Quote from: dbm;758539On the topic of the one-handed staff, the explanation which makes most sense to me is that this only really matters for use with the 'Polearm Master' feat. That lets you wield a pole arm (including a quarter staff) as a pair of light weapons, with the off-hand end doing 1d4 damage. So you would either strike once for 1d8 damage, or dual wield for 1d6 and 1d4.

Except that part of staff training for real is using it one handed. The staff is held at the middle and whipped around close in to the body to get alot of accelleration and fend of closing attackers. Also leaves one hand free which for a fantasy caster is vital. Or should be.

But I have seen at least one person using dual staves for training so it is possible.

Okay, this is verging towards Arguing About Swords On The Internet, but I think the test of a one-handed weapon is not whether you can (or are supposed to, even) execute a few moves with it one-handed (consider a two-handed sword swing that is finished one-handed for the extra reach), but whether you don't ordinarily use the second hand at all (allowing for the odd instance of infighting and such, because that is plausible even with a knife) and could wield the thing perfectly well with a shield in the other hand.

Quote from: Imp;758559...could wield the thing perfectly well with a shield in the other hand.

In the case of the staff, certainly, it's just a spear without a spearhead.  Spear and shield are ubiquitous throughout history.

This is incredibly stupid. No one in the history of history has fought with a staff one handed, other than through loss of an arm, drunkenness or in a misguided attempt to mimic something seen in a game. I'm generally supportive of the whole 5E thing and like much about this weapons table, but let's keep this thing real, fan boys: someone shit the bed just a tiny bit when they decided to do this.

Quote from: Omega;758543Except that part of staff training for real is using it one handed. The staff is held at the middle and whipped around close in to the body to get alot of accelleration and fend of closing attackers. Also leaves one hand free which for a fantasy caster is vital. Or should be.

But I have seen at least one person using dual staves for training so it is possible.

I believe you have seen some dork in a martial arts class windmilling with a staff. I'ld like to respectfully suggest whoever did this sort of show boating BS in a real fight would get his or her ass beat down hard.

Or even in a pretend fight. I'm reminded of a goofy kid who showed up at my local SCA heavy weapons practice all kitted out to try some dual-wielding made up technique using some pair of made up double bladed weapons. I hurt him.

Quote from: Brander;758863In the case of the staff, certainly, it's just a spear without a spearhead.  Spear and shield are ubiquitous throughout history.

Ah, yes! How could I forget the part in Thucydides where in the defense of Corinth the Spartans fielded companies of elite staff-and-hoplon-wielders (later to be known affectionately among historians as "boplites") whose concussive prodding turned out to be surprisingly effective against the better-armored Athenian ranks? Or that memorable episode in the Roman conquests where  Sulla outfitted four corps of velites with knob-ended javelins, thus knocking the Phyrgian caps clean off the Thracian host, rendering them stunned & demoralized when the legionnaires struck home?

*mutters, gestures, throws up hands, leaves*

Quote from: Larsdangly;758959This is incredibly stupid. No one in the history of history has fought with a staff one handed...

Quote from: Imp;758972Ah, yes! How could I forget the part in Thucydides where in the defense of Corinth the Spartans fielded companies of elite staff-and-hoplon-wielders...

*mutters, gestures, throws up hands, leaves*

Wallow in your ignorance if you wish, but the problem is you obviously think a "staff" is something other than a pole.  As in polearms/spears.  The only difference is whether you have a point or not.

"So among the weapons of the staff, the pike is the most plain, most honourable and most noble of all the rest. ..." Giacomo DiGrassi, True Art of Defense, 1594

"It could be argued that a staff and spear are two different weapons, but I might argue back that they would be held and used exactly the same way depending on whether or not one held a shield, and the only real difference is whether or not the ends have a point. "
http://www.swordsmanship.ca/academy-articles/fighting-with-staff-and-spear/

Yes, staff and shield would not be an optimal choice, but the techniques are identical to spear and shield.  Have your enemy lop off the pointy bit doesn't make it any less useful to keep him at range or poke them with the now somewhat less pointy end.  As well any differences are well below the level of resolution used in D&D (absent details on what exactly damage types actually mean and details as to exactly wtf a hit point really is).

Quote from: Brander;759010Wallow in your ignorance if you wish, but the problem is you obviously think a "staff" is something other than a pole.  As in polearms/spears.  The only difference is whether you have a point or not.

