D&D 5E Quarterstaff, shield and polearm master

[jaelis]

I think they envision the pike as being too long to use both ends effectively. See for instance
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/05/why-pike-is-not-in-polearm-master-feat/

Q: Why is a pike (a polearm) excluded from the Polearm Master feat, but a Quarterstaff (not a polearm) included in it?
A: Pike: Too unwieldy, in our eyes, for the feat's benefits. Quarterstaff: Fits the benefits of the feat well.

My guess as to why things are they way they are is that when Polearm Master was designed, the quarterstaff was a 2H weapon. As a 2H weapon it makes perfect sense. Probably the spear was versatile so they didn't include it. Then later they changed the staff to be versatile, but didn't account for that in the feat.

 

[Fnissalot]

It is possible to use a staff like a spear when fighting with a shield in the other hand, with a bit more swinging moveset. If you want it more stable and supported you would lock the back end in your armpit. As a quarterstaff would be shorter than a spear, it is easier to swing around. Not sure if it is historically accurate at all.

Staff("spear") and shield following a choreography: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5hZeYRp05U or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk7CrMccdWo
Lindybeige on how spears are held: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klOc9C-aPr4
Lindybeige on the lengths of quarterstaves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4bXBDvN9Wc
For inspiration, in Dynasty warriors, Zhou Yu fights with a staff in one hand by locking it in the armpit and spinning around alot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4n5qeD4ZwA

I would argue, as a GM, that a spear is partially longer and thus harder to spin around, and swinging it instead of thrusting it might damage the spearhead. It is simply a thrusting weapon, while glaives, halberds and staves are more swinging weapons. That said, i would let spears get the second part of the polearm feat for the same reasons pikes are there.

 

[Bacon Bits]

The problem is that they intend "staff" to qualify for both a bo staff (~6 ft) or quarterstaff (6 ft-9 ft), and a jo staff (~4 ft), walking stick (3 ft-5 ft), bat (~3 ft), or cane (~3 ft). It looks like they've lost a degree of granularity here, but looking closer I'm not so sure. I think they just simplified the list.

There are people who will say, "one handed wooden weapon = club", but that's clearly not how the designers intended it. They clearly thought of "club" as a baton, truncheon, or belaying pin, all of which are going to be under ~2 ft in length. Those are clearly too short to be Versatile and might be Light, whereas something the size of a jo staff, cane, or a bat clearly *can* be used one or two handed. And, of course, there's the Greatclub or large wooden mallet.

The problem they ran into actually becomes clear when you try to map it out:

Club: 1d4, Light
Short Staff: 1d4, Versatile 1d6
Quarterstaff: 1d6, Two-Handed
Greatclub: 1d8, Two-handed

That doesn't seem right. Short Staff is just directly better, isn't it? (And yes, I'm aware of the irony of making "quarterstaff" and "short staff" different weapons.)

So do we do this:

Club: 1d4, Light
Short Staff: 1d4, Versatile 1d6
Quarterstaff: 1d8, Two-Handed
Greatclub: 1d10, Two-handed

I guess this works? I mean, club is now mostly worse than short staff, and quarterstaff is still terrible, too. Have we really added anything to the game, or just added things nobody will use?

 

[Simonb1]

The problem is that they intend "staff" to qualify for both a bo staff (~6 ft) or quarterstaff (6 ft-9 ft), and a jo staff (~4 ft), walking stick (3 ft-5 ft), bat (~3 ft), or cane (~3 ft). It looks like they've lost a degree of granularity here, but looking closer I'm not so sure. I think they just simplified the list.

There are people who will say, "one handed wooden weapon = club", but that's clearly not how the designers intended it. They clearly thought of "club" as a baton, truncheon, or belaying pin, all of which are going to be under ~2 ft in length. Those are clearly too short to be Versatile and might be Light, whereas something the size of a jo staff, cane, or a bat clearly *can* be used one or two handed. And, of course, there's the Greatclub or large wooden mallet.

The problem they ran into actually becomes clear when you try to map it out:

Club: 1d4, Light
Short Staff: 1d4, Versatile 1d6
Quarterstaff: 1d6, Two-Handed
Greatclub: 1d8, Two-handed

That doesn't seem right. Short Staff is just directly better, isn't it? (And yes, I'm aware of the irony of making "quarterstaff" and "short staff" different weapons.)

So do we do this:

Club: 1d4, Light
Short Staff: 1d4, Versatile 1d6
Quarterstaff: 1d8, Two-Handed
Greatclub: 1d10, Two-handed

I guess this works? I mean, club is now mostly worse than short staff, and quarterstaff is still terrible, too. Have we really added anything to the game, or just added things nobody will use?

