D&D 5E Quarterstaff, shield and polearm master

[Charlaquin]

Simple physics dictate that the spear is pretty much always going to be the worse one to be poked with. Same amount of kinetic energy concentrated on a smaller surface area means more trauma. That said, a good poke with a blunt stick could still seriously injure or even kill. 5e’s weapon mechanics aren’t really granular enough to model the difference well. Unless you’re fighting skeletons, in which case go for the stick.

 

[BookBarbarian]

After the errata change, how many people using polearm mastery and shield are using a normal quarterstaff for the job now that a fighter-type can use a spear for the task? It seems to me that the only people who'd want to use a quarterstaff and shield instead of spear and shield are the people who can cast shillelagh on the staff but not the spear. Once you're using magic on the staff to boost your damage, I think it's safe to assume that the ends of the staff are at least as dangerous as a spear point to be hit with. And you wouldn't need to swing the weight of it hard enough to crush skulls, you're not using physical movement (strength) to do damage, you're using your magical ability based on wisdom or charisma.

I don't have a problem visualizing someone using a shillelaghed staff to do spear-style fighting, and I think that's the only set of people who are likely to use that particular combo now.

I don't have much of a problem with staff and shield in D&D either, I was more commenting on that it would look quite a bit different than the video that was posted earlier.

More swinging a long club than thrusting a headless spear.

Simple physics dictate that the spear is pretty much always going to be the worse one to be poked with. Same amount of kinetic energy concentrated on a smaller surface area means more trauma. That said, a good poke with a blunt stick could still seriously injure or even kill. 5e’s weapon mechanics aren’t really granular enough to model the difference well. Unless you’re fighting skeletons, in which case go for the stick.

All true.

 

[Dezz'revas]

As a DM I am kinda worried about what I see in this forum. Why is it so hard to play the game as the rules are intended? I understand the need or want for house rules but when you change feats and other abilities you need to think about balancing and fun for your table. So what if a player makes a spec that can hit attackers before they get to hit them with a d8+2+str because of a spell, feat and class ability. Congratulations to them making a defensive character.

If you need something to fight this that is reach weapons. I personally run high power high magic games, it is easy to give the challenge needed for encounters and follow the rules as stated letting players find fun ways to be prepared for any type of gameplay.

 

[Bacon Bits]

As a DM I am kinda worried about what I see in this forum. Why is it so hard to play the game as the rules are intended? I understand the need or want for house rules but when you change feats and other abilities you need to think about balancing and fun for your table. So what if a player makes a spec that can hit attackers before they get to hit them with a d8+2+str because of a spell, feat and class ability. Congratulations to them making a defensive character.

That's not the problem. The problem is that, iconically, the quarterstaff is a two handed weapon. RAW, it's one handed, versatile. RAW thinks the quarterstaff a baseball bat should have identical stats. (Note: A club is NOT versatile.)

Also, RAW/RAI is a super poor argument to make when someone says, "I have a problem with the rules." It doesn't matter if it's a balance problem or a game feel problem. Reading the book back to that person is never convincing.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I blame movie Gandalf.

 

[Oofta]

I blame movie Gandalf.

I agree. Because he held a long stick and waved it ineffectively as a distraction we have the option to wield a piece of wood taller than the person wielding it by a foot or two in one hand.

We put up with a fair amount of silliness in D&D but when I think of a quarterstaff I think of the image below. Maybe now and then you might go one-handed to increase your reach. But to be effective it's a 2-handed weapon.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I blame movie Gandalf.

Yeah, but there's a big difference between using something as a weapon and using it as a spellcaster focus. Staves are just unique in that they're both. You certainly can hold a greatsword in one hand. You can probably even strike with it as an improvised weapon.

 

[Hriston]

I’m copying my reply here from another necrothread on this subject. This seems to come up perennially, and I think this sums up my thoughts:

“One-handed use of the quarterstaff represents fighting with a cudgel/walking stick/(non-magical) shillelagh. The problem with breaking this out into its own weapon is as follows:

Club 1d4 light
Cudgel 1d6
Quarterstaff 1d8 two-handed
Greatclub 1d8 two-handed

Instead of the single, versatile weapon that can be used with PAM, now you have two weapons that are identical to two other weapons that already exist. Since the quarterstaff is somewhat prevalent in genre, I think it’s a good move to combine the two weapons to give the quarterstaff its own identity on the weapons list, no matter how artificial that choice is ultimately.”

Original thread here.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I’m copying my reply here from another necrothread on this subject.

Yeah I said basically the same thing in this very thread.

 

[Hriston]

Yeah I said basically the same thing in this very thread.

Yes, and you said something similar in the other thread to which I replied that great club can’t be 1d10 and heavy (and two-handed) because it lacks reach and is a simple weapon.