greatclubs and Quarterstaves, while also tying them into Monks (which are neatly tied up with a two-handed-weapon restriction).

Personally, I'd make Greatclub a 1d10, make Quarterstaves 1d8 two-handed with Finesse, and just make Quarterstaves be considered a Monk Weapon on the Monk Class page.

[Hytheter]

Personally, I'd ... make Quarterstaves 1d8 two-handed with Finesse

Get ready for polearm master rogues!

I'm not sure I see the reasoning for finesse on the quarterstaff.

[DarknessEternal]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Quarterstaves should be two-handed. I have no idea how the DnD tradition of acting like they can be effectively one-handed got started.

Based on 40 years of wizards in stories doing that. Gandalf, Elminster, etc...

[Misterwhisper]

Get ready for polearm master rogues!

I'm not sure I see the reasoning for finesse on the quarterstaff.

I still want to figure a way to make a finesse spear.

Or at least a spear like weapon.

I would even pay a feat for it.

I really don’t want to reflavor the double scimitar for it, that thing should have never seen print.

[Arkhios]

Probably was a technical concern when considering other elements. They wanted there to be a difference between Greatclubs and Quarterstaves, while also tying them into Monks (which are neatly tied up with a two-handed-weapon restriction).

Personally, I'd make Greatclub a 1d10, make Quarterstaves 1d8 two-handed with Finesse, and just make Quarterstaves be considered a Monk Weapon on the Monk Class page.

Ahem... Quarterstaff is a monk weapon already. All simple weapons are.

[Hytheter]

Ahem... Quarterstaff is a monk weapon already. All simple weapons are.

Not all simple weapons, only simple melee weapons that aren't two-handed or heavy. He's proposing to make the quarterstaff two-handed, which would disqualify it as a monk weapon; hence the need for a specific exception (since it obviously should be a monk weapon).


I still want to figure a way to make a finesse spear.

Or at least a spear like weapon.

Reflavoured rapier?

[CTurbo]

Need some clarification on how a few rules and feats go together.

TWF requires you to use light weapons for both attacks.
Dual wielder feat lets you TWF even if the weapons arent light
Quarterstaff are not two-handed

Does this mean i can dual wield quarterstaff with no rules violation or 'negotiation' when i have dual wielder? Or am i missing something important?

Edit: i wanted confirmation since i saw a sageadvice that said he'd only allow for a good reason. It didnt mention dual wielder feat though


I'm pretty confident that, by RAW and/or RAI, what you're asking doesn't work. 5e does not have the same double weapon mechanics that 4e did.

As mentioned above, the Dual Wielder feat would allow you to use two quarterstaves. The Polearm Master feat allows you to use a single quarterstaff as a double weapon.




Facts end here and my opinions begin

I would gladly allow somebody with the Dual Wielder feat to use a single quarterstaff like a double weapon and also benefit from the +1 AC when holding one with two hands. I also think it's really flavorful.

I would allow Shillelagh to work on both ends of a staff if used with 2 hands and the Dual Wielder feat.
I would allow somebody to dual wield two quarterstaves with the feat but I think it's really dumb, and I don't know why anyone would want to do it.
I do NOT allow quarterstaff one handed + shield + Polearm Master feat to work as written regardless of the rules. It's just way too dumb and clearly just a way to power game. Luckily nobody in my usual group would try such nonsense. Just to specify, I'd allow the reaction attack, just not the bonus action attack. I could MAYBE see allowing the bonus action attack if attempted at a completely different target than the first attack and only if they were like behind the wielder. Kinda like poke/jab the guy in front of you, then swing back and poke/jab the guy behind you with the other end.

So yeah I'm in the same group that thinks a staff should pretty much have to be used with 2 hands in order to be used as a weapon. Held in one hand, it's a walking stick or "Improvised weapon" 1+Str.

[Iampower]

I'm pretty confident that, by RAW and/or RAI, what you're asking doesn't work. 5e does not have the same double weapon mechanics that 4e did.

As mentioned above, the Dual Wielder feat would allow you to use two quarterstaves. The Polearm Master feat allows you to use a single quarterstaff as a double weapon.




Facts end here and my opinions begin

I would gladly allow somebody with the Dual Wielder feat to use a single quarterstaff like a double weapon and also benefit from the +1 AC when holding one with two hands. I also think it's really flavorful.