The problem that I see with this is that you have made some simple weapons as effective as martial weapons.

Also you have made quarterstaffs better than spears, but I would make spears versatile weapons, d6 one handed and d8 two handed.

 

[Fnissalot]

Also you have made quarterstaffs better than spears, but I would make spears versatile weapons, d6 one handed and d8 two handed.

That is the current spear statline.

 

[Bacon Bits]

The problem that I see with this is that you have made some simple weapons as effective as martial weapons.

Kind of. Any two handed d10 martial weapon also have reach.

In any event, the point I was making was that the second way to do it still sucks. There isn't enough granularity to make baton, cane, quarterstaff, and greatclub into distinct weapons without ending up with at least one weapon that feels pointless. You kind of need to add another weapon property like Double Weapon back in, so you can have:

Club: 1d4, Light
Short Staff: 1d4, Versatile 1d6
Quarterstaff: 1d6, Two-Handed, Double Weapon (d4/d4)
Greatclub: 1d8, Two-handed

Of course, this is basically exactly what Polearm Master does. The only problem with Polearm Master is that it leaves off Spear for really no good reason, and doesn't require staff to be used two-handed.

Also you have made quarterstaffs better than spears, but I would make spears versatile weapons, d6 one handed and d8 two handed.

That is what spears are. You can also throw spears. There are some other odd things that the second set brings, though. Why isn't a mace versatile, for example? Again, though, the point I'm making is that what they have currently is probably about as fair as possible. I'm happy just ruling that you can't use a staff one handed and still benefit from Polearm Master, and also that spear benefits.

 

[Illumi Zoldyck]

When wielding a quarter staff one handed you hold the staff a little before the center and use the extra length to help balance the fighting tip, usually keeping it under your arm/by your side. This stance enables really fast lunges/stabs and devastating overhanded downswings which would work incredibly well with a shield. Looking at a typical shield wall with spears between the shields your almost there, just staves instead of shields, having seen a few staff matches they tend to be reactive because of the speed. My imagination points me towards a friend who learned aikido jo, granted this maneuver is two handed, her favorite attack was an overhanded slam that I've seen break cement bricks, aimed at the opponents head. Your shield would make creating this opening easier than just with a staff and I think even one handed would be a nightmare.

 

[Charlaquin]

This whole conversation is also re-contextualized in light of the latest errata making spears work with polearm master.

 

[clearstream]

This whole conversation is also re-contextualized in light of the latest errata making spears work with polearm master.

The concern is that with Dueling it's a way to get comparable damage to say a glaive, but with better AC, right? All else being equal, the glaive-wielder has a fighting style unaccounted for... let's say Defense.

Spear/Q'staff character is rolling d6+2/d4+2 instead of d10/d4; gaining a throwing weapon in hand and +1 AC; losing 10' reach. From an optimisation point of view, that's an interesting trade. From experience in play (with a PAM Paladin) the reach effect is bigger than it sounds if you use battle-maps, because it makes the character's zone of control 24 squares instead of 8. Still, throwing and +1 AC, and perhaps a slight edge in damage, sounds pretty good.

Narratively, I feel no sense of dissonance about spear and shield (unlike the OP's quarterstaff, which does feel a bit odd). You're right - the latest errata recontextualises the OP's question.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

When wielding a quarter staff one handed you hold the staff a little before the center and use the extra length to help balance the fighting tip, usually keeping it under your arm/by your side. This stance enables really fast lunges/stabs and devastating overhanded downswings which would work incredibly well with a shield. Looking at a typical shield wall with spears between the shields your almost there, just staves instead of shields, having seen a few staff matches they tend to be reactive because of the speed. My imagination points me towards a friend who learned aikido jo, granted this maneuver is two handed, her favorite attack was an overhanded slam that I've seen break cement bricks, aimed at the opponents head. Your shield would make creating this opening easier than just with a staff and I think even one handed would be a nightmare.

Well, that's the rub, if you're talking about what this would look like if someone actually attempted to do what the rules say they can in real life.
If you move your grip that far down, you no longer have the reach advantage that a staff would afford (represented in the opportunity attack part of the polearm master feat).
If you try to actually wield a staff with one-hand, you are losing the leverage that allows it to be manoeuvred, and thus most of your speed and power. Frankly a shorter, one-handed club is a more dangerous weapon than a staff held in one hand. Other than poking the blunt tip at your opponent, you can't strike effectively, and you can't recover when your opponent engages your weapon.

Picturing a big smashing blow, or whirling display flourish with a weapon is one thing. Considering what happens after the weapon stops moving is more important.