Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Coroc" data-source="post: 7270238" data-attributes="member: 6895991">just klicked your linkbelow the tweets  this is a thought by:Robert Mongar       Quarterstaffs. The problem is that if you allow the quarterstaff wielder to make 2 attacks while wielded in one hand and wearing a shield, you have COMPLETED invalidated 2 weapon fighting. Consider two different level one fighters. Both wear a Chain mail shirt, have 16 strength, and are human. Fighter A takes the Dual wielding feat, and the Two Weapon fighting style. He wields a long sword in one hand (a marital weapon) and a short sword in the other. He has:An AC of 17. +5 to hit. Main attack damage of 1d8+3 (7.5 average damage per hit) Bonus action attack of 1d6+3 (6.5 damage)Fighter B take Polearm master and the Dueling fighting style. He wears a shield on one hand, and his quarterstaff (a simple weapon) in the other. He has:An AC of 18. +5 to hit. Main attack damage of 1d6+5 (8.5 damage per hit) Bonus action attack of 1d4+5 (7.5 damage per hit)In addition, fighter B can make an attack when creatures move next to him.So, if you are allowed to make the bonus action attack while wielding a quarterstaff in one hand, the dual wielding Fighter with added feat support, is completely redundant. He has lower AC (despite being boosted by a feat) and he deals less damage (despite being boosted by his fighting style, and wielding a martial weapon over a simple weapon). This is before considering the implication of the greater chance to make an opportunity attack. I propose that the clear intention of Quarterstaffs being included in Polearm mastery, is that they can be used in this manner while being wielded in two hands. I will concede that Jeremy Crawford made it clear that at least part of this feat does work- likely the ability to take an opportunity attack when an enemy approaches.Or have I just got something completely wrong? Reply    March 22, 2015 at 2:21 PM     end citeThe ruling by Jeremy imho is implying that Jeremy is human, since making errors is human.If it is intended that way, well you never see me playing RAW considering this then.At my table:Ok you want to be Gandalf, fine get dual wield and your quarterstaff does 1d4 as your sword does 1d8You want to be monk and twirling that quarterstaff, ok we can even talk about 1d8 damage 2handed since you are an martial artist optimising simple weapons to the max.But: you found a loophole supported by sage advice which totally invalidates other builds and is much cheaper concerning equipment and gives you 2 more AC while looking ridiculous in my theatre of the mind, nope.</blockquote>

Verification