I would allow Shillelagh to work on both ends of a staff if used with 2 hands and the Dual Wielder feat.
I would allow somebody to dual wield two quarterstaves with the feat but I think it's really dumb, and I don't know why anyone would want to do it.
I do NOT allow quarterstaff one handed + shield + Polearm Master feat to work as written regardless of the rules. It's just way too dumb and clearly just a way to power game. Luckily nobody in my usual group would try such nonsense. Just to specify, I'd allow the reaction attack, just not the bonus action attack. I could MAYBE see allowing the bonus action attack if attempted at a completely different target than the first attack and only if they were like behind the wielder. Kinda like poke/jab the guy in front of you, then swing back and poke/jab the guy behind you with the other end.

So yeah I'm in the same group that thinks a staff should pretty much have to be used with 2 hands in order to be used as a weapon. Held in one hand, it's a walking stick or "Improvised weapon" 1+Str.

I've seen people fight with 4ft staffs with one hand. But thats not what im asking for. And im not galking about double weapins either (i think, are you referring to using the butt of a long weapons for a bonus action attack? Like the one polearm master allows you to do?). Im talking about the mechanics of quarterstaff and dual wielder.

Dual wielder removed the requirement for both your weapons to be light.
I've been interpreting this pretty much as anyone with dual wielder can use two seperate weapons that have no light property. Like, twf with longswords. Though you wouldn't be able to use the versatile property.

But then i came across the link below and wondered if i was interpretting it wrong. Admittedly, reading from google mobile left out an important part of the question so it is not actually anything like what my question is (sorry everyone)

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/24/two-weapon-fighting-quarterstaff/

[CTurbo]

I've seen people fight with 4ft staffs with one hand. But thats not what im asking for. And im not galking about double weapins either (i think, are you referring to using the butt of a long weapons for a bonus action attack? Like the one polearm master allows you to do?). Im talking about the mechanics of quarterstaff and dual wielder.

Dual wielder removed the requirement for both your weapons to be light.
I've been interpreting this pretty much as anyone with dual wielder can use two seperate weapons that have no light property. Like, twf with longswords. Though you wouldn't be able to use the versatile property.

But then i came across the link below and wondered if i was interpretting it wrong. Admittedly, reading from google mobile left out an important part of the question so it is not actually anything like what my question is (sorry everyone)

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/24/two-weapon-fighting-quarterstaff/


Yeah that's what I answered first before giving my opinion. By RAW, a single staff cannot benefit from the Dual Wielding feat.

[Arkhios]

Not all simple weapons, only simple melee weapons that aren't two-handed or heavy. He's proposing to make the quarterstaff two-handed, which would disqualify it as a monk weapon; hence the need for a specific exception (since it obviously should be a monk weapon).

Err, oops! (I blame the morning-haze; the coffee hadn't kicked in yet!)

As for the OP: two-weapon fighting rule requires, as written, two weapons. There's no feat that overrides it. Dual Wielder only overrides the "light weapons only" -restriction.
Polearm Master is a wholly different situation, as it doesn't override two-weapon fighting rule; it creates a new rule that only applies when using specific weapons in a specific manner. It appears to be similar, but that's all there is to it.

[Kurt Kurageous]

While we are at it, did you notice that, RAW, LANCES can be dual-weilded? If they haven't fixed that, then you can see why Qstaff is not fixed.

[Yakk]

https://i.imgur.com/K7zGU8o.jpeg

Also can be used as chopsticks.

[Doug Lampert]

Get ready for polearm master rogues!

I'm not sure I see the reasoning for finesse on the quarterstaff.

Because you can't see Daffy Duck going "Ho! Ha Ha! Guard, Turn, Parry, Dodge, Spin, Ha!, Thrust!" with a weapon that isn't finesse. The spin move especially is a finesse weapon move.

In other words, it's to match media expectations.

Realistically, the only period manuals we have for quarterstaff fighting say to treat it like a great sword. So, no, it's not finesse, but it's also not one handed or faster or more versatile than a spear. Polearm mastery working with a one handed quarter staff but not with a short-spear is insane enough to make it clear that there is no connection between D&D weapons and any form of realism.

[greenstone]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Quarterstaves should be two-handed. I have no idea how the DnD tradition of acting like they can be effectively one-handed got started.

Because in D&D they are not really quarterstaffs. :-)

What the rulebook calls a "quarterstaff" is really just a long club.

Simple weapons
a club, 1d4, light
a club with a light weight on the end ("light hammer"), 1d4, light, can be thrown
a club with a heavy weight on the end ("mace"), 1d6
a long club ("quarterstaff"), 1d6, versatile (1d8)
a longer, heavier club ("greatclub"), 1d8, two-handed.