“So among the weapons of the staff, the pike is the most plain, most honourable and most noble of all the rest. ..." Giacomo DiGrassi, True Art of Defense, 1594

"It could be argued that a staff and spear are two different weapons, but I might argue back that they would be held and used exactly the same way depending on whether or not one held a shield, and the only real difference is whether or not the ends have a point. "
http://www.swordsmanship.ca/academy-articles/fighting-with-staff-and-spear/

Yes, staff and shield would not be an optimal choice, but the techniques are identical to spear and shield.  Have your enemy lop off the pointy bit doesn't make it any less useful to keep him at range or poke them with the now somewhat less pointy end.  As well any differences are well below the level of resolution used in D&D (absent details on what exactly damage types actually mean and details as to exactly wtf a hit point really is).

Wait, people are arguing that a quarterstaff isn't a polearm? It's just shorter like a spear without a pointy stone/metal thing attached. Both fully capable of being used offensively 1-handed.

It's a frigging stick! Of course you can use it 1-handed! I mean really some people need to get a life. Hell, a trained quarterstaff user can easily embarrass a trained sword user that isn't in heavy armour or mounted and maybe even then.

Quote from: Larsdangly;758961...

Or even in a pretend fight. I'm reminded of a goofy kid who showed up at my local SCA heavy weapons practice all kitted out to try some dual-wielding made up technique using some pair of made up double bladed weapons. I hurt him.

Nice strawman.  Fight someone who has practiced spear and shield.  Give em a blunted "spear" (pretty sure you do that already unless the SCA are killing more people with metal tipped spears than I'm aware)  and tell me it somehow changes things.  The spear/staff and shield fighter will destroy you unless you are extremely good or they are extremely bad.

I think everyone accepts that it's physically possible to wield a staff one-handed. It's just not a very effective weapon, especially vs armoured opponents. It definitely shouldn't be equivalent to a one-handed spear ("staff + dagger") in damage.

I think the general problem is that staffs are seen as vaguely cool, spears as uncool, so the more effective weapon gets nerfed and the less effective weapon gets boosted.

Quote from: Larsdangly;758959This is incredibly stupid. No one in the history of history has fought with a staff one handed, other than through loss of an arm, drunkenness or in a misguided attempt to mimic something seen in a game. I'm generally supportive of the whole 5E thing and like much about this weapons table, but let's keep this thing real, fan boys: someone shit the bed just a tiny bit when they decided to do this.

Maybe. It could just be a hiccup because wielding a staff in one hand is fairly 'weak' and should probably be 1d4.

A person might on a very rare situation be forced to use a staff in one hand, if the other hand is busy. Like he needs to hold a lantern so as not to be blind.

Quote from: Bill;759064Maybe. It could just be a hiccup because wielding a staff in one hand is fairly 'weak' and should probably be 1d4.

A person might on a very rare situation be forced to use a staff in one hand, if the other hand is busy. Like he needs to hold a lantern so as not to be blind.

I still maintain there are plenty of one handed quarterstaff techniques from and extended thrust to a cross blow from under the armpit to a one handed spin, all are valid.
Would you fight with a staff as a solely single handed weapon no probably not I could see you using a staff and buckler with the intention of using he buckler hand to provide attacking support.
However the fact that in any given combat you might choose to attack one handed with a staff for a variety of tactical reasons so a one handed staff attack is a valid attack. Does differentiating the damage make sense in D&D terms where the combat model s so highly abstracted.... probably not but we are differentiating between different lengths of swords and knives so ...

Quote from: jibbajibba;759070I still maintain there are plenty of one handed quarterstaff techniques from and extended thrust to a cross blow from under the armpit to a one handed spin, all are valid.
Would you fight with a staff as a solely single handed weapon no probably not I could see you using a staff and buckler with the intention of using he buckler hand to provide attacking support.
However the fact that in any given combat you might choose to attack one handed with a staff for a variety of tactical reasons so a one handed staff attack is a valid attack. Does differentiating the damage make sense in D&D terms where the combat model s so highly abstracted.... probably not but we are differentiating between different lengths of swords and knives so ...

And this is why I liked BX D&D. All the weapons did 1d6, different damage was optional, rather than the norm. I like differing damage. But no one can agree on what should do what.

Quote from: Omega;759074And this is why I liked BX D&D. All the weapons did 1d6, different damage was optional, rather than the norm. I like differing damage. But no one can agree on what should do what.

Yup.  Balancing variable weapon damage is a PITA.

In my OD&D campaign small weapons do 1d6-1, medium weapons do 1d6, and two handed weapons do 1d6+1.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;759076In my OD&D campaign small weapons do 1d6-1, medium weapons do 1d6, and two handed weapons do 1d6+1.

That is beautifully elegant and simple.