Shillelagh and quarterstaffs

[Kai Lord]

This is the way my group looks at it:

Double weapons are stupid. Period. If a player in my campaign was willing to cast Shillelagh while playing a dancing gay leprechaun, then I'd probably allow the double weapon thing, because the context would be appropriate.

Player: "I think I should make an extra attack with my magic longsword."

DM: "Why?"

Player: "Because the blade on my longsword is double edged and both edges would have the +1 enhancement.

DM: *SLAP*

 

[drnuncheon]

This is the way my group looks at it:

Double weapons are stupid. Period.

OK, everyone will grant you the dire flail. Most of us will give you the orcish double axe and the gnomish pick hammer. The Darth Maul fans will argue about the double-bladed sword, but I'm willing to grant that it's pretty goofy too. The urgrosh looks like it'd be awkward to use, but at least it's not more dangerous to the weilder than his opponents.

But saying the quarterstaff is stupid? Harsh. Unreasonably so.

J

 

[kreynolds]

Double weapons are stupid.

The same goes for the 5-foot step too. I banned that one immediately.

 

[Kai Lord]

OK, everyone will grant you the dire flail. Most of us will give you the orcish double axe and the gnomish pick hammer. The Darth Maul fans will argue about the double-bladed sword, but I'm willing to grant that it's pretty goofy too. The urgrosh looks like it'd be awkward to use, but at least it's not more dangerous to the weilder than his opponents.

But saying the quarterstaff is stupid? Harsh. Unreasonably so.

A quarterstaff shouldn't be a double weapon (as in, one that instantly grants you an extra attack). Sure it hurts getting bonked on the head by either end, but reversing a staff mid-round to smack someone in the jaw should be something that only high-level fighters and monks can pull off, not any dope who picks up a big stick.

Quarterstaffs might be cool, but if you picture your warriors holding it "row-row-your-boat" style wailing on people with either end as quickly as those same warriors can swing a short sword once then its just stupid . Reversing it Shaolin-monk style requires an additional swing of the arm (or forearm) and should count as an extra attack.

Like I said, if you specifically stated your character was wielding his quarterstaff "gay dancing leprechaun" style, I'd allow you the extra attacks, but I'd probably have your next opponent run off with your lucky charms.

Now, if they said quarterstaves allow you one extra attack of oppurtunity against a flanking opponent or something like that I would probably be cool with it.

 

[KarinsDad]

A quarterstaff shouldn't be a double weapon (as in, one that instantly grants you an extra attack). Sure it hurts getting bonked on the head by either end, but reversing a staff mid-round to smack someone in the jaw should be something that only high-level fighters and monks can pull off, not any dope who picks up a big stick.

Err, did you miss the point about it taking two feats, just so that you are at -2 to hit with any attacks from both ends?

And, in reality, quarterstaves are really messed up with regard to fighting style anyway. Spanish Staff fighting requires a lot of room since you constantly swing the staff around you in circles. Not only does that mean that you would hit anyone in the next space (in any direction except up), but that it would be darn hard to not get hit if you come into range. It was a very difficult style to fight against and even Spanish Knights in armor did not want to fight someone using it.

Not everyone used a staff like a Shaolin-monk in the real world.

 

[Kai Lord]

Err, did you miss the point about it taking two feats, just so that you are at -2 to hit with any attacks from both ends?

Err, no. Did you miss the point that an extra attack without a feat is an extra attack without a feat?

And, in reality, quarterstaves are really messed up with regard to fighting style anyway. Spanish Staff fighting requires a lot of room since you constantly swing the staff around you in circles. Not only does that mean that you would hit anyone in the next space (in any direction except up), but that it would be darn hard to not get hit if you come into range. It was a very difficult style to fight against and even Spanish Knights in armor did not want to fight someone using it.

Oh, so now a 1st level commoner who picks up a quarterstaff suddenly knows maneuvers that keeps Spanish Knights in armor at bay? You're simply illustrating the stupidity of the rule even further. Show me a 9th level fighter using a quarterstaff to make a Whirlwind Attack, and I'll allow for the visual of a Spanish Staff fighting master. But that's because of combat prowess and feats, not a special haste enchantment on one end of every stick that lets you whip it around faster than a bastard sword.

Not everyone used a staff like a Shaolin-monk in the real world.

But they all can wield it more efficiently than any other light or medium weapon? I think not.

 

[Mahali]

A quarterstaff "give an extra attack" the same way someone picking up a sword and a dagger gets an extra attack.

Oh yeah.. I see how it's broken now! The dancing fairy is only holding one weapon instead of a being a dancing fairy with a weapon in each hand.

 

[hong]

A quarterstaff shouldn't be a double weapon (as in, one that instantly grants you an extra attack). Sure it hurts getting bonked on the head by either end, but reversing a staff mid-round to smack someone in the jaw should be something that only high-level fighters and monks can pull off, not any dope who picks up a big stick.

Why? Is there some mystical enchantment on a quarterstaff that prevents anyone except uber-Dudes from reversing it?

If a regular joe commoner picks up a staff and tries to fight two-weapon style, they're at -4/-8 on their attacks. Against anyone, even another regular joe commoner (AC 10), they'd be much better off just using it as a big stick. If your campaign features lots of regular joes who go out of their way to use combat moves that they're not trained for, that's a problem with your campaign, not with the rules.

I must be the only one on these boards who actually has no problem with the exotics. I like most of them, even the (gasp) dire flail. In fact, my first 3E PC was a half-orc barb who was designed specifically for that weapon, and damn, he was useless.

Now two-weapon fighting, on the other hand....

 

[KarinsDad]

Err, no. Did you miss the point that an extra attack without a feat is an extra attack without a feat?

So, let's see. A 1st level Druid with Str 10 against an opponent with AC 15.

Hits on 15 or higher or 30% of the time.

Decides to use both ends of his staff at -4 and -8 respectively.

So, his primary attack hits on a 19 and his secondary on a 20.

His overall chance to hit (including hitting twice) is 10% + 5% or 15%.

30% or 15%. Hmmmm.

Next, he meets an AC 10 Evil Commoner.

Hits on 10 or higher or 55% of the time.

Decides to use both ends of his staff at -4 and -8 respectively.

So, his primary attack hits on a 14 and his secondary on a 18.

His overall chance to hit is 35% + 15% or 50%.

55% or 50%. Hmmmm.

Granted, if his opponent has a low enough AC, two attacks at -4 and -8 will do more damage on average than a single attack at 0 modifier to hit, but his opponent's AC has to be 8 or lower for that to happen.

Did you miss the to hit modifier rules for double weapon fighting without a feat, or are you just a troll?

 

[Kaljamaha]

I have a question for Caliban:

In your game, as I understand it, the spell actually transforms the stick (quaterstaff, club, cudgel, whatever) into a new weapon, named Shillelagh. I would assume that while the spell is operating, any feats the character might have with (normal) weapon, such as Weapon Focus, would be ineffective. Don't you think this hamstrings the characters a bit too much?


K.