Martial weapons
a long club with a heavy weight on the end ("warhammer"), 1d8, versatile (1d10)
an even longer club with an even heavier weight on the end ("maul"), 2d6, heavy, two-handed

The shillelagh spell only applies to the "clubs" in the list (the things that don't have weights on their end), that is club and quarterstaff.

Also, none of these are finesse, because "finese" and "blunt instrument" do not go together.

Edit: oops, missed greatclub.

[JoeJ]

So what breaks if you change the versatile trait to two-handed (doing 1d8 damage, just like it always did with two hands) and specifically add it to the list of monk weapons?

[Iampower]

Yeah that's what I answered first before giving my opinion. By RAW, a single staff cannot benefit from the Dual Wielding feat.

Err...i was asking about 2 quarterstaves being dual wielded. My post didn't seem vague but sorry for any confusion.

[GlenSmash!]

Yes. If you have the Dual Wielder feat you can dual wield Quarterstaves though there is little reason to do so.

[sithlordnergal]

So what breaks if you change the versatile trait to two-handed (doing 1d8 damage, just like it always did with two hands) and specifically add it to the list of monk weapons?

Because that weapon already exists, its called the Greatclub. With the exception of being on the Monk Weapon list, the Greatclub has every one of the traits you listed. It's a Two-Handed Simple weapon that deals 1d8 damage, and costs the same amount as a Quarterstaff. Its also the least used weapon I've ever seen throughout my time playing. I've seen Tridents used more often then Greatclubs.

[sithlordnergal]

While we are at it, did you notice that, RAW, LANCES can be dual-weilded? If they haven't fixed that, then you can see why Qstaff is not fixed.

Yup, and I'd say its not a bug, its a feature. I've toyed with the idea of making a Small PC that rides a Medium sized mount and dual wields Lances.

[JoeJ]

Because that weapon already exists, its called the Greatclub. With the exception of being on the Monk Weapon list, the Greatclub has every one of the traits you listed. It's a Two-Handed Simple weapon that deals 1d8 damage, and costs the same amount as a Quarterstaff. Its also the least used weapon I've ever seen throughout my time playing. I've seen Tridents used more often then Greatclubs.

So you're saying that nothing at all breaks?

[sithlordnergal]

So you're saying that nothing at all breaks?

Pretty much. About the only thing that really happens is the fact that the Quarterstaff would take the Greatclub's place, so you'll need to buff it. Oh, and the Quarterstaff will probably see less use, since it'll basically be the new greatclub.

[Willie the Duck]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Quarterstaves should be two-handed. I have no idea how the DnD tradition of acting like they can be effectively one-handed got started.

My assumption has always been that in the early design stages of 5e, you could not cast spells while wielding two handed weapons, but you could with versatile weapons. This would make longswords the default weapon for your elven Eldritch Knight. Of course, since staves are iconic wizardly weapons, you have to make them versatile as well. Plus it allows that one scene in movie LotR where Gandalf wields staff and sword together. All of this rather than having a couple more sentences in the specific weapon descriptions. This is me assuming that one-handed, shillelagh-enhanced, Polearm Master feat-utilizing quarterstaves plus dueling fighting style and a shield in one's other hand is an unintended confluence of rules. The other option is that it was put there deliberately as a 'fix' for the system mastery junkies that really wanted an exploit (I have similar suspicion that Simulacrum+Wish was intentional, and left in so that everyone would find the near-infinite wish loop within days of the edition coming out and be done with it).



I would gladly allow dual wielder...
I would allow Shillelagh ...
I would allow somebody to dual wield two quarterstaves with the feat but I think it's really dumb...
I do NOT allow quarterstaff one handed + shield + Polearm Master feat to work as written regardless of the rules. ...
So yeah I'm in the same group that thinks a staff should pretty much have to be used with 2 hands ...

Honestly, I'm all for anything with quarterstaves, but I'd pretty much go back to square one with it. As in, Just throw out all the stuff that WotC decided was 'quarterstaff-ish' and decide as a group what we thought was iconic for the weapon.

[JoeJ]

Pretty much. About the only thing that really happens is the fact that the Quarterstaff would take the Greatclub's place, so you'll need to buff it. Oh, and the Quarterstaff will probably see less use, since it'll basically be the new greatclub.

I wouldn't buff greatclub. I'm cool with the decision between that and quarterstaff being purely a question of style.

[sithlordnergal]

I wouldn't buff greatclub. I'm cool with the decision between that and quarterstaff being purely a question of style.

