Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="David Sid" data-source="post: 4347770" data-attributes="member: 67138">Looking at this from a balance perspective:It's no problem to make the off-hand damage 1d8 for everyone. Non-rangers won't use the off-hand damage because Two-Weapon Fighting gives a flat +1 to damage. For rangers, whether the quarterstaff competes with their other options depends on whether you stick with the 3.5E rule that each end has to be enchanted separately. If you go with the 3.5E rule, then the ranger would be better off to go with two longswords for a better attack bonus and the same damage. If you say both ends use the same (single) enchantment, then the ranger who uses a quarterstaff is effectively giving up one point of attack bonus for less expensive weaponry. This doesn't seem terribly unbalanced to me, considering how hard it is to get a better attack bonus in 4E.One other minor consequence: making a quarterstaff a double weapon will be of great benefit to wizards and even greater benefit to those who multiclass into wizard. If a ranger with a quarterstaff is just as viable as a two-longsword ranger, then a ranger multiclassed into wizard who uses a staff can buy a single item that counts as two melee weapons and an implement, never having to switch weapons except at long range. Not sure whether this makes the quarterstaff as a double weapon unbalanced, but it's worth considering.</blockquote>