D&D 5E Polearm Master + quarterstaff...+ shield?

ph0rk said:

A human or human shaped creature with makeup (so, most races in 5e) will absolutely far more damage with a staff used two handed rather than one handed.

Click to expand...

Citation? (j/k)

Of course you can deal more damage with two hands than one (d8 versatile vs. d6), but I would not say it is "far more damage". Much of the damage depends on where the fulcrum of strike originates from as well as where and how the blow lands. A straight thrust with the butt-end of a staff can cause severe damage, breaking ribs, etc.

Also, many one-handed strikes have one end of the staff braced under the arm and against the back/side:


Although "one-handed", by having one end of the staff braced by the back or side, the fulcrum is towards the far end, allowing the tip to travel a longer arc (just as quickly in many cases) and hit with greater force than a staff held with two hands which are closer together if holding the staff towards the center. This effectively move the fulcrum towards the middle, making the arc much shorter and thus hits with much less force.

As I said:

6ENow! said:

Anyway, swinging a quarterstaff one-handed is a perfectly valid technique as well. As @loverdrive mentions, the force at the end is greater due to the acceleration the tip has passing through a longer arc.

Click to expand...

The full video is here:
Someone who, especially, takes the Polearm Mastery feat, should be able to make one-handed strikes. The butt-end (or other end) bonus action strike would have to be executed more when holding the staff towards the center, further decreasing the force, thus doing only a d4 damage.

Of course, nearly every single character in the game is equally proficient in using a staff with one or two hands (polearm master aside) so perhaps expecting the rules to mirror reality is too much.

ph0rk said:

Of course, nearly every single character in the game is equally proficient in using a staff with one or two hands (polearm master aside) so perhaps expecting the rules to mirror reality is too much.

Click to expand...

So, your 2nd level fighter is equally proficient using a staff as my 19th level wizard?

Huh, we must be playing different games. (j/k)

But if you compare the damages (d4 vs. d6 vs. d8) for all the different ways it can be wielded, the game doesn't do that bad a job in mirroring reality IMO.

6ENow! said:

So, your 2nd level fighter is equally proficient using a staff as my 19th level wizard?

Huh, we must be playing different games. (j/k)

But if you compare the damages (d4 vs. d6 vs. d8) for all the different ways it can be wielded, the game doesn't do that bad a job in mirroring reality IMO.

Click to expand...

5e does a terrible modeling reality.

ph0rk said:

5e does a terrible modeling reality.

Click to expand...

Specifically about the different damages for wielding a staff in different ways? No, it's okay.

But in general, sure D&D has always been bad about modelling reality. But is is a fantasy game, after all.

6ENow! said:

Specifically about the different damages for wielding a staff in different ways? No, it's okay.

But in general, sure D&D has always been bad about modelling reality. But is is a fantasy game, after all.

Click to expand...

A quarterstaff wielded in two hands does the same damage as a greatclub weighing 2.5 times as much, with the same reach and speed.

No, weapons are not modeled well.

It's sad that this is really only relevant because there are so few worthwhile feats. Pole Arm Master may not be in S class with GWM, but it's easily a solid A or B in a small pool if you aren't planning to use 2h heavy weapons.

ph0rk said:

A quarterstaff wielded in two hands does the same damage as a greatclub weighing 2.5 times as much, with the same reach and speed.

No, weapons are not modeled well.

Click to expand...

Again, I am strictly speaking about quarterstaffs wielded in different fashions, which I feel models reality well enough via a d4, d6, and d8 possibilities.

Anyway, since your brought it up, a greatclub due to its mass would not have the same "speed", but since the weapon table fails to quantify speed, it is a non-issue.

If you wish to expand the discussion to the variant option of speed factor in the DMG (p. 271 IIRC) then I would argue their speeds are not the same. The quarterstaff is faster as it is not a two-handed weapon (it is a versatile weapon that can be wielded with two hands, but is not "two-handed" as it lacks that property). So, it does not suffer the -2 penalty to initiative equal to the heavy weapon property of the greatclub. The quarterstaff, whether wielded with one-hand or two-handed, has no modifier, it's "speed" is 0 in this sense. Therefore, it is actually the faster of the two weapons.

I imagine to the designers POV, the speed of the quarterstaff, combined with two-hands, allows it to have damage (or force in striking) in a range equivalent to the slower, but much more massive, greatclub. But one can only surmise--who knows what the devs were actually thinking?

Anyway, you then expand your statement to "weapons", assuming all weapons in such a generalization, which I agree (in general, as a whole) are not modeled well as I already stipulated when I said:

6ENow! said:

But in general, sure D&D has always been bad about modelling reality. But is is a fantasy game, after all.

Click to expand...

@6ENow!
The problem is that they kept the damage values of prior editions without taking into account the whole package. In 1st edition, weapons had:
Speed factors
Hit modifications depending on armor worn by opponents
Damage vs medium and
Damage vs large.
These disapeared over the editions and we kept either the best damage of a weapon or the average (or something close to the average) depending on the rule of cool. But some of the damage was taking all the above factors into account and these factors do exist anymore. This leaves us with strange damage that do not (and are not) look to be balanced but once were (more or less, but 1ed was simulationist much more so than later editions).

Sometimes, knowing where things come from can explain a lot.

Helldritch said:

@6ENow!
The problem is that they kept the damage values of prior editions without taking into account the whole package. In 1st edition, weapons had:
Speed factors
Hit modifications depending on armor worn by opponents
Damage vs medium and
Damage vs large.
These disapeared over the editions and we kept either the best damage of a weapon or the average (or something close to the average) depending on the rule of cool. But some of the damage was taking all the above factors into account and these factors do exist anymore. This leaves us with strange damage that do not (and are not) look to be balanced but once were (more or less, but 1ed was simulationist much more so than later editions).

Sometimes, knowing where things come from can explain a lot.

Click to expand...

5e does a lot of that "this worked in $priorEdition lets use that & not bother with the complex part from that edition" without stopping to replace the missing component or take the time to understand the good parts of how the two worked as a whole o it could be used in a complete state or have the good parts preserved through new systems.