Fair enough, though it does make me curious...Currently, I have never seen the Greatclub be used by anything outside of Giants and Ogres. I wonder if the Quarterstaff would also be ignored by players with that change...personally I know I wouldn't bother with a Quarterstaff that requires two-hands, but at the same time I never use two-handed weapons or versatile properties.

Ohh, that said, will you change Shillelgah?

[JoeJ]

Fair enough, though it does make me curious...Currently, I have never seen the Greatclub be used by anything outside of Giants and Ogres. I wonder if the Quarterstaff would also be ignored by players with that change...personally I know I wouldn't bother with a Quarterstaff that requires two-hands, but at the same time I never use two-handed weapons or versatile properties.

I would expect that making quarterstaff two-handed would cause greatclubs to be relatively more common, since they would no longer be inferior in every way to quarterstaves. But which weapons are most popular isn't really something that I feel the need to worry about.


Ohh, that said, will you change Shillelgah?

Change it how?

[sithlordnergal]

I would expect that making quarterstaff two-handed would cause greatclubs to be relatively more common, since they would no longer be inferior in every way to quarterstaves. But which weapons are most popular isn't really something that I feel the need to worry about.



Change it how?

Well, I mean weapons are popular for a reason, mainly due to how effective they are in game. An ineffective weapon isn't going to see use, such is the case of the standard Greatclub. Its a pretty sucky weapon when you look at it. I suspect making the quarterstaff like the greatclub will make the use of quarterstaves drop among players, with the only real use coming from PAM users. But even then...they have the Spear still, which can be used with a Shield. Sooo, maybe not even then.

As for Shillelgah, the changes to a quarterstaff will change how it is used since the main weapon its used on is the Quarterstaff. You end up losing on about 1/3rd of the spell's utility with the change. Thinking on it further, making the Quarterstaff into a two-handed weapon is actually a pretty poor balancing idea since it ends up limiting the weapon too much. You can't really use it with a shield, so Druids are left out, it changes a whole slew of magic items, and all you get out of it is a d8 weapon, which means a Longsword or Rapier can easily replace it.

[JoeJ]

Well, I mean weapons are popular for a reason, mainly due to how effective they are in game. An ineffective weapon isn't going to see use, such is the case of the standard Greatclub. Its a pretty sucky weapon when you look at it. I suspect making the quarterstaff like the greatclub will make the use of quarterstaves drop among players, with the only real use coming from PAM users. But even then...they have the Spear still, which can be used with a Shield. Sooo, maybe not even then.

To use a spear with a shield effectively, you need to have proficiency in both spear and shield. Not all characters have that. And if characters who are mainly martial (whether PC or NPC) prefer spears to staves, that's fine. They did in the real world too.


As for Shillelgah, the changes to a quarterstaff will change how it is used since the main weapon its used on is the Quarterstaff. You end up losing on about 1/3rd of the spell's utility with the change. Thinking on it further, making the Quarterstaff into a two-handed weapon is actually a pretty poor balancing idea since it ends up limiting the weapon too much. You can't really use it with a shield, so Druids are left out, it changes a whole slew of magic items, and all you get out of it is a d8 weapon, which means a Longsword or Rapier can easily replace it.

I wasn't thinking of it as a balancing measure, but one of verisimilitude. Quarterstaff and shield isn't a fighting style that I see any record of. I suppose somebody in a fantasy world could invent it, but inventing fighting styles is something that warriors do, not something that druids do, and warriors have much better options, so why would they bother?

Making quarterstaff a two-handed weapon might cause some druids to choose to use a club rather than a staff so they can still use a shield, but shillelagh still turns that into a 1d8 weapon. The only difference would be slightly less damage if they make an attack of opportunity before they have a chance to cast shillelagh, which is pretty niche.

[Aidamis]

Need some clarification on how a few rules and feats go together.

TWF requires you to use light weapons for both attacks.
Dual wielder feat lets you TWF even if the weapons arent light
Quarterstaff are not two-handed

Does this mean i can dual wield quarterstaff with no rules violation or 'negotiation' when i have dual wielder? Or am i missing something important?

Edit: i wanted confirmation since i saw a sageadvice that said he'd only allow for a good reason. It didnt mention dual wielder feat though

Thanks for bringing it up. Now I know that I can run a a Shillelagh Cleric and talk my way into two attacks/round (main + bonus action).

[JoeJ]

Thanks for bringing it up. Now I know that I can run a a Shillelagh Cleric and talk my way into two attacks/round (main + bonus action).

Remember that only one of the attacks with TWF can be with a weapon that has shillelagh cast on it; the spell ends if you cast it a second time.